Next Article in Journal
Models of Post-Mining Land Reuse in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
The Paradox of Sustainability in Higher Education: High Awareness but Limited Competency in Applying SDG 12 Principles
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability

School of Management and Behavioral Science, Zefat Academic College, Safed 13206, Israel
Sustainability 2025, 17(20), 9070; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209070 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 1 August 2025 / Revised: 9 October 2025 / Accepted: 10 October 2025 / Published: 13 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Social Performance: Pathways to Sustainable Growth)

Abstract

This study investigates the use of a hybrid leadership style in three kibbutz factories—two in privatized communities and one in a cooperative community. The factory leaders integrate multiple leadership styles in managing their enterprises. This blended style reflects a hybrid approach to management that has democratic and autocratic elements as well as a transformational leadership style that is also community-oriented. The goals of the managers are to make the factory operations sustainable while remaining loyal to communal values. We conducted 75 interviews in the three kibbutzim with individuals from various ranks, ranging from senior leadership to production workers. In addition, to supplement the information, we analyzed organizational documents, including internal newsletters, reports, and booklets summarizing 50 years of activity, as well as news articles that provided up-to-date information on business transactions that contributed to the success of the kibbutz industries. The result identified a hybrid style that combines the communal, transformational, and democratic or autocratic styles. Many features of communal leadership were evident in the practices of kibbutz members rather than those of outsiders and by strategies focused on maintaining the industry for kibbutz members in the long run and an egalitarian communal style. The hybrid style contains democratic features such as transparent and open communication, and a transformational style was also found in key components of this leadership style, including innovation, professionalism, dynamism, adaptability to environmental changes, and human sensitivity.

1. Introduction

This paper examines leadership within the kibbutz industrial sector following the process of privatization. In the early days of the kibbutz movement, leadership in industrial enterprises was characterized by familial and egalitarian principles. However, economic crises compelled kibbutzim to adapt to new socio-economic realities.
The kibbutz community, founded in the early twentieth century by socialist pioneers, played a significant role in the establishment of the State of Israel. Many of the country’s early leaders emerged from the kibbutz movement. The first kibbutzim were established in northern Israel and later expanded to other regions. The movement was grounded in values such as equality, communal ownership, and the rejection of social hierarchy. Core principles included democracy and the rotation of leadership [1,2]. The kibbutz movement received strong support from the Israeli Labor Party until 1977. However, the political shift that brought the right-wing Likud party to power introduced policies that opposed socialist ideologies [3,4,5]. This political transition contributed to a major crisis within the kibbutz movement. During the 1980s and 1990s, kibbutzim initiated a process of privatization in response to severe economic difficulties. This shift had a profound impact on kibbutz industries [1,6,7].
Kibbutz industries were originally developed prior to the establishment of the State of Israel as a means to provide members with a livelihood beyond agriculture. The founders intended for these enterprises to embody socialist values [8,9]. Over time, however, kibbutz industries began to employ external professionals, particularly in positions requiring expertise unavailable within the community. While the status of workers and managers was initially equal, a more hierarchical structure gradually emerged. Previously, decisions regarding factory operations were made by the kibbutz general assembly. After privatization, factories began operating independently with minimal oversight from the kibbutz community [10]. Today, they are managed by boards of directors empowered to appoint managers and hire external employees. These changes introduced new challenges for the leaders within the kibbutz industry [7,10].
This paper explores the leadership style in the kibbutz industry, which to date has received limited attention. Although studies in the literature acknowledge the transformational leadership style, this style reveals only limited information about the kibbutz community. In addition, communal leadership has been seldom discussed in the literature, and this paper contributes to scholarship on this style of leadership [10]. We argue that a more fitting leadership style for the kibbutz industry is a hybrid one that promotes organizational sustainability. Sustainability in this research will be addressed by examining the leadership policy and strategies used to maintain and develop the organizational success of the kibbutz industry.
Leadership theory emphasizes the leader’s capacity to advance the organization and steer it toward its objectives [11,12,13]. Transformational leadership fosters a moral framework within the organization, positioning the leader as both an educator and a role model. In contrast, democratic leadership highlights the leader’s ability to engage organizational members in participatory decision-making processes [12,14,15].
Both transformational and democratic leadership approaches contribute to improved organizational performance, thereby promoting organizational growth, success, and long-term sustainability [16,17,18,19]. These leadership styles are particularly well illustrated in the context of kibbutz enterprises, where leaders manage to enhance organizational outcomes without compromising the human and communal aspects [8,11,20,21]. This distinctive balance offers valuable insights for leadership practice and theory.
The leadership model emerging from kibbutz enterprises is deeply rooted in socialist traditions, which have thus far received limited attention in the literature on leadership and sustainability [10,22,23]. The ability to lead an organization through the lens of moderate, socially responsible capitalism presents a compelling case for a unique and hybrid leadership style, which is further explored in this paper [12,19,24,25,26,27,28].
Kibbutz leadership embodies an intriguing synthesis: on one hand, it contends with a competitive, capitalist environment, while on the other, it maintains a strong commitment to the community in which it operates [8,10,12]. The value of this research lies in its environmental and social perspective on leadership within kibbutzim. To date, studies on leadership and sustainability have largely overlooked the role of community engagement and social responsibility [29,30,31,32,33].
Most of the literature on sustainability tends to focus on organizational performance and adaptability within volatile, competitive markets, yet it insufficiently addresses the dimension of community sustainability [12,19,24,25]. The current study contributes to the field by introducing a novel, hybrid leadership model that integrates industrial sustainability with social and community-based sustainability [25]. This research offers a new paradigm of business and ethical leadership—one that fosters motivation, identity, and loyalty among organizational members, ultimately contributing to the organization’s prosperity and resilience.
Investigating the leadership style in the kibbutz industry can provide a good example to other businesses. Their style is more democratic and egalitarian, and it produces better organizational relationships. Workers in these kibbutz industries are highly motivated, which contributes to organizational sustainability.
The evolution of leadership styles in this context reflects an ongoing adaptation to ensure the sustainability of the kibbutz industries and the kibbutzim themselves. Despite the significance of this issue, leadership in the kibbutz industry has received relatively little scholarly attention [8,11]. This study argues that industrial leaders in the kibbutzim have worked to promote sustainability not only within their businesses but also across the broader kibbutz community through using a novel leadership model that aligns with kibbutz values—a hybrid leadership style that integrates elements of democratic, autocratic, transformational, and communal leadership styles. This hybrid model fosters both industrial and communal sustainability. Thus, the study adds to the relatively limited research on how leadership can simultaneously contribute to both industrial success and community sustainability [12,13,14,15].

Research Questions

The study investigates two questions:
The kibbutz industry has a strong emphasis on sustainability, which can be seen in its commitment to familial culture sustainability and maintaining kibbutz cultural origins alongside promoting business success and good business strategies [16,17,18,19]. This research would like to continue this attitude by focusing on the leadership initiative in the first research question:
Q1. How do the leaders of kibbutz industries ensure the sustainability of their businesses?
The linkage between leadership and sustainability has been rigorously investigated in the literature, showcasing leadership initiatives that make organizations dynamic and interactive with the ability to respond to turbulent environments and encourage their businesses to became creative and innovative [12,20,21,22,23,24]. This topic will be analyzed in the second research question:
Q2. How does the leadership style of the heads of the kibbutz industries affect the sustainability of the kibbutz community?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Leadership and Organizational Sustainability

Leadership is a dynamic process of influencing others to achieve goals. Leaders inspire, coach, motivate, and guide individuals and groups through change, fostering trust, commitment, innovation, and accountability. One of their major objectives is ensuring the sustainability of the organizations they lead.
Researchers have developed many different definitions of leadership. Despite these differences, they share common elements. First, leadership is a group phenomenon, as it involves both leaders and followers. Second, leaders rely on their ability to influence others to achieve organizational goals. Thus, leadership is goal-directed and action-oriented. Third, leaders have a strong impact on their followers. They provide direction to their followers, motivate them, and provide them with opportunities. Finally, they innovate and challenge their followers by building a strategy and creating a vision with short- and long-term goals [8,12]. Based on these findings from the research, we define leadership as the ability to create a vision, plan strategically, make decisions, engage staff, and balance short- and long-term goals [19,25,26].

