Kibbutzim and Moshavim

RUNNING HEAD: KIBBUTZIM AND MOSHAVIM

Kibbutzim and Moshavim: The Historical and Current Social Context and Leadership

Involvement

Brittany Holm

Proposal for Applied Research Project in Leadership

Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership

Judson University

March 12, 2015

1

Judson University requires that papers written in APA format have a title page with a running head and a header. You should also include the title of your paper, your name and university name. Some professors may ask that you include the name of the course as well.

KIBBUTZIM AND MOSHAVIM 2

Approval Page

This applied research project was submitted by Brittany Holm under the direction of the persons listed below. The Division of Adult and Continuing Education submitted the project to the Graduate Council for approval. On April 2, 2015 the Graduate Council approved the applied research project in the Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership at Judson University.

_______________________________________________ __________________Marsha Vaughn, PhD DateApplied Research Project Mentor

_______________________________________________ __________________David L. Cook, EdD DateDirector of Master of Organizational Leadership Program

_______________________________________________ __________________Date

Dean for School of Leadership and Business—Center for Adult Professional Studies


Abstract

This study examines Israeli communal and cooperative settlements. These settlements are called

kibbutzim and moshavim. The purpose of this research is to explore the historical success that

arose from the development of kibbutzim and moshavim and how leadership was, is, and is no

longer involved. Research findings indicate that success within both kibbutzim and moshavim is

not merely economic but also the attempt of keeping community life alive. Leadership within

kibbutzim does drive the success of the organization. However, success within moshavim is

based on each individual farmer. While the findings show that economic success within both

organizations is important, ideological commitment took precedence over economic success

within the findings. The changes within the organizational structures of both kibbutzim and

moshavim were applied to Hughes’ et al. (2014) organizational framework. It was found that

kibbutzim and moshavim transformed in order to sustain as organizations following the debt

crisis. However, many kibbutzim and most moshavim have lost principles within their historical

ideology.

Keywords: Kibbutz, Moshav, Communalism, Co-operation, and Success


Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………....5Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….5Research Questions………………………………………………………………………..8Justification………………………………………………………………………………..8

Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature…………………………………………………….10 Overview of the Related Literature……………………………………………………...10 Review of Historical Context……………………………………………………………10Review of Differences…………………………………………………………………...13 Review of Changes Taking Place within the Organizations………………………….....14Review of Leadership Involvement……………………………………………………..18Review of Organizational Framework and Leadership Styles………………………......19Summary of the Related Literature……………………………………………………...20

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………22Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..22Participants………………………………………………………………………………24Instruments………………………………………………………………………………25Procedures……………………………………………………………………………….26

Chapter 4: Findings……………………………………………………………………………...28Findings Overview………………………………………………………………………28Research Question 1……………………………………………………………………..28Research Question 2……………………………………………………………………..32Research Question 3……………………………………………………………………..36

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………………..40Overview of Applied Research Project………………………………………………….40Implications of Findings…………………………………………………………………40Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….45Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..46

Appendix A Data Collection Instrument………………………………………………………..51Appendix B Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..55


Chapter 1: Introduction

Imagine moving your family, a wife, and three children, to a desert wasteland surrounded

by landmines and, at the time, bordering an enemy country that wanted to drive your people into

the sea and erase the name of Israel forever! Michal and Eilat look back upon the decision they

made when they decided to move to the moshav. The government provided them with a plot of

land near the Dead Sea, they were responsible for cultivating and producing agriculture in a

desolate wasteland with no running water or electricity. Eilat worried they had made a mistake

bringing their children to this desert wilderness, which is the saltiest and lowest place on earth.

The farmland, surrounded by landmines and located on the Jordanian boarder, did not

seem like the greatest place to raise a family. Both Michal and Eilat had no idea that it would

take four years before they discovered how to grow anything in the salty arid earth they were

attempting to cultivate. Michal developed horticultural knowledge through reading the Bible and

discovered a way to cultivate in the salt saturated soil. Through ingenuity and innovation Michal

was able to cultivate and yield produce after four years. Today Michal and Eilat have a large

farm and their children are all grown. They look back at their accomplishments and are satisfied

that they have contributed to the development of not only their land, but also the development of

the State of Israel.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this research is to explore the historical success that arose from the

development of kibbutzim and moshavim and how leadership was, is, and is no longer involved.

“In order to achieve enduring performance potential, organizations need to undergo periodic

transformation, and therefore strategic leadership requires successfully navigating and leading

these changes” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 16). The organizational transformation experienced


within both kibbutzim and moshavim will be applied to Hughes’ et al. (2014) statement on

organizational strategy and change. Hughes et al. (2014) further explain

Strategy is maximized when it also involves aspirational dimensions that touch the

emotions of all the stakeholders involved. Organizational mission, vision, and values are

important aspirational components that create meaning and purpose for these

stakeholders. These components serve to help people understand why the organization

exists, how it intends to make a difference in the world, and what the important beliefs

are that drive and connect the people in the organization. (p. 25)

The organizational structures of kibbutzim and moshavim have adapted to the political and

economic environments they have experienced since their beginning. However, close to eighty

percent of kibbutzim and nearly all of moshavim have lost concepts that once defined their

organizational structure. Both kibbutzim and moshavim will be examined in light of Hughes’ et

al. (2014) framework regarding organizational strategy.

While this research will not provide a comprehensive historical study of these

organizations, it will outline the culmination of events that led to their establishment and the role

they played in the rebirth of the State of Israel. Previous research has shown that these

organizations had prominent roles in the establishment of the State of Israel starting in the late

1800s when various forms of these organizations were established. Kibbutzim began to influence

the establishment of the State in 1910 when the first kibbutz, Deganya, was established (Livni,

2004; Abramitzky, 2011). Moshavim began to influence the establishment of the State of Israel

starting in the 1920s in British occupied Palestine, right up until 1948 when Israel declared their

independence (Sofer & Applebaum, 2006). Research also shows that changes were made within

these organizational structures as a result of the economic crisis during the 1980s (Kimhi, 2006;


Russell et al., 2011; Livni, 2004; Shapira, 2008a; Sofer, 2005). The study will explain these

structural changes, which took place within both kibbutzim and moshavim, as well as identify

what it means to be a successful kibbutz or moshav by ranking how many years they have been

in operation, economic indicators, and their growth since their beginning, as well as their attempt

of sticking to their ideological framework. Through interviews, the study will examine how

leadership drives the organization and the how leadership operates and operated within various

contexts. The leadership will then be examined to identify how it drives the success of the

organizations. The study will also identify how members view the changes that took place within

the structures of both kibbutzim and moshavim.

How do communal and co-operative settlements continue to function democratically?

Communal and co-operative settlements have been established throughout the world, both in the

past and the present. However, none have been more studied than the Israeli kibbutzim in the

past sixty years (Shapira, 2008a). Kibbutzim in particular have gained international interest

(Russell et al., 2013). Moshavim have not been as intensely studied as kibbutzim and little

research has been done on the leadership within moshavim, but they too have attracted the

attention of researchers. What made both of these organizations successful? And if they are

currently successful, how do they remain? How did these settlements contribute to the

establishment of the State of Israel? What role did leadership have in their success? Both

kibbutzim and moshavim are more than the average United States farm. Simons and Ingram

(2000) explain, “The kibbutz is the equivalent of a laboratory for organization science.” (p. 283)

While other communal and co-operative settlements operate around the world, kibbutzim and

moshavim are unique in structure and exclusive to the State of Israel. These organizations will be

examined closely throughout this case study. Research has shown both kibbutzim and moshavim


have experienced changes within their historical organizational structure (Shapira, 2008a; Topel,

2013). Leadership played a major role in implementing the changes within the kibbutzim

(Shapira, 2008a; Palgi & Reinharz, 2011). Some members view these changes within kibbutzim

as positive and some view them as negative. However, research does not clarify leadership

within moshavim and if leadership was the direct cause of the changes within the structure.

Research Questions

What components (economic indicators, ideological values, members, etc.) make the

organizational structures of a kibbutz or moshav successful?

How does leadership impact the success of a kibbutz or moshav and how does leadership

handle change?

Did leadership impact the changes made within both organizations and how do members

view these changes?

