The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

xt archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA
43,5 Organizational citizenship
behavior in school
How does it relate to participation
420 in decision making?
Received December 2004 Ronit Bogler
Revised April 2005 Department of Education and Psychology, The Open University of Israel,
Accepted April 2005 Raanana, Israel, and
Anit Somech
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Abstract
Purpose – Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has received much attention in the past decade
as scholars have recognized its significant impact on the success of organizations. The current study
seeks to enrich our understanding of citizenship behavior in the school setting by identifying the main
factors that may enhance this behavior among teachers.
Design/methodology/approach – Specifically, the paper examines the direct effect of teachers’
participation in decision making (PDM) on their OCB, and the impact of teacher empowerment, as a
mediating variable, on this relationship. Data were collected from 983 teachers in 25 junior and 27
senior high schools in Israel.
Findings – Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that teacher empowerment played an
important role in mediating the relationship between teachers’ PDM and OCB. Involvement in
decision-making processes induces teachers to take on new roles and have a more direct impact on
school life, which in turn might lead them to invest extra efforts in achieving school objectives.
Principals and school administrators should acknowledge the importance of empowerment to
teachers, and involve teachers in decision making within the managerial arena too.
Originality/value – The results of the study contribute to our understanding of the way PDM and
OCB interact in schools, and the importance of teachers’ sense of empowerment in explaining this
relationship. Future research should further investigate the organizational citizenship within schools
as little research has been conducted to date.
Keywords Empowerment, Citizenship, Decision making, Teachers, Schools, Israel
Paper type Research paper

As working under changing circumstances becomes an essential feature of schools

Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 43 No. 5, 2005
pp. 420-438
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230510615215
(Lee et al., 1991; Rinehart et al., 1997; Sweetland and Hoy, 2000), they will necessarily
become more dependent on teachers who are willing to contribute to successful change,
regardless of formal job requirements. In the organizational literature, these
non-prescribed organizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures are distinguished
from organizational behaviors that can be enforced on the basis of formal role
obligations (VanYperen et al., 1999). Bateman and Organ (1983) denoted these
non-prescribed behaviors “organizational citizenship behaviors” (OCBs).
Scholars have recognized the significant impact of OCB on the success of an
organization, because organizations cannot anticipate through formally stated job
descriptions the entire array of behaviors needed to achieve goals (George, 1996). Organizational
Therefore, the practical importance of OCBs is that they improve organizational citizenship
efficiency and effectiveness by contributing to resource transformation, innovation,
and adaptability (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Williams and Anderson, 1991).
OCB has received a great deal of attention in business and organizational studies for
several reasons (e.g. Tepper and Taylor, 2003; Turnipseed and Murkison, 2000). OCBs
can enhance an organization’s success by permitting it to more effectively allocate its 421
financial and human resources (Organ, 1988; VanYperen et al., 1999). OCB provides the
organization with additional resources and eliminates the need for expensive formal
mechanisms otherwise crucial to successful restructuring processes (George, 1996;
Katz and Kahn, 1966; Organ and Konovsky, 1989).
The current study seeks to enrich our understanding of OCB in the school setting by
identifying the main factors that may enhance these behaviors among teachers.
Specifically, we propose a model that links participation in decision making (PDM) and
OCB, and suggest that teacher empowerment will serve as a mediator between
teacher’s PDM and OCB.

Theoretical framework
OCB: definition and construct
OCB is defined in the present study as discretionary behavior directed at individuals or
at the organization as a whole, which goes beyond existing role expectations and
benefits or is intended to benefit the organization (Organ, 1988). This definition
stresses three main features of OCB. First, the behavior must be voluntary; that is,
neither role-prescribed nor part of the formal duties. Second, the behavior benefits the
organization from the organizational perspective. The important point here is that
OCBs do not simply occur haphazardly within an organization, but are behaviors
directed towards, or seen as, benefiting the organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Third,
OCB has a multidimensional nature.
Empirical and conceptual work in this area suggests two broad categories of OCB
(Williams and Anderson, 1991): OCB-I, behaviors that immediately benefit particular
individuals and thus indirectly contribute to the organization, and OCB-O, behaviors
that benefit the organization as a whole. For example, among teachers, OCB-I could be
staying after school hours to help a student with learning materials; or helping a
colleague who has a heavy workload. OCB-O might include volunteering for unpaid
tasks, or making innovative suggestions to improve the school. The distinction
between the two is important because it has been suggested that these two forms of
OCB may have different antecedents (e.g. Williams and Anderson, 1991; McNeely and
Meglino; 1994; Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2004).