2.2. Leadership for Organizational Sustainability

The term “organizational sustainability” is related to social responsibility, development, and productivity. The term “sustainability” refers to the ability of the organization to take actions to meet the challenges facing it, including those it encounters in daily business decisions and operations [25]. Sustainability also includes social and responsible behavior. Currently, one expression of that behavior is consideration of the environment [19,26]. Thus, a “green” policy can lead to better business opportunities, the discovery of new markets, and the expansion of product lines [27]. Leaders committed to organizational and business sustainability develop strategies to enhance their organization’s competitiveness in the global market and meet global quality standards. To do so, they must analyze the factors in their environment [26]. Additionally, effective leadership policies require anticipating future developments and changes in order to minimize risk and ensure the long-term security of their business [19,25]. Moreover, leaders need to educate their organizational members to be creative and innovative as well as work to the highest standards of excellence [27].
Sustainable leadership also takes into consideration the values of its employees and customers. An embracing organizational culture can lead to better reactions from both of these groups [12,13]. Leaders are responsible for providing solutions to conflicts and problems. However, they must also ensure that their companies adapt and change in order to remain competitive in local and global markets [19,26], and they must plan how to deal with environmental contingencies [27,28].

2.2.1. Democratic Leadership Style

Leaders seeking organizational sustainability embrace democratic and transformational leadership styles. Blasé and Anderson [29] described the democratic style as a “power with” model that “encourages the development of close relationships with subordinates. It also empowers subordinates to expect democratic participation as a right”. Democratic leaders are aware of their subordinates. They also include their co-workers in their decisions. As a result, the latter feel more involved in organizational procedures; they are more open with the leaders, and they are more willing to experiment with creative ideas. Although the democratic model slows decision making, the outcomes of these decisions are more positive. Using this model, the employees’ relationship with their leaders is more relaxed, and workers enjoy greater job satisfaction. Under democratic leaders, the structure of the organization tends to be more decentralized. There is more sharing of information and a more equal power relationship [30,31,32,33,34].

2.2.2. Transformational Leadership Style

Transformational leadership relies on the personal charisma of the leader [35]. Bass and Avolio [33] identified three elements of transformational leadership: the leaders’ charisma, their ability to intellectually stimulate their followers, and the consideration of individual workers’ needs. Thus, transformational leaders promote positive changes in their followers and help them succeed.
The concept of transformational leadership was coined by James MacGregor Burns. According to Burns [36], it is a type of leadership in which leaders enable their followers to become better at everything they do. Through their personal charisma and vision, transformational leaders can change people’s self-perceptions, priorities, motivations, and aspirations so that they work together toward a common goal [34,35,36,37,38].
Transformational leaders accomplish these goals by encouraging creativity and critical, inquisitive thinking in their followers. Rather than providing answers to problems, they encourage people to think independently, consult with others, and reach conclusions together. This kind of leader “sees” others and provides them with support and encouragement. Building personal relationships is a critical element of the theory. Thus, transformational leaders inspire and motivate their followers, and they provide them with a clear vision they can follow. Transformational leaders are models for moral, responsible, committed behavior. These leadership traits not only help followers appreciate their leaders but also promote their trust in and willingness to follow them [31,38,39,40,41,42].

2.3. Sustainability Effects of Transformational Leadership

According to researchers such as Bass and others, transformational leadership primarily leads to more cohesive and committed teams who are motivated to follow the leader [38,39,40,41]. Teams under such leaders tend to care deeply about their work and about each other. This type of leadership not only improves performance but also builds future leaders by encouraging individuals to take responsibility. The more leaders can inspire their employees, the more these employees will feel a sense of meaning and satisfaction in their actions. In essence, effective leadership empowers people to do something that feels important and meaningful, thereby giving their efforts real value [39].
All of the traits of transformational leaders can explain how these kinds of leaders contribute to organizational sustainability. Employees see them as role models [36,37]. Their leadership style creates a warm, welcoming work environment that promotes creativity and helps the organization excel. By encouraging their employees to learn and solve problems, they position their organizations to be able to deal with various challenges, including environmental changes [34,35]. Workers in such organizations are more satisfied, proactive, and willing to cooperate with other co-workers and with the leaders in the organization [19,26,38,39]. Thus, transformational leaders and their followers are more likely to fulfill the organization’s goals and be more committed to its sustainability [16,28].

2.4. Hybrid Leadership

Hybrid leadership is an approach that combines various leadership styles, strategies, and environments [40]. Hybrid leaders possess a wide range of qualifications, including strong communication skills—both within the organization and in response to external environmental factors [31,41]. They are dynamic, flexible, and capable of navigating technological advancements and human relationships alike. Importantly, hybrid leaders are well equipped to address turbulent and unpredictable environmental conditions [42,43,44].
This leadership style draws from multiple leadership approaches, such as transformational, situational, democratic, and transactional leadership, applying each style when appropriate [14,45,46]. The key benefit of hybrid leadership is its flexibility and adaptability in addressing organizational challenges [12,13,31]. As a result, employees tend to respond positively to this leadership style. They report higher levels of satisfaction, greater commitment to their work, and increased motivation [16,17,42,45].
Hybrid leadership also has a communal aspect that is addressed in the kibbutz movement [7,10,11]. In this kind of leadership, the leader is aware of their responsibility toward the well-being of their community and its members [16]. They are more open to public criticism and accountable to the ethical codes of their members [17,18,46,47]. This idea is built upon the leader managing their followers with egalitarian and democratic principles and also with a friendly approach, as is required with the servant leadership type. As a member of the kibbutz community, the leader’s ethical code requires supplying a means of livelihood to their members but at the same time not ignoring high professional quality standards and recruiting employees outside of the community when necessary [6,8]. The communal leadership needs to combine the kibbutz ethical codes of community sustainability while also maintaining the servant leadership style to the kibbutz members [10,46,47]. These demands can clash and create ethical dilemmas for the communal leader.
The literature review highlights the complexity of the phenomenon of leadership. Organizational success and sustainability are undoubtedly dependent on leadership [12,13]. A leader’s ability to cope with a turbulent environment full of challenges represents leadership at its best. A leader’s traits are highly diverse, including the ability to shape policies that align with the needs of the organization’s members while not ignoring external challenges [31,41]. Democratic management that involves members of the organization, yet does not yield to professionalism or task demands, is by no means simple [42,45].
The leader’s charisma stems from the ability to shape a vision and serve as a personal and exemplary role model for members of the organization. A true leader is one who can motivate members, create a unique niche that differentiates the organization from its competitors, and encourage innovation and creativity [33,34]. The essence of hybrid leadership lies in the diverse combination of traits and styles that ultimately guide the organization toward a vision of growth and development [31,43,45,46].
The case studies presented in the research exemplify these capabilities and may offer valuable insights to other leaders on what can be learned from collective leadership—leadership that is based on strong ethical communal codes and servant interpersonal relationships on the one hand yet uncompromising in its demand for quality and high standards from its members [46,47].
This leadership style is summarized in Table 1. Some of the features are common to more than one style.

3. Method

To investigate our two research questions, we conducted a qualitative study involving three case studies [48]. We began by creating an organizational biography describing the background of the organization, its history, and its activities. We also outlined the goals for which it was established, how it has developed over the years, what the organization’s vision was, its evolution, and what its future vision is. We then conducted ethnographic interviews with members of the organizations and analyzed documents by and about the organizations [49].

3.1. The History of the Case Studies

We utilized three case studies to explore our research questions. Kibbutz A and Kibbutz B are privatized kibbutzim. They have retained many of the aspects of the traditional socialist kibbutz but have adopted a more capitalist approach to their economy. In contrast, Kibbutz T still maintains the traditional socialist approach to its economy. One of the main differences in these approaches is the decision about hiring members from outside the kibbutz to work in their factories. Kibbutz A and Kibbutz B have adopted this approach, whereas Kibbutz T has decided not to do so.

3.1.1. Kibbutz A

The factory in Kibbutz A was established in 1947 after its founders were introduced to a revolutionary plastic material, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), which is also known as Perspex. This material was used in the canopies for German fighter planes. It is very flexible and can be easily shaped using heating and pressing. The British company ICI provided the kibbutz with the knowledge it needed to create the factory.
In the early 1950s, due to high labor costs, the factory adopted injection molding as a manufacturing method and purchased injection machines and molds. In the 1960s, the factory moved to its current location in northern Israel, where the first production buildings and company offices were built. As the factory expanded, it acquired the production of drawers from Switzerland in the 1960s. This line later served as the foundation for the development of technical and office storage solutions, which were turned into distinct, specialized product lines in the 1980s. In the 1960s, the kibbutz added a production line for plastic products, and the factory began manufacturing pipes and fittings for the plumbing sector—specifically for wastewater, sewage, and rainwater systems. To produce PVC pipes, a new technology at the time—extrusion—was introduced. In 2006, the industry experienced a decline, prompting the kibbutz secretary to appoint a new CEO—an outsider from a different kibbutz. The new leader implemented organizational changes that helped the factory recover from the crisis [10,11,50].

