This article was downloaded by: [University of Sheffield]On: 08 July 2014, At: 13:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The health and performance effects of participativeleadership: Exploring the moderating role of the BigFive personality dimensionsPascale Benoliel a & Anit Somech aa Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, Faculty of Education , University ofHaifa , Mount Carmel , IsraelPublished online: 28 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Pascale Benoliel & Anit Somech (2014) The health and performance effects of participative leadership:Exploring the moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions, European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 23:2, 277-294, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The health and performance effects of participative leadership: Exploring the

moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions

Pascale Benoliel and Anit Somech

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa,Mount Carmel, Israel

An extensive body of research acknowledges that participative leadership offers a variety of potential benefits,particularly for workers’ mental health and job performance; however, the work intensification, added challenge, andresponsibility required may actually be harmful to some employees, creating more pressure engendering psychologicalstrain. Taking a contingency approach and based on the Conservation of Resources theory, the study suggests thatparticipative leadership may yield different results depending on employees’ personality traits from the Big Fivetypology. The proposed model aimed to investigate the moderating role of the Big Five traits on the participativeleadership–inrole performance relationship and on the participative leadership–psychological strain relationship. In astudy of 153 employees and their managers, hierarchical regression analyses showed that the personality dimensions ofextraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism served as moderators in the relation betweenparticipative leadership and employee inrole performance and psychological strain. Openness to experience was notfound to moderate those relations. This study points to the necessity of including personality factors when consideringthe impact of participative leadership on employee outcomes.

Keywords: Big Five; Conservation of Resources theory; Contingency approach; Occupational strain; Participativeleadership.

The changing nature of the workplace has imposedunprecedented demands on employees, and fuelledconcerns about the effect of these changes onemployees’ psychological health as well as onorganizational effectiveness (Duraisingam, Pidd, &Roche, 2009; Hart & Cooper, 2001). Individuals wholabour under stressful work conditions are shown tosuffer from an increased level of health problems andto experience psychological strain, defined as asubjective reaction to stress factors such as anxiety,depression, exhaustion, and loss of self-confidence(Schat, Kelloway, & Desmarais, 2005; Wang, 2005).Thus, organizations have been compelled to showgreater concern for workers’ health, and the notionthat healthier and happier employees are an asset isbecoming widespread (Schaufeli, 2004). Thus, pastresearch has focused on participative leadership,defined as joint decision making by superior and hisor her employees, or at least a shared influence on the

decision-making process (Koopman & Wierdsma,1998). This is because participative leadership is seenas a motivational technique, which has been show toimprove job satisfaction and employee outcomes(Aryee & Chen, 2006). This in turn fosters improvedorganizational outcomes because it gives employeesopportunities to fulfil their higher order needs for amore challenging and meaningful work experience(Aryee & Chen, 2006; Taris, 2006).

However, despite a wealth of research in theparticipative leadership area, empirically, researchas to whether participative leadership actuallyimproves organizational and employee outcomesremains inconclusive (Parnell & Crandall, 2001).Some quantitative reviews have reported moderatelypositive relationships between participative leadershipand certain outcomes such as job performance, jobsatisfaction, and turnover (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt,Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Miller & Monge,

Correspondence should be addressed to Anit Somech, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905 Israel. Email:

anits@construct.haifa.ac.il

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2014

Vol. 23, No. 2, –

© 2012 Taylor & Francis

277 294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

1986). Other research has not found these positiveeffects (Wagner, 1994). Yet more recently, studies haveshown that participative leadership might create anenvironment that could actually be a source ofpsychological strain for employees (Dwyer & Fox,2000; Lazarus, 1991; Spreitzer, 2007).

Therefore, the lack of consistent and conclusiveevidence about the impact of participative leadershipon employee outcomes may suggest a more complexrelationship, which might depend on the presence ofmoderating variables (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia,2004; Somech, 2006, 2010; Wright & Kim, 2004).Specifically, recent literature has advanced acontingency approach to resolve some of theinconsistent and contradictory results (Latham &Pinder, 2005). According to contingency approaches,leadership behaviours are not universally effective butdepend on a number of factors, including the personalcharacteristics of the subordinates (De Hoogh, DenHartog, & Koopman, 2005; Fiedler, 1964; Gerstner &Day, 1997; Kellerman, 2007; Vroom & Jago, 1998,2007). Specifically, this approach holds that workers’attitudes and behaviours result from interactionsamong individual and environmental factors. Thus,individual differences might intervene in therelationship of participative leadership to employeeoutcomes.

This is also in line with the Conservation ofResources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001;Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003),according to which people seek to obtain, retain,foster, and protect resources. In this framework,‘‘resources’’ is a broad term that refers to objects(e.g., owning a home or a vehicle), conditions (e.g.,status in the organization), personal characteristics,and energies valued by the individual that serveas a means for attaining goals. Resources are notdistributed equally, however, and different individualsmay have different levels and types of resourcesavailable and may therefore react differently to thesame stressors in their work environment. COR theorytreats personal characteristics as resources in that theyaffect how individuals utilize them and handle theirloss (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). During a stressfulsituation, an individual has to offset the loss of oneresource with other resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Thus,the availability of personal resources to meet workdemands, rather than the objective presence of theseresources, largely determines the impact of thesedemands on employees. Consequently, COR theorypredicts that those with greater resources are lessvulnerable to strain, whereas those with fewerresources are more vulnerable.

From this perspective, we propose that employees’personal traits may play an important role inreinforcing the positive or negative influences ofparticipative leadership on employee outcomes. For

employees’ personality traits, we employ the Big Fivepersonality taxonomy, namely extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, andopenness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992).Recent studies have found the Big Five personalitytraits to be meaningfully associated with many work-related behaviours and outcomes, likely influencingresource availability and utilization (Mount, Barrick,Scullan, & Rounds, 2005; O’Brien & DeLongis,1996). These include, for example, an individual’sability to adapt to a demanding work environment,job satisfaction, task performance, leadershipemergence, and effectiveness (Judge, Heller, &Mount, 2002; Lee-Baggley, Preece, & DeLongis,2005; Moss & Ngu, 2006). Specifically, we build ourhypotheses on Hobfoll’s (1989, 2001) COR theory,and propose to examine employee personality traitsof the Big Five typology that may serve as importantmoderator variables in the relationship ofparticipative leadership to employee outcomes withrespect to inrole performance and psychologicalstrain. In the present study, inrole performancerefers to behaviours that are required or expected aspart of performing the duties and responsibilities ofthe assigned role (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLeanParks, 1995).

The present study may make two importanttheoretical contributions. First, the generalorganizational literature reveals that most studieshave lauded participative leadership as thebest approach in contemporary organizationalmanagement for promoting positive employeeoutcomes (Armstrong, 2004; Witt, Andrews, &Kacmar, 2000). Very few studies have examined thepossibility that participative leadership can harmemployees’ inrole performance, and generatepsychological strain when present at high levels(Somech, 2010). Yet such an investigation isimportant because, although inrole performance is acritical criterion for evaluating organizationalfunctioning from the organization’s viewpoint, as itaffects the organization’s competitiveness, it might bea poor criterion from the employee’s viewpoint.Current literature emphasizes the importance ofworker psychological strain as crucial for evaluatingorganizational functioning because of theconsequences of employee psychological strain forindividual and organizational outcomes (Wright,2003). Since studies have called for moreexploration of the tradeoff effects between healthhazards and organizational functioning in designingmanagerial practices, we considered it important toinclude employee psychological strain as an outcomevariable as well (Drach-Zahavy, Somech, Granot, &Spitzer, 2004; Mikkelsen, 2000). This is to helpscholars better understand the complex relationshipbetween participative leadership and employee

278 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

outcomes, but also to aid managers in tailoring theirefforts to enhance employee inrole performance andto reduce psychological strain.