Antecedents of OCB: The relationship between PDM and OCB

Determining why individuals engage in OCBs has occupied a substantial amount of
research attention in both organizational behavior and social psychology (Brief and
Motowidlo, 1986; McNeely and Meglino, 1994). Most research on OCB has focused on
individual antecedents. For example, researchers have suggested that there is a
relationship between OCB and satisfaction (Bateman and Organ, 1983), commitment
(O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986), perceptions of fairness (Folger, 1993; Martin and Bies,
1991; Moorman et al., 1993; Tepper and Taylor, 2003), perceptions of pay equity (Organ
JEA and Konovsky, 1989), and intrinsic and extrinsic job attitudes (Organ and Ryan, 1995;
43,5 Williams and Anderson, 1991).
The accepted theoretical approach to explaining why individuals tend to exhibit
OCBs is social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which contends that individuals will
attempt to reciprocate those who benefit them. Recent literature (e.g. Podsakoff et al.,
2000; Tepper and Taylor, 2003) suggests that employees perform OCBs with greater
422 frequency when they perceive as fair the means by which organizations and their
representatives make allocation decisions (i.e. procedural justice). According to Organ
(1988), employees interpret procedural fairness to mean that their employer can be
trusted to protect their interests; this in turn, engenders an obligation to repay their
employer through OCBs.
One of the most important conditions that shape employees’ views about procedural
fairness is PDM (Porter et al., 1996; VanYperen et al., 1999), sometimes referred to as
the process control effect (Thibaut and Walker, 1975) or the voice effect (Tyler and
Lind, 1992). This study suggests that the link between PDM and OCB in the school
setting is mediated by the teachers’ sense of empowerment. Specifically, we suggest
that teachers’ opportunity to participate in the process of decision making enhances
their sense of empowerment, which in turn encourages them to engage in OCBs.
In general, PDM is defined as joint decision making or at least shared influence in
decision making by a superior and his or her employee (Koopman and Wierdsma,
1998). Theoretically, PDM is linked to OCB in a number of ways. First, teachers’
participation can enhance a sense of fairness and trust in the organization both because
teachers 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 teachers’ willingness to engage in OCBs. Second, because teachers
understand work processes and challenges better than administrators or
policymakers, their participation ensures that better information will be available
for making decisions to facilitate successful teaching (Conley and Bacharach, 1990).
Thus, teachers who view their school as behaving in their interest should not only
experience greater job satisfaction, but also act to return the favor by exhibiting more
OCBs (McNeely and Meglino, 1994).
Regarding teachers’ PDM, most educational scholars (e.g. Duke and Gansneder,
1990; Herriott and Firestone, 1984; Somech, 2002) identify two main domains of
decision making in school: the technical domain, which deals with students and
instruction (e.g. instructional policies, classroom discipline policies, resolving learning
problems), and the managerial domain, which deals with school operation and
administration (e.g. setting school goals, hiring staff, allocating budget, evaluating
teachers). We suggest that participation in the technical domain reflects different
motivation than does participation in the managerial domain, and therefore fosters
different dimensions of OCB (OCB-I/OCB-O).
Technical decisions are those decisions that have an immediate relevance to the
teacher’s own classroom. Teachers, as professionals, work normatively to improve
classroom performance, to enhance their ability to deal with student discipline, and to
strengthen their awareness of student needs (Blase, 1993; Soodak and Podell, 1996).
Involvement in pedagogical issues enhances interaction and collaboration with
colleagues, because teachers perceive their colleagues, more than the principal, as a
source of professional support (Janz et al., 1997; West, 1994). Therefore, participation in
the technical domain could lead to beneficial behaviors which are oriented toward Organizational
colleagues and students. Since OCB-I refers to individuals (students and colleagues) citizenship
who are engaged in pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning, we hypothesized
that participation in technical decisions would be positively related to OCB-I
(Hypothesis 1).
The managerial domain includes those activities that relate to the school as a whole.
Being involved in the organization environment might expand the teachers’ viewpoint 423
and their role perception. Participation in managerial issues widens the teachers’ focus
from the immediate outcomes within their own classrooms to the organization as a
whole. Through participation in managerial issues and the exercise of influence,
teachers become more committed to organizational decisions and, in the long run, to
the organization as a whole (e.g. Smylie, 1994; Firestone and Pennell, 1993). Moreover,
teachers’ participation may enhance their sense of fairness and trust in the
organization both because they can protect their own interests, and because they get
information on the shaping of decisions to which they would not otherwise be privy
(Cropanzano and Folger, 1996). Therefore, the opportunity to participate in the
managerial domain might foster OCB-O, because by promoting strategic thinking,
individuals 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 efforts in the organization as a whole by making
innovative suggestions to improve the organization, and/or volunteering for roles and
tasks that are not obligatory (OCB-O). Accordingly, we hypothesized that participation
in managerial decisions would be positively related to OCB-O (Hypothesis 2).

The mediator role of teacher empowerment

Recent research has provided initial support for the claim that work conditions do
affect employees’ outcomes, not directly, but through motivational mechanisms (e.g.
Durham et al., 1997; Locke and Latham, 1990). This literature suggests that objective
work elements, such as task variety or the opportunity to participate in decision
making affect such psychological states as the meaning attributed to work or a felt
sense of efficacy. It is these psychological states that mediate between work elements
and work outcomes, like OCB. In keeping with this view, it is likely that teacher
empowerment mediates the relationship between PDM and OCB.
Empowerment as a motivational construct is manifested in four cognitive
dimensions: meaningfulness, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), and corresponds to an intrinsic need for
self-determination (e.g. Wilson and Coolican, 1996) or a belief in individual efficacy
(e.g. Short et al., 1994). In the educational setting, teacher empowerment is defined as “a
process whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge of their
own growth and resolve their own problems” (Short et al., 1994, p. 38). This concept
holds that power has its base within an actor’s motivational disposition. Any
managerial strategy or technique that satisfies employees’ need for self-determination
or strengthens their belief in their self-efficacy will make them feel more powerful.
Conversely, any strategy that frustrates employees’ self-determination or weakens
their belief in self-efficacy will magnify their feelings of powerlessness (e.g. Wilson and
Coolican, 1996; Short et al., 1994). Short and Rinehart (1992) identified six dimensions of
teachers’ empowerment:
JEA (1) Decision making: the level of teachers’ involvement in decisions that directly
43,5 affect their work.
(2) Professional growth: teachers’ perceptions that the school in which they work
provides them with opportunities to grow and develop, to learn continuously,
and to expand their own skills through the work life of the school.
(3) Status: teachers’ perceptions that they enjoy the professional respect and
424 admiration of those with whom they work, and that their colleagues support
them and respect their expertise and knowledge.
(4) Self-efficacy: teachers’ perceptions that they possess the skills and ability to help
students learn, that they are competent in building effective programs for
students, and that they can affect changes in students’ learning.
(5) Autonomy: teachers’ beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work
life.
(6) Impact: teachers’ perceptions that they exercise an effect and an influence on
school life (Short, 1994).