3.1.2. Kibbutz B

The factory in Kibbutz B develops, manufactures, and markets hydraulic control valves worldwide. The company provides hydraulic and digital control accessories for the municipal water supply market, agriculture, irrigation, fire protection, and high-rise buildings. In the early 1960s, Kibbutz B, which had until then relied mainly on agriculture, wanted to expand into industry to support its primary activity, complement its agricultural work, and leverage its accumulated agricultural experience through the development of new products. The company’s first products were timers (or regulators): innovative, groundbreaking items that were among the pioneers of automation in the irrigation market and formed the core of the company’s production activity in the 1960s and 1970s. Later, the factory began producing hydraulic control valves, which, thanks to their quality and innovation, became leading products and the main focus of the company’s operations. In 1979, Kibbutz S joined in a partnership with Kibbutz B’s factory. The new ownership structure was 75% Kibbutz B and 25% Kibbutz S. Over the years, this successful partnership has been a source of pride for members of both kibbutzim.
In the early 1980s, Kibbutz B launched a new, groundbreaking product line for the water supply sector, which was aimed at serving municipal water networks. It created products and solutions for the water infrastructure, pumping stations, and sewage management. New departments and products also emerged, serving sectors such as fire protection and high-rise buildings.
During its third decade, Kibbutz B evolved into an established company with subsidiaries around the world. These subsidiaries serve as operational arms in key target markets, supporting further growth and development. Its factory sells to around 70 countries through 14 fully owned subsidiaries and over 150 agents and dealers. The company is certified to ISO 9001 standards [10] and has passed all inspections and approvals for FM and UL fire protection standards as well as drinking water standards in the UK, US, France, and Germany.
In 2018, the company began integrating digital products and services. Several initial products were released to the market in 2021, and there is an impressive growth plan in place for connecting water components to digital networks. In 2020, Kibbutzim T and G joined the company as 20% shareholders through the investment fund of the former’s company. This new partnership significantly strengthened Kibbutz B’s position both in Israel and internationally. Over the past decade, the company has demonstrated financial stability and consistent growth. As part of a strategic process undertaken a few years ago, the company has set forecasts for continued stable growth in the coming years [10,51].

3.1.3. Kibbutz T

The factory in Kibbutz T was established in 1950 to provide a livelihood for members who were veterans of the War of Independence. The factory initially attempted to produce a variety of different products, but it was not profitable. In 1970, Kibbutz G joined the company as a partner and currently holds about 25% of its shares.
The company has a homewares division that produces kitchenware, storage containers, jugs, trays, and bins with new products and technologies constantly being developed. It also operates a factory outlet store in Kibbutz T. In the second half of the 1980s, the company begin producing hay nets, which marked the start of its profitability. In addition to manufacturing sites in Israel in the two kibbutzim, the company has production facilities in Poland, Hungary, Brazil, and two sites in Italy, and previously in the United Kingdom. It also has marketing companies in the United States, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France, Ireland, and Scandinavia (Sweden) as well as in the countries where it has production sites, including the UK. The company has registered several patents and collaborates with the American company John Deere. Among the company’s products are hay nets, cotton wraps, and ropes as well as household items. The company employs members from both kibbutzim, as well as “Mabachim” (young people after army service who come to work for a defined period, receiving housing in the kibbutz and living under special conditions), along with external (non-kibbutz) employees. The company is a major economic anchor for the two kibbutzim that own it, both of which belong to the Cooperative Division of the Kibbutz Movement [10,52].

3.2. The Ethnographic Interviews

We conducted interviews in the three kibbutz factories with a wide range of workers, from senior managers to rank-and-file employees, to gather information about their behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. The criteria to the interviews were summarized according to research questions: the interviewees were asked about the communal ethos of the factories and how they were preserved in time of privatization. The democratic or autocratic leadership style was investigated in relation to the organizational structure and the communication style in the industries. The transformational leadership style was investigated by examining the climate and familial home culture, and substantial criteria were used to investigate the organizational policy and strategy that was implemented in the factories. This criteria of leadership styles (communal, democratic or autocratic, transformational and sustainable) built the process of coding the data from the interviews and document analysis. The informants were selected by representative sample to hear the voice of industry members from all ranked duties: top managers and directors at the highest levels, middle managers from the middle level and production workers from the lowest level. The researcher also interviewed kibbutz members and outsiders as well as kibbutz community members to include information from various points of view [53,54,55,56].
The interviews in Kibbutz A were conducted between 2009 and 2012. In 2020, we also interviewed the current CEO, who was appointed in 2018. In the initial phase, we interviewed the CEO who had been appointed in 2006 and two former CEOs. A total of 12 managers and 11 employees were interviewed, 6 of whom were kibbutz members, and the rest were from outside the community. The middle management interviewees included the head of the engineering and development department, the product manager, and the human resources managers of both the factory and the kibbutz. Among the rank-and-file employees, we interviewed members of the workers’ committee and its chairperson. From the kibbutz members, four secretaries and two veteran workers were interviewed.
The interviews in Kibbutz B were held between 2014 and 2015. They included 25 members. The first group was senior managers—the current CEO, two former CEOs, directors, the current president of the factory, and the vice president of operations. Mid-level managers were also interviewed, including those dealing with finances, production, marketing, assembly, painting, logistics, and human resources.
The interviews in Kibbutz T were held between 2018 and 2020. They included 27 interviews. The first group was senior managers—the current CEO and two former CEOs. Mid-level managers were also interviewed, including from the marketing, lab, human resources, quality, purchasing, storage and salary departments. Finally, we also interviewed staff members such as two engineers from the quality department, two accountants, a graphic designer, a bookkeeper, development worker, two technicians, and a lab worker.
Our interviews were semi-structured and had a guide with questions about several topics of interest. We began with open-ended questions that sometimes evolved into a conversation. We then asked follow-up questions to gain a deeper perspective on the participant’s point of view [57,58,59].
The interviews were conducted over ten years, offering a good perspective on leadership in the kibbutz industry. The researcher kept an open dialog with the CEOs of the three factories; she met them on several occasions. Moreover, in 2024, she conducted an interview with the new general manager in factory A that replaced the general manager that was nominated in 2008. She also discussed her research data with the CEO of the T group and his human resource manager; this meeting was also an exchange of organizational knowledge in recent years. The researcher used information from the organizational sites of each factory, which supplied current information on the industries [50,51,52]. The researcher also analyzed current economic newspapers and documents from the three industries, which supplemented the interviews conducted to ascertain the organizational leadership styles [10]. Qualitative research can give also a historical perspective, which is another reason it was conducted in these cases [53,54].

3.3. The Interviewees

Before we began the interviews, we obtained the participants’ consent. The concept of informed consent is widely explored in the literature, particularly due to concerns surrounding privacy and confidentiality, which are especially significant in interview-based research [53,54]. Indeed, in a close-knit community such as a kibbutz, the issue of confidentiality is very important. In addition, throughout the interviews, we constantly checked back with the participants, asking, for example, “Is it okay if we continue with this subject?” [55,56]. The employees interviewed were willing to share information about the situation in the kibbutz factory. This information was provided voluntarily with some individuals requesting confidentiality and anonymity [56,57,58,59,60].

