See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228657140

Who benefits from participative management?

Article  in  Journal of Educational Administration · May 2010

DOI: 10.1108/09578231011041026

CITATIONS READS
14 1,131

2 authors:

Pascale Benoliel Anit Somech

Bar Ilan University University of Haifa
29 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS    80 PUBLICATIONS   3,617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project 3535 View project

Successful School Leadership as a Means for Retaining Novice Teachers: Towards Developing a School Ecological Culture Measure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anit Somech on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Who benefits
Who benefits from participative from participative
management? management?
Pascale Benoliel and Anit Somech
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel 285
Abstract Received December 2008
Revised July 2009
Purpose – This study seeks to explore the moderating role of teachers’ personality traits from the Accepted October 2009
Big Five typology on the relationship between participative management and teacher outcomes with
respect to performance, satisfaction and strain. The study suggests that participative management
may produce different results depending on teachers’ personality factors.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a survey of 153 elementary school
teachers and their principals in Northern and Central Israel. Teachers were asked to complete
questionnaires about participative management, workplace satisfaction and strain, as well as to fill in
the Big Five personality questionnaire. Teacher performance was evaluated by the school principal.
Findings – Hierarchical regression analyses show that the personality dimensions of extroversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism served as moderators of the relation between
participative management and teacher performance, satisfaction and strain. However, openness to
experience was not found to have a moderating impact on those relations.
Originality/value – Many educational research studies have emphasized the benefits of
participative management practices for school organizations and teachers, while ignoring the
potential negative impact of teacher participation in the decision-making process. The present study
contributes to understanding and predicting the impact of participative management on teachers in
particular and on school organization effectiveness in general. From the practical perspective, this
research points to the necessity of including personality factors to better understand the impact of
participative management on teacher outcomes and indicates that participative management may not
suit all teachers.
Keywords Participative management, Teachers, Personality measurement, Performance measures,
Israel
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
An extensive body of research has shown that participative management – defined as
joint decision making or at least shared influence in decision making by a superior and
his or her employees (Koopman and Wierdsma, 1998) – offers a variety of potential
benefits to the overall school organization and to its employees (Day et al., 2005; Gebert
et al., 2003). Nevertheless, studies (Sato et al., 2002) have also indicated that teacher
involvement in the decision-making process can generate job-related stress and role
ambiguity and can create tension and conflict among teachers, principals, and
administrators. Indeed, for some teachers, job role enhancement may actually be a
source of additional stress.
Occupational stress is a growing problem resulting in substantial cost to individual
employees and to work organizations (Hart and Cooper, 2001). Hence, organizations Journal of Educational
have been compelled to show greater concern for workers’ health, and the consensus Administration
Vol. 48 No. 3, 2010
belief that “healthier-happier employees are power” is becoming widespread (Schaufeli, pp. 285-308
2004). Indeed, the huge costs of teacher strain can include impaired health and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
dysfunctional teacher behavior, with obvious implications upon student learning DOI 10.1108/09578231011041026
JEA (Dorman, 2003). Moreover, the consequences of teacher stress affect society as a whole
48,3 in terms of the costs of absenteeism, lost teaching time and turnover (Santavirta et al.,
2007). Therefore, the question is: which teachers benefit from a participative
management environment, and which do not? Based on the person-environment fit
theory (Kristof, 1996) and on cognitive-relational stress theory of Lazarus and Folkman
(1984), we propose that personality may play a crucial role in the impact of
286 participative management on teacher outcomes. For teachers’ personality traits, we
employ the Big Five personality taxonomy, namely:
(1) extroversion (E);
(2) agreeableness (A);
(3) conscientiousness (C);
(4) neuroticism (N); and
(5) openness to experiences (O).

Accordingly, we set out to explore the moderating role of teacher personality traits on
the relationship between participative management and the outcomes of performance,
satisfaction and strain (see Figure 1).

2. Teacher personality traits and participative management outcomes

Participative management practices are commonly perceived as offering a variety of
potential benefits for the organization and for workers’ mental health and job

Figure 1.
The study model of the
Big Five personality
factors as moderating the
relationship between
participative management
and the teacher outcomes
of performance,
satisfaction and strain
satisfaction (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Kim, 2002). Nevertheless, such an environment, Who benefits
which is marked by shared decision making and a high level of interaction and from participative
cooperation among teachers and between teachers and principals (Blase and Blase,
1994), may actually be harmful for some, as it generates additional pressure and management?
perceived stress due to added challenges, responsibility and accountability.
In the last decade, several calls have been made to examine the role of personality in
stress and job outcomes (Barrick and Mount, 2005). The five-factor model of 287
personality, commonly referred to as the “Big Five” in the personality literature, has
become the predominant model for specifying personality structure. This model
provides an integrated framework to describe and measure personality according to
five principal domains:
(1) extroversion (E);
(2) agreeableness (A);
(3) conscientiousness (C);
(4) neuroticism (N); and
(5) openness to experiences (O) (Costa and McCrae, 1992).

The Big Five personality taxonomy has been convincingly validated across different
cultures, occupations, rating sources, and measures (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Recent
studies (Moss and Ngu, 2006; O’Brien and DeLongis, 1996) have found the Big Five
personality traits to be meaningfully associated with many work-related behaviors and
outcomes that are of interest and concern to managers and organizations.
The present study model is based on the person-environment (P-E) fit theory and on
the cognitive-relational stress theory of Lazarus and Folkman (1984). According to the
P-E fit theory, positive outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction) will occur when there is
similarity between an individual and the work environment, or when one entity
provides what the other needs. For example, the work environment supplies what the
individual needs (need-supply fit), or the individual provides abilities demanded by the
work environment (demand-ability fit). The theory also emphasizes that negative
outcomes will occur (e.g. strain, turnover) when there is dissimilarity between the
individual and the work environment (Kristof, 1996). Yet, the broader literature on fit
has demonstrated that the fit between people and their jobs, teams, and organizations
has an impact upon a wide variety of outcomes and on how employees experience
strain (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Xie and Schaubroeck, 2001).
Furthermore, individual responses to stressful situations can vary greatly, and
certain people are more likely to experience high levels of strain on the job than others
(Fontana and Abouserie, 1993). According to the cognitive-relational approach
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), appraisal mediates how people experience their
environment. People constantly monitor the conditions in their environment to
determine whether these conditions are likely to affect their wellbeing (primary
appraisal), and if so, to see what can be done about this (secondary appraisal).
Individuals appraise a situation as threatening when they see that their coping
resources are inadequate to cope with the event. Responses to threat include high
subjective stress and poor task performance (Tomaka et al., 1993). On the other hand,
individuals appraise a situation as challenging when they assess their coping abilities
JEA as exceeding the situational demands. Challenge responses include low subjective
48,3 strain and successful task performance.
Therefore, the basic assumption of the present study is that teachers who are
motivated to perform challenging work requiring collaboration and autonomy may
achieve higher levels of performance and satisfaction because their personality factors
may match the environmental factors associated with participative management.
288 Likewise, a work environment that does not offer teachers the opportunities they seek
because their resources do not match the demands of the participative environment
may lead these teachers to negative outcomes and behaviors. Furthermore, they may
perceive the participative management as threatening to their wellbeing.
Here we posit that the Big Five traits moderate the relationships between
participative management and the outcomes of performance, satisfaction and strain
among teachers. Hence, we focus on higher-level factors as opposed to lower-level
traits.

