<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Design of the study
 Presentation and analysis of the...
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Appendix A: Analysis of data for...
 Appendix B: Analysis of data for...
 Appendix C: Survey instrument
 Appendix D: Cover letter
 References
 Biographical sketch














The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00012966/00001
 Material Information
Title: The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents
Physical Description: viii, 174 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Evans, Gilbert Lee
Publication Date: 1996
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-173).
Statement of Responsibility: by Gilbert Lee Evans.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 026430473
oclc - 36638385
System ID: AA00012966:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Literature review
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Design of the study
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
    Presentation and analysis of the data
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
    Appendix A: Analysis of data for question 5
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
    Appendix B: Analysis of data for boards of trustees
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
    Appendix C: Survey instrument
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
    Appendix D: Cover letter
        Page 165
        Page 166
    References
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
    Biographical sketch
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
Full Text





THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
AND JOB SATISFACTION AS REPORTED BY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS


















By

GILBERT LEE EVANS, JR.






















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1996















ACKNOWLEDGMENT


I would first like to thank almighty God for allowing

me to complete this task. If it had not been for Him, I

would not have made it. To my major professor, Dr. David

Honeyman, thanks for always being there to assist. To my

church family, The House of God Church, thanks for your

prayers and support. To my mother and father, Gilbert, Sr.

and Ernestine Evans, thanks for being the greatest parents

in the world. To my brothers, Maurice and Darryle, thanks

for being so understanding.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES .


v


ABSTRACT . . . . . vii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION . . .. . 1


Purpose
Rationale
Definition of Terms
Significance of Study
Limitation . .

2 LITERATURE REVIEW


Job Satisfaction . . .. . . 13
Job Satisfaction Theories . ... . 14
Organizational Climate . . . 26
Organizational Climate Theories ... . 27
Factors Under Investigation That Influence
Job Satisfaction . . . 39
Factors Under Investigation That Influence
Organizational Climate . . . 45
The American Community College . ... 52
The Role and Profile of the Community
College President . .. . . 59
Additional Factors that May Affect Job
Satisfaction and Climate for Community
College Presidents ... . . 63
Summary . . . .. . 66

3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . 69

Methodology . . .. .. 70


. . . . 77


Summary . .










4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Survey Responses . . .
Community College Presidents' Profile
Research Question 1 . . .
Research Question 2 . . .
Research Question 3 . . .
Research Question 4 . . .
Research Question 5 . . .
Summary . . . .

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .


. . 78

. . 79
. . 80
. . 84
. . 92
. . 102
. . 113
. . 118
. . 120

. . 124


Conclusions . . . . .
Recommendations . . . .
Summary . . . . .

APPENDICES

A ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR QUESTION 5 . .

B ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR BOARDS OF TRUSTEES .

C SURVEY INSTRUMENT . . . .

D COVER LETTER

REFERENCES

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . .


125
132
137















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Community College Presidents:
Distribution by Gender . ... . 80

2 Community College Presidents:
Distribution by Ethnic Origin ... . 80

3 Community College Presidents: Distribution
by Gender and Ethnic Origin ... . 81

4 Community College Presidents: Distribution
by classification of Community College . 83

5 Community College Presidents: Distribution
by Number of Years of Experience as Chief
Administrator . .. . . 83

6 Community College Presidents: Distribution
by Current Position Title . . 84


7 Community College Presidents' Perceptions
of Organizational Climate: Frequency
Distributions . . . 86

8 Community College Presidents' Perceptions
of Organizational Climate: Mean
Distributions . .... . . 87

9 Community College Presidents' Perceptions
of Organizational Climate:
Correlation Table . . . 88

10 Community College Presidents' Satisfaction
with Organizational Climate: Frequency
Distributions .. ... . . 94

11 Community College Presidents' Satisfaction
with Organizational Climate: Mean
Distributions ... . . 95









12 Community College Presidents' Satisfaction
with Organizational Climate:
Correlation Table . . . .... 96

13 Community College Presidents' Overall
Satisfaction with College: Frequency and
and Mean Distributions . .. . 101


14 Importance of Job Satisfaction Variables
to Community College Presidents:
Frequency Distributions . ... . 103

15 Importance of Job Satisfaction Variables
to Community College Presidents:
Mean Distributions . . . 104


16 Importance of Job Satisfaction Variables
to Community College Presidents:
Correlation Table . . . 105

17 Community College Presidents' Overall
Satisfaction with Position: Frequency
and Mean Distributions . . .. 111

18 Community College Presidents' Overall
Satisfaction with Board of Trustees:
Frequency and Mean Distributions . 112

19 Community College Presidents' Perception
of Significance of Board of Trustees:
Frequency and Mean Distributions ... 112

20 The Relationship Between Measures of
Job Satisfaction and Measures of
Organizational Variables . . 114

21 Summary of Significant Relationships Found
Between Organizational Climate Factors
and Job Satisfaction Variables . 122















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
AND JOB SATISFACTION AS REPORTED BY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

By

Gilbert Lee Evans, Jr.

December 1996

Chairman: Dr. David S. Honeyman
Major Department: Educational Leadership


The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature

of the relationship between measures of organizational

climate and measures of job satisfaction as perceived by

community college presidents. Furthermore, this study was

done to ascertain if there were significant differences in

means for job satisfaction within the context of

organizational climate when controlling for gender,

ethnicity, classification of the community college, and

number of years of experience as a college president. The

organizational climate factors used in this study were

internal communication, organizational structure, political

climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation,

promotion, and regard for personal concerns. The job








satisfaction variables included participation in decision-

making, power, relationships with peers, relationships with

subordinates, relationships with supervisors, salary,

benefits, and professional effectiveness.

All community college presidents who are members of the

American Association of Community Colleges were invited to

participate in the research survey. A copy of the survey

and a postage-paid return envelope were sent to all

potential subjects. The original survey used in this

research was derived from literature related to job

satisfaction and organizational climate.

Through a close analysis of the survey responses, it is

evident that several of the organizational climate factors

were significantly related to job satisfaction for community

college presidents. Those factors were regard for personal

concerns, internal communication, organizational structure,

and professional development opportunities. Furthermore,

the most important job satisfaction variable for community

college presidents was their relationship with the board of

trustees or supervisor.

One conclusion was drawn from the study: If boards of

trustees want to enhance the job satisfaction of presidents,

there must be a regard for their personal concerns, the

lines of communication must be open, the organizational

structure of the college must be followed, and opportunities

for professional development must be afforded.

viii















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Until the 1930s, there was little interest in the study

of job satisfaction. Job performance and maximizing worker

output were the major areas of study (Wanous, 1976).

Interest developed when Elton Mayo and other researchers

conducted several experiments at the Western Electric

Hawthorne plant near Chicago, Illinois. The experiment was

designed to determine the optimum level of illumination in a

shop for maximum production. After the Hawthorne Studies

were completed, it was found that there was no direct,

simple relationship between the illumination level and the

production output of the workers (Lunenburg & Ornstein,

1991).

After the researchers pondered the surprising results

from the first experiments, the investigators sought to

answer other questions. What is the attitude of employees

toward their work and toward the company? Do employees

actually become tired? Are pauses for rest desirable? One

major finding was the realization that human variability is

an important determinant of productivity (Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991). The researchers learned that patterns

established among the workers influenced worker behavior











more than the deliberate controls imposed on the physical

working condition. This discovery questioned the previously

held belief that human workers behaved like machines,

therefore, there was only one way to do a given task

(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Roethlisberger & Dickson,

1939).

The Hawthorne Studies are considered one of the major

research experiments that contributed to the study of

employee motivation and job satisfaction. Furthermore,

Mayo's studies revealed that perception and job satisfaction

among employees are factors that relate to job performance

(Mayo, 1933). As a result of these studies, the basis for

the human relations movement was established.

Zytowski (1968) defined job satisfaction as being

"proportionate to the degree that the elements of the job

satisfy the particular needs which the person feels most

strongly" (p. 399). Another definition of job satisfaction

is a person's attitude or emotional response (either

positive or negative) toward his or her place of work (Beck,

1990; McCormick & Ilgen, 1980; Nkereuwem, 1990). In recent

years, much research has been done on job satisfaction, and

it is evident that the issue of job satisfaction is

extremely difficult to understand. Situations,

organizational change and culture, and individuals are all

critical elements that are related to one's understanding of

job satisfaction.










The idea of job satisfaction in accordance with

organizational climate theory also has been researched.

Organizational climate refers to the personality of an

organization. Climate is an accumulation of intangible

perceptions that individuals have of various aspects of the

work environment of an organization (Deas, 1994; Owen, 1991;

Steers & Porter, 1975). Organizational climate also can be

defined as the characteristics of the total environment

(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). In Educational

Administration: Concepts and Practices (1991), an

organizational climate comprises four dimensions as follow:

1. I- refers to the physical and material

factors in the organization.

2. Milieu is the social dimension in the

organization.

3. Social system to the organizational and

administrative structure of the organization.

4. Culture refers to the values, belief systems,

norms, and ways of thinking that are characteristic of the

people in the organization.

Terms often used to describe organizational climate

include (a) open, (b) warm, (c) easygoing, (d) informal, (e)

cold, (f) hostile, (g) rigid, or (h) closed (Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991).

Some research has been done on the relationship between

job satisfaction theory and organizational climate theory in











the context of education. Job satisfaction and

organizational climate theories differ in education from

those of business and industry. In education, the focus is

on teaching and learning and student outcomes while business

and industry emphasize production and profit. Increased

attention about how organizational climate and job

satisfaction relates to institutional effectiveness,

however, has developed in light of recent criticisms

involving quality and accountability in education (Report of

the Wingspread Group of Higher Education, 1993). Through a

close examination of the quality of education in the United

States now, it is evident that new and creative ways for

dealing with higher learning are needed. The organizational

climate at Palomar Community College was assessed by Barr

(1988). The college believed that a better understanding of

organizational climate would provide a basis for improving

productivity, motivation, and satisfaction on the workers'

part in the organization. Therefore, specific research

within the context of organizational climate in

postsecondary education is timely, needed, and appropriate

(Barr, 1988).

The community college continues to be the most

important higher education innovation of the 20th century

(Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger, 1994). The

mission of this segment of higher education is teaching and

learning. Community college leaders are making strides to











improve the quality of education for students and to enhance

job satisfaction not only for faculty and staff but also for

administration. By the year 2000, there will be a need at

the community college level for outstanding leadership that

promotes job satisfaction and encourages an open and warm

organizational climate (Vaughan, 1989). The most successful

community colleges of the 21st century will be those that

promote shared leadership, needs assessment, accountability,

teaching, involvement, continuous learning, and job

satisfaction; they will not need strict governance, control,

and centralized decision-making (Alfred & Carter, 1993;

Vaughan, 1986).

The success of any community college will depend to

some degree on the president. The college president is

responsible for seeing that the institution is managed

effectively and efficiently. The function of the president

is three-fold. He or she manages the institution, creates

the campus climate along with the board of trustees and

interprets and communicates the institution's mission

(Vaughan, 1989; Lee & VanHorn, 1983). The college president

must demonstrate through words and deeds that an educational

institution's reason for existence is the discovery,

examination, analysis, organization, and transfer of

knowledge (Vaughan, 1989).

Specifically, at any given community college, the

president is responsible for all aspects of the community











college program. He or she serves as the liaison between

the board of trustees and the administration, faculty,

staff, and students. He or she is responsible for the

development of the instructional program of the college.

Furthermore, his or her responsibility also includes budget

preparation, personnel administration, public relations,

legislative liaison, and overall supervision of the total

community college program (Florida Community College

Handbook, 1995).