Justification

The motivation for this research is to explore the historical context of kibbutzim and

moshavim, as well as leadership involvement within both organizations. The organizational

structure will be examined as well, and the changes that have taken place within both

organizations. The researcher is a Christian Zionist. It is her belief that the hand of God

Almighty directed the return of the Jewish people to Israel before, during, and after World War

II. Both the kibbutz movement and the moshav movement were instrumental in the establishment

of the State of Israel. They were Israel’s economic and agricultural backbone before and after the

1948 War of Independence. The researcher chose this study because a relative of hers was a

volunteer on Kibbutz Beit Oren and Kibbutz Shefayim. The researcher spent the summer of 2012

in Israel visiting kibbutzim and had the opportunity to spend time at a moshav while traveling the


country. She also recently discovered that her great-great grandmother was a Jewess from

Croatia. The researcher has a deep interest in the core factors which drove the establishment of

the State of Israel and both kibbutzim and moshavim played a monumental role in the country’s

rebirth. The researcher would also like others to be aware of these unique organizations, as well

as the role they played in the establishment of the State of Israel.

Definition of Terms

Communalism: The standard of individuals living together, sharing resources, and duties.

Co-operation: The standard of individuals working together for common goals.

Kibbutz (pl. Kibbutzim): Communal settlements in Israel, which members live together, share

resources, duties, and the community is based on equality among all members.

Moshav (pl. Moshavim): Co-operative settlements in Israel, which is the standard of individuals

working together for common goals, individuals can own property, and the structure is not based

on equality among all members.

Kibbutznik: An individual member or resident of a kibbutz.

Aliyah: When people of Jewish heritage immigrate/return to Israel.

Success: Years a kibbutz or moshav has been in operation, growth in economic indicators and

members, as well as the attempt of sticking to original values.


Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature

Overview of the Related Literature

This chapter will explain the history of kibbutzim and moshavim by examining previous

research on these organizations. Previous research has explained the organizational structures of

both kibbutzim and moshavim and how these organizations have influenced the State of Israel.

The topic of leadership involvement is discussed in earlier research. However, it is limited when

it comes to the moshavim. Leadership theories and concepts will be reviewed as well. The

review of the related literature will begin with the history of kibbutzim and moshavim, the

differences between the two organizations, the changes taking place within these organizations,

leadership involvement, and leadership theories and concepts.

Review of the Historical Context

Previous research has explored the historical context of both kibbutzim and moshavim.

Often, communal settlements emerge when groups experience religious persecution. One

example familiar to the United States is Iowa’s Amana Colonies (Amana Colonies, 2014).

Religious persecution was the same driving force in the establishment of kibbutzim and

moshavim. The First Aliyah was the influence and the start of the Jewish settlements in Palestine

and arose between 1881 to 1884 and 1890 to 1891 (Weintraub et al., 1969). However, a Jewish

remnant was always present in Palestine. During the First Aliyah, twenty to thirty thousand

Jewish immigrants traveled to Ottoman-ruled Palestine from Eastern Europe and Russia to

establish Jewish settlements, which centered their social behaviors on Hebrew customs including

the revival of the Hebrew language (Livni, 2004; Weintraub et al., 1969). The immigration

resulted after Russian anti-Jewish riots, also called pogroms, which began in 1881 (Weintraub et

al., 1969). These settlements declined because immigrants lacked agricultural knowledge


(Weintraub et al., 1969). Between 1886-1888 Baron de Rothschild provided these settlements

with financial support (Potok, 1978; Weintraub et al., 1969). However, the settlements

financially supported by the Baron never received legal status (Weintraub et al., 1969).

Zionism was always at the heart of the establishment of these Jewish settlements. Livni

(2004) explains the foundations of the political Zionist movement, which was the foundation of

both organizations. Theodor Herzl founded political Zionism, which was the idea that a

homeland for the Jewish people was the only solution to anti-Semitism that was rising

throughout the world (Ben-Artizi, 2002; Livni, 2004; Palgi & Reinharz, 2011; Potok, 1978;

Shapira, 2008a). However, Herzl’s idea was not completely unique because there was always a

bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel (Potok, 1978). It was Herzl who was a

visionary and leader of his time in regards to Zionism. The political Zionist movement was

established in the late 1800s prior to the atrocities of the Holocaust (Livni, 2004). The first

Zionist conference was in Basle, Switzerland in 1897 (Potok, 1978). The congress then

established the World Zionist Organization, which embraced Herzl’s Zionist movement and

named him as president (Potok, 1978). Political Zionism was inaugurated in 1897 and Herzl was

able to accomplish the legal status of Jewish settlements in Palestine (Palgi & Reinharz, 2014;

Weintraub et al., 1969). The Zionist movement established three institutions, the Anglo-Palestine

Bank, the Jewish National Fund of Israel (handled acquisition of land), and the Palestine Office

(Weintraub et al., 1969). The World Zionist Organization (WZO) following the establishments

of the “kvutzot” sent a representative Arthur Ruppin in 1907, to establish and endorse the Zionist

movement by developing planned settlements in Palestine (Livni, 2004; Sofer, 2006,). The WZO

would purchase land in Palestine with the limited resources they possessed and would provide it

to Russian Jews who were willing to begin settlements (Livni, 2004).


Both organizations as they are today are a result of the Zionist Movement. Palgi and

Reinharz (2011) explain, “In the 1920s the Zionist establishment defined the moshav, in contrast

to the kibbutz, as the preferred form of settlement” (p.589). The State of Israel was founded on

agriculturalists including individuals from kibbutzim and moshavim, this contributed to the

State’s establishment (Kimhi, 2009). Kimhi (2009) explains, “Since the end of the 19th century,

Jewish settlers in Israel saw agriculture as a channel through which the link between the Jewish

people and their ancient homeland can be re-established” (p. 125). This idea stemmed from the

Zionist movement and its foundations.

Ben-Artzi (2002) explains,

Like utopian thinkers elsewhere, these pioneers were looking for a form of settlement that

would incorporate their social and economic aspirations into a system suitable for the

attainment of broader goals, whether political or social. Unlike the utopians, however, the

Jews in Eretz Israel did not aspire to develop a universal ideology that would make the

world a better place but rather concentrated, by and large, on achieving their own

objectives. (p. 163)

Sofer and Applebaum (2006) explain that in the 20th century, the national settlement authority,

which was titled the Land Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency, and is now the Jewish

National Fund, provided the development of the basic structure of the settlement, as well capital

and land. “Although the land that each kibbutz was located on was the property of the Jewish

National Fund, kibbutz members owned and operated other assets in common, working together

in kibbutz-owned economic ventures, eating their meals in central dining halls, and living in

kibbutz-owned housing” (Russell et al., 2013, pg. 1). The settlers of both kibbutzim and

moshavim then provided the labor and the management of the organization (Russell et al., 2013;


Sofer & Applebaum, 2006). Therefore, the land will always remain in the hands of the Jewish

National Fund and will be utilized by Jewish settlers.

These settlements are legal organizations and are organized as mutual societies, which

are categorized as four different settlements, kibbutz, moshav shitufi, moshav, and yishuv

kehillati (Sofer & Applebaum, 2006). This study is only concerned with two of those

settlements, which are Kibbutz (pl. Kibbutzim), which are communal or collective settlements,

and Moshav (pl. Moshavim), which are cooperative or smallholder’s settlements (Sofer &

Applebaum, 2006). Both kibbutzim and moshavim possessed a relationship with the settlement

authority and the State of Israel once it was established which was based on a mutual

understanding that all settlement efforts were partnerships established to accomplish the goal of

developing a Jewish homeland (Sofer, 2006).

A group of pioneers established the first kibbutz, Deganya, in 1910 near the Sea of

Galilee (100 Years of the Kibbutz, 2010; Livni, 2004; Palgi & Reinharz, 2011; Shpira, 2008).

Settlements or villages called moshava (pl. moshavot) had existed between 1882-1903. These

were small villages to which some co-operation was present (Ben-Artzi, 2002). In the 1920s the

modern day moshav began to emerge with the first established in 1921 (Sofer, 2001). There are

now 273 kibbutzim in operation in the State of Israel, in which half were established prior to

statehood (100 Years of the Kibbutz, 2010). Kimhi (2009) explains in 2005 moshavim were

around 35% of Israel’s rural population.

Review of Differences

Kibbutzim and moshavim differ in structure and operate differently. Kibbutzim operate

as ideological communalism, whereas moshavim are characterized by co-operation (Ben-Artzi,

2002). These settlements had major roles in the establishment of the State of Israel (Ben-Artzi,


2002; Livni, 2004). While movements drove kibbutzim, community counsels drove moshavim

(Ben-Artzi, 2002). Because kibbutzim functioned as ideological communal settlements,

historically and with the exception of few kibbutzim, members received the same wages,

property was owned communally, and everyone worked for the greater good of the organization

(Ben-Artzi, 2002; Shapira, 2008a). Moshavim run co-operatively, meaning members can have

their own plot of land, equipment or shops within the community, and members receive various

wages. The community comes together to help the settlement of the moshav succeed as a whole

by contributing help to others in the community and sharing equipment (Ben-Artzi, 2002).