2.1 Extraversion
Highly extroverted people tend to be sociable, optimistic, outgoing, energetic,
expressive, active, and assertive (Barrick and Mount, 1991). They seek out the
company of others, prefer a high degree of social interaction with a wide variety of
people and tend to have many friends and acquaintances (Sak, 2004). In contrast, low
extroverted individuals tend to be quieter and more reserved (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
They prefer to work alone or with individuals rather than in large groups (Sak, 2004).
A high level of extroversion has been found to be related to job performance in
occupations where a significant portion of the job involves interactions with others
(Barrick et al., 2001).
Working in a participative management environment tends to foster more interaction
among team members and requires individuals who have robust social skills (Lawler,
1992). Researchers (Argyle and Lu, 1990; Hills and Argyle, 2001) have indicated that
social interaction can be a major source of pleasure and happiness for highly extroverted
individuals, which, in turn, generates positive moods and ultimately overall happiness
(Tkach and Lyubomirsky, 2006). Also, because of their social facility, highly extroverted
individuals are likely to find interpersonal interactions such as those at work more
rewarding (Watson and Clark, 1997; Lucas et al., 2000). Thus, they may be better suited
to a participative management environment, and may experience higher level of
performance and satisfaction than teachers low in extroversion.
Participative management has the potential to balance the involvement of managers
and their subordinates in information-processing, decision-making, or problem-solving
endeavors (Wagner, 1994). A high degree of extroversion was found to be positively
associated with challenge appraisal and negatively associated with threat appraisal
(Gallagher, 1990). Therefore, the added responsibility and accountability generated by
shared decision making may be appraised by highly extroverted teachers as
challenging, with positive consequences for their wellbeing. In contrast, individuals
low in extroversion prefer to work in occupations with little noise and stimulation.
They are somewhat more idea-oriented as they usually get their stimulation from their
inner world (Sak, 2004). We suggest that those teachers may see the demands of
participative management as threatening to their wellbeing and will therefore
experience higher levels of strain.
2.2 Agreeableness Who benefits
Highly agreeable individuals tend to be compassionate, altruistic, cooperative, from participative
compliant, modest, forgiving, and trusting (Costa and McCrae, 1992). In contrast,
individuals low in agreeableness tend to be egocentric, skeptical of the intentions of management?
others and competitive (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Earlier research (Judge et al., 2002)
found that highly agreeable individuals perform well in jobs involving joint action and
interpersonal relationships, whereas employees who are low in agreeableness are less 289
likely to be effective in teamwork (Barrick and Mount, 2005) and wary of direct contact
(Carson and Lowman, 2002).
Work environments with a fairly high level of interpersonal interaction, as in a
participative management environment, require tolerance, selflessness, and flexibility
(Witt and Burke, 2003). Participative management also promotes teamwork,
cooperation in solving problems, and combining knowledge (Edmondson, 1999). The
literature suggests that agreeableness involves getting along with others in pleasant,
satisfying relationships ( Judge et al., 2002). Given their motivation to develop
meaningful interpersonal intimacy and personal relationships (Judge et al., 2002),
highly agreeable teachers may be better suited to a participative management
environment, where they will experience higher level of performance and satisfaction
than teachers low in agreeableness.
Teacher involvement in the decision-making process can create tension and conflict
among teachers and administrators (Sato et al., 2002). Previous research (O’Brien and
DeLongis, 1996) indicated that in stressful situations, people high in agreeableness are
more likely to cope by seeking support than those who are low in agreeableness.
Indeed, highly agreeable individuals tend to deal with conflict cooperatively, maintain
social affiliations, and strive for common understanding (Digman, 1990). In contrast,
teachers with a low degree of agreeableness have a defective sense of bonding with
their fellow human beings (McCrae and Costa, 1987). They may, therefore, unlike
highly agreeable teachers, find interactions with other teachers difficult because they
lack the skills necessary for this type of interaction. As a result, they may exhibit a
significant level of strain.

2.3 Conscientiousness
Highly conscientious individuals tend to be careful, responsible, purposeful,
dependable, hardworking, persistent, and achievement-oriented (Barrick and Mount,
1991). In contrast, people low in conscientiousness tend to be irresponsible,
undependable, and lacking in self-discipline (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Research
(Moss and Ngu, 2006) has revealed that conscientiousness may be the most important
of the Big Five traits in its impact on work performance and adjustment to
organizations.
A participative management environment helps teachers discover new
opportunities and challenges and enables them to learn by acquiring, sharing, and
combining knowledge (Edmondson, 1999). High levels of conscientiousness are
characterized by a general tendency to be involved in work, entailing a greater
likelihood of obtaining satisfying formal and informal work rewards (respect, sense of
personal accomplishment) (Organ and Lingl, 1995). Therefore, participative
management may lead to higher levels of performance and satisfaction among
teachers who are highly conscientious because they are able to take advantage of
JEA opportunities to fulfill their higher-order needs, such as the need for more challenging,
48,3 meaningful, and broadly defined work, thus leading to a needs-supplies fit. In contrast,
teachers who are low in conscientiousness tend to take a free ride on the efforts of other
members of the work group (Barrick and Mount, 1991), and thus may not benefit from
participative management.
Participative management gives employees more responsibility for organizational
290 performance and for making planning and organizing decisions, thus inherently
signaling that the organization recognizes the employee can make important
contributions to it (Luthans, 1995; Stevens and Ash, 2001). Previous studies (Penley
and Tomaka, 2002; Vollrath, 2001) have indicated that highly conscientious
individuals perceive themselves as able to meet situational demands, tend more
readily to accept responsibility for problems that arise and persevere even when facing
obstacles. In contrast, low conscientious teachers tend to be more lackadaisical in
working toward their goal (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Therefore, unlike highly
conscientious teachers, they may not see participative environment, which promotes
democratic and shared decision making (Sato et al., 2002), as challenging and as a
growth-enhancing opportunity. Thus, they may exhibit a significant level of strain.