The community college president is usually held in high

esteem. Faculty, administration, and students look to him

or her for guidance and direction. Furthermore, the board

of trustees depends on the president to execute all laws and

rules. Therefore, many difficult issues face the president

on a day-to- day basis, such as hiring and firing, tenure

and promotion, equity and accountability, and interpretation

of climate by others--just to name a few. Consequently, the

responsibilities of the president have intensified and

become more complex (Walker,1979; Vaughan, 1989). The

American Council on Education reported that nationally there

is an overwhelming turnover of top level college

administrators. Some researchers believed that it is due to

job dissatisfaction, stress, and burnout. Turnover among

chief administrators at colleges is costly and is related to

job satisfaction (Glick, 1992; Vaughan, 1986).











Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature

of the relationship between measures of organizational

climate and measures of job satisfaction as applied to

community college presidents. Furthermore, this study was

to ascertain if there were significant differences in means

for job satisfaction within the context of organizational

climate when controlling for gender, ethnicity,

classification of the community college, and number of years

of experience as a college president.

The research questions are as follows:

1. How do community college presidents perceive

organizational climate at their respective institutions,

using a set of seven identified factors for climate?

2. Using the same seven climate factors as an index,

how satisfied are community college presidents with the

organizational climate at their respective institutions?

3. How important is each of eight identified job

satisfaction variables to community college presidents in

the performance of their specific job responsibilities?

4. For each of eight job satisfaction variables, is

there a significant relationship between measures of job

satisfaction and a set of seven measures of satisfaction

with organizational climate, as reported by community

college presidents?











5. Is there a significant difference in the means of

eight job satisfaction variables for community college

presidents when compared by gender of the president, ethnic

origin of the president, classification of the community

college, and length of time served as a college

administrator?

Rationale

The relationship between job satisfaction and climate

applied to the industrial setting is well understood;

however, within the confines of education little is known

about this relationship. Community college presidents are

the chief administrators at a given institution. They are

responsible for the overall day-to-day operation of the

college. The president is the liaison between the board of

trustees and the college's administration, faculty, staff,

and students. The president's work affects the morale and

success of every staff person, and perhaps even the students

on campus. Learning more about the nature of the

relationship between climate and job satisfaction among

community college presidents may assist colleges in

understanding their perceptions of climate and enhance job

satisfaction for the college's chief administrator.











Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following

definitions are used:

Community college president is the chief administrator

at the institution. The president is responsible for the

daily operations of the college. This administrator serves

as the liaison between the board of trustees and the

college's administration, faculty, staff, and student body

(Vaughan, 1989; Vaughan, 1986).

Job satisfaction refers to a person's positive or

negative attitude or emotional response toward his or her

place of employment (Beck, 1990; McCormick & Ilgen, 1980).

Organizational climate refers to the perceptions of

participants of certain intangible aspects of the

environment or institution. It is the personality of an

organization (Deas, 1994; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Significance of the Study

This study is significant for many reasons. First, the

expectation of individuals concerning their jobs is changing

drastically (Walker, 1979; Vaughan, 1989). Second, because

of the diversity and different needs and values of

individuals in the work force, it is important to ascertain

how they perceive job satisfaction and climate. Third, the

creation of a positive organizational climate is critical to

the success of an organization (Vaughan, 1989; Lee & Van

Horn, 1983). Fourth, because the community college











president is the chief administrator at a given institution,

his or her performance is critical to the success of every

individual and aspect of the institution. Fifth, the

"burnout" rate of community college presidents across the

country is at an all-time high (Vaughan, 1989). Finally,

little research has been conducted on how community college

presidents perceive organizational climate in their

respective institutions or how their perception may affect

their personal job satisfaction.

Because organizational climate plays a pivotal role in

determining job satisfaction for employees, the researcher

sought to increase the awareness of how climate affects job

satisfaction for community college presidents. Findings of

this study have advanced the body of knowledge by testing

the theoretical constructs of job satisfaction and

organizational climate as applied to community college

presidents, and by determining whether or not the model

previously developed applies to this sector of higher

education administration. The eight job satisfaction

variables were participation in decision-making, power,

relationship with peers, relationship with subordinates,

relationship with supervisor (board of trustees), salary,

benefits, and professional effectiveness. The seven

organizational climate factors were internal communication,

organizational structure, political climate professional









11

development opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard

for personal concerns.

Limitations

The following limitations are related to this study:

1. The study was limited to community college

presidents in the United States who report directly to a

board of trustees and who are members of the American

Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

2. The study focused only on organizational climate

and job satisfaction as perceived by community college

presidents.

















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW


There was little interest in job satisfaction and

climate until the 1930s. Prior to this time, job

performance and maximizing worker output were the major

areas of concern and study (Wanous, 1976). Specifically,

interest developed when Elton Mayo and his associates

experimented at the Western Electric Hawthorne plant near

Chicago, Illinois. The Hawthorne Study, as it is called,

was one of the major research experiments that contributed

to the study of employee motivation and job satisfaction.

Furthermore, Mayo's studies revealed that perceptions and

job satisfaction among employees were factors that related

to job performance, and climate or social environment had a

significant influence on productivity and morale (Mayo,

1933). As a result of these studies, the basis for the

human relation movement was established. Moreover, the idea

of job satisfaction in accordance with organizational

climate theory has been researched since the 1960s. Several

researchers have confirmed that organizational climate does

affect job satisfaction in the work environment.











Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined by researchers in

various ways. Locke's (1976) definition of job satisfaction

was "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting

from the appraisal of one's job or job experience" (p.

1300). Zytowski (1968) defined job satisfaction as being

"proportionate to the degree that the elements of the job

satisfy the particular needs which the person feels most

strongly" (p. 399). Vroom (1982) defined it as "the

affective orientation of individuals toward work roles they

are presently occupying" (p. 99). There have been various

definitions for job satisfaction, and all of them have dealt

with how one perceived his or her job experience.

Elton Mayo and a group of his associates conducted

experiments at the Western Electric Hawthorne plant near

Chicago, Illinois. These experiments were designed to

determine the optimum level of illumination in a shop for

maximum production. After the study was completed, it was

found that there was no direct, simple relationship between

the illumination level and the production output of the

workers. Moreover, the researchers also ascertained that

human variability was an important determinant of

productivity (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). It was found that

norms established by workers influenced their behavior more

than deliberate controls imposed on the physical working











condition (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Roethlishberger &

Dickson, 1939).

The Hawthorne Studies were one of the major research

experiments that contributed to the study of employee

motivation and job satisfaction. Furthermore, Mayo's

studies revealed that perception and job satisfaction among

employees are factors that relate to job performance (Mayo,

1933). As a result of these studies, the basis for the

human relations movement was established.

Job Satisfaction Theories

Herzberq's Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) developed a

concept about job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in The

Motivation to Work. This research was performed on more

than 200 male accountants and engineers in the state of

Pennsylvania (Herzberg et al, 1959). Herzberg and his

associates' hypothesis for the study was that factors

associated with job satisfaction are separate from factors

associated with job dissatisfaction.

Subjects in the experiment were asked to describe

instances during their employment that caused an increase

or decrease in their job satisfaction. Another question

asked of all participants was to give an example of when

they were extremely upset about their work place.

Through a close analysis of the data, Herzberg et al.

(1959) created their theory of job satisfaction, which was











called either the "Two-Factor Theory" or the "Motivation-

Hygiene Theory." The researchers found that there were two

sets of factors that determine job satisfaction (motivators)

and job dissatisfaction (hygienes). The motivators related

to the intrinsic aspect of the job, and the hygienes dealt

with the surrounding conditions of the job.

The six motivators for job satisfaction, as defined by

Herzberg, included the following:

1. Advancement dealt with the actual changes in the

status or position of an individual in an organization. It

also included the probability of or hope for advancement.

2. Achievement related to all events that lead toward

realization of the worker's personal objectives (successful

completion of a job, finding a solution to a problem, or

seeing the results of one's own work). The definition also

included the opposite--failure to achieve.

3. Recognition related to some act of praise, notice

(positive recognition) or blame (negative recognition)

toward the employee from the work environment (a peer,

professional colleague, supervisor, or the general public).

4. Work itself dealt with doing the actual job or

task as a source of good or bad feelings. It also referred

to the opportunity to complete an assigned unit or task.

5. Responsibility dealt with authority and included

those sequences of events in which the worker mentioned

satisfaction derived from being given responsibility for the










work or the work of others, or being given new

responsibility. Also included were those incidents in which

there was a loss of satisfaction from lack of

responsibility.

6. Possibility or growth referred to growth in

specific skill areas as well as growth in status which would

enable the individual to move onward and upward in a

company. This factor also encompassed the lack of

opportunity for growth (Herzberg, 1966, pp. 193-198).

The researchers also developed eight hygienes or

dissatisfiers. These eight hygienes as defined by Herzberg

(1966), included the following:

1. Salary related to all sequences of events in which

some type of compensation (wage or salary increase) plays a

role. Unfulfilled expectations to receive an expected

salary increase also were included in this category.

2. Working conditions dealt with the physical

conditions of work and the facilities available for

performing the work (adequate tools, space, lighting, or

ventilation).

3. Supervision-technical included those events in

which the competence or incompetence of the supervisor were

the critical factors. Statements concerning a supervisor's

willingness or unwillingness to delegate responsibility or

his or her willingness or unwillingness to instruct were

included.











4. Interpersonal relations dealt with actual

verbalization about the characteristics of the individual.

Three categories of interpersonal relations were specified -

those involving subordinates, those involving peers, and

those concerning supervisors.

5. Company policy and administration dealt with

factors in which some overall aspect of the company was

involved.

6. Status was the sequence of events in which the

respondent specifically mentioned that a change in status

(such as attaining a personal secretary) affected his or her

feelings about the job.

7. Personal life dealt with situations in which some

aspect of the job affected the individual's personal life in

such a manner that the respondent's feeling about his or her

job was affected (such as a family-opposed job transfer).

8. Job security described signs of job security, such

as continued employment, tenure, and financial safeguards

(Herzberg, 1966).

Herzberg et al. (1959) stated that it should be noted

that reversals in their theory are possible. Some of the

motivators could serve as hygiene elements, and some of the

hygienes could perhaps be motivators. After completing 12

experiments involving a random sample from 1,685 workers,

Herzberg (1968) ascertained that 81 percent of all factors

contributing to job satisfaction were motivators and that 69











percent of all factors contributing to job dissatisfaction

were hygiene elements.

Research has been done on the validity of the

Motivation-Hygiene Theory. In industrial psychology, it has

been the most replicated study of job satisfaction

(Grigaliuhas & Herzberg, 1971). Furthermore, Aebi (1973)

wrote that Herzberg's Theory has been tested more than 100

times.

Support for herzberg's two-factor theory

As previously mentioned, many researchers have tested

Herzberg's Theory, and they have found it to be beneficial.

Friedlander and Walton (1964) performed a study on 82

scientists and engineers. They found that employees'

reasons for remaining with an organization were not the

reciprocal reasons for their leaving an organization. It

was proven that reasons for staying on the job were truly

related to Herzberg's motivator factors, and the reasons for

leaving were closely parallel to the hygiene factors.

When the Two-Factor Theory was first tested on females

subjects, it proved to be workable (Herzberg, 1966). The

women tested were supervisors for government research.

Again, the motivators were determined to be job motivators

or job satisfiers. On the other hand, the hygiene factors

were mentioned as sources of dissatisfaction.

The theory also was applied to the educational

environment. Thomas (1977) reported evidence supporting the









19

theory in her study of community college administrators. As

already stated, the motivators were found to be significant

to job satisfaction. "The motivators include achievement,

work itself, responsibility, and recognition were mentioned

more often in positive than negative incidents. Conversely,

with the exception of salary, the hygiene factors, company

policy and administration, interpersonal relations, working

conditions, and supervision-technical were mentioned in

significantly more negative than positive incidents" (Kozel,

1979, p. 58).

Other studies done in support for the Herzberg Two-

Factor Theory were completed by Groseth (1978), Myers

(1964), and Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963).

Criticisms for herzberg's two-factor theory

Just as there was much support for the Motivator-

Hygiene Theory, there was also some criticism for the

theory. Aebi (1973) found more than 100 attempts to test

the significance of the study.

