Principals’ Efforts to Empower Teachers: Effects on Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction and Stress JOAN DAVIS and SANDRA M. WILSON leacher_ empowerment in. many schools has expanded the role and involvement of teachers in planning and decision making regarding school goals and policies (Blase and Blase 1994; Blase et al. 1995; Glickman 1993; Sprague 1992). This form of empow- erment is what Conger and Kanungo (1988) refer to as relational power. In this context, power involves the formal authority or control over organizational resources, and empowerment is the process of sharing that power. Among educators, the belief is widely held that the more teachers share in decision making the greater their job satisfaction (e.g., Blase and Blase 1994; Blase et al, 1995; Shreeve et al. 1987), Some research, however, reports that shared decision making can have serious negative outcomes on the lives of both princi- pals and teachers (Murphy and Louis 1994; Short and Rinehart 1992). For example, Short and Rinehart found that as teacher “involvement in school decision making increases|,| the opportunities for conflict increase due to disclosure of ideologies and perceptions that usually are not disclosed in the traditional schoo! structure” (11). As teachers are more involved in critical decisions concerning the direction of the school and as they have more autonomy and input, their communication becomes more complex and may be a source of de- motivation and job stress. In this sense, empowerment efforts that are based on shared power may have a neg- ative influence on the lives of teachers, Another form of empowerment discussed in the lit- erature centers on an individual's sense of personal power and motivation. Maeroff (1988) described teacher empowerment from this perspective. He viewed, teacher empowerment as a major way "to make |teach- ers] more professional and to improve their perfor. mance" (4). The power Maeroff referred to is “the power to exercise one’s craft with confidence and to help shape the way that the job is to be done” (4). Con- ‘ger and Kanungo (1988) propose that personal power needs are met when individuals “perceive that they have power or when they believe they can adequately cope with events, situations, and/or people they con- front” (473). Personal power, according to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), emerges from choices one gets to make and from events in the environment, Research by ‘Thomas and Velthouse has shown this sort of empow- erment to be correlated positively with job satisfaction and negatively with job stress. In this sense, a high level of intrinsic empowerment is associated in a positive way with the lives of employees in the workplace. Several authors have theorized that leadership plays an important role in creating an empowering environ- ment, one that is positive and motivating, one that promotes selfsdetermination and self-efficacy (eg, Bass 1990; Bennis and Nanus 1985; Gist and Mitchell 1992; ‘Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Vogt and Murrell 1990). According to Vogt and Murrell, leaders can nurture trinsic empowerment in the workplace by encourag- ing and establishing positive, collaborative relation- ships and by facilitating decision making that enhances both personal and organizational growth, Nurturing, intrinsic empowerment in the school setting may min: imize negative outcomes associated with shared deci- sion making. Empirical research that links principal leadership behaviors with teachers’ lives is limited. The purpose of our study was to examine how principals’ empowering, Joan Davis is principal of Shiloh Hills Elementary School in Spokane, Washington. Sandra M. Wilson is an associate professor in the Doctoral Program in Leadership, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington. 349 ‘Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.350 The Clearing House behaviors (PEB) that focus on intrinsic empowerment relate to teacher intrinsic empowerment (referred to hereafter as “motivation”) (Thomas and Velthouse 1990), job satisfaction, and job stress. More specifical- ly, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a significant relationship between PEB and teacher motivation? (2) Is there a significant relation- ship between PEB and teacher job satisfaction? and (3) Is there a significant relationship between PEB and teacher job stress? We examined job satisfaction and job stress because they are attributes of job perfor ‘mance (Cranny, Smith, and Stone 1992) and quality of life in the workplace in that they can be viewed in the context of the broader emotional lives of employees (Cranny, Smith, and Stone 1992; Farber 1991; Schmitt and Pulakas 1985). Furthermore, although past research has shown motivation to be related to job sat- isfaction and job stress (Friedman and Farber 1992; Rosenholtz. 