Participative Decision Making Gooddddddddddddd

http://eaq.sagepub.com/

QuarterlyEducational Administration

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/46/2/174The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1094670510361745

2010 46: 174Educational Administration QuarterlyAnit SomechOutcomes

Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-Moderating

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

University Council for Educational Administration

at: can be foundEducational Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

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

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

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

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

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/46/2/174.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of Haifa Library on August 3, 2010eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/46/2/174

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ucea.org

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

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

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

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

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/46/2/174.refs.html


Article

Educational Administration Quarterly46(2) 174 –209

© The University Council for Educational Administration 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1094670510361745 http://eaq.sagepub.com

Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-Moderating Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher Outcomes

Anit Somech1

Abstract

The increasing emergence of participation in decision making (PDM) in schools reflects the widely shared belief that flatter management and decentralized authority structures carry the potential for promoting school effectiveness. However, the literature indicates a discrepancy between the intuitive appeal of PDM and empirical evidence in respect of its sweeping advantages. The purpose of this theoretical article is to develop a comprehensive model for understanding the distinct impacts of PDM on school and teachers’ outcomes. The proposed analytical framework is set within contingency theory and is aimed to predict the distinct impacts of PDM on school outcomes: innovation, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and productivity; and on teacher outcomes: job satisfaction and strain. It contains mediator-moderator components, where the mediator factors explain the relationship between PDM and school and teacher outcomes and the moderator factors influence the strength and/or the direction of these relationships.

1University of Haifa, Hafia, ISRAEL

Corresponding Author:Anit Somech, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 31905, ISRAELEmail: [email protected]



Somech 175

Specifically, the framework suggests that two mechanisms, one motivational and one cognitive, serve as mediators in the PDM-outcomes relationship. Then, by taking a multilevel perspective, the author posits moderators that may facilitate or inhibit the PDM effect: teacher personality (the Big Five personality characteristics) at the individual level, principal-teacher exchange (leader-member exchange; LMX) at the dyadic level, structure (bureaucratic/organic) at the school level, and culture (individualism/collectivism) at the environmental level.

Keywords

PDM, school effectiveness, contingency theory, multilevel model, teachers

Participative decision making (PDM) is still a central theme of research, policy, and practice in business organizations (e.g., Chen & Tjosvold, 2006) as well as in schools (Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Pounder, 1997; San Antonio & Gamage, 2007; Somech, 2002; Walker, 2000). This theme has been the sub-ject of extensive research for more than 30 years in education, as exemplified in the seminal work of Conway (1984); Conley, Schmidle, and Shedd (1988); Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, and Bauer (1990); and Smylie (1992). These scholars embraced the notion that flatter management and decentralized author-ity structures carry the potential for achieving outcomes unattainable under schools’ traditional top-down bureaucratic structure.

The increasing emergence of PDM may be even more crucial today, when schools struggle to reinvent themselves to respond to a growing demand for flexibility, concern for quality, and the requirement of a high degree of com-mitment by teachers to their work (Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, & Marshall, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Scholars and practitioners often conclude that the problems facing schools are too great for any one person to solve alone. Involving teachers in the decision-making process offers a variety of poten-tial benefits, which can generate the social capacity necessary for excellent schools: improving the quality of the decisions (e.g., Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1995), enhancing teacher motivation (e.g., Taylor & Tashakkori, 1997), and contributing to the quality of their work life (e.g., Somech, 2002).

Still, a discrepancy exists between the endorsements and the intuitive appeal of participative methods and empirical evidence regarding its sweeping advantages. The purpose of this article is to develop an analytical framework for understanding the distinct impacts of PDM on school outcomes: innovation, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and productivity; and on teacher outcomes: job satisfaction and strain (see Figure 1). The analytical framework



176 EducationalAdministrationQuarterly46(2)

contains mediator-moderator components, where the mediator factors exp-lain the relationship between PDM and school and teacher outcomes and the moderator factors influence the strength and/or the direction of these rela-tionships. Specifically, the framework suggests that two mechanisms, one motivational and one cognitive, serve as mediators in the PDM-outcomes rela-tionship, namely, PDM arouses teacher cognitive and motivational mechanisms, which in turn promote school and teacher outcomes. Then, taking a multi-level perspective I posit moderators that may facilitate or inhibit the PDM effect: teacher’s personality (the Big Five personality characteristics of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) at the individual level, principal-teacher exchange (leader-member exchange, LMX) at the dyadic level, structure (bureaucratic/organic) at the school level, and culture (individualism/collectivism) at the environmental level. Note that all variables might be considered in terms of a continuum and not as either/or binary variables. The article closes with a discussion, arising from the model, on directions for future research and implications for policy makers and administrators in the educational system.

CognitiveMechanism

MotivationalMechanism

PDM

Higher levels of moderators

Organizational level (school): structure (bureaucratic/organic)

Environmental level (nation): national culture (individualism/collectivism)

Basic levels of moderators

Individual level (teacher): teacher’s personality (the Big Five)

Dyadic level (principal-teacher): Leader-Member exchange (LMX)

School Outcomes

- Productivity

- Innovation

- OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior (OCB)

- Job satisfaction- Strain

Teachers’ Outcomes

Figure 1. A multilevel model of participative decision making (PDM) for schools



Somech 177

Toward a Comprehensive Analytical Framework of Participative Management

As participative decision making has become a popular theme, the definitions and meanings of the term have grown diverse and the concept remains surrounded by confusion (Brouillette, 1997; Somech, 2002). Although some studies have begun to explore the conceptualization and operationalization of the construct itself, no consensus as yet exists on the nature and meaning of PDM (Brouillette, 1997; Sagie & Aycan, 2003). For the purposes of this article, I choose to adopt the com-prehensive definition of Heler, Pusic, Strauss, and Wilpert (1998):

Participation is the totally of forms, i.e. direct (personal) or indirect (through representatives or institutions) and of intensities; i.e., rang-ing from minimal to comprehensive, by which individuals, groups, collectives secure their interest or contribute to the choice process through self-determined choices among possible actions during the decision process. (p. 42)

In the framework of Dachler and Wilpert (1978) and McCaffrey, Faerman, and Hart (1995), PDM has four central properties. First, participation is a formal intervention strategy usually manifested through management policy. Second, it includes the direct involvement of parties—as opposed to their representation, although the level of involvement can vary considerably. Third, the role of the involved parties is more than advisory: They have the right to make, or heavily influence, the final decision. Fourth, the participative systems engage in important issues, and the parties involved regard the issues as important.

The concept of PDM is only one of a wider set of interests pursued by others researching distributed (e.g., Gronn, 2002), shared (e.g., Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), dispersed (e.g., Ray, Clegg, & Gordon, 2004), or collective (e.g., Leithwood & Mascall, 2008) leadership, all of which describe the man-agerial approach of shared influence in decision making. In addition, this construct shares a close conceptual kinship with the ideas of professional learning communities (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Lavie, 2006), or learn-ing organizations (Harris & van Tassell, 2005).

MythandReality:TheImpactofPDMonSchoolandTeacherOutcomesThe significance of PDM research lies in the links to its outcomes (Scott-Ladd et al., 2006). The general organizational literature reveals that most




studies have lauded PDM as the best approach in contemporary organizational management (e.g., Armstrong, 2004; Witt, Andrews, & Kacmar, 2000). However, empirically, reviews demonstrating that PDM actually improves organizational and employees’ outcomes remain inconclusive (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Some quantitative reviews have reported moderately positive relationships between PDM and certain outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover (e.g., Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Miller & Monge, 1986). Others have not found these positive effects (e.g., Wagner, 1994; Wagner & Gooding, 1987a, 1987b). Wagner and Gooding (1987a) perused the studies cited by Miller and Monge (1986) and found that 90% involved one source and one data collection method and employed a cross-sectional design, hence might have been subject to bias. Wagner (1994) reanalyzed Cotton and his coauthors’ (1988) study using meta-analysis and found that the overall effect of PDM on job performance and job satisfaction was positive but small, especially when the unisource studies were omitted. That is, studies using self-report measures showed a much closer association between participation and outcomes than studies using operational indicators of outcomes.