The three major criticisms that were evident in the

literature for the Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory are

as follows:

1. The researcher and his associates failed to address

overall job satisfaction (Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke,

1966).

2. The results of the theory were bound by the methods

that Herzberg used (Soliman, 1970). Perhaps individuals









20

attributed satisfaction to their own achievements, and then

they could have even attributed their dissatisfaction to

factors within their work place instead of personal problems

(Thomas, 1977).

3. The random sample for the original experiment was

limited to only two occupations, engineers and accountants.

Some critics believed that a sample so small cannot be

generalized to the entire population. Pallaone, Hurley, and

Rickard (1971) stated, "The evidence supporting the two-

factor theory appears to have been derived from

investigations of workers in the old established

professions near the top of the socio-economic ladder" (p.

16).

Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory

The Hierarchy of Needs Theory developed by Abraham

Maslow (1954) was one of the most recognized theories that

dealt with job satisfaction. Maslow's theory is divided

into five levels of needs. These needs are as follows:

1. Physiological needs include hunger, thirst,

shelter, and sex (dependent on self).

2. Safety needs include protection from the elements

(dependent on self and others).

3. Feeling of belonging and love needs include love,

affection, and friends (dependent on self and other).

4. Esteem needs include self respect, positive self-

evaluation, and prestige (dependent on self and others).











5. Self-actualization means to become everything that

one is capable of becoming (measure up to our own criteria

of success).

Maslow believed that as the lower level needs were

meet, man would begin to move up the hierarchy. According

to Maslow (1954), man's ultimate goal was to become self-

actualized, which was becoming everything that one was

capable of becoming.

Consequently, there was little research to support

Maslow's beliefs. Because of his logical approach, his

theory has been accepted by many schools of thought.

Moreover, according to the literature, when the lower needs

are satisfied, the individual's job satisfaction is likely

to be greater.

Alderfer's E.R.G. Theory

Alderfer's Existence, relatedness, and growth (E.R.G.)

Theory is closely related to Maslow's theory. Clayton

Alderfer (1975) reduced Maslow's hierarchy from five

distinct parts to three. He concluded that all individuals

have three basic needs that they want satisfied. They are

(a) existence needs, (b) relatedness needs, and (c) growth

needs. Alderfer (1975) believed that needs are satisfied by

one's work. Alderfer's theory differs somewhat from

Maslow's in that he did not believe the levels were

hierarchical. He believed in interchangeability between

need levels.











Maslow's existence needs dealt with material

substances. Some examples given of existence needs were

food, water, pay, and shelter. Relatedness needs include

communication with one's self and others. Examples given of

relatedness needs were family, friends, and employers.

Growth needs were relevant to the environment and the

process through which the individual went to impress not

only himself or herself but also the environment. Just as

with Maslow's theory, little research has been conducted on

the Existence, Relatedness, and Growth Theory.

ExpectancV or V.I.E. Theory

Victor Vroom (1964) created the Expectancy Theory of

Job Satisfaction. Mitchell (1974) stated the premise of the

theory is as follows: "The strength of the tendency to act

in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectancy

that the act will be followed by a given consequence (or

outcome) and on the value or attractiveness of that

consequence (or outcome) to the actor."

(p. 1503). The theory involved four constructs: valence,

expectancy, instrumentality, and force. Valence is an

individual's perception of the value of the reward that

could be obtained by performing well. Instrumentality is

the extent to which an individual believed that one outcome

will lead to another outcome or reward. Instrumentality

varied from plus one to negative one (Lunenburg & Ornstein,

1991; Vroom, 1982). Expectancy represents an individual's









23

belief that his or her behavior will cause a certain outcome

or reward. Through a close analysis of the literature, it

can be concluded that Vroom's model asserted an employee's

satisfaction with his work results from the instrumentality

of the job for attaining other outcomes and the valence of

these outcomes (Thomas, 1977).


n






Vroom (1964) defined the expectancy theory as follows:

where:

V,= valence of outcome j,

Vk = valence outcome k,

n = number of outcomes,

Ik = perceived instrumentality of outcome

j for the attainment of outcome k (cited in

Mitchell, 1974, p. 1054).

Cornell Studies

This theory of Job Satisfaction was developed by Smith,

Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The researchers developed the

Job Satisfaction Index (J.S.I) which measured many aspects

of job satisfaction. The Cornell Studies concluded that

levels of satisfaction were associated with community

characteristics. Smith et al. (1969) listed 10 implications

of their strategy as follows:











1. An adequate model of satisfaction must take into

account interactive effects among variables.

2. Relationships between satisfaction and overt

behavior vary from situation to situation.

3. Relationships between satisfaction and behavior

cannot be reasonably expected unless the behavior can be

considered to be an appropriate means of expressing

satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

4. The manner in which questions are asked affects the

time perspective of the respondent, and therefore affects

the alternatives he or she considers.

5. Satisfaction is a product of other variables and

may or may not serve as a cause in itself.

6. A relationship may exist between satisfaction and

behavior since the same variables producing the satisfaction

might also produce the behavior, or changes in behavior may

act to change the situation and satisfaction.

7. The relationship between satisfaction and

performance will vary depending on the aspect of the job

being studied.

8. The importance of each aspect of the job situation

influences the individual's feeling of satisfaction.

Importance is considered to be a function of the discrepancy

between the existing situation and the alternatives

available.









25

9. Legitimacy, the group norms defining the legitimate

requirements for a job for a specified group, influences the

acceptance of a task and the attitude toward it.

10. It is, therefore, the interrelationship of objective

factors of the job, of individual capacities and experience,

of alternatives available in the company and the community,

and of the values of the individual that can be expected to

predict satisfaction and performance (cited in Kozel, 1979,

p. 47).

Equity Theory of Job Satisfaction

Many Equity theories have been formulated. However,

the Equity Theory of Adams (1965) is considered to be the

most substantial. This type of theory is closely related to

Vroom's Theory. The basis for the theory is that

individuals want an equitable reward for services rendered

on the job. It can be concluded from the study that

individuals want to be treated fairly in the work place. If

they are treated "equitably," they will be satisfied with

their jobs; if they are not treated equitably, then

dissatisfaction will result.

Today, when workers input personal sacrifice and effort

on the job, some of the expected outcomes are pay,

recognition, and status. When workers are part of the

decision-making processes, they are more likely to be

satisfied, which will cause them to make more sacrifices and

exercise more effort. Witt and Nye (1992) applied this









26

theory to different organizations. They found that equity

or fairness was a mark of job satisfaction. When it was not

perceived by employees, dissatisfaction was the result.

Organizational Climate

Organizational climate is defined as the personality of

an organization. Climate also is defined as an accumulation

of tangible perceptions that individuals have of various

aspects of the work environment or organization (Deas, 1994;

Owen, 1991; Steers & Porter, 1975; Chappell, 1995).

Organizational climate is defined as the characteristics of

the total environment (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

In Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices

(1991), an organizational climate is comprised of four

dimensions as follows:

1. Ecology refers to the physical and material

factors in the organization.

2. Milieu is the social dimension in the

organization.

3. Culture refers to the values, belief systems,

norms, and ways of thinking that are characteristic of the

people in the organization.

4. Social system refers to the organizational and

administrative structure of the organization.

Schneider and Snyder (1975) described climate as "a

characteristic of organizations that is reflected in the

descriptions employees make of the policies, practices, and










conditions which exist in the work environment" (p. 326).

Climate also has been described as the emotional atmosphere

of a particular organization. Recently, Deas (1994) defined

climate as "a collection of intangibles that support and

encourage all the players to work toward a common goal-

learning" (p. 44).

Terms often used to describe "organizational climate"

include (a) open, (b) warm, (c) easygoing, (d) informal, (e)

cold, (f) hostile, (g) rigid, or (h) closed (Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991).

According to Lunenburg and Orenstein (1991), "To

describe and assess the climate of a school requires (a) the

development of a clear concept of what the key factors are

in the interaction-influence system that determines climate,

(b) the creation of some method of collecting data that

describe these factors (usually a paper-and-pencil

questionnaire), and (c) a procedure by which the data may be

analyzed and, ultimately, displayed in a way that informs

us" (p. 186).

Organizational Climate Theories

The Organizational Climate Index

George C. Stern (1970) developed an approach to measure

or describe organizational climate. His basic rationale

resembled that of an earlier researcher named Lewin who

believed that individuals and groups in organizations must

be understood in the context of their interaction with the










environment (B=fP, E). This view is related to both person

and environment. Stern argued that efforts to assess the

climate of a given organization must measure both

characteristics of the individual and the environment or

surroundings (cited in Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

The basis for Stern's development of the Organizational

Climate Index (OCI) was best described in Educational

Administration: Concepts and Practices:


Stern, a psychologist, saw an analogy between human
personality and the personality
of the institution, and he drew on the much
earlier work of Henry A. Murry, who had
developed the concept of need-press as it
shaped human personality. Murry postulated
that personality is the product of dynamic
interplay between need, both internal and
external, and press, which is roughly equivalent
to the environmental pressures that lead
to adaptive behavior. Two questionnaires
instruments were devised to determine the
need-press factors Stern felt influenced the
development of climate in institutions of higher
education: the Activities Index (AI), which
assessed the need structure of individuals,
and the College Characteristics Index (CCI), which
probed the organizational press as experience by
persons in the organization. These two
questionnaires have been used on a number
of campuses, where they have helped researchers assess
organizational climate in higher education
settings. (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991)


Stern and Carl Steinhoff developed an adaptation of the

CCI which they called the "Organizational Climate Index"

(OCI) which has been used in schools and other

organizations. This instrument was first used in 1965 in

the public school system of Syracuse, New York. This survey









29
was presented to teachers, and they had to answer "true" or

"false" to a list of questions applicable to their schools.

Some examples of statements that appeared on the survey

are as follows:

1. Social events get a lot of enthusiasm and support.

2. People find others eager to help them get started.

3. People are expected to have a great deal of social

grace and polish.

4. People here speak up openly and freely.

5. Good work is really recognized around here.

(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Analysis of the data received from various schools has

led to the formulation of six OCI Climate Index factors.

The factors are as follows:

1. Intellectual Climate. Schools with high scores on

this factor have environments that are perceived as being

conductive to scholarly interest in the humanities, arts,

and sciences. Staff and physical places are seen to

facilitate these interests, and the general work atmosphere

is characterized by intellectual activities and pursuits.

2. Achievement Standards. Environments with high

scores on this factor are perceived to stress high standards

of personal achievement. Tasks are successfully completed

and high levels of motivation and energy are maintained.

Recognition is given for work of good quality and quantity,

and the staff is expected to achieve at the highest levels.











3. Personal Dignity (Supportiveness). Organizational

climates scoring high on this factor respect the integrity

of the individual and provide a supportive environment that

would closely approximate the needs of more dependent

teachers. There is a sense of fair play and openness in the

working environment.

4. Organizational Effectiveness. Schools with high

scores on this factor have work environments that encourage

and facilitate the effective performance of tasks. Work

programs are planned and well organized, and people work

together effectively to meet organizational objectives.

5. Orderliness. High scores on this factor indicate a

press for organizational structure and procedural

orderliness. Neatness counts and there are pressures to

conform to a defined core of personal appearance and

institutional image. There are set procedures, and teachers

are expected to follow them.

6. Impulse Control. High scores on this factor imply

a great deal of constraint and organizational

restrictiveness in the work environment. There is little

opportunity for personal expression or for any form of

impulsive behavior.