2.4 Neuroticism
Highly neurotic individuals tend to experience anxiety, tension, embarrassment, anger,
guilt, depression, and low self-esteem (Costa and McCrae, 1992). In contrast, low neurotic
individuals tend to be more confident, secure, and steady (Goldberg, 1992). Szymura and
Wodniecka (2003) reported that when individuals undertook more demanding tasks,
higher levels of neuroticism were associated with worse task performance.
A participative management environment increases the degree to which teachers can
shape and influence matters (Gebert et al., 2003). Nevertheless, because of their
essentially negative nature, highly neurotic individuals experience more negative life
events than do other individuals (Magnus et al., 1993). Therefore, highly neurotic
teachers may miss opportunities to see meaning in their work and may see themselves as
more incompetent than competent (Spreitzer, 2007). They may exhibit lower levels of
performance and satisfaction than teachers scoring low in neuroticism. A participative
management environment may not satisfy their needs as they may tend to experience
less of the positive and more of the negative effects of participative management.
In a participative environment, teachers who typically work in isolation from other
adults, must engage other adults, negotiate, resolve differences and make decisions
concerning issues that traditionally are not within the scope of their duties (Weiss et al.,
1992). In their cognitive appraisal, highly neurotic individuals have proven more likely
to appraise stressors as threats rather than challenges, increasing their probability of
experiencing negative affect in response (Suls, 2001). Such individuals are prone to
irrational ideas, are less able to control their impulses, and have poor skills for coping
with stress compared with others (Costa and McCrae, 1992). They tend to experience
more stressors in their interactions with others and to perceive daily events more
negatively (Gunthert et al., 1999). In contrast, teachers who are low in neuroticism tend
to exhibit an overall level of adjustment and resilience (Goldberg, 1992). Unlike highly
neurotic teachers, they may therefore, perceive the magnification of social and mental
demands involved in participative management as a challenge with positive
consequences for their wellbeing.
2.5 Openness to experience Who benefits
People who are highly open to experience tend to be curious, reflective, creative, from participative
imaginative, original, independent, unconventional, and accepting of diversity
(Goldberg, 1992). In contrast, individuals who are low in openness to experience management?
tend to demonstrate lower levels of divergent thinking because they find comfort in the
routine (Goldberg, 1992). LePine et al. (2000) have acknowledged that highly open
individuals appreciate the merits of trying new things and the potential for improving 291
on the past. Furthermore, they readily adapt to change and creatively solve complex
problems (George and Zhou, 2001)
Participative management challenges traditional practices and encourages
autonomy, openness to new suggestions or ideas, and novel objectives (West, 2002).
As such, it gives employees more opportunities to initiate and promote new programs
and innovations (Sato et al., 2002). Therefore, teachers high in openness to experience
may be better suited to such an environment because they may experience the variety
they seek and be satisfied by expressing this need (Tett and Burnett, 2003), resulting in
a needs-supplies fit. Thus, they may exhibit a higher level of performance and
satisfaction than teachers who are low in openness to experience.
A participative management environment involves an increase in social and mental
demands, such as job meaningfulness, responsibility for others and collaboration
(Stevens and Ash, 2001). Previous research (O’Brien and DeLongis, 1996; Penley and
Tomaka, 2002) reported that openness to experience has been positively associated
with perceived coping ability and perceived responsibility for and control over a task.
Traits such as divergent thinking, flexibility of thought, creativity and originality
(Moss and Ngu, 2006), all of which characterize highly open individuals, may foster
their ability to adapt in a participative management environment as they are likely to
take the initiative to innovate and will feel challenged in such an environment. In
contrast, individuals who are low in openness prefer to adopt familiar ways of doing
things to reduce uncertainty about the soundness of their decisions (George and Zhou,
2001). Therefore, low open teachers may not consider the greater decision-making
autonomy and control over a situation involved in a participative management
environment as a challenging and growth-enhancing opportunity. As a result, they
may exhibit a significant level of strain.

3. Research hypotheses
Teachers’ personality traits will moderate the relationships between participative
management and teacher performance, satisfaction and strain.
H1. The relationship between participative management and performance will be
positive for teachers high in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience and low in neuroticism. In contrast, the
relationship between participative management and performance will be
negative for teachers low in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness
and openness to experience and high in neuroticism.
H2. The relationship between participative management and satisfaction will be
positive for teachers high in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience and low in neuroticism. In contrast, the
relationship between participative management and satisfaction will be
JEA negative for teachers low in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness
48,3 and openness to experience and high in neuroticism.
H3. The relationship between participative management and strain will be
negative for teachers high in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience and low in neuroticism. In contrast, the
relationship between participative management and strain will be positive for
292 teachers low in extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness
to experience and high in neuroticism.

4. Method
4.1 Participants and procedure
The sample comprised 153 schoolteachers from different elementary schools located in
the north and center of Israel. A toal of 190 schools were chosen randomly from a list
provided by the Ministry of Education. For each school, the first name on the school list
was asked to fill in the questionnaires. If he or she did not agree to participate, the
second teacher on the list was asked to participate, and so forth until a teacher did
agree. After a teacher agreed, we asked the principal to complete a performance
appraisal for that specific teacher. The purpose of the study was explained in general
terms, anonymity was guaranteed, and the importance of participants’ answers was
emphasized.
A total of 190 questionnaires were distributed, and the response rate within schools
was 80.5 percent for teachers and 100 percent for principals. The schoolteachers were
96.7 percent women, with an average age of 44.5 years (SD ¼ 7:31). They had an
average of 18.23 years of experience (SD ¼ 8:49), with average tenure teaching at the
present school of 11.75 years (SD ¼ 8:0). With respect to education, 35.6 percent had a
“professional” degree (equivalent to a junior college diploma with teaching credentials),
20.5 percent held a Bachelor’s degree and 17.1 percent had a Master’s degree. Teachers
completed questionnaires on participative management, workplace satisfaction, strain,
and the Big Five personality questionnaire. They also provided some demographic
information. Teachers’ performance was evaluated by their principals to avoid
same-source bias, as suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986).