3.4. Document Analysis

To supplement the information gleaned from the interviews, we also asked the kibbutzim for any supporting documents they had. Kibbutz A provided us with the minutes of management meetings, minutes of board of directors’ meetings, activity reports, and brochures including reports from the CEO summarizing the achievements of the factory. We were also given an organizational analysis written by an organizational advisor appointed by the managing director of the factory and strategic reports for 2008–2010. During these years, the researcher used an important resource for analyzing the organizational culture: the monthly newsletter issued by all of the factories describing the main events within them.
Kibbutz B supplied documents such as factory newsletters and promotional booklets. One of them, “The Dream and the Deed”, described the factory’s development during its first 40 years, and another booklet detailed its 50 years of operation. Internal publications also provided information from the managers’ point of view as well as documentation about organizational events, trips, and corporate ceremonies such as Rosh Hashanah toasts, annual trips, and departmental events. The document analysis from factory B was conducted between 2012 and 2015.
Kibbutz T provided documents celebrating the 60 years of its factory and a newsletter from 2016 that summarized organizational events, workshops, and new managerial appointments. The informational booklets featured interviews with managers and rank-and-file employees, which revealed a great deal about their worldviews. The factory’s internal publications reported on sales, seminars and international exhibitions, and events such as trips, celebrations and “family day” during the years 2018–2020.
In addition, we searched for articles in Israeli newspapers and on the websites of the three kibbutzim regarding the operations of the factories during the years 2020–2025.
Information from economic newspapers was also used in the document analysis: method, helping to complete the picture of leadership sustainability in relation to the relevant themes, including long-term policy (Section 4.2.6) as well as partnership mergers, acquisitions, and exit strategies (Section 4.2.7).

3.5. Data Analysis

After transcribing the interviews and synthesizing key insights from the document analysis, we conducted content analysis to identify recurring phenomena and significant quotations reflecting the unique or shared experiences of the interviewees. We then developed themes from these groups, which was supported by excerpts from various interviewees and the document analysis. Thus, we utilized grounded theory [51] to conduct our analysis, allowing themes to emerge organically from the data rather than using the information to test pre-existing hypotheses.
The research process was conducted in several stages. The first stage consisted of data collection from the factories. The second stage was data analysis, which was accomplished through thematic analysis [60,61,62]. This analytical process identified topics that were connected to the features of each leadership type, particularly strategies and policies that helped sustain the kibbutz’s business and to indicate the new communal leadership style. Another topic was the contribution of their leadership style to the tradition of the kibbutz, meaning how their vision helped keep the kibbutz’s socialist tradition alive. This step included the interpretive encoding of meaningful perceptions, beliefs, norms, and ethical codes from the kibbutz community. The third stage involved connecting the categories to organizational theory by analyzing how the leadership style affected the sustainability of the kibbutz’s business [50,51,52].

4. Results

The results were compared by thematic topics: there was quite a resemblance between factory B and T, which maintained more communal principals, while factory A abandoned its cooperative features after the nomination of the new manager in 2008. However, regarding sustainability leadership operations, there was significant similarity between the three industries. Factory T was exceptional in its leadership policy; this factory was in a communal kibbutz that did not proceed with the privatization process.

4.1. Cooperative Leadership in Kibbutz Industries

Kibbutzim began engaging in industry to provide their members with a livelihood. The leaders in the early kibbutzim were committed to giving their members jobs in the factories [9]. The preference for hiring community members rather than outsiders remained in place until the 1980s. Kibbutz leaders maintained the socialist value of the sanctity of work. Managers in all of the kibbutz industries we surveyed allowed their workers to stay on even after retirement age. For example, the factory in Kibbutz T hired only its elderly to produce its plastic garments. However, this commitment to hiring only members of the kibbutz created a number of problems. Many of the kibbutz workers did not have the professional skills and education needed for their position. The old leadership was very conservative and wanted to preserve the old socialist lifestyle. Some of the workers in Kibbutz A said that this leadership style had led to the failure of the factory and caused economic losses to the kibbutz community.
Another feature of the cooperative leadership we observed was open communication between management and workers. Moreover, the relationship was close and friendly; it was based on a sense of equality. Managers consulted with workers, and decisions were made collectively in the kibbutz assembly. For example, in one of the factories, workers opposed doing business with Germany due to the Holocaust [10]. They also resisted hiring outside labor, as socialist ideals opposed the use of those who received a salary for their work.
A common narrative in cooperative management was viewing the factory as a home. This sentiment was fostered through shared celebrations and communal breakfasts. Managers and workers dined together, and employees spoke fondly of joint trips and social events, which brought joy and excitement to factory life. These events were often published in local factory newsletters in all of the researched factories [11].
Supervision in the factories was minimal. Workers had the freedom to take care of personal matters during work hours without restriction. Factories did not use time clocks, creating a relaxed and trusting atmosphere [10]. As one employee put it: “The work is very convenient—if there’s a problem at home, I can be there”. Workers even felt free to listen to music while working on the production line [10]. Supervision was very tight in factory A in the entrance of the new manager in 2008.
All of our workers described a strong sense of familial culture in the workplace, which was evident in shared breakfasts, celebrations during work hours, and a genuine concern from management about their employees’ well-being. Management organized various events, trips, and family days for the benefit of their workers [50,51,52]. This feature was obvious in factory B.

4.2. Elements of the Hybrid Leadership Style

Based on our analysis, we identified a number of elements in the hybrid leadership style that the kibbutz managers used.

4.2.1. Commitment to Innovation

The managers in all of the kibbutzim developed innovations to maintain the sustainability of their factories. For example, Kibbutz A responded to the needs of the construction and plumbing industries in Israel by expanding its factory in the 1960s to produce pipes and fittings for the plumbing and drainage sectors. It also pioneered the use of new pipe manufacturing technologies (extrusion), paving the way for the industrial production of drainage and water supply products. Initially, the factory leveraged knowledge acquired from a British company, and it became the first facility in Israel to manufacture plastic products [63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
However, over time, it became less responsive to changes in the environment. When the new manager was recruited, he decided to focus on gray water and minimize storage production. In conjunction with a group on innovation, he created a workshop that was built by 18 engineers. The new manager declared: “Kibbutz A’s industry will excel in the development and production of innovative solutions offering added value to the customers”. In 2018, the kibbutz recruited a new CEO who continued the process of innovation. The company now specializes in the production and marketing of advanced flow systems to supply water to private homes and public buildings as well as transport wastewater, provide siphons, and maintain sewage infrastructure [50]. By continuing to innovate, the CEO has helped ensure the sustainability and relevance of the kibbutz’s industry.
The factory in Kibbutz B is also devoted to innovation, and it is committed to manufacturing products that comply with the strictest international standards and certifications. It employs over 1300 people and owns 18 marketing and sales companies and 11 production sites in Israel and abroad. They are designed and developed by the company’s expert R&D teams and manufactured at its ISO 9001-certified facilities [51]. As a result, the company offers the most comprehensive range of multifunctional or task-specific water control valves available on the market [51,70].
In the early 1980s, Kibbutz B launched a new, groundbreaking product line for the/water conveyance sector, which was designed to serve municipal water networks. The company provides hydraulic and digital control accessories for the municipal water supply market, agriculture, and irrigation [51,71,72].
Similarly, the factory in Kibbutz T has developed and registered patents for covers used to wrap product pallets that require air flow. The factory has also created the shade nets that protect crops against natural hazards such as sunlight, cold, wind, hail, or damage from birds. The factory created innovative products designed specifically to meet the needs of farmers. For example, their shade nets are knitted from highly durable threads with a square cross-section and properties similar to those of monofilaments [52].
The former CEO pointed to innovation to explain the factory’s success during the 1990s. He stated that to remain competitive, particularly in the global market, the kibbutz needs always to improve its products, especially in the global market, by leveraging technological innovations and making its products cheaper. Other interviewees confirmed the CEO’s statement. This commitment to innovation has increased the factory’s sales [73]. Over the years, the company has successfully differentiated its products through innovative developments. Using advanced technological systems, Kibbutz T’s factory offers a broad range of high-quality products tailored to customer preferences. These products are rigorously tested in the kibbutz’s laboratories according to the standards of the Israel Standards Institute and are safe for dishwasher and microwave use [74].