1991; Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Tymon 1988), research linking these variables to a leader's intrinsic empowering behaviors does not exist. Theoretical Framework for the Study Leader Empowering Behaviors We used Vogt and Murrell’s (1990) model of empowerment as a partial framework for this study because it addresses empowerment from an intrinsic perspective. Vogt and Murrell see that leaders need to establish within the organization “a new ethic of, shared responsibility to help build an infrastructure that facilitates each employee's ability to handle responsibilities” (26). The leader must create an open climate that enables information to flow smoothl engage in planning and evaluation processes that help to create a shared commitment to organizational goals, and motivate employees such that they have pride in their accomplishments and are able to accomplish their work with confidence. If leaders are to create an empowering organization, they need to establish posi- tive relationships within the work setting, develop groups that work collaboratively in making decisions, inspire and guide the organization, and put in place a process of renewal for the organization. Motivation We also used Thomas and Velthouse's (1990) cogni- tive model of intrinsic empowerment as a partial framework for this study. Their definition of intrinsic motivation is similar to Deci and Ryan’s (1985) defin tion of self-determination, whereby individuals’ behav iors are initiated by personal choices and by events in the environment. The intrinsic aspect of motivation for ‘Thomas and Velthouse refers to the internal, subjective judgments that occur within individuals as they go about completing job-related tasks. It is important to July/August 2000 look at cognitive factors when studying intrinsic empowerment because teachers’ cognitions play a sig- nificant role in mediating teachers’ expectations and motivations for their behaviors (Brophy 1985) Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) cognitive model involves four factors: impact, competence, meaningful- ness, and choice. Impact is the degree to which one’s behavior is perceived as producing intended effects in one's task environment. Competence refers to the degree to which individuals believe they can perform task activities skillfully when they try. If individuals have low self-efficacy or doubt their competence, they tend to avoid situations that require the skills they believe they lack. Meaningfuiness concerns the values of the task goal or purpose judged according to the individ- ual’s own ideals or standards. When tasks have low degrees of meaningfulness, individuals feel apathetic, detached, and unrelated to significant events. With higher levels of meaningfulness, individuals feel more committed, involved, and able to concentrate their energies toward the task. Choice involves intentionally selecting actions that likely will lead to desired out- comes. Having a sense of choice produces greater flex- ibility, creativity, initiative, resiliency, and self-regula- tion; in contrast, having litle choice leads to feelings of being controlled, tenseness, more negative emotions, and a lowering of self-esteem. Job Satisfaction and Job Stress Job satisfaction is clearly related to levels of intrinsic empowerment. Job satisfaction refers to individuals’ affective relations to their work role and is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it is offering (Lawler 1973; Locke 1969). Morse (1953) complicates the picture, and rightly so. Morse viewed the strength of an individual's “desires, or his/her level of aspiration in a particular area” to be an important factor in job satis- faction (28). Those with the strongest desires or highest aspirations are least happy with their job if the envi ronment does not facilitate satisfaction of their needs. Job stress isa final important factor in intrinsic moti vation. Farber (1991) claimed that “teacher stress and burnout have affected and will continue to affect the lives of teachers and their families, administrators and their families, students and their families, and all of society” (313). A stressor is a demand made by “the internal or external environment that upsets a person’s balance and for which restoration is needed” (Matte son and Ivancevich 1987, 33). Stress created by this imbalance is linked to low self-efficacy, which then leads to low professional self-esteem and an affective deficit—a deficit likely to produce a greater sense of stress for teachers (Ashton 1995) and less intrinsic empowerment. Research relates teacher job stress to professional self-concept, satisfaction, role ambiguity, ‘Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.Vol. 73, No. 6 and hierarchical relationships with administration (eg. Conley, Bacharach, and Bauer 1989; Freidman 1991; Friedman and Farber 1992; Schneider 1986). Of interest to this study is whether principals can influ- ence teachers’ levels of intrinsic empowerment, includ- ing their job satisfaction and job stress. Method Participants ‘The population for this study was made up of teach- ers and principals in public elementary schools located in eastern Washington. To participate