Second, organizational literature is replete withresearch on the direct link of participative leadershipto employee outcomes (San Antonio & Gamage,2007; Somech, 2006). The few studies that propose amoderated model mainly centre on organizationalvariables as moderators in the participativeleadership–employee outcomes relationship, rarelyconsidering individual-level variables (Somech &Wenderow, 2006). However, in line with the CORtheory, studies have suggested that employees withhigh levels of personal resources have greater mastery,which helps them deal more effectively withdemanding conditions and protects them fromnegative outcomes (e.g., exhaustion) (Makikangas &Kinnunen, 2003; Van Yperen & Snijders, 2000). But,to date, research investigating the role of employees’personal traits as important determinants ofadaptation to work environments characterized byhigh levels of participative leadership has been largelyneglected (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Judge et al., 2002;Lazarus, 1999; Vollrath, 2001). Therefore, becauseCOR theory assumes a moderating role of personalresources in the relationship between threats/demandsand outcomes (Xanthoupoulou, Bakker, Demerouti,& Schaufeli, 2007), we expect our study to contributeto the literature by positioning COR theory as aframework by which to explain how participativeleadership and inrole performance and psychologicalstrain are associated, depending upon the employee’spersonality traits.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDAND HYPOTHESES

The idea that happy employees are also productiveworkers (the ‘‘happy-productive worker hypothesis’’)has a long history, starting with the Human RelationsMovement in the 1920s (Taris, 2006). Prior researchhas indicated that satisfaction can be related to workperformance; when tasks were more complex, satis-faction and performance were more strongly corre-lated (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Fromthis perspective, participative leadership is considereda means to improve employee satisfaction, resultingin good inrole performance. For example, evidencehas shown that participative leadership encouragesconsensus building, and improves motivation, senseof responsibility, and commitment because employeesshift their perception of their role from subordinateto collaborator (Wagner, 2006; Watson, 2002). Also,it involves more decision-making autonomy and anincrease in the degree to which employees can shapeand influence matters (Gebert, Boerner, & Lanwehr,2003). Therefore, employees may be given the more

challenging tasks of identifying problems or planningthe implementation of solutions. This enhances themeaning of their work, and consequently enhancestheir inrole performance.

However, this may not be true for all employees.More recent studies have pointed out that participa-tive leadership could engender a state of conflictamong workers and their supervisors, role ambiguity,and psychological strain whenever employees attemptto balance and fulfil multiple role demands (Benoliel& Somech, 2010; Sato, Hyler, & Monte-Sano, 2002).For example, studies have shown that a human-resource focus, such as participative leadership, waspositively related to role conflict and uncertainty,because fewer official standards or procedures areaccessible as guidelines for employees (Hartline &Ferrell, 1996; Teh, Young, Arumugan, & Ooi, 2009).According to the COR theory, strain occurs underone of three conditions: (1) when resources arethreatened, (2) when resources are lost, and (3)when individuals invest resources and do not gainthe anticipated level of return. Threats to resourceloss at the workplace are usually in the form of roledemands and the energy and effort expended onsatisfying such demands. In line with COR theory,employees with higher preexisting levels of personalresources will have greater tolerance for socialstressors than those with lower levels.

The personality traits of extraversion, conscien-tiousness, agreeableness, and openness, which areconsidered desirable personality traits, have beenassociated with skills to prevent resource loss as wellas skills to acquire new resources (Hobfoll, 2001).Accordingly, under increased participative leader-ship, high-extraversion, high-conscientiousness, high-agreeableness, low-neuroticism, and high-opennessemployees may be able to frame organizationalevents in a positive light, because they may fail tosee the demands from a participative leader, or theymay even reinterpret the demands as challenges(Kobasa, 1979). These employees may enjoy moreopportunities to share their ideas, expand theirknowledge, and acquire new skills because a partici-pative leader encourages employees to voice theiropinions and make suggestions (Latham, Winters, &Locke, 1994; Locke, Alavi, & Wagner, 1997).

However, people with other characteristics, suchas low-extraversion, low-conscientiousness, low-agreeableness, high-neuroticism, and low-openness,which do not predispose them to devote significantresources to accomplish their tasks, as well as thosewith few resources to spare, may instead be motivatedto reduce negative emotions and avoid task failure asthe outcomes they yield are not equivalent to theresources expended to obtain these outcomes (Hob-foll, 2001; Hobfoll & Wells, 1998; Tomaka, Blasco-vich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). They may perceive

THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

participative leadership as a demand threatening theirresources, and, thus, they may be likely to experiencepsychological strain and to demonstrate lower inroleperformance.

From a contingency perspective, then, in applyingCOR theory we propose that participative leadershipand the personality traits from the aforementionedBig Five typology, namely the dimensions of extra-version, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti-cism, and openness to experience, may interact toenhance resource gain or resource loss, with con-sequences for employees’ psychological strain andinrole performance.

Extraversion

High-extraversion individuals tend to be sociable,optimistic, expressive, active, and assertive, whereaslow-extraversion individuals tend to be quieter andmore reserved (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraversionis primarily correlated to the quantity and intensity ofinterpersonal relationships and has been related toperformance in jobs involving significant interactionswith others and when social interaction is focused oninfluencing and obtaining status (DeNeve & Cooper,1998; Hogan & Holland, 2003). Research hasindicated that social interaction can be a majorsource of pleasure for high-extraversion individuals,and this in turn generates positive moods andultimately overall happiness (Tkach & Lyubomirsky,2006). Given their positive orientation to the world ingeneral and to social interactions in particular, whichmay lead them to focus on the good and positive sideof their experiences, high-extraversion employees aremore likely than low-extraversion employees toappraise themselves as having more resources avail-able to successfully handle the additional opportu-nities to engage in intense personal interactions(Costa & McCrae, 1992). This is so because aparticipative environment tends to foster moreinteraction between subordinate and supervisor andamong team members (Somech & Wenderow, 2006).

Extraversion has also been shown to encompass apositive affective component, which has been linkedto multiple forms of seeking positive emotionalsupport (Cohen & Pressman, 2006; Watson & Clark,1992). Kalish and Robins (2006) have shown thathigh-extraversion individuals have larger numbers ofsocial support alternatives. COR theorists argue thatthe more resources individuals have available tothem, the more likely they are to be protected fromexperiencing psychological strain (Hobfoll & Shirom,2000). Thus, extraversion may act as a personalresource that enables employees to efficiently deploytheir resources towards goal accomplishment; suchindividuals are likely to experience resource gain suchas enriched job design. But they may also acquire

social resources because of the opportunity for socialactivities, which they tend to enjoy. By contrast, low-extraversion employees, preferring to work in occu-pations with little stimulation and less social interac-tion, may experience participative leadership as ademand on their valued resources (Sak, 2004);establishing interpersonal relationships may consumetheir time and attention, resulting in few availableresources to direct towards work goals. Therefore,

Hypothesis 1a: Extraversion will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and inrole performance, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under high rather than low extraversion.Hypothesis 1b: Extraversion will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and psychological strain, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under low rather than high extraversion.

Agreeableness

High-agreeableness individuals tend to be compas-sionate, altruistic, cooperative, compliant, forgiving,and trusting; low-agreeableness individuals tend to beegocentric, sceptical of others’ intentions, and com-petitive (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Earlier researchfound that high-agreeableness individuals performwell in jobs involving joint action and interpersonalrelationships, whereas low-agreeableness individualsare wary of direct contact (Carson & Lowman, 2002;Judge et al., 2002). Furthermore, the literaturesuggests that high-agreeableness individuals aremotivated to develop meaningful interpersonal in-timacy and to get along with others in pleasant,harmonious interpersonal relationships (Judge et al.,2002). This dimension may function as a personalresource enabling these employees to encouragegreater cordial cooperation in increased participativeleadership because agreeableness involves tolerance,selflessness, and flexibility, and is related to ‘‘proso-cial motives’’, aimed at seeking good outcomes(Beersma & De Dreu, 2002).

Participative leadership requires a fairly high levelof interpersonal interaction, which may createtension and conflict among workers, superiors, andadministrators (Sato et al., 2002). Self-reports ofhigh-agreeable individuals have predicted behaviourssuch as efforts at minimizing interpersonal conflict onboth the individual and the group level (Graziano,Hair, & Finch, 1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999). Suchpeople are also known to deal with conflict coopera-tively and to strive for common understanding(Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Therefore,since the availability of personal resources oftendetermines how people interpret the environment, we

280 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

propose that high-agreeableness employees mayperceive increased participative leadership as challen-ging, and thus may acquire and conserve resourcessuch as self-influence skills and knowledge sharing inthe context of hectic interaction and increasedcommunication with supervisors and peers (Hobfoll& Wells, 1998; Krause, 1997). In contrast, low-agreeableness individuals may experience participa-tive leadership as a demand on their resourcesbecause they have a defective sense of bondingwith their fellow human beings (McCrae & Costa,1987); they may instead be motivated to avoid taskfailure and be more vulnerable to resource loss.Therefore,

Hypothesis 2a: Agreeableness will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and inrole performance, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under high rather than low agreeableness.Hypothesis 2b: Agreeableness will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and psychological strain, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under low rather than high agreeableness.