4.2.2. Transparent and Democratic Leadership Style

The new leadership style in Kibbutz A’s factory has become more open and transparent. The CEO holds monthly meetings with all employees, where factory-related issues are openly discussed. Workers are given access to information about sales and updates regarding new hires. Since some employees have recently retired, others have expressed their gratitude to them and shared memories [50]. Several employees described the CEO as approachable and attentive, noting that he listens to their ideas and engages with them directly. One middle manager remarked, “He’s not just sitting in his office; he walks through all the departments to see what’s going on”. Another worker on the production line added, “It feels good to see the CEO meeting with us”. However, other veteran workers thought that his behavior was hypocritical and that he was simply giving the appearance of being transparent without revealing important information to all of the workers.
Workers in Kibbutz B’s factory said that the communication between the workers and the managers was very open. Workers felt free to criticize their managers. As an example, the former CEO described an occasion when “an engineer came to my office and was against the new project. He gave me his opinion about all the bugs in it”. This freedom of communication was also evident in annual meetings, conferences or other local events, when workers and middle managers voiced their criticism. On one hand, the kibbutz members were not afraid of stating their opinions, because they could not be fired. On the other hand, this open communication was very beneficial for correcting mistakes [51].
In Kibbutz T as well, the workers felt that they were an integral part of the factory and that the managers engaged in open and transparent communication with them. The managers consulted with the workers on a variety of issues such as how to increase the sales in housewares department. The housewares manager said, “Even simple workers had good ideas that can help; you don’t expect it. But when you encourage open communication, sometimes you hear good ideas from junior workers”. When workers complain about work, the managers try to explain and justify the managerial policy. As one stated: “Sometimes we also get complaints from customers. Then we discuss the problem in our monthly meeting, trying to resolve it”. As one mid-level manager said: “Workers share everything with me, when they are happy or when they are bothered by personal problems”.

4.2.3. Hiring Kibbutz Members Rather than Outsiders

Most of the kibbutz factories allowed kibbutz members to continue working in them even after retirement age. However, when the new manager in Kibbutz A began, he decided to change this norm. He attributed part of the factory’s stagnation to the continued employment of people who were resistant to new ideas. Therefore, he decided to hire outside workers who were well qualified for middle management positions in finance, marketing, computers, engineering, and storage. The new policy was not universally accepted. Some of the changes involved downgrading workers from managerial positions to junior positions. Those who were hurt during the process were very angry with the new manager. However, the new CEO declared: “My policy is hiring the right person in the right position. I want to create new universal criteria for jobs, not as it was before. Being a kibbutz member is not sufficient qualification for getting a position in the factory” [52].
In Kibbutz B’s factory, the workforce is composed of 40% kibbutz members and 60% salaried employees. Most of the managers are kibbutz members. According to the human resources manager, the factory prefers to employ kibbutz members on a permanent basis even though the cost of employing them is higher than that of hiring salaried workers. One of the managers stated that the attitude toward workers is communal and friendly, even toward the non-member salaried employees, but it is the kibbutz members who set the tone in the factory [51].
The assembly manager shared, “The water meter department is made up entirely of kibbutz members. It’s an unwritten rule; it’s the factory’s most important product”. According to him, the kibbutz reserves jobs for its members as well as for their sons and daughters after their military service [71,72].
According to the factory managers, the preference for members over salaried employees stems from the fact that kibbutz members were raised on the cooperative ethos and share the “kibbutz DNA.” In contrast, salaried employees from outside do not share the values of cooperation and collectivism. The current norm arises from a commitment to the kibbutz values of loyalty and dedication to the collective. It is also based on the founding intention of the factory to provide jobs for members. Finally, there is a belief that because the kibbutz members depend on the factory for their livelihood, they are more likely to invest more in their work and produce higher-quality output. In practice, however, kibbutz members have not always met these social expectations and have disappointed their peers.
Indeed, the human resources manager complained about this preference and argued that sometimes these kibbutz members lack the appropriate skills for the job. Nevertheless, according to her, employing unqualified members provides them with a livelihood and prevents them from becoming a burden on the community. One of the engineers said that the existing system should be changed. Unproductive kibbutz members should be dismissed, and working conditions for the veteran members should be improved.
The factory’s CEO and president often used the term “kibbutz DNA” to emphasize the uniqueness of kibbutz members. According to these managers, only those raised in the kibbutz environment can truly understand the meaning of the term. The current CEO claimed that in the past, senior positions were filled by salaried employees, and their employment often ended in failure. Therefore, today, only kibbutz members fill senior roles in the factory. The policy is to nurture those kibbutz members who are suitable and promote them to management positions. For example, the current CEO began his role in 2004 after 17 years of gradual advancement:
“It’s natural for a manager to climb the ranks and one day become the CEO. I served for many years. I learned the system. I believe in this path—it has proven itself. Every company has its own DNA. No two companies are the same. In our company, all eight senior managers rose from the bottom. Sometimes it’s a gamble, because these are young people without prior experience. When I was appointed CEO, there was a vacuum in the organization, since both the operations manager and the CFO had completed their terms. I appointed people from outside the kibbutz, but their DNA didn’t fit our factory”.
Finally, the managerial policy in Kibbutz T is similar to that in Kibbutz B. Managers begin in junior positions and after proving themselves move on to higher positions. The leadership assesses candidates for managerial positions very carefully. One of the middle managers noted that not everyone is suitable for the job:
“We are looking for people who have the same vision, values, and beliefs that we do. Today managers are also recruited from outside the community, for instance, in the bookkeeping department. It took a long time to find good managers; it is really very difficult. Our factory is very successful and we want to keep it this way. If you hire the wrong person, it could hurt the industry.”
The human resources manager added: “In the community we are looking to find the right people for managerial positions. We send them to get a proper education to prepare them for their future job.” The current CEO said that he sees it as his duty to prepare the right leadership for the next generation. He anticipates that the factory will face many challenges, so he must develop future managers who can deal with them using the ethos of the kibbutz.

4.2.4. Egalitarian Attitude Toward All Workers

In Kibbutz A, the picture was very different. After the new manager began in 2006, the factory became more hierarchical, with members working in production or administration voicing complaints. One veteran factory worker claimed that the management was wasting the kibbutz’s money on the managers’ needs at the expense of the well-being of all workers and the owners of the factory. Another worker spoke negatively about the inequality between the classes that has emerged in the factory during the tenure of the new CEO:
“In the past, the managers used to come by bicycle. Today, they come in Hyundas. When the whole management was from the kibbutz, it was different—everything was more modest, the parties were modest, the trips... Unlike today—the CEO, the CFO... it’s not their money, and it shows. The factory’s operational expenses have increased... cars, trips, parties. Three or four years ago, we didn’t know such things.”
This interviewee contrasted the minimal income of the ordinary workers with what she regarded as unreasonable expenditures of the factory’s funds, which in her eyes led to absurd situations. Some of the new managers enjoyed privileges such as “luxurious” vehicles. Given that some of them were kibbutz members who lived near the factory, the cars were used mostly by their wives, who did not work in the factory.
Her general frustration stemmed from her low salary and possibly from her frustrated hope of being appointed to the prestigious position herself. She also described the sense of discrimination that veteran kibbutz members with low salaries working in the factory felt compared to the hired workers: “Despite the transition to privatization, they do not receive many of the benefits given to salaried factory workers: a 13th-month salary, holiday gift vouchers, subsidized meals in the dining hall, scholarships for employees’ children”.
Her criticism of the new management focused on its emphasis on the external aspects of the factory—spending money on its appearance and aggressive marketing. She also deplored the reduced allocation of funds intended for the ordinary workers that violated the kibbutz’s ideals about the equality of workers regardless of their position.
In contrast, the atmosphere in Kibbutz B’s factory, which, like Kibbutz A, is a privatized kibbutz, was more amicable. According to the human resources manager, the kibbutz makes an effort to recruit managers who are capable of preserving the existing egalitarian atmosphere within the workplace. One of the senior managers shared:
“We hired a brilliant and talented sales manager, but he had difficulty adapting to the unique atmosphere that exists in the factory. The employees and managers eat in the same dining hall and also meet within the community. In the end, the external manager was unable to adapt, and he left the factory”.
The relationships in the factory are friendly and informal, and the hierarchy in the factory is very flexible. Employees have no problem voicing complaints or being critical of their managers.
The policy in Kibbutz T’s factory is maintaining the flat hierarchy that has traditionally characterized communal kibbutzim. Workers receive instructions from their managers, and they must obey them [73,74]. The human resources manager clarified: “You can’t give here orders; we are in a cooperative community. But the workers listen to the demands of their superiors.” Many of the managers in the factory reiterated the point that workers must be obedient. Even though they work in teams and the managers consult with their workers and hear their views, the final decision comes from the manager.