A school's Developmental Press can be computed by the

sum of the scores for Factors one, two, and three minus the

score for Factor six. Schools with high scores on

Developmental Press are ones that stress intellectual and










interpersonal activities. Furthermore, the Control Press

for a given school is calculated by adding the scores

together for Factors four and five. Internal environments

that stress orderliness and structure are considered high in

Control Press (cited in Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

There have been many positive and negative concerns for

the OCI. One deterrent for the theory was the complexity

and length of the survey. The original survey included more

than 300 questions. It also has been concluded that the

data analysis and the interpretation procedures were

extremely complex (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). However,

the theory had two major strengths. It was based upon a

strong theoretic concept of climate that has been beneficial

to researchers and received well. The theory also had a long

history of meticulous research that yielded assessment

instruments that have been examined closely for validity and

reliability (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire

The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire

(OCDQ) was developed by Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft

(1963). These two researchers introduced the notion of

organizational climate to education. Croft and Halpin

(1963) developed this questionnaire in order to measure

organizational climate in elementary schools. They sought

to elicit from teachers the critical factors that they

generally agreed were central to describing the climate of a











school. Although their research was done in elementary

schools, they set the basis for understanding climate in

postsecondary institutions.

Croft and Halpin (1963) identified two clusters of

factors. The first cluster consisted of four factors that

described the teachers' perceptions of the teachers as a

human group. Those factors included the following:

1. Intimacy is the degree of social cohesiveness among

teachers in the school.

2. Disengagement is the degree to which teachers are

involved and committed to achieving the goals of the school.

3. Esprit is the apparent morale of the group.

4. Hindrance is the extent to which teachers see

rules, paperwork, and "administrivia" as impeding their work

(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

The other cluster of climate factors included

perceptions of teachers concerning the principals. Those

factors were as follows:

5. Thrust is the dynamic behavior with which the

principal sets a hard-working example.

6. Consideration is the extent to which the principal

is seen as treating teachers with dignity and human concern.

7. Aloofness is the extent to which the principal is

described as maintaining social distance (for example, cold

and distant or warm and friendly).











8. Production emphasis is the extent to which the

principal tries to make teachers work harder (for example,

supervising closely, being directive, demanding results).

The researcher developed a questionnaire consisting of

64 questions. Each question elicited a perception on one of

the eight factors. The finding of the research stated:

"Descriptions of the teachers as a human social group tend

to be associated with the teacher's perception of the

principal in relatively consistent patterns" (Lunenberg &

Ornstein, 1991, p. 189).

Furthermore, Croft and Halpin (1963) identified and

described several types of organizational climates. They

are as follows:

1. Open Climate. In this type of climate, teachers

are proud to be a part of the school. They do not feel

burdened by busy-work, regulations, and administration. The

teachers see the principal's behavior as an easy, authentic

integration of the official role and his or her own

personality. The principal shows concern and compassion for

teachers and yet is able to lead, control, and direct them.

2. Autonomous Climate. An autonomous climate is one

that is self-governed. The faculty has total freedom. As a

result, teacher morale is high, and the faculty is

successful at accomplishing tasks. The principal in this

climate models the way by setting a good example for others

to follow.











3. Controlled Climate. The principal is extremely

domineering and allows little flexibility. The teachers in

this type of environment are expected to be told when and

what to do at all times. According to the research,

however, the morale remains high as in the autonomous and

open climate. Principals and teachers in this climate are

interested only in completing the tasks at hand.

Unfortunately, sensitivity for others is not a part of this

climate.

4. Paternal Climate. Principals in this setting are

ones who try to dominate the faculty and satisfy the

faculty's social needs. However, the principal's attempts

are unsuccessful. These principals are considered

unmotivated not sincere.

5. Closed Climate. In this setting, teachers tend not

to be highly engaged in their work. They tend not to work

well together, and their overall achievement is low. The

principal is perceived as having no direction or vision.

Teachers are not satisfied, morale is low, and turnover is

extremely high. These principals' emphasis is on following

the rules.

The OCDQ was developed for the elementary school

setting; however, a new version was created for high

schools. Many comments have been made regarding to this

instrument. According to Lunenburg and Ornstein (1991), "If

factor structure was developed, however, from a strictly










deductive process (rather than from an empirical study of

schools), and, indeed, little had been done since the

instrument was originally developed to validate it or modify

it as a result of experience" (p. 188).

Profile of a School Theory

In 1947, Lacerate directed an extensive study that

intended to identify the human factors that influenced the

ultimate effectiveness of organizations to achieve their

goals. Most of Lacerate's research was done in industrial

firms, but later it included schools and colleges.

By 1961, the researcher was able to describe important

relationships among (1) the management styles, (2) the

characteristics of the organization's interaction-influence

system, and (3) the effectiveness of the organization

(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Lacerate wanted to measure

characteristics of the internal functioning of an

organization and to relate those measures of organizational

performance.

According to Lacerate, organizational performance is

determined by productivity, rate of absence and turnover,

loss through scrap and waste, and quality control. To

measure the internal functioning of the organization, the

researcher developed a questionnaire for employees to

complete that described six characteristics of the

organization. These characteristics included leadership

processes, motivational forces, communication processes,










decision-making processes, goal-setting processes, and

control processes (cited in Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Lacerate developed four basic management systems. They

are described below:


System One is called explotive-authoritative;
it is based upon classical management
concept, a theory X view of motivation, and
a directive leadership style. System Two is
benevolent-authoritative. It emphasizes a
one-to-one relationship between subordinate
and leader in an environment in which the
subordinate is relatively isolated from
others in work-related matters. System
Three, called consultative, employs more
of a participative leadership style in which
the leader tends to consult with people
individually in the process of making
decisions (for example, Hersey's-Blanchard's
S2, Vroom's CI). System Four, the participative
(or group interactive)model of an organizational
system in all of the critical organizational
processes (for example, Hersey's-Blanchard's
S3, Vroom's GII). (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991)


In 1968, Lacerate and Gibson devised a questionnaire to

be utilized in colleges and schools called "Profiles of a

School" (POS). Specifically, the profile used for colleges

and universities was called the "Profile of a College or

University." By receiving data from a questionnaire given

to school officials and students, one could ascertain the

characteristics of an organization's interaction-influence

system.

One of the most potentially powerful outcomes of the

body of research, utilizing the POS as a measure of climate,

arose from Lacerate's own analysis of the shortcomings of










the organizational structure of American schools and its

impact on the interaction-influence system. Lacerate

believed that the interaction-influence networks of our

school all too often prove to be incapable of dealing

constructively even with the internal school problems,

situations, and conflicts. This is not to mention the

conflicts impinging from the larger community. Furthermore,

the present decision-making structure of the school requires

patterns of interaction that often aggravate conflict rather

than resolve it constructively and quickly (Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991).

The theory of Lacerate was empirically derived. He and

his associates gathered qualitative data from the real

world. Since this theory of organizational climate was

developed, numerous studies have been done to test its

reliability and validity. This theory has been given much

support. Lacerate's Profile of School Theory resembled to

the work of McGregor and Herzberg in terms of impact and

significance for both researchers and practitioners

(Lunenburg and Ornstein, 1991).

Person-Environment Fit Theory

The Person-Environment Fit Theory was developed by

Argyris (1957). He believed that conflict develops within

an organization when there is a misunderstanding between the

organization and the employee's needs. The researcher

suggested that hostility, competition, and job











dissatisfaction are the results of the previously stated

misunderstandings. Argyris (1957) argued that when the

individual and the organization's needs are incompatible,

incongruence resulted. As a result of this incongruence,

the characteristics of a cold climate such as frustration,

failure, and conflict were evident.

Argyris believed that individuals dealt with this

incongruence in many ways:

1. Resignation, absenteeism or withdrawal from the

job.

2. Hatred for the job.

3. Joining a union to feel some type of security.

4. Attempting to find another job in the organization.

5. Speaking negatively about the job to others.

(Bolman & Deal, 1991; Chappell, 1995; Ratcliff, 1989).

The opposite of incongruence is congruence or "fit."

There must be a fit between the worker and the organization.

Some researchers have found that when an employee is

congruent with the organization, he or she is productive,

happy, and satisfied with the environment (Dowey,

Hellriegel, & Slocum, 1975). Supporters of the Person-

Environment Theory believe in order for individuals to be

satisfied, the values of the employee and the purpose and

mission of the institution or organization must be in

accordance.









39

In order for any place of work to be satisfying for the

employee, according to the theory of Argyris, there must be

a fit between the employee and the organization. A good fit

was described in the literature as a congruence between the

needs, wants, and wishes of the employee and the

organization. When this is accomplished, although

difficult, job satisfaction is present. If there is a

misfit, stress, burn out, and job dissatisfaction will

result. Cohen and Brawer (1994) believed that finding

common ground between the organization and the employees was

the heart of effective management.

Factors under Investigation that Influence Job Satisfaction

Participation in Decision-Making

Participation in decision-making was defined as the

college's process for decision-making and opportunities for

involvement by the employee to participate in that process.

The decision-making process at any given institution is

extremely significant. The decision-making process is the

power of an organization (Fryer & Lovas, 1990). Four steps

are usually involved in reaching a decision: (1) defining

the problem, (2) identifying possible alternatives, (3)

predicting the consequences of each reasonable alternative,

and (4) choosing the alternative to be followed (Ornstein &

Lunenburg, 1991).










According to Ornstein-and-LTundebg (1991):


The use of participative decision making
has two major potential benefits: (1) arriving
at better decision and (2) enhancing the growth
and development of the organization's participants
(for example, greater sharing of goals, improved
motivation, improved communication better-developed
group-process skill). As a practical guide for
implementing participative processes in education
organization, three factors in particular should
be borne in mind: (1) the need for an explicit
decision-making process, (2) the nature of the problem
to be solved or the issue to be decided, and
(3) criteria for including people in the
process. (p. 277)


As aforementioned, employee participation in decision-

making is as important to an effective organization as oil

is to an automobile. Participation in decision-making is

associated with job satisfaction and productivity (Witt &

Myers, 1992; Fisher, 1984). Organizations that allow

employees to participate in decision-making will cause their

employees to be more satisfied (Lawler, 1986; Fryer & Lovas,

1990).

Participative decision-making has a number of

advantages. Some of these advantages are better decisions,

higher employee satisfaction, and better relations between

staff and management (Lindelow, 1989). Mutchler (1990)

believed that participative decision-making is shared power

that is multiplied. Radnofsky (1988) argued that

institutions will improve their effectiveness when

individuals become more involved in professional decision-

making.










Power

Power was defined as the amount or degree of

jurisdiction or discretion that the employee is able to

exercise while performing the tasks of that position. In

addition, Gollattschec and Harlacher (1994) defined power as

"the ability to command a favorable share of resources,

opportunities and rewards for followers" (p. 65).

According to The Leadershio Challenge (1987),

individuals in leadership positions have a healthy share of

power motivation because leaders must influence others to

perform. Moreover, the most effective leaders are those who

delegate power to strengthen others (Kounzes & Posner,

1987). Only leaders who feel powerful will delegate, reward

talent, and build a team composed of people powerful in

their own right. Good leaders will use the power that flows

to them in service to others. Effective leaders assign

employees important work to do on critical issues, provide

discretion and autonomy over their tasks and resources,

offer visibility to others and provide recognition for their

effort, and build relationships for others. Effective

leaders connect employees with powerful people and find them

sponsors and mentors (Kounzes & Posner, 1987; Covey, 1990).

Power is desirable by all, especially when it is

related to decision-making. As already stated, leaders must

give employees some power. Employees must be given

authority to make decisions and solve problems. When








employees are offered power or control, they are more

satisfied because they are trusted and seen as capable staff

members (Lawler, 1986; Vaughan, 1989). If presidents at

community colleges permit faculty to be part of the

decision-making procedures, job satisfaction will be

enhanced. The faculty member will feel that he or she has a

voice, and the president will not have to carry the entire

burden if an incorrect decision is made.

Relationships with Colleagues

Relationships with colleagues was defined as the

quality of the affiliation that an employee maintains with

his or her peers, subordinates, and supervisor. Regarding

this study, the researcher tested relationships with the

president and other top level administrators and presidents,

the president and faculty and staff, and the president and

the board of trustees. A positive relationship with

colleagues at an institution or organization results in job

satisfaction. "Pleasant, concerned and enthusiastic co-

workers establish an environment worth cultivating"

(Miloshell, 1990, p. 14).