It is well-established that perceptions of empowerment are potent motivational forces

(Marks and Louis, 1997; Rinehart and Short, 1994; Spreitzer, 1996). Unlike the
traditional situation where it is the administration’s exclusive responsibility to plan,
control, and dictate school improvements, in a participative process, teachers initiate
the improvements to be undertaken and share responsibility for planning and
controlling the activities that follow (Sweetland and Hoy, 2000; Terry, 1996).
Accordingly, participation in decision making, which gives teachers more input into
the decision-making process, enhances teachers’ sense of control (autonomy) on the job
(Schermerhorn et al., 1994; Wood and Bandura, 1989) and validates their
professionalism (Firestone and Pennell, 1993); these constitute the foremost
components of empowerment. Moreover, when teachers are actively called to
participate in decision making, their participation 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 (Conley and Bacharach,
1990; Firestone and Pennell, 1993). Overall, as scholars have suggested (e.g.
Edmondson, 1999), participation will satisfy human growth needs of
self-determination and self-actualization and, through these mechanisms, increase
motivation.
Regarding the link between teacher empowerment and OCB, research has
demonstrated a positive relationship between empowerment and performance (e.g.
Kirkman et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1995). For example, Redding (2000) found that
highly-empowered employees were more apt to produce novel, creative solutions than
lower-empowered employees. Empowerment increased task motivation resulting from
individuals’ positive orientation to their work role (Spreitzer, 1995). Accordingly, when
teachers are empowered, their individual efficacy expectations are strengthened, and
they believe in their ability to exert a positive influence on students’ learning by
adopting new practices (Wilson and Coolican, 1996). Highly-empowered teachers
develop a sense of individual mastery – a “can do” attitude – irrespective of hopes for
favorable performance outputs (Bandura, 1986; Boyd and Hord, 1997; Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Seashore-Louis and Kruse, 1995). Teachers who found their jobs
meaningful, and had more complete knowledge of their impact often made better Organizational
job-related decisions (Miller and Monge, 1986), sought continuous improvement, citizenship
revised work processes, and sought innovative solutions to work problems (Hyatt and
Ruddy, 1997). Teachers exhibit higher levels of OCB when they feel a sense of control
(autonomy) on the job (Wilson and Coolican, 1996). Similarly, when empowered teaches
experience meaningfulness in their work, they are more likely to respond with higher
levels of persistence and motivation, which are likely to translate into higher levels of 425
OCBs (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004).
To sum up, as the above discussion indicates, we posit that teacher empowerment
serves as a vehicle whereby participation in decision making enhances organizational
citizenship behaviors. Accordingly, we hypothesized that teacher empowerment would
mediate the PDM-OCB relationship (Hypothesis 3).
It should be noted that we did not include background variables in the current study
model because most research work has not suggested any significant relationship
between these variables and OCB. As indicated in the comprehensive review of
Podsakoff et al. (2000, p. 530), “[g]enerally speaking, demographic variables (e.g.
organizational tenure and employee gender) have not been found to be related to
OCBs”.

Method
The data for this study were collected from junior and senior high schools in northern
and central Israel. The participants, the research instruments and the measures are
described below.

Participants
The sample for this study includes 983 teachers in 25 junior high schools (grades 7-9)
and 27 senior high schools (grades 10-12), who teach in a variety of schools – urban,
suburban and rural – in diverse communities that are representative, to a great extent,
of teachers in Israel with regard to gender, religion, age and educational background.
Of the teachers, 72 percent were women (n ¼ 707); 73 percent Jewish (n ¼ 718) and 27
percent Arab (n ¼ 265). Among the Arab teachers, 46 percent were male, while of the
Jewish teachers, only 22 percent were male. The mean age of the teachers was 38.5
years (SD ¼ 8.5). The average number of years of teaching in the current school was
ten years (SD ¼ 7.0), and the average number of years as teachers was 13.5 (SD ¼ 8.3).
Regarding educational background, 64 percent of the respondents held a Bachelor’s
degree, 26 percent a Master’s degree and 10 percent had the equivalent of a junior
college diploma with teaching credentials. These demographics are similar to those
found in analogous studies on teachers in Israel (Rosenblatt, 2001; Bogler, 2001).

Research instrument
In 2001, teachers in 52 schools were asked to respond to a closed questionnaire with
three scales that measured their participation in decision making, organizational
citizenship behavior, and perceived level of empowerment in the school in which they
worked.
Teacher participation in decision making. Teacher participation in decision making
is the opportunity for teachers to take part in the decision-making process on issues
that influence their school life. The questionnaire developed by Bacharach, Bauer and
JEA Shedd was used to measure teacher participation on 19 decision items (1986, in Taylor
43,5 and Bogotch, 1994). To assist identification of the domains of participation in decision
making that emerged from the present data, a principal component analysis with
varimax rotation was performed on each of the 19 items of the questionnaire. Two
factors emerged, accounting for 56.4 percent of the variance, with eigenvalues greater
than 1. The first factor reflected decisions related to issues concerning teaching and
426 student discipline and grades, thus this factor corresponds to technical PDM. The
technical domain included nine items: what to teach, how to teach, texts/workbooks
available, texts/workbooks used, student discipline codes, standardized testing policy,
grading policies, reporting student achievement and students rights. The reliability
level was a ¼ 0.82. The second factor represented decision areas conventionally in the
purview of the administration such as budgeting, staffing and evaluation of teachers.
This factor, therefore, represents managerial PDM. The managerial domain included
ten items: teacher’s assignment to school, teacher’s subject/grade assignment, students’
assignment to class, removal for special instruction, designing facilities, budget
developing, spending priorities, staff hiring, staff development, and teacher’s
performance evaluation. The reliability level was a ¼ 0.91. Teachers were asked to
specify their level of PDM with regard to each of the above issues. Each sub-scale was
measured by the average response to the appropriate item, rated on a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very seldom), through 3 (sometimes), to 5 (very often).
Organizational citizenship behavior. OCB is defined as discretionary behavior that is
directed at individuals or at the organization as a whole. This type of behavior goes
beyond existing role expectations, and benefits the organization, or is intended to
benefit it (Organ, 1988). To measure teachers’ OCB, the 23-item scale of Somech and
Drach-Zahavy (2000) was used. This questionnaire was specifically developed and
validated in the context of schools. It refers to those discretionary behaviors that go
beyond existing role expectations and are directed towards the individual, the group,
or the organization as a whole. The questionnaire consisted of three sub-scales:
(1) OCBs towards the student (eight items; e.g. “stay after school hours to help
students with class materials”), with a reliability level of a ¼ 0.80;
(2) OCBs towards colleagues (seven items; e.g. “help an absent colleague by
assigning learning tasks to the class”), with a reliability level of a ¼ 0.77; and
(3) OCBs towards the school as a whole (eight items; e.g. “make innovative
suggestions to improve the school”), with a reliability level of a ¼ 0.87.

Each sub-scale was measured by the mean response to the relevant items rated on a
five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), through 3 (neither agree
nor disagree), to 5 (strongly agree). In the present study, we adopted Williams and
Anderson’s (1991) two-factor typology. Therefore, we used two sub-scales: citizenship
behaviors directed to assist individuals (OCB-I) that included items referring to
students and colleagues (a ¼ 0.85), and citizenship behaviors directed toward the
organization (OCB-O).
Teacher empowerment. Empowerment is defined and measured in relation to the
teachers’ power to influence key decisions regarding the teaching and learning
environment (Sweetland and Hoy, 2000). In this study, teacher empowerment was
measured using Short and Rinehart’s (1992) 38-item School Participant Empowerment
Scale (SPES). The SPES assesses teachers’ general perspectives on empowerment
using a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Organizational
Factor analysis of the SPES revealed six dimensions. The dimensions and their citizenship
internal coefficient alphas are: involvement in decision making (0.89); opportunities for
professional growth (0.83); status (0.86); self-efficacy (0.84); autonomy (0.81); and
impact (0.82). The complete scale has a reliability level of 0.94. Sample items include: “I
make decisions about the implementation of new programs in the school” (decision
making), “I am treated like a professional” (professional growth), “I believe that I have 427
earned respect” (status), “I believe that I am empowering students” (self-efficacy), “I
have the freedom to make decisions on what is taught” (autonomy), and “I believe that I
have an impact” (impact).

Data collection
Data were collected from the teachers at regularly-scheduled staff meetings. The
purpose of the study was outlined in general, anonymity was guaranteed, and the
importance of candid responses was stressed.

Results
Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the research variables are shown
in Table I. A strong correlation was found between empowerment and PDM in the
technical domain (r ¼ 0.61), and a weaker correlation, though still high (r ¼ 0.45),
between empowerment and PDM in the managerial domain. The six sub-scales of
teacher empowerment were also positively correlated with technical PDM (ranging
from 0.42 to 0.52); and with managerial PDM, though the range of correlations here was
greater (0.10 to 0.63). The higher teachers scored on any of the teacher empowerment
components, the more they reported on performing organizational citizenship
behaviors, and the more they reported on participating in technical decision making
and most aspects of the managerial level of decision making. An examination of the
means of the sub-scales of the SPES revealed that the sub-scales that received the
highest scores were status (M ¼ 4.1), professional growth (M ¼ 3.8), impact (M ¼ 3.7),
and self-efficacy (M ¼ 3.7). The lowest average score was ascribed to decision making
(M ¼ 3.1). The Pearson correlation matrix revealed that all six sub-scales were