Behaviors within the moshav such as financing, purchasing, and marketing, historically were

controlled jointly (Kimhi, 2009).

Kibbutzim and moshavim receive revenue through goods or services they sell such as

agricultural produce, which was their main source of revenue historically. However, this is not

the only good sold by these organizations in present day. Today, many kibbutzim generate

revenue through tourism, industry, commerce, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Some even

have historical museums on their properties that charge entry fees. Just as kibbutzim have gained

revenue through tourism, members of moshavim have also generated revenue through not only

agriculture but by renting out apartments to travelers from around the world who are visiting

Israel. Members of both organizations sometimes hold jobs outside of the organization as well.

These particular organizations are distinctive to Israel.

Review of Changes within both Organizations

Both kibbutzim and moshavim have experienced changes within their organizational

structure. In the 1990s individual kibbutzim began to provide members with various wages or

salaries, which led the federations and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to warn the


kibbutzim that as result of changes made within the organizational structure, the kibbutzim to

which implemented these changes, would no longer be defined as a kibbutz under the

government but no action was taken following these warnings (Manor, 2004; Russell, et al.,

2011). Kibbutz Beit Oren in 1999 demanded that the government take action in regards to this

matter, and the “renewed kibbutz” kept its original definition with alterations to the original

structure (Manor, 2004; Russell et al., 2011). This is what initiated the changes in the kibbutzim

structure. The original definition was, “a cooperative society that is a separate settlement,

organized on the basis of collective ownership of assets, self-employment, equality and

cooperation in production, consumption and education” (Manor, 2004, p. 43; Russell et al., 2011,

p. 43). However, the “renewed kibbutz” has been defined as the following:

A cooperative society that is a separate settlement, organized on the basis of collective

ownership of assets, self-employment, equality and cooperation in production,

consumption and education, that maintains mutual responsibility among its members, and

whose articles of association include some or all of the following: (1) Relative wages

according to individual contribution or seniority; (2) Allocation of apartments; (3)

Allocation of means of production to its members, excluding land, water and production

quotas, provided that the cooperative maintains control over the means of production and

that its articles of association restrict the negotiability of allocated means of production.

(Manor, 2004, p. 43; Russell et al., 2011, p. 43)

Russell et al. (2011) explain that many kibbutzim have changed from past traditional

ways of life such as sharing income or members receiving the same wages. Now many kibbutz

members receive various wages based on the work they provide to the organization (Manor,

2004; Russell et al., 2011). Many kibbutzim are adopting individualistic ways of life and are


more concerned with personal gain rather than communality within the organization (Topel,

2013). After kibbutzim experienced economic hardships in the 1980s the kibbutz federation in

the 1990s, reformed the structure of the organization to make it economically sustainable

(Russell et al., 2011). Ben-Rafael (2011) describes the changes that have been occurring in the

organizational structure of kibbutzim as “far-reaching changes or FRCs” (p. 81). Ben-Rafael

(2011) explains, “It appears that renewal has helped many kibbutzim from a sudden threat of

economic and demographic catastrophe” (p. 81). Ben-Rafael (2011) further explains, “In the

1980s the kibbutz movement had lost its traditional backing from a favorable ruling coalition,

following the rise to power of the right in 1977” (p. 82). To be considered a kibbutz now, the

organization must provide members with the right to work, health services, children’s education,

and at least minimum income (Ben-Rafael, 2011). This varies from the past structure where the

organization provided equality to all members regardless of rank or status.

Many kibbutzim as a result of the transformation have two statuses within the

organization, members and nonmembers. Beginning in the 1990s a majority of kibbutzim made

the decision to rent housing within the kibbutz to nonmembers and some sold houses to

nonmembers (Russell et al., 2013). These nonmembers were considered temporary residents

(Russell et al., 2013). The changes also led to kibbutzim becoming less democratic. Autonomous

boards of directors control economic issues where as, historically financial matters were handled

by the General Assembly of members (Russell et al., 2013). “As the proportion of kibbutz

residents who are nonmembers continues to grow, many kibbutz communities have begun to

transform themselves into entities that function more like municipalities, and in which both

kibbutz members and nonmembers have rights of representation” (Russell et al., 2013, p. 120).


Nonmembers who are homeowners are given rights of representation in the governance by

Israeli law (Russell et al. 2013).

Just as kibbutzim experienced changes as a result of economic hardships, so too did

moshavim. Cooperative (Moshavim) villages constitute one-third of cultivated land in Israel

(Dolev & Kimhi, 2010). Moshavim experienced economic hardship in the 1980s and began to

lose their power base when the right wing came to power in 1977 (Kimhi, 2006; Sofer, 2006).

Sofer (2006) explains, the left wing before 1977 had been in power since the establishment of the

State of Israel. The government during this period chose to remove financial support and

protection policies that were in place for settlements (Sofer, 2006). The changes that occurred in

the organizational structure of moshavim was that the government made suggestions to settlers to

turn their land over for compensation or to build within their community as a non-agricultural

way to produce revenue (Sofer, 2006). This idea attracted individuals who were not interested in

producing agriculture but entrepreneurial individuals who were developers (Sofer, 2006). The

“Construction of residential neighborhoods within Moshav communities” is a change to the

organizational structure (Kimhi, 2009, p. 133). This brought abou bt a demographic change

within moshavim because outsiders joined the residential neighborhoods (Kimhi, 2009). “This

created conflicts between farmers and non-farm residents, that could potentially harm social

cohesion within the Moshav” (Kimhi, 2009, p. 133).

Changes have taken place within the population of moshavim. Sofer (2001) explains,

“pluriactivity” is when one or more members of a household possess employment outside of the

organizational structure of the moshav (p. 363). This is not a custom that originated in the early

establishments but is a progressive change throughout the years. Many of the younger

generations belonging to moshavim have either adopted pluriactivity, sought other opportunities


within the moshav not pertaining to agriculture, or they leave the moshav for other endeavors

(Sofer, 2005).

Review of Leadership Involvement

Within both kibbutzim and moshavim, members have a common goal and that is to

contribute resourceful benefits to the country such as agriculture, manufacturing etc. Ruggieri

(2013) explains, “Transformational leaders change each individual’s value system to construct a

new one constituted by common goals, and actively engages with followers by obtaining their

collaboration, and encouraging them to identify with an organizational vision beyond their own

self-interest” (p. 1172). The organizational goals historically were to contribute to the

establishment of the State of Israel and are now to continue to operate within the State. However,

both of these organizations have undergone transformation from what the organizational

structure once looked like. Historically the leadership of the kibbutz movement was intertwined

with the Labor Zionist movement (Livni, 2004). However, due to transformational leaders within

present kibbutzim, drastic changes have been adopted into the organizational structure (Shapira,

2008a). There are eighty kibbutzim that are still classified as collective and have chosen not to

adopt the changes (Livni, 2004). Changes meaning steering away from the traditional definition

of a communal kibbutz, “a cooperative society that is a separate settlement, organized on the

basis of collective ownership of assets, self-employment, equality and cooperation in production,

consumption and education” (Manor, 2004, p. 43; Russell et al., 2011, p. 43). Research shows

that there was an echelon of leaders within the kibbutz movement to which had influence within

the government as high as the Knesset (Shapira, 2014; Shapira, 2008a; Palgi & Reinharz, 2011).

There is little found on leadership within moshavim seeing that each individual farmer is

responsible for their own agricultural products.


The next section will discuss an organizational framework, as well as leadership styles,

which will be applied to the organizational structures of kibbutzim and moshavim and the

leadership within them. The principles of the following organizational framework, as well as the

leadership styles will be applied in chapter 5 to the literature review and the findings.