After reviewing the educational literature, Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-Conyers (1996) suggested three explanations for the lack of consistent and conclusive evidence about the impact of PDM. First they noted that the wide variety of structures, foci, and processes that characterize participa-tive initiatives yielded very different outcomes. Second, concerning the level of implementation, even the best designed participative structures were not likely to achieve their anticipated outcomes unless they were well executed over a substantial period of time and were provided with adequate resources. Third, as mentioned earlier regarding the general organizational literature, a relatively small proportion of the educational literature employed systematic empirical investigations—either qualitative or quantitative—with identifi-able questions for inquiry, specified methodologies, and collection and analysis of original data. In addition to Smylie et al. (1996) explanations, previous studies (e.g., Somech, 2005, 2006) have suggested that the effect of PDM might be criterion dependent. For example, Somech (2006) found that PDM has a positive effect on innovation but no significant effect on performance.

From the aforementioned review, the overwhelming disposition of the lit-erature on participative decision making is far from expressing a universal truth (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Recent literature (e.g., Latham & Pinder, 2005) has advanced a contingency theory to resolve some of the inconsistent and contradictory results. The contingency model theory (Vroom & Jago, 1998) suggests that no single model of management is appropriate for all employees



Somech 179

in all organizations or contexts. By its nature, effective managerial practice varies with the particular situation at hand, so its effectiveness is deemed con-tingent on the nature of these situational influences (Vroom & Jago, 1998). Accordingly, the practical question “Is PDM effective?” has no simple answer; its impact varies across context and time, or according to the selected criterion for effectiveness. Specifically, the proposed analytical framework suggests that the effectiveness of PDM depends on the selected outcome (school outcomes of productivity, innovation, and OCB; teacher outcomes of satisfaction and strain). Furthermore, the impact of PDM depends on the characteristics of the teacher (the Big Five personality characteristics), the quality of the principal-teacher relationship (LMX), the characteristics of the school (bureaucratic/organic), and the characteristics of its environment (individualism/collectivism).TheImpactofPDMonSchoolOutcomesExplicitly or implicitly, PDM carries an expectation of enhanced school functioning and outcomes. By a “pragmatic” or “human relations” rationale, PDM is considered instrumental in achieving productivity, efficiency, innova-tion, or other valued school results (e.g., Boyle, Boyle, & Brown, 1999; Brouillette, 1997; Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002; Wall & Rinehart, 1998). The present analytical framework refers to two groups of outcomes: of the school and of teachers. For the former, I focus on three well-known variables: productivity, innovation, and organizational citizenship behavior. These were chosen because they tap into the different dimensions of school outcomes and represent the tension that schools endure when attempting “out-of-the-box” thinking and behavior while managing routine in-role duties (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). Yet they might be a critical criterion for evaluat-ing school functioning from the school’s viewpoint as it affects the school’s competitiveness but a poor criterion from the teacher’s viewpoint. Current literature (e.g., Quick & Quick, 2004; Wright 2003) emphasizes the impor-tance of teacher well-being as a crucial criterion for evaluating school’s functioning. Recent studies (e.g., Drach-Zahavy, Somech, Granot, & Spitzer, 2004; Mikkelsen, 2000) have called for more exploration of the trade-off effects between health hazards and school functioning in designing manage-rial practices. Accordingly, I added two more variables: teacher’s job satisfaction and teacher’s strain.

School productivity. The educational literature reveals that teachers have been the major subjects in investigations of the association of participation and productivity, and most attention has focused on the effects of PDM on teacher in-role performance at the classroom level. In-role performance is “behaviors which are required or expected as part of performing the duties




and responsibilities of the assigned role” (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995, p. 222). Theoretically, PDM can promote teacher productivity directly and indirectly (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Directly, it is thought to improve the quality of educational decision making by giving administra-tors access to critical information close to the source of the problems of schooling, namely, the classroom (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). In addition, the participation process helps ensure that unanticipated problems that arise during work can be tackled directly and immediately by those affected by the problem (Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997). Furthermore, because teachers have an opportunity to be involved in and to exert influence on decision-making pro-cesses, their participation is believed to increase willingness to implement them in class, hence to promote educational productivity (Griffin, 1995; Hoy & Trater, 1993). Indirect benefits have generally been higher levels of teacher morale and job satisfaction, manifested in less absence and tardiness as well as reduced interpersonal conflict (De Dreu, 2006), which in turn may raise levels of performance.

Like studies of productivity in the business sector, research on productiv-ity outcomes of PDM in schools generally yields equivocal conclusions. Some studies indicate that participation is positively related to teacher per-formance in class (e.g., Gebert, Boerner & Lanwehr, 2003; San Antonio & Gamage, 2007), others that it may not lead to any meaningful change at the classroom level, or can even be a source of stress for teachers hence lead to a lowering of teacher performance (e.g., Sato, Hyler, & Monte-Sano, 2002). Yet other studies suggest that the link between PDM and productivity is not linear, that is, midlevel participation is the best practice for improving teacher performance (Conway, 1984).

Schoolinnovation. Schools face a highly competitive and dynamic environ-ment, which necessitates flexibility and fast adaptation to new situations and changing contexts (De Dreu, 2006; Koka, Madhavan, & Prescott, 2006), so innovation has become a vital asset to ensure school sustainability. School innovation is defined here as the intentional introduction and application in the school of new ideas, processes, products, or procedures designed to benefit it significantly (West & Wallace, 1991). Proponents of PDM (e.g., Murphy & Beck, 1995; West, 2002) see participative administrators as seeking to encour-age teachers to discover new opportunities and challenges and to learn through acquiring, sharing, and combining knowledge (cf. Edmondson, 1999). The research literature (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001) suggests that participation is critical for the school’s ability to turn new ideas and individually held knowl-edge into innovative procedures, services, and products.



Somech 181

As Cohen and Levinthal (1990) noted, participation of teachers each pos-sessing diverse and different knowledge will augment the school’s capacity for making novel linkages and associations beyond what any individual can achieve. Innovation needs the absorptive capacity to recognize, assimilate, and apply creative ideas. This capacity will be higher when teachers partici-pate in decision making (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997; Peterson, 1997; West, 2002). Teachers in participative environments can increase the pool of ideas, materials, and methods (Somech, 2006). Participation in the decision-making process might also encourage teachers to experiment with innovative practices in curriculum and pedagogy (Firestone & Pennell, 1993).

Empirical research yields generally consistent evidence of a positive link between PDM and innovation (e.g., Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, & Sebring, 1993; Somech, 2006; Wong, 1994). For example, O’Hara (2001) examined the effects of leadership style on innovation; 64 teams were instructed to perform some type of school/community service project, and independent judges rated them on two dimensions: how creative and how worthwhile. Overall, the results indicated that a more participative style produced more creative and more worthwhile projects than a directive style. Similarly, Somech (2006) found that strong emphasis on the participative management approach encouraged teachers to engage more in innovative practices at the school level (whole school projects) as well as at the class level (curriculum and pedagogy).

Organizationalcitizenshipbehavior. Operating under changing circumstances, schools are necessarily becoming more dependent on teachers who are will-ing to contribute to school, regardless of formal job requirements (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). These nonprescribed organizationally beneficial behaviors are known as organizational citizenship behavior. OCB is defined here as those behaviors that go beyond specified role requirements and are directed toward students, colleagues, and supervisors, or the school as a unit, in order to pro-mote organizational goals (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000).

