The introduction of SBM in centralized structures implies a significant loss of power and influence for superintendents. Although superintendents of centralized structures are expected to assist schools in building their own autonomous agenda, they are still expected to fulfill their traditional role, to supervise and monitor schools and report to the district the school activities and performance. Superintendents are expected to maintain their control over schools mainly because the implementation of decentralization initiatives in centralized structures has always been controversial among high ranking officials who were never eager to surrender their authority to schools and to decrease their influence over the educational system (Bray, 1985; Weiler, 1990). The unique circumstances of centralized structures produce ambiguity as to how much external control should be exerted over schools. Decentralization initiatives employed in centralized systems provoke superintendents’ fears regarding their future prospects to significantly influence educational processes, which in turn are likely to intensify their role conflict and stress. This is undoubtedly the case of the superintendent in the Israeli educational system that has undergone a transition from a centralized toward decentralized educational system through the implementation of a School-Based Management policy, while maintaining the role definition of the superintendent unchanged.