Variable M SD 2 3 a b c d e f 4 5
a
1. PDM (technical) 3.2 0.84 0.55 0.61 0.49 0.52 0.42 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.47 0.40
2. PDMa (managerial) 2.1 0.89 0.45 0.63 0.26 0.10 0.30 0.35 0.31 0.48 0.49
3. Teacher empowermentb 4.1 0.62 0.82 0.86 0.74 0.87 0.76 0.89 0.53 0.50
a. Decision makingb 3.1 0.73 0.54 0.34 0.59 0.63 0.62 0.58 0.57
b. Professional growthb 3.8 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.55 0.73 0.35 0.32
c. Statusb 4.1 0.62 0.62 0.44 0.67 0.20 0.19
d. Self-efficacyb 3.7 0.65 0.56 0.77 0.49 0.45
e. Autonomyb 3.3 0.84 0.61 0.39 0.37
f. Impactb 3.7 0.72 0.42 0.40
4. OCB-Ia (individual) 3.1 0.68 0.78
5. OCB-Oa (organization) 3.1 0.92
Table I.
Notes: Variables a-f are sub-scales of “teacher empowerment”; arating scale: 1 ¼ very seldom; Descriptive statistics and
5 ¼ very often; brating scale: 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree; all correlations are intercorrelations among
statistically significant, p , 0.0001 study variables
JEA significantly (p , 0.0001) and positively correlated with OCB-I (ranging from 0.20 to
43,5 0.58) and with OCB-O (ranging from 0.19 to 0.57). With regard to the PDM domains, the
mean of technical PDM was found to be higher than the mean of managerial PDM (3.2
and 2.1, respectively; p , 0.0001). This finding implies that the teachers perceived
themselves as more involved in decisions relating to their day-to-day teaching tasks
than to the managerial aspects of their job.
428 The first two hypotheses assumed that participation in technical decisions would be
positively related to OCB-I, and that participation in managerial decisions would be
positively related to OCB-O. The correlation between technical PDM and OCB-I was
higher than the correlation between technical PDM and OCB-O, but both correlations
were statistically significant and relatively high. In relation to managerial PDM, the
correlation with OCB (individual and organization) was almost the same (0.48 and 0.49,
respectively). Finally, the correlation between OCB-I and OCB-O was relatively high
(0.78), implying that the two constructs share similar characteristics. The more
teachers exhibited OCBs toward individuals (students or colleagues), the more they
exhibited such behaviors toward the school as an organization. The correlations
between technical and managerial PDM and OCB (individual and organization) did not
confirm our hypotheses regarding the relation between technical PDM and OCB-I, and
managerial PDM and OCB-O.
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the mediating effect of
teacher empowerment on the relations between the predicting variable, teacher PDM,
and the dependent variable, OCB. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis extracts
the variance of the variable included first, and continues to build up the regression
solution by adding portions of variances of other predictors, uncorrelated with
predictors already included. Thus, the order of inclusion of variables into the
regression is crucial. Variables included earlier account for more variance than they
would account for, were they included at a later point in the analysis. A complete
mediating effect can be demonstrated when the following conditions hold: the predictor
(participation in decision making) is related to the output (OCB); the mediator (teacher
empowerment) is related to the output (OCB); and the relation between the predictor
and the output is eliminated when the mediator is controlled (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
R-squared (R 2) is the percent of the variance in the dependent variable explained
uniquely or jointly by the independent variables. The R 2 increments (DR 2) estimate
the predictive power an independent variable brings to the analysis when it is added to
the regression model, as compared to a model without that variable. It should be noted
that the maximum proportion of variance explained (R 2) was also used in this study as
a measure of effect size (Cohen, 1988).
Two hierarchical regressions were computed to test the mediating effect of teacher
empowerment on the relation between teacher PDM and OCB; each analysis regressed
the dependent variable (OCB-I, OCB-O) on teacher technical and managerial PDM and
the mediator, teacher empowerment (as a single scale) (see Table II). We first computed
a hierarchical regression for OCB-I.
In the first equation, OCB-I was regressed on teacher PDM: both domains of PDM
accounted for 29 percent of the variance in OCB-I. Unexpectedly, the results showed
that the beta weights of both PDM variables (technical and managerial domains) were
statistically significant (Beta ¼ 0.28, Beta ¼ 0.32, p , 0.001, respectively). In the
second equation, OCB-I was regressed on teacher empowerment which accounted for
 Organizational
OCB
Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3a citizenship
Independent variable – SE SE – SE

Participation in
decision making
Technical aspects 0.28 * * 0.03 0.15 * * 0.03 429
F 121.40 * *
df 3, 599
R2 0.37
DR 2 0.01
Managerial aspects 0.32 * * 0.03 0.30 * * 0.03
F 152.56 * * 172.88 * *
Table II.
df 2, 746 2, 600
Hierarchical regression
R2 0.29 0.36
2 analyses for testing the
DR 0.08
mediating effect of
Empowerment 0.53 * * 0.04 0.53 * * 0.04
teacher empowerment on
F 250.24 * * 250.24 * *
the relation between
df 1, 655 1, 655
participation in decision
R2 0.28 0.28
making and
DR 2
organizational citizenship
Notes: aFor equation 3, we entered empowerment in Step 1 and the two types of participation in Step behavior toward the
2; * * p , 0.001 individual (OCB-I)

28 percent of the variance. The beta weight of empowerment was statistically

significant (Beta ¼ 0.53, p , 0.001). In the third equation, to control for the effects of
teacher empowerment, empowerment was entered in the first step and PDM in the
second step. The results showed that both technical and managerial PDM were
statistically significant and entered the equation, though their contribution to the
explained variance of OCB-I, after the inclusion of teacher empowerment, was minor.
The beta weight of teacher empowerment was high (Beta ¼ 0.53, p , 0.001),
explaining 28 percent of the variance, while the beta weights of PDM in the technical
and managerial domains were lower (Beta ¼ 0.30, Beta ¼ 0.15, p , 0.001,
respectively), and explained eight and one percent of the variance. The results of
this set of regression analyses suggest that teacher empowerment mediated the
relationship between teacher PDM and OCB-I only partially.
Next, we examined teacher empowerment as a mediating effect in the relationship
between OCB-O and PDM (see Table III).
In the first equation, OCB-O was regressed on teacher PDM: both domains of PDM
accounted for 27 percent of the variance in OCB-O. As expected, only the beta weight of
the managerial aspects of PDM was statistically significant (Beta ¼ 0.50, p , 0.001).
In the second equation, OCB-O was regressed on teacher empowerment which
accounted for 24 percent of the variance. The beta weight of empowerment was
statistically significant (Beta ¼ 0.50, p , 0.001). In the third equation, empowerment
was entered in the first step and PDM in the second step. The results showed the
significance of teacher empowerment as a mediating effect (Beta ¼ 0.52, p , 0.001)
explaining 27 percent of the variance of OCB-O. However, managerial PDM added 9
percent of the variance as well (Beta ¼ 0.34, p , 0.001), whereas technical PDM did
not enter into the equation. The findings suggest both a direct and an indirect
JEA
OCB
43,5 Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3a
Independent variable – SE – SE – SE