Theoretically, PDM is linked to OCB in a number of ways (Bogler & Somech, 2005). First, recent literature (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bacharach, 2000; Tepper & Taylor, 2003) suggests that teachers perform OCBs more frequently when they perceive as fair the means by which their schools and their representatives make allocation decisions (i.e., procedural justice). Teacher participation can enhance a sense of fairness and trust in the school because they can defend their own interests and because they get information on the shaping of decisions to which they would not otherwise be privy. This sense of fairness enhances teacher willingness to engage in OCBs (VanYperen, Van den Berg, & Willering, 1999). Second, because




teachers understand work processes and challenges better than administra-tors or policy makers, their participation ensures that better information will be available for making decisions to facilitate a better performance (Conley & Bacharach, 1990). Teachers who view their school as behaving in their inter-est should experience greater job satisfaction, but also act to return the favor by exhibiting more OCBs (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Third, participa-tion, especially in managerial issues, which deals with school operations and administration (e.g., setting school goals, hiring staff, allocating budget, evaluating teachers), widens the teacher focus from the immediate outcomes in their own classrooms to the organization as a whole. Through participation and the exercise of influence, teachers develop an organizational system approach, which expands their perspectives beyond their formal role (Senge, 1990, 1993). This approach may thereby lead them to invest extra effort in the school, namely, OCBs, such as volunteering for roles and tasks that are not obligatory (Somech & Bogler, 2002).

A review of the educational literature revealed two studies on the link between PDM and teacher OCB (Bogler & Somech, 2004; Somech & Bogler, 2002). Consistent with research in private organizations (e.g., VanYperen et al., 1999), their findings demonstrated a positive link between PDM and OCB. Teachers who were invited to participate in decision making on issues related to the school as an organization tended to exhibit higher levels of OCBs toward their students and colleagues and toward the school as a whole.TheImpactofPDMonTeacherOutcomesAnother pragmatic rationale of PDM was its contribution to the quality of the teacher’s work life. It was argued (Conley et al., 1988) that teacher’s partici-pation in school governance could serve as a form of “job enlargement” to offset the traditional lack of career advancement opportunities and incentives for teachers (Duke & Gansneder, 1990). Maeroff (1988) maintained that PDM was essential for the teacher’s self-esteem and status.

Teacher’s job satisfaction. Participative studies have usually concentrated on the relationship of participation to job satisfaction, which is defined here as positive teacher attitudes and beliefs regarding several aspects of the job or the profession (Organ, 1990). Affective models see this link as crucial (Kim, 2002). Researchers in the tradition of McGregor (1960), Likert (1967), and Coch and French (1948) still assert strongly the importance of participa-tion in causing affective changes in workers. They predict that participation will influence satisfaction in a wide variety of situations.

Evidence from general organization suggests that PDM increases employ-ees’ job satisfaction (Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002; Witt et al., 2000). Locke and Schweiger (1979) reviewed laboratory



Somech 183

studies, correlational studies, and univariate and mulitivariate field studies and concluded that with respect to satisfaction the results generally favored participative over directive methods, although nearly 40% of the studies did not find participation superior. Later, Miller and Monge (1986) conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that PDM was positively associated with job satisfaction. Wagner’s (1994) meta-analysis suggests that PDM exerts a sta-tistically significant effect on satisfaction, but the average size of this effect is so small as to query its practical significance.

A review of the educational literature demonstrated a positive link between PDM and teacher job satisfaction (e.g., Taylor & Tashakkori, 1997). Most PDM research in the educational setting used a discrepancy approach, which is probably related to the discrepancy theory introduced by Morse and Reimer (1956). When applied to participation, it takes the form of the amount of participation desired versus the actual participation perceived as occurring. Discrepancies in a given number of decision areas provide a measure of how satisfied the teacher is with his or her level of decision participation (Conway, 1984). For example, Taylor and Tashakkori (1997) identified four types of teachers: empowered: those who want to participate and do; disenfranchised: those who want to participate but do not; involved: those who do not want to participate but do; and disengaged: those who do not want to participate and do not. Overall, the results indicated that most teachers expressed a relatively strong desire to participate, and teachers declaring the greatest job satisfac-tion were those who reported high levels of actual participation.

Teacher’sstrain. Strains are harmful and maladaptive reactions to stressors. Teaching as a typical people-contact profession is exposed to a variety of stressful events and circumstances (Miller, Ellis, Zook, & Lyles, 1990), which may impact teacher physical and psychological well-being. Research findings suggest that exposure to job stress increases the probability of high blood pressure and larger heart mass; it is estimated that almost one half of all employee absences involve workers under stress (Slate & Vogel, 1997). While the personal effects of stress can be devastating to the individual, schools are also negatively impacted. Stress can prove costly in terms of decreased productivity, turnover, health care costs, and absenteeism (Wright, 2003).

In research on job enrichment, leading thinkers have viewed high PDM as functional for schools and their members. The magnitude of the motivating potential inherent in job enrichment is commonly regarded as a motivator rather than a stressor (Xie & Johns, 1995). Communication serves a critical role in many stress models in terms of reducing the experience of strain. The type of communication often considered effective is participative decision




making (Miller et al., 1990). Two theoretical frameworks are particularly useful in considering it: social information processing theory and uncertainty reduction theory. The former, developed by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), sug-gests that job attitudes can be best understood in terms of the “informational and social environment within which behavior occurs and to which it adapts” (p. 226). The applicability of this approach to the study of stress rests on the conceptualization of strain as a job attitude that could be influenced by the communication of salient others, particularly supervisors and coworkers. In this vein, Miller and Monge (1986) and Zalesny and Farace (1987) suggest that participative decision making can provide information that aids people in interpreting and dealing with stressful situations.

The uncertainty reduction theory, proposed by Berger and Calabrese (1975), posits that the need to reduce uncertainty provides a compelling explanation for social behavior in developing relationships. Sutton and Kahn (1987) pro-posed that control is a crucial determinant of well-being in the organizational context. They consider PDM a means to increase control, which in turn can reduce strain and burnout, and suggest that through participation teachers can actually reduce the level of stressful characteristics. The role of control in reduc-ing strain is also an essential feature in the demand-control model of Karasek (1979). This analytical framework proposes that as perceptions of control increase, job strain is expected to be lower. Participation can also serve to increase control by changing the meaning of stressors that cannot be eliminated. PDM has been found to influence stress in studies considering perceptions of influ-ence and actual participation and empowerment (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Carless, 2004; Probst, 2005; Slate & Vogel, 1997).

However, this line of research ignores the potentially negative impacts of PDM on teacher well-being. Studies (e.g., Dwyer & Fox, 2000; Jarvis, 2002; Sato et al., 2002; Xie & Johns, 1995) point out that job enlargement could be a source of stress that leads to additional strain. Very few studies have exam-ined the possibility that participation can generate stress when present in high levels. For example, Haimovich (2006) found that teachers who evaluated PDM as threatening showed deterioration in their well-being and health, whereas teachers perceiving PDM as challenging evinced improvement in theirs. French, Caplan, and Van Harrison (1982) found that high responsibility for others was associated with stress. Similarly, Schaubroeck and Ganster (1991) determined that heavy mental demands and socially complex demands were associated with stress.

In sum, the inconsistent findings on the relation of PDM to employees’ strain might lead to the conclusion that it is not linear. Xie and Johns (1995) suggested a curvilinear relationship (U-shaped) between job enrichment



Somech 185

and strain: with low level of participative decision making, stress may arise from a lack of meaningfulness and control at work; with high level of participation, stress may arise from the limits (or perceived limits) of human adaptability for respon-sibility, time pressure, and work load. In terms of Johnson’s (1992) notion of constraints on behavior and attitudes, an individual’s preference for elevated job enrichment might be motivated by needs but also constricted by ability.