Review of Organizational Framework and Leadership Styles

The changes within the organizational structures of kibbutzim and moshavim will be

applied to the following framework, as well as the leadership styles that led to the changes:

In order to achieve enduring performance potential, organizations need to undergo

periodic transformation, and therefore strategic leadership requires successfully

navigating and leading these changes” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 16). “Strategy is

maximized when it also involves aspirational dimensions that touch the emotions of all

the stakeholders involved. Organizational mission, vision, and values are important

aspirational components that create meaning and purpose for these stakeholders. These

components serve to help people understand why the organization exists, how it intends

to make a difference in the world, and what the important beliefs are that drive and

connect the people in the organization. (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 25)

The organizational idea presented by Hughes et al. (2014) suggest that while organizations do

have to transform with the ever changing times and circumstances, it is important to maintain the

organizational values within the organization’s long-term strategy. Leaders within an

organization which needs to adapt to the ever-changing environments, must be able to transform

in order to sustain.

Transformational leaders are able to easily adapt to complex situations that arise in an

organizational context (McIntosh & Tolson, 2008). Transformational leaders inspire followers to


transform in order to improve the organization (McIntosh & Tolson, 2008). They encourage

collaboration within decision-making processes among all of their followers (McIntosh &

Tolson, 2008). Hughes et al. (2012) explain that servant leadership is characterized by sacrifice

and service. Robert K. Greenleaf developed the term servant leadership. Greenleaf (1970)

describes servant leaders as being empathetic, good listeners, aware of their surroundings, and

persuasive. They also have foresight, they conceptualize, they are community builders, they are

stewards, and are committed to the wellbeing of their followers (Greenleaf, 1970). Trust within a

servant leader is built among followers through the competence and values the leader holds, as

well as the empathy they show to others (Greenleaf, 1970). Followers will trust a leader who

understands and is concerned for the needs of their people (Greenleaf, 1970). Followers also

value intuition in a leader and servant leaders’ intuitions concern the needs of their followers

(Greenleaf, 1970).

Summary of Related Literature

These organizational structures emerged from changing times, including the continuous

persecution of the Jewish people. Kibbutzim and moshavim history was built on dedication,

drive, sacrifice, love for their country, religion, and love for their people. These settlers were the

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson of their time and place of origin. Ben-Gurion, the first Prime

Minister of Israel, was a kibbutznik himself and is buried at Kibbutz Sde Boker located in the

Negev desert. The changes that have taken place within these organizational structures appear to

be an adaptation to the ever-changing times. This research was presented as they apply to the

research questions: What components (economic indicators, ideological values, members, etc.)

make the organizational structures of a kibbutz or moshav successful? How does leadership

impact the success of a kibbutz or moshav and how does leadership handle change? Did


leadership impact the changes made within both organizations and how do members view these

changes?


Chapter 3: Methodology

This section will explain the methods and approach that was taken in the gathering of

data, as well as in the analysis of the data. The methodology including the case selection and

process, participants, instruments, and procedures were developed to address the research

questions. This section will explain the various components of the data collection and analysis

process including the methodology, the case selection process and context, the participants of the

study, the instruments used in the study, and the procedures taken in collecting the data.

Methodology

Kibbutzim and Moshavim the historical and current social context and leadership

involvement is two descriptive case studies in one article. The Institutional Review Board

approved this research study on May 9, 2014. The organizations (kibbutzim and moshavim)

researched were analyzed using parallel form and content analyses, meaning both organizations

were researched in a parallel manner and the organizations are examined as they relate to written

and spoken communications on the topic of both kibbutzim and moshavim. Content analysis is

the research process of analyzing previous studies, a framework, and the data that is collected

and finding themes within those three categories (Patton, 2002). These organizations are

explained in great detail while comparing both organizational structures, as well as the element

of leadership involvement. Data was collected from interviews with present members, past

volunteers, and individuals that have researched these organizations. Participants were

interviewed via Skype, phone, or written interviews through email.

Case Selection Process and Context

The case selections were developed through an intrinsic purpose, meaning the researcher

wanted to learn more about these unique organizations located in the State of Israel (Thomas,


2011). The intrinsic interest of these organizations led the researcher to consider theses

organizations from a leadership perspective, as well as from an organizational structural

perspective. The intrinsic purposes led the researcher to analyze these organizations within two

descriptive case studies, meaning both organizations were analyzed in a descriptive manner in

one comparative study, meaning these organizations were compared in a general sense.

However, both organizations are structurally different. Therefore they were compared in their

historical context having arisen from the same ideological movement. These organizations are

far different in organizational structure. However, both organizations stemmed from political

Zionism. Therefore, they were examined together in a comparative manner.

One of the researcher’s relatives was a volunteer at two kibbutzim, Beit Oren and

Shefayim in 1975-1976. She grew up hearing stories about the unique organizational structure of

kibbutzim. This is what first led her interest of kibbutzim. The researcher decided to choose both

organizations because of her past experience visiting numerous kibbutzim and staying at a

moshav in 2012. This experience enthralled her senses. She discovered the extraordinary success

these organizations played in the establishment of the State of Israel, and wondered what

leadership looked like in these organizations. The researcher believes people should be aware of

these incredibly unique organizations and the obstacles members had to conquer in operating and

sustaining both kibbutzim and moshavim. As well as the influential role these organization had

in the establishment of the State of Israel and the government of Israel. These organizations

served as an influential role within the State of Israel at a specific time and place in history.

While these organizations played a vital role in the establishment of the State of Israel, they have

experienced some difficulties as a whole. Many kibbutzim today are becoming too large and the

organizational structure is changing from the original framework. The ideals behind the original


structure have been altered in most kibbutzim. The moshavim are becoming more like a village

as seen in the West rather than sticking to their original co-operative structure.

Participants

The participants were Israelis who were present or past members of one of the

organizations and individuals that have researched these organizations for many years. Data was

also collected from one participant who currently lives outside of Israel who had volunteer

experience at two kibbutzim. The participants were selected based on the knowledge they

possess on these particular organizations. Eight individuals were interviewed for this study.

Three of the participants are members of a kibbutz, one is a member of a moshav, three of the

participants have researched these organizations, and one was a volunteer at two different

kibbutzim. Two of the three participants who have researched these organizations are experts in

the area of moshavim, while the other researcher has done extensive research on both

organizations. Seven of the eight individuals currently live in the State of Israel, while one lives

in the United States.

The individuals were interviewed via Skype, phone, or through written interview

depending on the individuals’ availability. Three participants agreed to participate in Skype

interviews. Two agreed to phone interviews, two agreed to written interviews through email, and

one agreed to a face-to-face interview. One kibbutznik was born on a kibbutz. There were six

men and two women who participated in the interviews. Each participant was asked questions

regarding the organizational structure of either a kibbutz or a moshav based on their particular

expertise. They were also asked questions pertaining to leadership and how it is involved within

the organizations, how leadership handles change, and how members view the changes that have

been made.


The following is a list of participants’ first names and their relationship to either a

kibbutz or moshav: Nathaniel, Naftali, and Micah are members of a kibbutz; Yoni is a member

of a moshav; Isaac, Aaron, and Sarah are researchers of either kibbutzim or moshavim; and Rena

was a volunteer at two different kibbutzim. Nathaniel has lived on the same kibbutz for just

around thirty years and has also done some research on these organizations. Naftali was born on

a kibbutz and has lived there his whole life. He has and continues to do extensive research on

kibbutzim. Micah has also lived on his kibbutz for just around thirty years and has done research

on kibbutzim as well. Yoni has lived at the same moshav over fifty years. Isaac has done

extensive research on both kibbutzim and moshavim, while Aaron and Sarah have done

extensive research on moshavim. Rena was a volunteer for around two years at various

kibbutzim.

Instruments

The instruments used within theses case studies were semi-structured, open-ended

interviews. There were two methods of interviews, one for individuals whose expertise are

kibbutzim and one for individuals who possess knowledge on the organizational structure of

moshavim. Questions were given to participants in advance for preparation and included

questions relating to changes, leadership, structure, and historical information. The questions

were developed to investigate the current structure within both organizations and how it differs

from the organizational structure of the past. See Appendix A for the data collection instrument.

All interviews were recorded via either video recordings, audio recordings, or written recordings

through email. Follow up questions were asked through email when clarity was not reached.

Clarity was reached when follow up questions were answered through a written email response.


Participants provided detailed responses with further sources to research focusing on leadership

and changes within the organizational structure.

Procedures

The procedures were developed based on the research design of two descriptive case

studies in one comparative study. The study is explanatory, as well as illustrative. Through data

collection found in the interviews, both kibbutzim and moshavim were looked at in comparison.

Participants were asked approximately 25 questions through Skype, phone, face-to-face, or

written interview. Data collection provided the researcher with similarities of both organizations

and dissimilarities. Questions were asked pertaining to changes within the organizational

structure of both kibbutzim and moshavim and if leadership handled or drove these changes.