4.2 Research instrument

4.2.1 Participative management. Participative management was assessed by Somech’s
(2002) questionnaire. Teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which they actually
participate in decision making on ten school issues (e.g. instructional policies,
classroom discipline policies, resolving learning problems, setting school goals, hiring
staff, allocating budget, and evaluating students). They answered on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) “very seldom” to (5) “very often” (a ¼ 0:93).
4.2.2 Teachers’ personality dimension. Teachers’ personality dimension was
assessed by the NEO-Five Factor Inventory Form S, the abbreviated version of the
NEO-PI (NEO-FFI: Costa and McCrae, 1992). This inventory has 60 questions, 12 for
each of the five factors. It measures the following aspects of personality:
.
extroversion (“I really enjoy talking to people”) (a ¼ 0:77);
.
agreeableness (“I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate”) (a ¼ 0:61);
.
conscientiousness (“I work hard to accomplish my goal”) (a ¼ 0:76);
 .
neuroticism (“I’m not a worrier”) (a ¼ 0:78); and Who benefits
.
openness to experience (“I often try new and foreign food”) (a ¼ 0:68). from participative
Teachers responded to each item on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (0) management?
“strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree”.
4.2.3 Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed by Zak’s (1975) ten-item
questionnaire (“If I had to choose a new profession I would choose the same one”). 293
Teachers responded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to
(5) “strongly agree” (a ¼ 0:86).
4.2.4 Teacher strain. Teacher strain was assessed by the abbreviated version of the
General Well-Being questionnaire developed by Dupuy (1984). Items referred to
participants’ anxiety, depression, and positive wellbeing (“I was in a good mood last
year”). Teachers responded on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) “all the time” to
(6) “never” (a ¼ 0:77).
4.2.5 Teacher performance. Teacher performance was assessed by the school
principals using Broockstein’s (1991) performance appraisal questionnaire to evaluate
the extent to which teachers fulfilled their duties (“How would you evaluate the
teacher’s performance regarding extra assignments in the school setting?”). Principals
answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) “very bad” to (5) “very good”
(a ¼ 0:88).

4.3 Statistical analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using LISREL 8 software (Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 1996) to analyze the internal structure of the nine scales used in the study
(participative management, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, openness to experience, performance, job satisfaction, and strain). We
tested the measurement model by comparing the nine-factor model with the rival
three-factor model (leadership style, personality, and employee outcomes) and a
one-factor model. As Kelloway (1998) noted, the quality of fit of a theoretical model is
based both on providing a good absolute fit to the data and on offering a better fit than
a competing model.
The nine-factor solution proved to have good fit indexes (ðx 2 ð288Þ ¼ 391:45,
p , 0:001), NFI ¼ 0:92, NNFI ¼ 9:94, CFI ¼ 0:91, SRMR ¼ 0:05, RMSEA ¼ 0:05).
Even more importantly, the nine-factor model provided a better fit to the data than
either of the plausible rival models. All the fit indexes of both competing models were
worse than those of the nine-factor model (three-factor model: (x 2 ð321Þ ¼ 790:24,
p , 0:001), NFI ¼ 0:44, NNFI ¼ 0:46, CFI ¼ 0:54, SRMR ¼ 0:09, RMSEA ¼ 0:10;
one-factor model: ( x 2 ð324Þ ¼ 11; 01:82, p , 0:001), NFI ¼ 0:21, NNFI ¼ 0:26,
CFI ¼ 0:28, SRMR ¼ 0:11, RMSEA ¼ 0:13). These results indicate that the nine
scales of the present measurement model represent concepts that are theoretically, but
also empirically, distinguishable.

4.4 Control variables

School size and teacher tenure were included as control variables because the literature
has noted the effects of these factors on a leader’s tendency to engage in participative
decision making (Green et al., 1996; Yukl, 2002).
JEA We conducted three hierarchical regression analyses for predicting the three
48,3 outcomes, namely performance, satisfaction and strain. All effect terms of the proposed
predictors, namely participative management and the Big Five personality dimensions
of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to
experience, were entered into the regression equation. The control variables (tenure
and school size) were entered in Step 1. The main effect terms were entered in Step 2.
294 The first-order interactive effect term, that is, the interactions between participative
management and each of the five personality dimensions were entered in Step 3. We
then plotted values according to median score in order to dichotomize the variables and
create “low-high’ variables of participative management and the five personality
factors. Because splitting continuous variables into categorical variables leads to
reduced statistical power, Irwin and McClelland (2003) recommend the use of a median
split instead of a mean split.

5. Results
Table I shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation matrix for the
study variables. An examination of the intercorrelation patterns shown in Table I
yielded several insights. First, a significant correlation was found between
performance and agreeableness (r ¼ 0:166, p , 0:05) and performance and
extroversion (r ¼ 0:185, p , 0:05). Second, with respect to teacher satisfaction,
positive and significant correlations was found between satisfaction and
conscientiousness (r ¼ 0:348, p , 0:001), satisfaction and extroversion (r ¼ 0:371,
p , 0:001), and satisfaction and agreeableness (r ¼ 0:198, p , 0:05). Likewise, a
negative correlation was found between satisfaction and neuroticism (r ¼ 20:305,
p , 0:001). Finally, the correlation between teacher strain and neuroticism was
positive and significant (r ¼ 0:517, p , 0:001), whereas the correlations were negative
between strain and conscientiousness (r ¼ 2 0.174, p , 0:05), strain and extroversion
(r ¼ 20:315, p , 0:001), and strain and agreeableness (r ¼ 20:244, p , 0:01).
Table II shows that with respect to the moderating effect of the Big Five personality
factors on the relationship between participative management and teacher outcomes,
the control variables accounted for a negligible percentage of the variance in predicting
performance (F ¼ 0:904, p . 0:05), satisfaction (F ¼ 0:828, p . 0:05) and strain
(F ¼ 1:276, p . 0:05). The joint main effects of performance, satisfaction and strain
predictors accounted for 11 percent (F ¼ 2:496, p , 0:05), 28 percent (F ¼ 7:450,
p , 0:001) and 32 percent (F ¼ 8:997, p , 0:001), respectively. The first-order
interaction effects between participative management and the five personality factors,
entered in Step 3, accounted for an additional 8 percent of the variance in performance
(F ¼ 2:744, p , 0:01), for a further 5 percent of the variance in satisfaction (F ¼ 5:666,
p , 0:001) and for an additional 4 percent of the variance in strain (F ¼ 6:417,
p , 0:001).