in the study, the school had to have a designated principal and not a head teacher, and the principal had to have been that position for at least one full year. District superin- tendents were contacted by telephone to seek permis- sion to invite the elementary school principals in the districts to participate in the study. total of 57 qual- ifying school principals were contacted; forty-four schools ended up as study participants. Within these schools, 660 elementary teachers (77 percent were female) and all 44 principals (37 percent were female) completed the questionnaire. Procedure The principal in each school was asked to identify a teacher representative in the building who could dis- tribute and collect the teacher surveys. The teacher sur- veys were mailed to that teacher representative in each building. A letter describing the purpose of the study and the process for distributing and collecting surveys was included in the packet. The teacher representative ‘was instructed to give each teacher in the building a «questionnaire with an attached cover letter and an enve- lope addressed to the researcher. After completion of the questionnaire, each teacher was asked to seal the ‘questionnaire in the envelope and either mail it direct ly to the researcher or give it to the teacher representa tive in that building. Thirty-one of the forty-four schools had a return rate for teachers that ranged from 60 percent to 90 percent. The remaining thirteen schools had a teacher response rate that ranged from 40 percent to 59 percent. The principal questionnaire and a cover letter were mailed to each principal, Principals were asked to complete and return the questionnaire using the stamped envelope addressed to the researcher. Measures We asked teachers to complete a questionnaire designed to measure four variables: PEB, motivation, job satisfaction, and job stress. The measures for moti vation, job satisfaction, and job stress were developed by Tymon (1988) and used with his permission. ‘Tymon based his definition of motivation on Thomas, and Velthouse's (1986) description of motivation, Teacher Empowerment 351 which includes four cognitive assessments that indi- viduals make about work-related tasks: impact, compe- tence, meaningfulness, and choice. To measure motiva- tion, Tymon (1988) developed seven questions for each of the four assessments, and used a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Teachers were asked to respond to the items in terms of their job in general and not to any one specific job task. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the four assess- ments ranged from r = .73 0 = .94 for teachers includ. ced in this study. On the same instrument, Tymon (1988) measured job satisfaction using four items that focus on respon: dents’ general satisfaction with the work they do and their desire to continue with the same job. For three items, the 7-point scale used to measure motivation ‘was used. The fourth item was measured on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely would not take the job again) to 6 (would definitely take the job again). Cron bach’s alpha coefficients for job satisfaction (n = 44) were r= .72 for teachers. Job stress was measured using ten items that asked respondents how they felt while working—for example, “How often do you feel ner- vous, tense, or edgy while on the job?” The same 7- point scale used to measure motivation was used for seven of the job stress items, The remaining three items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (more than 50 percent of the time). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for job stress was r = .62 for teachers. We wrote the survey questions pertaining to princi- pal empowering behaviors (PEB). Twenty-six items ‘were used to measure Vogt and Murrell's (1990) devel- opment of self, groups, and organization. Examples of items are the following: exhibits good self-awareness, can handle ambiguity, exhibits a good understanding of group dynamics, encourages working collaborative- ly, recognizes each person’s uniqueness, has a vision to chart the course of the future, and has an internal process for renewing the school. The same 7-point scale used to measure motivation was used to measure EB. Both teachers and principals were asked to rate principal empowering behaviors for the school. Gron- bach’s alpha coefficient for PEB was r= .91 for princi- pals self score and r = .98 for teachers’ ratings of prin- cipal behaviors. Data Analysis School was the unit of analysis for this study; thus teachers’ scores for PEB, motivation, job satisfaction, and job stress were summarized by building, A prelim: inary analysis of PEB scores showed substantial differ- ences between how principals rated their empowering behaviors and how their teachers rated their behaviors. Hart and Willower (1994) explain that teachers per- ceive their position, hierarchically, to be different from ‘Copyright 2000. Al rights reserved.352 The Clearing House principals’, resulting in teachers’ perceiving principal