Questions were also asked regarding success within both of these organizations whether it be

economic or ideological success, meaning the preservation of values.

Data was analyzed by looking for themes (content analysis) within responses from

participants. Themes were identified in participant responses as they related to each research

question. The themes were then applied to the research as well as the frameworks within this

study (Patton, 2002). When identifying themes, the relationship participants have with the

organizational structure of kibbutzim and moshavim was taken into consideration because a

member has more knowledge and experience in terms of how the organization operates than a

volunteer. The data was also analyzed to see how leadership or lack of leadership impacts the

organization.

Transcription happened during and after each interview. Recorded interviews were

reviewed numerous times and information necessary to this study were transcribed and reported.

Interviews began with question one of the data collection instrument and progressed in a linear


manner with follow up questions being asked when necessary (see Appendix A). Based on the

data collected through the interviews, results were examined to identify the answers in

comparison to the research questions, 1) Which were related to what makes the organization

successful, 2) How is leadership involved and how does leadership handle change, and lastly, 3)

How does leadership impact changes and how do members view these changes. Participants

provided articles for further research including numerous articles and books. These articles and

books were analyzed and added to the literature review to be used in this study. Spoken

interviews through Skype lasted between thirty minutes to two hours. Notes were taken during

the interview along with the recording of the interview. Phone interviews lasted thirty minutes,

and notes were taken along with the recording as well. Data collected through written interviews

were received by email. All spoken interviews were transcribed before data analysis began.


Chapter 4: Findings

Findings Overview

This section will look at the findings as they relate to the research questions. The findings

show evidence that the organizational structure of both kibbutzim and moshavim have changed

from the original structure, and the role of leadership has changed as well. The findings also

show what components make a kibbutz or moshav successful by examining what success means

to participants of the study. This section will examine the findings through the data collection

found in the interviews with former members, researchers, and a kibbutz volunteer. This section

will outline findings as they relate to the research questions based on participant responses.

Participant responses will be presented as they relate to the research questions and not in the

order to which the participants participated in the interview. Therefore the findings will be

presented theme by theme rather than the order in which the participants were interviewed.

Research Question 1



Success in general is measured in numerous ways depending on the situation,

circumstance, or even individual. Within organizations in the United States, success is often

based on how economically successful an organization is. Economic success plays a huge role in

many organizations. While discussing both kibbutzim and moshavim with the eight interview

participants, it was identified that the kibbutzim and moshavim that are in operation today are

successful historically because they are still in operation and have sustained throughout the

years. However, can they continue to exist while losing their ideological way of life? Nathaniel


and Naftali explained how success within kibbutzim is more than economic success. Nathaniel

explained,

My kibbutz is successful economically. However, the success of the kibbutz is not

necessarily economic success. Of course when you succeed economically you can allow

yourself to invest on social life, education, and other services. But the spirit of the kibbutz

is at least partly an ideological one and a culture one. Along the years, successful

kibbutzim were considered those who were lucky enough to establish a rich social life

based on mainly four things: open democracy, solidarity, communal social life (sharing

the income and outcomes), and equality on rights.

Naftali explained, “My kibbutz is successful. The standard of living inside the kibbutz is better

than outside the kibbutz.” However, both participants see kibbutz life as more of an ideological

way of life. Those who move to the kibbutz for the standard of living “do not believe in the

kibbutz principles and prefer their own interests over communal interests.” Nathaniel explained

that his kibbutz is economically successful but not a success as it relates to the original

ideological framework of kibbutzim which includes the four principles he mentioned earlier.

“None of these principles exist fully now, only partly.” Naftali explains, “Many kibbutzim today

are not kibbutzim at all. They are just a place that is called kibbutz but in reality it is not much

different than any suburb of midlevel or higher level class.”

The kibbutzim have economic indicators to monitor economic success and they are made

known to all members without releasing information that can be used by competitors (Naftali).

“There is an economic manager and an economic analyzer with an economic committee that

analyzes which economic activity is profitable and which is not.” Naftali explained,


Economic success makes it too big for members to be able to execute their democratic

rights. When the kibbutz is successful it will go up and become too big for the members

to control democratically and it becomes oligarchic. It becomes too large, too

complicated to control. So the kibbutzim have to devise a special arrangement to relive

democracy. In such a case, my kibbutz is still a commune but it is a commune that many

of its members are not believing they are really partners to the commune because it is

controlled undemocratically.

Micah explained how the changing of values and the infiltration of American values is

the largest threat to the ideological framework of kibbutzim. Micah’s kibbutz has been in

operation since 1983. It is a fairly new kibbutz. “I joined the kibbutz because I believed it

constituted a more just way of life and it was a way of trying to change the world to be a better

place.” Micah was not born in Israel but traveled from the West because he believed in the

ideology of the kibbutzim. “My kibbutz is not a wealthy kibbutz. Success is based on values but

economics does play a very important role as well.”

Rena recalls the importance of productions within the kibbutzim she volunteered at.

However, community life was very much alive and everyone enjoyed meals together in the

communal dinning halls. “Living on a kibbutz is a stress free life. There were no monthly bills,

no mortgages, and no car payments. The kibbutz handled all financial matters. Everyone worked

together as a family and your existence was taken care of by the commune.” The American way

of life, meaning a larger house or an expensive car, was not yet visible within the kibbutzim she

volunteered on. Rena also recalls her boyfriend (a member of the kibbutz) having to reserve the

communal car that was shared among all members of the kibbutz when he came home from the

army. She explains that money is important within any organization. However, the sense of


community, rather than a sense of outdoing your neighbor, was the ideology, which led her to

desire the volunteer work on a kibbutz. “As a volunteer I saw success as finding true happiness

and that was found living on the kibbutz because it was like one big family.”

When success pertaining to moshavim was discussed with Isaac, he explained, “Both

kibbutzim and moshavim were and are very successful because they are the backbone of the

Israeli agriculture and were the backbone for the emergence of the State of Israel as a Jewish

homeland based on the Zionist idea.” However, “Almost all of the moshavim and about 80

percent of the kibbutzim lost some of the very basic ideas which structured the ideological

framework” (Isaac). Sarah explained how ideological commitment is one key component that is

linked to success of moshavim based on certain studies that have been carried out. “Studies

carried out many years ago attributed the success to several factors, such as location (urban

fringe/center vs. periphery), agricultural potential, length of existence, ideological commitment

and ethnic composition of the community” (Sarah). Yoni explained how economic success of

moshavim is based on the economic success of the individuals within the moshav. He further

explained,

Today, the successful moshav is one that keeps the community together socially. It is a

small community so all of the municipal issues are handled jointly and when people have

enjoyed the atmosphere, they enjoy celebrating holidays with the neighbors, cultural

activities, the kids go to all kinds of activities together, when this is done successfully

then people feel that they belong to a community that they want to belong to.

Yoni explained how some moshavim have been successful in keeping this community aspect of

living alive. But economic success is not as a whole but individually (Yoni). Aaron explains

along the same lines that successful moshavim are ones “which keep community life alive, as


well as those that are expanding demographically.” “The successful moshavim are those in

which people stay for a long period of time and those that may attract second generation”

(Aaron).

Based on participant responses as it relates to Research Question 1, economics does play

a role in the success of kibbutzim and moshavim. However, success is also linked to ideological

commitment. Participants discussed sense of community and the feeling of togetherness as a

large component of success. The following research question will discuss the topic of leadership

as it relates to kibbutzim and moshavim, as well as how leaderhsip impacts success.

Research Question 2

How does leadership impact the success of a kibbutz or moshav and how does leadership handle

change?

Leadership plays a large role in any successful organization. Two organizations in the

State of Israel, which have proven to be a historical success, are both kibbutzim and moshavim.

The ideology behind both organizations has been around over one hundred years and the

organizational structure of a kibbutz has existed just over one hundred years. While moshavim

have survived just shy of one hundred years. If these organizations as a whole were not

historically successful, they would not still be in operation today.