The president of a community college must relate well

with not only other administrators but also with faculty and

student body. Administrator, faculty members, and students

are the body of a college (Fisher, 1984). "The degree to

which the president is respected and admired by the faculty

will be the extent to which he or she is able to inspire










trust and confidence, the extent to which he or she is

believable and can deliver" (Fisher, 1984, p. 101). Job

satisfaction is directly related to working and building

positive relationships with colleagues whether it be with

students, faculty, staff, administrators, or the board

(Fisher, 1984; Carbone, 1981).

Salary and Benefits

Salary and benefits was defined as the perceived equity

and adequacy of the salary and benefit package received by

the employee. Herzberg (1959) and his associates saw salary

as a hygiene or dissatisfaction factor. He and his

researchers defined salary as all sequences of events that

compensation is a part. Herzberg (1959) stated the

following about his hygiene factor salary: "It meant more

than money; it meant a job well done; it meant that the

individual was progressing in his work. Viewed within this

context salary as a factor belongs more in the group

that defines the job situation and is primarily a

dissatisfier" (p. 83).

One study on the issue of salary in an educational

setting stated that little significance or value is given to

salary when it comes to job satisfaction (Levy, 1989).

However, other researchers believed that it is a factor that

determines job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

At some institution, researchers have said that the

issue of salary and benefits must be fair and equitable. In










many institutions of higher education, salary and benefits

are locked within the confines of state and federal

government. These are issues can and do cause job

dissatisfaction with not only the president but also

faculty, resulting in low morale and decreased teaching and

learning (Vaughan, 1986; Hoy & Miskel, 1982).

Professional Effectiveness

Professional effectiveness was defined as the perceived

overall effectiveness of the employee in his or her

position. Every person within an organization should have

the desire to be effective in the work place. Achievement

and growth, which are determining factors of effectiveness,

affect job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1959).

Most presidents want to be effective. The president

understands that it is his or her duty to develop a style

and define a span of control that will characterize an

effective leader (Carbone, 1981). An effective president

wants his or her institution to be the best, as far as

faculty and staff satisfaction, student retention and

recruitment, teaching and learning, and college success are

concerned. However, striving for professional effectiveness

can cause burn out. "Burn out is emotional exhaustion, a

feeling of being overextended and depleted because you've

given so much" (Davis, 1994, p. 50). Furthermore, experts

believed that burn out is directly related to job











dissatisfaction, absenteeism, tardiness, low productivity,

and job turnover (Davis, 1994; Bock & Mislevy, 1988).

Factors under Investigation that Influence
Organizational Climate


Internal Communication

Internal communication was defined as the college's

formal and informal communication processes and style.

Gronbeck (1992) stated that communication is the process of

sending and receiving messages to achieve understanding.

Without good communication, any organization is destined to

fail (Gronbeck, 1992; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Communication is the "process that links the individual, the

group, and the organization" (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991, p.

263). "Communication is the glue that holds an organization

together and harmonizes its parts" (Hanson, 1985, p. 263).

Through a close analysis of the literature, it is evident

that an organization that lacks good internal communication

is one that will not be successful.

Furthermore, it is imperative that internal

communication is sent and received from all parties in an

organization. Communication within an organization must be

open because open communication allows individuals to be

honest and knowledgeable about the work environment. Open

communication can be heard by key decision-makers within an

organization. Specifically, the president should

communicate with the faculty and staff, and the faculty and











staff should be able to honestly communicate with the

president (Vaughan, 1986,). Deas (1994) believed that

communication is linked to climate.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure was defined as the college's

administrative operation or its hierarchial lines of

authority and requirements for operating within that

hierarchy. The organizational structure varies from one

community college to another. When community colleges were

first established, they were structured on the basis of the

public school systems of that era (Deegan & Tillery, 1985).

Now, at the top of the organizational structures is the

board of trustees (Deegan & Tillery, 1985; Vaughan, 1986).

Furthermore, the structure of the community college is

divided into subunits or departments within the institution.

For example, at a given institution there is more than

likely to be a student services division, academic affairs

subunit, and a library science department with

administrators in charge of these areas. All of these areas

help define the organizational structure of the community

college.

Through a close analysis of the literature, it is

evident that hierarchical organizational structure is not

effective in education (Deegan & Tillery, 1985; Tuckman &

Johnson, 1987). Rieley (1992) developed a process of

organizational structure which was a circular design in










which every facet or part is connected to another. Deegan

and Tillery (1985) discussed a model for organizational

structure within education called "organizational dualism"

in which "multiple systems for decision- making was utilized

consisting of four groups of decision makers: faculty,

trustees and administrators, agencies of state and federal

government, and private-sector organizations" (p. 219).

Political Climate

Political climate was defined as the nature and

complexity of the college's politics or the degree to which

an employee must operate within a political framework in

order to accomplish his or her task. As stated earlier,

there are many types of climates ranging from cold and

hostile to warm and open. Climate is defined as the

personality of an organization. A concrete definition for

climate in education can best be described in Deas'

definition. Deas (1994) stated his definition as follows:

"A collection of intangibles that support and encourage all

the players to work toward a common goal--learning" (p. 44).

Some researchers believed that politics in education

was positive while others thought that politics was

negative. Mintzberg (1989) stated that it should be

accepted and understood within the confines of education.

However, Levy (1989) saw a political climate as being a

cause of job dissatisfaction. "There has been no universal

agreement on the role and importance of political climate;











some experts have stressed that political behavior was the

critical key to advancement and success in an organization,

while others have ignored its existence" (Chappell, 1995).

Professional Development Opportunities

Professional development opportunities was defined as

the opportunities for employees to pursue and participate in

activities to enhance job performance. Professional

development opportunities for members of an organization are

extremely significant. It allows individuals of

organizations to improve skills, to learn new trends and

innovations, and to enhance job satisfaction and morale

(Vaughan, 1986; Kounzes & Posner, 1987). Effective leaders

will make sure that individuals grow to their fullest

potential.

Hutton and Jobe (1985) conducted a research project on

community college faculty in Texas. It was found that

professional development opportunities were a source for job

satisfaction. The Total Quality Management (TQM) believed

in the importance of training staff development (Ratcliff,

1989). Herzberg (1959) discussed growth, which is related

to professional development, as a motivator for job

satisfaction.

The purpose of professional development opportunities

is to allow individuals to grow, learn, and advance.

Institutions, whether they are schools or business and

industry, must invest in their employees. Deas (1994)









49

argued professional development has a positive effect on the

climate within any organization. Within the confines of

education, professional development opportunities enhance

teaching and learning through needs assessment and

continuous training (Ratcliff, 1989).

Evaluation

Evaluation was defined as the college's procedure for

evaluating employees through positive feedback intended to

provide professional growth for the employee. Miller

(1988a) defined evaluation as "the process of determining

the merit or worth or value of something or the product of

that process" (p. 16). Evaluation is recognized by Bloom in

Taxonomy of Educational Obiectives: Cognitive Domain as the

highest level of cognition and is placed at the apex of a

pyramid of cognitive function. "Evaluation represents not

only an end process in dealing with cognitive behavior, but

also a major linking with the affective behaviors where

value, liking, and enjoying are the central processes

involved" (Miller, 1988a, p. 16). The two purposes of

evaluation are to improve performance and to assist in

making equitable and effective academic personnel decisions;

it also requires judgment as well as measurement (Gappa &

Leslie, 1993).

Over the years, evaluation procedures within higher

education have changed. The reasons for these changes are

as follows: The systematic use of faculty evaluation has









50

significantly increased; development programs are using more

than summative evaluation systems; broader data bases have

been used to make academic promotion and tenure decisions;

the quality of student rating forms for appraising classroom

teaching performance has substantially improved; court cases

have imposed the quality and fairness of academic personnel

decision; and the use of the research/scholarship criteria

in making academic promotion and tenure decisions has

increased (Miller, 1988a).

There are many evaluation models; they come in many

varieties and are useful in different contexts and

environments. Evaluation models also are designed to

address different questions and to begin at different

points. Some of the different models include Sciven's

Formative-Summative Model, CIPP Model, Tyler's Goal

Attainment Model, and Provus' Discrepancy Model (Kaffman &

Thomas, 1980). Moreover, the ultimate goal of all the

models is to support and assist in useful decision-making,

not to make the decision (Kaffman & Thomas, 1980).

Although evaluation is used for improving performance

and feedback for professional growth, it is extremely

significant that the evaluation be positive. If it is seen

as negative, the purpose of doing the evaluation will be

null and void. Effective leadership must explain that the

major purpose of evaluation is for improvement.

Specifically, community colleges presidents must build trust











with their employees to positively influence how the

evaluation process will be viewed (Bowman & Deal, 1991;

Miller, 1988b; Gappa & Leslie, 1993).

Promotion

Promotion was defined as the college's commitment to

internal promotion and advancement from within the

organization. Promotion is usually the result of positive

evaluations, hard work, and dedication. Promotion often

comes with more authority and money. Promotion is usually

seen as a job satisfier, and it has a positive effect on

climate (Vaughan, 1986; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Herzberg's motivator growth can be directly related to this

factor.

Regard for Personal Concerns

Regard for personal concerns was defined as the

college's sensitivity to and regard for the personal

concerns and well-being of employees. Effective leaders

realize that the lack of sensitivity is worse than the lack

of respect. Effective leaders must be sensitive to needs

and desires of their employees. A regard for personal

concern is a key contributor to job satisfaction, and it

enhances climate (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Reddin (1968) identified four basic leadership styles.

The two styles dealt with regard to personal concern. These

styles were called "Executive" and "Developer." The

Executive Style gives a great deal of concern to both task











and people. A manager who uses this style is a good

motivator, sets high standards, recognizes individual

differences, and utilizes management. The Developer Style,

on the other hand, gives maximum concern to people and

minimum concern to the task. A manager who uses this style

has implicit trust in people and is mainly concerned with

developing them as individuals. Reddin (1968) stated that

both of these styles of leadership were highly effective

(cited in Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Furthermore, Hersey

and Blanchard (1988) developed their theory of effective

leadership in relation to the factor regard for personal

concerns.

The American Community College

History of the Community College

"The American community college movement is the most

important innovation of the 20th century. It was born in

the American heartland before the turn of the century and

spread rapidly throughout the expanding West. As growing

populations demanded educational opportunity, two-year

colleges sprang up in all 50 states. A century later, there

is a community college within a short drive of most

Americans." (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger,

1994). The mission of this segment of higher education has

always been teaching and learning. According to T. O'Banion

(1994) in the Community College Journal, this movement in











higher education has placed teaching and learning as the

core of its existence.

The beginnings of the community college in the United

States were humble. In the beginning, the survival of such

an institution was doubted by many educators. The founding

fathers of the first junior college movement were Harper,

Lange, and Koos. They, along with others and a body of

literature developed by Koos, founded and organized the

junior college movement in 1921 with the establishment of

the American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC) (Deegan &

Tillery, 1985). This organization was the voice for the

junior college movement.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the community

college was called the "junior college," and it did not

differ greatly from the high school curriculum at that time.

However, according to Deegan and Tillery (1985), there were

three influences that assisted in the development of the

community college, transforming the community college into

an institution quite different from the early junior

college.

According to Deegan and Tillery (1985):


First was the rapid industrialization of
the United States and the mechanicalization
of its agriculture, both leading to increasing
demands for trained men and women. A second
influence was the democratization of the
public school education, which led to increasing
completion rates from high school . Federal
policies encouraged the growth of postsecondary
education that was pragmatic, affordable, and










in proximity to the people. Finally, there
was the emergence of the American research
universities. (p.3)


The roots of the community college could be traced back

to Thomas Jefferson who wanted colleges placed within a

day's ride for all Virginians, and he wanted the doors of

public education open to all people. He also wished to see

a technical philosophy implemented in which craftsmen in

various fields of endeavor might receive evening instruction

(Vaughan, 1983). Present-day community colleges do resemble

some of the desires of Thomas Jefferson.

Classifications of Community Colleges

The community college of the 1990s serves as an

institution that supports and assumes responsibility for

many educational offerings in higher education. These

offerings range from developmental and continuing education

to vocational and transfer programs. No two community

colleges are the same. No list of factors or groupings per

se have been developed that relate to all two-year

institutions. However, according to Katsinas (unpublished),

there are 14 separate classifications of community colleges

across America. These generalizations and broad categories

are as follows:

1. Rural community colleges. Rural community colleges

are typically one-campus institutions with a board of

trustees. This type of institution offers both vocational

and transfer programs of study.











2. Suburban community colleges. These colleges

typically serve residents who live in the suburbs of large

cities. They attract fewer first-time-in-college students

than most other community colleges. These colleges typically

concentrate on the liberal arts/transfer curricula and

vocational offerings that focus primarily on technology.

3. Urban/inner city community colleges. These types

of colleges are located in the inner city. Their purpose is

to quickly train students for the work-place.

4. Metropolitan area district community colleges,

centralized and decentralized. These types of colleges are

groups of campuses within a specific geographic district and

are governed by a board of trustees.

5. Community colleges adjacent to residential

universities. These types of community colleges serve as

feeder schools to area universities. Students who attend

this type of community college take academic classes at both

the college and the area university.

6. Mixed community colleges. These types of colleges

have mixed characteristics of the previously discussed types

of community colleges.

7. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (H-SIs). There are

approximately 120 institutions of this nature. In order to

be this type of school, the total enrollment must be at

least 25% Hispanic.











8. Historically Black two-year colleges. These types

of community colleges serve mostly Afro-American students.

Fourteen of the 100 predominately Black institutions of

higher learning are two-year colleges.

9. Tribally-controlled community colleges. These

types of community colleges were designed to improve higher

education for Native Americans. There are presently 14 of

these two-year colleges.

10. Technical education only community colleges.

These types of colleges place emphasis on technical and

vocational education.

11. Transfer/general education only community

colleges. These colleges are usually private.

12. Private (nonprofit/sectarian and

nonprofit/nonsectarian) colleges. These are church related

institutions focusing on a liberal arts education.

13. Proprietary colleges. These schools are also

private. designed as postsecondary trade schools.

14. Two-year colleges at four-year institutions.

"This category of college is distinguished by its governance

system, created as a part of a larger university system

within the state. This difference permeates the

organizational structure as well as the mission of the

institution" (p. 63).










Community Colleges at the End of the 20th Century

The community college has revolutionized higher

education. At the end of their first century, two-year

colleges are the largest single entity in postsecondary

education (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger,

1994). The degree offered by the two-year college has

become a symbol of achievement. The two-year institution

has opened many doors to students who have desired an

education but could not attend the university (Deegan &

Tillery, 1985). For racial minorities, women, and older

students, the community college has served as a beacon of

light and hope in this society. Harper, one of the founding

fathers of the community college, had a dream of creating a

college for the general public. At the close of this

century, it is evident that the community college is for the

people (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger,

1994).

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate at the Community
College

Although the community college has well served urban

and rural areas, there are obstacles that must be overcome.

Nearing the year 2000, there is a need at the community

college level outstanding leadership that promotes job

satisfaction and encourages an open and warm organizational

climate. The most successful community colleges of the 21st

century will be those that promote shared leadership, needs

assessment, accountability, teaching, involvement,










continuous learning, and job satisfaction. The least

successful community colleges will adhere to strict

governance, control, and centralized decision making (Alfred

& Carter, 1993; Chappell, 1995; Vaughan, 1986). Community

college presidents must help create a climate at the

institution that encourages leadership, job satisfaction,

healthy relationships among peers, and shared decision-

making (Vroom, 1982; Vaughan, 1989).

Moreover, community college leaders must make strides

to improve the quality of education for students and to

enhance job satisfaction not only for faculty and staff but

also administration. The faculty at community colleges is

satisfied mostly by student achievement and administrators

who have regard for personal concerns (Stage, 1995). Job

satisfaction is extremely important: lack of satisfaction

equals little or no performance. According to Lombardi

(1992), the two main predictors of job satisfaction are

self-efficacy or sense of personal control over one's career

and intrinsic rewards. Studies of faculty and

administrators' job satisfaction have revealed that

intrinsic rewards of academic work have been most closely

associated with global satisfaction.

Vaughan (1986) found that the leadership style of the

president had an effect on job satisfaction for faculty.

Because the employee/employer relationship is extremely

significant, it can be assumed that just as the president's











style affects job satisfaction for faculty, the faculty's

morale and acceptance of the president at the community

college could have an effect of the chief administrator's

job satisfaction. The community college and its leadership

and faculty, therefore, must be willing to be flexible and

seek solutions to old and new problems without abandoning

those sacred tenets of its philosophy. Job satisfaction and

a warm, open climate thus might exist within this arena of

higher education.

The Role and Profile of the Community College President

The success of any community college will depend to

some degree on the president. The community college

president is the chief administrator at the institution. He

or she is responsible for the daily operations of the

college. This administrator serves as the liaison between

the board of trustees and the college's administration,

faculty, staff, and student body (Vaughan, 1989; Vaughan,

1986). A community college president is responsible for

seeing that the institution is managed effectively and

efficiently. A college president must demonstrate through

words and deeds that an educational institution's reason for

existence is the discovery, examination, analysis,

organization, and transfer of knowledge (Vaughan, 1989).

The chief administrator is responsible for the management of

the school, the creation of the climate along with the board

of trustees, and the interpretation of the institution's











mission (Vaughan, 1989; Lee & VanHorn, 1983). Community

college presidents help to chart the educational, social,

and economic life of thousands of students, faculty members,

and administrators across the nation (Vaughan, 1986).

Ratcliff (1989) stated:


The function of the chief executive officer
have been identified as raising money, balancing
the budget, participating in the establishment
of institutional goals, working with faculty
to create an environment that encourages
learning, and recruiting, and maintaining a
high quality of faculty. Furthermore, a
central responsibility of the president, which
relates to everything else he undertakes, is
the establishment of an institutional
environment conducive to learning. The
president does not establish such an
environment through the force of his own personality
so much as he makes possible its development
through the ways in which he works with his
staff officers and other constituencies of
the institution. (p. 87)


According to a 1980 issue of The Community College

Journal, the role of the president is multifaceted. When

various presidents were asked to describe their role, one

president said his role was manipulator. Another said that

his role was educational leader with the responsibility of

setting with the the board the "tone and pace" of the

institution. Another said his role was marketer or

interpreter for the college to its many constituents. One

community college president said he was a manager, which

means a leader, forerunner, director, and guardian. One

president stated he was a money manager and noted, "The










successful president understands pedagogy as well as

finances and that through managing the money the president

engages in creative planning" (Vaughan, 1986).

According to Vaughan (1986) in I'!- :mmr._ r.:. j.e

Presidency, community college presidents across the country

are responsible for the employment of more than 270,000

full-time faculty, librarians, counselors, and other

administrators. Most of these individuals have been in

their current position for five years or less. Seventy-one

percent of the fathers of community college presidents did

not finish high school. Only 29% finished

high school, but they had no college experience. By

studying these figures, it is evident that many community

college presidents today came from working-class homes.

Most the community college presidents are married with

children; however, they have little time to spend with their

families.

The majority of community college presidents across the

nation have doctoral degrees. In a survey conducted by

Vaughan (1986) on 591 college presidents, 44% had Doctor of

Education degrees, and 32% had Doctor of Philosophy degrees

in various fields of study. Surprisingly, 24% did not have

doctorates; 17% had Master of Arts degrees. Specifically,

101 presidents had a Master of Arts degrees. Three percent

had only a Bachelor of Arts degrees, and the remaining were











educational specialist degree holders and law degree

holders.

According to Vaughan (1986), the major job satisfiers

for community college presidents are as follows: (1) The

relationships with the college community and community at

large; (2) graduation rate holding a special fascination,

meaning as much to some presidents as it does to students;

(3) faculty, trustees, administrators, and students

successes; and (4) gaining satisfaction from what they can

see, touch, and experience firsthand.

The community college president is held in high esteem.

Faculty, administration, and students look to the president

for guidance and direction. Furthermore, the board depends

on the president to execute and enforce all laws and rules.

Many difficult issues face the community college president

on a day- to-day basis, such as hiring and firing, tenure

and promotion, equity and accountability--just to name a

few. Consequently, the responsibilities of the president

are intensifying and becoming more complex (Walker, 1979;

Vaughan, 1989).

The American Council on Education reported that

nationally there was an overwhelming turnover of top level

college administrators. Some researchers believed that this

turnover was due to job dissatisfaction, climate, stress,

and burn out (Glick, 1992; Vaughan, 1986). Also, turnover









63

among administrators at colleges is costly and is related to

job dissatisfaction (Glick, 1992; Vaughan, 1986).

Additional Factors that May Affect Job Satisfaction
and Climate for Community College Presidents

Because there are many factors that could affect job

satisfaction and climate for community college presidents,

the researcher examined a few other potential factors

discovered in the reading of the literature.

Gender and Ethnic Differences

It is a proven fact that men and women see situations

differently. This idea also could be seen as true in the

world of leadership. One of the major causes of job

dissatisfaction for women in higher education is the lack of

communication, stress, and relationships with other

colleagues (Hersi, 1993). These causes of job

dissatisfaction could result in an increase absenteeism

(Dear, 1995), a decrease in teaching and learning, and a

loss of morale and interest for the job (Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991). Another source for dissatisfaction for men

and women is members of the opposite sex occupying most of

the jobs (Cassidy & Warren, 1991). However, some

researchers have concluded that gender is not even an issue

when it comes to job satisfaction (Kirby, 1987; Carbone,

1981).

As far as leadership is concerned, "Women, blacks, and

ethnic minority presidents are important to the community

colleges not only for what they bring to the presidency as










individuals but also as symbols for others of similar

background who inspire to the presidency" (Vaughan, 1989, p.

65). Women constitute 7.6% of all community college

presidents; blacks constitute 3.9%, and Hispanics make up

only 2.1% (Vaughan, 1989). Vaughan (1989) also stated that

a "double standard" is applied to women and individuals of

color. In some instances, these persons are expected to do

more and are forgiven less for mistakes than is the case

with white male presidents.

According to the research, sixty-six percent of female

presidents viewed the presidency as asexual once they

assumed office. Sixty percent of the Hispanic presidents

saw the presidency as raciala" once they assumed office.

In contrast, 69% of Black presidents did not see the

presidency as being raciala" once they assumed office

(Vaughan, 1989).

Vaughan (1989) further stated:


Racial and ethnic minorities and women
face special challenges as they move into
the presidency. Governing boards, current
presidents, the college community, and
society in general remain somewhat insensitive
to these challenges. However, most boards
appear to want the presidency to be filled
by outstanding leaders, regardless of sex,
race, or ethnic background. (p. 70).



Classification of the Organization

It can be assumed that the larger the college, the

larger the demands on the president. Perhaps classification











of the community college will have some effect on job

satisfaction and climate for not only the president but also

faculty, students, and staff. There is no precise method

for classifying colleges; however, Katsinas (unpublished)

developed a system that distinguishes 14 classifications in

the community colleges of the United States. These

classification were defined and described in the "Community

College Background" section of this review of literature.

The fourteen classifications are rural community colleges,

suburban community colleges, urban/inner city community

colleges, metropolitan area district community colleges,

centralized and decentralized, community colleges adjacent

to residential universities, mixed community colleges,

Hispanic-serving institutions, historically Black two-year

colleges, Tribally-controlled community colleges,

transfer/general education only, technical education only,

private (nonprofit/sectarian and nonprofit/nonsectarian

colleges), proprietary colleges, and two-year colleges at

four-year institutions.

Years of Experience

The majority of presidents remain in office long enough

to leave a mark on the institution. Some researchers

believed the average length of time for an effective

president is seven years. Corbone (1981) found that out of

a survey of more than 1,200 presidents that 35% of the

sample served from five to 10 years, and just under 18% held











the office of president from 11 to 19 years. Eight percent

served as chief administrator for more than 30 years.

Vaughan (1989), however, also found that "because rapid

turnover in the office of president is considered

detrimental to institutional welfare, the demographic

characteristics of long-term presidents were given some

special analysis. Unfortunately, the analysis yielded

little that could be used as a predictor of durability or

satisfaction in office" (p. 11). One retired president of a

private junior college stated, "I do not think any president

should stay more than 10 years. Move to another campus if

you are young enough or take on a teaching job as part of

your contractual obligation. You've given your best in that

time, and there is little juice left in the lemon" (Vaughan,

1989, p. 10). One researcher believed, years of experience

is also related to burn out which comes from stress. Stress

is one of the leading cause of job dissatisfaction (Davis,

1994).

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature

of the relationship between measures of organizational

climate and measures of job satisfaction as applied to

community college presidents. Furthermore, this study was

done to ascertain if there were any significant differences

in means for job satisfaction within the context of

organizational climate when controlling for gender,










ethnicity, classification of community college, and number

of years experience as a college president. In this study,

job satisfaction refers to a person's positive or negative

attitude or emotional response toward his or her place of

employment (Beck, 1990; McCormick & Ilgen, 1980). Interest

in the study of job satisfaction was intensified after the

completion of the Hawthorne Studies done by Elton Mayo and

his associates in Chicago, Illinois. In this dissertation,

organizational climate refers to the perceptions of

participants of certain intangible aspects of the

environment or institution. It is the personality of an

organization (Deas, 1994; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). The

president is the chief administrator at a given institution.

He or she is responsible for the day-to-day operations of

the college.

Some researcher has been done on the relationship

between job satisfaction theory and organizational climate

theory in the context of education. Job satisfaction and

organizational climate theories differ in education from

that of business and industry. In education, the focus is

on teaching and learning and student outcomes while business

and industry emphasize production and profit. There is a

need at the community college level for outstanding

leadership that promotes job satisfaction and encourages an

open and warm climate. The most successful community

colleges of the 21st century will be those that promote









68

shared leadership, needs assessment, accountability,

teaching, involvement, continuous learning, and job

satisfaction. Findings of this study have advanced the body

of knowledge by testing the theoretical constructs of job

satisfaction and organizational climate as applied to

community college presidents.















CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF STUDY


The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature

of the relationship between measures of organizational

climate and measures of job satisfaction as applied to

community college presidents. Furthermore, this study was

done to ascertain if there were significant differences in

means for the eight job satisfaction variables controlling

for gender, ethnicity, classification of the community

college by size, and number of years of experience as a

college president.

The research questions are as follows:

1. How do community college presidents perceive

organizational climate at their respective institutions

using a set of seven identified factors for climate?

2. Using the same seven climate factors as an index,

how satisfied are community college presidents with the

organizational climate of their respective institutions?

3. How important is each of eight identified job

satisfaction variables to community college presidents in

the performance of their specific job responsibility?

4. For each of eight job satisfaction variables, is

there a significant relationship between measures of











satisfaction and a set of seven measures of satisfaction

with organizational climate, as reported by community

college presidents?

5. Is there a significant difference in the means of

eight job satisfaction variables for community college

presidents when compared by gender of the president, ethnic

origin of the president, classification of the community

college, and length of time served as a college

administrator?

Methodology

To answer these stated questions, the researcher used a

survey which addressed job satisfaction and organizational

climate. The survey ascertained data relative to community

college presidents' perception of seven factors related to

organizational climate, their levels of satisfaction with

these factors, and significance of eight factors of job

satisfaction in fulfilling their duties as community college

presidents. To answer research questions one, two, and

three, information was collected on perception of climate,

satisfaction with climate, and importance of job

satisfaction. This information was analyzed to develop a

universal profile of community college presidents.

Composites were developed to understand how presidents

generally perceived organizational climate in community

colleges, how satisfied they were with the climate, and how

significant each of the eight job satisfaction variables was











in the performance of their jobs as presidents. Person

product moment correlation coefficients were used to answer

research questions four. This type of analysis was used to

examine the nature of the relationship between satisfaction

and organizational climate and the importance of specific

aspects of job satisfaction. Furthermore, the general

linear models procedure (ANOVA) was used to determine if any

significant differences were evident in the measure of job

satisfaction when controlling for gender of the presidents,

ethnicity of the presidents, classification of the community

college, and the number of years the administrator has

served.

The person product moment was used, moreover, to

analyze each of the job satisfaction factors individually

against the seven identified climate factors. The

researcher wanted to determine which climate factors had a

significant relationship with one or all of the job

satisfaction factors used in the study for community college

presidents. This research should verify or reject the idea

that previously tested theories about job satisfaction and

climate can or cannot be applied to community college

presidents.

The Population

All presidents who were members of the American

Association of Community Colleges were invited to

participate in the research survey. Furthermore, some











states had state systems for community colleges wherein one

person served as president for that entire state. In these

cases, the one person was sent a survey for that state

system. Community college presidents in the United States

number more than 1,000. Endorsement for the research

project was given by Dr. D. Pierce, president of the

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

Procedure for Data Collection

A letter of invitation was mailed to the presidents of

all institutions who were members of the American

Association of Community Colleges. A copy of the survey and

a self-addressed, paid envelope were sent to all potential

subjects. All presidents were asked to respond by the due

date written on the survey and the cover letter. A follow-

up letter also was sent three weeks after the original

survey was mailed.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument used to gather data was a replica

of the survey used in a University of Florida dissertation

that tested the same theoretical constructs on community

college chief instructional officers (Chappell, 1995)

Although the survey used in this research project targeted a

different population, the original survey was derived from

literature related to job satisfaction and organizational

climate.











According to Chappell (1995), the instrument was tested

for validity, reliability, and consistency. The original

survey instrument was reviewed by the Board of Directors of

the National Council of Instructional Administration (NCIA)

at their board meeting in December, 1994. To complete the

validation process, nine community college professionals

were asked to complete Part I of the survey on two different

occasions. Validity and reliability were verified by

analyzing the subjects' answers to each of the 21 questions

in Part I of the original survey. This was done to make

sure that a range of responses were present. Consistency

was confirmed by comparing the answers received from the

pretest and posttest given to the eight subjects who

completed the entire field test (Chappell, 1995).

A Person product moment correlation analysis affirmed

that a variety of responses could be obtained if the

instrument was used, that the questions were clearly stated,

and that suitable correlations between the first and second

set of responses were present. The correlation coefficients

for the field test were extremely high. They ranged from

0.2336 to 0.9492 (Chappell, 1995). Furthermore, the wording

of the instrument was reviewed by a panel of community

college presidents for face validity.

Moreover, the survey addressed a set of seven

organizational climate factors which were drawn from

educational research. These were used to see how they











related to eight job satisfaction variables. The seven

organizational climate factors and their definitions are as

follows:

1. Internal Communication. The college's formal and

informal communication processes and style.

2. Organizational Structure. The college's

administrative operation or its hierarchial lines of

authority and requirements for operating within that

hierarchy.

3. Political Climate. The nature and complexity of

the college's internal politics or the degree to which an

employee must operate within a political framework in order

to accomplish his or her task.

4. Professional Development Opportunities. The

opportunities for employees to pursue and participate in

activities to enhance job performance.

5. Evaluation. The college's procedure for evaluation

through positive feedback intended to provide professional

growth for the employee.

6. Promotion. The college's commitment to internal

promotion and advancement from within the organization.

7. Regard for Personal Concern. The college's

sensitivity to and regard for the personal concerns and

well-being of employees.

There were eight job satisfaction factors used in this

study which were drawn from educational research. They were










used to determine the relationship between them and the

previously defined organizational climate factors. The job

satisfaction factors are listed and defined as follows:

1. Participation in Decision-Making. The college's

process for decision-making and opportunities for

involvement by the employee to participate in that process.

2. Power. The amount or degree of jurisdiction or

discretion that the employee is able to exercise while

performing the tasks of his or her position.

3-5. Relationship with Colleagues. The quality of the

affiliation that an employee maintains with his or her

peers, subordinates, and supervisor (board of trustees).

6-7. Salary and Benefits. The perceived equity and

adequacy of the salary and benefit package received by the

employee.

8. Professional Effectiveness. The perceived overall

effectiveness of the employee in his or her position.

The survey instrument also included questions regarding

the president's overall satisfaction with his or her

position, and his or her overall satisfaction with the total

operation of the college. These questions were given to

validate the composite of categorical responses regarding

job satisfaction and organizational climate. Moreover, the

instrument asked for responses regarding gender and equity,

number of years of experiences and the classification of the

community college. This information was gathered to










ascertain if there were significant differences in the means

of the eight job satisfaction variables for community

college presidents across the country.

Statistical Analysis

A correlation coefficients analysis was used for the

statistical test to ascertain the relationship between the

job satisfaction and organizational climate factors as

reported by community college presidents. This analysis was

used to determine if any of the organizational climate

factors were significantly related to any of the job

satisfaction factors. Furthermore, the general linear

models procedure (ANOVA) was used to determined if there was

a significant difference in the means of eight job

satisfaction variables when controlling for gender,

ethnicity, number of years of experience, and community

college type as reported by the chief administrators.

Reporting Procedure

After all data were received and analyzed by the

researcher, a community college president profile was

developed. Moreover, the information received revealed

presidents' perception of organizational climate and their

levels of satisfaction with regard to their colleges'

organizational climate. The survey also determined how

significant each of the eight job satisfaction factors was,

and if there were any significant differences when

controlling for additional factors that could influence job











satisfaction and organizational climate. All of these data

are reported in Chapter 4 and in the appendices of this

dissertation in the form of graphs, charts, and written

text.

Summary

A vast amount of research has been done on the

theoretical basis of job satisfaction and organizational

climate. In addition, an enormous amount of research has

been done on the relationship of job satisfaction and

organizational climate in business and industry. However,

little has been done within the confines of higher

education, and no studies have been found using the

constructs of job satisfaction and organizational climate

relative to the perspective of a community college

president.

As a result, this study tested the theoretical

constructs of job satisfaction and organizational climate as

reported by community college presidents. The answers to

the questions regarding the relationship between

organizational climate and job satisfaction, as reported by

community college presidents, are reported and discussed in

the next chapter.















CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA


The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature

of the relationship between measures of organizational

climate and measures of job satisfaction as applied to

community college presidents. Furthermore, this study was

done to ascertain if there were significant differences in

means for job satisfaction within the context of

organizational climate when controlling for gender,

ethnicity, classification of the community college, and

number of years of experience as a college president.

Specifically, the research addressed five questions:

1. How do community college presidents perceive

organizational climate at their respective institutions,

using a set of seven identified factors for climate?

2. Using the same seven climate factors as an index,

how satisfied are community college presidents with the

organizational climate at their respective institutions?

3. How important is each of eight identified job

satisfaction variables to community college presidents in

the performance of their specific job responsibilities?

4. For each of eight job satisfaction variables, is

there a significant relationship between measures of job











satisfaction and a set of seven measures of satisfaction

with organizational climate, as reported by community

college presidents?

5. Is there a significant difference in the means of

eight job satisfaction variables for community college

presidents when compared by gender of the president, ethnic

origin of the president, classification of the community

college, and length of time served as a college

administrator?

Survey Responses

A total of 801 surveys were mailed to community college

presidents across the nation, who were members of the

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). Please

note that some states had only one president in the state

who reported to the board of trustees for that state. In

those instances, only one survey was mailed to that state's

president. Two hundred and eighty-four surveys were

returned, thus giving a 35% rate of return. However, some

participants chose not to answer some of the questions.

This analysis included all responses that were recorded by

the participants. Moreover, all subjects were provided with

a postage paid envelope to maximize the rate of return and

insure anonymity. With such a low response rate, the reader

is warned about making generalizations to the population

based on the results.











Community College Presidents' Profile

Gender and Ethnicity

Tables 1 through 3 provide gender and ethnic

distributions for community college presidents. A total of

283 subjects answered the question regarding gender. Two




Table 1
Community College Presidents: Distribution by Gender


Gender n %


Male 242 85.5

Female 41 14.5


TOTAL 283 100.0






Table 2
Community College Presidents: Distribution by Ethnic
Origin


Ethnic Origin n %


Black/African American 9 3.2

Hispanic 14 5.0

White/Caucasian 251 89.6

Other 1 0.4

Asian American 2 0.7

Native American 3 1.1


TOTAL 280 100.0











Table 3
Community College Presidents: Distribution by Gender
and Ethnic Origin


Gender & Ethnic Origin n %


White Male 215 77.06

White Female 35 12.54

Black Female 0 0

Hispanic Male 10 3.58

Black Male 9 3.23

Asian American Male 2 0.72

Asian American Female 0 0

Hispanic Female 4 1.43

Native American Male 1 0.36

Native American Female 2 0.72

Other 1 0.36


TOTAL 279 100.0


hundred and forty-two (85.5%) community college presidents

were male. Forty-one (14.5%) respondents were females. As

far as ethnicity, 251 (89.6%) of community college

presidents were white/Caucasian. Blacks and Hispanics

represented 8.2% of the total, with 9 and 14 respondents

(3.2% and 5.0%), respectively. Asian American and Native

Americans represented 1.8% of the total, with 2 and 3

respondents (0.7% and 1.1%), respectively. One subject

recorded other which is 0.4% of the total population. Four

individuals did not respond to the question of ethnicity.










As noted in Table 3, the distribution by gender and ethnic

origin for community college presidents was given. Five

subjects did not respond to this item on the survey.

Furthermore, all gender/ethnic origins were represented

except Black and Asian American Females. Over 3/4 of the

respondents were white males.

Classification of Community Colleges

Fourteen different classifications of community

colleges were discussed in Chapter 2. However, for the

purpose of the survey only three of those classifications

were used since those broder classifications have not been

reviewed or adopted by AACC. The classifications used were

rural, suburban and urban community colleges. Table 4 shows

the distribution of community college presidents by

classification of the institution. One hundred and thirty-

four (50.8%) of the respondents classified their community

college as rural. Sixty-five (24.6%) subjects stated that

their college was a suburban institution, and 65 (24.6%)

subjects classified their institution an urban school.

Number of Years Served As Chief Administrator

Table 5 shows the distribution of Community College

Presidents according to the number of years served as the

Chief Administrator. Two hundred and eighty-three subjects

responded to this question. When looking at opposite ends

of the spectrum, 191 (67.5%) have more than 15 years as












Table 4
Community College Presidents: Distribution by
Classification of Community College


Classification n %


Rural 134 50.8

Suburban 65 24.6

Urban 65 24.6


TOTAL 264 100.0




Table 5
Community College Presidents: Distribution by Number
of Years Experience As A Chief Administrator


Years Experience n %


Less than 1 year 3 1.1

1-5 years 30 10.6

6-10 years 21 7.4

11-14 years 38 13.4

15 years or more 191 67.5


TOTAL 280 100.0


Chief Administrator, and three (1.1%) of the administrators

reported having served for less than one year.

Current Position Title

All subjects were asked to write in their current

position title. Table 6 shows the distribution of the

community college presidents by title of position. One of











Table 6
Community College Presidents: Distribution by Current
Position Title


Title n %


Chancellor 6 2.1

President 278 97.9


TOTAL 284 100.0


two titles were recorded by the respondents. All 284

subjects responded to the question. Two hundred and

seventy-eight (97.9%) were titled as President, and six

(2.1%) were called Chancellor.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 stated how do community college

presidents perceive organizational climate at their

respective institutions, using a set of seven identified

factors for climate? In this study, climate was defined as

the conditions that affect job satisfaction and

productivity. The factors under investigation included (a)

internal communication, (b) organizational structure, (c)

political climate, (d) professional development

opportunities, (e) evaluation, (f) promotion, and (g) regard

for personal concerns.

The seven factors were coded as follows:

IC = Perception of Internal Communication

OS = Perception of Organizational Structure










PCL = Perception of Political Climate

PDO = Perception of Professional Developmental

Opportunities

EVAL = Perception of Evaluation

PROMO = Perception of Promotion

PRC = Perception of Regard for Personal Concerns

Presidents surveyed were asked to rate their level or

degree to which the seven organizational factors were

present at their community college with five (5) indicating

the highest level of presence and one (1) indicating the

lowest level of presence. Therefore, the rating of five was

interpreted as the very highest level of presence or

existence of the organizational climate factor in question.

The rating of four was understood to mean a high level of

existence of the factor. The rating of three represented a

moderately high level of existence. The rating of two was

interpreted as a low level of existence of the

organizational climate factor, and the rating of one was

understood to mean that a very low existence or presence of

the factor in question was evident.

Tables 7, 8, and 9 give a composite of community

college presidents' perceptions of organizational climate at

their colleges. Through a close examination of Table 8, it

is evident that the three highest mean rated factors for

organizational climate were regard for personal concerns












Table 7

Community College Presidents' Perceptions of
Organizational Climate: Frequency Distributions

Factor Ratings Totals

5 4 3 2 1

IC
n 90 159 28 5 1 283
% 31.8 56.2 9.9 1.8 0.4 100

OC
n 39 118 88 36 2 283
% 13.8 11.7 31.1 12.7 0.7 100

PCL
n 57 70 69 56 30 282
% 20.2 24.8 24.5 19.9 10.6 100

PDO
n 117 98 48 18 2 283
% 41.3 34.6 17.0 6.4 0.7 100

EVAL
n 117 79 42 11 7 282
% 41.5 28.0 14.9 3.9 2.5 100

PROMO
n 65 144 66 9 0 284
% 22.9 50.7 23.2 3.2 0.0 100

RPC
n 149 120 15 0 0 284
% 52.5 42.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 100


*26 presidents responded there was no method of
evaluation.

IC = Perception of Internal Communication
OS = Perception of Organizational Structure
PCL = Perception of Political Climate
PDO = Perception of Professional Development
Opportunities
EVAL = Perception of Evaluation
PROMO = Perception of Promotion
RPC = Perception of Regard for Personal Concerns













Table 8


Community College Presidents' Perceptions of

Organizational Climate Mean Distributions




Factor N Mean SD StdErr



IC 283 4.173 0.700 0.041

OS 283 3.551 0.907 0.053

PCL 282 3.241 1.276 0.075

PDO 283 4.095 0.946 0.056

EVAL 282 3.744 1.536 0.091

PROMO 284 3.933 0.765 0.045

RPC 284 4.471 0.596 0.035


IC = Perception of Internal Communication

OS = Perception of Organizational Structure

PCL = Perception of Political Climate

PDO = Perception of Professional Development

Opportunities

EVAL = Perception of Evaluation

PROMO = Perception of Promotion

RPC = Perception of Regard for Personal Concerns











Table 9

Community College Presidents' Perceptions of Organizational Climate: Correlation Table

IC OS PCL PDO EVAL PROMO RPC


IC 1.0000 0.01668 -0.14625* 0.13544* 0.26888* 0.25224* 0.13370*

OS 0.01668 1.0000 0.22257* -0.00365 -0.01063 0.11209 0.04352

PCL -0.14625* 0.22257* 1.0000 -0.11573 -0.20793* -0.05337 -0.00619

PDO 0.13544* -0.00365 -0.11573 1.0000 0.29050* 0.09175 0.08316

EVAL 0.26888* -0.01063 -0.20793* 0.29050* 1.0000 0.14332* 0.08696

PROMO 0.25224* 0.11209 -0.05337 0.09175 0.14332* 1.0000 0.16222*

RPC 0.13370* 0.04352 -0.00619 0.08316 0.08696 0.16222* 1.0000


* = significant correlation, alpha level less or equal to 0.05.

IC = Perception of Internal Communication
OS = Perception of Organizational Structure
PCL = Perception of Political Climate
PDO = Perception of Professional Development Opportunities
EVAL = Perception of Evaluation
PROMO = Perception of Promotion
RPC = Perception of Regard for Personal Concerns











(RPC), internal communications (IC), and professional

development opportunities (PDO). Of these three factors,

regard for personal concerns rated the highest with 269

(94.8%) respondents rating this factor with a four or five,

and 149 (52.5%) of the presidents rated this factor a five,

which was the highest possible rating. Therefore, it can be

concluded that community college presidents believe that

their workplaces have a personal concern for the well-being

and welfare of them and others.

Internal communication also received a high rating.

The mean score for this factor was 4.173. Of all

respondents, 249 (88%) rated this factor as very highly

present or highly present at their community colleges. As a

result, it can be stated that community college presidents

work in environments where the lines of communication are

open. Furthermore, professional development opportunities

was a factor that received a high rating by the respondents.

The mean score for this factor 4.095; of all respondents,

215 (75.9%) rated this factor either a four or five. Just

as with internal communication and regard for personal

concerns, presidents believed they work in institutions

where there was adequate opportunities for professional

development.

On the other hand, the factor perception of political

climate received the lowest rating of all organizational

factors; its mean score was 3.241. According to the











frequency distribution in Table 7, it is evident that the

responses to this question were relatively evenly

distributed. Of the respondents, 127 (45%) rated this

factor either 4 or 5, 69 (24.5%) rated it three, and 86

(30.5%) rated it either one or two. These results were

important. First, a high rating in perception of political

climate might not be the best. Does one want to work in an

environment that is highly political? Political climate was

defined as the nature and complexity of the college's

politics. Therefore, according to the results, 45% of the

respondents reported working in environments that had a

strong presence of political climate or the framework in

which to operate at their college was extremely completed.

On the other hand, 30.5% of the presidents responded either

with a one or two, thus they believed that the level and

complexity of internal politics was not high.

It is noteworthy to mention that although the mean

score (3.744) for the factor evaluation was moderately high,

26 (9.2%) of the presidents responded that there was not

formal or informal method of evaluation.

The pearson product moment correlation coefficients are

present in Table 9. If the p-value was less than .05, then

there was a significant correlation. Some correlations were

negative and significant, and others were positive and

significant. The significant correlations are denoted in

Table 9 with an asterisk (*). There was a











negative/significant correlation between perception of

internal communication (IC) and perception of political

climate (PCL). These data were interpreted to mean a high

response in internal communication corresponded with a low

response in political climate. Therefore, the more open the

lines of communication were at an institution, the less

political the climate was for the President.

Furthermore, internal communication had a

positive/significant correlation with the organizational

climate factors dealing with perception of professional

development opportunities, evaluation, promotion and regard

for personal concerns. The high responses in internal

communication corresponded with the high responses in

perceptions of professional development opportunities,

evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concerns.

Therefore, the more open the lines of communication were at

an institution, the greater the professional development

opportunities, evaluation process, promotion, and regard for

personal concerns. There were also positive/significant

correlations between perception of organizational structure

and perception of political climate. These results suggested

when the chain of command was followed at in institution,

the less political the college climate was. There was a

positive/significant relationship between perception of

professional development opportunities and perception of

evaluation. These results suggested the more opportunities











there were for professional development, the better the

evaluation was for a community college president. There was

a positive/significant relationship between perception of

evaluation and perception of promotion. These results

suggested the better the evaluation was of a president, the

greater the chances were for a higher promotion of faculty

and other administrators. There was also a

positive/significant relationship between perception of

promotion and regard for personal concerns. These results

suggested the more promotions, the greater the regard for

personal concern. Furthermore, there was also a

negative/significant correlation between perception of

political climate and perception of evaluation. These

results suggested the more political the climate was, the

worst the evaluation was for the president.

Research Question 2

The second research question stated using the same

seven climate factors as an index, how satisfied are

community college presidents with the organizational climate

at their respective institutions? Through a close analysis

of the descriptive statistic recorded from the respondents,

a composite of how satisfied community college presidents

were with the organizational climate at their schools was

identified. The same coding was used in question two and

one; however, a numeral 2 was added to differentiate between