4.2.5. Going Global

All leaders wanted to reassure industry sustainability, which was accomplished using several strategies. One of them was to became a global firm. All of the factories operate globally and have opened branches worldwide. Each factory intended to break into global markets early in its development. In recent years, Kibbutz A has set a goal to become a leading international supplier of piping systems and accessories for the construction and infrastructure industries. To that end, it has acquired and established manufacturing plants in Slovenia, India, and Portugal [50,75].
Factory B opened a branch in California in 1977 and a logistics center in Shanghai the following year. In subsequent years, the factory established production branches or marketing offices in Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Italy, Mexico, Peru, and the United Kingdom as well as additional branches in China. As a result, potential customers could buy the products of Kibbutz B in more than 86 countries [51,70,71,72].
Kibbutz T began ramping up its global strategy during the 1990s, basing its expansion on its 1988 contract with John Deere. After its American branch, the factory established branches in other parts of the world: England in 1995, Italy in 1999, Germany in 2000, Ireland and Canada in 2007, and Poland and Hungary in 2009. By 2022, Kibbutz T was operating production sites around the world, manufacturing garments, plastic rollers, nets for hay, and other items originally designed in the Israeli plant [52,73,74].

4.2.6. Policy for the Long Term

This policy is connected to the communal leadership style, since it provided livelihoods to members of the kibbutz. The CEO of Kibbutz T explained that the community wanted to pass on the industry to their successors unlike other communities that were going against their original socialist ideals.
The kibbutzim varied in their policies for the long term. Thus, while Kibbutz A wanted to continue on as it had, in 2018, it sold 50% of the factory to the Tene Investment Fund.
In contrast, Kibbutz B noted that the factory’s management felt a sense of commitment to the employees. The managers noted that many kibbutzim were selling their factories in order to make a large profit without any consideration about long-term continuity. The CEO of the factory emphasized the factory’s unique perspective:
“Another kibbutz sold its factory—one of the largest in the industry—to an investment company. What interests an investment company is profit, nothing more. The ‘Sdot’ factory (a pseudonym) has roots in agriculture, but the investment company also manages Hugo Boss. The investment company buys and sells. Today, the kibbutz DNA of the ‘Sdot’ factory has weakened, but one of the investment company’s executives is a kibbutz member. Everyone else there comes from outside the kibbutz, from various business corporations. The people working there say that ‘Sdot’ is a completely different company from what it used to be. Here, the managers see the factory as something that endures over time [74,75,76]”.
Nevertheless, in 2020, Kibbutz B sold 25% of its property to Kibbutz T. The money was invested in the factory to expand its lines.
Finally, as a communal kibbutz, Kibbutz T is committed to socialist ideas, and it wants to preserve the factory for the next generation. Over time, the kibbutz has expanded the factory and acquired 25% of Kibbutz B’s property. The finance manager said: “We are a strong community, and the plant plans its activities every five years. Our policy is long-term, based on market needs.” The site manager of one of the Israeli locations added: “Our approach is: never say ‘it’s enough’! Therefore, strategic planning emphasizes growth and development in various areas. We are also planning new products in the agricultural industry sector”.

4.2.7. Partnerships, Acquisitions and Exits

This strategy was also established to reassure development and sustainability for the industry and community. All of the kibbutzim developed partnership agreements with other entities in one form or another.
As noted earlier, in 2018, Kibbutz A sold 50% of its shares to the Tene Investment Fund, arranging an exit deal worth 100 million shekels. Of that amount, 70 million shekels flowed into the kibbutz’s coffers for the benefit of its members, while 30 million shekels went to Kibbutz A’s industry, with annual sales of approximately 200 million shekels [67,68]. There is also an IPO planned that will be worth between 200 and 300 million shekels. One third will be divided between the kibbutz members and the Tene Fund, which holds a 50% stake in the factory, and two thirds will go to the factory’s coffers [77,78,79].
Some of the kibbutz members have found these changes very disturbing. For example, one kibbutz chairperson, a kibbutz-born member and the individual responsible for managing the kibbutz, said the following:
“I’m being asked by members how much we’ll get, because some are already planning what they’ll do with the money. I don’t want to be caught making promises about the amount, because there’s a significant tax event involved. In any case, we’re not talking about millions, but about hundreds of thousands—somewhere between 100,000 and half a million shekels. I tell them, don’t build castles in the air, because it’s possible at the last minute we’ll decide not to go public after all… The management is making efforts to connect the members to the organization. It holds meetings with the CEO and distributes written reports so that everyone feels involved.”
The factory in Kibbutz B made a partial exit by selling 25% of the company in a deal with Kibbutz T valued at approximately NIS 450 million. However, in this case, the kibbutz reinvested the fund in the factory to expand it—not to exit from it entirely.
Finally, in 1970, the factory in Kibbutz T created a partnership with another kibbutz for ideological reasons: to provide work for their respective kibbutz members. Kibbutz T maintained 75% ownership, and the other kibbutz received 25%. Another successful partnership was with John Deere, which in 1988 named Kibbutz T as its exclusive supplier of hay nets. All of the interviewees mentioned the benefits stemming from this agreement and noted its significant contribution to the prosperity of the factory [52].
Figure 1 illustrates the leadership skills evident in the kibbutz industries.

5. Discussion: Leadership Styles and Sustainability in Kibbutz Factories

The leadership practices observed in kibbutz factories exhibit a complex interplay of different styles. Leaders often blended democratic and transformational approaches, while others leaned more heavily on a single model. Despite this variation, a unifying characteristic across all case studies was the leaders’ shared commitment to the success of the business and the sustainability of the community [16,17,19].
In Kibbutz A, the dominant leadership style was transformational with fewer elements of democratic governance [11]. The factory’s CEO demonstrated characteristics often associated with transformational leadership: he modeled a strong work ethic, expected high levels of competence, and emphasized professionalism among his employees. He initiated significant human resource changes within the factory, which, though effective in driving transformation, were not always met with approval by the workforce. These changes were carried out in an autocratic manner often without prior consultation or consensus from the employees. However, his authority was sanctioned by the broader kibbutz leadership, which not only appointed him but also granted him the power to hire, dismiss, or reassign workers as needed [10].
This decisive, top–down leadership was instrumental in rescuing the factory from a critical organizational and financial decline [19]. Under his guidance, the factory adopted a bold strategy of innovation, pivoting into the field of gray water recycling—a move that revitalized its competitiveness in both local and global markets [14,15]. Implementing this shift required difficult decisions, such as the dismissal of employees from the now-redundant storage department. These actions generated considerable resentment among kibbutz members and non-member employees alike [10]. Nevertheless, the innovation policy proved to be a lifeline for the factory, ensuring its operational and financial sustainability [19,23].
His leadership style stems from his factory’s necessity. The industry suffered from decline and severe crises; his autocratic style saved the factory and helped it recover [17,18,19,20,21]. The outside leader came from another kibbutz community, he was aware of the kibbutz ethical codes, and his behavior was temporary until the factory overcame its crisis [46,47]. Although he implemented an ad hoc policy and ignored his obligation to become a servant leader, his leadership style helped the industry develop and succeed in the long run [22,23,24]. Today, the industry became global with high revenue as an outcome to the temporary leadership autocratic steps [12,24,25],
This finding challenges conventional leadership theory, which is one of the contributions of our study. While much of the literature emphasizes the benefits of democratic and transformational leadership styles [20,21,22], the case of Kibbutz A illustrates how autocratic leadership can also be effective, particularly during periods of crisis. When an organization faces existential threats, a strong, centralized approach can sometimes provide the clarity and decisiveness needed for recovery. Following the tenure of the initial CEO, his successor continued to build on the factory’s success, emphasizing strategic business growth through globalization, mergers, partnerships, equity acquisitions, and ultimately, a successful exit strategy. These initiatives not only solidified the sustainability of the factory’s business but also had profound positive effects on the broader kibbutz community [12,13,14,15,24,25]. Members benefited financially from the exit and strategic developments, which elevated their standard of living and deepened their sense of satisfaction and identity with the kibbutz. These outcomes, in turn, fostered a renewed sense of communal solidarity, highlighting the important link between economic success and communal sustainability—a connection that has received relatively little attention in the literature [12,21,22,23,24].
In contrast, Kibbutz B represented a markedly different leadership paradigm. It exemplified the most democratic style of management among the cases studied. Its leaders encouraged open communication, the free expression of opinions, and the active participation of workers in decision-making processes [16,17,19,20,21]. Despite being part of a privatized community, the ethical and cooperative spirit within the factory remained robust and participatory [5,6].
The inclusive leadership in factory B not only cultivated a supportive and cohesive work environment but also reinforced the communal values of the kibbutz. Workers expressed a strong sense of solidarity and belonging, which was in sharp contrast to the discontent and alienation felt by some employees in factory A [5,6,7]. Moreover, factory B’s leadership adopted a multifaceted business strategy characterized by a diverse range of initiatives. The leadership style—an effective fusion of democratic, transformational, and communal elements—enabled both the success of the factory and the sustainability of the community.
From the comparative analysis of both factories, it becomes clear that business sustainability in the kibbutz industrial sector has a powerful effect on reinforcing communal bonds. Successful industries generate surplus income, which supports high-quality communal services such as education, healthcare, cultural activities, and recreational programs [7,9,10]. These services, in turn, help sustain the social fabric and collective identity of kibbutz life even as economic structures and leadership models continue to evolve.
The leadership style in the factory in Kibbutz T combined transformational [19,26] and democratic elements [16,17], although the democratic aspect was weaker. The transformational style was very obvious in that the managers were completely devoted to the goal of developing the industry and increasing its sales [18,19,20]. As the findings indicate, the leaders in the factory used numerous strategies: mergers, acquisitions, innovations, and the constant improvement of the products. They also favored cooperative team work and encouraged workers to be involved in the process of decision making, even though the leader made the final decisions without the involvement of the factory’s employees. Thus, factory T was not as autocratic as factory A, but it was also less democratic than factory B. The leaders in Kibbutz T were very concerned about communal sustainability [23]. Their policy and strategy did not include an exit; they were completely committed to the goal of maintaining the factory for the long term.
The differences between the kibbutzim in their approach to exits is rooted in the fact that Kibbutzim A and B are privatized, whereas Kibbutz T remains committed to the socialist ethos [5,6]. In all three cases, their leaders worked hard to ensure the sustainability of the factory as a means of providing revenue to the kibbutz members. We saw the strong connection between the success of the factory, its sustainability and the well-being of the kibbutz members [19,21,23]. This kibbutz examples are contributing to the methodological debate on sustainability by adding a different communal aspect that widens the current theoretical frame.
Finally, we demonstrated the use of a new hybrid leadership style in kibbutz industries that has democratic and autocratic features as well as a transformational and communal style. Figure 2 illustrates the interplay between these elements. Our findings expand our knowledge about the complexity of leadership styles and their role in meeting the challenges facing organizations [8,10,14,42].
All of the kibbutz leaders used a hybrid leadership style, demonstrating the ability to combine multiple approaches in their policies and strategies. However, the existing literature on hybrid leadership does not typically address the use of the autocratic elements that we saw in factory A. The capabilities highlighted in the current theoretical framework are relevant for analyzing the leaders’ attitudes and behaviors [31,41,42,43,44,45,46].
Nonetheless, a notable innovation in this hybrid leadership model is its emphasis on communal and cooperative dimensions—elements that have received relatively limited attention in the literature. For leaders of kibbutz industries, engaging with the communal aspect is not optional but essential [20]. The deep interdependence between the industrial enterprise and the kibbutz community renders their mutual sustainability a central concern within this model. This community-oriented approach to hybrid leadership distinguishes these case studies from more conventional examples of business leadership, offering a unique contribution to both organizational theory and cooperative economics [21,22,23].
This study focuses on community leadership that emphasizes mutual commitment and cooperation. Beyond the goal of achieving the factory’s economic success, it is important to examine how leadership strengthens the community through long-term policies aimed at building economic resilience without compromising the well-being of community members [8,10]. Concern for the welfare of community members is a key element. Even in an era of privatization, privatized kibbutzim do not abandon members facing hardship; mutual responsibility and collective obligation remain guiding principles. In this context, the current leadership model poses a moral challenge: how to navigate the tension between the needs of community sustainability and the well-being of the individual [10,12,22,23,24].