Micah explained that leadership within each individual kibbutz directs the course of the

kibbutz and determines what is important for the organization. “The leadership really depends on

the personal motivation of the people who have leadership abilities.” Naftali explained that the

general assembly is the leadership of each individual kibbutz and the general assembly of his

kibbutz is not very large. Therefore it is a small amount of people who direct what the kibbutz

does (Naftali). Nathaniel and Naftali explained how leadership was influential in the changes that


took place following the economic crisis. Nathaniel explained concerning his own kibbutz, “The

main job of this leadership was done already by changing the kibbutz into a very different kind

of community.” While some kibbutzim leadership was concerned with bringing their own

kibbutz out of the economic rut, others saw these changes as an opportunity to better themselves

and their own economic position (Nathaniel). It is important to note, “Leadership varies on each

kibbutz. Each kibbutz has its own story” (Nathaniel). Members of Naftali’s kibbutz see the

kibbutz as undemocratic and they do not fight for things in the general assembly because they

feel they are not treated fairly by the leadership. “In kibbutzim like ours, in mine, the leadership

here just was a free rider on the new wave and they misled all the way to improve their own

position, mainly economic but also political and social” (Nathaniel). Nathaniel and Naftali

explained that their kibbutzim are economically successful and members enjoy a nice standard of

living. However, Nathaniel’s kibbutz lost the sense of community they once had due to the

changes leadership made to the structure of the organization.

As a volunteer, Rena did not see the leadership influence within the kibbutzim she lived

at. “The leadership influence was not visible as a volunteer.” However, the sense of community

was visible and alive. “The ideological structure of kibbutzim was present, the sharing of

resources the communal way of life such as dining together in the communal dinning hall”

(Rena). The ideology that formed the organizational structure of the kibbutzim as a whole could

be seen as a volunteer in the 1970s, and it had not yet been transformed. “The communal sharing

of income, the communal sharing of transportation, and the community life together was a reality

in everyday life” (Rena).

Moshavim and kibbutzim have always belonged to the same political side throughout

Israeli history (Isaac). There was competition between the kibbutzim and moshavim and in order


to get higher political status, as well as allocation of economic means, leadership within both

organizations were always trying to establish the proper role for their organizations (Isaac). “So

in this case, the role of the leadership of the old moshavim movement was very important but not

for each moshav especially” (Isaac). Both organizations were part of the Labor political party

and the labor movement. According to Isaac,

Within every successful kibbutz, you can find very good leadership. The leadership was

crucial throughout the early years of development and later throughout the process of

changes that took place during the economic crisis which both kibbutzim and most of the

moshavim almost went bankrupt. Leadership within the moshav was not as crucial in

economic development but was important in getting the moshavim a proper role in the

Israeli agricultural policy and even in politics.

Yoni explained that historically each family within the moshav was provided their own

plot of land to cultivate and members of the moshav or co-operative were provided services by

the co-operative. Following the debt crisis in 1985, the co-operative function within moshavim

stopped almost entirely leaving family farms on their own. Leadership now, as it relates to

moshavim, is not significant anymore because members are all responsible for themselves. Yoni

further explained,

It was relevant in the past and leadership was very important because most of the farmers

really trusted the leadership. They had no skills to compete with outside forces, to

negotiate with banks, to make economic decisions. They knew of the farm so they

depended on the leadership to a great extent. When there was good leadership, people

that really cared about the organization and did the best for its success and were qualified

enough, then the whole co-operative benefited.


“There are some functions that are still run by the co-operative because of the land issue. The

land here is nationally owned. Each moshav leases the land from the government and this is part

of the only reason these co-operatives still exist.” Yoni explained that leadership historically was

very important and many farmers were able to place their trust in the leadership. He explained

the changes within the structure as,

In the moshav it was complete dissolution of the co-operative. Before the crisis people

did not even have bank accounts because the moshav took care of their financial issues

and immediately after that people had to run to the bank and learn to write checks. That

was the major change. Most people were full-time farmers and had troubles adjusting.

The leadership in the moshavim movement today deals mainly with land rights and the

agricultural public image. But leadership within each moshavim is not significant now days.

Historically, leadership handled economic decisions and the farmers within the co-operative

relied on leadership to handle these affairs justly and accurately.

Participant responses as they relate to Research Question 2 express the historical

importance of leadership within both kibbutzim and moshavim. Leadership within kibbutzim

today still impacts the success of the organization. However, leadership within moshavim is no

longer present. Participants whose expertise was in the area of kibbutzim explained how

leadership does drive the direction of the kibbutz and did impact changes within the

organizational structure. This will lead to Research Question 3 discussing how leadership

impacted change within kibbutzim and moshavim and how members view the changes.

Research Question 3

Did leadership impact the changes made within both organizations and how do members view

these changes?


Nathaniel and Naftali explained how leadership in many kibbutzim, as a result of the

financial crisis, became more concerned with individual needs than with the needs of the

organization as whole. “Leadership of the kibbutzim, not of the movement but the lone

kibbutzim, some of the leadership believed they were saving the kibbutzim” (Nathaniel). “I am

enjoying the standard of living. I do not have any complaints, but I lost my community. I feel

very alone here and I think others do to. You are not supported by the community anymore”

(Nathaniel). “The leaders started as servants or idealists” (Naftali). However, with time

leadership changed or transformed the aim of the organization to a more

individualistic/capitalistic way of life rather than a communal way of life (Nathaniel & Naftali).

Nathaniel discussed how the kibbutz has a status recognized by the government but the

changes made in his own kibbutz gives two statuses to people who live in the kibbutz. There are

“members who have share in the revenue and in the economic production means of the kibbutz.”

These individuals are members of the commune. However, one of the changes that has been

made to the structure of the kibbutz is that they joined together with an outside organization to

establish a new neighborhood with individuals who are not members but are part of the

municipal organization (city counsel), which has no relation to the economic membership of the

commune. Both members and nonmembers living in the new neighborhood possess municipal

status according to the State of Israel. However, they do not share in revenues or economic

means. The individuals living in the new neighborhood are usually children of members who are

older. They are citizens of Israel and are members of the municipal organization.

Nathaniel explained, “In years past, successful kibbutzim were those who were able to

maintain four principles: open democracy, solidarity, communal social life (sharing the incomes

and outcomes), and equality of rights.” These principles are no longer fully present in most


kibbutzim, only partially. The changes were made as a result of the economic crisis. However,

Nathaniel explained, “We did not feel like we were in a crisis and it was our leaders who

convinced us that we better make changes now before it was too late.” Some members within

Nathaniel’s kibbutz opposed the changes made by leadership but it was not popular to voice this

opposition. It was not popular to oppose the leadership and the decisions they were making

within the organization. As a result of the changes within Nathaniel’s kibbutz, he believes that

his kibbutz no longer functions as a kibbutz.

Naftali explained that his kibbutz is successful. However, he explained that the kibbutz

movement as a whole is not successful. The standard of living in Naftali’s kibbutz is better than

if individuals were to live outside of the kibbutz. Economic success often makes it difficult for

members to execute democratic rights because the organization becomes too large. The leaders

within kibbutzim began as servants or idealistic leaders but following ten or fifteen years of

success they became more interested in their economic and political position. Instead of serving

the interests of the commune, they served their own interests and reaped economic benefits as a

result. Naftali further explained that before the 1980s the kibbutz was a commune where all

resources were shared. There is the threat of members leaving because many kibbutzim are not

implementing their principles and because they believe in democracy. There are many kibbutzim

today that are not really a kibbutz but just use the name. “The leaders concealed that they were

changing the real aim of the organization.”

Yoni explained that local leadership within moshavim is no longer relevant and every

family farm is on its own. In the past, leadership was important and would negotiate with banks

in order to make economic decisions. “Before the economic crisis, members of the moshav did

not even have bank accounts because the moshav took care of their financial issues.” Following


the crisis people were on their own, they had to open their own accounts, and even had to learn

to write checks. Historically, when there was leadership who cared about the organization the

people of the moshav prospered and the organization was successful. The only reason moshavim

still exist is because of the land issue, meaning the land is owned by the State. Economic success

varies by individual because everyone is on his or her own. The challenge of the moshav today is

keeping the community together and keeping social life alive. The social aspect of the moshav

takes precedence over the economic aspect within moshavim. Following the economic crisis the

co-operative was no longer fully operating as a co-operative and the major change as a result of

the crisis was that everyone was on their own financially. Furthermore, Yoni asserts, “Some

moshavim, which had leadership that only cared about their own business and not about their

neighbors, usually did not do well economically.”

Sarah explains that historically the moshavim movement’s leadership was influential

within the government. However, today their influence is limited. Sarah explained that one threat

to moshavim as a whole is the “lack of strong national leadership.” “Historically the moshavim

were organized in national movements that were affiliated to political parties. The leadership of

the movements had a strong influence on the operation of the moshavim in part through the

cooperative organizations. Today their impact is very limited” (Sarah). When asked the question,

“Does leadership drive or hinder the success of the organization as a whole?” Aaron explained,

“Leadership is more at the regional council level. The ‘regional council’ is the major

development agent which leads the aspired changes.”