5.1 Extraversion
Regression analysis (see Table II) showed a significant moderating effect of
extroversion on the relationship between participative management and performance
(b ¼ 0:025, p , 0:05). When extroversion level was high, performance was
significantly higher with a high level of participative management than with a low
level (t ¼ 23:89, p , 0:001). When extroversion level was low, no difference in
 M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) Participative
management 3.169 1.028 1.000
(2) Neuroticism 19.509 6.442 2 0.073 1.000
(3) Extroversion 31.823 5.624 0.148 2 0.210 * * 1.000
(4) Openness to
experience 24.862 4.132 0.149 2 0.101 0.246 * * 1.000
(5) Agreeableness 32.719 4.551 2 0.038 2 0.243 * * 0.273 * * 0.225 * * 1.000
(6) Conscientiousness 38.228 4.819 0.194 2 0.241 * * 0.336 * * * 0.167 * 0.138 1.000
(7) Performance 4.094 0.775 0.282 * * * 2 0.045 0.185 * 0.081 0.166 * 0.066 1.000
(8) Satisfaction 3.786 0.622 0.229 * * * 2 0.305 * * * 0.371 * * * 0.067 0.198 * 0.348 * * * 0.074 1.000
(9) Strain 2.286 0.660 0.014 0.517 * * * 2 0.315 * * * 2 0.106 2 0.244 * * 2 0.174 * 2 0.051 2 0.369 * * * 1.000
(10) School size 28.893 7.656 2 0.139 0.094 0.104 0.018 0.032 0.095 0.070 0.096 2 0.048 1.000
(11) Tenure 2 0.018 0.125 2 0.046 2 0.088 0.028 2 0.153 0.092 2 0.112 0.002 0.124 8.494 18.235 1.000
Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001
management?
from participative
Who benefits

intercorrelation matrix
Descriptive statistics and

for study variables

295

Table I.
 48,3
JEA

296

Table II.

and strain
predicting teacher
Results of hierarchical
regression analysis for

performance, satisfaction
Performance Satisfaction Strain
Step variables B SE DR 2 F B SE DR 2 F B SE DR 2 F

Step 1: control variables 0.012 0.904 0.011 0.828 0.017 1.276

Constant 4.041 * * * 0.280 3.622 * * * 0.220 0.223 * * * 0.242
School size 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.007 2 0.004 0.007
Tenure 2 0.001 0.006 2 0.003 0.006 0.010 0.007
Step 2: Main effects 0.110 2.496 * 0.282 7.450 * * * 0.316 8.997 * * *
Constant 1.849 * 0.809 1.825 * * 0.580 0.237 * * * 0.600
School size 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.006 2 0.005 0.006
Tenure 2 0.007 0.008 2 0.002 0.006 0.007 0.006
Neuroticism 0.013 0.010 2 0.019 * * 0.007 0.048 * * * 0.007
Extroversion 0.016 0.012 0.024 * * 0.009 2 0.023 * 0.009
Agreeableness 0.027 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.011
Conscientiousness 2 0.003 0.014 0.022 * 0.010 0.001 0.010
Openness to experience 0.001 0.016 2 0.014 0.011 2 0.001 0.012
Participative management 0.188 * * 0.062 0.143 * * 0.045 0.036 0.046
Step 3: Interactions 0.082 2.744 * * 0.053 0.666 * * * 0.042 6.417 * * *
Constant 5.341 * 2.255 1.069 1.640 1.907 1.702
School size 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.006 2 0.004 0.006
Tenure 2 0.007 0.008 2 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.006
Participative management 2 0.800 0.711 0.336 0.518 0.178 0.537
Neuroticism 2 0.006 0.032 0.028 0.023 0.004 0.024
Extroversion 2 0.072 0.042 0.029 0.031 2 0.031 0.032
Agreeableness 2 0.087 0.046 0.076 * 0.034 2 0.020 0.035
Conscientiousness 0.092 0.043 2 0.048 0.031 0.064 0.033
Openness to experience 0.008 0.047 0.001 0.035 2 0.026 0.036
Participative management £ neuroticism 0.005 0.010 2 0.015 * 0.007 0.015 * 0.007
Participative management £ extroversion 0.025 * 0.012 2 0.001 0.009 0.002 0.009
Participative management £ agreeableness 0.034 * 0.014 2 0.019 * 0.010 0.003 0.010
Participative management £ conscientiousness 2 0.029 * 0.013 0.022 * 0.010 2 0.020 * 0.010
Participative management £ 0penness to
experience 0.003 0.015 2 0.003 0.011 0.001 0.011
Total R 2 0.204 0.346 0.375
Adjusted R 2 0.130 0.285 0.317

Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001

performance was found between high and low levels of participative management Who benefits
(p . 0:05) (see Figure 2). However, and inconsistent with our expectations, from participative
extroversion was found to have no significant moderating effect on the relationship
between participative management and satisfaction (p . 0:05) or on the relationship management?
between participative management and strain (p . 0:05).

5.2 Agreeableness 297

The regression analysis (see Table II) showed a significant moderating effect of
agreeableness on the relationship between participative management and performance
(b ¼ 0:034, p , 0:05). Analysis of the simple effects showed that when agreeableness
level was high, performance was significantly higher with a high level of participative
management than with a low level (t ¼ 22:31, p , 0:05). When agreeableness level
was low, no difference in performance was found between high and low levels of
participative management (p . 0:05) (see Figure 3). Furthermore, the regression
analysis (see Table II) showed that agreeableness had a significant moderating effect
on the participative management-satisfaction interaction (b ¼ 20:019, p , 0:05).
Satisfaction proved to be significantly highest under the condition of high
agreeableness and high participative management, whereas the lowest level of
satisfaction was found under the condition of low agreeableness and low participative
management (t ¼ 23:45, p , 0:001) (see Figure 3). However, and inconsistent with our
expectations, no significant moderating effect of agreeableness was found on the
relationship between participative management and strain (p . 0:05).

