This paper focuses on the worldwide school-based management/self-governing schools phenomenon by inquiring into the effects of implementing participatory school administration, leadership and management (PSALM) on making the stakeholders more involved in improving their schools. Answers to the following questions were sought: (a) Did the respondents from the control and experiment groups differ in their inclination to be involved in improving the schools before and after implementing PSALM?; (b) Did the stakeholders' inclination for involvement in improving the school differ in their constituency, gender, age and position in the advisory school council (ASC)?; (c) How did the experimental participants feel about the implementation of PSALM?; (d) What behaviors of the school heads and stakeholders elicited greater interest in being involved in improving the schools? This study is anchored on the following theories: collegial educational leadership and management (Bush, 2006); democratic educational leadership (Starrat, 2004); transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006); facilitative leadership, (Blasé and Blasé, 2001) and distributed leadership (Brown and Gioia, 2002; Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005). In the area of school effectiveness and school improvement, researchers acknowledge that highly involved educational stakeholders tend to be a common feature of successful schools.This study employed a mixed research method by combining the pre-test-post-test experimental design with empirical surveys and interviews. The inclination of the stakeholders for involvement in improving the school was measured by obtaining the overall scores of the respondents in the questionnaires for their levels of commitment, empowerment and trust. A principal component analyses showed that these overall scores comprised one component. Reliability coefficients for the two surveys were higher than .8. Respondents were school heads, teachers, students, parents, alumni and community leaders. For the first survey, 735 out of the 836 stakeholders who indicated willingness to participate in the study completed the questionnaires. The second survey had 603 respondents out of the 735 who received the questionnaires.Data from the empirical surveys and the interviews suggest that the implementation PSALM via ASCs yielded encouraging results. Specifically, it can be said that1. The experimental group of respondents had a significantly higher inclination for meaningful involvement in improving their schools when compared with the control group of participants. This means that implementing PSALM made the research participants more actively involved in improving their schools.2. The age, gender and position of the stakeholders in the ASC were not significantly associated with their inclination for meaningful involvement in improving their school. However, results indicated school heads and teachers reported greater inclination for meaningful involvement in improving their schools compared with the other stakeholders. 3. The experimental participants indicated satisfaction with the implementation of PSALM. 4. School heads were more likely to draw greater involvement from the stakeholders in improving their school if they were proactive and supportive, vigorously encouraging active participation, opening up the channels of communication and modeling desirable participatory behaviors. Stakeholders who were cooperative, well trained and well informed about their roles and who were genuinely concerned with the welfare of the students elicited greater desire for others to be involved in improving their schools. Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (2001). Empowering Teachers: What Successful Principals Do, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc. Brown, B.R. & Gioia, D.A. (2002). Making things click: distributed leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 307-419. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Bush, T. (2006, September 15). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org.content/m13867/latest/Harris, A. (2005). Reflections on distributed leadership. Management in Education, 19 (2): 10-12. Liethwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformation school leadership for large-scale reform: effects on students, teachers and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2): 201-227. Spillane, J.P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Education Forum, 69 (2): 143-150. Starrat, R.J. (2004). Leadership of the contested terrain of education for democracy. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (6): 724-731.European or international journal