Through the findings as they relate to Research Question 3, it is seen that leadership did

impact changes within kibbutzim and moshavim. Findings of participants whose area of

expertise is kibbutzim, displayed the impact leadership had on changes made within the


organizational structure. Some members view these changes as unsuccessful because they feel

they are losing their ideological commitment and their community. One participant whose area

of expertise is moshavim explained that leadership is no longer important locally but it is at the

“regional council” level. This level led the changes within the organizational structure. The

following section will discuss the implications of the findings, limitations of the research, and

further research recommendations.


Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

Overview of Applied Research Project in Leadership

The purpose of this research was to explore the historical success that arose from the

development of kibbutzim and moshavim and how leadership was, is, and is no longer involved.

After reviewing the data, as well as the research, the changes that have taken place in both

kibbutzim and moshavim apply to Hughes’ et al. (2014) strategic organizational framework. This

section will identify the implications of the findings by triangulating the applications of the

research with the data, and the research and the data with Hughes’ et al. (2014) framework, as

well as the leadership styles discussed in the literature review. This section will also discuss the

research limitations and the recommendations for further research.

Implications of the Findings

Themes were identified in the data, which was collected from participant responses.

These themes will be examined as they relate to each research question. The conclusions will be

discussed as the literature relates to the themes. Lastly, the findings as they relate to the

literature, will be examined in light of Hughes’ et al. (2014) framework, as well as the leadership

styles.



According to the findings, individual participants defined success differently. Most of the

participants agreed that success is seen in multiple ways. However, a common theme seen within

the responses of the participants was the considerations of success as it relates to the preservation

of values within both kibbutzim and moshavim. While most participants explained the

importance of economics, Nathaniel pointed out that his kibbutz is economically successful.


“However, the success of the kibbutz is not necessarily economic success. Along the years,

successful kibbutzim were considered those who were lucky enough to establish a rich social life

based on mainly four things: open democracy, solidarity, communal social life (sharing the

income and outcomes), and equality on rights” (Nathaniel). The structural changes, which took

place following the economic crisis, led to many kibbutzim and moshavim to alter or transform

the historical ideological structure that once defined them.

As one participant explained the togetherness of living on a kibbutz is no more. He feels

alone within the kibbutz community. Rena explained, “As a volunteer I saw success as finding

true happiness and that was found living on the kibbutz because it was like one big family”

(Rena). She too enjoyed the togetherness of the community and saw this as a success. However,

many kibbutzim are losing this ideological aspect, which once defined who they were.

Participants who were researchers or members of moshavim explained that changes within

the structure have led them to be more like a regular village rather than a cooperative society.

Success within moshavim is now based on each individual rather than the cooperative as a

whole. However, as Yoni explained,

Today, the successful moshav is one that keeps the community together socially. It is a small

community so all of the municipal issues are handled jointly and when people have enjoyed

the atmosphere, they enjoy celebrating holidays with the neighbors, cultural activities, the

kids go to all kinds of activities together, when this is done successfully then people feel that

they belong to a community that they want to belong to.

Aaron explained along the same lines that successful moshavim are ones “which keep

community life alive, as well as those that are expanding demographically.”


As seen in participant responses, community life and the community aspect of the historical

ideology have transformed as a result of the structural changes following the economic crisis.

The participants who are members of kibbutzim saw these changes as negative because they are

steering away from the values that once defined who they were as an organization within Israeli

society. Their concern is that the government in the future will eliminate the kibbutz status

because of the structural changes. Successful moshavim according to participants are those that

keep community life alive. Can both kibbutzim and moshavim continue to be successful, if

structural changes are leading them away from their historical ideological commitment? In light

of Hughes’ et al. (2014) framework, both kibbutzim’s and moshavim’s strategy could be

maximized if they involve their historical aspirations in order to achieve enduring success.

However, the structural changes were made to pull them out of the economic rut. But could they

have stuck to their ideological commitment and still removed themselves from the depressed

economic position they were found in?

How does leadership impact the success of a kibbutz or moshav and how does leadership

handle change?

Based on the findings, leadership varies from organization to organization. Therefore,

leadership varies from kibbutzim to kibbutzim, as well as moshavim to moshavim. Shapira

(2008b) explains as it relates to kibbutzim, “Leaders started out as transformational, but with

success and growth became oligarchic and autocratic conservatives” (p. 1). As Micah explained

leadership within each individual kibbutz directs the course of the kibbutz and determines what

is important for the organization. Leadership saw the structural changes as a way to bring

kibbutzim out of the economic hardships they were in. Nathaniel asserts that local leadership is a

big factor when impacting the direction of a kibbutz rather than the movement’s leadership.


“Leadership definitely impacts the success of the organization” (Nathaniel). “Leadership of the

kibbutzim, not of the movement but the lone kibbutzim, some of the leadership believed they

were saving the kibbutzim.” “The leaders started as servants or idealists” (Naftali). As explained

in the literature review, servant leaders sacrifice for their followers and serve the needs of their

members (Greenleaf, 1970; Hughes et al., 2012). Transformational leaders promote collaboration

among members and inspire followers to transform in order to improve the organization

(McIntosh & Tolson, 2008). Therefore, leadership within kibbutzim originally sacrificed and

served their community. They were also transformational as Shapira (2008b) explained.

Historically, leadership did impact the success of moshavim. However, now success varies

by individual farmers. The individual farmers are in control of their own success rather than the

cooperative. Aaron explained, “ Leadership is more at the regional council level. The “regional

council” is the major development agent which leads the aspired changes.” Therefore local

leadership does not steer the direction of moshavim and every family farm is on their own. As

with the kibbutzim, the changes made were a result of the economic crisis. The organizations

were able to rise out of the economic crisis as a result of the structural changes.

Did leadership impact the changes made within both organizations and how do members

view these changes?

The organizational changes that took place within kibbutzim and moshavim were a result of

leadership implementation. Participants whose area of expertise is kibbutzim explained how

leadership changed the structure of the organization to overcome the economic crisis. Aaron

explained concerning moshavim, “Leadership is more at the regional council level. The ‘regional

council’ is the major development agent which leads the aspired changes.” The changes made

follow Hughes’ et al. (2014) organizational framework concerning transforming in order to


sustain. “In order to achieve enduring performance potential, organizations need to undergo

periodic transformation, and therefore strategic leadership requires successfully navigating and

leading these changes” (Hughes et al. 2014, p. 16). However, in the process of changing the

organizational structure in order to sustain their position within Israeli society, the ideological

principles that once defined them were traded for the structural changes. These changes were

contradictory to the following organizational framework by Hughes et al. (2014).

Strategy is maximized when it also involves aspirational dimensions that touch the

emotions of all the stakeholders involved. Organizational mission, vision, and values are

important aspirational components that create meaning and purpose for these

stakeholders. These components serve to help people understand why the organization

exists, how it intends to make a difference in the world, and what the important beliefs

are that drive and connect the people in the organization (pg. 25).

If strategy is maximized when an organization holds true to their values and principles, can it be

minimized by the abandonment of values or principles? Participants explained their concern that

the Israeli government will one day say they no longer have status as a kibbutz because of the

changes made within the organizational structure. Therefore in this case, strategy would be

minimized because the aspirational components were traded for structural changes. However,

because of transformational leadership, these organizations were saved from bankruptcy, which

could have led to a premature dissolution. Individual kibbutzim and moshavim may have not felt

the economic hardship, and leadership may have taken advantage of the situation within

kibbutzim to improve individual positions. However, as Nathaniel explained, “Leadership of the

kibbutzim, not of the movement but the lone kibbutzim, some of the leadership believed they


were saving the kibbutzim.” Could have leadership saved kibbutzim and moshavim from the

debt crisis without removing core principles that defined who they were ideologically?

Limitations

This section will outline the limitations of this research study. There were restrictions to

the research because it was done within the United States through technology sources.

Considering the intrinsic reasons behind the case selection, the researcher is someone with

limited knowledge in the area of kibbutzim and moshavim, and gained understanding in the area

of organizational structure through participant responses and research. This limitation caused the

researcher to seek participants with first-hand experiences and participants who have researched

these organizations for numerous years. The researcher was limited on time because of the

timeframe of the graduate program she was enrolled in.