TheMediatingRoleoftheMotivationalandtheCognitiveMechanismsintheRelationshipofPDMtoSchoolandTeacherOutcomes

Theories have advanced a variety of models to account for the effect of PDM on school and teacher outcomes; each proposes mechanisms through which participation exercises its effects. The literature (e.g., Miller & Monge, 1986) differentiates two main types of models: motivational (affective) and cognitive.MotivationalModelsMost past research has implicitly or explicitly focused on PDM as a motiva-tional technique, as a means of raising job satisfaction, which in turn fosters school outcomes (Durham et al., 1997). The idea that happy teachers are also productive teachers (the “happy-productive worker hypothesis”) has a long history, starting with the human relations movement in the 1920s (Taris, 2006). This movement was largely responsible for the increased attention paid to participation in organizations over the past several decades. As an outgrowth of the human relations movement, the participative decision-mak-ing movement focuses on the needs of employees and posits organizations’ responsibility to meet them. This perspective proposes that participation will lead to greater attainment of high-order needs, such as self-expression, respect, interdependence, and equality (McCaffrey et al., 2001), which in turn will elevate morale and satisfaction; and improving employee satisfac-tion should result in higher organizational outcomes (Fisher, 2003; Taris, 2006). The cycle is reinforced when individuals whose needs are satisfied put in greater effort toward achieving organizational goals, which then enhances satisfaction outcomes (Scott-Ladd et al., 2006). However, no empirically strong or theoretically compelling relationship between job satisfaction and organizational outcomes is apparent.

With respect to the educational setting, the literature suggests that PDM promotes school and teacher outcomes through two motivational mechanisms: organizational commitment and teacher empowerment (Somech, 2005). First,




the motivational factor of commitment corroborates motivational theories that emphasize identification and self-control as central motivational factors (Latham & Pinder, 2005). PDM provides teachers the opportunity to be involved in and exert influence on decision-making processes. Their partici-pation is believed to promote commitment to the decisions that are made and to increase willingness to execute them in their work. Therefore, active partici-pation enhances involvement and commitment, because individuals tend to place greater trust in, and accept more readily, information discovered by themselves (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Fullan, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). For example, Evers (1990) suggested that the success of teacher participation might lie in the sense of ownership they enjoy through the initiation of ideas, as opposed to responding to the proposals of others.

Empowerment as a motivational construct is manifested in four dimen-sions (meaningfulness, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact; Spreitzer, 1995) and corresponds to an intrinsic need for self-determination (e.g., Wilson & Coolican, 1996) or a belief in individual efficacy (e.g., Short, Greer, & Melvin, 1994). Accordingly, PDM, which gives teachers more input into the decision-making process, enhances teacher sense of control (autonomy) on the job (Aryee & Chen, 2006) and validates their professionalism (Firestone & Pennell, 1993); these constitute the foremost component of empowerment. Moreover, when teachers are actively called to participate in decision making, their doing so ensures that better information will be available for making decisions that facilitate successful teaching, and this might strengthen their sense of self-efficacy and self-determination (Blase & Blase, 1996; Short & Greer, 1997). Overall, as previous authors suggest (e.g., Edmondson, 1999), participation might satisfy human growth needs of self-determination and self-actualization, and through these mechanisms promote school and teacher outcomes.

Evidence on the role of teacher organizational commitment and empower-ment as motivational mediators in the relationship of PDM to school and teacher outcomes is inconsistent. For example, Wu and Short (1996) found a positive link between PDM and teacher commitment. However, Somech (2005), who examined the link of PDM to teacher organizational commitment and to empowerment simultaneously, found that although a positive relation existed between commitment and empowerment, PDM was significantly and positively associated with teacher empowerment, but no significant relation-ship was found between PDM and organizational commitment. Accordingly, the author concluded that teacher empowerment serves as a motivational mech-anism that mediates the relation of the participative approach to school and teacher outcomes.



Somech 187

CognitiveModelsMore recently, scholars have suggested that the most consistent benefits of PDM lie in the cognitive realm (Durham et al., 1997; Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994; Sagie et al., 2002; Scully et al., 1995). Cognitive models suggest that PDM is a viable strategy because it enhances the flow and use of impor-tant information in organizations (Guzzo, 1996). Theories supporting such models (Durham et al., 1997) propose that teachers typically have more com-plete knowledge of their work than management; so if teachers participate in decision making, decisions will be made with a better pool of information. Teacher participation is thought to give administrators access to critical infor-mation closest to the source of many problems of schooling, namely, the classroom. Increased access to and use of this information are thought to improve the quality of curricular and instructional decisions (Smylie et al., 1996).

Cognitive models likewise suggest that if teachers participate in decision making they will know more about implementing work procedures after deci-sions have been made (Sagie et al., 2002). Accordingly, participation encourages teachers to discover new opportunities and challenges, to learn through acquir-ing, sharing, and combining knowledge (cf. Edmondson, 1999; West, 2002). This process includes clarification of problems, information seeking, data sharing, resonance of ideas, and synthesis of viewpoints (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Sagie et al., 2002), which in turn may promote cooperation and collaboration that foster educative exchanges among teachers and administrators about matters of curriculum and instruc-tion. Participative processes may engage teachers in the types of open and collaborative interactions most conducive to learning and change (Smylie et al., 1996). Consequently, these cognitive mechanisms have the potential to promote school and teacher outcomes. Latham et al. (1994) and Durham et al. (1997) demonstrated that even where no motivational effect of PDM is present, the cognitive processes help in enhancing organizational and employ-ees’ outcomes.

In sum, the motivational and the cognitive models are not mutually exclu-sive, but each emphasizes a different explanatory mechanism, and all play important roles in the participative process.

ModeratorsintheRelationshipofPDMtoSchoolandTeacheroutcomesThe inconsistent findings concerning the relation of PDM to school and teacher outcomes might also be explained by the absence (or presence) of moderating variables (Latham & Pinder, 2005). According to Yammarino




and Dubinsky’s (1994) view that “well-formulated theoretical models include not only variables and relationships among variables, but also the boundaries or domains within, which the theory is expected to hold” (p. 787), this argument is consistent with the contingency theory framework (Vroom & Jago, 1998). This theory holds that the effects of PDM cannot be studied without a broader view embracing contingent factors of the overall situation (e.g., Latham & Pinder, 2005). For the current model, I identified four factors deemed to inter-vene in the relationship of PDM and school and teacher outcomes: an individual factor of teacher’s personality (the Big Five), a dyadic factor of principal-teacher exchange (LMX), an intraorganizational factor of structure (bureaucratic/organic), and an environmental factor of national culture (individualism/collectivism). The criterion that makes my chosen moderators appropriate for consideration as affecting the relationship is that they tap into the primary levels of research significant for management, the target of influence: the teacher at the individual level, the teacher-principal relationship at the dyadic level, nested in the school that in turn is embedded in the school environment (van Knippenberg, 2003). Clearly, other potential moderators exist that might moderate the relationship between PDM and school and teacher out-comes (e.g., demographic variables, manager’s characteristics, environmental characteristics); but the purpose here is to illustrate how PDM might affect school and teacher outcomes from a multilevel perspective.TheIndividualLevel:Teacher’sPersonality(theBigFive)Current research shows that personality is the primary predictor of elements of motivation (Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Weichmann, 2003) as well as a predictor of organizational and employees’ outcomes (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Moss & Ngu, 2006). According to the person-situation interactionist model (Tett & Burnett, 2003), teachers seek out and are satisfied with tasks, people, and job characteristics that afford them the opportunity to express an array of personality traits. An ideal work setting, they argue, is one that affords the teacher cues for trait expression per se and one where trait-expressive behav-ior is valued positively by others. In fact, a review of the literature (e.g., French et al., 1982; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lim & Cheng, 1999; Thoms, Pinto, Parente, & Druskat, 2002) reveals that a better fit between personality and situational factors should positively influence job attitudes and teacher behav-iors, whereas a misfit should influence these outcomes negatively.

In this vein, several studies focused on identifying which personality rep-resents a good match with the participative decision-making process (e.g., Benoliel, 2007). The five-factor model of personality, commonly referred to as the Big Five in the personality literature, has become the predominant model for specifying personality structure (Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1999).



Somech 189

These five personality characteristics are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Con-scientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience.

Extraversion. Extraverted people seek out the company of others and prefer a high level of social interaction with a wide variety of people (Sak, 2004). Working in a participative management environment tends to foster more interaction among team members and requires individuals who have robust social skills (Lawler, 1992). Therefore, highly extraverted teachers who derive their energy from other people and are drained by being alone (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001) may be more positively affected by PDM than intro-verted teachers.

Agreeableness. Agreeableness involves getting along with others in pleas-ant, satisfying relationships (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and an inclination to work harmoniously (Carson & Lowman, 2002). Earlier research found that agreeableness is a good predictor of job performance in situations where joint action and interpersonal relationships are needed (Judge et al., 2002). The work environment of PDM is characterized as one with a fairly high level of interpersonal interaction, which requires tolerance, selflessness, and flexibility that are in concert with a personality high on agreeableness (Witt & Burke, 2003).

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to the extent to which indi-viduals are organized, thorough, responsible, disciplined, motivated, and ambitious (Goldberg, 1992). Conscientious teachers enjoy opportunities to fulfill their higher-order needs, such as more challenging, meaningful, and responsible work (Gellatly, 1996). PDM gives teachers more responsibility and also inherently signals that the school recognizes that he or she can make important contributions to it (Luthans, 1995). Thus, high conscientious teachers, who have higher expectations and themselves set higher goals (Gellatly, 1996), may be more positively affected by PDM than low consci-entious teachers.

Neuroticism. The general tendency to experience negative affect, such as fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust, is the core of the neurotic domain (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Teachers high in neuroticism experience more strain in their interactions with others and perceive daily events more negatively (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). Szymura and Wodniecka (2003) reported that when individuals undertook more demanding tasks, higher levels of neuroticism were associated with worse task performance and higher level of strain. The variety of demands that arise in a participative management environment, such as interpersonal relationships, collaboration, and responsibility for others (Thoms et al., 2002), might be perceived by neurotic teachers as a threat and thus increases their probability of feeling




negative affect in response (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Suls, 2001) and might lead to low levels of performance (Spreitzer, 2007).

OpennesstoExperience. Openness to experience refers to intellectual curi-osity and a preference for variety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This portrayal suggests that teachers high in openness to experience might be especially and positively receptive to PDM, which challenges traditional practices, institutes autonomy, calls for openness to new suggestions or ideas, and sets innovative objectives (West, 2002). A shared decision-making process is also likely to provide open-minded teachers the opportunity to experience the variety they seek, which should afford them satisfaction as they can express this need (Tett & Burnett, 2003). As such, PDM accords with a personality highly open to experience.

The literature yielded one study, by Benoliel (2007), on the moderator role of the Big Five among teachers. Overall, her findings indicated that the impact of PDM on school and teacher outcomes was contingent in nature, and the personality dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism served as moderators in the relationships between PDM and teacher performance, job satisfaction, and strain. However, no moderating effect of openness to experience was found. In sum, a better fit between per-sonality and PDM has a positive influence on school and teacher outcomes.TheDyadicLevel:Principal-TeacherExchange(LMX)The basic premise of the LMX theory (leader-member exchange) is that supervisors establish fairly stable differential dyadic relationships with their subordinates, ranging from high quality to low. Underlining notions of social exchange, reciprocity, and equity (cf. Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002), a high-quality relationship is characterized by high levels of trust, mutual sup-port, information exchange, and greater negotiating latitude, while a low-quality relationship is characterized by restricted support and more formal and limited interactions.

Previous research (e.g., Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Fu, 1999) has indicated that for effective outcomes, PDM requires some extent of trust between principal and teacher, agreement on job issues, and leader’s perceptions of compe-tence. Therefore, according to the LMX model, teachers experiencing the reciprocal trust characteristic of high-quality exchanges with their immediate supervisors tend to appreciate the opportunity to participate (Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002), which in turn fosters their job satisfaction and performance. Teachers experiencing low-quality exchanges with their imme-diate supervisors, which are characterized by top-down influence, restricted support, and more formal and limited interactions, might be less content with such an opportunity. Consequently, the latter teachers may undergo decreasing



Somech 191

job satisfaction and performance and increasing job strain. Hence the advan-tage of PDM depends on the pattern of the teacher-principal relationship (Ardichvili, 2001). One study on the interactive effect of LMX among teach-ers was conducted by Somech and Wenderow (2006), which focused only on one outcome: teacher’s performance. Although a positive relationship was indicated between participation and teacher’s performance, regardless of LMX level, these authors found that nonparticipative leadership was posi-tively associated with teacher performance in a low-quality LMX relationship. They concluded that teachers who develop low-quality relationships with their principals do not expect to be part of the participation process. Therefore, nonparticipative practice, which is characterized by a top-down influence and more formal and limited interactions, might be more appropriate to pro-mote those teacher performances than the practice of participation.TheOrganizationalLevel:SchoolStructure(Bureaucratic/Organic)An organization’s design features the integrating and coordinating mecha-nisms necessary to accomplish its primary task; decision making is the human behavior inherent in these mechanisms (Neumann, 1989). The main purpose of organizational design is to maintain a fit of strategy, organizing mode, and individuals (Neumann, 1989). The literature identified two main designs: the bureaucratic and the organic (e.g., Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2000; Lee & Loeb, 2000). In bureaucratic organizations, efforts are directed to the cre-ation of certainty through such mechanisms as centralization of authority, routinization of the job’s requirements, and formalization of work through extensive emphasis on documentation and written procedures (Bacharach et al., 1990; Drach-Zahavy et al., 2004). In schools of this kind the instruc-tional programs are more specialized and human relationships are more formal (Lee & Loeb, 2000). While bureaucratic structuring is a mechanism of direct control, the organic approach holds that the job is accomplished by ensuring that teachers are given the resources and opportunities to assume direct responsibility for it. Here, high performance is assured through the teachers being given enough autonomy to do their job, good learning con-ditions, and free access to feedback and by being made to feel that they are rewarded for their own efforts directly (Bacharach et al., 1990; Hackman, 1992).

Researchers have argued that PDM requires a certain context, over and above a set of programs or techniques (Parnell & Crandall, 2001), as the pur-pose of participation is to achieve coherence within and among areas of choices. In bureaucratic schools significant decisions about strategy, policy, and organizing mode may lie outside the arena of participation. The school does not require participation in order to function, and teacher potential con-tribution to it is generally modest; at best PDM serves as a somewhat




noncommittal “channel of communication.” It may make a small contribu-tion to improving the atmosphere or offer some compensation for frustrating aspects of the work situation (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998). Accordingly, a participative scheme that runs parallel to the primary decision-making pro-cesses of the school might have a negative impact on school and teacher outcomes because the participative effort might be perceived as less impor-tant to the organization, or even manipulative on its part. For example, Hecksher’s (1995) interviews with more than 250 managers led him to believe that participation accomplished little and rarely broke down the walls of bureaucracy. He argued that without the redesign of work, employees’ involvement and influence efforts could even have negative effects.

In organic schools the possibilities of PDM are entirely different. The functioning of such schools depends entirely on good vertical as well as hori-zontal participation. Affirmative results are conditional on utilization of all available teacher expertise. PDM is not a mere accessory; it is an integral “coordination mechanism” in the organization (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998). In other words, because the procedures and processes are integrated with the participative effort, teachers will experience a fit of strategies, organizing mode, and managerial practices, which might promote school and teacher out-comes (Neumann, 1989; Sagie 1997).

Overall, schools are considered more bureaucratic than organic organiza-tions, namely, strategic decisions may lie outside the arena of participation. Accordingly, most educational research has indicated that teachers and prin-cipals (e.g., Rice & Schneider, 1994; Somech, 2002) concurred that as part of the norms of school, managerial issues of school operations and adminis-tration fell outside teacher purview while technical issues of students and instruction fell within it. In a “test of relevance” (Rice & Schneider, 1994), most teachers internalized this bureaucratic perspective and evinced greater interest in areas related to in-class issues, of immediate relevance to the teacher’s own classroom, than in areas related to school as a whole (Duke & Gansneder, 1990). So although educational administration research has long stressed the importance of teacher participation in managerial decisions (concerning overall policies and goals), the bureaucratic nature of schools seems to obstruct movement in this direction (e.g., Keedy & Achilles, 1997; Reitzug & Capper, 1996; Somech & Bogler, 2002).TheEnvironmentalLevel:NationalCulture(Individualism/Collectivism)Management scholars have recognized the sociocultural environment as one of the most influential factors explaining the behaviors of individuals and groups in organizations (Dimmock & Walker, 1998; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Sagie & Aycan, 2003). Various conceptualizations of culture suggest that it



Somech 193

consists of values, norms, assumptions, belief systems, and behavioral patterns that differentiate one human group from another (Triandis, 1995). Culture is relevant for understanding the concept of PDM. It provides a backdrop to the power relations and influences that galvanize or constrain people in their inter-actions and performance at work (Maddock, 1999; Somech, 2006). Accordingly, a society’s cultural orientation may strengthen or weaken the impact of the participative approach on various school and teacher outcomes (Sagie, 1997).

The main argument of the cross-cultural perspective (e.g., George & Jones, 1997) is that the advantage of PDM depends on the cultural context in which the principal operates. A match between managerial practices and teacher cultural characteristics is a prerequisite for improving school and teacher out-comes (Ardichvili, 2001). The basic idea is that teachers of diverse cultural orientation hold different perceptions of what a good leader does, so they are influenced differently by their leader’s actions and behaviors (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishi, & Bechtold, 2004). For example, Gerstner and Day (1994) found significant differences among the leadership prototypes rated by par-ticipants from eight countries differing in collectivism-individualism. In Taiwan, which is culturally characterized as collectivistic, the ideal leader was found to be perceived as relations oriented and trustworthy. In the United States, which is characterized as individualistic, the ideal leader was per-ceived as determined and goal oriented. Jung and Avolio (1999) suggested that the congruence between managerial practices and follower’s cultural values influenced followers’ performance and attitudes.

The majority of scholars (e.g., Lam et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995) have iden-tified individualism-collectivism as the most important aspect of culture. Individualism-collectivism is an analytical dimension that captures the rela-tive importance people accord to personal interests and to shared pursuits (Wagner, 1995). Individualistic cultures emphasize self-reliance, autonomy, control, and priority of personal goals, which may or may not be consistent with in-group goals. By contrast, in collective cultures people will subordinate their personal interests to the goals of their in-group. An individual belongs to only a few in-groups, and behavior within the group emphasizes goal attain-ment, cooperation, and group welfare and harmony. Pleasure and satisfaction derive from group accomplishment (Lam et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995).

The implication of these differences is that variations in individualism-collectivism should influence differently the relation of PDM to school and teacher outcomes. For teachers, whose self-definition is interest in personal gain, participation should prove attractive only if working with others brings about personal benefits unobtainable by working alone. In contrast, partici-pation is consistent with the self-definition of collectivists, who favor the




pursuit of group interests. In fostering group performance and well-being, collectivists are likely to seek out and contribute to participative endeavors that benefit their group, irrespective of the immediate personal implications of these endeavors (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003). In fact, such a generalization has some validity, for scholars have shown that collectivists enjoy working together more, are generally more cooperative than individualists, and are less inclined to “free ride” (e.g., Erez & Somech, 1996).

In sum, individualists and collectivists follow different rationalities: Indi-vidualistic rationality dictates doing what is in one’s own best interests, so to the impact of PDM on school and teacher outcomes is determined by the extent to which such actions are in some way instrumental in obtaining per-sonal goals. Collectivistic rationality, in contrast, is concerned with the pursuit of organizational goals and values. Teacher actions are evaluated in terms of their instrumentality in the fulfillment of the needs and preferences of the col-lectivity, so participation may strengthen the positive impact of PDM on school and teacher outcomes (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

Conclusions and Future DirectionsThe increasing emergence of PDM in schools reflects the widely shared belief that flatter management and decentralized authority structures carry the potential for achieving outcomes unattainable by schools’ traditional top-down bureaucratic structure (e.g., Scott-Ladd et al., 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). PDM may be seen as a vital practice in response to the challenges of volatile environments, but it has not always resulted in the outcomes it was designed to produce. This article has addressed the PDM phenomenon by engaging in a comprehensive discussion and inquiry. By taking a contingent perspective, the proposed analytical framework helps us to delineate the complex nature of PDM. Focusing on multiple school outcomes (productiv-ity, innovation, and OCB) and teacher outcomes (job satisfaction and strain) illumines their distinct relationships with PDM. Furthermore, the analytical framework allows us to consider how the situation in hand might constrain or facilitate the participation process. By taking a multilevel perspective I pro-pose that teacher’s personality, LMX, the organizational structure, and the national culture will moderate the relationship between PDM and school and teacher outcomes. Finally, the analytical framework also opens the “black box” by discussing the mechanisms (motivational vs. cognitive) through which par-ticipation exercises its effects.

I believe that the proposed approach has implications for the study of PDM in schools. First, the general conclusion that seems to emerge from the



Mustafa

Cross-Out

Somech 195

present review is that the links between PDM and school and teacher out-comes are context specific. This approach allows us to identify the conditions under which such effectiveness can be realized and to understand how and why the impact of PDM varies in different contexts. This approach is espe-cially important for educational research, which often attributes an augmentation effect to PDM and tends to glorify the precedence of this managerial practice over alternative practices (e.g., more directive management).

Second, by focusing on multiple outcomes, the analytical framework refines our understanding of the distinct relationships between PDM and school and teacher outcomes. Consistent evidence supports the notion that PDM has the potential to contribute to school outcomes of innovation and OCB, but there is no clear evidence as to its positive association with productivity. Regard-ing the relationships between PDM and teacher outcomes, the picture might be even vaguer. Although PDM evinces a positive association with job satis-faction, the overall average size of this effect is so small as to raise concerns about its practical significance. Moreover, initial empirical evidence points to the potential risk of participation on teacher well-being through worsening employees’ strain. This evidence may encourage researchers to explore the potential trade-off effects between teacher health hazards and school out-comes for a better understanding of the impact of PDM in schools. Furthermore, although we suggest that PDM affects school and teacher outcomes, most studies employed a cross-sectional design (Wagner, 1994), therefore, the data could not provide direct evidence of causal links between PDM and its outcomes. Moreover, many of the relationships seem probably reciprocally causal over time. For example, principals will arguably invite more high innovative teachers than low ones to participate in decision making. Longitu-dinal studies are clearly required to explore the nature of these relationships further. Third, the proposed analytical framework adopts a multilevel per-spective for PDM by opening the inquiry to a host of moderators embedded on the individual, dyadic, organizational, and environmental levels. The specified moderators here are only examples of the influence that variables may exert on the relation of PDM to school and teacher outcomes. Future research should extend the inquiry to other moderators, embedded in differ-ent levels of the context (Golden & Veiga, 2005). Collectively, theory has matured to a point where it makes little sense to advance hypotheses that sug-gest “PDM is effective” (or the reverse). But we must also avoid stopping at the simple truism so often heard: “Effective managerial practice depends on the situation.” We must specify what these precise contingencies are and design creative and innovative research studies that will advance our under-standing of the complex phenomenon of PDM (Vroom & Jago, 1998).




Fourth, the proposed analytical framework enhances our understanding of how participation might be related to school and teacher outcomes. The ana-lytical framework suggests that the relationship between PDM and teacher and school outcomes might be mediated through motivational and/or cognitive mechanisms but also demonstrates the advantage of the cognitive mechanism over the motivational mechanism, especially to promote school outcomes (Sagie et al., 2002). This is important because most studies have not attempted to understand the processes by which PDM influences school and teacher outcomes (Yukl & Fu, 1999); but also, theoretically most literature has focused on the motivational explanations and has paid much less attention to the cognitive aspect. To understand the underlying influence processes clearly, further research should fathom the separate role of each mechanism and specify their mutual role in the PDM-outcomes relationship. For example, such research might identify whether the motivational mechanism is the better in promoting teacher outcomes of job satisfaction and in decreasing strain, while the cognitive mechanism has the advantage in furthering school outcomes of productivity, innovation, and OCB. Furthermore, although the proposed analytical framework asserts unidirectional relationships of PDM and cognitive and motivational mechanisms to school and teacher outcomes, reciprocal causality cannot be ruled out and might need closer examination.

The analytical framework presented here also sets a new research agenda for scholars. Most research interprets PDM as a relatively uniform behavior of the principal with all his or her teachers (the average leadership style, ALS, or the between-group approach; e.g., Sagie et al., 2002; Torres, 2000). This approach ignores the repeated calls in the management literature for more attention to the dyadic process, namely, to describe the managerial practice of PDM in terms of the pair relationship between people in leader-ship roles and each of their subordinates. This dyadic approach implies that teacher characteristics may change from one dyad to another or that princi-pals may treat various teachers differently (Sagie, 1997). Moreover, most theories inherently assume that effectiveness is explained through the man-ager’s skills and actions while the teacher’s role is ignored (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Theories should place greater emphasis on reciprocal influence pro-cesses. This line of research suggests that teachers are not simply passive but are proactive participants engaged in active efforts to alter their work envi-ronment. Therefore, we must embrace the dynamic aspects of the context and grasp that teachers actively shape reality and influence decisions (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). In line with this logic, future research should consider PDM as a dyadic phenomenon and discover simul-taneously the role of the principal as well as the teacher in this relationship (e.g., Koslowsky & Schwarzwald, 1993; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000).



Somech 197

Finally, the present analytical framework encourages researchers to go a step further by incorporating multiple levels of analysis into hypothesis generation and testing (Sagie, 1997; Somech, 2003; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992). Espe-cially, future research should pay more attention to the cultural level of inquiry because society’s cultural orientation may strengthen or weaken the impact of leaders’ participative approach on various school and teacher out-comes (Sagie, 1997).

Finally, the aforementioned comprehensive discussion also poses an impor-tant challenge concerning implications for managerial practice. An understanding of PDM in terms of its processes and outcomes should ultimately render guidelines that can be directly incorporated into school practice. First, the emphasis on universal applicability has been too strong. The practical impli-cations for schools need to be identified more carefully. There may be situations where participation is unnecessary or where it has negative conse-quences along with positive ones. Although PDM seems widely relevant, it is worth discussing pros and cons of its congruent conditions. Research should help in identifying and explicating relationships that are not obvious to managers. To the extent that outcome effects of PDM are both nonobvious and extremely complex, studies examining these links are likely to have con-siderable practical significance. Furthermore, by its very nature, PDM makes a statement about how to treat, control, and motivate teachers as resources for the school’s success. One cannot isolate the managerial school of thought regarding participation from its environmental culture and school structure. PDM should be integrated with the school’s primary decision making and reinforced through mechanisms tied to and congruent with the environmental culture and school structure (Neumann, 1989).

To sum up, the present discussion indicates that considerable work has been accomplished focusing on the outcomes of PDM. A rich research base already exists, although there has been little cumulative theory building. I hope that the comprehensive discussion undertaken in this article and the several areas for future research identified herein will enable researchers to build on extant lit-erature more meaningfully. Future research into the antecedents and outcomes of PDM should strive to achieve the multiple objectives of being theoretically sound, methodologically rigorous, and practically meaningful.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or pub-lication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.




References

Ardichvili, A. (2001). Leadership styles and work-related values of managers and employees of manufacturing enterprises in post-communist countries. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 363-383.

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 psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 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.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., Conley, S. C., & Bauer, S. (1990). The dimen-sionality of decision participation in educational organization: The value of a multi-domain evaluative approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 126-167.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 9-30.

Benoliel, P. (2007). The positive and negative impacts of participative manage-ment: The role of personality factors (Big Five) as a moderator in the relation-ship between participative management and performance, satisfaction and strain among teachers. Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1996). Facilitative school leadership and teacher empowerment: Teacher’s perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117-145.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teacher orga-nizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277-289.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to participation in decision-making? Journal of Educational Admin-istration, 43, 420-438.

Boyle, R., Boyle, T., & Brown, M. (1999, April). Commonalities between perceptions and practice in models of school decision-making systems in secondary schools in England and Wales. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.



Somech 199

Brouillette, L. (1997). Who defines “democratic leadership”? Three high school prin-cipals respond to site-based reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 569-591.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781.

Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A view from the elementary schools: The state of Chicago school reform. Chicago: University of Chicago, Consortium for Chicago School Research.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 101-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psy-chology, 18, 405-425.

Carson, A. D., & Lowman, R. L. (2002). Individual-level variables in organization consultation: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques. Handbook of organizational consulting psychology (pp. 5-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1727-1752.

Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.

Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 21, 487-511.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Cole, M., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social exchange network: A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group and Organization Man-agement, 27, 142-167.

Conley, S. C., & Bacharach, S.B. (1990). From school-site management to participa-tory school-site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 539-544.

Conley, S. C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J.B. (1988). Teacher participation in the man-agement of school systems. Teachers College Record, 90, 259-280.

Conway, J. (1984). The myth, mystery, and mastery of participative decision making in education. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 20, 11-40.

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.

Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of par-ticipation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 23, 1-39.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a cur-vilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 1191-1201.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Comparative educational administration: Devel-oping a cross-cultural conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quar-terly, 34, 558-595.

DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). School characteristics that foster organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 308-326.

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.

Duke, D. L., & Gansneder, B. (1990). Teacher empowerment: The view from the class-room. Educational Policy, 4, 145-160.

Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 203-231.

Dwyer, D. J., & Fox, M. L. (2000). The moderating role of hostility in the relation-ship 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.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1513-1537.

Evers, C. W. (1990). Schooling, organizational learning and efficiency in the growth of knowledge. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and manage-ment (pp. 55-70). London: Falmer.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489-525.



Somech 201

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An intro-duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753-777.

French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York: John Wiley

Fullan, M. G. (1997). Change forces. London: Falmer.Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of autonomy: Empirical

evidence for the necessity of a balanced management in promoting organizational innovativeness. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 41-49.

Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishi, L. H., & Bechtold, D. (2004). Individual-ism and collectivism: Multilevel perspectives and implications for leadership. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures (pp. 437-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10, 153-170.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership proto-types. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121-134.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). Spanning boundaries and borders: Toward under-standing the cultural dimensions of team boundary spanning. Journal of Manage-rial Issues, 17, 178-193.

Griffin, G. A. (1995). Influence of shared decision making on school and classroom activity: Conversations with five teachers. Elementary School Journal, 96, 29-45.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-696). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100.

Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Fundamental considerations about work groups. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 3-24). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Classic readings in self-managing teamwork: 20 of the most important articles (pp. 143-193). King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development.




Haimovich, A. (2006). Positive and negative effects of participation in decision mak-ing on teacher’s well-being, health and productivity. Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding out what you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34, 98-116.

Harris, M. M., & van Tassell, F. (2005). The professional development school as learning organization. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 179-194.

Hecksher, C. (1995). White collar blues. Management loyalties in an age of corporate restructuring. New York: Basic Books.

Heler, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational participation: Myth and reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hoy, W. K., & Trater, C. J. (1993). A normative theory of participative decision mak-ing in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31, 4-19.

Jarvis, M. (2002). Teacher stress: A critical review of recent finding and suggestions for future research direction. Stress News. Retrieved from http://www.isma.org./uk/stressnw/teachstress1.htm

Johnson, W. R. (1992). The impact of quality circle participation on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 29, 1-11.

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.

Jung, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-218.

Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel Psychology, 50, 121-146.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implica-tions for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-309.

Keedy, J. L., & Achilles, C. M. (1997). The need for school-constructed theories in practice in US school restructuring. Journal of Educational Administration, 35, 102-121.

Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg, M., et al. (2003). Individualism, collectivism and authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304-322.

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for manage-ment leadership. Public Administration Review, 62, 231-241.

Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. E. (2006). The evaluation of interfirm networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Man-agement Review, 31, 721-737.



Somech 203

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 organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297-324). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor and Francis.

Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (1993). The use of power strategies to gain com-pliance: Testing aspects of Raven’s (1988) theory in conflictual situations. Jour-nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 135-144.

Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocen-trism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 905-915.

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.

Lavie, J. M. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 773-805.

Lawler, E.E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects

on teacher’s attitudes and student’s achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 3-31.

Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1998). Mapping the conceptual terrain of leadership: A critical point of departure for cross-cultural studies. Peabody Journal of Educa-tion, 73, 31-50.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The con-tributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496-528.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lim, G., & Cheng, H. (1999). Moderating effects of personality factors on employ-ees’ affective reactions to job scope. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 7, 17-33.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product team’s innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict commu-nications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.

Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Maddock, S. (1999). Challenging women: Gender, culture and organization. London: Sage.




Maeroff, G. I. (1988). Teacher empowerment: A step toward professionalization. A Bulletin special. NASSP-Bulletin, 72, 52-54, 56-60.

McCaffrey, M. W., Bielli, A., Cantalupo, G., Mora, S., Roberti, V., Santillo, M., et al. (2001). Rab4 affects both recycling and degradative endosomal trafficking. FEBS Letters, 495, 21-30.

McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. (1995). The appeal and difficulties of participative systems. Organizations Science, 6, 603-627.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.139-153). New York: Guilford.

McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.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., Ellis, B. H., Zook, E. G., & Lyles, J. S. (1990). An integrated model of communication, stress, and burnout in the workplace. Communication Research, 17, 300-326.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.

Morse, N. C., & Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major organiza-tional variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 120-129.

Moss, S. A., & Ngu, S. (2006). The relationship between personality and leadership preferences. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 70-91.

Murphy, J., & Beck, I. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Neumann, J. E. (1989). Why people don’t participate in organizational change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 3, 181-212.

O’Hara, L. A. (2001). Leadership style and group creativity. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Sciences and Engineering, 62, 1646.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psy-chological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

Parnell, J. A., & Crandall, W. R. (2001). Rethinking participative decision making: A refinement of the propensity for participative decision making scale. Personnel Review, 30, 523-535.

Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107-1121.



Somech 205

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, C. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organi-zational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical lit-erature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

Pounder, D. G. (1997). Teacher teams: Promoting teacher involvement and leader-ship in secondary schools. High School Journal, 80, 117-124.

Probst, T. M. (2005). Countering the negative effects of job insecurity through par-ticipative decision making: Lessons from the demand-control model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 320-329.

Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (2004). Healthy, happy, productive worker: A leadership challenge. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 329-337.

Ray, T., Clegg, S., & Gordon, R. (2004). A new look at dispread leadership: Power, knowledge and context. In L. Storey (Ed.), Leadership in organizations: Current issues and key trends (pp. 319-336). London: Routledge.

Reitzug, U. C., & Capper, C. A. (1996). Deconstructing site-based management: Pos-sibilities for emancipation and alternative means of control. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5, 56-77.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

Rice, E. M., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational Administration, 32, 43-58.

Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Con-tradictory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 387-452.

Sagie, A., & Aycan, Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision making in organizations. Human Relations, 56, 453-473.

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 man-agement. British Educational Leadership. Management & Administration Society, 21, 15-22.

Sato, M., Hyler, M. E., & Monte-Sano, C. (2002, April). The National Board Certifi-cation process and its impact on teacher leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.




Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). Beyond the call to duty: A field study of extra-role behavior in voluntary organization. Human Relations, 44, 569-582.

Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J., & Weichmann, D. (2003). Personnel selec-tion and employee performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol.12. Industrial and organiza-tional psychology (pp. 77-105). New York: John Wiley.

Scott-Ladd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Causal inferences between participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satis-faction and commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 399-414.

Scully, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1995). Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the effect of participation on performance, affect, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 276-288.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organi-zation. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1993). Transforming the practice of management. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 5-32.

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

Short, P. M., Greer, J. T., & Melvin, W. M. (1994). Creating empowered schools: Lessons in change. Journal of Educational Research, 32, 38-52.

Slate, R. N., & Vogel, R. E. (1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts about quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397-408.

Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assess-ing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 53-67.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instrumental outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181-191.

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 341-371.

Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demog-raphy variables: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1003-1018.

Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Leadership Quarterly, 39, 1-24.



Somech 207

Somech, A. (2006). Women as participative leaders: Understanding participative lead-ership from a cross-cultural perspective. In I. Oplatka & R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Women principals in a multicultural society (pp. 155-74). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher orga-nizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555-577.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teacher extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649-659.

Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive lead-ership on teacher performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and LMX. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 42, 746-772.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Toward the integration of two perspectives: A review of social-structural and psychological empowerment at work. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suls, J. (2001). Affect, stress and personality. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 392-409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Prediction, understanding, and control as anti-dotes to organizational stress. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 272-285). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers neurotics? In search for factors impairing attentional performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 109-126.

Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective perfor-mance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20, 316-334.

Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1997). Toward an understanding of teacher’s desire for participation in decision making. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 609-628.

Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and subor-dinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97-105.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.

Thoms, P., Pinto, J. K., Parente, D. H., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Adaptation to self-managing work teams. Small Group Research, 33, 3-31.

Torres, C. V. (2000). Leadership style norms among Americans and Brazilians: Assess-ing differences using Jackson’s return potential model. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Sciences and Engineering, 60, 4284.




Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Edu-

cational Administration, 39, 308-331.Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit

of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.

van Knippenberg, D. V. (2003). Intergroup relations in organizations. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 381-400). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

VanYperen, N. W., Van den Berg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and organiza-tional citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377-392.

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.), Leader-ship: The multilevel approach (pp. 145-159). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

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, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on coopera-tion in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-164.

Wagner, J. A., III, & Gooding, R. Z. (1987a). Effects of societal trends on participa-tion research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 241-262.

Wagner, J. A., III, & Gooding, R. Z. (1987b). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate partici-pation-outcomes relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-541.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leader-ship: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibil-ity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458-495.

Walker, E. M. (2000). Decentralization and participatory decision making: Imple-menting school-based management in the Abbott districts. Research Brief, 1, 3-23.

Wall, R., & Rinehart, J. S. (1998). School-based decision making and the empower-ment of secondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 49-64.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 40, 82-111.



Somech 209

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.

West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in healthcare teams. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303-315.

Wilson, S., & Coolican, M. J. (1996). How high and low self-empowered teachers work with colleagues and school principals. Journal of Educational Thought, 30, 99-118.

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. (2003). Using cognitive ability and personality to select information technology professionals. In M. Mahmood (Ed.), Advanced topics in end user computing II (pp.1-17). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Wong, K. K. (1994). Linking governance reform to schooling opportunities for the disadvantaged. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 153-177.

Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.

Wu, V., & Short, P. M. (1996). The relationship of empowerment to teacher job commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 85-89.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Acad-emy of Management Journal, 38, 1288-1308.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A multi levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45, 575-600.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., & Fu, P.P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by manag-ers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219-232.

Zalesny, M. D., & Farace, R. V. (1987). Traditional versus open offices: A comparison of sociotechnical, social, relations, and symbolic meaning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 240-259.

Bio

Anit Somech is the head of Educational Leadership Program at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her current research interests include participative leadership, team work, and organizational citizenship behavior at the individual, team, and organiza-tional levels. http://www.edu.haifa.ac.il/personal/asomech/index.htm



Participative Decision Making Gooddddddddddddd

Documents

Transcript of Participative Decision Making Gooddddddddddddd