6. Conclusions

The results indicate clearly that all kibbutz leaders were committed to industry sustainability and community, which was accomplished by strategies that developed the industries locally and globally. Moreover, the findings show that the communal aspect was central in the leadership style; concerns of well-being were evident in the three cooperatives, although they were more obvious in factories B and T.
Leadership in kibbutz industries is a hybrid mix of transformational, democratic, autocratic, and communal features. The economic condition of the industry has a strong effect on the choice of which aspects of this hybrid leadership style to emphasize. Thus, businesses in crisis and decline, as in Kibbutz A, are more likely to need a strong, autocratic leader to turn them around. In contrast, successful businesses, such as in Kibbutz B, tend to be more democratic. Leaders in communal kibbutzim who have a long-term commitment to the socialist ethos will prioritize keeping the industry going. In contrast, leaders in privatized community industries tend to embrace a more capitalistic ethos and will initiate exit strategies to profit from them in the short term.

6.1. Theoretical Applications

This study contributes to the theoretical advancement of hybrid leadership by introducing communal leadership as a novel and integral component. The synthesis of democratic, oligarchic, and transformational leadership approaches enriches the literature on organizational sustainability, offering a more nuanced understanding of leadership in complex organizational contexts. Hybrid leadership is conceptualized as a dynamic and adaptive framework that is capable of responding effectively to evolving environmental and organizational challenges.

6.2. Practical Applications

The implementation of communal leadership practices has been found to enhance organizational productivity and foster more effective internal communication.
In contrast, autocratic leadership demonstrates utility during periods of organizational crisis or decline, where decisive and centralized decision making is required.
By promoting open communication and collective engagement, communal leadership supports a more cohesive organizational culture.
Furthermore, the alignment of organizational sustainability with communal sustainability has been shown to increase employee motivation and strengthen identification with organizational values and goals.