Only one participant was interviewed face-to-face. The remainder of the participants

were interviewed via Skype, phone, or through email. This is a limitation to the study because

more data could have been gained through onsite interviews, by reading body language, field

notes, and gaining perspective on each individual organization. The study would have been more

conducive if the researcher was able to travel to Israel to interview participants. More data could

have been gathered if all of the interviews were done through Skype rather than written through

email. More individuals were asked to participate. However, only eight participants agreed to the

interview. This is another limitation because the data could have been extensive if more

individuals agreed to participate in the interviews. Knowledge regarding organizational structure

was gained through research and participant responses. Little knowledge was gained regarding

leadership within moshavim, historically and currently at the regional counsel level, which did

not provide a complete understanding of their impact. While it was understood that leadership at


the regional counsel level inspires present changes, it was not understood if they led the changes

after the debt crisis.

Recommendations

For further research, the question should be raised, “Could leadership have promoted

collaboration and inspired change based on common goals and still have kept the principles

beneficial to their historical ideological commitment?” “Could leadership within both

organizations have followed the organizational framework by Hughes et al. (2014) concerning

organizational strategy?” Another question that should be raised in further research is, “Is it

possible for kibbutzim to be individualistic in terms of economic issues, and yet able to keep

community life alive as many moshavim have? There are still kibbutzim that have stuck to

traditional organizational values. However, the kibbutzim that have promoted changes are a

majority within Israel. Therefore, there is a chance that all kibbutzim will succumb to these

changes. These questions should be considered in further research. An additional

recommendation would be to ensure that the researcher is able to collect field notes within the

State of Israel and not abroad. This would improve the research quality, as well as the data

collection process.


References

Abramitzky, R. (2011). Lessons from the kibbutz on the equality-incentives trade-off. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 185-208.

Ben-Artzi, Y. (2002). Kibbutz or moshav? Priority changes of settlement types in Israel. Israel Affairs, 8 (1/2), 163-175.

Ben-Rafael, E. (2011). Kibbutz: Survival at risk. Israel Studies, 16(2), 81-108.

Commemorating 100 years of the kibbutz. (2010). Kibbutzim Site. Retrieved from http://www.kibbutz.org.il/eng/081101_kibbutz-eng.htm

Dolev, Y. & Kimhi, A. (2010). Do family farms really converge to a uniform size? The role of unobserved farm efficiency. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economies, 54(1), 119-136.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. [Kindle DX Version]. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K. C., & Dinwoodie, D. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., Curphy, G. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Kibbutz notebook. (Retrieved on June 16, 2014). Kibbutzim Site. Retrieved from http://www.kibbutz.org.il/tnua/dover/dafdefet_engl.pdf

Kimhi, A. (2009). Heterogeneity, specialization and social cohesion in Israeli moshav cooperatives. Journal of Rural Cooperation 37(1), 124-136.

Kimhi, A. (2006). Has debt restructuring facilitated structural transformation on Israeli family farms? The Pinhas Sapir Center for Development, Tel Aviv University, 1-2006.

Livni, M. (2004). The Kibbutz and its future: Historical perspective. In International Communal Studies Association’s Eighth International Conference. Amana, IA: 2004.

Manor, R. (2004). The “renewed” kibbutz. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 32(1), 37-50.

McIntosh, J., & Tolson, D. (2008). Leadership as part of the nurse consultant role: banging the drum for patient care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, (18), 219-227.

Palgi, M. & Reinharz, S. (2014). One hundred years of kibbutz life. [Kindle DX Version]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Patton, M. Q. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand


Oaks, CA: Sage.

Potok, C. (1978). Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s history of the Jews. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

Ruggieri, S. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(7), 1171-1178.

Russell, R., Hanneman, R., & Getz, S. (2013). The Renewal of the Kibbutz. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Russell, R., Hanneman, R., & Getz, S. (2011). The transformation of the kibbutzim. Israel Studies, 16(2), 109-126.

Shapira, R. (2013). High-trust culture, the elusive context of shared leadership in highly specialized organizations.

Shapira, R. (2008a). Transforming Kibbutz Research: Trust and moral leadership in the rise and decline of democratic cultures. Cleveland, OH: New World Publishing.

Shapira, R. (2008). Can we comprehend radical social movements without deciphering leadership changes? Leaders’ survival and USSR reverence in kibbutzim. The Western Galilee Academic College, 1-40.

Shapira, R. (2001). Communal Decline: The vanishing of high-moral servant leaders and the decay of mesocratic, high-trust kibbutz cultures. Sociological Inquiry 71, (1), 13-38.

Simons, T., & Ingram, P. (2000) The kibbutz for organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 283-343.

Sofer, M. & Applebaum, L. (2006). The rural space in Israel in search of renewed identity: The case of the moshav. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2006), 323-336.

Sofer, M. (2005). The future of family farming in Israel: the second generation in the moshav. The Geographical Journal, 171(4), 357-368.

Sofer, M. (2001). Pluriactivity in the Mosav: family farming in Israel. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(2001), 363-375.

The history of the Amana Colonies. (2014). Amana Colonies. Retrieved from http://amanacolonies.com/pages/about-amana-colonies/history.php

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


Topel, M. (2013). Renewing traditional communality. Social Science Directory, 2(4), 114-119.

Weintraub, D., Lissak, M, & Azmon, Y. (1969). Moshava, kibbutz, and moshav: Patterns of Jewish rural settlement and development in Palestine. [Kindle DX Version]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.


Appendix A

Data Collection Instrument


Data Collection Instrument

Answer the following if you live on a kibbutz:

1. What kibbutz do you currently live on?

2. How long have you lived on your kibbutz?

3. Were you born on the same kibbutz? A different one? Or not at all?

4. If you answered a different one, how many kibbutzim have you lived at?

5. If you answered not at all, how did you decide to become a member of your kibbutz?

6. Are you a volunteer on your kibbutz? If not, what is your position within the kibbutz?

7. If you answered volunteer, what does your daily work consist of?

8. If you hold another position within the kibbutz, what does the daily work of that position

consist of?

9. How many individuals are members of your kibbutz?

10. How does your kibbutz generate revenue?

11. Based on members, revenue, and the years your kibbutz has been in operation, would you

consider your kibbutz to be a successful organization?

12. Does leadership impact this success? If so, how? If not, why?

13. How do the younger generations, the in-between generations, or the older generations

view life on a kibbutz?

14. How often do individuals leave the kibbutz?

15. What age group most often leaves?

16. What are some of the reasons they leave?

17. What threats do you think stand against modern kibbutzim as a whole?

18. What drives motivation of members?


19. How was leadership historically involved in kibbutzim and specifically your own

kibbutz?

20. How does leadership drive or hinder the success of the organization today?

21. How were kibbutzim influential in the establishment of the State of Israel?

22. What are some of the present changes that have been made within the organizational

structure of kibbutzim? How do those changes make kibbutzim different from the

organizational structure of the past?

Answer the following if you live on a moshav:

1. What moshav do you currently live on?

2. How long have you lived on a moshav?

3. Were you born on the same moshav? A different one? Or not at all?

4. If you answered a different one, how many moshavim have you lived on?

5. Do you own property within your moshav?

6. What position do you hold within your moshav? And what kind of work is required for

that position?

7. Do you see that “pluriactivity” (the household acquirement of income sources from home

businesses, wages from work outside the moshav, and/or any income acquired not from

agriculture) is common within moshavim? And do you see this within your own moshav?

8. How many individuals are members of your Moshav?

9. Based on members, revenue, and the years your moshav has been in operation, would

you consider your moshav a successful organization?

10. Does leadership impact this success? If so, how? If not, why?


11. How do the younger generations, the in-between generations, or the older generations

view life on a moshav?

12. How often do individuals leave the moshav?

13. What age group most often leaves?

14. What are some of the reasons they leave?

15. How does leadership drive or hinder the success of the organization as a whole?

23. How was leadership historically involved in moshavim and specifically your own

moshav?

24. What threats do you think stand against the modern moshavim?

25. How were moshavim influential in the establishment of the State of Israel?

26. What are some of the present changes that have been made within the organizational

structure of moshavim? How do those changes make moshavim different from the

organizational structure of the past?


Appendix B

Acknowledgments


Acknowledgements

The researcher would like to thank all individuals who participated in the study’s data

collection process, as well as the individuals who provided additional research information. She

would also like to thank the professors at Judson University for the guidance during the research

process, and for the help she received from family. Lastly, she would like to thank God for

guidance and direction throughout the graduate program.

Documents

Kibbutzim and Moshavim