Empowerment Essays

Empowerment Essays Empowerment Essay Empowerment Essay There have been countless studies on how to improve the teaching profession. But what do educators themselves think What do they say they need to excel in their jobs And what obstacles do they commonly face . Teachers want to work in schools where they can thrive, and theyâ„ ¢re not going to thrive and extend themselves if they donâ„ ¢t feel comfortable with their colleagues and the management. | | It comes down to leaders creating a clear and compelling vision around learning and really going to bat for teachers. They have to create a safe environment for teachers†an environment where teachers feel they can make decisions that matter in both their classrooms and their institute. More broadly, effective leaders create structures in which itâ„ ¢s clear that teachers have a certain authority. In some states, according to our surveys, we have only a third of teachers agreeing that they are centrally involved in school decision-making. What they want from leaders is to have processes where they can really understand their role in learning and can really respond to situations and engage in ways that make sense to them. The pressures on principals today are overwhelming. Principals must deal with federal and state accountability systems, assessments, parents and community, and in the end, they are ultimately accountable for performance. It is difficult to let go and empower others when you know it is your neck on the line for results. But of course, in the end, it is that team effort and drawing the best from staff that will generate improved performance. Thatâ„ ¢s just a tough leap. And itâ„ ¢s even tougher for principals if they donâ„ ¢t have supportive environments, either. Many were not prepared to serve as the visionary, instructional leaders we now expect. They receive little induction and professional development of their own, and are often not empowered to make decisions at their school that they believe are necessary due to local, state, and federal policy. This is why we have started to ask principals specific questions about their support and work environment on the survey. To better understand how to empower teachers we need to understand how to empower and support strong school leaders. Are there things that teachers themselves can do to improve their career satisfaction Thatâ„ ¢s a great question, and itâ„ ¢s something weâ„ ¢ve had to think about a lot. I mean, can you have teacher empowerment when the school leadership isnâ„ ¢t necessarily willing to create safe structures and engage teachers as partners I think the answer is yes, but itâ„ ¢s not easy. I think teachers in that situation need to find other outlets to be advocates for themselves, for their profession, and for their students. Between opportunities at the state and district levels, and working with parents and other community members, I think there are ways teachers can be engaged in their work and take on more active roles even when not encouraged internally to do so. The other thing weâ„ ¢ve seen is teachers working with colleagues on their own to start creating the kind of environments they want in their schools. They create professional learning communities, finding time to collaborate. They seek out their own professional development opportunities and advocate for themselves to be able to go and learn, so they can bring that knowledge back to their colleagues. But again, this takes a lot of care and commitment†and time. Itâ„ ¢s hard for teachers to sustain over the long haul if they arenâ„ ¢t given support from leadership. What changes do you see in the teacher profession in the years ahead Schools and districts are already starting to look at recruitment and retention in very different ways. For a number of reasons, for a long time teaching has been viewed as a life-long career. We had this expectation that teachers would kind of come in on day one and have their classroom and then 30 years later theyâ„ ¢d be doing the same thing. But now you have younger people†the Gen-X and Gen-Y folks†who are looking at different ways of engaging in teaching and serving schools. The perception among many elite students who are interested in teaching is that itâ„ ¢s less of a career and more of a short-term way to gain experience and engage in meaningful work. I think this is just reality, and schools are starting to acknowledge this and figure out how to leverage the staff diversity it creates†and this involves using teachers differently. There are still going to be a lot of amazingly accomplished teachers who want to make education their lives. The important question is going to be, how can we design schools to give these teachers the flexibility and leadership capacity to mentor and get the best out of younger teachers who are maybe only planning on being in the profession for two or three years We need to draw upon our best teachers to ensure that these short-term educators are the best they can be and that they are really hitting on all cylinders while they are in the profession. We need to find new ways to identify these core, accomplished teachers and to give them new avenues to spread their expertise†through technology, for example. We need to create new career-advancement opportunities for them, give them greater decision-making authority and responsibility, and allow them to be successful in their work. So I think weâ„ ¢re going to see a greater diversification of roles for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 Influence of teacher empowerment on teachersâ„ ¢ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools Ronit Boglera,*, Anit Somechb aDepartment of Education and Psychology, The Open University of Israel, P.O. Box 39328, 16 Klausner Street, Tel Aviv 61392, Israel b Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel Abstract The present study focuses on the relationship between teacher empowerment and teachersâ„ ¢ organizational commitment, professional commitment (PC) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). It examines which subscales of teacher empowerment can best predict these outcomes. The data were collected through a questionnaire returned by a sample of 983 teachers in Israeli middle and high schools. Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses indicated that teachersâ„ ¢ perceptions of their level of empowerment are significantly related to their feelings of commitment to the organization and to the profession, and to their OCBs. Among the six subscales of empowerment, professional growth, status and self-efficacy were significant predictors of organizational and PC, while decisionmaking, self-efficacy, and status were significant predictors of OCB. Practical implications of the study are discussed in relation to teachers, principals and policy-makers. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. During the past decade, teacher empowerment has received a great deal of attention from researchers who studied its relationship to various organizational outcomes. In their extensive literature review, Sweetland and Hoy (2000) state that though a thorough examination has been conducted to study the relationship between teacher empowerment and various organizational and personal characteristics, [t]he results are confusingâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (p. 710). The current study aims to examine teacher empowerment in relation to outcomes that reflect the behavior of teachers in school. These outcomes†teachersâ„ ¢ organizational commitment (OC), professional commitment (PC), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)†are key factors in their performance in a school setting (Howell Dorfman, 1986; Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, Lord, 2002). 1. Theoretical framework 1.1. Teacher empowerment Research on teacher empowerment began to appear in the literature in the late 1980s (Edwards, ARTICLE IN PRESS *Corresponding author. Tel.: +972-3-6460617; fax: +972-3- 6465468. E-mail addresses: [emailprotected] (R. Bogler), [emailprotected] (A. Somech). 0742-051X/$ see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003 Green, Lyons, 2002). Empowerment, as perceived by Short, Greer and Melvin (1994) is defined as a process whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge of their own growth and resolve their own problemsâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (p. 38). It is individualsâ„ ¢ belief that they have the skills and knowledge to improve a situation in which they operate. In their national study on empowerment of teacher leaders, Rinehart and Short (1991) found that reading recovery teacher leaders were more highly empowered than reading recovery teachers or classroom teachers. This finding was explained as a result of reading recovery teacher leadersâ„ ¢ having more opportunities to make decisions and grow professionally, having control over daily schedules and feeling a high level of teaching competency. According to Maeroff (1988), teacher empowerment consists of improved status, increased knowledge and access to decisionmaking. Short and Rinehart (1992) identify six dimensions of teacher empowerment: decisionmaking, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy and impact. In a study devoted to the concept of teacher empowerment, Short (1994a) describes the six dimensions in detail. Decisionmaking refers to teachersâ„ ¢ participation in critical decisions that directly affect their work, involving issues related to budgets, teacher selection, scheduling, and curriculum. To be effective, teachersâ„ ¢ participation in decision-making must be genuine, and the teachers need to be confident that their decisions actually impact real outcomes. Professional growth refers to the teachersâ„ ¢ perception that the school provides them opportunities to grow and develop professionally, to continue to learn, and to expand their skills during their work in school. Status refers to the professional respect and admiration that the teachers perceive that they earn from colleagues. Respect is also granted for the knowledge and expertise that the teachers demonstrate, resulting in support of their actions from others. Self-efficacy refers to the teachersâ„ ¢ perception that they are equipped with the skills and ability to help students learn, and are competent to develop curricula for students. The feeling of mastery, in both knowledge and practice, that results in accomplishing desired outcomes is critical in the teachersâ„ ¢ sense of selfefficacy. Autonomy refers to the teachersâ„ ¢ feeling that they have control over various aspects of their working life, including scheduling, curriculum development, selection of textbooks and planning instruction. This type of control enables teachers to feel free to make decisions related to their educational milieu. Impact refers to the teachersâ„ ¢ perception that they can affect and influence school life. Teacher empowerment has been studied in relation to job satisfaction (Rinehart Short, 1994), participation in decision-making (Gruber Trickett, 1987; White, 1992), commitment (Wu Short, 1996), conflict (Johnson Short, 1998; Rinehart, Short, Johnson, 1997; Short, 1994b), instructional practice and student academic achievements (Marks Louis, 1997; Smylie, 1994), and principal leadership (Blas!e Blas!e, 1996; Johnson Short, 1998; Kirby Colbert, 1994; Rinehart, Short, Short, Eckley, 1998). Previous research (Sweetland Hoy, 2000), supports four assumptions regarding teacher empowerment: first, teacher empowerment is most effective when it is oriented to increase teacher professionalism; second, empowerment has at least two dimensions: organizational and classroom; third, empowering teachers has its greatest impact on student achievement when the emphasis is on the core technology of teaching and learning in schools; fourth, to be effective, teacher empowerment needs to be authentic (pp. 710â€Å"711). Teacher empowerment is, therefore, perceived as a crucial factor that affects school effectiveness (Wall Rinehart, 1998). In the present study, we chose three variables that the literature found as related to school effectiveness: organizational commitment, PC and OCB. Teachersâ„ ¢ commitment to the organization†the school†has been found to predict school effectiveness (Howell Dorfman, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1991). A positive relationship has been found between organizational commitment and regular employee attendance, and an inverse relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention (Balfour Wechsler, 1996; Porter, Steers, Mowday, Boulian, 1974). Employees who are highly committed to both the profession and the organization were found to perform better than the less committed ARTICLE IN PRESS 278 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 ones, a behavior which results in improved overall effectiveness of the organization (Aranya Ferris, 1984). Teachersâ„ ¢ PC has been found to be critical to good instruction (Firestone Pennell, 1993). Finally, the impact of OCB on the school organization is dramaticâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢; it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the school and reduces the management component of the administratorâ„ ¢s roleâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (DiPaola Tschannen-Moran, 2001, p. 434). OCB promotes organizational performance because it presents effective measures to manage the interdependencies between members of a work group, and consequently increases the outcomes achieved by the collective (Organ, 1990, Smith, Organ, Near, 1983). This study aims to investigate the relationship between teacher empowerment and these three outcomes: teachersâ„ ¢ organizational and PC and their OCB. More specifically, we attempt to determine which subscales of teacher empowerment can best predict these outcomes. 1.2. The relationship between teachersâ„ ¢ empowerment and their organizational and PC Organizational commitment, as defined by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979), is the relative strength of an individualâ„ ¢s identification with and involvement in a particular organizationâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (p. 226). This concept is based on three factors: the acceptance of the organizationâ„ ¢s goals and values (identification), the willingness to invest effort on behalf of the organization (involvement), and the importance attached to keeping up the membership in the organization (loyalty). These characteristics imply that the members of the organization wish to be active players in the organization, have an impact on what is going on in it, feel that they have high status within it, and are ready to contribute beyond what is expected of them. This is especially true when the leaders of the organization are perceived as adopting consultative or participative leadership behavior, where shared decision-making is prevalent (Yousef, 2000). In this case, when leaders are perceived as participative, employees feel more committed to the organization, express higher levels of job satisfaction, and their performance is high. Among the empowerment subscales, the literature refers to a number of dimensions that relate to organizational commitment. In a number of studies (reviewed by Firestone Pennell, 1993), teachersâ„ ¢ autonomy in making classroom decisions, their participation in school-wide decisionmaking, and their opportunities to learn were among the organizational conditions that showed a strong association with teacher commitment to the organization. A positive relationship was also found between organizational commitment and job involvement (Blau and Boal, 1989). PC is the degree to which a personâ„ ¢s work performance affects his self-esteemâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (Lodahl Kejner, 1965, p. 25). For a person who is professionally committed, work is a vital part of life. This means that both the work itself and the co-workers are very meaningful to the employee, in addition to the importance s/he attaches to the organization as a whole. Active participation in decision-making increases involvement and PC, which result in a higher level of acceptance and satisfaction. Evers (1990) suggested that teachersâ„ ¢ successful participation in decision-making could be explained by the feeling of ownership that comes from initiating ideas rather than responding to othersâ„ ¢ proposals. Gaziel and Weiss (1990) claimed that teachersâ„ ¢ participation, based on establishing a strong voice in decisions and policies, was a characteristic of professional orientationâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢, and fostered better working relations among staff members. With regard to self-efficacy, studies have shown that teachers with a greater sense of efficacy are more enthusiastic about teaching (Guskey, 1984), report a higher level of commitment to teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans Tribble, 1986), and are more likely to remain in teaching (Glickman Tamashiro, 1982). Wu and Short (1996), who studied the relationship between teacher empowerment and teacher job commitment and job satisfaction, found that among the six subscales that compose the teacher empowerment scale (SPES), professional growth, self-efficacy and status were significant predictors of job commitment. We were interested to see whether similar results would be found in this study with regard to other outcomes, such as organizational commitment and OCB. ARTICLE IN PRESS R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 279 1.3. The relationship between teacher empowerment and OCB The concept of OCB, derived from Katzâ„ ¢s (1964) conception of extra-role behavior, was first introduced by Organ (1977) who defined it as behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organizationâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Researchers have recognized the significant impact of OCB on the success of an organization (e.g., Chen, Hui, Sego, 1998; Karambayya, 1989). As several scholars have noted (e.g., George, 1996; Katz Kahn, 1966; Organ Konovsky, 1989), OCBs are important to the organization because through formal job descriptions, organizations cannot anticipate the whole range of behaviors needed for the achievement of organizational goals (Vanyperen, van den Berg, Willering, 1999). OCB provides the organization with additional resources and eliminates the need for expensive formal mechanisms otherwise crucial to successful restructuring processes. Today, as schools move into a new era of reorganization (Blas!e Blas!e, 1996; Clement Vandenberghe, 2000; Reitzug, 1994; Wall Rinehart, 1998), performancedefined as prescribed by task roles†is necessary but not sufficient for predicting school effectiveness. Therefore, schools will have to be more dependent on teachers who are willing to exert considerable effort beyond formal job requirements, namely, to engage in OCB. (Somech Drach-Zahavy, 2000). OCB refers to various dimensions such as altruism, conscientiousness (also termed generalized complianceâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢), sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988); obedience, loyalty, and various types of participation (Van Dyne, Graham, Dienesch, 1994); and helping and voice (Stamper Van Dyne, 2001; Van Dyne LePine, 1998). The notion of behaviors directed towards the individual and the organization was first introduced by Williams and Anderson (1991), and in the educational setting, it corresponds to behaviors directed towards students, teacher colleagues, and to the whole school. OCBs operate indirectly; they influence the social and psychological environment of organizations, which in turn influence the technical core (Diefendorff et al., 2002). OCB affects the technical core since it involves extra role behaviors of some teachers toward students and teachers. These teachers help students with class materials, acquire expertise in new areas that contribute to their work, prepare special assignments for higher- or lower-level students, volunteer for school committees, set up learning programs for substitute teachers, help absent colleagues by assigning learning tasks to their classes, and work collaboratively with others. All these OCBs relate to the technical core of the organization. However, in the case of teachers who exhibit OCBs, they also help to achieve organization goals. This is reflected through extra role behaviors toward the organization, expressed by teachers organizing social activities for the school, volunteering for roles and tasks that are not part of their jobs, providing innovative suggestions to improve the school and by organizing joint activities with parents above the norm. Research on OCB in schools is very limited (DiPaola Tschannen-Moran, 2001). In this study, we have adopted the concept of OCB as investigated in educational settings. Based on Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) who view the concept of empowerment as a sense of civic dutyâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ involving democratic participation and affecting community life and social issues (p. 136), one can expect to find a relationship between empowerment and OCB. Participation in decision-making, one of the characteristics of teacher empowerment, has been found to lead to engagement in OCB in various contexts (Porter, Lawler, Hackman, 1996). Self-efficacy has been found to be related to OCB toward the team and the organization, but not related to the student (Somech Drach-Zahavy, 2000). To date, limited research has been conducted on the relationship between teachersâ„ ¢ commitment to the organization, their PC, OCB, and teacher empowerment. Since the current literature cannot lead to definite hypotheses regarding the relationship between the subscales of teacher empowerment and school outcomes, it is our goal to determine which subscales best predict the three outcomes: teachersâ„ ¢ organizational commitment, ARTICLE IN PRESS 280 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 PC and OCB. The findings of the study may have important implications for teachers and principals, and consequently for the entire school. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The teachers in this study were sampled from a random sample of schools located in the northern and central parts of Israel. The sample consisted of 983 teachers in 25 middle schools (grades 7â€Å"9) and 27 high schools (grades 10â€Å"12). Although it was not possible to reach a random sample of all schools in Israel, care was taken to select urban, suburban and rural schools from diverse populations that represent the composition of teachers in Israel with regard to gender and religion, age and education. Seventy-two percent were women; 73 percent Jewish and the rest Arab. Of the Jewish teachers, 78 percent were female, and of the Arab teachers, almost half (46 percent) were male. The average age was 38.5, with an average of 10 years of seniority in the current school, and 13.5 years of seniority as teachers. Sixty-four percent had a Bachelorâ„ ¢s degree, 26 percent had a Masterâ„ ¢s degree and 10 percent had a professionalâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ degree (equivalent to a junior college diploma, with teaching credentials). These demographic characteristics were similar to those found in comparable studies on teachers in Israel (Rosenblatt, 2001; Somech Drach-Zahavy, 2000). 2.2. Research instrument A quantitative questionnaire, combining four Likert scales measuring OC, PC, OCB and teacher empowerment, was mailed in 2001 to teachers in 52 middle and high schools. The respondents were asked to refer to their current school, and to answer a range of questions about their feelings of empowerment, their commitment to the school and the profession, and their OCB in school. Teacher empowerment was measured using the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) (Short Rinehart, 1992). The SPES measures teachersâ„ ¢ overall perception of empowerment. It is a 38-item instrument on a 5-point scale (scored from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Factor analysis of the SPES revealed six dimensions at the basis of the construct. The dimensions and their internal consistency estimates (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 overall scale has reliability of 0.94 and the same reliability level of alpha was found in the current study. Examples of items are: I make decision about the implementation of new programs in the schoolâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (decisionmaking), I am treated as a professionalâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (professional growth), I believe that I have earned respectâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (status), I believe that I am empowering studentsâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (self-efficacy), I have the freedom to make decisions on what is taughtâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (autonomy), and I believe that I have an impactâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (impact). Organizational commitment was measured using Mowday et al.â„ ¢s (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). This 15-item instrument measures affective rather than normative or continuance commitment, by asking the respondents to refer to their identification with and involvement in a particular organization. Examples of items are: I tell my friends that this school is a great school to work forâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ and I feel very little loyalty to this schoolâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (reverse coded). A 7-point scale (scored from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree) was used. Scores on the 15 items were averaged to yield a summary score representing organizational commitment. The internal reliability estimates for the OCQ scores were strong across Mowday et al.â„ ¢s (1979) six samples (ranging from 0.82 to 0.93) and resulted in a single-factor solution. In the current study, the reliability level of alpha was 0.87. Professional commitment was measured using Lodahl and Kejnerâ„ ¢s (1965) 20-item scale, specifically adjusted to the educational setting. This instrument focuses on teachersâ„ ¢ job involvement and on the importance of work to them in general. Examples of items are: I live my job as a teacher 24 h a dayâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ and Most things in my life are more important than my workâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (reverse coded). A 5- point scale (scored from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), was used. Scores on the 20 ARTICLE IN PRESS R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 281 items were averaged to yield a summary score representing PC. The reliability level of alpha in this study was 0.87. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using a 23-item scale developed and validated in the school context (Somech Drach- Zahavy, 2000). This instrument refers to discretionary behaviors that go beyond existing role expectations and are directed toward the individual, the group, or the organization as a unit. The OCB scale consists of three subscales: (a) eight items relate to students (e.g., I stay after school hours to help students with materials covered in classâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢), with a reliability level of alpha of 0.80; (b) seven items relate to colleagues (e.g., I help an absent colleague by assigning learning tasks to the classâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢), with a reliability level of alpha of 0.77; and (c) eight items relate to the school as a unit (e.g., I make innovative suggestions to improve the schoolâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢), with a reliability level of alpha of 0.87. A 5-point scale (scored from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), was used. Scores on the 23 items were averaged to yield a summary score representing OCB. The reliability level of alpha in the current study was 0.92. 3. Results Preliminary analyses of t-tests were performed to determine whether there were gender and type of school (secondary/high schools) differences with regard to the research variables (i.e., teacher empowerment, organizational commitment, PC and OCB). The results revealed no significant differences (p > 0:05). In addition, the correlations between the other demographic variables (education and length of tenure) and the research variables were marginal (below 0.09); hence, we treated the participants as one group. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the research variables are shown in Table 1. An examination of the means of the subscales of the SPES revealed that the subscales that received the highest scores were status (M ? 4:1), professional growth (M ? 3:8), impact (M ? 3:7) and self-efficacy (M ? 3:7). The lowest average score was ascribed to decision-making (M ? 3:1). The Pearson correlation matrix revealed that all six subscales were significantly (po0:0001) and positively correlated with organizational commitment (ranging from 0.34 to 0.65), PC (ranging from 0.37 to 0.68) and OCB (ranging from 0.21 to 0.61). The more the teachers perceived themselves as practicing any of the teacher empowerment components, the more they expressed commitment towards the organization, the profession, and OCBs. In addition, the correlation between organizational commitment and PC was positive and significant (r ? 0:68). Multiple regression analysis was employed to identify which empowerment dimensions best ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations Variable Mean s.d. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Decision-making1 3.1 0.73 0.54 0.34 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.34 0.41 0.61 2. Professional growth1 3.8 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.55 0.73 0.65 0.60 0.36 3. Statusa 4.1 0.62 0.62 0.44 0.67 0.58 0.51 0.21 4. Self-efficacya 3.7 0.65 0.56 0.77 0.53 0.58 0.50 5. Autonomya 3.3 0.84 0.61 0.37 0.37 0.39 6. Impacta 3.7 0.72 0.50 0.54 0.44 7. OCb 4.3 0.83 0.68 0.41 8. PCa 3.4 0.59 0.20 9. OCBc 3.1 0.72 Variables 1â€Å"6 are subscales of teacher empowermentâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢. All correlations are statistically significant, po0:0001: a Rating scale: 1=Strongly disagree; 5=Strongly agree b Rating scale: 1=Strongly disagree; 7=Strongly agree c Rating scale: 1=Very seldom; 5=Very often 282 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 predict teachersâ„ ¢ organizational commitment, PC and OCB (see Tables 2â€Å"4). Tables 2â€Å"4 show the results of the multiple regression analysis for each of the outcomes: organizational commitment, PC and OCB, respectively. For each regression, all six components of teacher empowerment were included in the equation. Table 2 shows that three predictor variables† professional growth, status, and selfefficacy† were statistically significant predictors of organizational commitment and explained 44 percent of its variance (F?3674? ? 173:65; po0:0001). Results of the second multiple regression analysis (Table 3) indicate that the same three predictors†self-efficacy, professional growth, and status†were statistically significant predictors of PC and explained 40 percent of its variance (F?3665? ? 148:1; po0:0001). Results of the third multiple regression analysis (Table 4) indicate that three predictors†decision-making, self-efficacy, and status†were statistically significant predictors of OCB and also explained 40 percent of its variance (F?3640? ? 144:23; po0:0001). An evaluation of the assumptions of each of the three regression models yielded no violations of assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity of residuals. 4. Discussion The findings regarding 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, amongst high school teachers, were in descending order: status (M ? 4:14; s.d.=0.51), self-efficacy, impact, professional growth, autonomy and decisionmaking (M ? 2:94; s.d.=0.72). In the present study, we found very similar results: status (M ? 4:10; s.d.=0.62), professional growth, impact, self-efficacy, autonomy and decision-making (M ? 3:06; s.d.=0.73). These findings imply that teachers feel that they are respected (status), have opportunities for professional growth, are effective at their job (impact) and perform well (selfefficacy). Yet, in both the American sample and in our population, teachers did not feel that they were involved in the process of decision-making. We can speculate that either teachers are not aware of their involvement, or that they really ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 2 Regression coefficients and F-test value for organizational commitment Variable B SE b F R2 Professional growth 0.62 0.07 0.44___ 87.69 0.44 Status 0.36 0.07 0.22___ (6,671, po0:0001) Self-efficacy 0.23 0.07 0.15 Autonomy 0.01 0.05 0.01 Decision making 0.03 0.06 0.02 Impact 0.12 0.07 0.09 Constant 0.63 0.20 ___po0:0001: Table 3 Regression coefficients and F-test value for professional commitment Variable B SE b F R2 Self-efficacy 0.25 0.05 0.29___ 75.47 0.41 Professional growth 0.19 0.05 0.23___ (6,662, po:0001) Status 0.11 0.04 0.12_ Autonomy 0.05 0.03 0.07 Decision making 0.06 0.04 0.08 Impact 0.05 0.04 0.06 Constant 1.08 0.12 _po0:01; ___po0:0001: Table 4 Regression coefficients and F-test value for organizational citizenship behavior Variable B SE b F R2 Decision-making 0.46 0.04 0.46___ 71.88 0.40 Self-efficacy 0.39 0.06 0.35___ (6,637, po:0001) Status 0.17 0.05 0.14___ Autonomy 0.002 0.04 0.002 Impact 0.003 0.06 0.003 Professional growth 0.04 0.06 0.03 Constant 1.04 0.16 ___po0:0001: R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 283 were not given the opportunity to participate in various forms of school decision-making. (Wall Rinehart, 1998 suggest these considerations in their discussion about the role of the school councils in the schools they sampled). The results of the present study showed that two of the six subscales, self-efficacy and status, significantly predicted all three outcomes: organizational commitment, PC and OCB. Another subscale, professional growth, predicted two of the outcomes: organizational and PC. Participation in decision-making predicted OCB. The results regarding the criterion variable, organizational commitment, correspond with earlier findings that investigated the SPES subscales (Wu Short, 1996). In their study, Wu and Short found that professional growth, self-efficacy and status predicted organizational commitment and explained 45 per cent of its variance. These same subscales were found to explain 44 per cent of the variance of organizational commitment in the present study. Self-efficacy is oneâ„ ¢s perception of oneâ„ ¢s competence and ability to act. In educational settings, it was found that when teachers believe that they can make a difference with their students, they do (Gibson Dembo, 1984). The importance of selfefficacy as a predictor of all three outcomes can be understood if we relate to the original concept of self-efficacy developed by Bandura (1977). According to Bandura, self-efficacy is based on two dimensions that he labeled outcome expectancyâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ and efficacy expectancyâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ (p. 79). Outcome expectancyâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ implies that an individual estimates that a given behavior will result in certain outcomes. Efficacy expectationsâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ refer to behaviors toward the expected outcomes. Not surprisingly, where teachers report higher levels of self-efficacy, they exhibit more organizational behaviors. Teachers who have high expectations of themselves to perform effectively and successfully in school will carry out extra functions beyond the formal ones and will feel more committed to their school and to the teaching profession. With regard to status, our findings demonstrate that teachers who have a high sense of status in their work tend to invest in more OCBs and to feel more committed to the organization and to the teaching profession than teachers who do not express that level of status recognition. Teachers who perceive that they have the professional respect and admiration of their colleagues, in addition to acknowledgement of their expertise and knowledge, will be more inclined to contribute to their schools. Their contribution will be exhibited in the expression of greater commitment to the profession and the organization and in practicing OCBs that reflect helping others (students, colleagues, and the organization as a whole). Professional growth, oneâ„ ¢s belief that one works in a supportive and nurturing environment that stimulates professional growth and development, may impact oneâ„ ¢s feeling of commitment to the organization and the profession. The more teachers perceive that they have opportunities for professional growth, the more they will strive to act for the good of the organization and the profession. According to Firestone and Pennell (1993), the knowledge demands of the new teaching strategies have stimulated the need to bring about the professionalization of teaching, of which professional growth is one measure. Teachersâ„ ¢ commitment depends on their drive and will to grow professionally, a fact that has implications for the quality of instruction that the teachers will maintain. Lastly, participation in decision-making, the subscale of teacher empowerment that was one of the predictors of OCB, was found in previous research to be linked to OCB (e.g., Vanyperen et al., 1999). Participation in decision-making is joint decision-making or decision-making that is a product of shared influence by a superior and his or her employee (Koopman Wierdsma, 1998). It was found to affect job satisfaction (Rice Schneider, 1994) and as such, it is reasonable to assume that teachers satisfied with their jobs will, among others, exhibit more OCBs. A number of studies have shown a positive relationship between participation in decision-making and organizational commitment (e.g., Hoy, Tartar, Bliss, 1990; Louis Smith, 1991). In the present study, there was significant positive correlation between the two; however, decision-making was not found to be a predictor of organizational commitment ARTICLE IN PRESS 284 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 but rather of OCB. One might expect that teachers who report that they participate in decisionmaking processes in their school will show more OCBs that are reflected in activities beyond their existing role expectations. However, it was surprising that participative decision-making was not found to be a predictor of organizational commitment. One explanation for this finding may be the fact that decision-making was treated as a onedimensional construct rather than a two-dimensional one. Decision-making in the school setting involves participation in decision-making in the technical domain (i.e., dealing with students and instruction), and in the managerial domain (i.e., dealing with school operations and administration). By combining these two dimensions, which may sometimes conflict, we may have caused cancellation out of both. In another study, Somech and Bogler (2002) found that teachersâ„ ¢ participation in technical decisions did not predict organizational commitment; however, teachersâ„ ¢ participation in managerial decisions was found to predict organizational commitment. Findings regarding the significant positive correlation between organizational commitment and PC confirm previous research (e.g., Cohen, 2000), and contradict other research that asserted that there may be a conflict between the two concepts (e.g., Wallace, 1993). The results of the present study may imply that there is no inherent conflict between organizational commitment and PC, although a tension between the two may exist (Aranya Ferris, 1984). Teacherâ„ ¢s perceived autonomy and impact were the least effective predictors of any of the outcomes examined, since both these variables were excluded from the regression equation. Although these findings are consistent with other research which examined the predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among the six dimensions of teacher empowerment (Wu Short, 1996), they are somewhat surprising. One would expect teachers who experience a high level of autonomy and feel that they have great impact on what is going in school, to report higher levels of commitment to the school and to their profession and to contribute more than expected of them to the school. The current results imply that the two constructs, autonomy and impact, may not be directly related to the outcomes examined here since individuals who feel that they are autonomous and have impact in their workplace do not necessarily translate these feelings into behaviors that reflect great commitment to the organization, to the profession, or to OCB. It is interesting to relate OCB to the concept of a teacher professional community or a teacher learning community (Darling-Hammond Sykes, 1999). A professional community of teachers is characterized by three key features: a common set of activities that provide frequent face-to-face interaction, specific organizational structures to assist in developing common understandings, values and expectations for behavior to evolve, and a core of shared values regarding what students should learn, how faculty and students should behave and the shared goals to maintain and support the community (Louis, Kruse, Bryk, 1995). Obviously, such a professional learning community involves the establishment of a school-wide culture that makes collaboration expected, wide-ranging, authentic, continuing, and focused on student outcomes (Toole Louis, 2002, Chapter 8). In order for such a community to exist, it is expected that extra-role behaviors, in addition to in-role behaviors, should be implemented in the school setting. Without applying discretionary behaviors that go beyond the existing role expectations, and that are directed to the students, the teachers and the school organization as a unit, it would be almost impossible for a community of teachers to become a professional learning community. Kruse, Louis and Bryk (1995) indicate that one of the preconditionsâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ for the development of a professional learning community is the openness to improvement, trust and respect, access to expertise, supportive leadership and socialization. To achieve these human and social resources, it is crucial that teachers demonstrate OCB, since this affects the social and psychological environment of the organization reflected in shared norms and values, a focus on student learning, reflective dialogue with colleagues, and peer collaboration. ARTICLE IN PRESS R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 285 5. Conclusions and implications This study primarily investigated the relationship between teacher empowerment and organizational commitment, PC and OCB. The findings demonstrate that a number of teacher empowerment dimensions have an impact on these outcomes in the school setting, but a number of limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, since all measures used are self-reports, common method variance is a problem, as well as social desirability effects. Although self-report data are commonly used to measure individual self-perception (Spector, 1994), one should bear in mind that they may not reflect the actual performance of the respondents. Second, although in selecting the sampled schools, care was taken with regard to the representation of urban, suburban and rural schools serving diverse populations that represented the composition of teachers in Israel with regard to gender, religion, age and education, we cannot generalize from this sample to all middle and high schools in Israel since the schools were located in the northern and central parts of Israel. Related to the issue of sampling is our 41 percent response rate, a rate not unusual in social science studies (e.g., Bogler, 1994; Kidder, 2002; Williams Shiaw, 1999), but a factor which should be kept in mind when attempting to generalize to a larger population. A study that randomly and representatively samples all the middle and high schools in the country could allow such generalization. In addition, this study viewed each variable as a single scale rather than as a multi-faceted one. In contrast, organizational commitment was studied elsewhere (Hartmann Bambacas, 2000) as a multi-method scale with three dimensions: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. This multi-level method may provide a better understanding of the phenomenon than using a single scale. One of the important contributions of the present study is that it underscores the relative effects of four teacher empowerment dimensions on the important outcomes of organizational commitment, PC and OCB in the school. These outcomes have been found to be beneficial to organizations. PC is considered a major determinant of organizational effectiveness (Pfeffer, 1994) and individual motivation (Hackman and Lawler, 1971). Organizational commitment has been found to affect employee identification with the organization, level of effort, and turnover (Stroh Reilly, 1997). OCB has been linked to increased performance (Brief Motowidlo, 1989). Two of the teacher empowerment dimensions, self-efficacy and status, appear to be crucial in predicting all three organizational outcomes and should therefore be strongly acknowledged by school principals who strive to raise teachersâ„ ¢ commitment to the organization and to the profession and to increase teachersâ„ ¢ motivation toward OCB for the benefit of the school. Principals need to establish working conditions that will bring teachers to perceive themselves as having a high level of competency, and experiencing high status and selfesteem. Second, teachers who view themselves as professionals or perceive opportunities to grow professionally may contribute more to the school as their commitment to the organization and to the profession increases. Principals need to recognize that the feelings and perceptions of teachers about their schools, and their desire to attain opportunities for professional growth, are beneficial to the organization itself. Finally, based on the finding that participation in decision-making is a predictor of OCB, school principals should acknowledge the significance of the extra-role, rather than the inrole, nature of OCB since it carries great advantages for other members in the organization, including other teachers, students and the school as a whole. Thus, principalsâ„ ¢ practice of jointdecision- making should be recognized as highly important to the organization and its members. The findings of the study should also be acknowledged by policy-makers outside the school on the assumption that achieving high levels of organizational commitment, PC and OCB are important to them. Thus, the Ministry of Education, as the centralized office, and its operational units on the local level, should encourage participation of teachers in seminars and programs that stress teachersâ„ ¢ professional growth and self-efficacy. It is assumed that once the teachers experience ARTICLE IN PRESS 286 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 greater opportunities for professional growth and acquire greater trust in their ability to achieve high-order goals (i.e., greater self-efficacy), their status will rise as well. As a result, and in addition to participating in shared decision-making with the principal, teachers may feel empowered at school, a fact that will reflect on their feelings of commitment toward the organization, the profession and their extra-role behavior. Possible extensions of this study could be to examine the effects of other variables, such as perceived supervisory support (Vanyperen et al., 1999) or job satisfaction, as mediating variables in the relationship between teacher empowerment (or its subscales) and school outcomes (either those that were examined in the present study or others). In addition, since the current study was conducted in middle and high schools, it may be worthwhile to investigate elementary schools to determine whether the results presented here reflect the general situation of teachers on all levels. References Aranya, N., Ferris, K. R. (1984). A re-examination of accountantsâ„ ¢ organizational-professional conflict. The Accounting Review, 59, 1â€Å"15. Balfour, D. L., Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 29, 256â€Å"277. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191â€Å"215. Blas!e, J., Blas!e, J. (1996). Facilitative school leadership and teacher empowerment: Teachersâ„ ¢ perspectives. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117â€Å"145. Blau, G., Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15, 115â€Å"127. Bogler, R. (1994). University researchersâ„ ¢ views of private industry: Implications for educational administrators, academicians and the funding sources. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(2), 68â€Å"85. Brief, A., Motowidlo, S. (1989). Prosocial organization behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710â€Å"725. Chen, X. P., Hui, C., Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922â€Å"931. Clement, M., Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachersâ„ ¢ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture Teacher and Teaching Education, 16, 81â€Å"101. Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: A comparison of three models. Human Relations, 53, 387â€Å"417. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachersâ„ ¢ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323â€Å"337. Darling-Hammond, L., Sykes, G. (1999). In Teaching as the learning profession: handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93â€Å"108. DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424â€Å"447. Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., Lyons, C. A. (2002). Personal empowerment, efficacy, and environmental characteristics. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 67â€Å"86. Evans, E. D., Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81â€Å"85. Evers, C. W. (1990). Schooling, organizational learning and efficiency in the growth of knowledge. In J. D. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management. London: The Falmer Press. Firestone, W. A., Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489â€Å"525. Ford, R. C., Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9(3), 21â€Å"31. Gaziel, H. H., Weiss, I. (1990). School bureaucratic structure, locus of control and alienation among primary schoolteachers. Research in Education, 44, 55â€Å"66. George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work Group psychology (pp. 77â€Å"94). New York: Wiley. Gibson, S., Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 36(4), 569â€Å"582. Glickman, C., Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of firstyear, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558â€Å"562. Gruber, J., Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others The paradox of empowerment in an alternative public high school. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 353â€Å"372. Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245â€Å"259. Hackman, J. R., Lawler III, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259â€Å"286. ARTICLE IN PRESS R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 287 Hartmann, L. C., Bambacas, M. (2000). Organizational commitment: A multi method scale analysis and test of effects. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 89â€Å"108. Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W. (1986). Leadership and substitutes for leadership among professional and nonprofessional workers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 29â€Å"46. Hoy, W. K., Tartar, C. J., Bliss, J. R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 260â€Å"279. Johnson, P. E., Short, P. M. (1998). Principalâ„ ¢s leader power, teacher empowerment, teacher compliance and conflict. Educational Management and Administration, 26(2), 147â€Å"159. Karambayya, R. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Contextual predictors and organizational consequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131â€Å"133. Katz, D., Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629â€Å"648. Kirby, P. C., Colbert, R. (1994). Principals who empower teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 4(1), 39â€Å"51. Koopman, P. L., Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H. Thierry, C. J. de- Wolf (Eds.), Personnel psychology. Handbook of work and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 297â€Å"324). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor and Francis. Kruse, S., Louis, K. S., Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lodahl, T. M., Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24â€Å"33. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., Bryk, A. S. (1995). Professionalism and community: What is it and why is it important in urban schools In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Louis, K. S., Smith, B. (1991). Restructuring teacher engagement and school culture: Perspectives on school reform and the improvement of teacherâ„ ¢s work. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 34â€Å"52. Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis of confidence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Marks, H. M., 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, 19, 245â€Å"275. Mowday, R. R., Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224â€Å"247. Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfactionâ€Å"causesâ€Å"performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46â€Å"53. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43â€Å"72. Organ, D. W., Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 3â€Å"10. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., Hackman, J. R. (1996). Ways groups influence individual work effectiveness. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, G. A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 346â€Å"354). New York: McGraw-Hill. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603â€Å"609. Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 283â€Å"307. Rice, E. M., Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980â€Å"1991. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 43â€Å"58. Rinehart, J. S., Short, P. M. (1991). Viewing reading recovery as a restructuring phenomenon. Journal of School Leadership, 1(4), 379â€Å"399. Rinehart, J. S., Short, P. M. (1994). Job satisfaction and empowerment among teacher leaders, reading recovery teachers, and regular classroom teachers. Education, 114(4), 570â€Å"580. Rinehart, J. S., Short, P. M., Johnson, P. E. (1997). Empowerment and conflict at school-based and nonschool- based sites in the United States. Journal of International Studies in Educational Administration, 25, 77â€Å"87. Rinehart, J. S., Short, P. M., Short, R. J., Eckley, M. (1998). Teacher empowerment and principal leadership: Understanding the influence process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 630â€Å"649. Rosenblatt, Z. (2001). Teachersâ„ ¢ multiple roles and skill flexibility: Effects on work attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 684â€Å"708. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachersâ„ ¢ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Short, P. M. (1994a). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), 488â€Å"492. ARTICLE IN PRESS 288 R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 Short, P. M. (1994b). Exploring the links among teacher empowerment, leader power, and conflict. Education, 114(4), 581â€Å"584. Short, P. M., Greer, J. T., Melvin, W. M. (1994). Creating empowered schools: Lessons in change. Journal of Educational Research, 32(4), 38â€Å"52. Short, P. M., Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(6), 951â€Å"960. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653â€Å"663. Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachersâ„ ¢ work: connections to the classroom. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of educational research, Vol. 20 (pp. 129â€Å"177). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Somech, A., Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teachers organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 555â€Å"557. Somech, A., Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extrarole behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachersâ„ ¢ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649â€Å"659. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385â€Å"392. Stamper, C. L., Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517â€Å"536. Stroh, L., Reilly, A. H. (1997). Loyalty in the age of downsizing. Sloan Management Review, 38, 83â€Å"88. Sweetland, S. R., Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703â€Å"729. Toole, J.C., Louis, K.S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In: K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International handbook of educational leadership and administration, Vol. 8. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers (http://education. umn.edu/CAREI/Papers/JULYFINAL.pdf). Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765â€Å"802. Van Dyne, L., LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extrarole behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108â€Å"119. Vanyperen, N. W., van den Berg, A. E., Willering, M. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377â€Å"392. Wall, R., Rinehart, J. S. (1998). School-based decisionmaking and the empowerment of secondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 49â€Å"64. Wallace, J. E. (1993). Professional and organizational commitment: Compatible or incompatible Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 333â€Å"349. White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under idealâ„ ¢Ã¢â€ž ¢ school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69â€Å"82. Williams, L. J., Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601â€Å"617. Williams, S., Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. The Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 656â€Å"668. Wu, V., Short, P. M. (1996). The relationship of empowerment to teacher job commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 85â€Å"89. Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6â€Å"28. Zimmerman, M. A., Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(5), 725â€Å"750. ARTICLE IN PRESS R. Bogler, A. Somech / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 277â€Å"289 289