Participation in
decision making
430 Technical aspects 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.04
Managerial
aspects 0.50 * * 0.04 0.34 * * 0.04
F 147.29 * * 180.92 * *
Table III. df 2, 792 2, 644
Hierarchical regression R2 0.27 0.36
analyses for testing the DR 2
0.09
mediating effect of Empowerment 0.50 * * 0.05 0.52 * * 0.05
teacher empowerment on F 231.02 * * 236.02 * *
the relation between df 1, 711 1, 645
participation in decision R2 0.24 0.27
making and DR 2
organizational citizenship
a
behavior toward the For equation 3, we entered empowerment in Step 1 and the two types of participation in Step 2;
organization (OCB-O) * * p , 0.001

relationship between PDM and OCB. As expected, teacher empowerment was found to
mediate the PDM-OCB relationship, though only partially (Hypothesis 3).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the direct effect of teachers’ participation in
decision making on their organizational citizenship behavior, and the impact of teacher
empowerment, as a mediating variable, on this relationship. More specifically, we
expected to find two dyad relationships: first, between technical PDM and OCB on the
individual level, and second, between managerial PDM and OCB on the organizational
level. The results did not support our hypotheses in this regard. The data analyses
showed that each type of PDM was significantly correlated with each type of OCB.
With regard to OCB, it should be noted that because the correlation between OCB-I and
OCB-O was found to be relatively high (r ¼ 0.78), the construct of organizational
citizenship behavior may not be clearly distinguished. Using meta-analysis, LePine
et al. (2002) discussed the findings of their study, in which they found strong
relationships among most of the OCB dimensions, and between these dimensions and
the predictors most often considered by OCB scholars. It is feasible that the teachers in
our sample viewed their citizenship behaviors in helping students as much the same as
their citizenship behaviors in assisting the school, and vice versa: helping the school to
perform more effectively is a way of helping the students.
The PDM-OCB relationships also imply that teachers who are involved in decision
making, whether on issues related to their own classroom or to the school as an
organization, will tend to exhibit OCBs toward their students and colleagues, as well as
toward the school as a whole. These findings stress the importance of teachers’
participation in decision making on all school aspects because PDM affects OCB
(VanYperen et al., 1999). Thus, the organization gains from behaviors that go beyond
existing role expectations, and that are directed at promoting organizational goals Organizational
(Organ, 1990). Though organizational citizenship is highly valuable, formal citizenship
organizational mechanisms cannot enforce its compliance because it is not part of
the formal job description (Van Dyne et al., 1995).
The findings regarding the participation of teachers in decision making are
consistent with previous research (e.g. Duke and Gansneder, 1990; Taylor and Bogotch,
1994). Teachers reported themselves to be more involved in issues concerning helping 431
students and colleagues and promoting instruction than in decisions related to school
operation and administration. In their study, Taylor and Bogotch (1994) also found that
teachers reported low levels of involvement in the managerial issues such as
determination of the school’s administrative and organizational structure, developing
methods to evaluate teachers, setting school goals, and involvement in school-wide
policies. It is important to note that teachers expressed interest in being involved in
decisions related to the school and state that they would take part if given the
opportunity (Ferrari, 1992; Gainey, 1997).
These findings should be acknowledged by principals and other officials involved
in the educational arena. These power holders need to open new avenues to teachers to
be involved in decisions and activities that are part of school life. This is especially true
with regard to participation in decision making on issues within the managerial
domain. Teachers in our study reported that they were more involved in decisions
related to students and instruction (technical aspects) as compared to decisions on
school operation and administration, such as setting school goals, hiring staff,
allocating budget and evaluating teachers. Because managerial PDM seems to be as
critical to the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization as technical PDM (Conley
and Bacharach, 1990; Somech and Bogler, 2002), it is highly recommended that
principals adopt a strategy of school management that emphasizes the importance of
involving teachers in decision making within the managerial arena.
In relation to teacher empowerment, our findings support previous research. The
means of the six dimensions of teacher empowerment appear to be consistent with
previous studies. Wall and Rinehart (1998), for example, found that the most frequent
dimensions of empowerment among high school teachers were, in descending order:
status (M ¼ 4.14, SD ¼ 0.51), self-efficacy, impact, professional growth, autonomy and
decision making (M ¼ 2.94, SD ¼ 0.72). Klecker and Loadman’s (1998) dimensional
ratings were similar, but in a different order: professional growth (M ¼ 4.19,
SD ¼ 0.63), self-efficacy, status, impact, decision making and autonomy (M ¼ 3.08,
SD ¼ 1.07). In the present study, similar results were found: status (M ¼ 4.1,
SD ¼ 0.62), professional growth, impact, self-efficacy, autonomy and decision making
(M ¼ 3.1, SD ¼ 0.73). These findings show that teachers feel they have respect and
admiration from colleagues (status), have opportunities to develop and expand their
skills (professional growth), have the ability to directly influence school life (impact),
and feel that they are effective (self-efficacy). It is, however, interesting to note that in
both the American sample and in our population, teachers did not feel that they had the
freedom to control their professional life and decisions (autonomy) or to participate in
important school-related decisions (decision making). Wall and Rinehart (1998)
suggested that either teachers are not aware of their involvement, or that they have not
in fact been given the opportunity to participate in various forms of school decision
making.
JEA Our findings suggest that teacher empowerment plays an important role in
43,5 mediating the relationship between PDM and OCB. The effect of PDM on
empowerment may explain the role that empowerment plays in the PDM-OCB
relationship. Involvement in decision-making processes induces teachers to take on
new roles and “go the extra mile”. This is reflected in the teachers’ motivation to have a
more direct impact on the school life, feel a sense of self-efficacy and autonomy in
432 making personal and school decisions, raise status, and strive for professional growth.
The teacher empowerment-OCB relationship can be explained via social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964), which asserts that human beings are motivated to engage in
interactional processes by a desire to maximize rewards and minimize costs. It may be
that teachers are willing to perform non-prescribed OCBs that will benefit the
organization in exchange for the sense of empowerment that they gain from their job or
the organization. Subordinates’ OCB was examined within the framework of social
exchange theory by Deluga (1994) who used this theory and equity theory to investigate
the connection among supervisors’ trust-building activity, leader-member exchange
(LMX) quality, and subordinate OCB on a sample of 86 subordinate-supervisor dyads
employed in various organizations in northeastern USA. With regard to OCB, Deluga’s
findings indicated that subordinates reduced conscientiousness and altruism in response
to the supervisor’s competence. He recommended follow-up studies to investigate more
profoundly the consistency of the findings and to suggest additional explanations. It
would be interesting to examine whether social exchange theory can offer insights into
relationships among organizational variables such as OCB, empowerment, PDM, and
teachers’ perceptions of their occupation.

Limitations and further research

Our research is not without limitations. In describing these limitations, we
simultaneously suggest directions for future inquiry. First, the present study design
did not allow consideration of causality, making it impossible to determine whether
OCB causes participation in decision making, or whether PDM causes teachers to
exhibit OCBs. We tend to presume that PDM is the predictor of OCB, but further
research is needed to investigate these relationships and to address the causality issue.
A second limitation is that we examined the teachers’ perceptions about their
participation in decision making, sense of empowerment and OCBs at only one point in
time. A longitudinal study will allow us to determine whether PDM is a cause or
consequence of the teachers’ organizational citizenship. It may be argued that
principals are more inclined to involve teachers who exhibit extra-role behaviors which
contribute to the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency (in business organizations,
see Podsakoff et al., 2000). Research designs involving measures of PDM (or other
organizational characteristics) and OCB at multiple points in time will help to ascertain
whether PDM is a cause, a consequence, or both a cause and a consequence of teachers’
OCB. Another limitation of the study refers to using one source of data collection.
Because the use of totally self-report measures introduces the potential to common
method variance, future research efforts should incorporate alternative designs.
A final limitation relates to the generalizability of the study. Teachers in this study
were sampled from junior and senior high schools in the northern and central parts of
Israel. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and implications of the study may not be
generalizable to schools in other parts of this country, or to other countries. Future
research should study the relationships among these variables in a larger context and Organizational
in different geographical areas. It would be interesting to examine the differences in the citizenship
constructs of OCB and its dimensionality in various countries, as we expect to find
variability across cultures (see, for example, Farh et al.’s (2004) study in the People’s
Republic of China, in which they revealed that Chinese formulation of OCB differs from
that in the West). We also assume that because the heterogeneity of organizations
within sectors (e.g. service organizations) and between them (for-profit vs not-for-profit 433
organizations), even in a single country, different patterns of OCB will emerge. The
willingness to perform spontaneous and cooperative behavior is assumed to be
value-driven as it reflects the personal choice of the employees. Consequently, we
expect to find variability within and between groups.
Following our unexpected results regarding the relationships between PDM and
OCB-I and OCB-O, we recommend further research on organizational citizenship
within service organizations such as schools, because most previous studies were
conducted in private organizations (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001). As DiPaola
and Tschannen-Moran (2001, p. 435) indicated, “[t]here has been confusion over the
dimensions of the construct”, and it may be that another construct would be more
appropriate to school settings. In their study, the researchers identified a one-factor
construct across two diverse samples of K-12 schools. They explained this unusual
finding by arguing that “[t]he distinction between helping individuals and furthering
the organizational mission is blurred, because the mission is synonymous with helping
people” (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001, p. 442). We recommend to continue this
line of research by examining the theoretical and empirical differences among the
different measures of OCB: the five categories of OCB; altruism, conscientiousness,
sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (Organ, 1988), the two-factor structure that
was originally suggested by Williams (1988), the one that emerged in DiPaola and
Tschannen-Moran’s study (2001), and the concentric model of OCB dimensions
suggested by Farh et al. (2004). It is also recommended to examine the construct of OCB
on various samples because, as observed by Podsakoff et al. (1993), OCB factors
depend on the sample. Thus, more empirical evidence is needed to clarify the issue of
dimensionality.
At a time when the restructuring movement is gaining more recognition (Clement
and Vandenberghe, 2000), schools are becoming more and more dependent on teachers’
organizational citizenship. Future research should further investigate the
organizational citizenship within schools as little research has been conducted to
date. Researchers could study this concept through the eyes of both principals and
teachers in order to better understand how each group conceives OCB. A combined
quantitative and qualitative study might provide further insight into people’s OCBs. It
would be very important to consider other variables beyond the scope of the present
study. Personality factors may prove to affect the likelihood of people to perform
outside the purview of their prescribed roles, actions over which they have greater
discretion than in-role behaviors. Alternately, individuals’ personalities may function
as a mediating variable on the relationship between organizational inputs and OCB.

References
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thoughts and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
JEA Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
43,5 Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship
between affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26,
pp. 587-95.
434 Blase, J. (1993), “The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: teachers’ perspectives”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 142-63.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bogler, R. (2001), “The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 662-83.
Boyd, V. and Hord, S.M. (1997), “Schools as learning communities”, Issues about Change, Vol. 4,
pp. 1-8.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 710-25.
Clement, M. and Vandenberghe, R. (2000), “Teachers’ professional development: a solitary or
collegial (ad)venture?”, Teacher and Teaching Education, Vol. 16, pp. 81-101.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.
Conley, S.C. and Bacharach, S.B. (1990), “From school-site management to participatory
school-site management”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, pp. 539-44.
Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1996), “Procedural justice and worker motivation”, in Steers, R.M.,
Porter, L.W. and Bigley, G.A. (Eds), Motivation and Leadership at Work, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, pp. 72-83.
Deluga, R.J. (1994), “Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,, Vol. 67,
pp. 315-26.
DiPaola, M. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), “Organizational citizenship behavior in schools
and its relationships to school climate”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11, pp. 424-47.
Duke, D.L. and Gansneder, B. (1990), “Teacher empowerment: the view from the classroom”,
Educational Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 145-60.
Durham, C.C., Knight, D. and Locke, E.A. (1997), “Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty,
efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 72, pp. 203-31.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B. and Organ, D.W. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior in the
People’s Republic of China”, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 241-53.
Ferrari, F.J. (1992), “Empowerment for effective schools: a study of middle principals and levels
of teacher participation in organizational decision making”, abstract from: ProQuest File:
Dissertation Abstracts, item: 9214156, ProQuest Information Learning, Cambridge.
Firestone, W.A. and Pennell, J.R. (1993), “Teacher commitment, working conditions, and
differential incentive policies”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 63, pp. 489-525.
Folger, R. (1993), “Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements”, Employee Organizational
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 239-48.
Gainey, K.O. (1997), “The extent of teacher involvement in school decision making”, abstract
citizenship
from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts, item: 9721605, Proquest Information &
Learning, Cambridge.
George, J.M. (1996), “Group affective tone”, in West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group
Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 77-94. 435
Herriott, R.E. and Firestone, W.A. (1984), “Two images of schools as organizations: a refinement
and elaboration”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 41-57.
Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997), “An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: once more into the breech”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp. 553-85.
Janz, B.D., Colquitt, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (1997), “Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of
autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 877-904.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 58-75.
Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E. and Gibson, C.B. (2004), “The impact of team
empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face
interaction”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 175-92.
Klecker, B.J. and Loadman, W.E. (1998), “Defining and measuring the dimensions of teacher
empowerment in restructuring public schools”, Education, Vol. 118, pp. 358-405.
Koopman, P.L. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1998), “Participative management”, in Doentu, P.J.D.,
Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C.J. (Eds), A Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology:
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 3, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 297-324.
Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R.F. and Smith, J.B. (1991), “The effect of the social organization of schools on
teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 4, pp. 190-208.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87, pp. 52-65.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, P.G. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994), “The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in
prosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries of
prosocial behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 836-44.
Marks, H.M. and Louis, K.S. (1997), “Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom?”, The
implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic
performance, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19, pp. 245-75.
Martin, C.L. and Bies, R.J. (1991), “Just laid off, but still a good citizen? Only if the process is fair”,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami, FL.
Miller, K. and Monge, P. (1986), “Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analytic
review”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 727-53.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6,
pp. 209-25.
JEA O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior”, Journal
43,5 of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-9.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, Research in
436 Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 3-10.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48,
pp. 775-802.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bacharach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-63.
Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.P., MacKenzie, S.B. and Williams, M. (1993), “Do substitutes for
leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s
situational leadership model”, Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 54, pp. 1-44.
Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. III and Hackman, J.R. (1996), “Ways groups influence individual work
effectiveness”, in Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. and Bigley, G.A. (Eds), Motivation and
Leadership at Work, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 346-54.
Redding, J.C. (2000), The Radical Team Handbook: Harnessing the Power of Team Learning for
Breakthrough Results, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rinehart, J.S. and Short, P.M. (1994), “Job satisfaction and empowerment among teacher leaders,
reading recovery teachers, and regular classroom teachers”, Education, Vol. 114,
pp. 570-80.
Rinehart, J.S., Short, P.M. and Johnson, P.E. (1997), “Empowerment and conflict at school-based
and non-school-based sites in the United States”, International Studies in Educational
Administration, Vol. 25, pp. 77-87.
Rosenblatt, Z. (2001), “Teachers’ multiple roles and skill flexibility: effects on work attitudes”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 684-708.
Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J. and Osborn, R. (1994), Managing Organizational Behavior, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Seashore-Louis, K.S. and Kruse, S.D. (1995), Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on
Reforming Urban Schools, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Senge, P.M. (1993), “Transforming the practice of management”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 5-32.
Short, P.M. (1994), “Exploring the links among teacher empowerment, leader power, and
conflict”, Education, Vol. 114, pp. 581-4.
Short, P.M. and Rinehart, J.S. (1992), “School participant empowerment scale: assessment of level
of empowerment within the school environment”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 52, pp. 951-60.
Short, P.M., Greer, J.T. and Melvin, W.M. (1994), “Creating empowered schools: lessons in
change”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 32, pp. 38-52.
Smylie, M.A. (1994), “Redesigning teachers’ work: connections to the classroom”, in Organizational
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.), Review of Educational Research, Vol. 20, American
Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, pp. 129-77. citizenship
Somech, A. (2002), “Explicating the complexity of participative management: an investigation of
multiple dimensions”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 341-71.
Somech, A. and Bogler, R. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and
professional commitment”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 555-77. 437
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000), “Understanding organizational citizenship behavior in
schools: the relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’
extra-role behavior”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16, pp. 649-59.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004), “Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an
organizational perspective: the relationship between organizational learning and
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 281-98.
Soodak, L.C. and Podell, D.M. (1996), “Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a
multi-faceted construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 12, pp. 401-11.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the work place: dimensions,
measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-65.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 483-504.
Sweetland, S.R. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), “School characteristics and educational outcomes: toward
an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 703-29.
Taylor, D.L. and Bogotch, J.E. (1994), “School-level effects of teachers’ participation in decision
making”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 16, pp. 302-19.
Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), “Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’
procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 97-105.
Terry, P.M. (1996), “Empowerment”, National Forum of Educational Administration and
Supervision Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 1995-6.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 666-81.
Turnipseed, D. and Murkison, G. (2000), “Good soldiers and their syndrome: organizational
citizenship behavior and the work environment”, North American Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 2, pp. 281-302.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, in Zanna, M.P.
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York,
NY, pp. 115-91.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and McLean Parks, J. (1995), “Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 215-85.
VanYperen, N.W., Berg, A.E. and Willering, M.C. (1999), “Towards a better understanding of the
link between participation in decision making and organizational citizenship behavior:
a multilevel analysis”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72,
pp. 377-92.
JEA Wall, R. and Rinehart, J.S. (1998), “School-based decision making and the empowerment of
secondary school teachers”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 8, pp. 49-64.
43,5 West, M.A. (1994), Effective Teamwork, BPS Books, Leicester.
Williams, L.J. (1988), “Effective and noneffective components of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors”, unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
438 Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 601-17.
Wilson, S. and Coolican, M.J. (1996), “How high and low self-empowered teachers work with
colleagues and school principals”, The Journal of Educational Thought, Vol. 30, pp. 99-118.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 361-84.