Conscientiousness

High-conscientiousness individuals tend to be re-sponsible, dependable, hardworking, persistent, andachievement oriented; low-conscientiousness indivi-duals tend to be irresponsible, undependable, andlacking in self-discipline (Barrick & Mount, 1991).Previous studies have reported that in self-managedwork groups as well as in an environment offeringgreat autonomy, high-conscientiousness workers dis-played very good team performance and self-efficacy(Barrick & Mount, 1993; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,& Mount, 1998; Thoms, Moore, & Scott, 1996).Advocates of COR theory have proposed thatconscientiousness serves as a personal resource thathelp employees meet work demands and reduce strain(Perry, Witt, Penney, & Atwater, 2010). Studies haveindicated that high-conscientiousness employeesthink of themselves as possessing high levels ofcompetence and thus are more likely to set high-performance goals and deploy their resources inactions that will help them meet these goals (McCrae& Costa, 2003; Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter, &Anderson, 2006). In contrast, low-conscientiousnessemployees have shown a tendency to free-ride onother team members’ efforts and prefer to reducetheir work effort to conserve resources (Witt,Andrews, & Carlson, 2004).

Participative leadership places upon the employeea greater responsibility for organizational perfor-mance, and for planning and implementing decisions,

inherently signalling that the organization recognizesthat the employee can make important contributionsto it (Luthans, 1995; Stevens & Ash, 2001). Sinceconscientiousness involves time efficiency, goal set-ting, organizational skills, and lower vulnerability topsychological strain, high-conscientiousness employ-ees may be more likely than low-conscientiousnessemployees to appraise themselves as having theresources available to respond to the additionalexpectations of a participative leader (Colbert &Witt, 2009; Somech, 2010; Wayne, Musica, &Fleeson, 2004). High-conscientiousness employeesmay thereby conserve resources and enjoy resourcegain such as greater responsibility for organizationalperformance and a meaningful and broadly definedwork experience. In contrast, low-conscientiousnessindividuals who lack organization and related abil-ities may experience participative leadership as ademand on their valued resources because they arenot generally goal or task oriented. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3a: Conscientiousness will moderatethe positive relationship between participativeleadership and inrole performance, such thatthe relationship between the two constructswill be stronger under high rather than lowconscientiousness.Hypothesis 3b: Conscientiousness will moderatethe positive relationship between participativeleadership and psychological strain, such thatthe relationship between the two constructswill be stronger under low rather than highconscientiousness.

Neuroticism

High-neuroticism individuals tend to worry and feelinsecure, nervous, depressed, and vulnerable,whereas low-neuroticism people are characterizedas calm, relaxed, and hardy (McCrae & Costa, 1987,2003). Szymura and Wodniecka (2003) reported thatwhen individuals undertook more demanding tasks,higher levels of neuroticism were associated withworse task performance. Furthermore, because oftheir essentially negative nature, high-neuroticismindividuals experience more negative life events thando other individuals (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, &Pavot, 1993). Also, these individuals have beenshown to cope with occupational stressors lesseffectively than others, and experience more stres-sors in their interpersonal interactions (Klein, Lim,Saltz, & Mayer, 2004). By contrast, because of theircalm demeanour, low-neuroticism individuals haveless need to spend time and energy regulating theiremotions and have a greater capacity to allocateresources to accomplish tasks (Barrick & Mount,2005).

281THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

Since a participative leader allows employees toshape and influence matters, promotes autonomy,and gives employees more control over their tasks,high-neuroticism employees may be hard pressed todistribute their energy and attention effectivelybecause the frequent negative emotions experiencedby these employees may consume attention andresources (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004;Gebert et al., 2003; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005).Also, in a participative leadership context, employeesmust engage with others, negotiate, resolve differ-ences, and make decisions on issues that traditionallyare not within the scope of their duties (Somech &Wenderow, 2006). According to COR theory, whenresources are insufficient, individuals are motivated todeploy resources to offset additional resource losses(Hobfoll, 1989). Thus, rather than deploying re-sources towards task achievement, high-neuroticismemployees are likely to direct their time, energy, andattention towards managing their negative emotionsand avoiding failure, resulting in few availableresources to handle close interpersonal interactionand autonomy. In contrast, low-neuroticism indivi-duals, characterized by a high overall level ofadjustment and resilience, evince good emotionaladjustment to stressful events (White, Hendrick, &Hendrick, 2004). Therefore, from a COR perspective,these characteristics may serve as personal resourcesby protecting these employees from psychologicalstrain because they equip them to face challenges witha calm, optimistic temperament that minimizesresource loss (Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore,

Hypothesis 4a: Neuroticism will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and inrole performance, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under low rather than high neuroticism.Hypothesis 4b: Neuroticism will moderate thepositive relationship between participative leader-ship and psychological strain, such that therelationship between the two constructs will bestronger under high rather than low neuroticism.

Openness to experience

High-openness-to-experience individuals tend to becurious, reflective, creative, original, and unconven-tional; low-openness-to-experience individuals tendto demonstrate lower levels of divergent thinkingbecause they find comfort in the routine (Goldberg,1999). The literature recognizes that high-opennessindividuals appreciate the merits of trying new thingsand the potential for improving on the past (LePine,Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Openness has also beenrelated to adaptive performance, which characterizes

an individual’s proficiency in adjusting behaviour tomeet the demands of new and uncertain worksituations (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon,2000). Thus, high-openness individuals are character-ized by divergent thinking and flexibility of thought(Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). Such characteristicsmay serve as personal resources by helping theseemployees to generate creative solutions, fosteringthe ability to find new opportunities, using unconven-tional methods to reach goals, and extending therepertoire of behaviours beyond daily habits in aparticipative environment (Moss & Ngu, 2006).

Previous research reported that openness meantperceiving events as challenges rather than threats,and making greater use of engagement coping,problem solving, and cognitive restructuring (Carver& Connor-Smith, 2010; Penley & Tomaka, 2002).Also, high-openness individuals tend to have agreater threshold for ambiguity (Cheung et al.,2008). Research has shown that participative leader-ship may also magnify social and mental demands,uncertainty, and role conflict (Sato et al., 2002; Tehet al., 2009). Thus, applying COR theory, we suggestthat unlike low-openness employees, high-opennessemployees may be more predisposed to appraisethemselves as having more resources available torespond to these additional expectations. Thereby,they may conserve their resources and enjoy resourcegain such as the opportunity for a more meaningfulwork experience, since participative leadership chal-lenges traditional practices, and promotes employeeindependence, openness to new suggestions, and self-expression (West, 2002). Therefore,

Hypothesis 5a: Openness to experience will mod-erate the positive relationship between participa-tive leadership and inrole performance, such thatthe relationship between the two constructs will bestronger under high rather than low openness toexperience.Hypothesis 5b: Openness to experience will mod-erate the positive relationship between participa-tive leadership and psychological strain, such thatthe relationship between the two constructs will bestronger under low rather than high openness toexperience.

METHOD

Participants and procedure

Data was collected from 153 schoolteachers and theirsupervisors at 153 elementary schools in the northand centre of Israel randomly chosen, according todistrict size, from a list of 1784 elementary schools

282 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

(8.6%) provided by the Ministry of Education. Onehundred and ninety questionnaires were distributed;the response rate within schools was 80.5% forteachers and 100% for principals. The schoolteacherswere 96.7% women, with an average age of 44.5 years(SD ¼ 7.31). They had an average of 18.23 years ofexperience (SD ¼ 8.49), with tenure in teaching at thepresent school of 11.75 years (SD ¼ 8.0). Workersparticipated voluntarily in the data collectionthrough survey questionnaires. The purpose of thestudy was explained in general terms, anonymity wasguaranteed, and the importance of participants’answers was accentuated. To ensure methodologicalindependence of the responses, we gathered informa-tion from one teacher and from the school leader ateach school. Specifically, for each educational orga-nization, the first name on the organization list wasasked to fill in the questionnaires. If he or she did notagree to participate, the second teacher on the list wasasked to participate, and so forth until a teacher didagree. Then, we asked the school leader to complete aperformance appraisal for that specific teacher.Teachers’ inrole performance was evaluated by theirschool leaders to avoid same-source bias, as sug-gested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). We matchedthe school leader and teacher data forms usingidentity numbers devised for the study.

Measures

Participative leadership. This was assessed bySomech’s (2002) questionnaire. Employees reportedhow much they actually participated in decisionmaking on 10 school issues: student discipline;hiring staff; establishing general instructionalpolicies; setting and revising the school goals;selecting department chairpersons or team leaders;allocating budget, materials, and equipment to subjectdepartments; determining the procedures to be usedfor the evaluation of teachers; specifying the learningobjectives and methods for each unit of instruction;developing procedures for assessing and reportingstudent achievement in subjects or courses; selectingtextbooks and other instructional material (e.g., ‘‘Towhat extent are you involved in the decision-makingprocess of goal setting and purpose of the school?’’).They answered on a 5-point Likert scale, from (1)‘‘very seldom’’ to (5) ‘‘very often’’ (a ¼ .93).

Employees’ personality dimension. This wasassessed by the NEO–Five Factor Inventory FormS, an abridged version of the NEO-PI (NEO-FFI;Costa & McCrae, 1992). This inventory has 60questions, 12 for each of the five factors. It measuresthe following aspects of personality: extraversion (‘‘I

really enjoy talking to people’’) (a ¼ .77);agreeableness (‘‘I generally try to be thoughtful andconsiderate’’) (a ¼ .61); conscientiousness (‘‘I workhard to accomplish my goal’’) (a ¼ .76); neuroticism(‘‘I’m not a worrier’’) (a ¼ .78); and openness toexperience (‘‘I often try new and foreign food’’)(a ¼ .68). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale, from (0) ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to (4)‘‘strongly agree’’.

Employees’ psychological strain. This wasmeasured by the Dupuy’s (1984) General Well-Being scale (GWB). The GWB is an 18-itemmeasure contains questions related to feelings ofsadness or hopelessness, feelings of stress and strain,anxiety and depression, and satisfaction with one’slife. The scale consists of six subscales of anxiety,depressed mood, positive well-being, self-control,general health, and vitality (e.g., ‘‘Have you felt sosad, discouraged, hopeless, or had so many problemsthat you wondered if anything is worthwhile?’’). Thescale proved unidimensional, and a reliable and validmeasure of psychological well-being and strain(Needle, Su, & Doherty, 1990; Sharpe, Williams,Granner, & Hussey, 2007; Taylor et al., 2003).Accordingly, for the purpose of the present study,to measure strain, the scores of the subscales ofpositive well-being, self-control, general health, andvitality were reversed. Then, the six subscales werecombined to produce a general indicator of strain.Higher score represents greater strain (a ¼ .77).

Employees’ inrole performance. Supervisors usedBroockstein’s (1991) 16-item performance appraisalquestionnaire to evaluate how far their employeesfulfilled their duties (e.g., ‘‘The teacher meets orexceeds his/her productivity requirements’’).Supervisors answered on a 5-point Likert scale,from (1) ‘‘very poorly’’ to (5) ‘‘very well’’ (a ¼ .88).

Control variables. Organization size andemployees’ tenure were included as control variablesbecause the literature has noted their role on aleader’s tendency to invite subordinates to participatein the decision-making process (Green, Anderson, &Shivers, 1996; Yukl, 2002). Organization size datawere drawn from information obtained from thearchives and school administrations; the number offull-time equivalent (FTE) teachers at each schoolwas noted as a measure of organization size. Thisfigure is commonly found in the literature as ameasure of size (Green et al., 1996). We chose tocontrol for organization size because researchersgenerally concur that the organization’s structure iscorrelated to workers’ life in general (Rosenblatt &Somech, 1998; Yukl, 2002). Previous research hasindicated that organization size is related to leader’s

283THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

readiness to invite subordinates to join in thedecision-making process and positively correlatedwith organizational performance (Barnett, Glass,Snowdon, & Stringer, 2002; Green et al., 1996;Rosenblatt & Somech, 1998). Tenure is the numberof years a person has worked in the same occupation.We chose to control for tenure because previousresearch indicated that employee tenure is related toorganizational outcomes and to managers’ tendencyto involve their subordinates in the decision-makingprocess (Yukl, 2002).

RESULTS

Hypothesis testing

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, andintercorrelation matrix for the study variables.

Two hierarchical regression analyses were con-ducted to predict the two outcomes: inrole perfor-mance and psychological strain. All effect terms ofthe proposed predictors, namely participative leader-ship and the Big Five personality dimensions ofextraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neu-roticism, and openness to experience, were enteredinto the regression equation. The control variables(tenure and organization size) were entered in Step 1.The main effect terms were entered in Step 2. Thefirst-order interactive effect term, that is, the interac-tions between participative leadership and each of theBig Five personality dimensions were entered in Step3. All of the personality factors and their interactionswere including in a single regression in order toprovide an appropriate solution for examining theinteraction effects of the Big Five personality dimen-sions and participative leadership, since conductingfive individual regression analyses means that, over-all, Type I error rate will be 5 6 .05.

Following procedures suggested by Cohen, Cohen,West, and Aiken (2003), since participative leadershipand personality traits were measured on differentscales, predictors were standardized such that M ¼ 0

and SD ¼ 1. Interaction terms were then createdfrom these standardized predictors. Tables 2 and 3show the hierarchical regression results of theanalyses for inrole performance and psychologicalstrain, respectively. For consistency and followingprocedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991)and Jaccard, Turrisi, and Wan (1990), unstandar-dized regression coefficients are reported. However,note that since the predictors were standardized,there is no difference between the values of theunstandardized and standardized coefficients.

Inrole performance results

As can be seen in Table 2, with respect to themoderating effect of the Big Five personality factorson the relationship between participative leadershipand employees’ inrole performance, the controlvariables had no significant relationship with inroleperformance, R2 ¼ .01, p 4 .05. The joint maineffects of inrole performance predictors accountedfor 10%, DR2 ¼ .10, p 5 .05, and the amount ofexplained variance increased to 11%. Importantly,consistent with the prediction, the first-order interac-tion effects between participative leadership and theBig Five personality factors, entered in Step 3,accounted for an additional 8% of the variance ininrole performance, DR2 ¼ .08, p 5 .05; and, takentogether, the model variables accounted for 19% ofthe variance in inrole performance.

Specifically, the regression analysis (see Table 2)showed a significant moderating effect of extraversionon the relationship between participative leadershipand inrole performance, B ¼ 0.18, t ¼ 2.03, p 5 .05,which confirms Hypothesis 1a. Moreover, as Hypoth-esis 2a predicted, the regression analysis showed asignificant moderating effect of agreeableness on therelationship between participative leadership andinrole performance, B ¼ 0.20, t ¼ 2.37, p 5 .05.Finally, as Hypothesis 3a suggested, the regressionanalysis showed a significant moderating effect ofconscientiousness on the relationship between

TABLE 1Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation matrix for study variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Participative leadership 3.17 1.03 1.00

2. Neuroticism 19.51 6.44 7.07 1.00

3. Extraversion 31.82 5.62 .15 7.21** 1.00

4. Openness to experience 24.86 4.13 .15 7.13 .25** 1.00

5. Agreeableness 29.65 4.43 7.04 7.26** .28** .19* 1.00

6. Conscientiousness 38.23 4.82 .19* 7.24** .34*** .17* .13 1.00

7. Inrole performance 4.10 0.78 .23*** .05 .19* .10 .16 .07 1.00

8. Psychological strain 2.29 0.66 .01 .52*** 7.32*** 7.11 7.26** 7.17* 7.05 1.00

9. School size 28.89 7.65 7.14 .09 .10 .03 .03 .10 .07 7.05 1.00

10. Tenure 18.23 8.49 .12 .01 7.11 7.15 7.15 .03 7.09 .13 7.02 1.00

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

284 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

participative leadership and inrole performance, B ¼70.19, t ¼ 72.17, p 5 .05.

