Somech(2005)Directive Versus Participative

8/13/2019 Somech(2005)Directive Versus Participative

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/somech2005directive-versus-participative 1/25

http://eaq.sagepub.com

Educational Administration Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X052794482005; 41; 777Educational Administration Quarterly

Anit SomechEffectiveness

Directive Versus Participative Leadership: Two Complementary Approaches to Managing Schoo

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/5/777 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

University Council for Educational Administration

can be found at:Educational Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/41/5/777SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 66 articles hosted on theCitations

at University of Haifa Library on October 7, 2008http://eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.ucea.org/

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/41/5/777


http://eaq.sagepub.com/









http://www.ucea.org/



10.1177/0013161X05279448


Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE 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

leadershiphas anoverwhelming advantage overthe contrastingstyle of directiveleader-

ship in organizationaland 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 througha survey,were collected from140 teams se-

lected from 140 different elementary schools in northern Israel.

Results: The results of the Structural Equation Model indicated a positive relation be-

tweendirectiveleadershipand organizationalcommitment,as well as a positive relation

between directive leadershipand school-staff teamin-role performance. In addition,or-

ganizational commitmentservedas a mediator in the directive leadership–performance

relationship. Withrespect to participativeleadership, the results indicated a positive re-

lationbetweenparticipative leadershipand teachers’empowerment, anda positive rela-

tion between participative leadership and school-staff team innovation, and empower-

ment served as a mediator in the participative leadership–innovation relationship.

Implications: These results suggested that managing tensions between directive and

participative activities, bottom-upand top-downprocesses,and flexibility and discipline

may provide a key to teachers’high performance.

Keywords: directive leadership; participative leadership; organizational commitment;

empowerment; school effectiveness

As educational reforms of school restructuring and site-based manage-

mentfigure as thecommon future of today’sschools, 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 effec-

777


Vol. 41, No. 5 (December 2005) 777-800

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X05279448

© 2005 The University Council for Educational Administration








tively (e.g., Blase & Blase, 1996; Boyle, Boyle, & Brown, 1999; Conley &

Bacharach, 1990; Klecker & Loadman, 1998; Reitzug, 1994; Wall & Rine-

hart, 1998). Participative leadership, which is defined as joint decision mak-

ing or atleastsharedinfluence indecisionmakingbya superior and his or her

employees(Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998),offers a variety of potentialbene-

fits. It is likely to increase the quality of the decisions (e.g., Scully, Kirk-

patrick, & Locke, 1995), to contribute to the quality of teachers’ work lives

(e.g., Somech, 2002), and to increase teachers’motivation (e.g., Armenakis,

Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Locke & Latham, 1990; Yammarino & Naugh-

ton, 1992) and satisfaction (Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996).

This movement reflects the widely shared belief that participative man-

agement has an overwhelming advantage over the contrasting style of direc-

tive leadership in organizational and team effectiveness (e.g., Bryk, Easton,Kerbow, Rollow, & Sebring, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994). Directive leadership,

which is defined as providing the members with a framework for decision

making and action in alignment with the leader’s vision (Fiedler, 1989;

Sagie, 1997; Stogdill, 1974), was associated with defective decision making

and with deterioration in performance by school-staff teams (e.g., Dunlap &

Goldman, 1991; Gaziel, 1998). However, 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, Welsh,

Dehler, & Green, 2002), recent reviews and meta-analyses of the literature

that covered both practices have indicated that both direction and participa-

tion help in increasing worker productivity. For example, Wagner (1994)

concluded that theoverall effect of participation on workerattitudesandper-

formance is positive but small. Similarly, leader direction was found toincrease employee performance (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; S. E.

Murphy & Fiedler, 1992; Sagie, 1996). The supposed contradiction between

directing and participation notwithstanding, bothsucceeded in improving work

outcomes (Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger,Te’eni,& Schwartz, 2002).

Based on this research, one may question whether the two leadership

styles, the participative and the directive, are compatible or contradictory.

Given that each style has potential strengths and weaknesses, this study

would like to suggest that each leadership stylehassome advantages over the

other, depending on the desired team outcome. Specifically, the purpose of

theresearchwas twofold. First,it aimed toenlightenour understanding of the

benefits of each leadership style by evaluating its relative effectiveness for

two teamoutcomes:team in-role performance and teaminnovation.Team in-

778 Educational Administration Quarterly

Author’s Note:Pleaseaddresscorrespondenceto AnitSomech,Faculty ofEducation,University

of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 31905; e-mail: [email protected].








role performance is the extent to which the team accomplishes its purpose

and produces the intended, expected, or desired result (Chatman & Flynn,

2001). Team innovation is the introduction or application by a team of ideas,

processes, products, or procedures that are new to the team and that are

designed to be useful (West, 1990). These twodimensions of team outcomes

were chosen as effectiveness variables because they tap the different dimen-

sions 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, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001).

Second, thisstudysought to identify the specificmotivationalmechanismthat is stimulated by eachleadership style (directiveversus participative lead-

ership). Drawing on the models of Sagie et al. (2002), who stated that it was

not the leadership style per se that increases effectiveness, but rather through

its triggering of motivational mechanisms, I suggest that each leadership

style stimulates a distinct motivational process, which in turn promotes

school-staff teams’ in-role performance and innovation. Based on previous

research (e.g., Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Sagie et al., 2002; Short, Greer, &

Melvin, 1994), two mechanisms seemed especially relevant to this study:

organizational commitment and empowerment (see Figure 1).

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. In consequence, leader

Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 779

Directive

leadershipParticipative

leadership

Empowerment

Innovation

Organizational

commitment

In-role

performance

Figure 1. A Model of Leadership Style, Teachers’ Empowerment, and Organizational

Commitment for Promoting School-Staff Team Effectiveness








behaviors have an effect on the effective reactions of team members (Dur-

ham, Knight, & Locke, 1997). However, the introduction of teamscan result

in a significant change to the role of leaders within organizations (Griffin,

Patterson, & West, 2001). Parker and Wall (1998) identify a number of

options for leading roles in teams. These options range from the complete

elimination of supervisory positions to the retentionof supervisory positions

but with redefined role requirements. However, although leadership may

have less influence on team outcomes for members working in teams, this

does not mean that the supervisor’s leadership style has no effect on team

effectiveness. Leadership is consistently recognized as important for initia-

tion and ongoing development of teams (Bass, 1997; Manz & Sims, 1987;

Tjosvold, 1995) and is often included as an important determinant in models

of team outcomes (e.g., Cruz, Henningsen, & Smith, 1999; Druskat &Weeler, 2003; Griffin et al., 2001; Lovelace et al., 2001). Team leaders are

responsible for their teams’ performance. Still, more directive leaders are

expected to lead by monitoring and managing those teams, whereas partici-

pative leaders areexpectedto lead by encouraging team members to discover

new opportunities and challenges, and to learn and to cope through sharing

knowledge (Druskut & Weeler, 2003).

Advocates of a directive style (e.g., Hogan et al., 1994; S. E. Murphy &

Fiedler, 1992; Sagie, 1996; Sagie et al., 2002) have argued that high direc-

tiveness can help encourage school-staff teams to rise to challenging goals

and achieve high rates of performance (Cropanzano, James, & Citera, 1993;

Fiedler & House, 1988). These leaders promote monitoring explicit mile-

stones, which convert school objectives into interim goals, and serve as

guides for teachers (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Jelinek & Schoonhoven,1990; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Such predetermined standards may aid

teachers to resolve unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty, which in turn

might enhance teachers’ in-role performance. Furthermore, highly directive

leaders enhance goal attainment by serving as a sourceof feedback for teach-

ers (McDonough & Barczak, 1991). Therefore, from this perspective, moni-

toring, evaluation, and control activities seem closely connected, interwoven

within a systematic cycle, which helps teachers methodically to fulfill their

roles; formal reviews foster critical assessments, which inform major deci-

sions(e.g.,continue/terminatepedagogical project, resourceallocation); and

directive control allows leaders to adjust school project resources and objec-

tives as necessary (Rosenau & Moran, 1993). All these activities might con-

tribute to increasing teachers’ in-role performance.

In comparison, proponents of a participative style (e.g., Johnson &

Ledbetter, 1993; J. Murphy & Beck, 1995; Smylie et al., 1996; West, 2002)

see participative leaders as seeking to encourage teachers to discover new









opportunities and challenges and to learn through acquiring, sharing, and

combining knowledge (cf. Edmonson, 1999). 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., 1997). The research literature (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001; West &

Wallace, 1991) suggests that participation is critical for a team’s ability to

turn new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative procedures,

services, and products. Teachers in participative environments can increase

the pool of ideas, materials, and methods, which will lead to a higher quality

of instruction. Moreover, groupproblem solving amongteachersencourages

experimentation in innovative practices in curriculum decision making and

pedagogy (Firestone & Pennell, 1993). Participative decision making, and

the open communication processes that are common in this leadership style,canhelp lowerbarriers between individuals. This in turn maycreate an atmo-

sphere where innovative ideas are proposed, critiqued, and refined with a

minimum of social risk (West, 2002). According to the path-goal theory

(House & Mitchell,1974), members under participative leadershipare 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, andmeeting these expectations is valuable (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio,

1997; Peterson, 1997).

A review of the team literature shows that teams with highly directive

leaders achieved the highest rates of in-role performance (e.g., Cruz et al.,

1999; Kahai et al., 1997; Peterson, 1997; Sagie,1996), whereas participative

leadership ledto improvedteam innovation andteam attitudes(e.g.,De Dreu

& West, 2001; O’Hara, 2001; West & Wallace, 1991). For example, Sagie(1996) examined how leadership styles affect team outcomes. Performance

(percentage of correct solutions, number of questions, and length of time)

and attitudes (goal commitment and satisfaction) were measured in a group

problem-solving experiment with324 collegestudents.The results indicated

the superiority of directive leadership for team performance, and the prece-

dence of participative leadership for team attitudes. In another study, O’Hara

(2001) examined the effects of leadership style on team innovation. Sixty-

four teams were instructed to perform some type of school/community ser-

vice project, and independent judgesrated these projects on twodimensions:

how creative and how worthwhile. Overall, the results indicated that a more

participative style produced more creative and more worthwhile projects

than a directive style.

Based on the above discussion, I suggest that emphasizing the directive

approach reinforces behaviors of adherence to rules and procedure, and at-

tention to details, which increase teachers’in-role performance. At the same









time, participative leadership may be a means of facilitating open discussion

by encouraging exchange of creative ideas and an analyticaland critical per-

spective, thereby fostering teachers’ innovation.

Hypothesis 1a: Directive leadership rather than participative leadership will bepositively associated with school-staff team in-role performance.

Hypothesis 1b: Participative leadership rather than directive leadership will bepositively associated with school-staff team innovation.

Leaders are expected to influence their employees to be energetic and

skillful in the pursuit of organizational objectives. Recent research has pro-

vided initial support for the claim that leadership does not affect employees’

productivity directly, but through motivational mechanisms (e.g., Durham

et al., 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990).

Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of the indi-

vidual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization

(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). It has three basic components: a strong

belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values (identifica-

tion), a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization

(involvement), and a strong intent or desire to remain with the organization

(loyalty). 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., 1994, p. 38). Empowerment as a

motivational construct is manifested in four cognitive dimensions (meaning-

fulness, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact) (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990) and corresponds to an intrinsicneed for self-determination

(e.g., Wilson & Coolican, 1996) or a belief in individual efficacy (e.g., Short

et al., 1994).

With respect to directive leadership, I suggest that directive leaders

enhance teachers’ performance through the motivational mechanism of

organizational commitment. This sense of commitment may be developed

through two main processes. First, directive leaders envision the achieve-

ment of the desired future by presenting value-laden goals that add greater

meaning to actions oriented to their accomplishment (Jung & Avolio, 1999).