5.3 Conscientiousness
The regression analysis (see Table II) showed a significant moderating effect of
conscientiousness on the participative management-performance relationship
(b ¼ 20:029, p , 0:05). When conscientiousness level was high, performance was
significantly higher with a high level of participative management than with a low
level (t ¼ 21:98, p , 0:05). However, when conscientiousness level was low, no
difference in performance was found under high or low levels of participative
management (p . 0:05) (see Figure 4). The regression analysis (see Table II) also

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
extroversion on the
relationship between
participative management
and teacher performance
JEA
48,3

298

Figure 3.
Moderating effect of
agreeableness on the
relationship between
participative management
and teacher performance
and satisfaction

showed a significant moderating effect of conscientiousness on the participative

management-satisfaction relationship (b ¼ 0:022, p , 0:05). When conscientiousness
level was high, satisfaction was significantly higher with a high level of participative
management than with a low level (t ¼ 23:30, p , 0:01). When conscientiousness
level was low, no difference in satisfaction was found under high or low levels of
participative management (p . 0:05) (see Figure 4). Finally, the regression analysis
(see Table II) showed a significant moderating effect of conscientiousness on the
participative management-strain relationship (b ¼ 20:020, p , 0:05). When the level
of participative management was high, the level of strain was significantly lowest with
a higher level of conscientiousness, and the highest level of strain was found under a
lower level of conscientiousness (t ¼ 2:40, p , 2:05). However, when level of
 Who benefits
from participative
management?

299

Figure 4.
Moderating effect of
conscientiousness on the
relationship between
participative management
and teacher performance,
satisfaction, and strain

participative management was low, no difference in strain was found under higher or
lower levels of conscientiousness (p . 0:05) (see Figure 4).

5.4 Neuroticism
As shown in Table II, and inconsistent with our expectations, no significant moderating
effect of neuroticism was found on the relationship between participative management
and performance (p . 0:05). The regression analysis (see Table II) showed that the
moderating effect of neuroticism on the participative management-satisfaction
relationship was significant (b ¼ 20:015, p , 0:05). When neuroticism level was low,
satisfaction was significantly higher with a high level of participative management than
with a low level (t ¼ 22:23, p , 0:05). When neuroticism level was high, no difference
in satisfaction was found under high or low levels of participative management
(p . 0:05) (see Figure 5). Furthermore, the regression analysis (see Table II) showed a
significant interaction effect between participative management and neuroticism on
strain (b ¼ 0:015, p , 0:05). When level of participative management was low, strain
was significantly the highest with a higher level of neuroticism than a lower level
(t ¼ 22:34, p , 0:05). Furthermore, when level of participative management was high,
strain was significantly the highest with a higher level of neuroticism than a lower level
JEA
48,3

300

Figure 5.
Moderating effect of
neuroticism on the
relationship between
participative management
and teacher satisfaction
and strain

(t ¼ 24:63, p , 0:001). Regardless of participative management level, strain levels were

significantly highest with a higher level of neuroticism than a lower level. Nevertheless,
it is worth noting that the highest levels of strain were found under higher levels of
participative management and higher levels of neuroticism, whereas the lowest levels of
strain were found under the condition of low neuroticism and high participative
management (see Figure 5).

5.5 Openness to experience

As shown in Table II, and inconsistent with our expectations, openness to experience
was not found to have a significant moderating effect on the participative
management-performance relationship (p . 0:05), on the participative management- Who benefits
satisfaction relationship (p . 0:05), or on the participative management-strain from participative
relationship (p . 0:05).
management?
6. Discussion
Although some theoretical and empirical research (Blase and Blase, 1994; Somech,
2006) supports the overall benefit of a participative management work environment, 301
the question of whether greater teacher participation in the decision-making process is
always appropriate remains open. The results of the present study demonstrate the
intervening effects of teacher personality factors. In particular, the results highlighted
the moderating effects of the personality dimensions of extroversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and neuroticism on the relationship between participative
management and teacher performance, satisfaction and strain. These findings
provided additional support for the person-environment fit model and suggest that a
better fit between teacher personality traits and participative management factors may
enhance performance and satisfaction and reduce strain among some teachers.

6.1 Extroversion
As predicted, our results indicated that for highly extroverted teachers, participative
management was positively associated with performance. The present results are
consistent with previous research (Barrick et al., 2001) indicating that extroversion is
related to performance in occupations where a significant part of the job involves
interacting with others, particularly when social interaction is focused on influencing
others and obtaining status and power. Working in a participative management
environment tends to foster more interaction among team members, thus meeting
extroverts’ need to engage in social interactions (Ashton et al., 1999). However, no
moderating impact of extroversion was found on the relationships between
participative management and satisfaction or participative management and strain.
These findings are somewhat surprising given the tendency of extroverts to experience
life events positively. The findings may suggest that participative management affects
extroverted and introverted teachers similarly. Pavot et al. (1990) found that both
extroverted and introverted participants reported more pleasant affect in social
situations than in non-social situations. Thus, our results need to be replicated in future
research to clarify the inconsistency regarding this personality dimension.

6.2 Agreeableness
Our results also indicated that for highly agreeable teachers, participative
management was positively associated with performance and satisfaction. The
present results conform to those of other researchers (Skyrme et al., 2005), indicating
that agreeableness is a relevant predictor of job performance and satisfaction,
particularly when a significant degree of interpersonal interaction and collaboration is
involved. Shared decision making and open communication processes, common in
participative management (West, 2002), can help lower barriers between people, in turn
creating an atmosphere likely to foster interpersonal relationships. In such an
environment, agreeable teachers are likely to fulfill their need for interpersonal
intimacy and social interaction, generating a high level of satisfaction. However, and
inconsistent with our hypothesis, no significant effect of agreeableness was found on
JEA the relationship between participative management and strain. Some additional
48,3 intervening factors, such as the composition of the personality dimension for the entire
team, may affect the impact of teachers’ personality traits on participative
management outcomes and behaviors. For example, Liao et al. (2004) found that
wider variance in agreeableness among team members correlated with lower social
cohesion and greater team conflict.
302
6.3 Conscientiousness
As predicted, our results showed that for highly conscientious teachers, participative
management was positively associated with performance and satisfaction and
negatively associated with strain. The present results concur with previous research
(Lim and Cheng, 1999), indicating that conscientious employees are more predisposed
to handle the demands associated with participative management practices and to
react positively to a work environment involving and requiring independent thought
and action, information load, and responsibility. These results imply that highly
conscientious teachers may find growth-enhancing opportunities and sufficient
conditions in a participative environment to meet their personal needs. The present
results, which conform to those of other researchers (Penley and Tomaka, 2002), also
support the assumption that self-disciplined and goal-oriented teachers will experience
the demands of participating in management as a challenge contributing to their
wellbeing. Unlike low conscientious teachers, conscientious ones do not perceive the
work overload and pressure resulting from the great amount of time devoted to the
shared decision-making process as being beyond their ability and adaptability. In fact,
they are even more likely to achieve a demand-ability fit as well as a need-supply fit.

6.4 Neuroticism
Inconsistent with our hypothesis, no moderating impact of neuroticism was found on
the participative management-performance relationship. As noted in the case of
agreeableness, not only do personal characteristics have an impact on individual
behavior, but perhaps some other teamwork characteristics have an impact as well.
Previous research (Liao et al., 2004) found that neurotic employees reported higher
coworker support when their coworkers were more dissimilar from them. Future
research should examine how the heterogeneity of certain personality dimensions may
actually help improve teachers’ outcomes. As predicted, the present results showed
that highly neurotic teachers displayed greater strain under higher levels of
participative management. This finding is consistent with earlier results (Hemenover,
2001) indicating that neurotic individuals tend to focus more on the negative features of
stressful events and to appraise environmental conditions negatively. Highly neurotic
teachers who tend to be stressed and nervous appraise the participative management
environment as threatening their wellbeing, particularly given their tendency to feel
overwhelmed and stressed by additional responsibility and demands incurred in such
an environment.

6.5 Openness to experience

Inconsistent with our hypothesis, no moderating impact of openness on experience was
found in the relationships between participative management and the teacher
outcomes of performance, satisfaction, and strain. According to McCrae and Costa
(1997, p. 828), openness to experience is “one of the broadest constructs in personality Who benefits
psychology”. Contrary to the approach adopted in this study, openness to experience from participative
may need to be examined as a multidimensional factor instead of a broad construct
with one score representing the entire domain. The different impacts of the management?
sub-dimensions constituting the broad factor of openness to experience on teacher
outcomes may explain our findings. Previous research (Griffin and Hesketh, 2004) has
indicated that openness to experience consists of two dimensions corresponding to 303
different areas in which people are open, namely openness to internal experience (with
attention focused inward, preoccupation with personal thoughts and emotions) and
openness to external experience (with attention focused outward, scanning the
environment). These authors reported that these two dimensions are differentially
related to job performance, strain, depression, and wellbeing, hence perhaps
diminishing the correlations between overall measures of openness to experience
and the criteria of these variables. Our results, which should be replicated in future
research, do suggest that openness to experience should be examined as a
multidimensional factor given the different impacts of openness to internal experience
and openness to external experience on performance and strain.
In summary, the present findings do indicate that not all teachers are suited to work
in a participative management environment. The present results support the assertion
that the impacts of participative management are contingent in nature and depend on
personality factors (Moss and Ngu, 2006).
Finally, several limitations of the study warrant further attention in future research.
First, the data were largely self-reported, and hence subject to bias. Nevertheless,
recent research suggests that self-reported data are not as limited as was previously
believed, and people often accurately appraise their social environment (Alper et al.,
1998). Furthermore, the likelihood of common method variance was low because one
criterion variable (teacher performance) was obtained from a different source (i.e. the
manager; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Second, the small size effect of the present
findings suggests that these results should be considered with some reservations. The
results need to be replicated and confirmed in a future study to verify their contribution
to a deeper understanding of the impacts of personality traits on participative
management outcomes. Finally, this study examined only selective moderating
variables that do not fully capture the potential complexity of the relationship between
participative management and teacher outcomes. Further studies should examine the
interactive impact of other variables at the group level (congruence or dissimilarity in
team members’ personality traits), and at the organizational levels (organizational
change or uncertainty) to enhance teacher effectiveness and behaviors and dispel
adverse attitudes.

7. Managerial implications
This study, if successfully replicated, can have important practical implications for
administrators and school leaders. The present findings highlight that principals
should be aware of how different followers react. When deciding upon the extent of
teacher involvement, principals should consider the personality of each teacher. That
is, although for some teachers (those who are highly conscientious, agreeable, and
extroverted, for instance) participative management has a positive influence on
performance, satisfaction and strain, for other teachers, particularly those who are
JEA highly neurotic, an environment with less responsibility and interaction might be more
48,3 suitable. Therefore, principal must become acquainted with teachers as individuals,
promote their strengths, enable them to perform, and remove barriers to their success.
Hence, principals should become more aware of the effects of teachers’ personality
traits when deciding who should participate, and they should develop more
appropriate criteria for participation (Bauer and Green, 1996). Thus, they must have
304 the capacity for flexible participative management and the required skills to determine,
according to improved criteria, how far to involve teachers in the decision-making
process, while providing a response to the needs of the teachers as well as those of the
school. For teachers who encounter difficulties conforming to participative
management practices, we are not saying that principals should not involve such
teachers in the decision-making process. In fact, the question arises of how principals
can still benefit from involving such teachers in the decision-making process. For
example, a principal may create an atmosphere that provides significant support for
such teachers within the high level of interpersonal interaction and responsibility
required in a participative management environment, thus helping them overcome
their strain.

References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74, pp. 33-52.
Argyle, M. and Lu, L. (1990), “Happiness and social skills”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 11, pp. 1255-61.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006), “Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the
mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59, pp. 793-801.
Ashton, M.C., Lee, K. and Paunonen, S.V. (1999), “What is the central feature of extroversion?
Social attention versus reward sensitivity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 245-51.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important
matters”, Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-72.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and 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 and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-30.
Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996), “Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal
test”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 1538-67.
Blase, J. and Blase, J.R. (1994), Empowering Teachers: What Successful Principals Do, Corwin,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Broockstein, R. (1991), “Role design and role perception”, School of Management, Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).
Carson, A.D. and Lowman, R.L. (2002), “Individual-level variables in organization consultation.
A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques”, Handbook of Organizational
Consulting Psychology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 5-26.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Who benefits
Five-Factor (NEO-FFI), Inventory Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc., Odessa, FL. from participative
Day, C., Elliot, B. and Kington, A. (2005), “Reform, standards and teacher identity: challenges of management?
sustaining commitment”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 21, pp. 563-7.
Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-40. 305
Dorman, J.P. (2003), “Relationship between school and classroom environment and teacher
burnout: a LISREL analysis”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 6, pp. 107-27.
Dupuy, H.J. (1984), “The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index”, in Wenger, N.K.,
Mattson, M.E., Furberg, C.D. and Elinson, J. (Eds), Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical
Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies, Le Jacq Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 184-8.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,
Administrative Science, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83.
Fontana, D. and Abouserie, R. (1993), “Stress levels, gender and personality factors in teachers”,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 261-70.
Gallagher, D.J. (1990), “Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful academic events”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 11, pp. 1053-7.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S. and Lanwehr, R. (2003), “The risks of autonomy: empirical evidence for the
necessity of a balance management in promoting organizational innovativeness”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 12, pp. 41-9.
George, J. and Zhou, J. (2001), “When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to
creative behavior: an interactional approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86,
pp. 513-24.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development of markers for the big five factor structure”,
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4, pp. 26-42.
Green, S.G., Anderson, S.E. and Shivers, S.L. (1996), “Demographic and organizational influences
on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 66, pp. 203-14.
Griffin, B. and Hesketh, B. (2004), “Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job
performance”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12, pp. 243-51.
Gunthert, K.C., Cohen, L.H. and Armeli, S. (1999), “The role of neuroticism in daily stress and
coping”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 1087-100.
Hart, P.M. and Cooper, C.L. (2001), “Occupational stress: toward a more integrated framework”,
in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 2, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 93-114.
Hemenover, S.M. (2001), “Self-reported processing bias and naturally occurring mood: mediators
between personality and stress appraisals”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 27, pp. 387-94.
Hills, P. and Argyle, M. (2001), “Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 31, pp. 1357-64.
Irwin, J.R. and McClelland, G.H. (2003), “Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous
predictor variables”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, pp. 366-71.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1996), LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by
Maximum Likelihood and Least Square Methods, Scientific Software International,
Mooresville, IN.
JEA Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002), “Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 530-41.
48,3
Kelloway, E.K. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kim, S. (2002), “Participative management and job satisfaction: lessons for management
leadership”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, pp. 231-41.
306 Koopman, P.L. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1998), “Participative management”, in Drenth, P.J.D.,
Thierry, H. and De Wolff, C.J. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Volume 3: Personnel Psychology, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 297-324.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Lawler, E.E. III (1992), The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-involvement Organization,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Erez, A. (2000), “Adaptability to changing task contexts: effects of
general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 563-93.
Liao, H., Joshi, A. and Chuang, A. (2004), “Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity
and deviance at work”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 969-1000.
Lim, G. and Cheng, H. (1999), “Moderating effects of personality factors on teachers’ affective
reactions to job scope”, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, Vol. 7,
pp. 17-33.
Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E.M. and Shao, L. (2000), “Cross-cultural evidence for the
fundamental features of extroversion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79,
pp. 452-68.
Luthans, F. (1995), Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1987), “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 81-90.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1997), “Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience”,
in Briggs, S.R., Hogan, R. and Jones, W.H. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 825-47.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F. and Pavot, W. (1993), “Extraversion and neuroticism as
predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 1046-53.
Moss, S.A. and Ngu, S. (2006), “The relationship between personality and leadership
preferences”, Current Research in Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 70-91.
O’Brien, T.B. and DeLongis, A. (1996), “The interactional context of problem, emotion, and
relationship-focused coping: the role of the big five personality factors”, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 64, pp. 775-813.
Organ, D.W. and Lingl, A. (1995), “Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 339-50.
Pavot, W., Diener, E. and Fujita, F. (1990), “Extraversion and happiness”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 11, pp. 1299-306.
Penley, J.A. and Tomaka, J. (2002), “Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses and Who benefits
coping with acute stress”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 32, pp. 1215-28.
from participative
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-report in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-44. management?
Sak, U. (2004), “A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents”, Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 70-9.
Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S. and Theorell, T. (2007), “The association between job strain and 307
emotional exhaustion in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers”, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 213-28.
Sato, M., Hyler, M.E. and Monte-Sano, C. (2002), “The National Board Certification process and
its impact on teacher leadership”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Schaufeli, W.B. (2004), “The future of occupational health psychology”, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 502-17.
Skyrme, P., Wilkinson, L., Abraham, J.D. and Morrison, J.D. Jr (2005), “Using personality to
predict outbound call center job performance”, Applied Human Resource Management
Research, Vol. 10, pp. 89-98.
Somech, A. (2002), “Explicating the complexity of participative management: an investigation of
multiple dimensions”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 341-71.
Somech, A. (2006), “The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and
innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 1-26.
Spreitzer, G.M. (2007), “Toward the integration of two perspectives: a review of social-structural
and psychological empowerment at work”, in Cooper, C. and Barling, J. (Eds),
The Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 1-41.
Stevens, C.D. and Ash, R.A. (2001), “Selecting employees for fit: personality and preferred
managerial style”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13, pp. 500-17.
Suls, J. (2001), “Affect, stress and personality”, in Forgas, J.P. (Ed.), Handbook of Affect and Social
Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 392-409.
Szymura, B. and Wodniecka, Z. (2003), “What really bothers neurotics? In search for factors
impairing attentional performance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 34,
pp. 109-26.
Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 500-17.
Tkach, C. and Lyubomirsky, S. (2006), “How do people pursue happiness? Relating personality,
happiness-increasing strategies, and wellbeing”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 7,
pp. 183-225.
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R.M. and Leitten, C.L. (1993), “Subjective, physiological and
behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 248-60.
Vollrath, M. (2001), “Personality and stress”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42,
pp. 335-47.
Wagner, J.A. III (1994), “Participation’s effect on performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration
of research evidence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 312-30.
Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1997), “Extraversion and its positive emotional core”, in Hogan, R.,
Johnson, J. and Briggs, S. (Eds) pp. 767-93.
JEA Weiss, C.H., Cambone, J. and Wyeth, A. (1992), “Trouble in paradise: teacher conflicts in shared
decision making”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 350-67.
48,3 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, Vol. 51, pp. 355-424.
Witt, L.A. and Burke, L.A. (2003), “Using cognitive ability and personality to select information
308 technology professionals”, Advanced Topics in End User Computing II, Idea Group
Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 1-17.
Xie, J.L. and Schaubroeck, J. (2001), “Bridging the approaches and findings across diverse
disciplines to improve job stress research”, Research in Occupational Stress and Well
Being, Vol. 1, pp. 1-61.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Zak, I. (1975), “Job satisfaction: a causal model”, School of Education, Tel Aviv University,
Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).

Further reading
Leana, C.R. (1987), “Power relinquishment versus power sharing: theoretical clarification and
empirical comparison of delegation and participation”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 72, pp. 228-33.

Corresponding author
Anit Somech can be contacted at: anits@construct.haifa.ac.il

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats