Based on literature arguing that risk encourages conservative leadership that supports existing routines and strategies rather than innovations and proactive behaviors, this study focuses on the connection among leadership styles, perceived school productivity, and leaders’ perceived risk. Results testify to the moderate levels of role risk that school leaders perceive and the relatively high variance existing among these perceptions. Although perceived risk measures are negatively correlated with transformational leadership and positively correlated with transactional and passive leadership, it appears that under conditions characterized by perceived risk, leaders in effective schools are those who act proactively. Such conduct demonstrates high accountability, since risky circumstances increase the potential for mistakes and, therefore, also the threat that individuals experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acker-HocevarM., & TouchtonD. (2001, April). Principals’ struggle to level the accountability playing field of Florida graded “D” and “F” schools in high poverty and minority communities.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
2.
AntonakisJ., AvolioB. J., & SivasubramaniamN. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.
3.
AvolioB. J., BassB. M., & JungD. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
4.
BagozziR. P., YiY., & PhillipsL. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
5.
BassB. M., & AvolioB. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
6.
BeckerM. C., & KnudsenT. (2005). The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 746–757.
7.
BedellK. E., HunterS. T., & MumfordM. D. (2008). Problem-solving tactics of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 89–106.
8.
BersonY., & AvolioB. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunications firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 625–646.
9.
BiestaG. J. (2002, April). Trust, violence and responsibility: Reclaiming education in an age of learning.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
BlaséJ. J. (1995). The micro-politics of education. In DonmeyerR., ImbarM., & ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration (pp. 209–224). Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.New York: Guilford Press.
12.
BullisR. G., KaneT., & TrembleT. R. (1997, August). The factor structure of the MLQ: An investigation across organization levels.Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Boston.
13.
BurnsteinL., OakesJ., & GuitonG. (1992). Educational indicators. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 413–418). London: Macmillan.
14.
CarlsonR. O. (1964). Environmental constraints and organizational consequences: The public school and its clients. In GriffithsD. E. (Ed.), Behavioral science and educational administration (pp. 262–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
CarlsonR. O., GallaherA., MilesM. B., PellegrinR. J., & RogersE. M. (1965). Change processes in the public schools.Eugene: University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration.
16.
ChattopadhyayP., GlickW. H., & HuberG. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 937–955.
17.
ColemanJ. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
18.
CollinsJ. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't.New York: HarperBusiness.
19.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
20.
CronbachL. J., & RichardJ. S. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418.
21.
Den HartogD. N., Van MuijenJ. J., & KoopmanP. L. (1997). Transitional vs. transformational leadership: An analysis of MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19–34.
22.
DowneyH. K., & SlocumJ. W. (1975). Uncertainty: Measures, research and sources of variation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 562–577.
23.
DruskatV. U. (1994). Gender and leadership: Transformational and transactional leadership in Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 99–119.
24.
DumdumU. R., LoweK. B., & AvolioB. J. (2002). A meta analysis of transformational and transactional leadership. In AvolioB. J. & YammarinoF. J. (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35–66). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
25.
DuncanR. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327.
26.
EnsleyM. D., PearceC. L., & HmieleskiK. M. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243–263.
27.
EricsonR. V., & HaggertyK. D. (1997). Policing the risk society.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
28.
EyalO. (2000). Organizational entrepreneurship of elementary schools in the Israeli educational system (Doctoral thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem). (In Hebrew)
29.
EyalO., & InbarD. E. (2003). Developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory: Theoretical conceptualization and empirical examination. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 9(6), 221–244.
30.
EyalO., & KarkR. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship leadership. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 3(3), 209–233.
31.
GalbraithJ. R. (1977). Organizational design.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32.
GoldringE. B. (1996). Schools as dynamics organizations. International Journal of Education Reform, 5(3), 278–286.
33.
GoodwinV. L., WoffordJ. C., & WhittingtonJ. L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension to the transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759–775.
34.
GuQ., SammonsP., & MetaP. (2008). Leadership characteristics and practices in school with different effectiveness and improvement profiles. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 43–63.
35.
HallingerP., & BridgesE. M. (1997). Problem-based leadership development: Preparing educational leaders for changing times. Journal of School Leadership, 7(6), 592–608.
36.
HinkinT. R., & SchriesheimC. A. (2008). A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 501–513.
37.
HoggM. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.
38.
HouseR. J., & MitchellT. R. (1974). Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.
39.
HoyW., & FergusonJ. (1985). A theoretical framework and exploration of organizational effectiveness in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(1), 117–134.
40.
HoyW., & MiskelG. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
41.
HuntJ. G., & RopoA. (2003). Longitudinal organizational research and the third scientific discipline. Group & Organization Management, 28(3), 315–340.
42.
HunterS. T., Bedell-AversK. E., & MumfordM. D. (2009). Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 383–404.
43.
InbarD. E. (2000). Managing diversity: The educational challenge.Even-Yehuda, Israel: Reches. (In Hebrew)
44.
InbarD. E., & MilsteinM. (1987, June). The ABCs of organizational behavior. Personnel, pp. 50–56.
KahnemanD., & TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
47.
KellerT. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589–607.
48.
KhuranaR. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 60–66.
49.
KorlandH., PeretzH., & Hertz-LazarowitzR. (2010). Leadership style and organizational learning: The mediating effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 7–30.
50.
LeithwoodK., AndersonS., MascallB., & StrausT. (2010). School leaders’ influences on student learning: The four paths. In BushT., BellL., & MiddlewoodD. (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management.London: Sage.
51.
LindleJ., & MawhinneyH. (2003). Introduction: School leadership and the politics of education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3–9.
52.
LordR. J., BrownD. J., HarveyJ. L., & HallR. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311–338.
53.
LoweK. B., KroeckK. G., & SivasubramaniamN. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
54.
LukeA. (2003). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitanism. In A. Ried & P. Thomson (Eds.). Rethinking public education: Towards a public curriculum (pp. 139–155). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed.
MaderaJ. M., & SmithD. B. (2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 103–114.
57.
MarcyR. T., & MumfordM. D. (2010). Leader-cognition: Importing leaders’ performance through casual analysis: The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
58.
MayerW. J., & RowanB. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
59.
McWilliamE. L. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 35–44.
60.
McWilliamE. L., & PerryL. A. (2006). On being more accountable: The push and pull of risk in schools’ leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(2), 97–109.
61.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Measure for effeciency and growth in school. Israeli Ministry of Education.
62.
MiskelC., FevurlyR., & StewartJ. (1979). Organizational structures and processes, perceived school effectiveness, loyalty and job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(1), 97–118.
63.
MottP. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations.New York: Harper & Row.
64.
MuellerR. O. (1996). Basic principals of structural equation modeling.New York: Springer.
65.
MumfordM. D., GaddisB., StrangeJ. M., & ScottG. (2006). Theory. In MumfordM. D. (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership (pp. 25–51). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66.
NirA. E. (1998). Differentiating among role perceptions of echelons comprising a centralized national educational hierarchy. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(1), 83–93.
67.
NirA. E. (2001). Administrators’ perceived role vulnerability: A comparison of centralized domesticated and decentralized undomesticated organizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 134–147.
68.
NirA. E. (2003). Quasi-market: The changing context of schooling. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(1), 26–39.
69.
NirA. E. (Ed.). (2009). Centralization and school empowerment: From rhetoric to practice.New York: Nova Science.
70.
NonakaI., & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge creating company.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71.
OsbornR. N., HuntJ. G., & JauchL. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837.
72.
OvertonR. C. (2001). Moderated multiple regression for interactions involving categorical variables: A statistical control for heterogeneous variance across two groups. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 218–233.
73.
PasternackB. A., & O'TooleJ. (2002). Yellow-light leadership: How the world's best companies manage uncertainty.McLean, VA: Booz Allen Hamilton.
74.
PidgeonN. F., KaspersonR. K., & SlovicP. (Eds.). (2003). Introduction. In The social amplification of risk (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
PlumleeM. A. (2003). The effect of information complexity on analysts’ use of that information. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 275–296.
76.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., & LeeJ. Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
77.
RobinsonV., HohepaM., & LloydC. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why.Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland Press.
78.
SachsJ. (2003). The activist teaching profession.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
79.
SitkinS. B., & PabloA. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–29.
80.
SlovicP., FischhoffB., & LichtensteinS. (1980). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In KahnemanD., SlovicP., & TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 463–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SosikJ. J., & DingerS. L. (2007). Relationships between leadership style and vision content: The moderating role of need for social approval, self-monitoring, and need for social power. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 134–153.
TejedaM. J., ScanduraT. A., & PillaiR. (2001). The MLQ revised: Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31–52.
85.
TepperB. J., & PercyP. M. (1994). Structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734–744.
86.
Uhl-BienM., MarionR., & McKelveyB. (2008). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.
87.
Van De VenA., & FerryD. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations.New York: Wiley.
88.
VillaJ. R., HowellJ. P., DorfmanP. W., & DanielD. L. (2003). Problems with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regressions. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 3–23.
89.
WagnerR. (1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry.New York: Routledge.
90.
WilsonS., Darling-HammondI., & BerryB. (2001). A case of successful teaching and learning.Seattle, WA: Center of the Study of Teaching and Policy.