These leaders increase the commitment to these goals by showing how they

are consistent with school objectives and thus create a sense of “evolving,”

which is central for a sense of commitment (Barrett, 1998). Furthermore, by

linking behaviors and goals to a mission and a vision, they help teachers to

see the importance of transcending their own self-interest for the sake of themission and vision of the school. Such leaders are expected to exercise a

strong positiveinfluenceon followers’levels of identification (a strong belief









in and acceptance of the school’s goals and values), which is a major compo-

nent of commitment (Godard, 2001). Second, directive leaders articulate

how thevisioncanbe reached by monitoring explicit milestones, which con-

vert school objectives into interim goals, and serve as guides for team mem-

bers. 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,1995;Jelinek & Schoonhoven,1990;Wheel-

wright& Clark,1992).This link waswell establishedby thegoal-setting the-

ory of Locke and Latham (1990), which provides consistent evidence (e.g.,

Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002) that clear and specific goals orient the individ-

ual to goal-relevant activities and materials and away from goal-irrelevant

ones. This leads theindividualto believe that tryingfor or attainingthe goal is

important, and to readiness to exertconsiderableeffort on behalf of theorga-nization, which represents another component of commitment.

With respect to participative leadership, I suggest that participative lead-

ers enhance teachers’ performance through two motivational mechanisms:

organizational commitment and teachers’ empowerment. First, the motiva-

tional factor of commitment on the participation–performance relation-

ship corroborates motivational theories emphasizing identification and self-

control as central motivational factors (Erez, 1993). Participative leaders

provide teachers the opportunity to be involved in and to exert influence on

decision-making processes. Their participation is believed to promote com-

mitment to the decisions that are made and to increase willingness to carry

them out in their work with students. Therefore, active participation enhances

involvementand commitment, because individuals tend to placegreater trust

in and rise to a higher level of acceptance of information discovered by them(Armenakis et al., 1993; Beckhard & Harris, 1987; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975;

Fullan, 1997).Forexample, Evers (1990)suggestedthat thesuccess of teach-

ers’ participation might lie in the sense of ownership they enjoy through the

initiation of ideas, as opposed to responding to the proposals of others.

Second, it is well established that perceptions of empowerment arepotent

motivationalforces (Marks & Louis, 1997; Rinehart & Short, 1994; Spreitzer,

1996). Unlike the traditional situation, where it is the administration’s exclu-

sive responsibility to plan, control, and dictate school improvements, in the

participative process teachers initiatethe improvements to be undertaken and

share responsibility for planning and controlling the activities that follow

(Terry, 1996). Accordingly, participative leadership, which gives teachers

more input into the decision-making process, enhances teachers’ sense of

control (autonomy) on the job (Wood & Bandura, 1989) and validates their

professionalism (Firestone & Pennell, 1993); these make up the foremost

component of empowerment.Moreover, when teachers areactivelycalled to









participate in decision making, their participation ensures that better infor-

mation will be available for making decisions that facilitate successful teach-

ing,and this might strengthen their sense of self-efficacyand self-determination

(Conley & Bacharach, 1990; Firestone & Pennell, 1993). Overall, as previous

authors suggest (e.g., Edmonson, 1999), participation will satisfy human

growth needs of self-determination and self-actualization and, through these

mechanisms, increase motivation and performance.

Therefore, I hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Directive leadership will be positively associated with school-staff team organizational commitment and not with school-staff team em-powerment.

Hypothesis 2b: Participative leadership will be positively associated with both

school-staff team organizational commitment and with school-staff teamempowerment.

Finally, based on the above discussion, this study postulates an integrated

model: directive leadership functions to enhance in-role performance through

the mechanism of organizational commitment, whereas participative leader-

ship functions to enhance innovation through the mechanisms of organiza-

tional commitment and empowerment.

Hypothesis 3a: School-staff teamorganizationalcommitment willmediate thedi-rective leadership–in-role performance relationship.

Hypothesis 3b: School-staff team organizational commitment and empowermentwill mediate the participative leadership–innovation relationship.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

The research sample included 140 teams selected from 140 different ele-

mentary schools innorthern Israel. Schools were randomlychosenfrom a list

provided by the Ministry of Education. Preassessment interviews were con-

ductedwith the school principal, who was asked to identify interactive disci-

plinary work teams. Accordingly, all teams in this study were disciplinary

(e.g., mathematics or science teams) and were identified as intact work

teams, in that they had responsibilities and resources and depended on one

another for knowledge and effort. In addition, all teams were formed byadministrativeassignment,hadworked together forat least1 year,and hadan

appointed/identified superior.









Data were collected from 712 teachers, members of 140 teams, and their

corresponding 140 immediate leaders (the heads of the teams). The average

number of team members was 6.65 and SD was 6.2. There were 619 female

and93 male members of the teams altogether. Theaverage ageof thepartici-

pants was 37.9 years (SD = 9.8) and the average school tenure was 9.1 years

(SD = 6.8). With regard to their education, most teachers (67%) held a bache-

lor’s degree in education, 22.6% had a professional degree (equivalent to a

junior college diploma, with teaching credentials), and 10.4% had a master’s

degree in education. These teams were supervised by 86% female leaders,

with whom they hadworkedfor at least6 months. Their averageagewas 39.3

years,with averageseniorityof 12.8 years.Seventy-nine percent held a bach-

elor’s degree, and 21% a master’s degree. Thesedemographic characteristics

were similar to those found in comparable studies on teachers and superiorsin Israel(Rosenblatt& Somech, 1998; Somech& Bogler, 2002).Analyses of

variance of the demographic variables confirmed no statistically significant

differences across teams in gender, age, job tenure, or education. In addition,

theparticular discipline didnotpredict a significant portion of thevariance in

teamempowerment, commitment, in-role performance,or innovation.Hence,

these demographic variables were notincludedin subsequent analyses to test

the hypotheses.

Data were obtained through a survey. Response rates within teams ranged

from56%to 95% witha meanrate of69%(SD = 15.6) forteam members and

100% for leaders. The questionnaires were distributed to participants on site

by a research assistant as follows: team members’ questionnaires covered

measures of participative leadership, directive leadership, organizational

commitment, andempowerment.Thesemeasures wereaggregated to theteamlevelof analysis.Thedata of the team leader included measures of the team’s

in-role performance and innovation. In addition, all participants were asked

to provide demographic information.

Level of Analysis

The hypotheses identified the team as the unit of analysis. That is, all the

study variables (leadership styles, organizational commitment, and empow-

erment) wereaggregatesof individual responses to the teamlevelof analysis.

Justification for aggregation is provided by theoretical as well as empiri-

cal arguments (Rousseau, 1985). Theoretically, Rousseau advocated the use

of composition theories, which specify the functional similarities of con-

structs at different levels. There aremany reasons to expect team members to

share perceptions concerning their work environment, such as the team lead-

ership style, and a sense of commitment and empowerment. Members’









frequent interaction, shared tasks, the clear delineation of team boundaries,

and the long tenureof most of the teams should allow team members toadopt

the views of the collective, thereby creating shared norms and perceptions

(George, 1990; Jehn, Chadwick, & Sherry, 1997). So it was critical to dem-

onstrate high within-team agreement to justify using the team average as an

indicator of a team-level variable (r wg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). A

valueof .70 or above is suggested as a “good” amount of within-group inter-

rater agreement (James et al., 1993). All scales exceeded this criterion. Val-

ues are given in Table 1, in the column r wg.

Measures

Participative/directive leadership. To assess the frequency at which aleader displayed a participative/directive leadership style, two separate scales

developed by Sagie et al. (2002) were used. Participative leadership (3 items)

measures the extent of involvement in various decisions (e.g., “To what ex-

tent areyou involved in solving problems in your team?”“To what extent are

you involved in determining the goals and tasks of your team?”) (α = .88).

Directive leadership (6 items) measures the extent to which the leader pro-

vides team members with a framework fordecisionmakingandactionin line

with the leader’s vision (e.g., “Your team leader provides inspiring strategic

and team goals,” “Your team leader has vision, often brings up ideas about

possibilities for the future”) (α = .93). Team members used a 5-point Likert-

type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Organizational commitment . To measure teachers’ organizational com-

mitment, I adapted Mowday et al.’s (1979) Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire (OCQ) specifically to the school setting. This instrument in-

cludes 15 items and refers to the strength of an individual’s identification

with and involvement in a particular organization. Example items are, “I talk

about this school to my friends as a great school to work for,” and “I feel very

littleloyalty to this school” (reverse coded). The reliability levelof alpha was

.88. Theparticipants used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strong-

ly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale was measured by the mean re-

sponse to the 15 items.

Teachers’ empowerment . To measure teachers’ personal empowerment,

the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) of Short and Rinehart(1992) was used. The SPES measures teachers’ overall perception of per-

sonal empowerment. It includes six dimensions: involvement in decision

making(10 items), forexample,“I make decisionsabout theimplementation









of new programs in the school”; opportunities for professional growth (6

items), for example, “I am treated like a professional”; status (6 items), for

example,“Ibelieve that I haveearnedrespect”; self-efficacy(6 items), forex-

ample, “I believe that I am empowering students”; autonomy (4 items), for

example, “I have the freedom to make decisions on what is taught”; and im-

pact (6 items), for example, “I believe that I make an impact.” The overall

scalehadreliabilityof .92. Personal empowermentscore wasobtainedby the

mean response to the 38 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Team effectiveness. To tap into the multifaceted nature of team effective-

ness, team in-role performance and innovation were studied. A seven-item

scale adopted from Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996), worded at the teamlevel,measuresteamin-roleperformance. The items refer to an overallevalu-

ation of the team’s job performance, role fulfillment, and professional com-

petence. Example items are, “The team adequately fulfills assigned duties,”

“The team meets formal performance requirements of the job,” and “The

team neglects aspects of the job whose fulfillment is obligatory” (reverse

coded). The reliability level was .88.

Team innovation was measured by a four-item scale adapted from West

and Wallace (1991). The items reflect the extent to which in the previous 6

months the team had initiated changes in each of four job areas: work objec-

tives,working methods, teachingmethods,and development of skills. Exam-

ple items are, “The team developed innovative ways of accomplishing work

targets/objectives,” and “The teaminitiatedimproved teaching strategies and

methods.” The alpha reliability level was .83. The team leader used a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) t o5 (stronglyagree), for

both subscales.

RESULTS

Table1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation matrix

for the study variables.

An examinationof the intercorrelation patterns shown in Table 1 revealed

several insights.First, no significant correlation was foundbetween directive

leadership and participative leadership ( p > .05), indicating that these two

leadership approaches were not polar extremes of the same continuum but

distinct independent constructs. Second, a positive and significant correla-

tion wasfound between the two motivational mechanisms, namelyorganiza-

tional commitment and empowerment (r = .21, p < .05), indicating relatively









independent, albeit correlated, motivational constructs. Finally, concerning

the two dimensions of school effectiveness, the correlation between in-role

performance and innovation was positive and significant (r = .27, p < .001).

This relation indicated that although the two dimensions had common

variance, each contained a unique aspect of school effectiveness.

To test the study hypotheses, I conducted a Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) using the LISREL 8 computer program. By means of SEM, I exam-

ined the level of overall prediction of each of the measured variables sug-

gested in the model and the exclusive, separate contribution of each variableto each dimension of school-staff team’s effectiveness. This model makes

possibleexaminationof a series of simultaneous dependent relationships and

of simultaneous relationshipsbetween independent anddependentvariables.

The overall model describes relationships between leadership styles (inde-

pendent variables) and motivational mechanisms (mediating variables) and

between motivational mechanisms and school-staff team’s effectiveness

(dependentvariables).The results of themodel withcompletely standardized

path coefficients forthe modelarepresented inFigure2. Themodelshowed a

very strong fit with the data, χ2 = 1.32, df = 5, p = .93; RMSEA = .001;

SRMR = .03; GFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00.

Hypotheses 1a and 1b were related to the relationships between leader-

ship styles (participative/directive leadership) and school-staff team’s effec-

tiveness (in-role performance/innovation). The results of the analysis (seeFigure 2) revealed that directive leadership was positively and significantly

related to school-staff team’s in-role performance (β = .26, p < .05; R2 = .21),


TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and

Intercorrelation Matrix for the Study’s Variables

M SD rwg 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Directive leadership 3.49 .72 .79 1.00 .03 .38** .06 .39** .11

2. Participative leadership 3.91 .35 .81 1.00 .014 .40** .07 .35**

3. Organizational

commitment 5.31 .54 .77 1.00 .21* .33** .16

4. Empowerment 3.82 .34 .75 1.00 .09 .36**

5. In-role performance 3.78 .63 1.00 .27**

6. Innovation 3.69 .67 1.00

NOTE: N = 140. All variables range from 1 to 5, except for organizational commitment, whichranges from 1 to 7; the statistic r

wg

represents the reliability within groups averaged across allteams (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The ranges of the reliability scores were .70 to .90 fordirective leadership, .71 to .91 for participative leadership, .71 to .90 fororganizational commit-ment, and .70 to .89 for empowerment.* p < .05. ** p < .001.








whereas participative leadership was positively and significantly related to

school-staff team’s innovation (β = .24, p < .05; R2 = .24). These results sup-

ported the first two hypotheses concerning the distinct links of each leader-

ship style with a specific effectiveness variable.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b concerned the relationships between leadership

styleand school-staff team’smotivational mechanism. A positive andsignifi-

cant relationship was found between directive leadership and organizational

commitment (β = .39, p < .001; R

2

= .17), and a positive and significant rela-tionship was found between participative leadership and empowerment (β =

.44, p < .001; R2 = .19). However, notas predicted, no significant relationship

was foundbetween participative leadership and organizational commitment.

These results emphasized the distinct effects of each leadership style on a

specific motivational mechanism.

Finally, the third hypothesis suggested that the motivational mechanisms

(organizational commitment and empowerment) would serve as a mediator

in the relationshipbetween leadership style andschool-staff team’seffective-

ness (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). Whereas organizational commitment would

serve as a mediator in the directive leadership–in-role performance relation-

ship (Hypothesis 3a), empowerment would serve as a mediator in the

participative leadership–innovation relationship (Hypothesis 3b). Concern-

ing the results of the link between motivational mechanism and school-staff team’s effectiveness, as expected, a positive and significant relationship was

foundbetween organizationalcommitment and in-roleperformance (β= .27,


.39 ( R

2 = .17)

.27( R2 = .20)

.44 ( R2 = .19)

.29 ( R2 = .21)

.24

( R2 = .24)

.12.02

.48

.22

Directive

leadershipParticipative

leadership

EmpowermentOrganizational

commitment

InnovationIn-roleperformance

.26

( R2 = .21)

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model of School-Staff Team Effectiveness

NOTE: Dotted lines indicate nonsignificant paths.








p < .05), and a positive and significant relationship was found between

empowerment and innovation (β = .29, p < .05). Accordingly, the overall

results of theanalysis indicated that in both cases, the direct (leadership style–

school-staff team’s effectiveness) and indirect (leadership style–motivational

mechanism–school-staff team’s effectiveness) effects were significant.

Specifically, the results indicated that motivational mechanism partly

mediated the relationship between leadership style and school-staff team’s

effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

The study reported here juxtaposed the directive leadership and theparticipative leadership approaches in an integrated model of school effec-

tiveness, inanattempt to improveourunderstating of thebenefitsand costsof

each approach. Directive leadership aims to augment school-staff teams’ in-

role performance via thearousal of themotivational mechanismof organiza-

tional commitment; participative leadership aims to facilitate innovation by

promoting the motivational mechanism of teachers’ empowerment. The

results of thisstudysuggest thatexaminingparticipativeand directive leader-

ship as contrasting styles at the opposite ends of a single continuum falls

short of fully capturingthe leadership phenomenon. These results proved the

effects of participative and directive leadership on school effectiveness to be

a more complex matter, namelythat each leadership style promotes a distinct

but potentially complementary approach to managing school-staff teams,

depending on the desired school outcome. Consequently, this study offers abasis for ongoing conceptual development, by helping researchers and prac-

titioners to move from “either/or” toward “both/and” approaches to thinking

and working (Lewis et al., 2002). It thus makes several additions to our

knowledge in the realm of school effectiveness.

First, overall, recent educational reform movements often conclude that

participative leadership is the preferred strategy for attaining school im-

provement. However, these results suggest that its advantage over the direc-

tive approach is not conclusive, and the effectiveness of either leadership

approach depends critically on the criteria for effectiveness that are deter-

mined (Olson, Walker, & Ruekert, 1995). These results seem especially

importantfor schools, which are typifiedas organizations with a loosely cou-

pled structure, namely theactivities of worker A have littleeffect on B’s per-

formance, and vice versa (Greenfield, 1995; Sirotnik & Kimball, 1996;

Weick, 1976). In this case, the leader faces difficulties in setting specific

quantitative goals for teachers. Consequently, teachers who operate in an









ambiguous work environment might benefit from a directive approach. This

provides them with extensive planning and calculated step-by-step imple-

mentation (e.g., Zirger & Maidique, 1990), disciplined problem solving

(Lewis et al., 2002), and the dissemination of “best practices,” such as

explicit milestones, which convert school objectives into interim goals

(Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). The results of this study may suggest that the

useof such directive style settles unnecessary ambiguityanduncertainty and

provides guidelines for teachers’ in-role performance. Support for this find-

ing might be gained from application of Mischel’s (1977) theory of strong/

weak situations. According to Mischel, strong situations convey strong cues

for the desired behaviors, whereas weak situations do not provide clear

incentive, support, or normative expectations of what behaviors are desired.

At thesame time, strongsituations constrain theexpression of personality, sobehavior is more a function of the situation than of personality. But in weak

situations, whenenvironmentsareambiguously structured in terms of appro-

priate behavior, individual predispositions are relied on to direct actions.

Therefore, thedirective leadership approach, by itscreationof a strongsitua-

tion, facilitates performance by increasing thesalience of situational cues for

expected behaviors and neutralizing the effect of individual differences.

However, this benefit of using a directive leadership approach mayincura

cost: These findings illustrated the limitation of using a directive approach in

promoting innovation in school-staff teams. As mentioned, these findings

indicated that strong emphasis on the participative leadership approach

rather than on the directive approach was found to encourage teachers to

engagemore in innovative practices in curriculum decision making andped-

agogy. This is important because, recently, scholars and practitioners (e.g.,Andrews & Rothman, 2002; Maes, Vandenberghe, & Ghesquiere, 1999)

have stressed that the educational system, like other organizations, has to be

innovative to maintain and or enhance effectiveness within rapidly changing

and challenging environments (De Dreu & West, 2001).

These results join others (e.g., Agrell & Gustafson, 1996; Carter & West,

1998a, 1998b) in pointing out that participation is critical for a team’s ability

to turn new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative proce-

dures, services, and products. As Cohen and Levinthal (1990) noted, partici-

pation among individuals, each of whom possesses diverse and different

knowledge, will augment the organization’s capacity for making novel link-

ages andassociationsbeyond what any individual canachieve.Thus, innova-

tion needs theabsorptivecapacity to recognize, assimilate, andapply thecre-

ative ideas. The absorptive capacity will be higher when team members

participate in decision making. Participation stimulates the exchange and

integration of information (Stasser & Titus, 1987), reduces resistance to









change, and facilitates teammembers’commitment to teamdecisions (Louis

& Smith, 1992).

Second, 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. With regard to the directive leadership

approach, these results, as expected, indicated that directive leadership was

associated with school-staff team in-role performance directly, but also indi-

rectly through organizational commitment. These results reinforce recent

work (e.g., Sagie et al., 2002) suggesting that many of theperformance bene-

fits of directive leadership are motivational in nature. That is, one important

role for a directive leader is to help the team to approach the task more effec-

tively by ensuring that there is a high level of commitment among teachers to

their school’s objectives. As leaders link teachers’ behaviors and goals to amission and vision, and articulate how the vision can be reached through

monitoring explicit milestones, they help teachers to see the importance of

transcending their own self-interest for the sake of the school’s mission.

Therefore, such leaders havea strongpositive influenceon teachers’levels of

identification, which in turn fosters teachers’ willingness to exert extra

efforts to accomplish school goals (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995).

With regard to theparticipative leadership approach, thesefindings show-

ed that, inconsistentwith previous research (e.g., Wu & Short,1996), organi-

zational commitment was not associated with the participative approach

and therefore did not function as mediator in the participative leadership–

innovation relationship. However, as expected, participative leadership was

associated with school-staff team innovation directly, but also indirectly

through teachers’empowerment, whichserved as a motivationalmechanismthat 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 self-

determination (Conley & Bacharach, 1990; Firestone & Pennell, 1993;

White, 1992). This in turn strengthens their belief in theirown effectiveness,

which might affect whether they engage in “out-of-the-box” thinking, try to

discover new opportunities andchallenges,or aremotivatedto turn new ideas

and individually held knowledge into innovative procedures, services, and

products (DeDreu & West, 2001). Our results support previous research that

advocated that to improve teachers’ innovativeness, as professionals they

need to be recognized as experts in their fields, have a sense of authority

about whatthey doand how theydo it, and feelthat theyareengaged inmean-

ingful work andarerespectedby others. These results areconsistent with the

repeated claim in the literature (e.g., Blase & Blase, 1996; Short & Greer,

1997; Short et al., 1994) that teachers’empowerment aims to promote school









effectiveness by promoting fulfillment of human growth needs of self-

actualization.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

Although these findings areencouraging for school effectiveness research,

this study was limited by its mode of operation. First, the data were largely

self-reported and hence subject to bias. In this, the study was no different

from previous investigations (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Lovelace et al.,

2001). Recent research suggests that self-reported data are not as limited as

was previously believed and thatpeople oftenaccuratelyperceive their social

environment (Alper, Tjosvold,& Law, 1998). Moreover, with regard to lead-

ership style, Yukl (1994) suggested that in contrast to most research, whichconcerned leaders’perceptions in their description of the behaviors that they

themselves used, the study of subordinates’ perceptions of the leader’s

behavior may be most useful in examining linkages between organizational

variables and leadership styles. Moreover, in this study, 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, 1986). At the same time, I do not have data

to show that these perceptual measures of team performance are predictors

of objective measures of performance. Further research should use other

sources for evaluating team performance (Lovelace et al., 2001).

A second limitation of the study involves its ability to predict causal rela-

tionships. Because the data were cross-sectional, we know that there were

associationsbetween thevariables in thestudy, butwe can’tconclude that therelationships were causal. In many cases, the relationships were likely to be

reciprocally causal over time, for example, the relationship between team’s

innovation and teachers’empowerment. Moreover, the study did not exam-

inecompeting models but tested a singlemodel. Therefore, it mightbe pos-

sible to formulate other models that would fit as well as or better than the

proposed model. Nevertheless, as our starting point was a theoretical frame-

work, experimentally examined in previous studies, our causal inferences do

seem themost logical. 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).

Finally, in this study, both organizationalcommitment and empowerment

were treated as globalconstructs.However, onemightsuggest that each lead-

ership is distinctively more related to certain dimensions of these constructs

than to others. For example, although no relationship was found between

directive leadership and the global construct of empowerment, this leader-









ship style is perhaps not related to the dimension’s involvement in decision

making or autonomy but is positively related to professional growth. Further

studies shouldexamine if specificdimensions of each constructhave distinc-

tive relationships with leadership styles. Moreover, although teachers’orga-

nizational commitment and empowerment proved significant motivational

mechanisms among school-staff teams, recent work has suggested that both

the participation and the direction approaches can have cognitive effects

(e.g., Durhamet al., 1997). Further studies shouldexamine theeffect of lead-

ership style on cognitive processes, such as internal and external communi-

cation, in an attempt to extend our understanding of how to manage school-

staff teams to use their benefits.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As theeducational systemenvironment becomes more dynamic andcom-

petitive, leaders facenew challenges such as meeting persistent demands for

school innovation and better in-role performance. This conceptual frame-

work juxtaposed the directive and participative leadership approaches to

accentuate their differences. Yet, rather than depicting these styles as mutu-

ally exclusive, the results of this study suggest that each promotes a distinct,

but potentially complementary, approach to enhance school effectiveness.

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., 2002; Quinn, 1988). It is suggested that principals

mightcombine directive and participative behaviorsconcurrently to enhanceschool effectiveness. 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. This “both/and” approach

joins the recent call (e.g., Lewis et al., 2002; Sagie et al., 2002) to reconsider

authors’ sweeping recommendation (e.g., Maeroff, 1988; Short & Greer,

1997) to prefer participation to the directive leadership style.

The findings also call leaders to invest in enhancing teachers’ motiva-

tional mechanisms rather than focusing only on the bottom line of the out-

comes. The results suggest that school effectiveness could be managed by

fostering intrinsic task motivation among teachers, as well as by promoting

teachers’ organizational commitment. Leaders need to recognize that the

feeling that teachers have about their schools may be manifested through

their in-role performance (Firestone & Pennell, 1993), whereas a sense of

self-determination and self-efficacy may be translated into high levels of









innovation (West, 2002). Therefore, our findings emphasize the importance

of shaping organizational conditions under which teachers work to enhance

teachers’ motivation, which in turn will affect school effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation and creativity in work groups. In M. A. West

(Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 525-579). London: Wiley.

Alper, S.,Tjosvold,D., & Law, K. S. (1998).Interdependence andcontroversy in group decision

making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior andHuman

Decision Processes, 74, 33-52.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and perfor-

mance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 , 634-665.Andrews, K., & Rothman, M. (2002). Cultivating innovation: How a charter/district network is

turningprofessional development intoprofessionalpractice. PhiDelta Kappan, 83, 506-512.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organiza-

tional change. Human Relations, 46 , 681-703.

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for

organizational learning. Organizational Science, 9, 605-622.

Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist , 52, 130-139.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1996). Facilitative school leadershipand teacher empowerment: Teacher’s

perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117-145.

Boyle, R., Boyle, T., & Brown, M. (1999). Commonalities between perceptions and practice in

models ofschool decision-makingsystemsin secondaryschoolsin Englandand Wales.Paper

presented at theannualmeetingof theAmerican EducationalResearch Association,Montreal,

Canada.

Brouillette, L. (1997). Who defines “democratic leadership”? Three high school principals

respond to site-based reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 7 , 569-591.

Bryk, A.S.,Easton,J. Q.,Kerbow, D.,Rollow, S. G.,& Sebring,P.A. (1993). A view fromthe ele-

mentary schools:The stateof Chicago school reform. Chicago:Universityof Chicago,Con-

sortium for Chicago School Research.

Carter, A. J., & West, M. A. (1998a). Reflexivity, effectiveness and mental health in BBC-TV

production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583-601.

Carter, A. J.,& West, M. A. (1998b).Sharingthe burden:Teamwork in healthcare settings.In J.

Firth-Cozens& R. Payne (Eds.), Stress in healthprofessionals:Psychologicalandorganiza-

tional causes and interventions (pp. 191-202). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Chatman,J. A.,& Flynn,F. J. (2001). Theinfluence of demographicheterogeneity on theemer-

gence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management

Journal, 44, 956-974.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and

innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Conley, S. C.,& Bacharach,S. B. (1990).From school-site managementto participatoryschool-

site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 539-544.









Cropanzano, R.,James, K.,& Citera, M. (1993). A goal hierarchymodel of personality, motiva-

tion, and leadership. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 267-322). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Cruz, M. G., Henningsen, D. D., & Smith, B. A. (1999). The impact of directive leadership on

group information sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the leader. Communication

Research, 26 , 349-369.

De Dreu, C. K. W.,& West,M. A. (2001).Minority dissent and teaminnovation: Theimportance

of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 1191-1201.

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance

relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 88, 667-

682.

Druskat, V. U., & Weeler, J. V. (2003). Managingfrom the boundary:The effective leadershipof

self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46 , 435-457.

Dunlap,D. C., & Goldman,P.(1991).Rethinkingpower in schools. EducationalAdministration

Quarterly, 27 , 5-29.

Durham,C.C.,Knight,D., & Locke, E. A. (1997).Effectsof leader role,team-setgoal difficulty,efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 72, 203-231.

Edmonson,A. C. (1999).Psychologicalsafetyand learningbehavior inworkteams. Administra-

tive Science, 44, 350-383.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995).Accelerating adaptive processes:Productinnovation

in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110.

Erez, M. (1993). Participation in goal-setting: A motivational approach. In W. M. Lafferty &

E. Rosenstein (Eds.), International handbook of participation in organizations (Vol. 3).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Evers, C. W. (1990). Schooling, organizational learning and efficiency in the growth of knowl-

edge. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 132-149).

London: Falmer Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1989).The effectiveutilizationof intellectual abilities andjob-relevant knowledge

in group performance: Cognitive resource theory and an agenda for the future. Applied Psy-

chology: An International Review, 38, 289-304.Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1988). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. In

C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational

psychology (pp. 73-92). New York: Wiley.

Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teachercommitment, working conditions, and differ-

ential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489-525.

Fishbein,M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,and behavior:An introductionto the-

ory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fullan, M. G. (1997). Change forces. London: Falmer Press.

Gaziel, H. (1998). School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness. International

Review of Education, 44, 319-333.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect and behavior in groups. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 462-474.

Godard, J. (2001).Highperformance and the transformation of work? The implications of alter-

native work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Rela-

tions Review, 54, 776-805.Greenfield, J. R. (1995).Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 61-85.









Griffin,M. A.,Patterson,M. G.,& West, M. A. (2001). Jobsatisfaction andteam work:The role

of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22, 537-550.

Hargreaves, A. (1994).Restructuring: Post modernityand the prospects for educational change.

Journal of Education Policy, 9, 47-65.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What do we know about leadership? American

Psychologist , 49, 493-504.

House, R. J.,& Mitchell,T.R. (1974).Path-goaltheoryof leadership.ContemporaryBusiness, 3,

81-89.

James,L. R., Demaree,R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r wg: An assessment of within-groupinterrater

agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C. T., & Sherry, M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of

value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup out-

comes. International Journal of Conflict Management , 8, 287-305.

Jelinek,M., & Schoonhoven,C. B. (1990).Theinnovation marathon:Lessons from hightechnol-

ogy firms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, M., & Ledbetter, L. (1993). The role of the principal in a shared decision-makingschool: A critical perspective. Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEduca-

tional Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999).Effects of leadershipstyle and followers’culturalorientation

on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal,

42, 208-218.

Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on

work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel

Psychology, 50, 121-146.

Klecker,B. M.,& Loadman,W. E. (1998). Another look at thedimensionalityof theschool par-

ticipant empowerment scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 58, 944-954.

Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.

Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Personnel psychology. Handbook of work and organiza-

tional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297-324). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Lewis,M.W.,Welsh,M. A.,Dehler,G. E.,& Green, S. G. (2002).Productdevelopmenttensions:

Exploringcontrastingstyles of product management. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45,546-564.

Locke, E. A.,& Latham, P. G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Louis,K.S.,& Smith,B. (1992).Cultivating teacherengagement: Breakingthe ironlawofsocial

class. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary

schools (pp. 119-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lovelace,K., Shapiro,D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001).Maximizing cross-functional new prod-

uct team’s innovativenessand constraintadherence: A conflictcommunicationsperspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.

Maeroff, G. I. (1988). Teacher empowerment: A step toward professionalization. A “bulletin”

special. NASSP Bulletin, 72, 52-54, 56-60.

Maes, F., Vandenberghe, R., & Ghesquiere, P. (1999). The imperative of complementarity

between the school level and the classroom level in educational innovation. Journal of Cur-

riculum Studies, 31, 661-677.

Manz, C. C.,& Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves:The external leadershipof self-managed working teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.









Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The

implicationsof teacher empowerment forinstructionalpractice andstudentacademicperfor-

mance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 245-275.

McDonough, E. F., III, & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new product development: The

effects of leadershipstyle andsource of technology. Journalof ProductInnovationManage-

ment , 8, 203-211.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler

(Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in international psychology (pp. 333-

352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mowday, R. R., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurementof organizational com-

mitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 14, 224-247.

Murphy, J.,& Beck, I. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Takingstock . Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, S. E., & Fiedler, F. E. (1992). Cognitive resource theory and utilization of the leader’s

and group members’technical competence. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 237-255.

O’Hair, M. J., & Reitzug, U. C. (1997). Restructuring schools for democracy: Principals’ per-spective. Journal of School Leadership, 7 , 266-286.

O’Hara, L. A. (2001). Leadership style and group creativity. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-

tional: The Science and Engineering, 62, 1646.

Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new prod-

uct development: The moderatingrole of product innovativeness. Journalof Marketing, 59,

48-62.

Parker, S.K., & Wall, T. D.(1998). Jobandwork design:Organizingwork to promotewell-being

and effectiveness. London: Sage.

Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue

and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72, 1107-1121.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Management , 12, 531-544.

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational

Research Journal, 31, 283-307.

Rinehart,J. S.,& Short, P. M. (1994).Job satisfactionandempowerment amongteacher leaders,

reading recovery teachers, and regular classroom teachers. Education, 114, 570-580.

Rosenau, M. D., & Moran, J. J. (1993). Managing the development of new products. New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Rosenblatt, Z., & Somech, A. (1998). Work behavior of Israeli elementary-school principals:

Expectations vs. reality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 505-532.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level

perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior , 7 , 1-37.

Sagie, A. (1996). The effects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting on

performance and attitudes. Human Performance, 9, 51-64.

Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradic-

tory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46 , 387-452.

Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D. G. (2002). Anempiricalassessmentof theloose-tightleadershipmodel: Quantitative andqualitative analy-

ses. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23, 303-320.









Scully, J. A.,Kirkpatrick,S. A.,& Locke, E. A. (1995). Locus of knowledgeas a determinantof

the effect of participationon performance, affect, and perceptions.OrganizationalBehavior

and Human Decision Processes, 61, 276-288.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived

organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative

efforts. Columbus: Merrill Publishing.

Short, P. M., Greer, J. T., & Melvin, W. M. (1994). Creating empowered schools: Lessons in

change. Journal of Educational Research, 32(4), 38-52.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of

level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Mea-

surement , 52, 951-960.

Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1996). Preparing educators for leadership: In praise of experi-

ence. Journal of School Leadership, 6 , 180-201.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instrumental outcomes of school-basedparticipativedecision making. EducationalEvaluationand PolicyAnalysis,18, 181-191.

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation

of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 341-371.

Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and

professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555-577.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions, measure-

ment, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychologicalempowerment. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Stasser,G., & Titus,W. (1987).Effectsof informationload andpercentage of sharedinformation

on the disseminationof unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Terry, P. M. (1996).Empowerment. National Forum of EducationalAdministrationandSupervi-

sion Journal, 12, 1995-1996.Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of

Management Review, 15, 666-681.

Tjosvold, D. (1995). Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness. In R. A.

Guzzo& E.Salas(Eds.),Teameffectiveness anddecisionmakingin organizations. SanFran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wagner, J. A.,III. (1994).Participation’s effectsonperformanceandsatisfaction:A reconsidera-

tion of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.

Wall, R., & Rinehart, J. S. (1998). School-based decision makingand the empowerment of sec-

ondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 49-64.

Weick,K. E. (1976).Educational organizationsas looselycoupled systems. Administrative Sci-

ence Quarterly, 21, 1-19.

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr

(Eds.), Innovation and creativity in work: Psychological and organizational strategies.

London: Wiley.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativityand innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, An International

Review, 51, 355-424.









West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in healthcare teams. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 21(4), 303-315.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development . New York:

Free Press.

White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 69-82.

Wilson,S., & Coolican,M. J. (1996).How highand lowself-empoweredteachersworkwithcol-

leagues and school principals. Journal of Educational Thought , 30, 99-118.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989).Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.

Wu, V., & Short, P. M. (1996).The relationshipof empowerment to teacher jobcommitment and

job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 85-89.

Yammarino, F. J., & Naughton, T. J. (1992). Individualized and group-basedviews of participa-

tion in decision making. Group & Organization Management , 17 , 398-413.

Yukl,G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations(3rded.).EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall.

Zirger, B. J., & Maidique, M. (1990). A model of new product development: An empirical test. Management Science, 36 , 867-888.

Anit Somechearned herPh.D.in the Departmentof IndustrialEngineeringandManagement at

the Technion, the Israel Institute for Technology. She is the head of the Educational Administra-

tion Department at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her current research interests include

participative leadership, team work, and organizational citizenship behavior at the individual,

team, and organizational levels.


Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ganapathy2010sv
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Somech(2005)Directive Versus Participative

Documents