leadership differently from the ways in which princi pals view their own leadership. Because of differences in perceptions found in the PEB data, we made the decision to average the teachers’ and principals’ scores, thinking that the “truth” regarding PEB in a building most likely rests somewhere in-between the two scores. Relationships between the combined PEB score and teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and job stress were computed using the Pearson product moment correla- tion analysis. Findings The findings show a significant relationship between PEB and teacher motivation, The higher the PEB score for a building, the higher teachers’ overall motivation score (r = .38; p <.01). More specifically, the more prin- cipals participate in empowering behaviors, the greater the impact teachers fee! they are able to make by ful- filling work-related tasks (r = .37; p < .01), and the more likely they are to see that they have choices in selecting actions that will lead toward positive out. comes (r= .36; p < 01). ‘Teacher motivation is related to both job satisfaction (r= .56; p < 01) and to job stress (r = -53; p < 01). Interpreting this further, the higher teachers’ intrinsic motivation (impact, competence, meaningfulness, and choice), the more satisfied they are with their jobs and the less stress they experience. PEB, however, are not related to either teacher job satisfaction or job stress Discussion Principal empowering behaviors as they relate 10 teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and job stress were the focus of this study. The findings showed that prin- cipal empowering behaviors centering on the intrinsic or personal power of teachers explained 14 percent of the variability in teacher motivation. More specifically, the more principals engaged in behaviors that were personally empowering, the more teachers saw that they had choices they could make in completing their work and the greater the impact they perceived they were making through their efforts. Interestingly, the imensions of meaning and competence were not associated with principal empowering behaviors. Even though a principal may be perceived as engaging in behaviors that help develop the capacity of individuals within the school to work collaboratively and to work toward accomplishing a vision for the school, these perceived efforts are not associated with the value that teachers assign to tasks, goals, and the purpose of their work as classroom teacher. Nor are these perceived efforts associated with the level of competency or skill fulness that teachers perceive they have to accomplish their work. Impact and choice may be associated with a principal's efforts to empower teachers, whereas July/August 2000 meaningfulness and competence are not, because impact and choice may be more immediately observ- able to teachers. They may be given feedback through evaluations about the impact they are making through their work and may be able to observe that they have more choices they can make to accomplish their work However, feelings of competency and meaningfulness may lie deeper within teachers’ cognitive perceptions about themselves, and thus are not as likely to be asso- iated with what the principal does. This study supports findings from previous research concerning the relationships between motivation, job satisfaction, and job stress (Freidman and Farber 1992, Rosenholtz 1991;'Tymon 1988; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). Teacher motivation had a moderately strong association with both teacher job satisfaction and job sttess, with approximately 28 percent of the variance in teacher motivation being associated with variances that exist in job satisfaction and in job stress. We anticipat- ed that principal intrinsic empowering behaviors would be able to explain some of the variance in teacher job satisfaction and job stress as well; however, wwe found that not to be the case. Our findings suggest that principal empowering behaviors are not associat- ed with teachers’ job satisfaction or their level of job sttess, Although beyond the scope of this study, it may be that principal empowering behaviors are associated with teacher job satisfaction and job stress in an indi- rect manner, through teacher motivation, We recognize that this study is limited and that fur- ther investigation is needed to enhance our under- standing of the role that the principal-as-leader plays in developing a sense of personal, intrinsic empowerment among teachers and how that relates to teachers’ qual- ity of life in the workplace. Certainly, leadership takes place within a complex social context, a context that not addressed in this study. As an example, Yukl (1989) discussed the need to recognize follower attribution— that is, how a follower enables a leader to lead and how a follower interacts with a leader to determine the leader's effectiveness. Similarly, Gardner (1990) dis- cussed the need for commitment on the part of indi viduals within the organization and pointed out that group action can occur only when individual members are willing to lend themselves to common purposes Gardner further claimed that effective leadership rarely mentions the extent to which group attitudes make leadership possible. Further research is needed not only to substantiate the findings of this study but to consider the social context of empowerment and prin: ipals’ attempts at empowering teachers. REFERENCES. Ashton, P1995. Motivation and the teacher's sense of efficacy. In Ressurch on mativation tn eduction, vo. 2, edited by C Ames and R. ‘Ames. Orlando, FL Academie Press ‘Copyright 2000. Ali rights reserved.Vol. 73, No. 6 Bass, B M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: earning to share the vision. Oxgamtzational Dynamics 18: 19-31 Bennis, W. and B. Nanus 1985" Leaders. The staugis for taking ‘hurge New York Harper and Row Blase. 1 |. Blase, G. Anderson, and 8. Dungan, 1995. Demoerate pr palm action: Fight pioneers Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Blase, J, and J. R Blase, 1994. Fmpowering teachers What sucess principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin. Brophy} 1985 Teachers expectations. motives, and goals for wor ing with problem students In Research on mason, vo. 2, edited by R Ames and © Ames, 175-212 San Diego Academic Press. (Conger. | A. and RN. Kanungo 1988. The empowerment process Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Stanagement Review 13, G) ars. Comey, 8. CS. 8. Bacharach, and S. Bauer 1989. The school work fenviomment and teacher career dissatisfaction, Educational Aman istution Quarterly 25 (1) 58-81 Granny, |. PC. Smith, and E. F Stone. 1992 Job saisfacuon: How [vole fel about ther jos ad howe waft their performance New York: Lexington Books Deci EL and & M. Ryan. 1985, Inrmsic mocation and self dterm- ‘aon st human Behavior New York. Plenum Farber, BA. 199; Cras in education: Steve ad burnout i the Amer: ‘an teacher Sa Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Friedman, IA. 1991 High- and low-burmout schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research 846). 325-33 Friediman,[.A. and B A Farber, 1992. Professional self-concept asa predictor of teacher burnout. oumai of Educational Research 86(1) 2835 Gardner, J. W 1990. On leadership New York ‘The Free Press Gist, ME, and R Mitchell 1992. Sefeficacy: A theoretical analy- ‘ie of ity determinants and. malleabilty. Academy Management Review 17 (2). 185-20. Glickman, C. 1993, Renewang Amencas choos guide for school-based acto San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Han, D-R. and D | Willower 1994. Principals’ organizational com: ‘mitment and school environmental rabustness. Journal of Educ tonal Research 87(3) 174-79 Lavlec EE, M1973, Mormatuon in work ogunzatons, Monterey, CA Brooks/Cole Teacher Empowerment 353 Locke, FA. 1969, What is job satisfaction? Orgumzatumal Behanor ‘and Fluman Performance 4 309-36 Macro, G.I. 1988. The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the cr ‘is of confidence New York: Teachers College Press. Matson, MT, and J. M-Ivancevich 1987. Conteling work sess [Eflecine huma resources and management strategies San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Morse, N.C. 1953, Sanifacton m the whnecallar job Ann Arbor: Uni versity of Michigan, Institue for Social Research, Survey Research Center Murphy. I. and K Louis eds. 1994 Reshaping the principal: Insights from transformational reform efors Thousand Oaks, CA; Corvin Rosenholtz 8 1991. Teacher workplace: The ergamzanon of schools "New York Teachers College Press, Schmitt. N, and LD. Pulakas, 1985. Predicting job satisfaction from, life satisfaction. Is there a general satisfaction factor? Intzmanonal Journal of Psychology 20 15-167 Schneider, C.'T 1986 The myth of eunilineaity An analysis of dec som-making involvement and job satisfaction. lanmng and Chang- ing 17(3). 14658. Short P My and |'S, Rinehart 1992, Teacher empowerment and school ‘imate. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No'ED 347 678}. Shreewe, W.C.1 R Norby, W.G J.Gpetter, F Stueckle, 7 K Midg- Tey, and PS. Goetter 1987. Job satisfaction: An imperate for the coming teacher shortage (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 289 818). Sprague. |. 1992. Caitcal perspectives. on teacher empowerment. ‘Communcavo Education 41(2) 181-203 ‘Thomas, KW. and BA Nelthouse, 1986, Cogmnve elements of ‘empowerment. Paper presented atthe meeting ofthe National Acad- femy of Management, Chicago, I i990" Cognitive elements ofempoweement An “inenpretive™ ‘model of intrinsic task motivation, Academy of Management Review 15 (4) 660-81 Tymon, W.G., It 1988. An empircal investigation of a cognitive model of emposserment Doctoral diss, Femple University 1988, usertanom Alsiracts International, 49/08-A (University Microfilms No 88-18,866), Vogt I-F,and K-L Murrell 1990 Empowerment m organizations: How 10 spark exceptional performance. San Diego Peifer. Yuh 'G"4 989. Lee pga, Eopewood Cif, Nt Prentice Hal ‘Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.