We then analysed the significant interactions moreclosely by calculating regression lines from the fullequation at the high and low (þSD, 7SD) levels ofthe independent variables using the unstandardizedregression coefficients (B) from the regression equa-tion (Aiken & West, 1991). This technique is designedto provide us with less biased regression coefficientsfor analysis of moderating effects. The simple slopeanalysis (see Figure 1) indicated that when extraver-sion was low (1 SD below the mean) participativeleadership was unrelated to inrole performance,B ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 0.58, p 4 .05. When extraversion washigh (1 SD above the mean), participative leadershipwas significantly and positively related to inroleperformance, B ¼ 0.44, t ¼ 3.56, p 5 .001. Thisindicates, in line with our prediction, that the positiveassociation between participative leadership andinrole performance is stronger when the level ofextraversion is high.

Regarding the moderating role of agreeableness,the simple slope analysis (see Figure 2) indicated thatwhen agreeableness was low (1 SD below the mean)

participative leadership was unrelated to inroleperformance, B ¼ 0.06, t ¼ 0.45, p 4 .05. Whenagreeableness was high, participative leadership wassignificantly and positively related to inrole perfor-mance, B ¼ 0.45, t ¼ 3.80, p 5 .001. This indicates,in line with our prediction, that the positive associa-tion between participative leadership and inroleperformance is stronger when the level of agreeable-ness is high.

As for the moderating role of conscientiousness,the simple slope analysis (see Figure 3) indicated thatwhen conscientiousness was low (1 SD below themean) participative leadership was significantly andpositively related to inrole performance, B ¼ 0.44,t ¼ 3.72, p 5 .001. When conscientiousness washigh, participative leadership was unrelated to inroleperformance, B ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 0.56, p 4 .05. Thisindicates, contrary to our prediction, that the positiveassociation between participative leadership andinrole performance is stronger when the level ofconscientiousness is low.

However, as shown in Table 2, neuroticism andopenness to experience proved not to exert asignificant moderating effect on the participative

TABLE 2Results of hierarchical regression analysis for predicting employee inrole performance

Step variables B SE DR2 DF

Step 1: Control variables .01 0.72

Constant 70.21 0.35

School size 0.01 0.01

Tenure 70.01 0.01

Step 2: Main effects .10 2.65*

Constant 70.23 0.34

School size 0.01 0.01

Tenure 70.01 0.01

Neuroticism 0.11 0.08

Extraversion 0.12 0.09

Agreeableness 0.12 0.08

Conscientiousness 70.02 0.01

Openness to experience 70.01 0.02

Participative leadership 0.25** 0.08

Step 3: Interactions .08 2.70*

Constant 70.23 0.35

School size 0.01 0.01

Tenure 70.01 0.01

Participative leadership 0.25** 0.08

Neuroticism 0.07 0.08

Extraversion 0.06 0.09

Agreeableness 0.10 0.08

Conscientiousness 70.01 0.09

Openness to experience 0.01 0.08

Participative leadership 6 Neuroticism 0.05 0.08

Participative leadership 6 Extraversion 0.18* 0.09

Participative leadership 6 Agreeableness 0.20* 0.08

Participative leadership 6 Conscientiousness 70.19* 0.09

Participative leadership 6 Openness to experience 0.03 0.08

Total R2 .19

Adjusted R2 .11

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

285THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

leadership–inrole performance relationship(p 4 .05), providing no support for Hypothesis 4aand Hypothesis 5a.

Psychological strain results

As shown in Table 3, regarding the moderating effectof the Big Five personality factors on the relation ofparticipative leadership to employees’ psychological

TABLE 3Results of hierarchical regression analysis for predicting employee psychological strain

Step variables B SE DR2 DF

Step 1: Control variables .01 0.89

Constant 0.09 0.35

School size 70.01 0.01

Tenure 0.01 0.01

Step 2: Main effects .32 11.60***

Constant 70.01 0.30

School size 70.01 0.01

Tenure 0.02* 0.01

Extraversion 70.19* 0.01

Neuroticism 0.48*** 0.07

Agreeableness 70.07 0.07

Conscientiousness 0.01 0.07

Openness to experience 70.01 0.07

Participative leadership 0.05 0.07

Step 3: Interactions .04 1.95þ

Constant 70.11 0.30

School size 70.02 0.01

Tenure 0.02* 0.01

Participative leadership 0.08 0.07

Extraversion 70.22** 0.08

Agreeableness 70.08 0.07

Conscientiousness 0.01 0.08

Openness to experience 70.03 0.07

Participative leadership 6 Extraversion 0.03 0.08

Participative leadership 6 Neuroticism 0.14* 0.07

Participative leadership 6 Agreeableness 0.01 0.07

Participative leadership 6 Conscientiousness 70.16* 0.08

Participative leadership 6 Openness to experience 0.05 0.07

Total R2 .38

Adjusted R2 .32

þp 5 .10, *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

Figure 1. Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship

between participative leadership and employee inrole performance.

Figure 2. Moderating effect of agreeableness on the relationship

between participative leadership and employee inrole performance.

286 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

strain, the control variables had no significantrelationship with psychological strain, R2 ¼ .04,p 4 .05. At Step 2, the joint main effects ofpsychological strain predictors accounted for 29%,DR2 ¼ .29, p 5 .001, and the amount of explainedvariance increased to 33%. Tenure was a significantpredictor of psychological strain, B ¼ 0.02, t ¼ 2.26,p 5 .05; extraversion was a significant predictorof psychological strain, B ¼ 70.19, t ¼ 72.52,p 5 .05; and neuroticism was a significant predictorof psychological strain, B ¼ 0.48, t ¼ 6.66, p 5 .001.In accordance with what one would expect higherlevel of neuroticism, more tenure and lower level ofextraversion increased psychological strain. Impor-tantly, the first-order interaction effects betweenparticipative leadership and the Big Five personalityfactors, entered in Step 3, added 4% to the variancein psychological strain, DR2 ¼ .04, p 5 .001. Takentogether, the model variables accounted for 38% ofthe variance in psychological strain. Specifically, asHypothesis 3b suggested, the regression analysis(Table 3) showed a significant and moderatingeffect of conscientiousness on the participative leader-ship–psychological strain relationship, B ¼ 70.16,t ¼ 72.12, p 5 .05. As Hypothesis 4b suggested, theregression analysis (Table 3) showed a significant andmoderating effect of neuroticism on the participativeleadership–psychological strain relationship, B ¼0.14, t ¼ 1.91, p 5 .05.

We conducted simple slopes analyses to furtheranalyse these interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). Thesimple slope analysis (see Figure 4) indicated thatwhen conscientiousness was low (1 SD below themean) participative leadership was significantly and

positively related to psychological strain, B ¼ 0.24,t ¼ 2.47, p 5 .05. When conscientiousness was high,participative leadership was unrelated to psychologi-cal strain, B ¼ 70.09, t ¼ 70.74, p 4 .05. Thisindicates, in line with our Hypothesis 3b, that thepositive association between participative leadershipand psychological strain is stronger when the level ofconscientiousness is low.

Regarding the moderating role of neuroticism, thesimple slope analysis (see Figure 5) indicated thatwhen neuroticism was low (1 SD below the mean)participative leadership was unrelated to psychologi-cal strain, B ¼ 70.06, t ¼ 70.64, p 4 .05. When

Figure 3. Moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relation-

ship between participative leadership and employee inrole

performance.

Figure 4. Moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relation-

ship between participative leadership and employee psychological

strain.

Figure 5. Moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship

between participative leadership and employee psychological

strain.

287THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

neuroticism was high, participative leadership wassignificantly and positively related to psychologicalstrain, B ¼ 0.21, t ¼ 2.14, p 5 .05. This indicates, inline with our Hypothesis 4b, that the positiveassociation between participative leadership andpsychological strain is stronger when the level ofneuroticism is high.

However, as shown in Table 3, extraversion,agreeableness, and openness to experience provednot to exert a significant moderating effect on theparticipative leadership–psychological strain relation-ship (p 4 .05), providing no support for Hypotheses1b, 2b, and 5b.

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to focus on the notion thatparticipative leadership might show different patternsof relationship with inrole performance and psycho-logical strain depending on the employees’ person-ality traits. This stream of research may be importantbecause, despite several calls for more attention to therole of personality in perceived psychological strainand job outcomes, little is known about the role ofindividual differences in reactions to various workenvironments and leadership styles (Barrick &Mount, 2005; Judge et al., 2002; Lazarus, 1999;Stevens & Ash, 2001; Vollrath, 2001). Our resultshere showed that the dimensions of extraversion,agreeableness, and conscientiousness moderate therelationship between participative leadership andinrole performance and that the dimensions ofconscientiousness and neuroticism moderate therelationship between participative leadership andpsychological strain. These results might provideadditional support for Hobfoll’s (2002) theory ofconservation of resources; that is, some personalitytraits may act as personal resources enabling employ-ees to acquire and conserve resources in the contextof high participative leadership. But other employees,particularly those whose personality traits do notpredispose them to devote significant resources toaccomplish their task, as well as those having fewresources to spare, are more vulnerable to resourcedeficit in the context of high participative leadership.

Specifically, high-extraversion employees, high-agreeableness employees, but low-conscientiousnessemployees displayed higher levels of inrole perfor-mance under a higher level of participative leader-ship. For these employees, involvement in shareddecision making seems to offer several opportunitiesto achieve resources, such as sense of competence,self-efficacy, or pursuing the goal of more challengingwork. So, a highly participative leader may lead theseindividuals to resource gain and to higher levels ofinrole performance. These findings are consistentwith previous research indicating that the dimension

of extraversion leads an individual to perceive eventsas challenges rather than threats, and helps theindividual to positive appraisals of coping resourcesand to feel a heightened sense of responsibility for thetask and control over it (Penley & Tomaka, 2002;Vollrath, 2001). Similarly, research has shown thathigh-agreeableness individuals perform better when asignificant degree of interpersonal interaction andcollaboration is involved (Hogan & Holland, 2003;Skyrme, Wilkinson, Abraham & Morrison, 2005).

However, the unexpected finding of a positiverelationship between participative leadership andinrole performance for low-conscientiousness em-ployees may be due to a participative leader’semphasizing inrole performance by encouragingemployees to discover new opportunities and chal-lenges, and to learn through acquiring, sharing, andcombining knowledge (Edmondson, 1999; West,2002). This process includes clarification of problems,information seeking, data sharing, resonance ofideas, and synthesis of viewpoints (Sagie, Zaidman,Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002).Perhaps this may help in achieving goals andstimulate employees’ growth and development (De-merouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).Therefore, employees’ involvement in the decision-making process seems to minimize the need to expendresources in the execution of tasks because their workrequirements are clearly identified. Also, the avail-ability of better information constitutes a resource formaking decisions, and facilitating successful fulfil-ment of these requirements. That is, participativeleadership may substitute for high conscientiousnessby providing resources, which that trait wouldotherwise provide. However, no significant relation-ship was found between participative leadership andinrole performance for high-conscientiousness em-ployees. This is surprising, since empirical researchshows that these individuals are predisposed to directtheir abilities, energy, and other resources towardsachieving work-related goals and proactively creatingplans to efficiently complete tasks (Witt, Burke,Barrick, & Mount, 2002).Thus, our results need tobe replicated in future research to clarify theinconsistency in this personality trait.

The present results also showed that conscien-tiousness and neuroticism served as moderators in theparticipative leadership–strain relationship. Specifi-cally, the results indicated that low-conscientiousnessstrengthened the positive relationship between parti-cipative leadership and psychological strain. Theseresults are in line with our prediction that low-conscientiousness individuals who tend to be dis-organized may expend more energy than necessary,and are more susceptible to psychological strain in aparticipative environment (Costa & McCrae, 1988;McCrae & Costa, 1985). Moreover, in our study,

288 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

low-conscientiousness employees were found tostrengthen the positive relationship between partici-pative leadership and inrole performance, so for theseemployees psychological strain was perhaps created.Therefore, although participative leadership maysubstitute for high conscientiousness by facilitatingsuccessful fulfilment of shared decision makingrequirements, when low-conscientiousness employeesare confronted with a participative leader whorequires them to invest their time, attention, andother resources towards activities that they arenaturally inclined to neglect, these employees mayexperience participative leadership as a demand ontheir valued resources.

Finally, the findings suggested, in line with ourproposition, that the positive association betweenparticipative leadership and psychological strain wasstronger for high-neuroticism employees. Thus, inline with the COR theory, higher levels of participa-tive leadership may be perceived as threatening theemployee’s resources or even as requiring the employ-ee to expend additional resources (e.g., time andenergy), resulting in a high level of strain. Thesefindings are consistent with earlier results indicatingthat high-neuroticism employees tend to experiencehigh levels of dissatisfaction, strain, and self-doubt,and view the world through a pessimistic anddefensive lens, interpreting many stimuli as threaten-ing (Hemenover, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, &Kluger, 1998; McCrae & John, 1992).

The present results are important because theysupport the idea that individuals appear to responddifferently to participative leadership practices(Vroom & Yago, 2007). The present findings mayalso provide support to the Person–Environment Fittheory, which holds that positive outcomes will occurwhen the individual and the work environment aresimilar, or when one entity provides what the otherneeds; negative outcomes will occur when theindividual and the work environment are dissimilar,or when one entity fails to provide what the otherneeds (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, &Johnson, 2005). Therefore, this study may contributeto the identification of a new path for futureempirical research to follow in the area of expandingCOR theory by including the role of individualdifferences in managerial practice outcomes (Hobfoll,1989, 2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001).

However, neither a moderating impact of neuroti-cism, and openness to experience on the relationshipof participative leadership to inrole performance, nora moderating impact of extraversion, agreeableness,and openness to experience on the relationship ofparticipative leadership to psychological strain, wassupported by the data. First, further contribution tothe prediction of employees’ psychological strain andinrole performance beyond each of the global Big

Five personality traits has recently been attributed tothe ‘‘narrow traits’’ that characterize those traits(Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006). Second,personality does not constitute a single trait inisolation. In fact, a more recent and promising trendin personality research has been to study theinteractions between the Big Five traits and situa-tional factors that can play a moderating role on theirrelationship with various work-related outcomes aswell as exposure to psychological strain (Ilies, Scott,& Judge, 2006; Markey & Markey, 2006). Advocatesof COR theory have adopted this approach becausethe more personal resources individuals have avail-able, the less likely they are to manifest strainoutcomes. Therefore, perhaps, an examination ofthe personality dimensions as multidimensionalfactors or an examination of the interaction amongtraits may be warranted in future study and thus maydeepen our understanding of the moderating role ofthe Big Five traits on the participative leadership–employee outcomes relationship.

Limitations and future research

Some strengths and several limitations of the studywarrant further attention in future research. Themajor strength of the present study is that thelikelihood of common method variance was lowbecause one criterion variable (employees’ inroleperformance) was obtained from a different source(the manager: Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). However,although these findings are encouraging for the stressliterature and organization-effectiveness research, thisstudy was limited by its mode of operation. First,collecting data from a single, self-report survey forthe psychological strain model opens the possibilitythat the results are due to common method variance,namely that this variance is attributable to themeasurement method rather than the constructsthat the measures represent (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Despite shared sourcevariance concerns, endorsement of this approachweighs the methodological assumption that sharedsource variance inflates observed relationships amongvariables against the psychological premise as to themeaning of experienced environment underlying self-theory, personality, and social psychology (Kelly,1955; Lewin, 1936; Rotter, 1981). Also, followingPodsakoff et al. (2003), it was explicitly stated thatthe respondents were kept anonymous and wereassured that there were no right or wrong answers,thus reducing common method variance.

Second, data collection was dyadic: One employeeper organization rated the participative leadershippractice of the supervisor. If the first personapproached refused, a second person would beapproached and the supervisor rated the inrole

289THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

performance of this specific employee. Since we donot have any demographic information regardingemployees who did not accept our invitation toparticipate in the present study, we may haveintroduced a potential response bias. Moreover, theresearch was conducted in an educational contextrestricting the ability to generalize the results to otheroccupations. We therefore suggest that other organi-zational contexts should be studied. Finally, oursample size is a little small for the range of variablesin the regression analyses. These methodologicallimits may call for caution in generalizing conclu-sions. The results need to be replicated and confirmedin a future study applying hierarchical models to alarger sample, to verify the contribution to a deeperunderstanding of the role of personality traits onparticipative leadership outcomes (Bryk & Rauden-bush, 1992). Moreover, the data was largely self-reported, and therefore subject to bias. In thisrespect, the study does not differ from previouswork (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Lovelace, Shapiro,& Weingart, 2001). More recent research suggeststhat self-reported data is not as limited as waspreviously believed and that people often accuratelyperceive their social environment (Alper, Tjosvold, &Law, 1998).

Third, this study examined only selective moder-ating variables, which do not fully capture thepotential complexity of the relationship betweenparticipative leadership and employee outcomes.Future research should extend the inquiry to othermoderating variables embedded in the individual (thecombination of personal characteristics), team (e.g.,quality of the relationships between co-workers orbetween workers and supervisors), and organiza-tional (organizational change or uncertainty) levels toreduce employee psychological strain and dispeladverse attitudes.

Fourth, COR theory delineates the general strainprocess but is not itself contextual. COR theory canonly instruct how resources, once discovered, mightoperate and how resources in a general sensecontribute to stress resistance and coping processes.In the future, research examining COR theory andfocusing more on both the impact of particularecological contexts on the stress process and circum-stances where the principles of COR theory mightapply more specifically, and other circumstanceswhere they might apply less, may well deepen ourunderstanding of how resources operate according toa particular environment .

Finally, although not within the scope of thepresent study, investigating and testing the mechan-isms linking personality and health dimensions maycontribute to deepening our understanding of thedifferential relationship of participative leadership toemployee outcomes of inrole performance and

psychological strain. For example, Witt et al. (2004)argue that the moderating role of conscientiousnesson the relationship between job performance andemotional exhaustion reflected a motivational pro-cess. Therefore, further studies should explorewhether the Big Five traits’ role as a moderatingvariable on the participative leadership–inrole per-formance and participative leadership–psychologicalstrain relationships reflects an instrumental, cognitiveor motivational process.

Practical implications

These findings, if successfully replicated, have im-portant implications for managers. Learning moreabout the relationship of individual personalitydifferences to the diverse influences of shareddecision-making processes on employees’ behavioursand outcomes is valuable, because the advantages ofa successful person–organization fit include greaterjob satisfaction and individual inrole performance,and less strain (Lim & Cheng, 1999; Stevens & Ash,2001; Thoms, Pinto, Parente, & Druskat, 2002).First, the present findings highlight that employeesmay become more vulnerable to a participativeenvironment stressors as their personality resourcesjar with the demands that arise in such an environ-ment. This is consistent with previous findings thatpersonality does matter regarding job outcomes andpsychological strain for employees (Barrick &Mount, 2005). Thus, to the extent that employeeslack the resources to effectively handle the require-ments of participative leadership, the more likelythey are to experience psychological strain. So, thequestion is, what can supervisors do to preventemployees from experiencing psychological strain?COR-based practical implications have recentlyemerged, stressing the need to diagnose and ‘‘aug-ment and replenish workers’ resources’’ (Shirom &Ezrachi, 2003, p. 93).

Managers who understand that employees mayperceive participative leadership as threatening theirresources will recognize the implications, namely thattheir employees will react emotionally to potentialstressors that participative leadership produce; thesemanagers may be able to manage such disruptiveemotions. Managers who play a major role inconnection with employees’ psychological strainmay more effectively adapt their power and author-ity, and design efficient participative leadershipprocesses appropriate to individual needs with ahigher probability of achieving more positive employ-ee outcomes. This does not mean that managersshould exclude certain subordinates from participa-tion in decision making; but reducing the magnitudeand frequency of employee exposure to job stressors,and providing additional support and resources, are

290 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

likely to reduce employees’ psychological strain to theoverall benefit of participative leadership. Leadersmay thereby maximize the effectiveness of theirhuman resources. All this can help match the featuresof participative leadership to employees’ personalitytraits, satisfying the needs of employees and theorganization alike.

REFERENCES

Aiken, S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and

controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective

self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 74, 33–52.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary:

External activity and performance in organizational teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

Armstrong, H. D. (2004). Agency fragmentation: The dilemma

facing participative management school principals. Journal of

Educational Thought, 38, 3–17.

Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a

Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psycholo-

gical empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Re-

search, 59, 793–801.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).

Transformational leadership and organizational commitment:

Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating

role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

25, 951–968.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job

demands–resources model to predict burnout and performance.

Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104.

Barnett, R. R., Glass, J. C., Snowdon, R. I., & Stringer, K. S.

(2002). Size performance and effectiveness: Cost-constrained

measures of best-practice performance and secondary-school

size. Education Economics, 10, 291–311.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality

dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator

of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimen-

sions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

111–118.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters:

Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance,

18, 359–372.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work team

processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83, 377–391.

Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and

distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task

structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 227–252.

Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2010). Who benefits from participative

management? Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 285–

308.

Broockstein, R. (1991). Role design and role perception. Tel Aviv,

Israel: School of Management, Tel Aviv University. (In

Hebrew).

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear

models: Applications and data analysis techniques. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Carson, A. D., & Lowman, R. L. (2002). Individual-level variables

in organizational consultation. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational consulting psychology (pp. 5–26).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping.

Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 6.1–6.26.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J. X., Leung, K., Leong, F.

T. L., & Yeh, K. H. (2008). Relevance of openness as a

personality dimension in Chinese culture. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 39, 81–108.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied

multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral

sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Cohen, S., & Pressman S. D. (2006). Positive affect and health.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 122–125.

Colbert, A. E., & Witt, L. A. (2009). The role of goal-focused

leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 790–796.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality

Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI):

Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M.

L., & Jennings, K. R.(1988). Employee participation: Diverse

forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review,

13, 8–22.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L.

(2005). Linking the Big Five-factors of personality to charis-

matic and transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic work

environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 839–865.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B.

(2001). The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A

meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-

being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.

Drach-Zahavy, A., Somech, A., Granot, M., & Spitzer, A. (2004).

Can we win them all? Benefits and costs of structured and

flexible innovation-implementations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25, 217–234.

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M.

(2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in

the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrela-

tions and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 40–57.

Dupuy, H. J. (1984). The Psychological General Well-Being

(PGWB) index. In N. K. Wenger, M. E. Mattson, C. D.

Furberg, & J. Elinson (Eds.), Assessment of quality of life in

clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies (pp. 184–188). New

York, NY: Le Jacq.

Duraisingam, V., Pidd, K., & Roche, A. M. (2009). The impact of

work stress and job satisfaction on turnover intention: A study

of Australian specialist alcohol and other drug workers. Drugs:

Education, Prevention and Policy, 16, 193–204.

Dwyer, D. J., & Fox, M. L. (2000). The moderating role of hostility

in the relationship between enriched jobs and health. Academy

of Management Journal, 43, 1086–1096.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning

behavior in work teams. Administrative Science, 44, 350–383.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership

effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of

autonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of a balance

management in promoting organizational innovativeness.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 41–49.

291THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of

leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct

issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain,

personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several

five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &

F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 7–

28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitive-

ness mediates the link between personality and group

performance. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology,

49, 1394–1408.

Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996).

Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member

exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203–214.

Hart, P. M., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Occupational stress: Toward

a more integrated framework. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H.

K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial,

work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 93–115).

London, UK: Sage.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of

customer-contact service employees: An empirical investigation.

Journal of Marketing, 60, 52–72.

Hemenover, S. M. (2001). Self reported processing bias and

naturally occurring mood: Mediators between personality and

stress appraisals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

387–394.

Hobfoll, S. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at

conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the

nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conversation of

resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

50, 337–370.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and

adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.

Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003).

Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among

inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 632–643.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources

theory: Applications to stress and management in the work-

place. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organization

behavior (pp. 57–81). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources

theory: Applications to stress and management in the work-

place. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational

behavior (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Dekker.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Wells, J. D. (1998). Conservation of resources,

stress and aging: Why do some slide and some spring? In J.

Lomeranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An

integrative approach (pp. 121–134). New York, NY: Plenum

Press.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate

personality and job-performance relations: A socio-analytic

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects

of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual

patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management

Journal, 49, 561–575.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in

multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness

as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality,

69, 323–362.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model

of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).

Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of

core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001).

The job satisfaction-performance relationship: A qualitative

and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.

Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and

network structure: The relationship between individual predis-

positions, structural holes and network closure. Social Net-

works, 28, 56–84.

Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about

followers. Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 84–91.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New

York, NY: Norton.

Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How

do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of

centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal,

47, 952–963.

Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An

inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 37, 1–11.

Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative

management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H. Thierry, & C. J. de-Wolf

(Eds.), Personnel psychology: Handbook of work and organiza-

tional psychology (pp. 297–324). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Krause, J. S. (1997). Personality and traumatic spinal cord injury:

Relationship to participation in productive activities. Journal of

Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 40, 202–214.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review

of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications.

Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-

analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and

person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Laschinger, H., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build

trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the

nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23, 6–13.

Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory

and research at the dawn of the 21st century. Annual Review of

Psychology, 56, 485–516.

Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive

and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–64.

Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New

York, NY: Springer.

Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with

interpersonal stress: Role of Big Five traits. Journal of

Personality, 73, 1141–1180.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to

changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability,

conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel

Psychology, 53, 563–593.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lim, G., & Cheng, H. (1999). Moderating effects of personality

factors on teachers’ affective reactions to job scope. Research

and Practice in Human Resource Management, 7, 17–33.

Locke, E. A., Alavi, M., & Wagner, J. (1997). Participation in

decision making: An information exchange perspective. In G.

Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources

management (pp. 293–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001).

Maximizing cross-functional new product team’s innovative-

ness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.

292 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993).

Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life

events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053.

Makikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work

stressors and well-being: Self esteem and optimism as mod-

erators in a one-year longitudinal sample. Personality and

Individual Differences, 35, 537–557.

Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2006). A spherical conceptua-

lization of personality traits. European Journal of Personality,

20, 169–193.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman’s

‘‘adequate taxonomy’’: Intelligence and personality dimensions

in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor

model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood:

A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-

factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,

175–216.

Mikkelsen, A. (2000). Work design and health: Two paradigms

contrasted. In M. Vartiainen, F. Avalloni, & N. Anderson

(Eds.), Innovative theories, tools and practices in work and

organizational psychology (pp. 15–28). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe &

Huber.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction and

productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management

Journal, 29, 727–753.

Moss, S. A., & Ngu, S. (2006). The relationship between

personality and leadership preferences. Current Research in

Social Psychology, 11, 70–91.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005).

Higher order dimensions of the big five personality traits and

the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58,

447–478.

Needle, R. H., Su, S. S., & Doherty, W. J. (1990). Divorce,

remarriage, and adolescent substance use: A prospective

longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52,

157–169.

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond

skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

376–389.

O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of

problem, emotion, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the

Big Five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813.

Parnell, J. A., & Crandall, W. R. (2001). Rethinking participative

decision making: A refinement of the propensity for participa-

tive decision making scale. Personnel Review, 30, 523–535.

Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big

Five, emotional responses and coping with acute stress.

Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228.

Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Atwater, L. (2010). The

downside of goal-focused leadership: The role of personality in

subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,

1145–1153.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in

organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of

Management, 12, 531–544.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E.

(2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a

taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 85, 612–624.

Rosenblatt, Z., & Somech, A. (1998). Work behavior of Israeli

elementary-school principals: Expectations vs. reality. Educa-

tional Administration Quarterly, 34, 505–532.

Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning

theory. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward the psychology of

situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 169–178). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., &

Schwartz, D. G. (2002). An empirical assessment of the loose-

tight leadership model: Quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 303–320.

Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of

gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15,

70–79.

San Antonio, D. M., & Gamage, D. T. (2007). Building trust

among educational stakeholders through participatory school

administration. Leadership and management. British Educa-

tional Leadership, Management and Administration Society, 21,

15–22.

Sato, M., Hyler, M. E., & Monte-Sano, C. (2002). The National

Board Certification process and its impact on teacher leadership.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Schat, A. C. H., Kelloway K. E., & Desmarais, S. (2005). The

Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ): Construct validation of

a self report scale of somatic symptoms. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 10, 363–381.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). The future of occupational health

psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53,

502–517.

Sharpe, P. A., Williams, H. G., Granner, M. L., & Hussey, J. R.

(2007). A randomized study of the effects of massage therapy

compared to guided relaxation on well-being and stress

perception among older adults. Complementary Therapies in

Medicine, 15, 157–163.

Shirom, A., & Ezrachi, Y. (2003). On the discriminant validity of

burnout, depression and anxiety: A re-examination of the

burnout measure. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 16, 83–97.

Skyrme, P., Wilkinson, L., Abraham, J. D., & Morrison, J. D., Jr.

(2005). Using personality to predict outbound call center job

performance. Applied Human Resource Management Research,

10, 89–98.

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative

management: An investigation of multiple dimensions. Educa-

tional Administration Quarterly, 38, 341–371.

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process

on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous

teams. Journal of Management, 32, 1–26.

Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A

mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding

school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 46(2), 174–209.

Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative

and directive leadership on teachers’ performance: The inter-

vening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and LMX.

Educational Administrative Quarterly, 42, 746–772.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Toward the integration of two perspec-

tives: A review of social-structural and psychological empower-

ment at work. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The handbook

of organizational behavior (pp. 1–41). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Stevens, C. D., & Ash, R. A. (2001). Selecting employees for fit:

Personality and preferred managerial style. Journal of Manage-

rial Issues, 13, 500–517.

293THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4

Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers

neurotics? In search for factors impairing attentional perfor-

mance. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 109–126.

Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and

objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies.Work and

Stress, 20, 316–334.

Taylor, J. E., Carlos Poston, W. S., II, Keith Haddock, C.,

Blackburn, G. L., Heber, D., Heymsfield, S. B., & Foreyt, J. P.

(2003). Psychometric characteristics of the General Well-Being

Schedule (GWB) with African–American women. Quality of

Life Research, 12, 31–39.

Teh, P., Young, C., Arumugan, V. C., & Ooi, K. (2009). Role

conflict in information systems personnel: A TQM perspective.

Journal of Applied Sciences, 9, 2701–2713.

Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship

between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work

groups and the Big Five personality dimensions. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 17, 349–362.

Thoms, P., Pinto, J. K., Parente, D. H., & Druskat, V. U. (2002).

Adaptation to self-managing work teams. Small Group

Research, 33, 3–31.

Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How do people pursue

happiness? Relating personality, happiness-increasing

strategies, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7,

183–225.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993).

Subjective, physiological and behavioral effects of threat and

challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 56, 248–260.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995).

Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional

clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multilevel

analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work

determined by factors at the group level or the individual level?

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182–190.

Vollrath, M. (2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 42, 335–347.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1998). Situation effects and levels of

analysis in the study of leader participation. In F. Dansereau &

F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multilevel approach

(pp. 145–159). London, UK: JAI Press.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of situation in

leadership. American Psychology, 2, 17–24.

Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance

and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence.

Academy of Management Review, 19, 312–330.

Wagner, S. E. (2006). Staff retention from ‘‘satisfied’’ to

‘‘engaged’’. Nursing Management, 37, 25–29.

Wang, J. (2005). Work stress as risk factor for major depressive

episode(s). Psychological Medicine, 35, 865–871.

Watson, C. A. (2002). Understanding the factors that influence

nurses’ job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration,

32(5), 229–231.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament:

General and specific factors of emotional experience and their

relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60,

441–476.

Wayne, J. H., Musica, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the

role of personality in the work-family experience. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An

integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation

in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

51, 355–424.

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big Five

personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality

and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530.

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, D. (2004). When

conscientiousness isn’t enough: Emotional exhaustion and call

volume performance among call center customer service

representatives. Journal of Management, 30, 149–160.

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of

participation in decision making in the organizational politics-

job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341–358.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002).

The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on

job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164–169.

Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea

whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

24, 437–442.

Wright, B. E., & Kim, S. (2004). Participation’s influence on job

satisfaction: The importance of job characteristics. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 24, 18–40.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.

B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-

resources model. International Journal of Stress Management,

14, 121–141.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper

Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Anderson, K.

S. (2006). The interactive effects of positive affect and

conscientiousness on strain. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 11, 281–289.

Original manuscript received March 2011

Revised manuscript received July 2012

First published online August 2012

294 BENOLIEL AND SOMECH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 1

3:28

08

July

201

4