6.3. Limitation of Research

This study was implemented with qualitative method of three case studies. To be more conclusive, this research needs to incorporate more kibbutz factories into its analysis and findings.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is waived for ethical review as the research involves the analysis of organizational structures and cultural practices within workplaces. It does not include medical or clinical interventions, does not involve vulnerable populations, and does not access personally identifiable or sensitive data by Zefat Academic College.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ben Rafael, E. Hahevrah Hakibbutzit: Shinui V’hemshechiut [Kibbutz Society: Change and Continuity]; Open University Press: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ben-Rafael, E. Hamahapecha Halo Mushlemet [Incomplete Revolution]; Yad Tabenkin: Efal, Israel, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ben-Rafael, E. Kibbutz: Survival at Risk. Isr. Stud. 2011, 16, 81–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ben Rafael, E.; Topel, M. Hakibutz al Derachim Mitpatzlot [The Kibbutz on Diverging Courses]; Mosad Bialik: Jerusalem, Israel; Yad Tabenkin: Efal, Israel, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Edom, S.; Edur, R.; Kroll, Y. Motives, expectations and results of 2000–2009 M&A privatization process of the industrial activity of Israeli kibbutzim. J. Coop. Organ. Manag. 2015, 3, 85–93. [Google Scholar]
  6. Charney, I.; Palgi, M. Varie (gated) communities: Looking into socio-spatial splintering in renewing kibbutzim. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 57, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Getz, S. A Survey of Changes in Kibbutzim; The Kibbutz Movement and The Institute for the Research of the Kibbutz and the Cooperative Idea: Haifa, Israel, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  8. Moskovich, Y. Management style in kibbutz industries. J. Manag. Rev. 2019, 43, 691–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Almaliah, T. Kibbutz Industries 1923–2007: Economic and Social Considerations; Yad Yaari: Givat Haviva, Israel, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Moskovich, Y. Kibbutz Industry: Cultural, Hybrid Structure and Business Strategy Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  11. Moskovich, Y.; Ashush, Y. Transitional leadership in a kibbutz factory: An Israeli case study. Int. Leadersh. J. 2014, 6, 46–89. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boeske, J. Leadership towards Sustainability: A Review of Sustainable, Sustainability, and Environmental Leadership. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fry, L.W.; Egel, E. Global Leadership for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yukl, G. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. J. Manag. 1989, 15, 251–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  16. Burawat, P. The relationships among transformational leadership, sustainable leadership, lean manufacturing and sustainability performance in Thai SMEs manufacturing industry. Inter. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 1014–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ren, Q.; Li, W.; Christos Mavros, C. Transformational Leadership and Sustainable Practices: How Leadership Style Shapes Employee Pro-Environmental Behavior. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maniora, J. Mismanagement of sustainability: What business strategy makes the difference? Empirical evidence from the USA. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 931–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Whelan, T.; Fink, C. The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability. Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-comprehensive-business-case-for-sustainability (accessed on 25 September 2020).
  20. Moskovich, Y. Family Home Business in Kibbutz Industry Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moskovich, Y. Cultural features of a successful non-privatized kibbutz industry—Lesson learned, an Israeli case study. Comp. Sociol. 2020, 19, 88–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moskovich, Y. Promoting industrial success threw organizational culture: An Israeli case study. Comp. Sociol. 2021, 20, 223–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moskovich, Y. Communal Organizational Culture as a Source of Business-Success Sustainability in Kibbutz Industry—Two Case Studies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quinn, L.; Dalton, M. Leading for Sustainability: Implementing the Tasks of Leadership. Corp. Gov. 2009, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moskovich, M. Business Sustainability Strategy in a Cooperative Kibbutz Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, A.E.; Barlow, Y.C. Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Strand, R. Strategic Leadership of Corporate Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 123, 687–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Crews, D.E. Strategies for Implementing Sustainability: Five Leadership Challenges. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 2010, 75, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Alice, B.; Kara Ellerby, K.; Daniel Green, D.; Kinderman, D.; Stuart Kauffman, S.; Weinert, M.; Saleem, H.A. Hybrid leadership councils: Envisioning inclusive and resilient governance. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2019, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kanat-Maymon, Y.; Elimelech, M.; Roth, G. Work motivations as antecedents and outcomes of leadership: Integrating self-determination theory and the full range leadership theory. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2020, 38, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Althnayan, S.; Alarifi, A.; Bajaba, S.; Alsabban, A. Linking Environmental Transformational Leadership, Environmental Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and Organizational Sustainability Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zacher, H.; Kühner, C.; Katz, I.M.; Rudolph, C.W. Leadership and Environmental Sustainability: An Integrative Conceptual Model of Multilevel Antecedents and Consequences of Leader Green Behavior. Group Organ. Manag. 2024, 49, 365–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Blase, J.; Anderson, G. The Micro Politics of Educational Leadership: From Control to Empowerment; ERIC; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bass, B.M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  36. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper and Raw: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nguon, V. Effect of Transformational Leadership on Job Satisfaction, Innovative Behavior, and Work Performance: A Conceptual Review. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2022, 17, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bakker, A.B.; Hetland, J.; Olsen, O.K.; Espevik, R. Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance? Eur. Manag. Rev. 2023, 41, 700–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Robertson, J.L.; Carleton, E. Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. J. Leadersh. Organ Stud. 2018, 25, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ausat, A.; Suherlan, S.; Peirisal, T.; Hirawan, Z. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Commitment and Work Performance. J. Leadersh. Organ. 2022, 4, 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nassif, A.G.; Hackett, R.D.; Wang, G. Ethical, virtuous, and charismatic leadership: An examination of differential relationships with follower and leader outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 172, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A.R.; Yuthas, K. Managing Social, Environmental and Financial Performance Simultaneously. Long Range Plan. 2015, 48, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buehler, F. Exploring Hybrid Leadership Dynamics Autonomy and Alignment as Critical Success Factors. Master’s Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Vorarlberg International Management and Leadership, Dornbirn, Austria, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gözükara, İ.; Şimşek, O.F. Linking Transformational Leadership to Work Engagement and the Mediator Effect of Job Autonomy. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 963–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lemoinei, J.G.; Hartnell, C.A.; Leroy, H. Taking stock moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic and servant leadership. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2019, 13, 148–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paesen, H.; Wouters, K.; Maesschalck, J. Servant leaders, ethical followers? The effect of servant leadership on employee deviance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 624–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mueller, F.; Carter, C. The Scripting of Total Quality Management within its Organizational Biography. Organ. Stud. 2005, 26, 221–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Clark, L.S.; Heinrich, C.D.; Webber, S.A. Ethnographic interviews on the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2004, 6, 529–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. A Industry Website. Available online: https://www.Huliot.com (accessed on 27 July 2025).
  51. B Industry Website. Available online: https://www.bermad.com (accessed on 27 July 2025).
  52. T Industry Website. Available online: https://www.tama.co.il/HE/ (accessed on 27 July 2025).
  53. Spradley, J. The Ethnographic Interview; Holt Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  54. Corbin, J.; Morse, J.M. The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qual. Inq. 2003, 9, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Taquette, S.R.; Borges, L.M.; da Matta Souza, M. Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: A Critical Literature Review. Inter. J. Qualit. Methods 2022, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Reid, A.M.; Jeremy, M.; Brown, J.M.; Smith, M.; Alexandra, C.; Cope, A.C.; Jamieson, S. Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2018, 7, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hess, R.F. Post abortion research: Methodological and ethical issues. Qual. Health Res. 2006, 6, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Byrne, M. The concept of informed consent in qualitative research. AORN J. 2001, 74, 401–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Helgeland, I.M. ‘Catch 22’ of research ethics: Ethical dilemmas in follow-up studies of marginal groups. Qual. Inq. 2005, 11, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yin, R. Case Study Research Design and Method; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  62. Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Factory A. Sicum Pgishat Derectorion, 13/11/2008 [Directorate Meeting Summary, November 13, 11, 2008.
  64. Ron, L. Collaborative Exit: When the Kibbutz Factory Is Worth Almost a Billion Shekels. Walla News, 16 May 2022.
  65. Bar Kovach, S. Mega deal at Kibbutz A: A industry Group completes acquisition for million NIS. Mynet Kibbutz, 20 October 2021.
  66. Cohen, E. Keren Pimy Mevia et Mifal C Lehanpakat Meniot. [Pimy Fund is Bringing Factory C to the Stock Market]. Globes, 15 August 2021.
  67. Zipori, T. Mifal C yahafoch lechvrat hamesaninim hagdola baolam. [Factory C will become one of biggest filter companies in the world]. Globes, 21 January 2024.
  68. Zomer, N. Iska gdola ben shtey kibbutim: Mifal C kana mifal acher. [A huge business deal between two kibbutzim: Plant C bought another factory]. Ynet Economy, 29 April 2020.
  69. Zomer, N. Diroog hahevrot hakibbutziot: Nitifim rishonah b’ramat ziknah [Ranking the kibbutz businesses: Nitifim is first in level of age]. Yediot Achronot, 12 May 2022.
  70. Factory B. What Is Happening and What Will Happen. Kibbutz B Israel, 10 November 2015.
  71. Factory B. Igeret shel Mifal B [Newsletter of Factory B] (No. 25). Kibbutz B, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  72. Factory B. Ma koreh vema yikre [What is happening and what will happen]. Kibbutz B, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  73. T Industries. T Industries—60 Years; T Industries: Kibbutz, Israel, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  74. T Industries. Creating News in T Industries; T Industries: Kibbutz, Israel, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Factory A. Machshavot Mancal. Thoughts of the CEO, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  76. Factory A. Pgi’shat derectorion. Directorate Meeting, 24 June 2009.
  77. Pishkin, G. Security, Industry, and Infrastructure Flowing with Innovation: The Company Creating Groundbreaking Solutions for Water and Drainage Systems. The Marker, 20 May 2024.
  78. Salom, S. Major Deal in the Kibbutz Industry: Kibbutz T Acquires a Stake in Evron’s Water Company—Purchases About a Quarter of the Shares at a Valuation of ~NIS 450 Million. Globes Newspaper, 24 July 2020.
  79. Factory T. Tarbut b’mifal T [Culture in T Factory]; T Industries: Kibbutz, Israel, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Summary of leadership skills in kibbutz industries.
Figure 1. Summary of leadership skills in kibbutz industries.
Sustainability 17 09070 g001
Figure 2. Hybrid leadership in kibbutz industries.
Figure 2. Hybrid leadership in kibbutz industries.
Sustainability 17 09070 g002
Table 1. Leadership styles in the kibbutz industry.
Table 1. Leadership styles in the kibbutz industry.
Leadership StyleFeaturesKibbutz Industry
HybridCommunal, democratic, autocratic, transformational, sustainableAll of the researched industries
CommunalCooperative, egalitarian, policy for the long run,Factories B and T
DemocraticTransparent and open communication, egalitarian structureFactories B and T
AutocraticOnly appearance of transparent communication, hierarchical structure, tight supervisionFactory A
TransformationalInnovation, good working relationship, family home cultureAll the features for factories B and T.
Innovation for factory A
SustainableMerger and acquisition, going global, exist, innovationAll the factories
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moskovich, Y. Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209070

AMA Style

Moskovich Y. Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability. Sustainability. 2025; 17(20):9070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209070

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moskovich, Yaffa. 2025. "Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability" Sustainability 17, no. 20: 9070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209070

APA Style

Moskovich, Y. (2025). Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability. Sustainability, 17(20), 9070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209070

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop