<%BANNER%>

Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Full-Time and Part-Time Community College Faculty

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101208_AAAAIR INGEST_TIME 2010-12-08T12:59:09Z PACKAGE UFE0017562_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 45435 DFID F20101208_AAAYFA ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH reynolds_c_Page_061.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d4136a0b1eb15fe2d7cff5f61d4e1b5f
SHA-1
3038d0b883f099142594db2182e07f38d13fd0e7
45395 F20101208_AAAYEM reynolds_c_Page_044.pro
f43be49c981489ab9ee737caeb5b14f8
48a05ae414993afbe407edcfa109c740f9a7aaea
1053954 F20101208_AAAXZG reynolds_c_Page_021.tif
ab8aa887c4ee6b4c44155d90e6c4a9aa
77ae95b3859481178c98e81dca3caec4d7b04621
F20101208_AAAXYR reynolds_c_Page_004.tif
a59c02b1feb332b8c1125fa79ad081bb
e94daf684c5465961477b3a01acf8326e5372608
50880 F20101208_AAAYFB reynolds_c_Page_063.pro
c41a4efa8c6bd880605910830938f285
c6d8a36c94e28b3e88cd5b6286be7a9fcf0c28f0
54269 F20101208_AAAYEN reynolds_c_Page_045.pro
2c8afde3d296422b8b78cd4637159c6f
11130e6b31bdb54450138692b4d729b81ececdad
F20101208_AAAXZH reynolds_c_Page_023.tif
3732f9d3fa69b94c25d23c9ae6c305f0
884a5e4ae3d5d069474c34764d83c462db346204
49215 F20101208_AAAYDY reynolds_c_Page_028.pro
d089d459ef8603beb89c8042cf19544d
fb0b5c438c2ab10775d23de48b5cf434fca1e221
25271604 F20101208_AAAXYS reynolds_c_Page_006.tif
ffce6baf8eca2f0ee96a6ee25fa21b02
42fd82e6db4bd7a422a8a6b6d58116d8bc6e115c
47340 F20101208_AAAYFC reynolds_c_Page_064.pro
62450c50544bd76e58e546bbd67a3715
87dd97a4bafc17901f8b8561c9816f6d1f927fee
52650 F20101208_AAAYEO reynolds_c_Page_047.pro
2275e13199b41d70568eebd697ad9ae1
ef285c7cc7371be00374f2afa4c5467725e1a052
F20101208_AAAXZI reynolds_c_Page_024.tif
7ad2c9064cc8b914572b88457675b2af
67ff04a5cfcda316c8b7cf78dd40b1a8c2e2aac3
51230 F20101208_AAAYDZ reynolds_c_Page_029.pro
eb556b97a778489d06a3dee2dd65fae9
5881a3743f81dc7dbb6bd7cbf7d87cc199e8a28d
F20101208_AAAXYT reynolds_c_Page_007.tif
2dabe4c3d7a3c483c2d855975c4ac276
a7ec4e9a61ae779049114495cb1a351d3da14ca0
48606 F20101208_AAAYFD reynolds_c_Page_065.pro
e7c2827e9c7b3376c348f6f153ea92a1
b568e36453def34c98b30b138b3b1e61ccf340c5
54966 F20101208_AAAYEP reynolds_c_Page_048.pro
363c8ad797cee536daa5a021b3a7f14a
8b1c694faa895098d3a9665d77dfd04a88401433
F20101208_AAAXZJ reynolds_c_Page_025.tif
8544edc9ef016eb8d0c5135f8cc2ea54
586ee245f7b950dd2f8d6b92407fbf348e4a6c66
F20101208_AAAXYU reynolds_c_Page_008.tif
af5989fb6941136cfe6766acc98f8a97
af2497aa09090f5430538fe32d2c81f9ee280e7c
55959 F20101208_AAAYFE reynolds_c_Page_066.pro
46d33336b18db6c33acb15fe3a6bbc8c
37361fc69f56b9026d0e6936bd877547e5ff431c
58437 F20101208_AAAYEQ reynolds_c_Page_049.pro
c2ffa7d5d3b8476dac30096b61ef5654
cb2a028d0e34885b80a52b7df4a292b5127c5842
F20101208_AAAXZK reynolds_c_Page_027.tif
3109d0d81bcc0d30fc97194c17bc3ba8
8271b70b0e54956aea599473f251e9d88340270d
F20101208_AAAXYV reynolds_c_Page_009.tif
15faae006dffa8107db5cd860400d573
f4870f194c2df3b45cbb691f18e2c0ee5a18fa1b
50410 F20101208_AAAYFF reynolds_c_Page_068.pro
b5f72002af04a8f52ff0398b86a585f9
4a0f9d4d1bc44d3c2636889b19bd38b134818c08
50710 F20101208_AAAYER reynolds_c_Page_050.pro
fe913803ed2921180fdaa63c3a22311e
9caa1e826259917700ea1801824848151566710b
F20101208_AAAXZL reynolds_c_Page_028.tif
e6d28672586fe1a3e80c6208e0836474
a82c77db9ca0ef9ddc3aed78a03109a3df9a8a41
F20101208_AAAXYW reynolds_c_Page_010.tif
039ac7bf03882d9529dec9802e36a078
fa3ab144b620ba086b4b5388d45692c5d63919d5
57144 F20101208_AAAYES reynolds_c_Page_051.pro
8da23d108fd1791e918dc248c054936a
164de80167ae86cdb897b9b2d8c4996f59b823b6
F20101208_AAAXZM reynolds_c_Page_029.tif
6c475bc53e0ec9fa00eda08f5e4325f6
768e47d28423e89bc7d5a689ec2f5c58411388b8
F20101208_AAAXYX reynolds_c_Page_011.tif
033207077115bd889c74833559663d4d
485f989c0c80c9fdcf9d554470d50835d91d97d0
50102 F20101208_AAAYFG reynolds_c_Page_069.pro
09908ade2f649169020e525b98b30f1b
e953b21b146f94382bb4bdc9272856720b920ee7
44273 F20101208_AAAYET reynolds_c_Page_052.pro
56bf7b2e45e2f88630b24867817b17e8
c3f1e4c90e146f1b7de14c9346fdc740ab5aec3f
F20101208_AAAXZN reynolds_c_Page_030.tif
0ed6c8e9ca06ed93c259cd808f56bd64
8801f29fcac689e339305e138c68587a300eebb8
F20101208_AAAXYY reynolds_c_Page_013.tif
53b611a4180929c8e7f7856037efe075
16c6f7cfafe7dabda226bd433be8796f9b265488
50310 F20101208_AAAYFH reynolds_c_Page_071.pro
fd7f5c0099aa1c76104fb78d8ba566c2
9cb9ab8c1cfbbba758b95422dce3b3f2fd972aba
3577 F20101208_AAAYEU reynolds_c_Page_054.pro
ce1fd97aa560467ba345c32b4fb9bbee
bd2d0624e474495ebe39999eefe33a50926a92fd
F20101208_AAAXZO reynolds_c_Page_031.tif
dc1e6f9648dec130133d7a4e85e2e982
40adcd2bf0fac269fdc998ebbb3f2d2c2badfa10
F20101208_AAAXYZ reynolds_c_Page_014.tif
5a9281ff0e9035d16728656c70c252ba
ac97d2f447240f4f74b9cbeddf0e45ff0b103508
51108 F20101208_AAAYFI reynolds_c_Page_072.pro
032e79c7d1fd0466b4b75add2b0fde09
aa8de3a64fdcc0e33e64734569c30fe75f38f760
30955 F20101208_AAAYEV reynolds_c_Page_055.pro
f6593a439ba5a7bedab7630a20b07760
bc66b8581141bb4a366347a36c8322e884803d23
55345 F20101208_AAAYFJ reynolds_c_Page_073.pro
563857d98b2b2b7b47d1432918fba36d
5ff57e8ef277e73985d0cbf8967ec2ec8a038df1
29176 F20101208_AAAYEW reynolds_c_Page_056.pro
c42daa8c50e1970c8028ef0bef4f0f0e
71606b49f5cb9e7f1ca1d1b62bce9e17692b3fb3
F20101208_AAAXZP reynolds_c_Page_032.tif
961f75774538be90d31e8716e407f7aa
d77c7fd3683af989dcac322fa74c38ed34465872
29389 F20101208_AAAYFK reynolds_c_Page_074.pro
fd70ab6ac3cb24cb264d77c057507abd
4eae8097ff7bb52a3dd04d269f0b965a4ebedcaf
42781 F20101208_AAAYEX reynolds_c_Page_058.pro
b997a201234d83923e6441db8af2ca51
c8063f1b5ec2f62ff49bafe46b5028643c9ad32d
F20101208_AAAXZQ reynolds_c_Page_034.tif
486278d2c112315a93dab423e6778962
e1eae05218f88137ecf67ef8026a79703be30e57
21018 F20101208_AAAYFL reynolds_c_Page_075.pro
0905cefabee128a03f1cf79a5e076cbf
18c99e3393b7d54a48211e8d2a5d4c534d825476
54530 F20101208_AAAYEY reynolds_c_Page_059.pro
ed51d4c6fec0405b076875e00ee06fa9
9692d125dccc48fe81ac79d20542b3a1942153b7
F20101208_AAAXZR reynolds_c_Page_035.tif
bafaa3494ade606a4a9c5cf9b50b3792
5c797db55847a6c36a72dfacfb4230cc77d2859f
49802 F20101208_AAAYGA reynolds_c_Page_090.pro
632f464a6c692a65f910f36fd702179a
9a24dbd34973dc91e31dfe016c100e3da639ce6d
49715 F20101208_AAAYFM reynolds_c_Page_076.pro
f2848aed44ea62d1d7e706a170f17b41
33be7759c275b9304eac8215d71b880addc428ee
F20101208_AAAXZS reynolds_c_Page_036.tif
021974d941cdc5aa6183ffb361a19519
eeffab47e21b38a66d9f459d1b6cb79fc11833c9
53885 F20101208_AAAYGB reynolds_c_Page_091.pro
1965446ae94c4f87dc373d76faacc758
4196bd0b4584a6e1a0ec6cbaa252221ada46756b
28882 F20101208_AAAYFN reynolds_c_Page_077.pro
0e054d7b3f19f508a9c18179d91df865
d5666d17c8064a3d2149f884018749767b969d4f
53592 F20101208_AAAYEZ reynolds_c_Page_060.pro
594978d8894f2b1f93d33c5192f378ac
c31419dbfc1d3c433572135991b06768f36720fb
F20101208_AAAXZT reynolds_c_Page_037.tif
3bc1674ea5d3672bbef31cbd0239e09f
5f35cc8f7552581933b27dff29c5dfb0a3d421fb
55644 F20101208_AAAYGC reynolds_c_Page_092.pro
9b5e6ed0455cef1fb057c6a97757aadb
02967485f27952295077d59891e0d4b6f3bf282d
28875 F20101208_AAAYFO reynolds_c_Page_078.pro
028e7b36cd2295e5e04b8c723fbf098b
49ad913fe3ec5058017bfeb02010eba8d3c9b483
F20101208_AAAXZU reynolds_c_Page_038.tif
7baa89f8d0c8c52bab7579dfed8b26e0
a94795477c1aa9e4d3e88255d3fda599a02c48a9
48406 F20101208_AAAYGD reynolds_c_Page_094.pro
ac6dc09deb79e4af157e05b01b257a2d
2082ee420153903ffcaf2fa5629aa7b39b3972bc
30900 F20101208_AAAYFP reynolds_c_Page_079.pro
8238dbad79d4090c2dadc0baaea570cf
b0495029bfee49d0ea453efec61ed238ddf17a25
F20101208_AAAXZV reynolds_c_Page_039.tif
f8aaf87475285f9baf2b40c8fef1cfcb
bfbb5fccefdeffb8098c6f7f276494400bed159b
54379 F20101208_AAAYGE reynolds_c_Page_095.pro
be8f074f4c058f5925a2808368f752f6
9337593b4699a31997bb35b9e0e02e20e237d32f
24568 F20101208_AAAYFQ reynolds_c_Page_080.pro
dc35207687f5f549522eb61a7b6f6aa8
c3ef2c2c36e5da870b8b7e9da365839514149d40
F20101208_AAAXZW reynolds_c_Page_040.tif
feb719496dd11223b85d310fcb71f7e0
b10a263978c1937ef66ab829a7e2cb0eb10659bb
52972 F20101208_AAAYGF reynolds_c_Page_096.pro
af7f51a1a6a8a2ac2c5698841919d424
6e816b8223269a97b8069e77d26a30fa6b64ddcf
25073 F20101208_AAAYFR reynolds_c_Page_081.pro
51aab349223b126dd74d6a96559b6e66
8e55128450b7b194b2b26ebfb479027ae0b89b4b
F20101208_AAAXZX reynolds_c_Page_041.tif
8e80fbbf177236a0f869e699d440cb9b
0a086cc0f11422b8eadc7e72903dc82c515b5049
55249 F20101208_AAAYGG reynolds_c_Page_097.pro
469d5f19e6415dde8f64c8856d09934b
e36a05e9874b73149de6ee28782a6c6907a42284
42028 F20101208_AAAYFS reynolds_c_Page_082.pro
a1f6aa294ecaf811ae87fefe0b33122b
f59c78204f2cffae4a57fd48f1e6d230094dece5
F20101208_AAAXZY reynolds_c_Page_043.tif
9290210ef1c9d508df7983a9dd8f7939
cdf4a3dc24b4a64c5f70d4ea46f2dc42aabbbd5b
55967 F20101208_AAAYGH reynolds_c_Page_098.pro
223c06994744bcdd02e73da93d7e9842
0ced061c27ca0c48c358ab05dd91d7627d876a56
47022 F20101208_AAAYFT reynolds_c_Page_083.pro
b5a09ad803cf009689a386ed30ceedae
f7673090d91a6aa14688f59c8a0b8952ef97eafd
F20101208_AAAXZZ reynolds_c_Page_044.tif
eee9932a654d7141aade71c4b027c231
15faef85471995ff7a32292cf6ffbf221a1b0e39
53436 F20101208_AAAYGI reynolds_c_Page_099.pro
d8f7cb38f37f0616dfb8fb9cbb1992d5
9147eb021e6d7090d384fa51a5000e64fd70e9b0
54790 F20101208_AAAYFU reynolds_c_Page_084.pro
7e21853768e84d4fe24b2cde8efe8187
c7e5af6f90fc607d15d81deb6ff70ef8044f8ce2
55947 F20101208_AAAYGJ reynolds_c_Page_101.pro
f731843fab37472a544f8c42b292cf84
02266963dde0f400a3a5639bef87ba82c4ebc817
51374 F20101208_AAAYFV reynolds_c_Page_085.pro
faac32286aed9c9b4e97a8a31bb56565
ef2ed77de6cff2deff77845e6944d152d6e91bb9
55934 F20101208_AAAYGK reynolds_c_Page_103.pro
960d459e33a16d37452517776812a544
e3022fca0256b948546d92fd47028a956ad4c46b
55261 F20101208_AAAYFW reynolds_c_Page_086.pro
0899b123e4c1cbbc147dd08dcc334388
c9d05207a8d3dd2bbc618a92033fba4011c6c1e3
51560 F20101208_AAAYGL reynolds_c_Page_104.pro
4b1b4392ab3301fa81a8d2d49ae455bd
a2507dfd5ab21cb8ba631baa6d00d953d08f7bd5
54309 F20101208_AAAYFX reynolds_c_Page_087.pro
60b7b96970fb9065e0b57422d20ee048
1be057e086495d1a2b8ddb284837ef20fa6180d7
65133 F20101208_AAAYHA reynolds_c_Page_122.pro
d32d697345bf1854d40d5da7082033e3
139c1ebbcfb42942ec373f5d0003f3d5111c2e8e
52808 F20101208_AAAYGM reynolds_c_Page_105.pro
ca8495782917ffa7cbe060fc158ef1bd
e84d1a68edb64442b94c515eab6cb223d5ced5be
55707 F20101208_AAAYFY reynolds_c_Page_088.pro
95953106765716d2a85ac4f5373a5482
67eba681c7939389c6d13bea4fd8e99fd86f2bbe
60388 F20101208_AAAYHB reynolds_c_Page_123.pro
62a3c428ddf29831ff960f99c8310176
df6524d621590397bdc1268cfee1c3fbd483e544
20347 F20101208_AAAYGN reynolds_c_Page_106.pro
b8ecac16d48d7445d1f5eaa548555152
a9aae88d7a471ea9e54f387cb4d062c81a63a697
54585 F20101208_AAAYFZ reynolds_c_Page_089.pro
8ce4f93d0dde2f9d48bd478120353796
6c53b9169ba2ed25a2dcbf69334fccd583aa4c77
61559 F20101208_AAAYHC reynolds_c_Page_125.pro
057d2fc88d719b7274e0a93ed053d76e
b95865cb85619adc46e00387b8a6583decebef7d
61280 F20101208_AAAYGO reynolds_c_Page_107.pro
2be0fabddb9992dab87d21fd316cbe87
2210c8ec6d5d1df7a574ba8ce55795d3f24a23e3
8458 F20101208_AAAYHD reynolds_c_Page_128.pro
5f4b3e95cd59edcde58c8d0185fb7d99
73f8f3982ea376c94e91bf5be372d2e68719febc
49431 F20101208_AAAYGP reynolds_c_Page_109.pro
e2d29753fffad024e0c62b09d1b43038
2ba2d0929d2f509503637e3d66b4f92c2902fcbd
495 F20101208_AAAYHE reynolds_c_Page_001.txt
58ca6f7545932b46954f80ff7ef3b12f
eec3cd0a2ee62d3adfa2ee84bde98a33a7c46fbf
31577 F20101208_AAAYGQ reynolds_c_Page_110.pro
1ff6ee40ccc51315c190e67deb9ba467
92c86fa304698b89333ce4a0d364e8ce368ac256
109 F20101208_AAAYHF reynolds_c_Page_002.txt
aaaf9f3ef37759c9407a560447f2c023
c2e8c5682a1ec5af8fd58dcb5b8d97704d3f1ad5
50579 F20101208_AAAYGR reynolds_c_Page_111.pro
8a2ef4c731b30d10b3a0961c81c06483
1f28b910ddfe5f4f4cdaed5baa0b8280c0ae7296
579 F20101208_AAAYHG reynolds_c_Page_003.txt
c0656286a1fe0dbdec88d97a67f2a2c3
e3287bd00f424ecb8ef5aa9e3fc8e067fa7544eb
12005 F20101208_AAAYGS reynolds_c_Page_113.pro
b90ec111229ffd2561fff72fe3836ef1
73925a34b901a7771e08d370968c48d098102fca
1068 F20101208_AAAYHH reynolds_c_Page_004.txt
b90f5da6e8a516f3edeaf5c9c20b30cd
5a4894742b01897832c640cadbadc6b0f7cd0e41
10856 F20101208_AAAYGT reynolds_c_Page_114.pro
d76efb3f94588f1d7bd59cc21ed9eef6
7b5e3ce162d71a899cc2338edd863f681d06d7df
3571 F20101208_AAAYHI reynolds_c_Page_005.txt
4f8266819afb6ab527fcd4eed977d699
ee4bb36a94682bff839e3e0603f705808b06f61e
10166 F20101208_AAAYGU reynolds_c_Page_115.pro
28e5b18ecd0ea61df5721d54103eda9b
b688e4c2d167ea7150fe28f667abc0d72f495ba7
4107 F20101208_AAAYHJ reynolds_c_Page_006.txt
e293d0b9dc5a3ebdc48f1d776e4d15ee
85a3b5e06bc7df3bfb36e70620ae9b115e86bf50
11865 F20101208_AAAYGV reynolds_c_Page_116.pro
694291b37b1c2b0b58937ff8a932f33a
2155799c3771cf09ffb732a0a776e955dc39d6e3
4143 F20101208_AAAYHK reynolds_c_Page_007.txt
3c6dca459591a026d113551691be1f70
cfc77bb149217fab67b77ad38522b1be2cd29f56
10804 F20101208_AAAYGW reynolds_c_Page_118.pro
ec4ce9ad39c979cfb8866ff8962bd0e3
4f63dda21ba2520e8370e3dc222938fa6cfd0092
2323 F20101208_AAAYHL reynolds_c_Page_009.txt
8cc24ef1dcdd6aba0860a7450d86522f
2f828c2be3fac111c60e79dd558117e82feb85a5
10886 F20101208_AAAYGX reynolds_c_Page_119.pro
82c622c6d6ec053511f240ac2acdd3b0
7018f293a39d809de61a6c86bd04bd6406f446ef
603 F20101208_AAAYHM reynolds_c_Page_010.txt
fbf76ec94ebe38e10f62a28bf0f44617
8f5b88a94ade5d5b6c08819859e10d4329d6f397
60160 F20101208_AAAYGY reynolds_c_Page_120.pro
c79af31068a8ffaf774e048796e5feb3
73a9e51269080a1e61a9244e591085f0f9680db7
2024 F20101208_AAAYIA reynolds_c_Page_029.txt
0d4f7c28b607589c4610dc22e0a952e8
e19d027cd08974582f862288263a2db5a111b7dc
1519 F20101208_AAAYHN reynolds_c_Page_011.txt
7776fbc5c75a93eaf113ba6575fcfb3f
ecb3c87979af2e5346d5217feaf93c6302608459
61058 F20101208_AAAYGZ reynolds_c_Page_121.pro
b6c20f844e2877e90997e3e4a798d230
18ec444d9ec23ecdfb6d9a0a15faf86053a060cb
1923 F20101208_AAAYIB reynolds_c_Page_030.txt
41d14a4d363e3ede055cb0aa711da564
7c4a9c32ac9a296a854c1d32e7766b918eae4cec
2027 F20101208_AAAYHO reynolds_c_Page_012.txt
0c0fb346a564bcdb615e0c18fd9b8b00
baeb8c7f03020924f4e3aa0cc58aa3d1db0bd193
1971 F20101208_AAAYIC reynolds_c_Page_032.txt
3e7e9798c16a72e91094490beec00c81
90af94bdd7f0355352138bdcb3582b969f19037c
469 F20101208_AAAYHP reynolds_c_Page_013.txt
fa32de53bcf1d02f2eb2d57beb921537
c1b3539f550148db5cc1c6eb1183f060a59d0ff2
1899 F20101208_AAAYID reynolds_c_Page_033.txt
a32dba02e28fbace27174a9cc9f73be2
2ea96f1c81b68dc8abac85451225aa5dcdb1a184
2143 F20101208_AAAYHQ reynolds_c_Page_014.txt
e09a4b83a00a732df85dc0de086e29c4
d497fac3bb59e0115c72718f412e77f2c8090d34
2109 F20101208_AAAYIE reynolds_c_Page_035.txt
debdb867b15e98040286b739f7671229
b39d92e2ea617d721c3502b89ef0e572a2d7d20c
2299 F20101208_AAAYHR reynolds_c_Page_015.txt
0e06f3878e0f5b035559fb8087851cf1
a6706b0e0b0bd47dbb053a918005e6ae14954ca7
2112 F20101208_AAAYIF reynolds_c_Page_036.txt
57ef9634a59be0c80b94198e1672e45b
0220975165bb8e907852db9b723a8c476e8da182
2322 F20101208_AAAYHS reynolds_c_Page_017.txt
de9b32c5b4cc419080011fb4b6484f77
67892fe8ff63942925de6b26c8d1c5ab9090e8dd
2120 F20101208_AAAYIG reynolds_c_Page_037.txt
f515a3de09b8d6a5964db16ad3d3a516
dd017c03704ff076b78c4b5871fc9903a6f2878b
2219 F20101208_AAAYHT reynolds_c_Page_019.txt
d6c510ce99eabc7d2ca765ad1441cae7
7c0dfacfa9a4f9b6610d4952178454877f0ff042
2161 F20101208_AAAYIH reynolds_c_Page_038.txt
c496072dc28a4cb169244e4f80d1afc3
8cadad8f44240ad2a7cb98eaa2a1be99d8e7521c
2194 F20101208_AAAYHU reynolds_c_Page_020.txt
58a6d77da79750ecbabed6c866eeb4e1
9d969cce53a860b388e3ca1aa96323f30cf63d12
2180 F20101208_AAAYII reynolds_c_Page_039.txt
5c4a1eaace900589f7a467ea501b5859
23720d2b56ba00e212f0356b8d3be9776861a4fa
2022 F20101208_AAAYHV reynolds_c_Page_021.txt
4e6c8a2a07ef45239dd4439d69898980
d167a5f78357e032bc8b6adbf686a6b884f9fd52
2033 F20101208_AAAYIJ reynolds_c_Page_040.txt
cb66ea61febf62e3d9c9ead6edd7f58b
f817c7bc35b49bcc157f52d62d815193bf5b50a2
1603 F20101208_AAAYHW reynolds_c_Page_022.txt
1e21cb3aaccac291d8ef9d455a48f3f9
62e662cad69a6b8b2cc1204a58b288a2b5a46d03
2172 F20101208_AAAYIK reynolds_c_Page_041.txt
d0716e6089efd6e8a8bccdc338a11deb
1f34ef40a9f95e56b4d4c57bfe8ba810e5a67b96
1932 F20101208_AAAYHX reynolds_c_Page_024.txt
cfc86e79b2c203f7cd59ed7e9f33ade6
64cba13b88abb75f8e94bd74c55c9d779ad394d9
2055 F20101208_AAAYIL reynolds_c_Page_042.txt
7fccccae39167432e32c5ecd9bee46b0
0800e18c3f19407b0100d6f9d9e8b1cb250a2b20
1917 F20101208_AAAYHY reynolds_c_Page_026.txt
27f96a39acdd7ea7dcba7b3f2a91eef2
5849691a917cc860de4fcd60980df1b7b07a8910
2049 F20101208_AAAYJA reynolds_c_Page_057.txt
94c1262764ad0ad5be51af1bff36b053
6cfe05f5055dcf8ed49df6f6ba30ef026ab05bba
1149 F20101208_AAAYIM reynolds_c_Page_043.txt
5169c718b3602c70f878e03e1523383b
af70d7c56f8ad127da4bac793b20e3130266e4f5
1879 F20101208_AAAYHZ reynolds_c_Page_027.txt
8570d3ea04ae1066733adbf1b39e568d
85006f8d480a5d6cbc380170de1ff33df843a89d
1701 F20101208_AAAYJB reynolds_c_Page_058.txt
f174c3352cdbe34b310a8ac0979692df
5e088cafd78ff115a6afc59e42ac11e9c81af5a9
1911 F20101208_AAAYIN reynolds_c_Page_044.txt
dc1a10b48afc4059627bc9f5b1db7ff2
65a032cbccaca39875d6943d2a5d51b45108e948
2187 F20101208_AAAYJC reynolds_c_Page_059.txt
b6a525989b801dc0e40df5e8471908ed
c2075bcd1a21c32e15587362f635398d37ea5e54
2185 F20101208_AAAYIO reynolds_c_Page_045.txt
43de57cdd0cde0a26b3b231e96eb368e
83dd0888e8ac73897558752e973171a5acead102
F20101208_AAAYJD reynolds_c_Page_060.txt
ce6ae2a87d35bb8495a5229aa925f725
4157c163db09894a8eecfb28e57dc80fef8b7efc
1979 F20101208_AAAYIP reynolds_c_Page_046.txt
73754bbc812167d9083724cd21206d8a
c087bab2163d3bd78d5e6d5f81ea608d23cbab52
1837 F20101208_AAAYJE reynolds_c_Page_061.txt
dbdf842a2523f210110f11fad3872c60
344dfe645fa0738f31451e5a836b2d46464ffa56
2085 F20101208_AAAYIQ reynolds_c_Page_047.txt
b5355c0f59840348f120d25388451116
4a5ce139e326f9d006a6952b623d088c7290dea7
1925 F20101208_AAAYJF reynolds_c_Page_062.txt
625749404b5a788bfdef47d50170ec1c
137a6a324171fb5814e969fc71618b9906a78a9c
2158 F20101208_AAAYIR reynolds_c_Page_048.txt
4075536f5153b31f9796be50a9402f47
99e4d6254db3d401d25faab3c09674e0df1f3925
2008 F20101208_AAAYJG reynolds_c_Page_063.txt
5459ae0ad608c44613bd500fba3c91d8
5f570ea7222ff54d529f3a9b27870419d4f37848
2282 F20101208_AAAYIS reynolds_c_Page_049.txt
bc9a9b969ba9d77556ab64c632582529
0470da13dba466fc8d0e8af1a375b66507b9b1d9
1882 F20101208_AAAYJH reynolds_c_Page_064.txt
83c9248897bd33e3fedc40198cedff2c
ae3b4c65c33051a10fb93aac1f1724a7f74a1893
2062 F20101208_AAAYIT reynolds_c_Page_050.txt
8d152f9d6e08cf6129ff2b55ecb99a74
f63e5b2e5166fc76f35400496852bed380b87e4f
2242 F20101208_AAAYJI reynolds_c_Page_066.txt
8fe14ab44b74f62876109028e15b90bb
bd3cd5142dcd7d204d9b7ae7df5b372a530f0c49
2330 F20101208_AAAYIU reynolds_c_Page_051.txt
df790db92fb3b0ef9c312406a58e307b
5ffda865889d09707108130ae02ac94c4f4b9ba5
2157 F20101208_AAAYJJ reynolds_c_Page_067.txt
7cbe79d6583af07468bd6d3ba74d24f9
deab313fd5a7f82b2c95b3b1f2b889e3565ceda4
1805 F20101208_AAAYIV reynolds_c_Page_052.txt
99bb0f23f6f3fc566bdec6068493a983
31f598e51573784037a4e219b001379fde0052ec
1989 F20101208_AAAYJK reynolds_c_Page_068.txt
a206b54d7eba6f15f4734558f23e09b0
05c3c787f2291193ecefd834f45203077d607705
2142 F20101208_AAAYIW reynolds_c_Page_053.txt
eb0f640ed98ef0b03a72ffd63806df2d
527ca46c5df25bf8d30a4a59b2dd5379b55c11d7
1986 F20101208_AAAYJL reynolds_c_Page_069.txt
14c2745adb3ff619c72bf231b3e5fe97
71fa500845f318d8bb90f0776abb53d63e0bcf89
148 F20101208_AAAYIX reynolds_c_Page_054.txt
bfa6e04f69080a1692c163f6b7c06b77
e54119b78dc342cbb071f85446e3332924194df5
2021 F20101208_AAAYKA reynolds_c_Page_085.txt
2206fcb77b49293e079ccbd3f75dccda
dbdc792fb8c24f7c1b739e2a5b8ce02a52bb71ed
1996 F20101208_AAAYJM reynolds_c_Page_070.txt
46ae0a1e60c5ecec4ba65ca50a86bb1c
bf36a3ab5f32cfd7a2e29430620f0db1d273a31c
1504 F20101208_AAAYIY reynolds_c_Page_055.txt
2aeea99df150b1ff4bd137215feb4890
e18eeaeed7843efb3de3fca9635445dc716f410e
2174 F20101208_AAAYKB reynolds_c_Page_086.txt
e44f02c733607d91e4120de18fc05b89
21957ff14fa883ef91309517db20edf07347a058
1990 F20101208_AAAYJN reynolds_c_Page_071.txt
362dbb2f558a5f00876e938c7f3a3518
aba9edaa1f90da5460e261dddb3dfd072ef35441
1273 F20101208_AAAYIZ reynolds_c_Page_056.txt
32645a4f4ed031cfaebbedf1674d3707
afced6279b6d026dcf45ba3e5924aa9ac7feb18f
2138 F20101208_AAAYKC reynolds_c_Page_087.txt
28d4b8e9db85376927b3ee5f3aba4742
a4b754e20c01f470d7c806c209aa43f0ecd72a16
2032 F20101208_AAAYJO reynolds_c_Page_072.txt
e1d621252ea0f7b00afd4b4cb0f88927
97b1a9b488971e754803725bf2774283b4c62fb5
F20101208_AAAYJP reynolds_c_Page_073.txt
f48e63ee232cf76c798d09dbdc90dd7c
ed6f0d978303a4209720ce8e1bd09957cda07c04
2184 F20101208_AAAYKD reynolds_c_Page_088.txt
c53b5b2f13c4afc0b4c2dceaf6eaaa01
43e6c11ef918697fa1f38f35c9260bb37bd66028
1171 F20101208_AAAYJQ reynolds_c_Page_074.txt
447d8b3f8e1e15a2ac251ae42c42cfed
6a93bd161fa9aa49e85b38807706c0d9471abb87
F20101208_AAAYKE reynolds_c_Page_089.txt
5d681cc83bdd4cf6951eee5bc1c9399a
83f16bd0fd559bb72ca9f62f93678db0d396c7c2
837 F20101208_AAAYJR reynolds_c_Page_075.txt
1b1816c9ffd1207ae161f40d4fd854cf
271960d3615e8e19e11b85f0b1ecd66f9384f5a7
1965 F20101208_AAAYKF reynolds_c_Page_090.txt
7b68357415e28721ec22a32592f1e438
8fc8a3b77a0bc1eab1c9cc90cac4858d491fbce9
2010 F20101208_AAAYJS reynolds_c_Page_076.txt
342b44fc151edfd82320d4c002396a5e
4bb20ae8ec5efe88ac99258e73335db02ebc698c
F20101208_AAAYKG reynolds_c_Page_091.txt
0cd9700870b8879b155b08fe83966d98
fab4b6109ed5b04487099dcb13f31d8ff0235c0d
1173 F20101208_AAAYJT reynolds_c_Page_077.txt
67c1039ae218d9c874bc2acf01f904fc
d40e7c1d4147ed5a716e79c661936ce4c749c637
2189 F20101208_AAAYKH reynolds_c_Page_092.txt
3df99c1a99a1c36c8201f2b5356d3aec
3bcde916d6ce82ab5b874f444f1f677b4754d0c0
1216 F20101208_AAAYJU reynolds_c_Page_078.txt
ee278de4b3773ab8f9b1ddef02aef235
233e740441455d0ffd7a55a2eb9b84050b7a00a0
F20101208_AAAYKI reynolds_c_Page_093.txt
d9efd3d92ab9ade89ccf9e5cd71aa5b9
811667fe406e941aa90066f06beaad5069ed13f1
1263 F20101208_AAAYJV reynolds_c_Page_079.txt
105f324efc158bcae93d42df997ed367
54fa0e184bc02082862404929b8ce3a4a2aab97c
1918 F20101208_AAAYKJ reynolds_c_Page_094.txt
b610aa1ebf2ec9eeb1415cf271bd7754
53959e6551e0c5aaaedd5283cc2ea40bdb81412a
1123 F20101208_AAAYJW reynolds_c_Page_081.txt
20f3adfbcdd437717812c227c0256a6c
9c2f60701ff4a0d73f3fdf57af1522677672925c
F20101208_AAAYKK reynolds_c_Page_095.txt
dcbe59187a4cabe4b36639135bf6f162
d6f3c2fb9c754318723daab13af8db233288c8b5
1809 F20101208_AAAYJX reynolds_c_Page_082.txt
d171eb1f735d70b0e33a094268671d12
49f6794b70a6d5e47973678d4e1d7a7bcc7fe1c7
2086 F20101208_AAAYKL reynolds_c_Page_096.txt
ddc79fbbf2b08b9c849fabaa34c4c9dc
e54ac34781d7cd203eed426994cfa41386f4dacc
1936 F20101208_AAAYJY reynolds_c_Page_083.txt
d7e136534356ed62de7ebe8b4f0126bf
cfee4a8bae8fbfd847954c732f88bd0820a63c98
2048 F20101208_AAAYLA reynolds_c_Page_111.txt
d73dcc629b2c6dd215092ccb36cfa6b9
841d4878cd19386fdb618de8e449223bfa39b0c8
2178 F20101208_AAAYKM reynolds_c_Page_097.txt
1c1e8124506d8bd373bef2d943ab42b6
4c3c62db8f2ae30bf96c35cf182159a03edfbd88
2167 F20101208_AAAYJZ reynolds_c_Page_084.txt
fa20147c645e4d4df14929e02b5fd1cc
95fd96075f2fa162f108b441999cd7665a0107e9
597 F20101208_AAAYLB reynolds_c_Page_113.txt
99905f51197e02d8df0d5ff486b89c66
30d0a0bc8223a89c6932879adb0087c2c5097051
2196 F20101208_AAAYKN reynolds_c_Page_098.txt
6e443905242790c9f85665304ef5c505
bd8cba662cf0d61629579fc7306d2d9c47524c76
686 F20101208_AAAYLC reynolds_c_Page_114.txt
01c7c390170ac4343b7bcd65c03b8e6b
474dfc4d87f2b17f2ac6b2f3ffb93c12f9212c4c
2111 F20101208_AAAYKO reynolds_c_Page_099.txt
6c8ba0796faaa419a7afaa1acb0bfb13
e48fb28c33da91c1ae439218802b0c41bfa94d24
661 F20101208_AAAYLD reynolds_c_Page_115.txt
b4f41ef68623e8f9920ae561950715c3
7f7a775e47faefa90ea4633886368c766875f476
2016 F20101208_AAAYKP reynolds_c_Page_100.txt
e7d63825bbce2863893fec171ade5ab2
fdc10ff886e69cf3e6f8bc37def3b9eefc04c8e9
743 F20101208_AAAYLE reynolds_c_Page_116.txt
ff92b48fae53286fed219b44249d0dac
585bd4beabe9cddb41e7d0c025648e8582f4a134
2200 F20101208_AAAYKQ reynolds_c_Page_101.txt
c2fabc362b4ea581d5ee4380eaa333a3
a445ddf073ce97a7762162a45c08efd4505c1546
856 F20101208_AAAYLF reynolds_c_Page_117.txt
822dbfd37519f494848118cb246fd77c
ae89a3fc37236893f7bd68ec5eff5cec564f3092
2095 F20101208_AAAYKR reynolds_c_Page_102.txt
7a1962af6a60ab517b9df098d3b087fa
038ca886c2a6bceefcd32b1dd66c338b35b19bd2
711 F20101208_AAAYLG reynolds_c_Page_118.txt
cf4bfb2d198bde038c7b24752c478438
f738733c4a296e0e980e72a9544b0f8e5d3af412
2201 F20101208_AAAYKS reynolds_c_Page_103.txt
2ae5d183be984dca559a506aeef16468
2d7b67f930c63f96e4fb352e2dcd701a8a5aaa83
739 F20101208_AAAYLH reynolds_c_Page_119.txt
ae6c78b090d56cb8056def89db78cec0
edbbfbf5cdecd32cef9e0a514b08bdb32f4e3817
2080 F20101208_AAAYKT reynolds_c_Page_104.txt
489ec56bcce71330ce29ef42a0fb9f2d
efd26bcb5c1803b00253fa3f6e600e8544c90822
2427 F20101208_AAAYLI reynolds_c_Page_120.txt
d7de14566a086175b667714db142d8aa
00b9aebe32004c036eca56d1f7163b22511d81ca
2141 F20101208_AAAYKU reynolds_c_Page_105.txt
a19a8c433874b45c0475ae09805e2c40
f7585d509ceb61d2733158753ff1073b8f63ddce
2483 F20101208_AAAYLJ reynolds_c_Page_121.txt
80f42af649ab1202322fb032dbb118c0
ff2f9cd28249be68317e9cec48d18e17d38a8449
810 F20101208_AAAYKV reynolds_c_Page_106.txt
2f0a6c64e40a21f29fb5a13fea1c41a2
9e68ac273b75c0933e1e6f814d504dacb37fbba6
2601 F20101208_AAAYLK reynolds_c_Page_122.txt
c90e6daa15cf7e3a5cb68cca4541de8c
5c74c17055c5cd0ff7f74914d694d7601b9bab5a
2468 F20101208_AAAYKW reynolds_c_Page_107.txt
ff6daca3f5d554ef6748ccaea66508d1
d7cafbdc8d59d878eff56a637f208911d3fadeee
24053 F20101208_AAAYMA reynolds_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
c222e122028b08c3ed83471095f66525
24f373f8fbf70044d32b66c3b95b27ff98d76581
2426 F20101208_AAAYLL reynolds_c_Page_123.txt
16fdd9276156e1713ed934ae5656fe37
13ec506369155a00fe8f54dc95df86293ef99ab6
1991 F20101208_AAAYKX reynolds_c_Page_108.txt
2f8d40a0e0e10cafe050323123e980db
c324582b4c89bbffcaf26a7e9ccc6ebd079f1434
2520 F20101208_AAAYLM reynolds_c_Page_124.txt
e661de286a1e0f8a5624fdf109c747f7
f5e913aa302387e065af6f65fb74b2aa2d633095
2076 F20101208_AAAYKY reynolds_c_Page_109.txt
7becf20d6e6edcdc117174a620e5cd4c
8031367344e71573d88f0884c622383c6c988265
24028 F20101208_AAAYMB reynolds_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
d9d33eec71578df6239877fa9c244b95
724a1271eb7d160ccfbe2467cc9ce9c5c4bf4198
2499 F20101208_AAAYLN reynolds_c_Page_125.txt
5ef385412a1e8c13977223ee7e8c0119
3bdbec5a4aa53c3478442fef3fd6f3f712b625c9
1403 F20101208_AAAYKZ reynolds_c_Page_110.txt
edf35176497216b568b086b902221f86
c9beca74ce041244519c33d989a9a35893aa4cac
5706 F20101208_AAAYMC reynolds_c_Page_007thm.jpg
3ec93ac400f1c824682f67d1071fda23
6a69c9feb99cadcc990bf993adc0f9b30c3c9b1e
2396 F20101208_AAAYLO reynolds_c_Page_126.txt
e70d8cbd5e55f6dfc6acc5abe0e5d429
95bbf84e5a28aaf4ddfeee845f97191a64168d71
11508 F20101208_AAAYMD reynolds_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
3026d2177e3b8820cbad6548576e8493
3182a8634223ad41b1dd453401c2186535163de9
515 F20101208_AAAYLP reynolds_c_Page_127.txt
fc90edc2b10688a1c4afd32dd419b974
cabd18660d1ecc1481bab28e68463f78ff8c0948
3249 F20101208_AAAYME reynolds_c_Page_008thm.jpg
4bfa3bc676af11b9aeb839eb2c42d60f
e44594454a809400a3b83e17e9e2b3ad699c1183
1354936 F20101208_AAAYLQ reynolds_c.pdf
75f7eeb92a3e864b6f8a357b3ef9eae2
b005186e3deca97b1c04ca69680060630ec25dec
21673 F20101208_AAAYMF reynolds_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
e0075558ee9553373162bed23f19490b
837deeceef543125a827f4d5e4a140834247fd52
7827 F20101208_AAAYLR reynolds_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
02ec79943f9df3013438fbd61272c89d
050f2699ef3e54693f614bbc5550b413dd79b54e
5359 F20101208_AAAYMG reynolds_c_Page_009thm.jpg
694a7a2378a21bf05c2ed342927761b5
96f43b7628387e127e6d8e90e60661583fb1932f
2352 F20101208_AAAYLS reynolds_c_Page_001thm.jpg
b80b19b64745465142bc585c74d61572
1df53685889fcb31339dfc10a9375af8ba1f7729
7754 F20101208_AAAYMH reynolds_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
f8585c3339cee8de2961e199b78eca7f
1f5dd6946b902576175550f3b5fd3213c4cb37aa
3286 F20101208_AAAYLT reynolds_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
3258819e7aa5b5833d16fbf25a67e9a5
cbc428c390bd9891453bbe6a4e1d257c32c38ab0
2565 F20101208_AAAYMI reynolds_c_Page_010thm.jpg
5a7e01c58a5f49ed57b2d3223e88c1ed
3e9c970657eb729a4c48ad2fbad667133781c2c5
6704 F20101208_AAAYLU reynolds_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
b93ac92d48a8b91cda2c537b5ca6480f
59782d4ac95d7dbf9fed905f323cccba24077fb3
16231 F20101208_AAAYMJ reynolds_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
345d30d1591b5604d630c97c4762a32f
f2eeeed10281bc04726fb782898d0df8518a9268
2259 F20101208_AAAYLV reynolds_c_Page_003thm.jpg
5ac95cca0c2e9f5b4d1f42d5dd2cebd7
5a25793b2dc9522855b47dd8984ac0205097d827
4313 F20101208_AAAYMK reynolds_c_Page_011thm.jpg
53194896bdeb3162902bdf08b38ed175
10fe6e3a409fe4c038168808c5287165bf16c4d0
14261 F20101208_AAAYLW reynolds_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
7b6d6341bf5379e623953c1fa7f88e1c
b649f8b69919c930c04caa698eb2107fa4cbe25a
21525 F20101208_AAAYML reynolds_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
716d682cf3854b1e8ab942edcd5f6f1b
5e07c64a8a581a6edc08f424734b672e98e66fcb
4096 F20101208_AAAYLX reynolds_c_Page_004thm.jpg
2d3e52f60d15ff82fd37142ed1be4baa
1d092404267661375a0c87174bb5708e6db8b21c
24419 F20101208_AAAYNA reynolds_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
89921c66e1e2dd32e8f9a5c9ad02d724
452490c20c2895c7f0b30da2fd9cc7f132b465be
6193 F20101208_AAAYMM reynolds_c_Page_012thm.jpg
951d0f63cc1484338c894aaeb5f562c1
7018032a4bce7ed1d42c917b59b86b1b40af1826
20012 F20101208_AAAYLY reynolds_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
156212e5fb142f120ddbd31bb3da4c34
25d062a7c8c6c41f08fedaef8860dd7f653fe77c
6460 F20101208_AAAYNB reynolds_c_Page_021thm.jpg
7a79fb9e89a2051cad29a2d2b533bfbd
ba7ade7f9b6983389480f9b5955eeff1706c069b
7513 F20101208_AAAYMN reynolds_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
47aea0c2e3ff4793188caac365b7d57a
b135376977734c60da11329a6630149316f219b3
5165 F20101208_AAAYLZ reynolds_c_Page_005thm.jpg
90dc7a798879cb95590a4588a91368c0
7d55cad840b4d3730d6b9b19de8c3b713ef01620
2391 F20101208_AAAYMO reynolds_c_Page_013thm.jpg
f4bc4c4da74497a9d5f3c8a62aa651bc
2222537c2f0e0423ed90343741335335bcb027b6
19473 F20101208_AAAYNC reynolds_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
609eb72a45e00a93334e043de5aa6e27
b1336094e355eb4dc7d5241c17ec42685412f2da
24576 F20101208_AAAYMP reynolds_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
81c4d5a21566e6a1cf20b288349c44d4
150cce17c734be35de42a28b32c65c6874b3988b
5557 F20101208_AAAYND reynolds_c_Page_022thm.jpg
dce7991d046ab3088c9c8c82d88b40af
5bb65d008073a4121aa93e61e32aaff8d3990618
6602 F20101208_AAAYMQ reynolds_c_Page_014thm.jpg
63574d65e63f56f749f164aeb4cd2c48
5ce049c1e72bf51e08cd504a8981ed7346ca06da
21143 F20101208_AAAYNE reynolds_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
378a0cc2e9246355236d8260af0329e6
cc584ba2c597f6b13691ff8621e1ab76f7b07d5b
26441 F20101208_AAAYMR reynolds_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
6c61e4755a9eced93331be8155180c60
e8cf72d5d6e909a70add23b66b4e613b1dcac1ec
6004 F20101208_AAAYNF reynolds_c_Page_023thm.jpg
956c4387f1c38378baae375cf528ceff
c5b6f5c71278f8b97cb2ff12e434496c53e016c0
24387 F20101208_AAAYMS reynolds_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
68a074ed3cd0bddf1fe30d4db6b4056a
6287bcfdff0604e9b0f18f51bba5223b6f9033f1
23104 F20101208_AAAYNG reynolds_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
8b0e945bf9af942f19b1415ffaa5c448
d92fc7be572dd89ccce479d17a5bc5aa39e6bc02
6687 F20101208_AAAYMT reynolds_c_Page_016thm.jpg
e88d662288adb9c22be7eae3def222f1
fe54e2af6a0960b2a643c589bef77f8e853f72f1
6677 F20101208_AAAYNH reynolds_c_Page_024thm.jpg
48f1014ef804b5711e0b21cffc905e41
33c24127e39a0f94f87ffc43ccf01f0a32f3a72b
24623 F20101208_AAAYMU reynolds_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
9f6cd66e6305d518ef749043ff292d0c
6ed26b1827fa663e457c5b8c750faf72ac375b4e
6558 F20101208_AAAYNI reynolds_c_Page_025thm.jpg
3958fd68b71d9217c7f671b421ccac3e
3f8ec568e620a01025e9b15e3cfddcd95678f5e2
11041 F20101208_AAAYMV reynolds_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
9a9cad0292f6d1cd3833eedb97f5ddab
e0aa160ff13739ff98413c1cae6b929f67a0c6fa
22369 F20101208_AAAYNJ reynolds_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
02dbb58ffc3dfa671e2c42e9fb29cc59
ce7f7f0bb86989dcccd102f90b93c5e7870699dc
3442 F20101208_AAAYMW reynolds_c_Page_018thm.jpg
0cd60fcb28f1d859671776d20f37cd31
bda127c60ca8bad38186c1184d43f44e0a910d04
6434 F20101208_AAAYNK reynolds_c_Page_026thm.jpg
fc3a32bed468661df16d9a7247c86a9e
29ae320a651c639306cb3981d09c94d758312f1d
24667 F20101208_AAAYMX reynolds_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
20db439043f95eb29c020aeb52e973d0
eef9ccc39e638059cc2b1df9d1ffcbbd1a74b63d
6813 F20101208_AAAYOA reynolds_c_Page_035thm.jpg
20ebedd63e50b463fa6d23b9aced02f3
f5f6ce8e6a0b157ad3d578ebc1024765cdb29e82
22467 F20101208_AAAYNL reynolds_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
3abb7fd4e6ca9b6020fc2e53988bf8cf
a7b1de8fe2310a73a26420e4286fe2a06430769d
6771 F20101208_AAAYMY reynolds_c_Page_019thm.jpg
a376eff0ba40884682ea845233fcbfb8
6ba6442031708b10a6eb60aec2cc1729712115b4
24313 F20101208_AAAYOB reynolds_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
72acf18634e4d05b8e64e3ac02dfcb3b
1ecc78a074b469e295bc4839011751e2e50a430d
24157 F20101208_AAAYNM reynolds_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
927a9ec26e4a4c31797214b67b2e8357
83a17e35e6f333a3e659303f7a254ec9309a5a94
6953 F20101208_AAAYMZ reynolds_c_Page_020thm.jpg
f137a431eb0fe20231ec2dffd1804f11
915379daaad44ad013ed69024a9b68f10cb053cb
6668 F20101208_AAAYOC reynolds_c_Page_036thm.jpg
b685f803ba7d0528a1a73657140db433
645185aaaa09b6fabe0aafbf0557dd63e319faa6
6599 F20101208_AAAYNN reynolds_c_Page_028thm.jpg
ee799789218bb5713821a79827e748e4
0af525bd391e0ecdaea32dca4d6f628390f03db8
23972 F20101208_AAAYNO reynolds_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
0300d145cf831c799475ee018d9f8695
04602ff76432c0be7ab09a721d367c9d1058d1ce
25137 F20101208_AAAYOD reynolds_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
4af526d91d9b65f0f1f4215be33d5591
76749c36ab7052bc079ac8e386397e4b6a5e2987
6784 F20101208_AAAYNP reynolds_c_Page_029thm.jpg
47ca92f4d3e6e17dd91a119bd10b45c5
849fb7eed65ffc92608b8196423c627350f7b21b
6782 F20101208_AAAYOE reynolds_c_Page_038thm.jpg
e9e517c5b428a87dc5f03dc583f8a7c4
68d9649ed3d1f28a72e920d844a26c862d152c1f
23361 F20101208_AAAYNQ reynolds_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
6446fdbd0845e56c615c0997ebe3e2b8
ad011e24073e8ee367c39b648c1f2d03c74e8106
25874 F20101208_AAAYOF reynolds_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
ce02d11a7c2b129c9562780d421667e7
7cf02d855ce0c1f57e8044dd908d2afc56f1ac88
6330 F20101208_AAAYNR reynolds_c_Page_030thm.jpg
65c7a57e4670aa924468b8aaba07403c
a0564fd9a7373be89ef9a9d5d0d866877b395883
7052 F20101208_AAAYOG reynolds_c_Page_039thm.jpg
e40cc1b57c5b9cfd138e5faa4aab7305
0b9e999aa8a9dc810fa396a447080ae89e2a35bc
25975 F20101208_AAAYNS reynolds_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
034d49984833cf90d493e1341a9ffcad
85d367f8dde9c33a122ccf1257456e0197841fc8
24089 F20101208_AAAYOH reynolds_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
6dd791f42757ce5713be33490eda0a07
8f6dee0d4cf25cba88624b5090687dcdf8b1668f
7105 F20101208_AAAYNT reynolds_c_Page_031thm.jpg
8f489ad1f067d49128528ef9782e6eb0
3938c6fdfc284376dd33f34c7a9f6ea6196a23da
6574 F20101208_AAAYOI reynolds_c_Page_040thm.jpg
68c068a22ac395e82af03bea952df4a8
5a390b5735c09cb33a5893a36c1e61c5a42f5729
22930 F20101208_AAAYNU reynolds_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
80bf1e272f2326a10908559e301858b7
8a20834528f6dcfb688be9741b3bd8db8d7ee247
25762 F20101208_AAAYOJ reynolds_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
e39a486b7bc9fefcd3dd3ccff6824f81
dfc0bd546b39911682028f4449b231db2872973f
6494 F20101208_AAAYNV reynolds_c_Page_032thm.jpg
456a0983bb379507fc3d8432cc5a7b42
43363b1e7d37bc2b709f47e9adc7ea18908ac30a
6836 F20101208_AAAYOK reynolds_c_Page_041thm.jpg
c173d1be37c700c0a4a6077684f477f6
860aee3fb93f85495ef64e85a99ece06b6f52e5c
22202 F20101208_AAAYNW reynolds_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
5e2c35d4ffd011ceec54dcab111dba4d
b7aaec7a9346b9c04f76706a05981f1aec3d66b1
23126 F20101208_AAAYPA reynolds_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
b30b49f488cb6d2b002cb9ba9a3202b0
68bc27132a6c0a1c1fb47baeb413347d5bbeb767
24353 F20101208_AAAYOL reynolds_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
6d18ebb5018c7f6bf8d7f630ee5f6a92
ebccf7a3688924a7c40daf1b98372e63f0b88eb4
6287 F20101208_AAAYNX reynolds_c_Page_033thm.jpg
adc339eb83671ab0ff84d11bcae01a96
d66bafc5185399595385d7d6367a38ed9a1c7074
6644 F20101208_AAAYOM reynolds_c_Page_042thm.jpg
7f3ad6b02a742d59e7ad065328bc108e
1d4a6208e602dbd2f9288c566ab0d4a86e3be364
25630 F20101208_AAAYNY reynolds_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
33dbc7342167719aa6a9181584ffea58
3e05fc51b94fc9a4e0d07fa988777d6b9b486426
6543 F20101208_AAAYPB reynolds_c_Page_051thm.jpg
ea18dc40e602caa34c706bff809ec8ee
23f61d0b7582dfc729f20fb9b9ad12d7680a5d3c
14852 F20101208_AAAYON reynolds_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
0f1d525e5ff7a8a488590be215c6d6c7
2a7e74600827a037400e131186e3496b577bfecf
24727 F20101208_AAAYNZ reynolds_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
425834deb2ba17efd4bbeac41d47f0eb
818b71ec418203922b44595ca1e730be499be672
58864 F20101208_AAAXMA reynolds_c_Page_112.pro
9cbdad1262f8905d4091b4c238bd18df
d0e28b49c9096cdec8a4fc32e532605020f9e2a5
20896 F20101208_AAAYPC reynolds_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
5f30623dee6f38219aa582c348811f90
e7b7e55d8de768e914fbec7414316fcc665a4ebc
4188 F20101208_AAAYOO reynolds_c_Page_043thm.jpg
8b13653bea1b04c8ae1550f0f02725d3
5c3edb7d31ebc7d99a4a89a410b675bb5f4c8f6a
22798 F20101208_AAAXMB reynolds_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
37747b3018da020cafdeb080fe3565d1
c476af412a5c53805ee63c10b3576ab376672024
5749 F20101208_AAAYPD reynolds_c_Page_052thm.jpg
6d9116a0f10e98763ff3c48ba4628bf9
2c66b89ff3e13648c48ee4c3826b3bdad6d9730e
21109 F20101208_AAAYOP reynolds_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
02093a481d00bc1f3bc312b566fc0c1e
ff56fcc8ca02051f74999be46514f7c950e0a0d7
5946 F20101208_AAAYOQ reynolds_c_Page_044thm.jpg
0b5481c119ee4c84e9dc0c9d431c31d6
19c2f62247069fcef5a002b1fce8320628a3b716
45496 F20101208_AAAXMC reynolds_c_Page_074.jpg
2eea11b75e0cffd37c7e54f9b402ba65
42542f815ac85714c297e2602eb9597efca4ffc5
24301 F20101208_AAAYPE reynolds_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
ce8793c936308d79cb6540b0880295cc
16f50fdc67d255132ad5302d1dadded36bffb42b
24469 F20101208_AAAYOR reynolds_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
33e574143464b4ccd947021a28b57711
722df467ed3bbbfd7200f76f1afe6cfcc21f4d52
F20101208_AAAXMD reynolds_c_Page_071.tif
d302eafb778626f4280fd1466f887c9a
23f7261b131c6540d4a8f93fa0e77add8e870cef
6528 F20101208_AAAYPF reynolds_c_Page_053thm.jpg
2757d95cae96d48685b6c673840ebcc9
30e94efaf047a6cfc30e66b51816fcbce0594d94
6906 F20101208_AAAYOS reynolds_c_Page_045thm.jpg
80a017d0c72d5fc8474f0d841b39b9d4
bedb88c5f869daac7ed7f47bf9ba07f90b1bcb99
25794 F20101208_AAAXME reynolds_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
33b5eee49dded60d89d104a258de1053
492f1d104792656a9647ae42220452b67584519f
4278 F20101208_AAAYPG reynolds_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
d1ed35ba08b91916a5da341683ae4171
b4181839609763439b2d22b7f74499962a5004c3
24280 F20101208_AAAYOT reynolds_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
b20ceb188425659fb68095e469252bdf
c0f9412e549373514f15cbc45c5a5a69a23ebb6c
115056 F20101208_AAAXMF reynolds_c_Page_099.jp2
4d1f09f4c05b622db65f2c0cbcb73537
13cd0c5e2248fae9d40d8924945fa8757fd8ab70
1633 F20101208_AAAYPH reynolds_c_Page_054thm.jpg
12b19b88fa9d1904865b4a0067eb1d78
b825a6b88d85ec315bd6776f5c390b41929f935f
6834 F20101208_AAAYOU reynolds_c_Page_046thm.jpg
e900c8cb3937878ea5070529353699dd
0f8e4d6d4f47777c7e645f3e1d639e594bc452d2
70357 F20101208_AAAXMG reynolds_c_Page_065.jpg
32df98490e9ae3ebded401e880274232
21bb7222edef52f74b61fd9b927e1d7d45f5dfde
4566 F20101208_AAAYPI reynolds_c_Page_055thm.jpg
6e4f87508ebe573dbcba0879783a1a5b
924a8ed4266b3df171810dd88e536c47334f5156
22832 F20101208_AAAXLT reynolds_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
55d39ddb74d838027bbdb360619b679c
0b0c7f9ef2d4cf6595f698180d79b4a59cf30d52
25239 F20101208_AAAYOV reynolds_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
c6b9ee198413372a25352d48b718491a
fcdbed2f047459fb77452793a22d493a73fb9479
62420 F20101208_AAAXMH reynolds_c_Page_124.pro
21676f5b6c97d4b89e15c406ace7f4ad
ae68ac445b43bf95ed933b2cb8c376afbcfde6f5
4437 F20101208_AAAYPJ reynolds_c_Page_056thm.jpg
7c3889ee7f0b407fd4c1fc94ef967895
2c2927f7497e653b3aba6f6fe4733f1379bc534f
15471 F20101208_AAAXLU reynolds_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
415016c9608c08feb0d214fcbc570f10
11dbbba5883e3856d22005f8bc7ab6b5b0375dec
6924 F20101208_AAAYOW reynolds_c_Page_047thm.jpg
6381908c81dfd84910b0b3c51ac4a382
d10a1611559c64331e4aa8006bdd605ea2bcdf7c
F20101208_AAAXMI reynolds_c_Page_121.tif
99110514b27f7f4f8d8b25f7d62e18df
a9b2c3c68bac014cc213a6b185193a4a43b79062
22306 F20101208_AAAYPK reynolds_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
aa3651b7cd0551603c58a6c3f143b0fe
36747867064f9de91bf7ddf11dc1b8d207d824a8
23151 F20101208_AAAYQA reynolds_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
869f4abe43ede4c6e085316ef812bd18
ae439bfbb50747c0f401c10521c9bf4b2228c3a3
78480 F20101208_AAAXLV reynolds_c_Page_088.jpg
cf223be13a66b8acb461f13ab8979ee2
5731c899102d7256c65c9cb048372e6ff8fab7bc
25154 F20101208_AAAYOX reynolds_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
aa60ee44f11b91fc1435bcddb8965e75
a587421a7644caa6eebe191d850993511c91d26c
59465 F20101208_AAAXMJ reynolds_c_Page_126.pro
4fe8fab7cbbcdafadadfdaeebd2b7af8
b8ff3a64e2308005a962f39eaff244b0f2b0aa90
6358 F20101208_AAAYPL reynolds_c_Page_057thm.jpg
7b5ab54326e755b3b13503b248214246
431e974aa215bd5ac0d6da1d5f73b98bd75d0683
6587 F20101208_AAAYQB reynolds_c_Page_065thm.jpg
b6ae746a62139dd7a98b29dce8cd9c32
94c3d3c4dd4a83ae076cf98b5411cda99b7417f7
63879 F20101208_AAAXLW reynolds_c_Page_058.jpg
547768cba41707ab20ebb876de052f1d
27c7200eabb2067f4057f7b2a29cc33e6c6eb95c
6772 F20101208_AAAYOY reynolds_c_Page_048thm.jpg
b437205f1d0d3e440e6c6c40e52e3552
dbbad41d3dbc282aa1be0c3f90914c7781762045
F20101208_AAAXMK reynolds_c_Page_042.tif
5b8d32b33b127e1f722828184d01738d
8947d3272fba6039de3096f7d483bc5de51af6c1
20562 F20101208_AAAYPM reynolds_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
025a6e640beaa9bf0ede83b27d6d3d01
c72665aa33352a4a3718f8e17793f773900aab78
25257 F20101208_AAAYQC reynolds_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
28806bedf6bb639b2bac0318e28d05a3
1b82b6add345007bc5b3b1b37aa09988b6c7b426
51067 F20101208_AAAXLX reynolds_c_Page_093.pro
7f8c63c6200beabb04333629718c09f2
4f8887eb450587b773caa3714ba5a6a0573d0b6e
6603 F20101208_AAAYOZ reynolds_c_Page_050thm.jpg
39cc13402adfa46b8a45c61d6632552e
e25b0f09a171758f01e5316d18190dd4a6bfeac0
132540 F20101208_AAAXNA reynolds_c_Page_120.jp2
321cc4977e84b6c4e176f851fe4440c7
a4c6a6b786e14789f676c4d36408b5572f069ef4
102559 F20101208_AAAXML reynolds_c_Page_024.jp2
1d34a4381049551d24a65489831ed331
41ae31e22d385ab7a2eb9d9aaed8f0bd061c3240
5889 F20101208_AAAYPN reynolds_c_Page_058thm.jpg
2818723fea586c5bb49f984198f22389
22b3fa6b7a4a1b74da3b8d234a015406aca233c4
6982 F20101208_AAAYQD reynolds_c_Page_066thm.jpg
7ba59913afe83599a735bfd4ac840913
aab8303c690e83527e2d665fa2954708753c9699
6620 F20101208_AAAXLY reynolds_c_Page_017thm.jpg
b659e4bcb4215e2fe9e22a4e13be4d05
cdf4e0f219a0f5fa1c08a884605e297aa4335788
66970 F20101208_AAAXNB reynolds_c_Page_078.jp2
c9805be956ca6ae40bc5dd960a721884
d814e3d3b0ee203f313ed642da4e6e75b6f57832
3167 F20101208_AAAXMM reynolds_c_Page_118thm.jpg
402a6f702b7df94556c322a9073d3265
c2388b71f0b078921cd66be8a49204b413ed4e03
F20101208_AAAYPO reynolds_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
f123e16164a2ccaa99f67d29d9925946
f8fcae8059717901afd902740c557eb7e4bd65ff
6889 F20101208_AAAYQE reynolds_c_Page_067thm.jpg
7fba4f4c27f162f74c0ac734e4af2043
9c84e43e7b6d979c4b67fac16095b96a54bad1c5
69620 F20101208_AAAXLZ reynolds_c_Page_030.jpg
c1485868409854b429d5ec1f550f487a
481a07d3a12e21a72971b3a24bedff3d921f8386
235778 F20101208_AAAXNC reynolds_c_Page_119.jp2
1c217d36106bc6633f526296b5e447ba
7c2d8a0da082bcdfea5fea051afeeb551676a8d4
27676 F20101208_AAAXMN reynolds_c_Page_001.jp2
c7b87397de5a8e0e2b83d34a338af54c
07497dd600f656751dfe23c53f65fb2678edcc2f
6974 F20101208_AAAYPP reynolds_c_Page_059thm.jpg
ce29e2eda561eb43157e462c2af4c1be
3d06d6a8743d5c0ddb1d6a057e0cfd0fb5f3ac35
69291 F20101208_AAAXMO reynolds_c_Page_033.jpg
46a3bcb1c59accd50cc39de9cce812ad
1ec0c929bc2d25128acb209f600a59aa3ce32e00
24953 F20101208_AAAYPQ reynolds_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
ddcad9029ab6ebe7b8b2305d0f245ce8
6382d36514ebb97c3e9c88e992f13ee1f0a208c1
23334 F20101208_AAAYQF reynolds_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
34755a31fb003f67ba000fe47ba9c5a2
5688d4025655e1854e229a16ca342a4ff4be2160
52224 F20101208_AAAXND reynolds_c_Page_102.pro
f18f13d75d30a4c299579c3e35a47c35
b90a5e35ef301b8dd66fbbf28b4e7fc279039f02
F20101208_AAAXMP reynolds_c_Page_026.tif
f35642c1531b72b67b558e728b17bf76
cf657eeb7686aba31b5eb4cb58806358b1a48e21
6762 F20101208_AAAYPR reynolds_c_Page_060thm.jpg
e64b63c9660d3f922aa271a41139a778
96fe486727d9423a3b1807482634792c89e079b5
6582 F20101208_AAAYQG reynolds_c_Page_068thm.jpg
f4abb6856600a073c8c7c678f3aec9b4
b4ad0ecc3f0b11c7f7e31672973a40a6171202f1
76791 F20101208_AAAXNE reynolds_c_Page_059.jpg
82aab9b4595a0bbba4d17137103ba246
54b6f6522a168555eb4988b502800e0b4ca6bd48
14498 F20101208_AAAXMQ reynolds_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
9dcc1e18754d9c303812c352c8fecf31
add0a1e96a9eab5d7bf48c84bf77128f6fed7b5a
21081 F20101208_AAAYPS reynolds_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
9d5c50284088a6e7b977a4a7511e1bd7
3faf7a07263d893e889fa7779bc97470cc4fa05d
23345 F20101208_AAAYQH reynolds_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
d529d15d270536027ea53d1954bb0f98
2b361889cd469c7a2a8553ff9954d5ec2cbcbdb6
25181 F20101208_AAAXNF reynolds_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
571b50bb243077683f15dcfec5fb66d8
58733ea8328969c6025eb788d06c1631e9ce0ca5
51119 F20101208_AAAXMR reynolds_c_Page_100.pro
53f76d04f410a77425dc39c3d2f7bb64
f0c7816e5132733b10005cc0c0b25b31bfb66501
5950 F20101208_AAAYPT reynolds_c_Page_061thm.jpg
44ddacb4935f7c3a324b01ecd5c89539
5b4ae4d2c16e9a781da19085e2ba840ba5b07d56
6541 F20101208_AAAYQI reynolds_c_Page_069thm.jpg
7e2461f335c881db37eb53723e874b10
990525aaedbac6ce2e971a652c3549298d2aa760
7029 F20101208_AAAXNG reynolds_c_Page_015thm.jpg
30846d20dfb40fd8e48289fd3c72c15a
5a0a7e8eb0fbc73ab7a42ef8550a77f6a4730c8e
1753 F20101208_AAAXMS reynolds_c_Page_023.txt
75ec8ef176729ab060fe04ca9ed39d15
e88e7195624f333f1fcef60891970d11864bd55d
22599 F20101208_AAAYPU reynolds_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
630bf92b02545487dbb9d9d65c0408c7
e114902c1855a209a984699b2cadd1629edb5deb
25185 F20101208_AAAYQJ reynolds_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
3dc869bd2f737951e84ab5e710c69244
90378bc2b7e69e0e8a08fc2d0ccefabcfd2769cc
25318 F20101208_AAAXNH reynolds_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
69ef13b25396d6b9921ff09ea6c27087
0ab7f79af641a4265594523103e53e0577fa1d91
7168 F20101208_AAAXMT reynolds_c_Page_049thm.jpg
9d6cf206dcde4f1bcc1f0df9831bc31a
22104c3e09178dacc32658e0399fc07a195d5618
6394 F20101208_AAAYPV reynolds_c_Page_062thm.jpg
9c2279fce845d6378ac2872e1d3375fd
17c4a89458d8165fb3c8806c0d80f9e6016aabbd
7230 F20101208_AAAYQK reynolds_c_Page_070thm.jpg
4a79742e119ca3338fd0e9bf43b9d173
3da49153c2deb685aa4893f2c75b5445c5f8d76d
37873 F20101208_AAAXNI reynolds_c_Page_075.jpg
53b29cb3cb8a5a0f799588e4ef4a6796
487851e0502fcc09e7069ce7ddff39971bb411c5
53236 F20101208_AAAXMU reynolds_c_Page_053.pro
d7a0ee2204eddd2aed64eb5a2ea2145f
73637990726011eedee70af80a629bdcf6a9310e
24158 F20101208_AAAYPW reynolds_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
468a024f7a23440090fab7ff2ac17c13
847a39121cd92f1940baf8fc60fce82c48529e0c
4438 F20101208_AAAYRA reynolds_c_Page_078thm.jpg
43e67f1b438aa4972609c052580996ec
c79ef5846bdbaa429b80b7bc24db103496d694b2
23625 F20101208_AAAYQL reynolds_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
751cb9b702bb5a9912a89350ddf737fa
b8410aa999de76a295e8ef391e5990efd4ff6095
47542 F20101208_AAAXNJ reynolds_c_Page_057.pro
6ccf7c7e02996fe9d008da0c8c899898
da64cab4b78286e8c87dd5ba80b3fa34cde64da7
111773 F20101208_AAAXMV reynolds_c_Page_063.jp2
a9fb11485e7906b7e17f4622925504e5
e98bb8d5c43e0087597ea634faab668c4f738502
6744 F20101208_AAAYPX reynolds_c_Page_063thm.jpg
d521a8fd700efc7f632e87c51e11422f
df222e58c096c57c077d82f0f6eef0018d60017a
4304 F20101208_AAAYRB reynolds_c_Page_079thm.jpg
a4b826f975de26fa4073ad3729a2acc8
6d56a10b906a351beb1f00ed76c6e60551392d89
6432 F20101208_AAAYQM reynolds_c_Page_071thm.jpg
b03c3051953efdab72b95155ba1ee131
0b1145c98f5d7b7e4db06a27e3c21aecb4d5d823
8565 F20101208_AAAXNK reynolds_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
46c01c98b7bc943f4033a7b61f18710b
4c20bcbe15cc032e077be2839b852a6412e0492c
120671 F20101208_AAAXMW reynolds_c_Page_020.jp2
8d95399e04b4298f94b322ec45a6dfb1
39e320e26a0d670e1dad7ad4c71ac17299baa42a
21553 F20101208_AAAYPY reynolds_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
7b8b89217c5cd29282048fc17307a6c2
413894e54a284770a8389f30a6883c0dab750697
13201 F20101208_AAAYRC reynolds_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
936da807c4c10d22174f618271301704
ed0d1c3e577dcf1284d0736a94bebfdb2c85cc15
24683 F20101208_AAAYQN reynolds_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
5d20c16836f4226b7b8ccdc0442e6fe3
fdaba120fb944d67a934eb4d6570b84c673e9da0
6031 F20101208_AAAYPZ reynolds_c_Page_064thm.jpg
7330f4f5c8b8d30c44adcc75f51d79b1
4c2e6082fc192f1a93d9b8aa577f2fa621483a9a
109596 F20101208_AAAXOA reynolds_c_Page_076.jp2
493fa30b81319513216d82e8537f0391
ba7632448f39d1e9c12ee7ff0fb5e00a6ef1c424
136714 F20101208_AAAXNL reynolds_c_Page_125.jp2
f511202cddcf812a7382943fb7013c5d
cc3ad2e60034c6e58d40002a25ee2ad8c89ad51d
23203 F20101208_AAAXMX reynolds_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
89ff280e309dacaf3af6b90bafff2459
b225ca01f8d180f38887889a0275f1698b04f9e5
3743 F20101208_AAAYRD reynolds_c_Page_080thm.jpg
033bf9fbdca36970be643f05d00b5028
e0c02085f9c5edc21b3526530a3024ecf5e93caa
6681 F20101208_AAAYQO reynolds_c_Page_072thm.jpg
b9bf3b3d81982f3d7f95238fb2201ded
7421d8829f7290040192c8bbb528f19cb983f7ae
27006 F20101208_AAAXOB reynolds_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
6dd7a89c81be60f70ebe3a7f1ca9e549
855f255415b540a4e66108784cb9de8e2a3baa53
97385 F20101208_AAAXNM reynolds_c_Page_006.jpg
74dd6f87a4e3cacc5853f47e2861bb5d
ee679b085d1d7f2dbb545acce55c93205c1c76fe
28444 F20101208_AAAXMY reynolds_c_Page_013.jp2
d8e3e62c6fbf208ae9b5a85df9ea9176
c4de523fbfdcddb8f76d17432971d2fcb9456799
13702 F20101208_AAAYRE reynolds_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
3a13b8670ba99873bb0c3d533114143a
7d77255ad90f025b0aafd6d631c51478459e0075
25963 F20101208_AAAYQP reynolds_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
a1cd02cff4a1da14640118c6a5b33715
b3828f150be39b2dd1903d1c3040a48f3e92668f
F20101208_AAAXOC reynolds_c_Page_022.tif
1dac81e29566046b79926c1d2dc2378f
c7045e17dba1b05e959c26ac4e2a383efdb56842
70942 F20101208_AAAXNN reynolds_c_Page_079.jp2
1e08d6d1716bbe3a7eb3cfa321c374a1
fc331d79613a9f173f94a1438d7d02006ff2683b
25938 F20101208_AAAXMZ reynolds_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
05468e58819abb31f89933a132d409e9
9cf4434b20dbe9b10ec345c2193d521675c1bfd6
3929 F20101208_AAAYRF reynolds_c_Page_081thm.jpg
219cae683818c0b17cda381aa24d1129
6a2819dc2ce1ca704d921f11984a935a27b6c9e4
7065 F20101208_AAAYQQ reynolds_c_Page_073thm.jpg
ae6fb03cb2d2a0ff0bf68b78f65e9f9a
2ccc3170a46f1ee6d463d2d834f03f32732b0e5a
F20101208_AAAXOD reynolds_c_Page_012.tif
b8c5d7f6f8fc6a1fb5407f5844501c7b
d38359c41eb357e8c426261c7d1f950185ae7836
44560 F20101208_AAAXNO reynolds_c_Page_081.jpg
b28c0443877a4ccdbb8eb8abc89754c7
391e9114899c0a9bb4a77145f6ccc7f0c32ca9f6
15033 F20101208_AAAYQR reynolds_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
52659a0eed96a9c5fca66ac408e66e4f
1a81a16d1f86dae90955f37ab7971c2ad3522c83
6117 F20101208_AAAXNP reynolds_c_Page_027thm.jpg
fe7b94b777e1a74415f1e0403fd73afe
96c4c5fb764859c52d64a2ff8c36509f70987e5c
20349 F20101208_AAAYRG reynolds_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
0eb9fb7cea748a3770a3b6011c996570
f47d0cd21a00c3614af026240bbe0f82cf90964c
4252 F20101208_AAAYQS reynolds_c_Page_074thm.jpg
62c14e4fbddeeff0ad9126a0cce2cef9
5d287894214d32019e42905ebcc7ed701ed7e19b
50622 F20101208_AAAXOE reynolds_c_Page_070.pro
c57c2b1c80fbfa59b59caf9c57451a3c
92e7bf192eb903b9e11a9cf4a606c094f9c4bea2
9390 F20101208_AAAXNQ reynolds_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
4480c680ff0362f65a6da3c602c60adf
1dacdc20dcfacb0f2627f9fb8d8c221e198ccbe8
6156 F20101208_AAAYRH reynolds_c_Page_083thm.jpg
b9780cf02b683e3e941480c3a06421fc
e4227ae0f8dd622b737adcf488fefe0893c6959d
12018 F20101208_AAAYQT reynolds_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
26932c927c72af96865c5cfd1106ff40
9680cc096112b8a4c3425b3cb7049f09daeed9d6
120444 F20101208_AAAXOF reynolds_c_Page_039.jp2
c385ac0e8e9d011362321d312b202c96
9d8f7347f983b5215fece5620b81249562fcfd3a
102141 F20101208_AAAXNR reynolds_c_Page_027.jp2
87d2ee8b77515f2e1c3621327f8373fe
20bf6c85fb1fcf5ca9cd76d72a53b1b17068ebf0
25164 F20101208_AAAYRI reynolds_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
b2e274034a24e120fecf725beb3245a9
6fb567abc2b84ec1c68dd24d4cc33e7aef9ee9f1
3367 F20101208_AAAYQU reynolds_c_Page_075thm.jpg
c9a138840d3a6417b3c0b0a3a6af6ff0
7062a0c9adfad0a39176a084c4e5eea5f96edb15
14193 F20101208_AAAXOG reynolds_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
0782774bf53665d6d9c3da7c15a329bc
6bf836a4f2f23cea2d2f2153d0aa5321005e4075
815 F20101208_AAAXNS reynolds_c_Page_018.txt
f70cf5098bd3b0023870a979dcaef30f
6297b5f040c2669b17940f66d21661fb2c266c11
6960 F20101208_AAAYRJ reynolds_c_Page_084thm.jpg
b0305dd7ee9ae770f6772a1b73ffefe7
023e4172cae02f57137337bd4aa509255e9b4de3
21995 F20101208_AAAYQV reynolds_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
9637300e31ecd4324ad018d8a831da05
eac4ecffa070eb06553c1caf8ff9134be8bbd8c1
108877 F20101208_AAAXOH reynolds_c_Page_093.jp2
8ceed8ecfa86d38da06e77f43ccbcab3
e67a902d317cb1795bfaf52e6dedd16fc8c6084f
2568 F20101208_AAAXNT reynolds_c_Page_016.txt
ec05ab0878bf8a6606ca8c4428e1f56f
da99f46fa1365c3a01aeacfa0595ba3bc9af7c3f
24173 F20101208_AAAYRK reynolds_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
32100bff44886666998ce88a573842fd
abda462249cb0720d0c2c41ae8a93d9801bc16c6
5895 F20101208_AAAYQW reynolds_c_Page_076thm.jpg
1a82590acba5d1f8410ca5032fbed24c
7fa3227a2931358278d0bf78daebae768c20b8b0
12492 F20101208_AAAXOI reynolds_c_Page_127.pro
29e7bf97a3ee1cac66e3559076b5597e
19f3d3b914a0eaf48480b8fe9fbc069230228ba8
24386 F20101208_AAAXNU reynolds_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
5973ae2bd912334e1fc8da63ec5be7fb
77d4f5e64e6374ce595349557c673bb781bc2ca1
6720 F20101208_AAAYSA reynolds_c_Page_095thm.jpg
12056f87af147993c7efd7ffc6a6be53
759c303f2adc4cccc2a4cfd4a27998086ff0f984
7059 F20101208_AAAYRL reynolds_c_Page_086thm.jpg
594457a184688c5e635d3f469d6383e7
739a412e6bc533861a6391c0706f04df92496641
14886 F20101208_AAAYQX reynolds_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
c14c7ccec3b1be0466daf8f426698276
7fbe351515a834413001755ccbd17e9497c8a0b8
1360 F20101208_AAAXOJ reynolds_c_Page_002thm.jpg
b19d667a2fa0badbcf533ccd966b53f9
17838d89b9edaf977b1fc057f02854cfbd272349
50153 F20101208_AAAXNV reynolds_c_Page_046.pro
07da9b46c1172cdeb09670e6f2b642c5
c7fefc41e6cc7e572beada6220cb2e47ce80bb8e
24510 F20101208_AAAYSB reynolds_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
72127f09976cbc4bcf6204b438700b36
2ef83650862f84ba0e772b9a670cf04a327fa59b
24729 F20101208_AAAYRM reynolds_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
5a3f41bbd12e057a138e3756a73254f7
9dc8d982c1b3e5e8f43e182f713031284019b181
4113 F20101208_AAAYQY reynolds_c_Page_077thm.jpg
3a1ae826a4f66ef0c54bc62d9f8aef5c
e426944046a2f17a09fa5cef9ef7d433f873af71
111765 F20101208_AAAXOK reynolds_c_Page_029.jp2
fca8f294462a8dad83723880fc07a3ee
da7acd9eca8a02033f14bb277d7813641156ac12
972 F20101208_AAAXNW reynolds_c_Page_080.txt
0f0129c91541bb3db70cea60df7f0baf
0165d950ec604c22e742e08f83c56b88598aec00
6809 F20101208_AAAYSC reynolds_c_Page_096thm.jpg
5fe60df7556b11c8ffc7718800963fb1
f62e45bf18e4a4d843e2bd20d046af5c07854240
6896 F20101208_AAAYRN reynolds_c_Page_087thm.jpg
9668959bf596a0554dac84d0748e02e9
f7030097e667291e01f54786d2a7137697424974
14998 F20101208_AAAYQZ reynolds_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
282d39caf53942758a248f15e8d1257c
e1e90ee4e2a8608b84c4423d34360af8198f90ce
56049 F20101208_AAAXOL reynolds_c_Page_017.pro
ac2d760d19a7038211a644b0f644c7ec
09e5aadc02dbdbc83cf353c4da8667e71dd7d7e1
F20101208_AAAXNX reynolds_c_Page_033.tif
3bab44e4542a177c853b62d2c2c94f5f
a5c0633b733f07dd51c3f52dddcf5fed427d8bdf
123084 F20101208_AAAXPA reynolds_c_Page_015.jp2
7a24c80fce1d60cd271cd5397a7dc23c
878e4f85b1d4866668581b911ff6ae63e15215a4
25678 F20101208_AAAYSD reynolds_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
fdbdb0c675be7cd27a1533e4e720f57f
83bc8225439619f9544319f1a402b1ccae8594de
26006 F20101208_AAAYRO reynolds_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
8424be818484d4a69b28aab90859a156
63a8a646990bc354efa31f6bb062f36cb630658b
84746 F20101208_AAAXOM reynolds_c_Page_016.jpg
b97dd918ca96fb25aa9e095c5a308b55
3cf6a846810c7d5f5f2d9458b1fe4df4c16d048d
F20101208_AAAXNY reynolds_c_Page_005.tif
17015064c25d84ca6e699a43c8d8dd00
b37641aff8cdfd712b92ad03fe52f1ccca037c1a
7076 F20101208_AAAXPB reynolds_c_Page_034thm.jpg
5f1dcdf639e230ab5dc696821ad1db81
412d18b78a25eadf1ac20db7a1840d71bf5f62d1
6764 F20101208_AAAYSE reynolds_c_Page_097thm.jpg
e5e98d23a9ba694a0410da3cc033b1ac
2718802227ec13ce4708eda629fa80755ba04116
7097 F20101208_AAAYRP reynolds_c_Page_088thm.jpg
1c1e4f5864e1190625e6e4a8571a1081
38b97bea6337b79f164502610bc2a767f61ec3d6
68753 F20101208_AAAXON reynolds_c_Page_083.jpg
33a73517ecfbd4dd2eb410d769c4ce4d
ba7ab691c7bcbdcc70fe50480d91dc20d869c867
8423998 F20101208_AAAXNZ reynolds_c_Page_113.tif
d418fa80a671981afe42e03fe52aba95
6e1bc781ffb6e66378518da5d1aa780105541c17
376 F20101208_AAAXPC reynolds_c_Page_128.txt
fdfd74f6fed7e6428d1bec4aaa350165
95fc24a72d7b425914b5ab9559fbd83f32723594
26022 F20101208_AAAYSF reynolds_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
7e6afb467f870149161972202cffaf9d
ddd46e38249719f7000be055c7b886758121b7fe
25430 F20101208_AAAYRQ reynolds_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
fbfca5e921ec974b261a2b9c366ccaf2
e0ca4d1f9dd9ca150ad9ff685b142b2530af27a1
2139 F20101208_AAAXPD reynolds_c_Page_034.txt
63b4d4c52c956a0ac70eb5c4a9061b5f
8174cca17ab3c9e06b8e7f33d898c33ecccde7c3
1052 F20101208_AAAXOO reynolds_c_Page_008.txt
c658355fe99b8078d5f02e8d9748da47
f705eee565bc9e439d3feb8ba95c138ee030072c
7089 F20101208_AAAYSG reynolds_c_Page_098thm.jpg
7d4fb00449f3e50158f920c36e7a4903
b47364d9ced23d0ec41b8e72350dda56fb044452
6998 F20101208_AAAYRR reynolds_c_Page_089thm.jpg
f5aff01d96ddc1598856f2bb73b31295
a31ea3c67aef125f517d7b7c10be86a0c560746c
83103 F20101208_AAAXPE reynolds_c_Page_121.jpg
f5217e63fd92b690b9276eef2cce9ed9
a9926cd4061856b960d8658ddbc697e413de0246
75704 F20101208_AAAXOP reynolds_c_Page_099.jpg
942d0d2d8756f9a5e582927eb8c90c6e
ea2948c5fd2264d5a597fed703d5b8898bcfb0ac
6589 F20101208_AAAYRS reynolds_c_Page_090thm.jpg
1d8fb03c35a04f4f0ce205fb9e033423
ff7b5ce4e4f431aee0f5eaeaca6d726530216fc8
112988 F20101208_AAAXOQ reynolds_c_Page_042.jp2
bbb4f7ded1e9c8b28f5139e5d9d2dfc7
5393939e07c148181f96568f4337502299511244
24885 F20101208_AAAYSH reynolds_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
a32cd94f6f58bba19058b146ea460807
6717710da4ef9488e8edf14bed850a54701916f1
24659 F20101208_AAAYRT reynolds_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
138cc8de6be761dbf86cffc25af2f6b2
b189a537e150877d154939bf8178da9df704c27b
11956 F20101208_AAAXPF reynolds_c_Page_117.pro
64623f77931822e649b8c5bbcd2d375b
28fb7553b5fc132659057ed26c8f294387ae8a84
25770 F20101208_AAAXOR reynolds_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
274f08ec8705cef870d238ca05e07d79
c18af7475481bb0253db008847272eccb028a6ea
F20101208_AAAYSI reynolds_c_Page_099thm.jpg
5899fe979702d070a7067214f5849850
82b6b792c0f215190f3921472dff8548707ad8bd
26335 F20101208_AAAYRU reynolds_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
c921d92cf9d0c81adec3ae1a8d347614
8a0c10563a655858e2708769868880105f4881fa
114872 F20101208_AAAXPG reynolds_c_Page_019.jp2
76d4b381909a7221e3cf68287a761405
49188ce64078df947aa57e1591fff8d2848d570c
53694 F20101208_AAAXOS reynolds_c_Page_067.pro
3337cbc9a1f1fd63844cc4691ad46ff9
ef3fe7cc8e11975682d205ddd418bd40e0a6fd45
23852 F20101208_AAAYSJ reynolds_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
7042b2831e7052161fe10112beda1f4a
d207026eac8cf8aaf80b4d19de72c03fd632d043
24021 F20101208_AAAYRV reynolds_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
0bd3d2344bf8c143f284633c9bc4ff66
2428d755d291e4234bc26e2b9f0c8a820ccf1447
6824 F20101208_AAAXPH reynolds_c_Page_037thm.jpg
138b0930c3094205f432952d3fe17d6d
f3ae220b470e400b90fb3332cbe8ccd9a123cfa3
78993 F20101208_AAAXOT reynolds_c_Page_107.jpg
d230613d03157cf547738b2ed082b90e
a6e0e7b158b7e34349abf6e16af4540d0d425b1e
6508 F20101208_AAAYSK reynolds_c_Page_100thm.jpg
6627a89b585c1ae7fa91ad163391990c
1ace1a8bb15c35e08b8ba744330b8a7ff2031aa3
6864 F20101208_AAAYRW reynolds_c_Page_093thm.jpg
096604caec13f8b3e6b536a017280e4f
353e7ce9ae5aa74c49301c0f82c07843e256f0a7
2224 F20101208_AAAXPI reynolds_c_Page_031.txt
ae3e4bea097257976150edc29200421f
bc1633508e8f781cb78a2d1132c0d0a40565b93a
6909 F20101208_AAAXOU reynolds_c_Page_091thm.jpg
9b22b0a226d83bed334475fac6289c89
46adfec6de6afafd1f2e24fe8ca3009f81e20d69
6177 F20101208_AAAYTA reynolds_c_Page_109thm.jpg
8aa40ab9b521b11d8d56a320d84007e1
de2a0e2aceaa13a8f406eeefa90942db012df726
7022 F20101208_AAAYSL reynolds_c_Page_101thm.jpg
714cb290b8e764df1f0e839c28863ebd
a06c19646bec50073818ca20c796350dd69fe657
23185 F20101208_AAAYRX reynolds_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
e3d3918e82c5333fb3e9bb038a0518af
8315a66a6f14ebe89344c604b4ae2edfe715b87a
25547 F20101208_AAAXPJ reynolds_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
72801db0d68449f38c37c15839d89d2a
12311d5add8af7c578b7c68a3f682b24057109a5
2026 F20101208_AAAXOV reynolds_c_Page_025.txt
cdc33477304e6a3b1077433aeaa7ddf4
04d955ed4b0438fb8af000d65449dae1c673702d
18304 F20101208_AAAYTB reynolds_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
8536fea485e5721c3322d0fb20b29802
d8a1f22295fdb7e19420fc8cc4f139654c34f5f2
23746 F20101208_AAAYSM reynolds_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
fafef2911760a404c2939775edd68286
4a14ac7d5e97a3b1450efbba6f12b776069992be
6556 F20101208_AAAYRY reynolds_c_Page_094thm.jpg
4603332149f394bce6c85892b896e4ec
85e6dc10fc5ec1fd9022b1950b9da808f90a9c79
2398 F20101208_AAAXPK reynolds_c_Page_112.txt
bdf0e81c1fdd1b5c77459f93067ad8ab
9e379f2b2d662aac6d70002248c1c9085cef6193
66909 F20101208_AAAXOW reynolds_c_Page_055.jp2
2545496e58a3584b46991c8d167a1635
fa76bb7e45289189e5d1316d694003f2cecf21e4
5278 F20101208_AAAYTC reynolds_c_Page_110thm.jpg
9ac9e0e2cbe36707308254e8396bf4f3
15b374478196c7423e0de4ff1fa1cfdc314b3d3b
6540 F20101208_AAAYSN reynolds_c_Page_102thm.jpg
e9ef4dd56df43c392e0e56c764e9181c
58ea5b9d81ae4e53e1b90f55710c71692a8ee7ef
25110 F20101208_AAAYRZ reynolds_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
1ff9863e518c0d064f5cbfc8d952052e
8bd5244de9edb760d8828148ef232e562d6e02ce
F20101208_AAAXQA reynolds_c_Page_047.tif
ca6d016ba19c217822816a54a6874a58
c580cdff3eb22d421a6900ee4e86286754c2a9b5
43748 F20101208_AAAXPL reynolds_c_Page_023.pro
369887ce2a6d2f432c4b3429d9d2203f
bc87b3920ae87cb1774391c23913db239a127e44
51691 F20101208_AAAXOX reynolds_c_Page_014.pro
8d0ebc164e8332e718e4260eafaefc5a
902d8e8bbdb22578e1910607b507ebee32d99ea3
20431 F20101208_AAAYTD reynolds_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
2e94fb5e8afdb5e7ca52399ffe535569
9d79e01260fee8341c831823518ac8479ad22ffd
6999 F20101208_AAAYSO reynolds_c_Page_103thm.jpg
e1f1a732d9ebb1aaac4cc15f1f16bd28
c45b960f958a8f48510dde1134ed3b2cd41fb76b
54012 F20101208_AAAXQB reynolds_c_Page_037.pro
88399a0c51ea0a09c05decf22a5fbaec
15cd9b74feb6aea4c49eabef50c5a19b7aa80e24
117460 F20101208_AAAXPM reynolds_c_Page_089.jp2
441bf4d263b2f8e44476f66b5dc553be
de1b91859b71d3ff7cfe0926d68f27f9c0d4676a
78280 F20101208_AAAXOY reynolds_c_Page_066.jpg
5439a68023fdde4ac4a7b850aa01933b
b9216b6c8ad7ecab5ef9bb3bfaf461d53eb28dfc
5384 F20101208_AAAYTE reynolds_c_Page_111thm.jpg
10707bf0cbe97c5fc3fb02727f9e9a96
123eff70655b9ac30a0526f20a9961f240ddec53
24008 F20101208_AAAYSP reynolds_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
12d33b96d4b06898b38786e2d6a94033
c63a1d2dcccd0fc5218f56e116cf7e38989d963e
76559 F20101208_AAAXQC reynolds_c_Page_048.jpg
4d10a5dd48e9850d19d789e0b769b7b9
ae765c1e55aa1a8fedd03e270a2a4d0828f5327c
48584 F20101208_AAAXPN reynolds_c_Page_062.pro
989f074cc88b3410790d00bbcda2efea
d4b33859160e462dd4e9e0af728a29cd3fe1885e
50297 F20101208_AAAXOZ reynolds_c_Page_108.pro
f256e6fb0ef440aa418b17e94b513cad
4e132f024552eba12dcb7498eb879575e938c1e0
23376 F20101208_AAAYTF reynolds_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
0e1bf1b0ab3a379db3420255989d7788
d054f9cc8d4a49dbb1b45425a3a8d8c41c9be473
6420 F20101208_AAAYSQ reynolds_c_Page_104thm.jpg
7d50f5ceec4b4ed918f83d27a72933bf
a3f8b1ad5a9079e383844b0e35a77b21b51c66d9
F20101208_AAAXQD reynolds_c_Page_072.tif
0d42135157dba0cc5e4f5b841492ab3c
ec860ecffa7d9cd60b61c47a236154585bd4f58d
F20101208_AAAXPO reynolds_c_Page_028.txt
d98cb40004f33a55dea86a917dbabdba
da2b05127ec11dd64e3d089723f77cd74ec19521
6276 F20101208_AAAYTG reynolds_c_Page_112thm.jpg
a4d75f99b93bec4ab4982343d6bdda0f
956bd3d54d980147bfae675dd97bfc762bf7ca6f
24798 F20101208_AAAYSR reynolds_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
697f03621ea9717c9c76b8ffff053830
5e4d0d9d372970478100fb11c256d682fd204092
24934 F20101208_AAAXQE reynolds_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
884007b5f67cd5d0bb39e38d8e5abed0
ced8a9d7bdccbcd0fd99d5f2e700ff9788c98261
135960 F20101208_AAAXPP reynolds_c_Page_124.jp2
7527a6970f3936b8d6ab259a1db328b4
4ca239114acf79b24a6acf6bac1663a7448e428a
10661 F20101208_AAAYTH reynolds_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
22f1d7d46a133159d7d056421d7a333b
5eeb0407df0b41ba280c6113e43afb6a6bc44ccb
6557 F20101208_AAAYSS reynolds_c_Page_105thm.jpg
d3b7b0c43c1e185a488318546129ce4d
146c932a1ba18d779fbea331dd419a5ed77b97e0
51798 F20101208_AAAXQF reynolds_c_Page_079.jpg
afc69e23f370bab7bc2c48c0f24cf524
fe764308ed417ccbf0a30639fdf9fe24e2f10f0a
5769 F20101208_AAAXPQ reynolds_c_Page_082thm.jpg
77715a06590b2d844407d85ad441c5b8
bac832eb669242b7aeeebca8cdd76dd88c148bad
10908 F20101208_AAAYST reynolds_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
d6195e5c8208b2460f110f5b951e5bf1
f56e8e7dd325c053c802c643126a4b2a1e40ff03
112076 F20101208_AAAXPR reynolds_c_Page_102.jp2
c011a363699d21781aefd0786cd36dd9
0a201f7d4d82e3d62357790e5c995a475e5248c2
3349 F20101208_AAAYTI reynolds_c_Page_113thm.jpg
f194690dda95b2ddc88760a2b7e1a6cc
c30120f97947f3d9fda113cb24555a6e57bd2157
3328 F20101208_AAAYSU reynolds_c_Page_106thm.jpg
fab81c2821a81dc3dc67fd06388e741c
d631de5560e98444154fd7fb5e610d963f1acfb1
193708 F20101208_AAAXQG UFE0017562_00001.xml FULL
2368f081b4a304e72270c507c2a8791f
41776f35299417bd48c65f17f93c9a10f5bca6b8
6748 F20101208_AAAXPS reynolds_c_Page_085thm.jpg
1fb9d99cfb5486c69c8bcf77f357f900
8453913644b1af6929a95f6fa689d038a863dcfd
8668 F20101208_AAAYTJ reynolds_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
d6550b9f9c9f00b2fa950eb4a713c20b
e3b997caa9ee9e1ac46ddfddcc337cb6b32a9ed1
24156 F20101208_AAAYSV reynolds_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
030806c74a9d4b056f1c6382bdd52a80
1ac090f1596b1fece00563698bcbc2715716c348
5872 F20101208_AAAXPT reynolds_c_Page_006thm.jpg
16251924d6d6513c411f51150e0eea28
cea45d5d3ef548757bb87910734deb20db51612a
2714 F20101208_AAAYTK reynolds_c_Page_114thm.jpg
a5fc8a424801d01ece2ae103455bff0e
dc9955a635e764bbf9cbcf63a67a8b3e02a285d0
6392 F20101208_AAAYSW reynolds_c_Page_107thm.jpg
f3c2322ff653c9784c667c37d5350a4e
23d32f17f993929cd63dcdceee79eb6e3f303390
7001 F20101208_AAAXPU reynolds_c_Page_092thm.jpg
b3da279db887006a38613201f75613cf
f266a2e013b607a6970ee37b054ca708f2168d57
25771 F20101208_AAAYUA reynolds_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
36fc24259381f6c774a6cf5809f09a8a
dfcc506993d9695c0b78a1892f05109ff6bb02ed
8091 F20101208_AAAYTL reynolds_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
7f46c318ecedebf1fa0c400eb7494313
c117fa72f15a1e04e579b914ad413ca3242842b7
20448 F20101208_AAAYSX reynolds_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
f8d4e159a2b201d3b23f737a3cdf7127
3b709e89693a332ee75c29e2aae199b07e032415
24997 F20101208_AAAXQJ reynolds_c_Page_001.jpg
26e19f7a9f4634b160202522405a7903
bcd65c470f789f3b76082fb47ef3fc95ffc5d4ca
F20101208_AAAXPV reynolds_c_Page_094.tif
5d387b761af80a67817cae82e349471d
3ba98c875d71ad154b25c3e282061c9ef435d53f
6697 F20101208_AAAYUB reynolds_c_Page_124thm.jpg
57e1fa476a7727214ec7cb55f39de3d2
35ab022f0d95ffb682a16166d1db5d202b4d2656
2553 F20101208_AAAYTM reynolds_c_Page_115thm.jpg
71d725da0a84a49c1598e0bbe5fb4c68
105e269fc33ed66c817910896eb93c5cc09776c3
5576 F20101208_AAAYSY reynolds_c_Page_108thm.jpg
2367edd615e1ddd321f594120e79b982
11afbb45dbb95242609d99d076e9ad76b790a603
10373 F20101208_AAAXQK reynolds_c_Page_002.jpg
0bd29bb20582906d44f99b5c93a1ad25
926c9310baae8d497dc0369a60cc147df3283925
1926 F20101208_AAAXPW reynolds_c_Page_065.txt
f5c51c301bf475ac890edded2e863f46
8c577d2068987ee5f515087fb534688ea91f0eb7
6812 F20101208_AAAYUC reynolds_c_Page_125thm.jpg
ae64ba34f62a4e2868f9c29f2e26124e
f74e619e76e6d6a8a0a9a2a65292d45fb11fa527
8882 F20101208_AAAYTN reynolds_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
5d8927e1aac0609f18cffa7cd68187a1
3c2b40e07d2b9ffed2aa591a5dcc5bad05e3d5c2
21637 F20101208_AAAYSZ reynolds_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
359a76a4943eadbe1e8a18df45c1f953
0635d015e3edfd7aee0081e84f57364edf7ed96a
24604 F20101208_AAAXQL reynolds_c_Page_003.jpg
b005c51f8867ddb51e5474cccfa2da4c
b3053baafc4c2b7abca6c40845c086748ddaecfe
48206 F20101208_AAAXPX reynolds_c_Page_075.jp2
203c857ed3957a270e52ea2140a1d3b9
0add6e963e0f2cf6254ea1c950e4ac88e793d616
78689 F20101208_AAAXRA reynolds_c_Page_020.jpg
1aa2578a825f10f8e8bf7638f88e7b91
3c69d35849926cbccda51e65e2f3a1e57b9cad4c
25878 F20101208_AAAYUD reynolds_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
eb267b9663c77fdb9abd31ecba9a1fcb
4ad54d0b223af94a96780c71c3113c5a7ccd71d2
2731 F20101208_AAAYTO reynolds_c_Page_116thm.jpg
362b354d439d60de33b34cb5e8c1665a
f94ac0572e69ee8eea0172c0caaaa17166cd585f
43312 F20101208_AAAXQM reynolds_c_Page_004.jpg
3499563a44aa36f17761e42ba8c2c47e
078681a6b12535fa9f46845126b15be73123a55e
114290 F20101208_AAAXPY reynolds_c_Page_107.jp2
7b0e897fac87f767b70e19daf79b36ef
066a1d2570325a86b348f146c10684f447c9e211
72865 F20101208_AAAXRB reynolds_c_Page_021.jpg
0965af0780c4ac97a53a3fcc5875b15b
01284bf6de329be472e69a9f5a110e607c7025ff
6828 F20101208_AAAYUE reynolds_c_Page_126thm.jpg
6484ad3dcd4040d983ed36a45d287f6e
6cd05c367d20348fe65891464e1b514044d3db59
2983 F20101208_AAAYTP reynolds_c_Page_117thm.jpg
8f2c22fc604821736b0f2bc12d370256
371c95318d7f52997eeb33e463a6ab4c21f6824c
78463 F20101208_AAAXQN reynolds_c_Page_005.jpg
27aee880ae3ba4f37d490b98733fca5f
2b5fb3a4e2349181b431b0263fbf2b890ef6ca77
48599 F20101208_AAAXPZ reynolds_c_Page_030.pro
3c2ffe1820e95768eb2a97fd3e807a39
e5fbbf23af3de04f1f5e8e640285505c5ea61150
58698 F20101208_AAAXRC reynolds_c_Page_022.jpg
ecead3fa0b41e88adff7f6ee9bdc80a6
b580c8da0294ca350bdb53a03ba5603bf99a5713
7627 F20101208_AAAYUF reynolds_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
fa6a31bcbd26499ecd2014ffb45f24ed
a5a6df1de429ffc3d3b137e6299170c487d3c961
9337 F20101208_AAAYTQ reynolds_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
e4ea528efbf59cd82f24f55e57db3186
09fb43de9b2a422ece602a28266a73b0410f4e25
99774 F20101208_AAAXQO reynolds_c_Page_007.jpg
b8ff57144bcdc42ccb355da246b013db
635c45cb6781e7a32efebcbd43b2c2f15bccc8d1
66249 F20101208_AAAXRD reynolds_c_Page_023.jpg
4ffc0847ab02eff7d586fca136fdd555
b66cdb092427a42b28111f324317f599d1929a88
2431 F20101208_AAAYUG reynolds_c_Page_127thm.jpg
6d1f2e21cd6206d7b90c1328aab6bbc6
0d88de49c95bf16f99566b260f6ff77cf0f77fed
2609 F20101208_AAAYTR reynolds_c_Page_119thm.jpg
a7ac0816bdd74e78ef828235f9505376
c5c949dd3068d437eaa73fa43edc5ef0505fe3e1
39972 F20101208_AAAXQP reynolds_c_Page_008.jpg
abd606d0eca1fe244a0a1e5ce16f347d
ac31d0036f5379c1a0aa2899c1e9bdb708d8c0b5
68317 F20101208_AAAXRE reynolds_c_Page_024.jpg
d72c72ad117ce9100922138552eb9b3d
e447a4e21c815ed43868018ca990bfca37a98372
6477 F20101208_AAAYUH reynolds_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
5000ea76c39188e7cfff7c8d5626b8ba
e1d272808a1012bf9546c1e18b8ddede78d32bf0
24939 F20101208_AAAYTS reynolds_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
4a377533e8b5144720dc163f5feefc85
ff2feac650b80f231ff90ceec4890dc288bd32fb
73163 F20101208_AAAXQQ reynolds_c_Page_009.jpg
ba8f31c35c885ea7364c99c753cc4c77
bfcc4d46733458181f7a9063de74acd09fb79dd8
72725 F20101208_AAAXRF reynolds_c_Page_025.jpg
e4837de875eec82778af3e93dbbe2d85
7743a6b6f51d5dd04e4e7f88a7ef826226d3e616
F20101208_AAAYUI reynolds_c_Page_128thm.jpg
f804fe4683836c73b00e27f45c78622e
567e7e3b842a829d7e22a4423ef1f158afc56c17
6741 F20101208_AAAYTT reynolds_c_Page_120thm.jpg
5599fcc2214290bf3547b3d1f065fbcf
0ee1f786a2ce7c2ca5b30442a6108eb07705e1b9
26191 F20101208_AAAXQR reynolds_c_Page_010.jpg
41eeb8a7a55769a2301bc27b0a95de21
f9f101f3f6e27171d086e5bb0a8b4f11024b4ea5
69543 F20101208_AAAXRG reynolds_c_Page_026.jpg
b3cf00fbdd8f70264bbdd2b2824059e0
43a5b84f4ef1d954c432184bc97f8c181509c571
25628 F20101208_AAAYTU reynolds_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
95b79d55c3b793e22188aac613e74377
5525decc48ffe2e4910712e647ff877709a305cd
55098 F20101208_AAAXQS reynolds_c_Page_011.jpg
873ac444084c0d9d9b1d06e2df0403f6
bfc0412ec5e5107dde62f31931ca386173f55060
149372 F20101208_AAAYUJ UFE0017562_00001.mets
0fef5f4e56d21867eca0b18407a799ae
b52121f553616b0ee58c5f02c2f02884d930f035
7214 F20101208_AAAYTV reynolds_c_Page_121thm.jpg
b5311dcbc01542d385c94ae33de6643f
aed1c5c783c272f9121dcad8c5e8d37e765718e4
69489 F20101208_AAAXQT reynolds_c_Page_012.jpg
8e3d819f73de3ce9b42992c3bb73cbec
f2494f0a228f1b268a0b68ad5f994729838c797f
68315 F20101208_AAAXRH reynolds_c_Page_027.jpg
470068116f7557403a16f1f45060dbaf
db1962820c3c2b380c8faade70065789397b4a1c
27277 F20101208_AAAYTW reynolds_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
7c0e0467a2f64be1b792dd51d2f8732c
1a20a91f3244dbf25eb63dc62322b188613c5fc2
22806 F20101208_AAAXQU reynolds_c_Page_013.jpg
ce3afaed043d3218603dbec07c810665
7a6422976e582b7bf83be2fea95f7d6c29a70064
70676 F20101208_AAAXRI reynolds_c_Page_028.jpg
9d17958525085cc0e5240255c0d5e87f
90f331e3f159cd4e732b93c73df7ab78dbf4c150
7253 F20101208_AAAYTX reynolds_c_Page_122thm.jpg
90df38c6afe985a58e469a1898437658
b51df2219330121d2071be2dd3f18c676e30b6b0
74989 F20101208_AAAXQV reynolds_c_Page_014.jpg
2d07eb30bafad30eab8de52e76022be1
5f215d95d0efe4cff5d815507d84f5420ea1effe
72332 F20101208_AAAXRJ reynolds_c_Page_029.jpg
adb8c81278d6505393370a43b05a74e5
259ec2c297164c4498ee6fac9e508f589fccd7dd
26435 F20101208_AAAYTY reynolds_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
a1d661ce06c412a93df3f57a1b79cddf
72029f8f69ed30dec5b52b0f096877ffb3719942
80966 F20101208_AAAXQW reynolds_c_Page_015.jpg
ca5a86f4aaad898959f347dbdfc7645a
ede19bc03c8f3ff18105223d6a2f81b47769254a
77801 F20101208_AAAXRK reynolds_c_Page_031.jpg
16ad1f44695f2b78303732763e9ad3fa
e99324d0aab9ed346f07bccddb390f369d19260a
7064 F20101208_AAAYTZ reynolds_c_Page_123thm.jpg
d7652b0e0d2ff7ffc7ff46ad9ff1b8e1
03e3b9b0ddc31c9b02d1f998ba60f7cfed7242e8
76722 F20101208_AAAXQX reynolds_c_Page_017.jpg
b8232ef33628c57576d5e64266986a7e
d087ac56b25fce9914ff32f5642ac84d22239980
81299 F20101208_AAAXSA reynolds_c_Page_049.jpg
b534299e7dfae33c2cb3cd2cb61613f5
7c62c177f17d9889f2930fe071f1552e64c999d8
70749 F20101208_AAAXRL reynolds_c_Page_032.jpg
5981d98749e3c6310050d4756985a84b
a37ca301c7f0499d4e922ca3b9c1fea7057f014a
32242 F20101208_AAAXQY reynolds_c_Page_018.jpg
6558968da256b678eb1e57572f38b08e
0f0bd0dae0120ddbc767da45a32737cd02d1a6f5
71367 F20101208_AAAXSB reynolds_c_Page_050.jpg
e7ac61c0b7e31ae3c7e4b1c8b13ea977
9a38d900166370ca32ff9907d70582a14ea9e329
76846 F20101208_AAAXRM reynolds_c_Page_034.jpg
28566670faccf71412a2b7d11a194dee
ae935fda96784435350794d9007ebd47280fbe32
76599 F20101208_AAAXQZ reynolds_c_Page_019.jpg
7f457640fe39d0693786568286c59f9a
82a456812ac2e3ba1efa3ef5a7377a5121f4c60c
77949 F20101208_AAAXSC reynolds_c_Page_051.jpg
ccd912fb5240043bba3d45aaf66ea7f9
cdea39b66c3df92cad2b7cda15ef1974f0158ccf
74682 F20101208_AAAXRN reynolds_c_Page_035.jpg
8bd721a9a697f2da286443ef7b118b58
6a18ab8a7ecfb0b8e598d50a214e59da608718df
63794 F20101208_AAAXSD reynolds_c_Page_052.jpg
e5425bf0ed11310ea3cd7162ba01df40
6ec25ae17d6696d3bb27f9147251af5c8c5a6bde
73709 F20101208_AAAXRO reynolds_c_Page_036.jpg
fa9e8ce57d7f5d0e2a2e3e17dc152819
0cf3d7ab7137ec4f1f55306673179369af7db86d
75357 F20101208_AAAXSE reynolds_c_Page_053.jpg
6f8538069fb0025f4754e0a8fb82649a
0845fdc117b37aa575521ef1013db65539025a9a
76798 F20101208_AAAXRP reynolds_c_Page_037.jpg
26c8cb30a3863f3b6616bf070b4c0063
1a49d10e9ea36931f82e846065751f3c2f955024
12569 F20101208_AAAXSF reynolds_c_Page_054.jpg
e067c9018c5cf3f87cd43d2e65535058
2c0f6ea649bf40aa20f29e33b610ccb4ec71d49a
76657 F20101208_AAAXRQ reynolds_c_Page_038.jpg
615a40a77b0efd51daf8f1b3986ded49
c88bd740cf9cb5c5b2268fcbe8f68fb6e439c061
47813 F20101208_AAAXSG reynolds_c_Page_055.jpg
f90dde46b9a625fa79d5444b2e4833b1
6a51a5ba952e2d7376be1032e238109c9846c50b
78624 F20101208_AAAXRR reynolds_c_Page_039.jpg
f032447111536c4e5f0f6732ef258a8f
fc635d0b5305aeeae90e300fd9226fde3073de6d
48378 F20101208_AAAXSH reynolds_c_Page_056.jpg
161546a56314a9809ec370c6ad4174d2
3b2a5da2c9d389be4cf852274f6ae522a63be507
73539 F20101208_AAAXRS reynolds_c_Page_040.jpg
150376c8aa6cc5a097d63a5745de13c4
332872735f6fcd2d23643d3f4310183763be3a9d
77705 F20101208_AAAXRT reynolds_c_Page_041.jpg
9599cca151b259646554cea44ad56838
e61b54d1496013204b14acb283e711ba45d489dd
70320 F20101208_AAAXSI reynolds_c_Page_057.jpg
6ec64b21c6a98afd11f14b49728f0dec
33cbbac1bbf100c1c94793c50419a83988b2a465
72814 F20101208_AAAXRU reynolds_c_Page_042.jpg
fa4893fa1f489fee6649ba5cba942719
6dd63564983889585c873f981e3a9ab3f76b36e9
75982 F20101208_AAAXSJ reynolds_c_Page_060.jpg
94fd106e58ee8046db8c62a0f3226543
1e20cb16c345c7617581edf67ec34b08a9705b2d
44705 F20101208_AAAXRV reynolds_c_Page_043.jpg
f6c10b79ff1f23ca4670f4255d52aab3
7c14ff1947008a799d5ad35f2f2503062db0165b
66358 F20101208_AAAXSK reynolds_c_Page_061.jpg
66eee4b40381961cbb16693df9ffb887
0bbddfa47aefd1a0c7c5b7794a821e9bb252b141
65429 F20101208_AAAXRW reynolds_c_Page_044.jpg
1fbb57acac7f1c06fc1eb83ecf4be199
87febaceac422e2dc6852b11aadb4962321a4a75
77389 F20101208_AAAXTA reynolds_c_Page_084.jpg
86680acac99d005ec922c6dc46544817
7b3f3ab7c303abe82cef8642f8a17c6d6cc05e03
69437 F20101208_AAAXSL reynolds_c_Page_062.jpg
59a8237580ae9b23bde7cc6eb7fc8be2
3cc08f31e25a707ff2896f63e476bebe223bea08
76867 F20101208_AAAXRX reynolds_c_Page_045.jpg
6b745f6ee922eb4e84846663253f2c67
76e4093b2182803251077ae39f33216ff596c006
73160 F20101208_AAAXTB reynolds_c_Page_085.jpg
404fc5c82c302ce32dcad31b032e45ef
fde84eee69a50f9bd5eaf5fb3e1cd3bff4426fa0
73669 F20101208_AAAXSM reynolds_c_Page_063.jpg
3867a4b23cc2a510a3dff549d1c6e1ef
fa6d0a65d6480d8429f72e0408e838b6f14cb32a
73929 F20101208_AAAXRY reynolds_c_Page_046.jpg
5b2570e482935e5f266fd7fde0f9ce44
5d65b50df3b0104fe60c5c36d60a9589e21ff36b
76910 F20101208_AAAXTC reynolds_c_Page_086.jpg
8d21961290339284318d409ef58f0de6
a0cd2c4b9761a0a19dcff57b9c11b33b36d747c0
67781 F20101208_AAAXSN reynolds_c_Page_064.jpg
cd939b62b1c890d9b6c69eb4daf8cc82
48f136f8e23a0d5ba3ffbcf46eea5b3a2dbb4e2a
77598 F20101208_AAAXRZ reynolds_c_Page_047.jpg
03aece8412469cd787bde8128d4ba4e2
363acfbbf4b0dde8adbc3f6580236f0721ad070f
75816 F20101208_AAAXTD reynolds_c_Page_087.jpg
99fe8734837c473fd1e080f198b5a9fb
2dbfd53dbc72e4b73db7362899fd5b1ec3de22c8
75244 F20101208_AAAXSO reynolds_c_Page_067.jpg
6ef479cbde16a0a8aa06485921c03946
5c67ee0df23281f4e92070f6bec0029fca08cb91
77604 F20101208_AAAXTE reynolds_c_Page_089.jpg
8b9f2d9f6d599057966e4a25425a852b
e4ff350b2a4da96dfc86248033147414dc4e6c11
71392 F20101208_AAAXSP reynolds_c_Page_068.jpg
b0921085d2656bbf1127815897ea1769
0234fbc75ac365c376ae812c026c50cf82452366
70469 F20101208_AAAXTF reynolds_c_Page_090.jpg
e318908e5ddde3e89ffbb0827189d71f
808d18651d48732030ad34671f84400e024537e5
71061 F20101208_AAAXSQ reynolds_c_Page_069.jpg
115edf2eb3b1d0b60fa6d6f13177a3f1
8d43d94c1d6a0c865073104a0ab1c35d9195a99f
75313 F20101208_AAAXTG reynolds_c_Page_091.jpg
30d7f30da6df369806c23db82df43255
c83aae1083555ef10b508a36eab67b8ef9ab3c1a
81255 F20101208_AAAXSR reynolds_c_Page_070.jpg
1cd0d35d955c719c899eada3d0a40d3a
f7bd953c19eb149e9c04bc0d0c907e8c3288bd79
78464 F20101208_AAAXTH reynolds_c_Page_092.jpg
ba8a91ea9b0fd8f27257fbc32217c7c1
11087730d84da5a6f51d83eab8c0296ad621a184
71998 F20101208_AAAXSS reynolds_c_Page_071.jpg
352f3964aa035090d81953ae99f00024
fa97f270be304ecc4d8cc8f9786240c12f48e253
72285 F20101208_AAAXTI reynolds_c_Page_093.jpg
c6a183a39c973c83d9fc8c62c8212204
4b81f2be6c7a2aa17ed356456fd427f0cebbce7f
72191 F20101208_AAAXST reynolds_c_Page_072.jpg
fae0d73ae5ec5bfb8bfc90f6cb4dac25
cc53e8e8ca0d08150d9d3e431295ec523003b2da
78002 F20101208_AAAXSU reynolds_c_Page_073.jpg
e68e6da6c075948fa542c490234e703f
00e4bafdec38cae1da567f5f6ae6fdefc7665dfd
69036 F20101208_AAAXTJ reynolds_c_Page_094.jpg
ab0fbcff76b91608d13d3ee1131dfd84
3d437662837dbd60bfa27f500bf999d3696707b1
76750 F20101208_AAAXSV reynolds_c_Page_076.jpg
2d67cf874a2eb3e202cd756266984245
5952b5fbe91bd43804285ce11c65ccd1f77978e6
76462 F20101208_AAAXTK reynolds_c_Page_095.jpg
769d5bf35578bfc3ee1665fd67d40cd6
17706f3226eb4ddcda3a7aa1a7a18a4ed0eefad8
49159 F20101208_AAAXSW reynolds_c_Page_077.jpg
983fa6fa4a2118b8bcc7fd6828c02211
b59be8f5a01937aeae43c59c516e0c13b336a551
48827 F20101208_AAAXSX reynolds_c_Page_078.jpg
232e8fdb21bbb0eb18a8c0c89d167bc9
9e62a2fd7197e9d4d1347cb91ce6f3bbb32ce24b
32856 F20101208_AAAXUA reynolds_c_Page_113.jpg
f765b97c3396f9c73b3f7c4a27b7a308
d2fafbad11631598f65bf4c51951cb708afde0bc
74786 F20101208_AAAXTL reynolds_c_Page_096.jpg
87b07de36715e0af62f3081c1b20ba19
0dec342c2849c88d850b971aa70719afafdec32d
43898 F20101208_AAAXSY reynolds_c_Page_080.jpg
9de6510763237e0434a4ecbc8926ed27
8f707f76ff4dca0d95c45de77e0a6ef922645826
24838 F20101208_AAAXUB reynolds_c_Page_114.jpg
fa46f943d93f22bf0228e352d917b8af
3464f003e97398b9d2c6d301a56ec011d34b63fe
77518 F20101208_AAAXTM reynolds_c_Page_097.jpg
c13a718125cd91a9a5cd38527c49f945
0c050d39c4c28536d8f7b698f7cc1143c0571b25
61654 F20101208_AAAXSZ reynolds_c_Page_082.jpg
507b21d1ade3e6d811d5b6ead485754d
6b478ead0b4778b406d5dbaa9103474c295c81eb
22901 F20101208_AAAXUC reynolds_c_Page_115.jpg
d94610003ba7d525e2e610d74b962fa7
ab86e33c314891d5e8dbc18ea1dee5217a6202ae
79110 F20101208_AAAXTN reynolds_c_Page_098.jpg
101f5d8cb9d72571e7443468b6d1b117
8effd252e5b844736fd7ce99fdbf6584ea7ce5ed
25617 F20101208_AAAXUD reynolds_c_Page_116.jpg
ffaa3fccd76eeddfb3ef8746b783c4aa
94cfeaec619e0c6f6a57f1490d378c6d681704f3
72968 F20101208_AAAXTO reynolds_c_Page_100.jpg
ec5cf5026e31b4f5490fcf3792da6f2b
865637cc315cb6f35fc0d8c0fc63a835cd455f23
26021 F20101208_AAAXUE reynolds_c_Page_117.jpg
505a2e79d860710d5025499be2b3e10b
bc00d93d136d963f4638a24fa76245aac8835860
77928 F20101208_AAAXTP reynolds_c_Page_101.jpg
126ab1c6927bddb0b26978ed05f5f06c
0e6b6bffc34b6bac495036b620f121e3151992db
25948 F20101208_AAAXUF reynolds_c_Page_118.jpg
995602221479fc03612da0c2d83f5f41
3d619519f728d8f137ec898378ef2ef5186e8305
74065 F20101208_AAAXTQ reynolds_c_Page_102.jpg
4dfc038a5ddfee377807382be91e8a72
862e71932fea765086cf0dc32980f6b87d6b45d5
F20101208_AAAYAA reynolds_c_Page_045.tif
85dab6691f91e8124e5401278de9f6a8
0b91ff4ef036c9a079ae2547bc8c69068bf6b54a
24765 F20101208_AAAXUG reynolds_c_Page_119.jpg
cc99d4e4fa0a9f3e1012ff04956a40e9
03af477cc0da6aac9d41d74eca5731d9116c6582
78934 F20101208_AAAXTR reynolds_c_Page_103.jpg
bf2937afd6c59a4c8952f312bd742248
5e195baa7684a98d0fd2df2b80149e8467151ff6
F20101208_AAAYAB reynolds_c_Page_046.tif
fd5f1f0f8852c32857f97d5842beb98a
ee7fbc8bb0f0df3783bf1187a813b9a8947e6461
79227 F20101208_AAAXUH reynolds_c_Page_120.jpg
32253021f7af2bb56a396a1b77f44c2f
8c91762d13fb121768cad30a3d127452bba03486
72723 F20101208_AAAXTS reynolds_c_Page_104.jpg
b266aceb583de9e920ebd6be8ddf2384
05bb512a018b0cb39df96100ca1a133ce90ae0fd
F20101208_AAAYAC reynolds_c_Page_048.tif
dcc123199c113ab35a3cd8aad45757dd
3e01097e78c0050754d12df1005b85da6f1a39bc
87484 F20101208_AAAXUI reynolds_c_Page_122.jpg
7ed3d942315f486078b2c86ab9e9c7bd
c4a5f2e0e1732ae31f5b3ceeb357d7bfb90e6d28
75162 F20101208_AAAXTT reynolds_c_Page_105.jpg
4d472a2be3e611c4193570dabacffb1a
d338b986a035b5834d2aa4379b5651f38ed60089
F20101208_AAAYAD reynolds_c_Page_049.tif
441ac8351961aca307e4509980d98291
674ba8b00f254bce694fe22f5fc8368a5d9dd4e4
86918 F20101208_AAAXUJ reynolds_c_Page_123.jpg
14ff4279739b36d5992c7f2d43ad46ac
c7acbcad0b7dee8758c12c885d666ff4795d4760
33506 F20101208_AAAXTU reynolds_c_Page_106.jpg
ce725368014d1ad241dc4c45a9624a9e
8086717231d484ec79b73cb4088bc67eabed4f38
F20101208_AAAYAE reynolds_c_Page_050.tif
db10bdae446f2895e15903b4342c2a66
9e8e5981622c1e5f9be71e05ba7ef6f2dac7d9ac
66519 F20101208_AAAXTV reynolds_c_Page_108.jpg
9780be822e7455cc8b718ffe0272bf8e
bbd3dcd6f9b4a73e555412a8d3ade843683ed43c
F20101208_AAAYAF reynolds_c_Page_051.tif
982acad532f82f5b93b53ac440394740
9540cb03de6a2a2f58c5c61f9acc32fd12b8e5f7
89236 F20101208_AAAXUK reynolds_c_Page_124.jpg
5280be78f3ca25e210ae444ad899899c
4c720f5faa3824a34c6152de337b404686eb04e2
67217 F20101208_AAAXTW reynolds_c_Page_109.jpg
19cfd19af0b92780f1e78849920c10ce
eaa6d627e86bfd8957ba7c6ee588bfa34c199f35
F20101208_AAAYAG reynolds_c_Page_052.tif
8c4f84c0904476ad1a9140e77f02f7a2
f5b32e9ad2df5f8347563e6d705f1bb56c0b9130
113340 F20101208_AAAXVA reynolds_c_Page_014.jp2
3a02cdfac368b36fff1219d333f759cb
07be16e0d522ccd0e60f0a36cdce64f2bb510522
83372 F20101208_AAAXUL reynolds_c_Page_125.jpg
56e579d113386c88709e15126caacc05
bece09f87ef21203fa603687b042e85a0bd45d9f
50531 F20101208_AAAXTX reynolds_c_Page_110.jpg
a3c1aa0d90caf84aefc4b3b74d3533bd
17e31dfd4b384d62dd802db57e96995232f5b6a1
F20101208_AAAYAH reynolds_c_Page_053.tif
a678d5beafbd34609f9335c19cb6f735
1e849ad31220f8fdd3148b12cccf19572117bb35
125749 F20101208_AAAXVB reynolds_c_Page_016.jp2
a196d6e09aac465d193983d85b5334e0
c94f3bad8b10fede5457eebd4354d42caf3301f1
83030 F20101208_AAAXUM reynolds_c_Page_126.jpg
1816069d82418cfe690710ac322a4b75
7c1426b4bd35260c13061a1c0c5bc59b80b5cbde
74616 F20101208_AAAXTY reynolds_c_Page_111.jpg
3c87543d874daf0bcf0562782de2bdd9
7ffc32d63b1abb26c26b5283043e450e1d37b6c0
F20101208_AAAYAI reynolds_c_Page_054.tif
ebcd91c1e5905f0064be267d3abe3556
1778b134cef9d04165446cf687e6dd0d42d60183
117579 F20101208_AAAXVC reynolds_c_Page_017.jp2
13b0b903ca4d94d82c9934a2a54cafe4
3d673e140eafbc658a7dca55e6bc77c390de1985
23735 F20101208_AAAXUN reynolds_c_Page_127.jpg
531da428c98ab2bf2116291821bf2e23
dee62bcf280b19837e3b8001cb60b302cc7d2f38
73619 F20101208_AAAXTZ reynolds_c_Page_112.jpg
2c832b656499271675f078cb672fc59b
8b06c3a3be68520f9fe0161a2b15e6a999e8dce7
45128 F20101208_AAAXVD reynolds_c_Page_018.jp2
053f94d9164ed59c1c1c3958217d1afe
ee51d68ebb0bb70150db5abd90954e4b8993ac0b
20625 F20101208_AAAXUO reynolds_c_Page_128.jpg
2a0fa21b8d2912a097505d6a9fd3b0c8
00ff876576c62f9e4ab90859f1d4d0a33b62b4f2
F20101208_AAAYAJ reynolds_c_Page_055.tif
aa31962cc8d9036429d2b3eb33d89594
eb521e66c7cccaa757f9bfccc4a324160aee92ad
110756 F20101208_AAAXVE reynolds_c_Page_021.jp2
7eae249943d54429d40753c97dfceedf
a7e6aff6fe6f43680a4faafa6229769d0840550d
5770 F20101208_AAAXUP reynolds_c_Page_002.jp2
dd9d3548e0f99a399cf28710c112ccce
699333861a0daccf9687b952e170e016efb48b1f
F20101208_AAAYAK reynolds_c_Page_056.tif
e2d953c23658f1bdd30faefef5778608
60cf0affe461cbfa2deb3a92cf674cf5e0055841
87322 F20101208_AAAXVF reynolds_c_Page_022.jp2
987e5f439f6d6689b7df80c18027dc81
a98a67bad1128e2b6b12c24975e0c5ada1252ef0
28721 F20101208_AAAXUQ reynolds_c_Page_003.jp2
c06bdbafa433cbe1b7cb8c74d8376ea4
95c8c4b87061363e9247a64c30a20f41ded33123
F20101208_AAAYAL reynolds_c_Page_057.tif
b5748ee7a084be2623a9b53a15729498
68494988301474a514a8ee12954adaf44edcf8dc
95962 F20101208_AAAXVG reynolds_c_Page_023.jp2
299746d2d8e307a9d6d749e07a24ed45
cc8232b6c134621d616b7d802e2f479e5f83b6a5
58686 F20101208_AAAXUR reynolds_c_Page_004.jp2
8b4123578eca2e7baf07bc086409c699
bc8f3b5078a8e66ac890263045ec7daf9b586fc0
F20101208_AAAYBA reynolds_c_Page_074.tif
db0e2a0f9d6f0239534ebb4c17625d05
693c62dde93fc873fe3144b0665507e90781f458
F20101208_AAAYAM reynolds_c_Page_058.tif
4b953ad03bbe5d514817c84a0d2f7eaa
c3b6a13538e716b1294b6e1d214ad909c52af062
110434 F20101208_AAAXVH reynolds_c_Page_025.jp2
e51a45dbd4c8d460c8ea172222fa0a35
f33ea3cdb79f50424ea5dd940a626a5d955a3eba
1051985 F20101208_AAAXUS reynolds_c_Page_005.jp2
6372f6d1028bf1fe081ccd630d7760ea
89223b26ae23607b7b3be6a68c0994359e142c16
F20101208_AAAYBB reynolds_c_Page_075.tif
be3761bbb89cf50d63169f66b6056647
41e7370b3adab9aa897d8fae11738e218eb63163
F20101208_AAAYAN reynolds_c_Page_059.tif
db58b1be58aff2416b292a6cb6e96312
ab512b47ce1e21211f08420a0aece40ca68eda2f
104258 F20101208_AAAXVI reynolds_c_Page_026.jp2
9ae189e1a34d657cc488f995d414d13a
e9a8afbd5dd84ece88bed75c13c9018cb9bb18db
F20101208_AAAXUT reynolds_c_Page_006.jp2
577a12fbfbcae0d6dd894064077928d8
f9957bde2d6e6e12f2e9e364319b948e2f022d71
F20101208_AAAYBC reynolds_c_Page_076.tif
1e6087b97a08b34fde2b57b4244358f5
9e8b7fec9dac5d390c74c3408e087af4d08ff337
F20101208_AAAYAO reynolds_c_Page_060.tif
281ed343f12935fa9034d9ddbb8bd724
5b0d2649f4a7e450fea246455115c6bf4b0fa000
108043 F20101208_AAAXVJ reynolds_c_Page_028.jp2
3b7597e2a6fbadbf2be2fc8ba1c39250
7869467466d917e5aa1ce3f9b2cb4e928368e558
F20101208_AAAXUU reynolds_c_Page_007.jp2
8ba031be1c4abc9845e4bdeca93f8bf9
3c4d72ec9ca43f23c229fdf329e6108eae589790
F20101208_AAAYBD reynolds_c_Page_077.tif
7477a148b17f7428890ca797963d3830
da16138add026ec8cf8441dfd34fa4cf29cfcd42
F20101208_AAAYAP reynolds_c_Page_061.tif
b6e8c30d040f88cc7a94e86698862629
7e2eeb9e46a9742c7d40f2f19cdd6beda8b7844e
105850 F20101208_AAAXVK reynolds_c_Page_030.jp2
59f53885bfdeb4f3119d687b714f5fe8
8a8c019c45173484fdae8c21c9b7767bcc9e071b
1004246 F20101208_AAAXUV reynolds_c_Page_008.jp2
b6bb5223c13ebe6e817e4f0c22a6aa86
17f34521cf4e4fb81b05eb4c8ae0aa5a94c55fd4
F20101208_AAAYBE reynolds_c_Page_078.tif
e3b901e6ab459e9aec1840ed7e14508d
96b60aed5d2ee1c00390e525b37e984bfb4b1afd
F20101208_AAAYAQ reynolds_c_Page_062.tif
9642324f44c8b17806d767720a995ecb
63be1b4bf5e1dfaee7fdf4f34ee12be1af5ee597
1051986 F20101208_AAAXUW reynolds_c_Page_009.jp2
3f761c40e45376b45e05879435387ba8
367eeee17aa244d3dfaeb03f2f37f36c3d930170
F20101208_AAAYBF reynolds_c_Page_079.tif
eb5ab76dda880ad37a5659f5a283b8fd
ab8383d6e45b637af2a0073aa1db36f8e2e542cf
F20101208_AAAYAR reynolds_c_Page_063.tif
65f7e3f6bf882ac0a4a8184be568c964
7f44c86164428298b04bb24a54f2e187bc9c35e4
119872 F20101208_AAAXVL reynolds_c_Page_031.jp2
f110a5ec1a900c298f09f0fa7a5b7e19
caff3c7184d7c5de1c5164aac3764c55cc7f5412
619612 F20101208_AAAXUX reynolds_c_Page_010.jp2
7db02193c3a1ea9f99c310bd496d2bb5
2451bcd97548d6383f84af43085948c77684a14c
F20101208_AAAYBG reynolds_c_Page_080.tif
89d6c46b890d71500e4a37d6c4984d11
29a4af22938eac65b668305041b3eb34c7ce011f
116030 F20101208_AAAXWA reynolds_c_Page_048.jp2
d033715f5d275396f033aa35fe72792b
8cecadfbcdc1d178ef1c20094becbbd14611b965
F20101208_AAAYAS reynolds_c_Page_064.tif
ad9630c0a615eac18081bdf17399cb5c
a08a9e930ebee5a7060063ff3548ad99ad02d1a9
107811 F20101208_AAAXVM reynolds_c_Page_032.jp2
05b1d0e57d868496f4c1dd084b3ab393
4780d1a6cc66c2f24730cb633e4ce17bd5b75fcb
1051981 F20101208_AAAXUY reynolds_c_Page_011.jp2
99c1641d7c5ff5391d7e605f8028469c
7ce16d63ff6b45bf6a48b8bbdf9552656f7e5a2a
F20101208_AAAYBH reynolds_c_Page_081.tif
6b72a9841b8b2f082e2cca1eeec57d26
c71f484efa1a4aea456cc7615caa11582df87bf0
122564 F20101208_AAAXWB reynolds_c_Page_049.jp2
cd255242eb0ac8ef48e4231fb8499ec7
b46e8400ad56d096e0502c61ded354dd8e332ba8
F20101208_AAAYAT reynolds_c_Page_065.tif
2edfe3db1aad7e3487492084330a9e2e
bccfb33d7dfef92508b63b90d23b10b48374b79e
103149 F20101208_AAAXVN reynolds_c_Page_033.jp2
6aaab3daf5ddec1dacae680515dcece5
3d9f5235af80959c48cf01a776483c42f7f2acc7
101461 F20101208_AAAXUZ reynolds_c_Page_012.jp2
a690654c38baf3b271d3b1bbc6ac8cf1
2f46cd1cb3e91700be13ef21ce10aee9c7e59074
F20101208_AAAYBI reynolds_c_Page_082.tif
bb68f2ce94e892671b94b4df32f88b7e
739ccb4552e763c20be3b02c7f0df2729e7fcaa9
108151 F20101208_AAAXWC reynolds_c_Page_050.jp2
be0c4b79318696dad542e70e591a8f53
5c686d0994d74127f18dfbb6575ba151851410c2
F20101208_AAAYAU reynolds_c_Page_066.tif
1406e8b25ea022fcc6a85f753a98f827
0e8acd194d33cd54f3159d390813c21456772a3b
117472 F20101208_AAAXVO reynolds_c_Page_034.jp2
26ef1de9bd86971b88f04cd625c24aa8
8bb63a883d12879ff84e2da479126615dc6807d1
F20101208_AAAYBJ reynolds_c_Page_083.tif
9f230076a926e91270baa348346f0a43
035e37bd0e1d89080704b023b171013e002e5cb6
119447 F20101208_AAAXWD reynolds_c_Page_051.jp2
4edfde1ae63e445690f1176da32bc23e
eb87eca62bfffb258f1f7f0ca88c24260c3ed32e
115446 F20101208_AAAXVP reynolds_c_Page_035.jp2
0d9ee8a12e5b0ae05363bdff0a1fd190
58c1217a25197bcc8f32fd6ef07f46a530b3ebcd
F20101208_AAAYBK reynolds_c_Page_084.tif
f92b33923dd4abd90c0b5168c6111845
0052b06b20e9808ac1fc7ea38f604f469f23386f
95280 F20101208_AAAXWE reynolds_c_Page_052.jp2
3be152b1357651cfa05c65bc1cf9b263
cbf49b37732f99a555462da337f77fcc4229fb87
F20101208_AAAYAV reynolds_c_Page_067.tif
688656f1a2f8018a8b6adf1ef79a032a
c05d40c77dc31144f9d7cf53743c23c0d224bfae
112736 F20101208_AAAXVQ reynolds_c_Page_036.jp2
b0e3f27eabe74933d40753f802ae592a
c42a6a515ffca7dd62102af0a40e116fe6cce55b
F20101208_AAAYBL reynolds_c_Page_085.tif
f341497b3523a6430c3309779fa892c2
a4451d1f2aa2bdf4ca756e230899e1adf2bd290e
113301 F20101208_AAAXWF reynolds_c_Page_053.jp2
e9b9e810b9b2c51011e63095546c45a5
11283bf66010d8cbc4f3211097635969a5836a2e
F20101208_AAAYAW reynolds_c_Page_068.tif
814e786550118a48b1e44e48d65ecf8c
dcc678ce4e88e779ff02e022339b283b4e1a4234
117185 F20101208_AAAXVR reynolds_c_Page_037.jp2
6969c4adf8c02c7af890bc1df413d196
f2831cf4b47afd18140e23e96d0a02acb74258e2
F20101208_AAAYCA reynolds_c_Page_101.tif
eb190d31ab22c3b3eeefc48824021bf5
cb0bf99671e730341a70101390fe8ff6a6ff9f21
F20101208_AAAYBM reynolds_c_Page_086.tif
f5845075002bed6fe2e01d69335669a9
fbabd9ab3b8b5aa1fd4655b8b33c0037c9c0544f
10765 F20101208_AAAXWG reynolds_c_Page_054.jp2
db4997fb4ddf39f63988c7ab11f64d35
96ba20eb21ccaf6c1e1ddce1107e8d01d0ae98fe
F20101208_AAAYAX reynolds_c_Page_069.tif
309e23d8feca636dbb4987016f3b6788
cfba031028b7f77a246c9c26661389ecc4182557
118098 F20101208_AAAXVS reynolds_c_Page_038.jp2
70d2c069b80246db0ed8c7d95a3449af
2dec35a8651db4b4cab9ec5043ef43d782e6eae8
F20101208_AAAYCB reynolds_c_Page_102.tif
8e5ec864422f879a9e4ecc98fe36249c
01670d1ef700fc13fc20dad832fa6ab235552489
F20101208_AAAYBN reynolds_c_Page_087.tif
586f9f118a35abbb1733d8f1e3b274ba
69eb7267c424b40e016c2349e029fba49cfe19ad
63860 F20101208_AAAXWH reynolds_c_Page_056.jp2
6d5585ed1a3c1c1fba9f68d3b88c4cc9
ffccfd9bac7464bd0f327e7778ddf12736c715bf
F20101208_AAAYAY reynolds_c_Page_070.tif
2f0b50a134e9954d72b1488387d0ca8a
5a1a315576645e8f4c5d0b5fa582d95e672c1c5b
112238 F20101208_AAAXVT reynolds_c_Page_040.jp2
8ce9a6905f5bf0d6b47210bbf132866f
5a35cf5900a5e20d4977bf4a75a0a499da14ed20
F20101208_AAAYCC reynolds_c_Page_103.tif
a0940a3efc81bc6aeca03fc3ca7c4e72
8899b62005432e70d775c43daab825336a261b3c
F20101208_AAAYBO reynolds_c_Page_088.tif
39f5586578bcd7e7e5d1464b19144cdb
63ae23b0e17283197242e64086f350fd1eb93ba4
101601 F20101208_AAAXWI reynolds_c_Page_057.jp2
1f7948846d34dd9f44e719881eb1fb43
11d6cbab80b8716e3e880467d70ca4f333e5e236
F20101208_AAAYAZ reynolds_c_Page_073.tif
97c40dda17e5f486c88a4d44ad1eeb34
7b6ea4dc35e18339aaab603a021e7f78258852ac
118989 F20101208_AAAXVU reynolds_c_Page_041.jp2
531b3111d76f15e9fc7ce6b0139ee75a
9e8c292a9db6ad16eb3db61a48d94b8dbc0660bc
F20101208_AAAYCD reynolds_c_Page_104.tif
51c66b5acf66fdf7e5c3c72910a78e34
b9cc5425a13c5d92e6023ffb90bf9d7c4824ec21
F20101208_AAAYBP reynolds_c_Page_089.tif
dcffc986ace36f6bec37d9d603b15d2f
024f76ff2e7006e58143dcd7538ef1c1ea73d41d
95197 F20101208_AAAXWJ reynolds_c_Page_058.jp2
16d3ef9c381a06e3184fa01be0c17795
d3d77d3cc487176d87f782f4c77d22bdcf4e6c1a
64459 F20101208_AAAXVV reynolds_c_Page_043.jp2
5817840a3f34f72c963eb96e8afa28e0
e9558e6fd8140323dae9524f3cf70e3cebaa460f
F20101208_AAAYCE reynolds_c_Page_105.tif
642a019e6c129bee29f46c95c2058410
89c59ba49623b1b958a18cd29a1111d914d3d642
F20101208_AAAYBQ reynolds_c_Page_090.tif
5ff33059b785532c380190c2f605972d
4370cb6538d2e89deeadcdda9dd33c03f941c280
116592 F20101208_AAAXWK reynolds_c_Page_059.jp2
f2f77b799b2a89232d9d69e96ae3d2b1
510ff714e5ba9728d29875fe1f28b2da2a191f37
98499 F20101208_AAAXVW reynolds_c_Page_044.jp2
a9e46847069099b03bb275684784148c
4e17cbfeb3d557a6bba6144198fd505a73897af7
F20101208_AAAYCF reynolds_c_Page_106.tif
b04a39453227a8fb9ec9ba56910f0181
9321dc379b6f0faf9f61aecfe568d5ba89f4f76a
F20101208_AAAYBR reynolds_c_Page_091.tif
82addfc172983919b512ae307ce04f75
2e13bfe22a5b6fa80a70f8e32acaaa471077f18a
117170 F20101208_AAAXWL reynolds_c_Page_060.jp2
50801074e7d02026c43f384e01851d5d
b8c7da9e5d1fb9fc34daa630ed35bf7786527467
115627 F20101208_AAAXVX reynolds_c_Page_045.jp2
9e574ad6dfd48fb89c9faaea7db870f1
1356483cb54d877ae54071acc8294ff6c0ddc508
F20101208_AAAYCG reynolds_c_Page_107.tif
260fae1c986b2e961e17ebd9d86a4b31
583d6b4edabfcf24166d8e6bed71c21d25f464f7
57860 F20101208_AAAXXA reynolds_c_Page_080.jp2
2dcd03f72b274aaa2c0e7bc23b989abf
0b564fd299a7328dcf1a1a7d652b3e96e8693bd8
F20101208_AAAYBS reynolds_c_Page_092.tif
63562956e25afb6e2c966bce0bbdde40
a78ef1a320f15c56b8f441a728f66b71cbeb98f2
112645 F20101208_AAAXVY reynolds_c_Page_046.jp2
e6ce5c7fa1770d909f9645be6007c64f
b14c33b845108862f061332e4a2d714f0b348af3
F20101208_AAAYCH reynolds_c_Page_108.tif
ca581b184a97b42b636330fab5fac9cd
c24546d0ec1786c0a5f0933beb48d90024fba806
59974 F20101208_AAAXXB reynolds_c_Page_081.jp2
62ec1ca46c635f12132984836f1020b6
d210b673506245628ad490cfb7b465fe4eafaa0c
F20101208_AAAYBT reynolds_c_Page_093.tif
8fb7ec9d48f6d3e440655f1d5fac4eae
44678b23e3e7df0fa87ffad45a5e0fabb3c0475e
97645 F20101208_AAAXWM reynolds_c_Page_061.jp2
710e0855aecffbf837822c824dcdbd97
6cb206d5a897f2a6373e5e5f9f4c6933817a188e
115858 F20101208_AAAXVZ reynolds_c_Page_047.jp2
bce105ff6809b98cedaec37e2bfdefa9
2b562df12c9c5a4002407940b278b7dd0b4940cb
F20101208_AAAYCI reynolds_c_Page_109.tif
49f821c0c810b0bb2574850814cb1670
2e4e9fbe2bbacbe92cc86e5a4932d26b3abc0e48
92026 F20101208_AAAXXC reynolds_c_Page_082.jp2
3f2689fbbb6ebf046353a125ad855cfd
7679f912c81651927c8f1988ffbc4a27f5c694ab
F20101208_AAAYBU reynolds_c_Page_095.tif
98ffe2e27fe97c79ca1a7b60ab0bf14a
3cbe6590795f72d612e13f9cb200c33498ec6f02
105838 F20101208_AAAXWN reynolds_c_Page_062.jp2
850bce63d74111ea12699b6dd80fcc04
07d54b976541028870782aef20f107f37c9d5f81
F20101208_AAAYCJ reynolds_c_Page_110.tif
c0b7a79cde5d5c256c7ef8f3c92ec50b
f04ce46de62f4ae4fb18b2646bfa57a1d57ddff8
103480 F20101208_AAAXXD reynolds_c_Page_083.jp2
a9606d1209f070a6f9f80f0c68f9900a
c5fd2154fccdd9b3e092007ac9992712bd5d2f09
F20101208_AAAYBV reynolds_c_Page_096.tif
fa52646f3096bb8ca6e16c19e53da21f
0b534c02f3c515f5d44c0db0e925c75ffedab949
103132 F20101208_AAAXWO reynolds_c_Page_064.jp2
4625408c140bc6c3d5cbf7d43e17463a
05ac31c5857748362ece2173032299dfbbe7d85d
F20101208_AAAYCK reynolds_c_Page_111.tif
48bfa1ae2ff346c1f43749a7280bcc86
9a58878acdc56d347051590094c81246db655a19
116246 F20101208_AAAXXE reynolds_c_Page_084.jp2
c920f6119ed65508122ef251442f49f7
d2938f9fcdba511be51ce84286fbe491a0b762a6
106790 F20101208_AAAXWP reynolds_c_Page_065.jp2
8ca1021cb3d1352ec25643fae30fe297
ba93a9f66dd182f920b9296be706671c5a27c22a
F20101208_AAAYCL reynolds_c_Page_112.tif
a0f80829f3328f40d51b9d50861182a5
5604858bb1752e8e26e3c8b69e5c73647be09783
111225 F20101208_AAAXXF reynolds_c_Page_085.jp2
2f56c042f25014f172c946edbb5ba02b
d1310ebdada1b4cd60e6879ec7c87e3d17717f0e
F20101208_AAAYBW reynolds_c_Page_097.tif
59bc8183e8210db81411c59363ec73d9
e248e006ff8ab96b01ceaeebe73d5095379bf6aa
118778 F20101208_AAAXWQ reynolds_c_Page_066.jp2
bd5e62ebbb33453f38fb54aac7900577
4713345bdaac47753e27027b908c762c2e3a2d54
F20101208_AAAYCM reynolds_c_Page_114.tif
ced9acc87f2db2823520eddeaf3ee2f2
c85204fbb4e2bbd078de66fe793cef045b76138f
115945 F20101208_AAAXXG reynolds_c_Page_086.jp2
852f2fbac7e6138cb738554c37dd18e0
2775707f46be57e155378018b7515816c141313d
F20101208_AAAYBX reynolds_c_Page_098.tif
d497bdacbc0b096362c6e9634ecea821
c5023476621eb6893345981bd308f736bb8b6c5b
113966 F20101208_AAAXWR reynolds_c_Page_067.jp2
c23b3e64c96a0d6ffbbf336f0a294baf
92417f7b8df616cc989a6e6ad5e0e2cf16f64b42
9267 F20101208_AAAYDA reynolds_c_Page_001.pro
00dc8ceca6c395f751b9f5e8bb1b2807
52cd93a4e933be6556b99f97faccb566f7515496
F20101208_AAAYCN reynolds_c_Page_115.tif
8a724ea3542a7f8de489a082744615ae
a7c07737dc91d607d15a93e9cf09776e0b945bdd
114016 F20101208_AAAXXH reynolds_c_Page_087.jp2
7afa5ffe2e4e31901f738b791b0ace2f
9d960347da985ddd6c532d4f2b7fee8b60b89897
F20101208_AAAYBY reynolds_c_Page_099.tif
905d43f133b0a252657b2f178ec62ddf
b255771d54d5d55285ffe283ff4e8812a626f84e
109450 F20101208_AAAXWS reynolds_c_Page_068.jp2
ae20d853ce37d67101e8c6dfc3c12eef
4ca07cfc231c407921561a8d92219d6f0d7d3ff2
1200 F20101208_AAAYDB reynolds_c_Page_002.pro
2a9dcb401fa906c135920e1a68468ef0
96a3063f468e1fc9edd01b81e3a365c9595b4303
F20101208_AAAYCO reynolds_c_Page_116.tif
e75ed504c295e1aaefaadfcfc734cfd9
064337210f74e3e21ccdf6ddb39ee35a034a85f1
119026 F20101208_AAAXXI reynolds_c_Page_088.jp2
149acc75f9eb0cae2fdb2e990c55e2b6
0ed9b14e62ccc2ba81222be16e8547276c6ae23a
F20101208_AAAYBZ reynolds_c_Page_100.tif
2d8d7030c05ba8f43c30ef51ea7ad60f
da93f79a3d716ae1fe84ef0d21e9f2c513a89238
107861 F20101208_AAAXWT reynolds_c_Page_069.jp2
de9625ecd04f10195f2a5c1cdd3f07b2
97dee21d25895b13838a9a6d8912cee7f3e53c1c
12763 F20101208_AAAYDC reynolds_c_Page_003.pro
acd07b6dfb97f51945ca76265a51ede1
f0447760222ef631020170e0db479fa7bde86e78
F20101208_AAAYCP reynolds_c_Page_117.tif
ddc082e5e4771310e245f50f73fc56ce
fe98c7fe7c218c0cc701f6cfc4a58fb1359ece44
107778 F20101208_AAAXXJ reynolds_c_Page_090.jp2
0977a9f8587874202900a81fa5d567f5
9685ea5c750339307beee3b6f2530ee3e0a5e202
1051893 F20101208_AAAXWU reynolds_c_Page_070.jp2
57504e00f21b826025fb7ae944722e77
94c9ee7a6ddf7c579f8ec2571a7c615c4fe1d0be
25981 F20101208_AAAYDD reynolds_c_Page_004.pro
37a0fb1ff55689e58daf7e467ec5bb77
90f7974dc8bbd1005d9ca566de7821f6ee251461
F20101208_AAAYCQ reynolds_c_Page_118.tif
2329894902320b866665bd4c5362fcf8
5748977c927a17f6e7702bc7618f08cdd8d32c38
114334 F20101208_AAAXXK reynolds_c_Page_091.jp2
8aa26bdf013c235302a71e76d3ea6cba
94abccfa9faf0abebad2843a5a897038c101bbf0
109815 F20101208_AAAXWV reynolds_c_Page_071.jp2
6a650e48425988996f033399f214ada8
3b98889b31d1d5e937b7eb286e69bc51e0adf828
76991 F20101208_AAAYDE reynolds_c_Page_005.pro
ef36c69198115865799f3b3736b5f5e8
25335a151b8ec6fc7b1b9cdaf1f77beafba9ad70
F20101208_AAAYCR reynolds_c_Page_119.tif
687593263a35098ef7a9eeee27772e4f
2275cd33e9fcc204b7989a6f3faab376ec76f5fe
119416 F20101208_AAAXXL reynolds_c_Page_092.jp2
0256de1caa51b46adc6a9664801d4b7a
a09d04136dd0efe7be9041a5e8dc2824e3b0f173
110132 F20101208_AAAXWW reynolds_c_Page_072.jp2
b65f7a1523070687349813dcda4a7657
cf7448b9d93788b98396812d8793322749fa994f
90933 F20101208_AAAYDF reynolds_c_Page_006.pro
386ecb307f709f296003afb87c0e1f3e
36485c51fbf662944e365d7936727fe642d2ee14
105011 F20101208_AAAXYA reynolds_c_Page_111.jp2
8b77ede7a0fba421b04c33e1d70be425
cd44a4ac3d3c589ae67aa26228d6bbd57c14d5b6
F20101208_AAAYCS reynolds_c_Page_120.tif
1ed31ebe41341c516695b95763f1905a
9c5c837cbc9646fcb293576672bd7f45f82e2a9f
104823 F20101208_AAAXXM reynolds_c_Page_094.jp2
9f50a91526c778f025bfc57bc23ef6e0
71e1c965260a707e00fb6ddb7d84b36b053848c5
118226 F20101208_AAAXWX reynolds_c_Page_073.jp2
b7e857e8bd4623438b3750aa41479ea1
eb5a45f81f98915b4249d25510684a6882d07003
92734 F20101208_AAAYDG reynolds_c_Page_007.pro
3b67779865d8079de975bffe80ac24a0
9094b579dc7ea73f4bf635cacc564fe2fbb9523e
114510 F20101208_AAAXYB reynolds_c_Page_112.jp2
7d20885794b053c9b7d3e616a1e9657c
8ba397c506279dd072dbd73a2485c8ebb5a4dd20
F20101208_AAAYCT reynolds_c_Page_122.tif
b92f2b8bc272ffd413a119d77f3b79d8
82950ccbef4430bf398417ec081608d20e2f4bbe
65781 F20101208_AAAXWY reynolds_c_Page_074.jp2
84e1275fa0152f19024b12a6dd652f98
3b6928bc86794d3f6c85e5e15d01946ef9574cb5
25485 F20101208_AAAYDH reynolds_c_Page_008.pro
abb135b0cf194f77740d72c5ef857ab5
e1ebdd25f4baf8216dc7c24d335deb3cf9f19080
334215 F20101208_AAAXYC reynolds_c_Page_113.jp2
d43fab7863fdfdb92238f5e7fbe41aad
acdfc428564ea8012f559f669ea05a8ca2dd1655
F20101208_AAAYCU reynolds_c_Page_123.tif
19a9af9f39feb40eb03b291edc89601c
9a72037b3fb265fa96a2b0b41f3134038cc924c4
118234 F20101208_AAAXXN reynolds_c_Page_095.jp2
8a4f94b9c90fe4f6ad49e04aeba57b90
268ce17f0f448a0ea3c1778a29900585957e6567
65307 F20101208_AAAXWZ reynolds_c_Page_077.jp2
60b920b24f6c8e5063db04fcb50593a8
4022215840fe5cf696f7cc47d53d10e11c77556d
55405 F20101208_AAAYDI reynolds_c_Page_009.pro
6f2f9635c7afb5f8995603e4d52c0e8b
cb4c3835b5ebd1c1728aad99d938c3db711d9183
241857 F20101208_AAAXYD reynolds_c_Page_114.jp2
e7d8d89ee936c1a599825a6b6c92cdc6
6191d361c8a92e0eff73392d0d2b0c1c9d2f11c9
F20101208_AAAYCV reynolds_c_Page_124.tif
1480855f58e1daa1cf221e1ae1617d85
89900e53a2d5642be905721b3c5ad75fbebd25fb
114730 F20101208_AAAXXO reynolds_c_Page_096.jp2
e1473592466f1a5f47cd308942cf806c
88265ad4eaf14980187b72eba5e3d1576ccfc628
14944 F20101208_AAAYDJ reynolds_c_Page_010.pro
3405f277111bd50f3772d55e1b2d98e7
a1e9a83430ae499332126b6f0dc63e967ad3cee7
205310 F20101208_AAAXYE reynolds_c_Page_115.jp2
5d9669aadab950b5591786c5ec29a41f
2dd6913a0989bd3ba25fb36817ce9942d8a0895c
F20101208_AAAYCW reynolds_c_Page_125.tif
17ddb6975a954c01ca95ca57e535cee6
87f17e11990811ea6d0ae28a8b3d26d167670cf1
119112 F20101208_AAAXXP reynolds_c_Page_097.jp2
42f501e30b62728786dcbcd555052d2f
593c5a0e5a249ece83986ed084c7fe382485fd0a
38014 F20101208_AAAYDK reynolds_c_Page_011.pro
2f5be12a4752bdae3f5f7ce0cf66085e
6d5879c230b02699f3945cb61f15bb41ad6d60b8
245444 F20101208_AAAXYF reynolds_c_Page_116.jp2
3f314e93fda1caec4f0ca3d06019deb2
744cc6704629fbb5b9c5180830347cb3ee8c8469
121702 F20101208_AAAXXQ reynolds_c_Page_098.jp2
9de30e81796d42960f6778769d8273e4
3cae81ff1715843d3308cd4c67b358c8838e45bf
46621 F20101208_AAAYDL reynolds_c_Page_012.pro
68604d9c60a724ca1389dae4d6fb248c
4ff5026ca871c2e8b2eaa38cd0368e7ccd4a43c9
246059 F20101208_AAAXYG reynolds_c_Page_117.jp2
3c12af6929057129fe13bbcd037d56ad
10606bca5a6e7543cce249dc4d999ede57eda51f
F20101208_AAAYCX reynolds_c_Page_126.tif
9374d1ac1d32291966a487d2c69fb1dd
1cc918cf7e7429a340c046c2147adb719d45d03a
112334 F20101208_AAAXXR reynolds_c_Page_100.jp2
954b01fe87f3fe74777ce3f3133bc8cc
90d6cb06a954e245b08ac87394b88f79cf81c8eb
55804 F20101208_AAAYEA reynolds_c_Page_031.pro
3414e57fbdca82402a07fafa73b843fd
2c2a62356d605bf6a116294657d04639aef8244b
11734 F20101208_AAAYDM reynolds_c_Page_013.pro
e54b241a51ad4ac08ccf5f3deda397e5
35b498c749edb6742ce78f5088da42abd37749c4
253241 F20101208_AAAXYH reynolds_c_Page_118.jp2
97933567e0928a81e26e04e173b1c4c1
cc7ee5abb5e193fe8c853640a9ac437b9d472f19
F20101208_AAAYCY reynolds_c_Page_127.tif
7e81bdb71c197731195434df48b43954
889cd434482a8b13924890ade5285fdb4bf17e33
119963 F20101208_AAAXXS reynolds_c_Page_101.jp2
4110cd21099fc536a87000f0f6a022c3
d9feb2361a7589bee5a72ed0a9101e7d960417ee
49789 F20101208_AAAYEB reynolds_c_Page_032.pro
81779006c15009f5956dc2eb5e551125
6659961a3ffaf2f8ac2bb5332a7ca7db5debca7e
57677 F20101208_AAAYDN reynolds_c_Page_015.pro
b558c9ad166673e98757dde53b0162f9
a1889982b6a6bf25db586e292b2c3e5b70a13cce
134576 F20101208_AAAXYI reynolds_c_Page_121.jp2
30559de5b064a53ff4985b3721520957
dc903de3b4836b2b17c73121a6638b49e5dc32d9
F20101208_AAAYCZ reynolds_c_Page_128.tif
bd33009bc89cdfcd534c9e83e1fec8f6
bd142a9f83a320778cf0bbd8797d9bba31a61c49
118404 F20101208_AAAXXT reynolds_c_Page_103.jp2
5766c244f0d4ed766f3a09de83f9b9e5
99f73d57e1bfb5c2dfa61818d00761329fb1ac81
47437 F20101208_AAAYEC reynolds_c_Page_033.pro
dd2cd0b266538434c7ddce1b8ec344de
12b0deca75985050b99df15477d74c8e79db7dc9
61610 F20101208_AAAYDO reynolds_c_Page_016.pro
88be146f1d22dba2af2c34df6427040b
57506a70a32404c9cc87de34c300fd6564cf580b
110430 F20101208_AAAXXU reynolds_c_Page_104.jp2
a0c6b4a1ca9c4a0c5b6be9be36837ea1
a8bcfd4094a73997d719132ec141f66f82ac0c8a
54324 F20101208_AAAYED reynolds_c_Page_034.pro
ef06397fc01b570db5330042e21c8077
df0dd1e2846b98f771ca16c582b7a919febd9cc0
19304 F20101208_AAAYDP reynolds_c_Page_018.pro
56d989d972cd6b3b546d6c1d53ecd961
a3c99bc14a1fadc8d886e38a37461a76fd546650
144304 F20101208_AAAXYJ reynolds_c_Page_122.jp2
d0a9de8f6073a6e8a9a1d72049a182d4
0224b77b61051b40534dba7aa1e9cf1e7e3f7961
113188 F20101208_AAAXXV reynolds_c_Page_105.jp2
a8cbac3aeadd926ddf3fa3e4c3e58031
d4a8c115865cfb5ec1843eba28b2a13dd7343669
52840 F20101208_AAAYEE reynolds_c_Page_035.pro
8a5ce943ce490e3cb73b13fece995c5b
1e35dbbd8cbab965ae4d38b6ea3aa333c9472997
53310 F20101208_AAAYDQ reynolds_c_Page_019.pro
aba0627ce0b41798395b3ce2533fdf84
f196a31629050ae51416854cfca6383bebb9b06b
133148 F20101208_AAAXYK reynolds_c_Page_123.jp2
d7379a8e29c601fee16d7ce0e5a086cf
2e8dc944ed3e74c1470686ee782da21e0c5cf0b6
47111 F20101208_AAAXXW reynolds_c_Page_106.jp2
05b7d7a97fcc7bd1a5fda9bdd0d6b861
cfd6aa06b7c6c15b26b0d3896ad5f90e9bf87d89
52516 F20101208_AAAYEF reynolds_c_Page_036.pro
efb0db6903ca3b165f1c3eca9aad2581
9bbdee4e4bd7f44e3e86c7a2ceb9a4c1d1fffd05
55875 F20101208_AAAYDR reynolds_c_Page_020.pro
03631690d4bd4eb7d96aa04e7e69c879
41ec2dc029d54cf317007585f8f872da9caec529
131812 F20101208_AAAXYL reynolds_c_Page_126.jp2
928e090744485550692f15041f1f3abf
add8906095671f19914641f8778798e8e6978b42
94179 F20101208_AAAXXX reynolds_c_Page_108.jp2
18eaad372842d84356776b0dd53767bc
57fef371c2bb5df94acba10737d224adc73120a3
54894 F20101208_AAAYEG reynolds_c_Page_038.pro
c0e888ea635232315bd71ece0115d64a
c070463bc1f3c981ec048c2dfcf4a8d16bdf3180
F20101208_AAAXZA reynolds_c_Page_015.tif
da9965f0ae7ef8abbe7ebcb8a80e269b
13c4643c59a864caf467ea3c11e109254efdf956
51100 F20101208_AAAYDS reynolds_c_Page_021.pro
6aeb7fe03f79a2ae2a237f6d0201e705
2ce4a21d18a62938558893cdaa6215e2bc0f0a42
31288 F20101208_AAAXYM reynolds_c_Page_127.jp2
40273b4edfef63ddb16109f7ac8caa7f
1d2fc2a909ed88c6599c23e3f94f15ce286d0e96
93894 F20101208_AAAXXY reynolds_c_Page_109.jp2
95a190d9fbe5742148a100d52eb6e6ff
7af594de3c49b6857b668a15c5d582de4aa2eee2
55559 F20101208_AAAYEH reynolds_c_Page_039.pro
aef6879401a11e70c36480d7dcf49749
4b0150ab6f9c00d229917662d5420dd21c97ffbe
F20101208_AAAXZB reynolds_c_Page_016.tif
f0614d35addb9a4051eed1fb5b3a6ce0
ea5dbfd87418a0caf79c9cd6828a0d49447197b9
39777 F20101208_AAAYDT reynolds_c_Page_022.pro
a232414f4900f56199205e9df29b5684
64aab8899cf631c6842b6bc06788f15738a58d55
22652 F20101208_AAAXYN reynolds_c_Page_128.jp2
1a82a934bb1a089d703a9958de5cc1fa
0bb0cef35afcdc76500b414e3b01e18c75b8e5b2
64748 F20101208_AAAXXZ reynolds_c_Page_110.jp2
8436671f7bdc82598a2c533abe8d0f33
f0dd61dce587f3f230644da93eb5732648c43a56
51482 F20101208_AAAYEI reynolds_c_Page_040.pro
09904d1b43e77f27fd97e20dadc07983
97abc71b37f62e96c96e7f9aea03474ea45e3085
F20101208_AAAXZC reynolds_c_Page_017.tif
19947f340e4d59a1fce1a43848284e1a
4bfbcdc80331216ff1ff37ca8d62176882f04975
48540 F20101208_AAAYDU reynolds_c_Page_024.pro
539715c50c5fe817f399792868b9835f
d3441ea241063b4f8cae82b255eaf3da4ac3ec88
55177 F20101208_AAAYEJ reynolds_c_Page_041.pro
5d1d6b444f2b03136f35dce5ed464d92
da14b8e2a146afe29e52d6f920fe7e462dbc6c21
F20101208_AAAXZD reynolds_c_Page_018.tif
c6f7ef627f53a7239a50945beb898ace
2fb7f449b36f887dd96ed2f4652c872d5c9f234b
51187 F20101208_AAAYDV reynolds_c_Page_025.pro
08f775d650f25e61317f7bbe97095cbe
f8d07708cca3b42b1f40d68e7b13aa44c15d7d38
F20101208_AAAXYO reynolds_c_Page_001.tif
cbf256655e242787abce04ef65cdd60a
f8ea992e27a197fd5749c9b8eadc2fe3132d019e
51164 F20101208_AAAYEK reynolds_c_Page_042.pro
9b8f578bb842e0553ab3025ee2099adf
d0380cc8aa19b2e990f11d19bbe0b7217505ef2a
F20101208_AAAXZE reynolds_c_Page_019.tif
a7fbce8b4350adf65ffebfe732b7f1cc
64a432136635670fa37d9c4fd655b475101257e5
48440 F20101208_AAAYDW reynolds_c_Page_026.pro
6f1e867c3e24b13afbafb77bebf5e798
12275de6bb1dc26bd15e1441494fa48c7aae31fb
F20101208_AAAXYP reynolds_c_Page_002.tif
a8c27dbdbef4cd24e30cba5a10c4b14c
918ef4a3f2513a840652c48a29beb5c8a429226a
28867 F20101208_AAAYEL reynolds_c_Page_043.pro
1aebe51a86932ee903588e72cc0f4d09
27784c42d19cb35fd4497d5c53af739b2c9a92bb
F20101208_AAAXZF reynolds_c_Page_020.tif
b0b2d989dd7e25631b9b369d0379796d
5f460cecb99d04eb505adf3d9fd41c80b042dd8d
47391 F20101208_AAAYDX reynolds_c_Page_027.pro
036eaa5ff3ca92cae349c0ef789d371f
3fc96eb7d857c265f8e165e62b53864f6f15615f
F20101208_AAAXYQ reynolds_c_Page_003.tif
fe458563d4dab147902496e9289eb36f
5bcd3d441516b7ffd52932f5207844da5074b556



PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CL IMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME CO MMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY By CYNTHIA ANN REYNOLDS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2OO6

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Cynthia Reynolds

PAGE 3

I give thanks for the Love and Grace of God. My unending respect, love and gratitude go to my husband Michael: I am forever in your debt. To the memory of my mother, Lynn N. Hon who always supported me in school. To the memory of my grandfather, Lynwood H. Neidig who received his GED in his 60s. Finally, to all my children and family: may th is dissertation provide you with a better life, encourage you to value your education, and encourage you to love the gift of learning.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my si ncerest gratitude to my enti re supervisory committee: Dr. Dale F. Campbell, Dr. David S. Honeyman, Dr. Larry Tyree, and Dr. Lynn Leverty. Their time, energy and advice made this project a reality. Ma ny thanks go to Dr. Ted Sofianos who led the way for this dissertation; and to Kristy Pressw ood, who gave great insight on this subject. I am greatly indebted to the following people for their energy, help, love, prayers, and support to my family and me during this time: The Alexander Family, Emily Ashworth, Ann Black, The Burns Family, The Lowell Friesen Family, The Kraig Fr iesen Family, Galva United Methodist Church, Wilma Lee Howerton, Jessica Janzen, The Lay Fa mily, Tammy Lenox, Elsie B. Neidig, The Preston Family, The Reynolds Family, Joy Toll, Nicole Unruh, and The Weaver Family. Finally, I owe a million thanks to Dr. Michael Reynolds, my husband, one of the most gifted statistical geniuses and editors I have ever known.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........ix LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......xi ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ...........xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. ...1 Opening Remarks................................................................................................................ .....1 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... ...2 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ......3 Definitions of Terms........................................................................................................... ......3 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ............4 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ....4 Summary........................................................................................................................ ...........5 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........................................................................................6 Opening Remarks................................................................................................................ .....6 Organizational Climate in Educational Settings.......................................................................6 Characteristics of the Group..............................................................................................8 Disengagement.................................................................................................................. 8 Hindrance...................................................................................................................... ....9 Esprit......................................................................................................................... .........9 Intimacy....................................................................................................................... ......9 Characteristics of the Leader.............................................................................................9 Aloofness....................................................................................................................9 Production emphasis..................................................................................................9 Thrust.......................................................................................................................10 Consideration...........................................................................................................10 Organizational Climate with in Educational Settings......................................................10 Open climate............................................................................................................10 Autonomous climate................................................................................................10 Controlled climate....................................................................................................11 Familiar climate........................................................................................................11 Paternal climate........................................................................................................11 Closed climate..........................................................................................................11 Intellectual Climate.........................................................................................................13 Achievement Standards...................................................................................................13 Personal Dignity..............................................................................................................1 4

PAGE 6

vi Organizational Effectiveness...........................................................................................14 Orderliness.................................................................................................................... ...14 Impulse Control...............................................................................................................1 4 A Postmodern Perspective on Organizational Climate...................................................15 Organizational Climate F actors in this Study.........................................................................15 Internal Communication..................................................................................................15 Organizational Structure..................................................................................................16 Political Climate.............................................................................................................. 16 Professional Development Opportunities........................................................................17 Evaluation..................................................................................................................... ...17 Promotion...................................................................................................................... ..17 Regard for Personal Concerns.........................................................................................18 Job Satisfaction in Education.................................................................................................. 18 Job Satisfaction Factors in this Study.....................................................................................20 Participation in Decision Making....................................................................................20 Autonomy, Power and Control........................................................................................20 Relationships with Colleagues........................................................................................21 Salary and Benefits..........................................................................................................21 Professional Effectiveness...............................................................................................21 Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction..........................................................................22 Guiding Studies................................................................................................................ ......23 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........29 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........31 The Population and Sample....................................................................................................32 Alpha Beta Community College.....................................................................................33 Organizational Climate Issues at the Institution..............................................................34 Procedure for Data Collection.........................................................................................36 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......37 Procedure for Analysis......................................................................................................... ..39 Research Questions 1 and 3.............................................................................................39 Research Question 2........................................................................................................40 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........40 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........44 Opening Remarks................................................................................................................ ...44 Survey Responses............................................................................................................... ....44 Frequencies.................................................................................................................... .........45 Job Status..................................................................................................................... ...........45 Number of Years with Institution....................................................................................45 Number of Years in Co mmunity College System...........................................................45 Ethnicity...................................................................................................................... ....45 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....46 Validity and Reliability....................................................................................................... ....46

PAGE 7

vii Research Question 1............................................................................................................ ...48 Internal Communication......................................................................................................... 48 Organizational Structure..................................................................................................49 Political Climate.............................................................................................................. 50 Professional Development Opportunities........................................................................50 Evaluation..................................................................................................................... ...51 Promotion...................................................................................................................... ..51 Regard for Personal Concerns.........................................................................................52 Summary of Research Question 1 Results......................................................................53 Research Question 2............................................................................................................ ...53 Research Question 3............................................................................................................ ...54 Internal Communication..................................................................................................54 Organizational Structure..................................................................................................55 Political Climate.............................................................................................................. 56 Professional Development Opportunities........................................................................56 Evaluation..................................................................................................................... ...57 Promotion...................................................................................................................... ..58 Regard for Personal Concerns.........................................................................................58 Summary of Research Question 3 Results......................................................................59 Summary of Perceptions of Organiza tional Climate and Satisfaction with Organizational Climate................................................................................................59 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........60 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......69 Opening Remarks................................................................................................................ ...69 Research Question 1........................................................................................................69 Research Question 2........................................................................................................69 Research Question 3........................................................................................................69 Design of the Study............................................................................................................ ....70 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........70 Faculty Perception of Or ganizational Climate................................................................70 Internal communication............................................................................................71 Organizational structure...........................................................................................71 Political climate........................................................................................................73 Professional development opportunities..................................................................75 Evaluation.................................................................................................................77 Promotion.................................................................................................................78 Regard for personal concerns...................................................................................79 Faculty Satisfaction with Organizational Climate...........................................................79 Internal communication............................................................................................80 Organizational structure...........................................................................................80 Political climate........................................................................................................80 Professional development opportunities..................................................................80 Evaluation.................................................................................................................81 Promotion.................................................................................................................81 Regard for personal concerns...................................................................................81

PAGE 8

viii The Relationship between Organizati onal Climate and Job Satisfaction........................81 Faculty Belief of Importance of Job Satisfaction............................................................88 Implications................................................................................................................... .........89 Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................91 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........92 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT......................................................................................................94 B LETTER OF INVITATION...................................................................................................98 C LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT..................................................................................99 D DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS WITH REGARD TO JOB STATUS.........100 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................115

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Organizational climate scale.............................................................................................. .....42 3-2. Job satisfaction factors.................................................................................................. ..........43 4-1. Job status................................................................................................................ .................62 4-2. Number of years at the institution........................................................................................ ..62 4-3. Number of years in the community college system...............................................................62 4-4. Ethnicity................................................................................................................. .................62 4-5. Gender.................................................................................................................... ................62 4-6. Rotated component matrix from factor analysis.....................................................................63 4-7. Reliability data from factor analysis..................................................................................... ..63 4-8. Descriptive statistics for percep tions of organizational variables..........................................63 4-9. Perceptions of internal communication..................................................................................63 4-10. Percentages of orga nizational structure................................................................................64 4-11. Perceptions of political climate......................................................................................... ...64 4-12. Perceptions of professi onal development opportunities.......................................................64 4-13. Perceptions of evaluation................................................................................................ ......64 4-14. Perceptions of promotion................................................................................................. .....64 4-15. Perceptions of regard for personal concerns.........................................................................65 4-16. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of High of Very High for each factor...65 4-17. Binomial logistic regressi on of job satisfaction model........................................................65 4-18. Descriptive statistics for satisfac tion with organizational variables.....................................66 4-19. Satisfactions with internal communication...........................................................................66 4-20. Satisfaction with organizational structure............................................................................66 4-21. Satisfaction with political climate...................................................................................... ..66

PAGE 10

x 4-22. Satisfaction with professional development opportunities...................................................67 4-23. Satisfaction with evaluation............................................................................................. .....67 4-24. Satisfaction with promotion.............................................................................................. ....67 4-25. Satisfaction with regard for personal concerns.....................................................................67 4-26. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of High or Very High for each factor...68 4-27. Means and standard deviations of organizational climate scales.........................................68

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page D-1. Perceived Internal Comm unication versus Job Status.........................................................100 D-2. Perceived Organizational St ructure versus Job Status.........................................................100 D-3. Perceived Political C limate versus Job Status.....................................................................101 D-4. Perceived Professional Developmen t Opportunities versus Job Status...............................101 D-5. Perceived Evaluation versus Job Status...............................................................................102 D-6. Perceived Promotion versus Job Status...............................................................................102 D-7. Perceived Regard for Persona l Concerns versus Job Status................................................103 D-8. Satisfaction with Internal Communication versus Job Status..............................................103 D-9. Satisfaction with Organizationa l Structure versus Job Status.............................................104 D-10. Satisfaction with Political Climate versus Job Status........................................................104 D-11. Satisfaction with Professional Devel opment Opportunities versus Job Status.................105 D-12. Satisfaction with Eval uation versus Job Status.................................................................105 D-13. Perceived Promotion versus Job Status.............................................................................106 D-14. Satisfaction with Regard for Pe rsonal Concerns versus Job Status...................................106

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CL IMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME CO MMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY By Cynthia Ann Reynolds December 2006 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of our study was to explore faculty perceptions of organizational climate at their institution, faculty satisfac tion with organizational climat e at their institution, overall faculty job satisfaction, and the relationships am ong these constructs. Our study also sought to determine if there were significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty members perceptions or satisfaction in any of these areas. The final aim of our study was to use logistic regression to identify the determinants of job satisfaction. Our study was a modified replication of previous research. Copies of a survey instrument measuring the variables of interest in our study were distributed to all full-time and part-time faculty members in the departments of behavi oral science, English, and mathematics at a community college in Florida. In total, 118 in dividuals received surveys, and 65 completed surveys were returned. Thus, there was a 55.1% response rate for this survey. Results of our study showed that the faculty surveyed generally had a positive perception of the levels of organizational climate variab les at the institution, and generally had positive satisfaction with organizational climate variables at their in stitution. The only significant differences in perceptions of the level of orga nizational climate variables between full-time and

PAGE 13

xiii part-time faculty members occurred for the fact ors of political clim ate and professional development opportunities. There were, however, no significant differences in satisfaction with organizational climate variables between full-time and part-time faculty. Fi nally, the statistically significant determinants of job satisfaction were id entified to be political climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, and promotion.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Opening Remarks Since the 1920s and the beginning of the indus trial revolution, studies of organizational structure and job satisfaction among employees ha ve represented a major investigation of the business industry. As early as the well -known Hawthorne Study (M ayo, 1933), behavioral researchers have acknowledged, and scrutinized, the palpable link between the organizational structure of an establishment and the job satisfac tion of its workers. Ea rly research concerning job satisfaction shows that satis faction is affected by the orga nizational climate (LaFollette & Sims, 1975; Lawler, Hall & Oldm an, 1974; Pritchard & Karasic k, 1973). Organizational climate is the amalgamation of indefinable and inform al assessments of individuals concerning innumerable facets of their employment se tting (Deas, 1994; Steers & Porter, 1975). These studies found that an organiza tions structure and processes do not directly influence job satisfaction, but do directly influe nce perceptions of the organiza tional climate, which in turn directly influences job satisfaction. Numerous researchers have identified a variet y of benefits of employee job satisfaction, both to the employees and to an organization as a whole (P remack & Wanous, 1985; Schneider, 1987). Increased employee job satisfaction has been found to be associated with better employee performance (Bertz & Judge, 1994), greater corporate commit ment and longer employment periods (Blau, 1987; Megliano et al., 1989; Sc hneider, 1987; Smart, Elton, & McLaughlin, 1986), decreased levels of job-related stress (O lsen & Crawford, 1998), an d greater experiences of professional successes (Bertz & Judge, 1994). Given the importan ce of job satisfaction in any work-related setting, and given the well-document ed relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction, these two f actors need further study in a va riety of occupational settings.

PAGE 15

2 Statement of the Problem Organizational climates in hi gher education institutions ar e very different from the organizational climates in other areas of busine ss and industry. Thus, studies of the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfa ction conducted in a se tting other than an educational institution will not be very revealing in considering the nature of the relationship for college and university faculty. I ndeed, the focus on teaching, learning, and student outcomes in higher educational institutions is very different from the focus on fiduciary concerns present in business and industry (Deas, 1994; Evans & Honeyman, 1998). Job satisfaction and organizati onal climate in higher educa tion settings are still broad considerations, because of the differences in professional atmospheres among different types of institutions (such as community colleges, liber al arts colleges, and research universities). Different surroundings create a diffe rent sense of organizational climate (and consequently job satisfaction) in these diverse higher educational settings meriting further study. For instance, 40% of full-time community college faculty have considered the option of leaving the profession (Sanderson, Phua & Herda, 2000), indicating exce ssive job dissatisfaction in this setting. Other factors render the community college sett ing ripe for extended studies of faculty job satisfaction and organizational cl imate. Escalated dependence on part-time faculty is a major issue in community colleges. According to U.S. Department of Education data, in 2003, 46.3% of all college teaching faculty were parttime faculty, up from 30.2% in 1975 (AAUP, 2005). These statistics seem particularly significant given the wealth of literature lamenting the working conditions facing part-time facu lty. While many have speculated, few educational researchers have tried to determine part-time faculty job satisf action. Further, there is virtually no research in the literature comparing the job satisfaction leve ls of full-time and part -time within the same institution. Our study is concerned with co mmunity colleges, and whether perceived

PAGE 16

3 organizational climate and job satisfaction differs between full-time and part-time instructors within a community college setting. Purpose of the Study The purpose of our study was to investigat e the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as applied to full-time and part-time faculty members at a community college. Our study was conducted to determine whether differences in job satisfaction exist within the context of organiza tional climate, and to further to examine how these relationships differ when employment status es (i.e., full-time vs. part-time) are considered. In particular, our study addressed the following research questions: Research question 1: How do community college full-ti me and part-time instructors perceive organizational climate in their re spective institution, using a set of seven identified factors for climate? Research question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community college full-time and part-time instructors? Research question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors with the organizational clim ate of their respective institution? Definitions of Terms Adjunct or part-time: individuals appointed to teach cr edit-bearing courses that are part of the regular academic curriculum during the re gular academic year (including fall, spring and summer terms) and whose employment is on some basis other than a full-time contract. This category also includes on-cal l instructors whose employment depends on adequate enrollment in courses, temporary hire s, paid and unpaid, and those who teach as substitutes, as fill-i ns appointments. It does not refer to faculty appointed to full-time positions without eligibility fo r tenure, faculty appointed on specific-length contracts, faculty who are hired on research or s ponsored-program grants with no teaching responsibilities or graduate teaching assistants. Job satisfaction: This term refers to the emotional st ate which results from ones appraisal of their job experiences. For the purposes of this study, job satisfaction involves the following five factors: 1) participation in decision making; 2) autonomy, power and control; 3) relationship with colleagues; 4) salary and benefits; and 5) professional effectiveness.

PAGE 17

4 Organizational Climate: the accumulation of intangible pe rceptions that individuals have of various aspects of the work environment of an organizatio n. In this study, this is operationally defined as a composite of th e following seven factors: 1) internal communication; 2) organizati onal structure; 3) political climate; 4) professional development opportunities; 5) evaluation; 6) promotion; and 7) regard for personal concerns. Limitations The results of our study are limited by the fact that this is an obser vational study. A survey instrument has been used to gather data about subjects attitudes wit hout any manipulation of circumstances or controlling of factors. At be st, our study can only uncover associations between variables, and cannot identify any causative relationships. The sampling method used in our study also limits our results. The study uses a purposive sample of all full-time and part-time behavioral sc ience, mathematics and English professors at a single institution, a community colleg e in the state of Florida. Desp ite the fact that this sampling procedure does not permit the generalization of re sults to any clearly-de fined larger population, there is nonetheless value in such studies, which can reveal hints and indications concerning the relationships between factors. If a sufficient num ber of such studies achie ve similar results, this can lend support, and even cred ence to such findings, which can then be validated through more extensive, procedurally rigorous research. Another sampling issue faced in this study is that the survey was essentially a voluntary response survey. This aspect of the data collection pro cedure can bias results. Then, too, there is the issue that our survey is not measuring job satisfaction and organizatio nal climate perceptions, but rather subjects reported levels of job satisfaction and organizational climate. Significance of the Study This research is significant in several areas. Job satisfaction is in essence characterized by numerous social factors, economic conditions, inclinations determined by ones personal history,

PAGE 18

5 and other character elements. This multidimensi onality will require multiple studies, conducted in a variety of settings. Finally, there is a de arth of studies examin ing job satisfaction and organizational climate of part-time facu lty within a community college setting. Summary There is extensive literature of psychologi cal theories, paradigms, and hypotheses concerning job satisfaction, organizational climat e, and the interaction between them in the private sector. This study extends the research focused on the comm unity college sector in higher education (Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Sofi anos, 2005). The present study examined this relationship with a focus on the differences between full-time and part-time faculty.

PAGE 19

6 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Opening Remarks The collective aggregate of indefinable per ceptions that individua ls have of countless aspects of the work environment of an organization is referred to by the term organizational climate One early research study define d organizational climate as a set of characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish it from other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) infl uence the behavior of people in the organization (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964, p. 362). Powell and Butterfield (1978) defined it somewhat differently, focusing on organizational climate as the way members view an organization in a ho listic, individualistic sense. While this term does not have a universa lly accepted definition, and in fact there are other terms that are used interchangeably in the literature, organizational climate is indeed an important and significant concept in the study of job satisfaction. The liter ature is replete with studies documenting stro ng relationships between organizationa l climate and such factors as job satisfaction, workplace morale and employee rete ntion. While examinations of organizational climate were at one time limited to organizationa l structures in busines s and industry, the last decade has seen an increased interest in organi zational climate within th e field of education. Organizational Climate in Educational Settings The perceived nature of schools and other educat ional settings as place of employment is of acute interest to educationa l researchers and school practitioners, although this has not always been the case. Due to a lack of cohesion in the field, the concept of the professional atmosphere, or ambiance, has been studied under an assortme nt of names, includi ng organizational culture, organizational character, organizational ideol ogy, informal organization and organizational health. While some educational organizational theorists have posited somewhat differentiated

PAGE 20

7 meanings for some of these terms, it is al l too common for certain stakeholders of our educational system (most often school admini strations, faculty and parents) to use such expressions almost arbitraril y, with no precise, mutuallyacknowledged characterization. From an academic standpoint, these ambiguous, i ndistinct terms, which seem to create a penumbra of vagueness and uncertainty around the concept, are most unappealing. However, the laypersons who use them do so with good reason na mely that the feeling of climate in a school is a very real concept, yet an elusive one as well. Many organizational th eorists have struggled with characterizing the c oncept over the years, with variable levels of success. However, the generic notion of the climate (concerning work ing conditions) of a school has long been recognized as having a relationship with the e ducational effectiveness of a school. In fact, improved organizational climate is a significant part of the education reform movement. One model of effective schools asserts that educati onal effectiveness is th e product of a supportive climate containing increased expectations, str ong leadership, a focus on competency and a mechanism for monitoring student development (Edmonds, 1979). For these and other reasons, organizational climate has entered in the American educational lexicon, and is generally viewed as a favorable, if not essential, fact or for promoting academic achievement. While a positive organizational climate is wide ly viewed as a desirable outcome, there appears to be little consensus as to exactly what this constitutes. This is because, as previously mentioned, there is no clear definition of organiza tional climate. Indeed, the empirical research within the literature demonstrating a clear li nk between organizational climate and educational outcomes is meager (Purkey & Smith, 1981; Ralph & Fennessy, 1983; Rowan, Bossert & Dwyer, 1983). However, it should be noted that th e tendency of an inst itution to pursue a positive organizational climate need not be de pendent only upon connections between climate

PAGE 21

8 and educational effectiveness; indeed, a positive work climate is an important goal regardless. The benefits of a nourishing climate within an organization include co llegiality, ingenuousness, intellectual distinction, heighten ed morale, and allegiance, among other favorable traits; hence a positive organizational climate within an organizational should be viewed as a noteworthy goal distinct from any potential connection to acad emic impact (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991). Some of the earliest studies of organizational climate is an educational setting is the landmark work of Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963), which was conducted at the elementary school level. Utilizing a different lin e of reasoning than was the nor m for the conventional industrybased organizational climate studies of the day, thes e researchers chose to di rect their attention to the central characteristics of the teacher-teacher and teacher-pri ncipal relationships in the elementary schools involved in the study. This led Halpin and Croft to develop the widely used Organizational Climate Descript ive Questionnaire (OCDQ), which can be used to create a summary of the organizational clim ate of an elementary school. The OCDQ was designed as an e ndeavor to assess and record the climates of elementary schools, with the nature of these climates being described in terms of open or closed. The OCDQ measures eight different di mensions of organizational clim ate via Likert scale items. The eight dimensions, which are listed below, either measure the characteristics of the group or characteristics of the prin cipal (i.e., the leader). Characteristics of the Group Disengagement The term disengagement refers to the propensity of teach ers to perform their assigned tasks through rote, treating these jobs as routine, without expending a gr eat deal of mental effort, and without embracing the tasks with any sense of passion or commitment.

PAGE 22

9 Hindrance The term hindrance refers to a state in which teachers within a school have a sense that their ability to work is in some way being encu mbered by the actions of their principal. This generally occurs when teachers feel their pr incipal has fostered an overly bureaucratic environment, or that the principal has assigned tedious and unnecessary ta sks (i.e. busy work). Esprit From the French expression esprit de corps which is roughly translated as team spirit, the term esprit refers to as sense of morale whic h is cultivated th rough a sense of group accomplishment and through a favorable social setting. Intimacy The term intimacy refers to a sense of deep-seeded friendship among the teachers of school. This ideal goes well past the condition of a good working relationship; indeed, this term implies a certain level of warmth and closeness. Characteristics of the Leader Aloofness The term aloofness refers to a principal who maintains a calculated professional distance from the teachers, through the use of reserved a nd distant behavioral trai ts. In the vernacular of the profession, such a professor might be referred to as stuffy. Production emphasis The term production emphasis refers to a rather restrictive environment, in which teachers are given little latitude. Such an environment is characterized by heavy regulation, in which the principal practices micro-management and encour ages little if any feedback from teachers concerning their work environment.

PAGE 23

10 Thrust The term thrust refers to a sense of professional momentum that is created through the behavior of the principal. This generally re sults from a principal who is innovative, highly dynamic, and who leads by example. Usually, fa culty responds quite we ll to this style of leadership and engages in the types of behavior being modeled by their principal, which causes an effective and efficient learning environment. Consideration The term consideration refers to the perceived conviviality of a principal. This also describes the principal who does a little somethi ng extra, to be helpful for the teachers at the school, even to the extent of granting personal favors on occasion. Organizational Climate within Educational Settings After administering the OCDQ to a number of elementary school employees, Halpin and Croft sought to identify any patterns that surf aced among the eight dimensions. Six different categories of climate were identified based on res ponses. A brief profile of each level of climate follows. Open climate This is the least restrictive and most effici ent climate profile as identified by the OCDQ. Within an open climate, teachers work together easily and efficiently, promoting a strong sense of team high spirit. They are not inundated with continuous tedium, and the group members enjoy friendly relations. The principal demonstr ates a belief system that facilitates problem solving from the faculty members. Autonomous climate This climate profile is somewhat more rest rictive than an open climate. Within an autonomous climate, teachers are granted the freed om to develop their own social relationships.

PAGE 24

11 Morale is generally high, although not as high w ithin an open climate. Teachers achieve their goals and work cohesively. The principal rema ins aloof, and is skillf ul at modeling desired behavior. Controlled climate This climate profile is fairly restrictive. W ithin a controlled climate, workers tend to be quite task-oriented and broke tenden cy with the social needs. They feel an urgency to complete a given assignment, and usually work individuall y. Job satisfaction comes from task completion rather than social fulfillment. The principa l in this case is domin eering and authoritative. Familiar climate This climate profile is not very restrictive, but neither is it very efficient. Within a familiar climate, the environment is conspicuously friend ly while catering to the social needs of the group. The principal exhibits li ttle control, and there is an espousal of group belongingness. Most faculty members do not work to their fu ll capacity, coupled with little direction and evaluation. Job satisfaction tends to be average and is predicated on social relationships. Paternal climate This climate profile is fairly restrictive and fair ly inefficient. Within a paternal climate, one observes ineffective attempts by the principal to control the faculty and to satisfy their social needs. The principal is genera lly considered by the faculty to be ineffectual concerning work achievement and motivation. Although the principa l tries to be everywhe re and do everything at once, there is little effect to achieve progress. Friendly relationships ar e typically nonexistent, while also provoking a sense of futility. Closed climate This is perhaps the least desirable of the clim ate profile types. Within a closed climate, there are two major problems present. First, there is little to no soci al cohesiveness, which

PAGE 25

12 consequently causes apathy. Secondly, there is mini mal task achievement, resulting in dwindling productivity. Busy work often s ubstitutes itself for an individual s achievement value, and job satisfaction is at a nominal level. Many factors contributed to the need for an instrument, such as the OCDQ, which attempts to gauge organizational climate. Mainly, thes e reasons centered on a genuine recognition that school districts, school administrators and educ ational activists were in a position to effect change in our schools, and the information gathered from a t ool such as the OCDQ could be beneficial in working toward th at end. There are differences in the moods within schools that is, in some sense, differentiated from morale and disposition. Furthe r, in a school with a negative, even paralyzing m ood, improving the situation would prove to be extremely arduous without an accurate and comprehensive assessmen t of that mood. It was believed that a climate profile generated by the OC DQ would be helpful in efforts to improve the working environments within schools. In the years since its incepti on, the OCDQ has proven to be a most useful and valued tool in the measurement of organizational climate va riables, particularly in the K-12 setting. However, the instrument has been revised twi ce one revision improved its ability to measure organizational climate in the elementary setting, and another revision modi fied the questionnaire to be more conducive to the high school se tting (Lunenburg & Ornste in, 1991). Despite these results, the OCDQ has been shown not to be ap plicable to settings within higher education (Owens, 1991). Another instrument that has been widely used in the measurement of organizational climate is the Organizational Climate Index (OCI ; Stern, 1970). This survey was designed under the belief that any measure of organizational climate must take into account not only perceptions

PAGE 26

13 of the environment, but also th e attributes of the individual (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). This approach was based on the work of earlier organi zational theorists such as Lewin (1935), as well as Murray, Barrett, and Homburger (1938). Central to these theories is the idea that individuals needs (need) and organizational needs (press) will come into dispute; this is known as need-press theory. The OCI was, in essence, a combination of two separate instruments. The first was the Activities Index, which was intended to measure i ndividual needs, and th e other was the College Characteristics Index, which was design to m easure organizational needs. There were six different facets of organizational climate that the OCI is able to appraise. A discussion of each follows. Intellectual Climate The dimension of intellectual climate describe s one in which there is definite emphasis on academic pursuits. This can be construed to incl ude a broad spectrum of scholarly interests. In such a school, the administration is generally very supportive of any intellectual activity that teachers may be interested in; and, in fact, t eachers are often encourag ed to maintain such interests. It may not be surprising that schools w ith high intellectual climate scores tend to also have higher levels of edu cational effectiveness. Achievement Standards The dimension of achievement standards meas ures the tendency of a school to maintain high criteria for students schol arly performance. Students ar e held accountable for their progress, and teachers are additionally held accounta ble for the progress of their students. In such a setting, satisfactory task completion results in accolades, and occasionally, in certain rewards. Standards of achievement are set for both th e quality and the quantity of the students assignments.

PAGE 27

14 Personal Dignity The dimension of personal dignity is the one th at addresses the profe ssional behavior of individuals, both in how they c onduct themselves and in how they treat others. A key component of personal dignity is the sens e of integrity and honor with which people do their jobs. This would also encompass the level of respect people treat each other with, which in essence creates an encouraging and s upportive environment. Organizational Effectiveness The dimension of organizational effectiveness de scribes an institution that is efficacious in meeting their objectives, particularly when such efficacy is at least in part due to the administrative infrastructure of the organiza tion. In the common parl ance, this would be described as a well run, shipshape organization. Administration serves as an impetus rather than an impediment to success. Orderliness The dimension of orderliness describes a work environment with a significant amount of regulation regarding employees behavior. This factor measures the degree to which management (or, in an educational setting, admi nistration) exerts control over the commonplace, day-to-day operation of the organization. Schools that score high in this dimension generally place pressure on teachers to follow the rules of the institution, which are generally more stringent than for schools scor ing lower in this area. Impulse Control The final dimension of impulse control is an evaluation of a schools tendency to oppress any impulsive behavior on the part of employees This suggests a relatively domineering work environment. Schools with low scores on this dime nsion usually lack the internal mechanism to detect potential instances of dele terious, impetuous attempts in a sufficiently timely manner to

PAGE 28

15 address the offensive behavior before it be comes a source of organizational hardship. Conversely, schools with high scores in this area are capable of identifying and contending with the capricious inclinations of its faculty and st aff to the point of diverting any problematic situations. The OCI presents a composite portrayal of organizational climate in terms of the six preceding factors. The applicability and usefulness of this instrume nt to educational organization has been supported by numerous studies throughout its existe nce (Owens, 1995). A Postmodern Perspective on Organizational Climate Recently, it has been argued that within pos tmodern community college settings, such climate assessments can be informative in acquiring knowledge of the comprehensive organizational climate of a college, but fail to produce an apposite portrayal of how various individuals interpret their organi zational setting, especia lly within a context of administrative departmentalization and growing diversity (Ayers, 2005). Stated differently, postmodern community colleges retains a level of heteroge neity among their personne l all of whom may view the organizational climate rather distinctiv ely thus, climate surveys run the risk of overlooking the perspectives of subgroups with disparate role s and observations within the institution. Clearly, postmodern theory demands a broadening of our understanding of the concept of organizational climate within the realm of higher education (Ayers, 2005). Organizational Climate Factors in this Study Internal Communication Communication has been identifi ed as an aspect of organi zational climate (Deas, 1994). Effective, open lines of communica tion are essential within any or ganization; without them, it is essentially impossible for the organization to perform adequately (Gronbeck, 1992; Langley,

PAGE 29

16 1994). Communication is the passag e of meaning among individuals through the sharing of facts and opinions (Hanson, 1991). Organizational Structure One primary factor that has been shown to impact organizational climate within educational establishments is organizational stru cture. This term generically refers to the bureaucracy and administrative proc esses within an institution. Especially in the college and university setting, organizational structure vari es among institutions. For instance, many community colleges adopted an organizational struct ure similar to those of public school systems (Deegan & Tillery, 1985). However, in recent years a number of community colleges have disavowed this approach in favor of one that is less bureaucratic and allows for greater academic freedom (Cohen & Brawer, 2002; Amey and Twombly, 1992). Conversely, some have suggested that less bureaucratic organiza tional structures are often ineffective in a community college setting (Tuckman & Johnson, 1987). Political Climate A separate, but interrelate d, factor to organizational structure that affects the organizational climate of an inst itution is political climate (Hone yman et al., 1996). It was noted by Block (1987) that while the political machinati ons of an organization are frequently litigious, it is necessary to be able to operate within this framework if one wants to institute organizational change. Relationships between positions of power, communication patt erns, allocation of resources and leadership styles al l have an impact on political clim ate, and hence these factors all are components of organizational climate. There will routinely be both be neficial and non-beneficial asp ects to the political climate within any educational institution, and hence th e capacity to function efficiently amidst both types of traits does become imperative (Mintzbe rg, 1989). Additionally, the political climate of

PAGE 30

17 any institution is established by power relationshi ps, interdependence, resources, deficiencies, communication, and realizing inte nded and unintended consequences (Honeyman et al., 1996). Professional Development Opportunities Educational institutions offer opportunities to their faculty and staff as a means of acquiring new skills, keeping individuals knowledge bases current, and emphasizing the importance of lifelong learning. Res earch has shown that the importance that school districts and institutions place on professional development is strongly association wi th teacher satisfaction, decreased levels of employee turnover, and in creased educational effectiveness (Ewell, 1993). When schools affirm the importance of providing avenues for self-improvement that also enhance the productivity of the institution, the benef its are increased morale and faculty job satisfaction. Evaluation The term evaluation is used here to denote an institutions framework for assessing the performance of faculty and staff through constr uctive criticism provide d for the purpose of promoting professional growth (Halpin, 1966) Evaluation should be an ongoing process, performed regularly and frequently, to belie an institutions commitment to academic excellence (Langley, 1994). Also, evaluation is a course of action that utilizes both positive and negative reinforcement in the feedback which it provides (Bolman and Deal, 1997). Promotion Promotion in higher education is a process wh ich is inextricably linked to organizational climate. The criteria for promotion generally in clude productivity, service to the institution and favorable evaluations (Vaughn, 1986). The comp ensation includes increased rank and pay, including all the accompanying benefits. The benef its to the institution include job satisfaction

PAGE 31

18 on the part of the recipients of promotion, but also an overall increased sense of morale and positive organizational climate (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Regard for Personal Concerns The factor of regard for personal concerns m easures an institutions official response to personal issues among employees th at potentially affect their well being and the performance of their job (Duncan & Harlacher, 1994). When employ ees perceive that their institution takes an interest in their personal concerns and individual needs, the result is generally an increased sense of dedication and commitment to that institution (B lau, 2001). In essence, institutional regard for personal concerns has an advantag eous effect on both organizationa l climate and job satisfaction. As previously noted, one aspect of organizati onal climate that renders it an extensive area of study is the definite relations hip it shares with job satisfact ion. While many researchers have determined this to be a significant relations hip (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Hersey et al., 1996; Gruneberg, 1979; Myran & Howdyshell, 1 994; Spector, 1997; Bolman & Deal, 1997), the association is indeed a complex one. To facilitate a discussion of the connections between these two variables, a review of job satisfaction among educators follows. Job Satisfaction in Education There are a number of different characteristic s that have been show n to affect faculty perceptions of job satisfaction. Pe rsonal variables, such as ethnic ity, gender and age, can play a role in job satisfaction, depending on environmental reactions and the presence or lack of support systems, whether formal or informal (Hag edorn, 2000; Paludi & DeFour, 1989; Thompson & Dey, 1998). Further, there are differe nt disciplines can often form distinct sub-cultures within academe, which has been shown to have some eff ect on job satisfaction, part icularly with regard to preferences concerning amount of time spent on teaching versus research (Finkelstein, 1984). Similarly, the type of institution one is at can also be a significant factor, since differing

PAGE 32

19 institutional settings can have markedly differe nt faculty expectations, educational philosophies and priorities. The alignment of the persona lity of an institution with ones personal preferences is very often associated with job satisfaction (Blackbur n & Lawrence, 1995). It has been proposed that the types of factor s influencing job satisfa ction at educational institutions fall into the thr ee categories of environmental co nditions, environmental responses, and social contingencies (Blackburn & Lawr ence, 1995). Environmental conditions would encompass such factors as the type of institut ion type or the makeup of the student body. This differs from the category of environmental re sponses, which includes o fficial institutional processes, such as tenure and promotion deci sions. The third and final category of social contingencies involves factors exte rnal to the institution, and of a personal nature, such as family concerns. Much of contemporary job satisfaction theory borrows heavily from the pioneering work of Herzberg and his fellow researchers (1957). Th eir model of the workplace based on intrinsic factors (motivations) and extrinsi c factors (hygienes) provided a theoretical basis for a recent model of faculty job satisfaction based on med iators and triggers (H agedorn, 2000). Stated simply, mediators refer to a wide class of fact ors, including, in the terminology of Herzberg, motivations and hygienes, as well as other fixed c onditions, such as personal variables. On the other hand, the term trigger is used to denote an y change in ones situation; this change may involve an external or internal factor. Using these theoretical models, and other similar ones, a whole host of studies examining job satisfaction have been conducted; many of these endeavors were successful in identifying some of th e correlates of faculty job satisfaction.

PAGE 33

20 Job Satisfaction Factors in this Study Participation in Decision Making One factor that has been linke d to faculty job satisfaction is involvement in the decisionmaking process. Decision making has been referred to as the core of an institution power and educational effectiveness (Fryer & Lovas, 1990). In particular, th is study is concerned with the potential that indivi duals have to engage mentally and emo tionally in that process, as described by Daft (1983). Lunenburg and Ornstein (1991) have identified four stages of the process of effective decision making: Define the problem. Possible alternatives. Realize the predicted consequences. Staying the course regardi ng the alternative solution. It has been asserted that increased invo lvement by affected employees enhances the decision making process, and results in more bene ficial decisions being made (Peterson et al., 1997). Indeed, Honeyman and colleagues (1996) have suggested that effective decision making will result from a setting in which the decision maki ng process is initiated at the lower levels of the hierarchal structure. Organi zations with establis hed decision-making pro cedures that include employees throughout different levels are more productive, effective and efficient (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Autonomy, Power and Control While not precisely synonymous, the terms au tonomy, power and cont rol are very closely related. All of these ideals are associated with the degree of authority and independence that employees have over the functions and conditions of their jobs. Autonomy has been described as the degree of independence that an individual or department has in th e performance of their duties (Kanter, 1985), while control extends pa st ones own job functions to having some

PAGE 34

21 authority over others jo b functions (Pfeffer, 1992). Power has b een defined as a feeling of selfassurance one has in exerting control over ot hers in an organization (Glasser, 1994). Relationships with Colleagues The factor of relationships with colleagues is a measure of the value of ones involvement, whether friendships or simply working relationshi ps, with coworkers. Not surprisingly, friendly working relationships have been associated with favorable levels of job satisfaction (Hutton & Jobe, 1985). At the management level, good interper sonal skills are critical for the management to stay attuned to the needs and attitudes of thei r employees (Fisher, 1984). The consensus of the numerous studies which have inve stigated this area is that collegiality within a college or university tends to support both educational effectiven ess and job satisfaction. Salary and Benefits The relationship between the perceived fairness of employees salary and benefits and job satisfaction is indeed an intricate one. While an unsatisfactory salary and benefits level has been shown to significantly affect job dissatisfaction; yet, a positive, even general, level of salary and benefits is not sufficient to create a strong se nse of job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959; McKenzie & Lee, 1998). It has been noted that corporations have attempted multiple ways of creating salary and benefit packages that will mo tivate workers, and that benefit packages that attempt to more closely tie rewards with produ ctivity, including stock options and profit sharing plans, are based on Adams (1965) equ ity theory (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Professional Effectiveness Herzberg and associates (1959) were among the first to note that personal accomplishment and personal professional growth are two factors whic h can heavily influe nce job satisfaction, and further that for individuals who take owners hip of their work, their vocational pursuits will be their greatest motivation. However, the concep t of professional effectiveness also includes

PAGE 35

22 such factors as efficiency, fiduciary effectiv eness, survivability, a nd professional advances, which have all been shown to be components of job satisfaction (Kunda 1992). Not surprisingly, a link has been found between the extent to wh ich one derives satisfaction from a sense of professional accomplishment and the level within the hierarchal structure in an organization that an individual achieves. Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction From the previous discussions, it becomes cl ear that while organizational climate and job satisfaction are separate and di stinct concepts, they have an extremely strong relationship. Further, the interplay between these two variables differs greatly between corporate and academic settings (Argyris, 1957, 1964, 1973; Herzberg, 1957, 1959, 1966; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Hersey, 1996; Gruneberg, 1979; Spector, 1997; Bolman & Deal, 1997). The implication for this study is that generaliza tions concerning organiza tional climate and job satisfaction that were conducted within an industr ial or corporate setting are far less relevant than those carried out in an educational venue. Accord ingly, a review of some of the more germane investigations in this area follows. Evans and Honeyman (1998) examined the re lationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction in community colleges. A significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and organizational clim ate. In particular, the organiza tional climate factors of regard for personal concerns, organizati onal structure, opportunities for professional development, and internal communication were most strongl y associated with job satisfaction. Miller (2003) studied the relationship betw een organizational climate and professional burnout in the libraries and compu ting service centers of higher e ducation institutions. This study found a strong relationship between positive organiza tional climate characteristics and low levels of professional burnout.

PAGE 36

23 Sofianos (2004) examined the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction among executive secretaries to the pr esidents of community college. The results of this analysis found that job satisfaction among individuals in th is position was strongly related to organizational climate; and this relationshi p was most significant among the organizational climate factors institutional regard for personal concern, relationship with coworkers, and salary and benefits. There is another factor facing community colleges that needs to be mentioned, as it will undoubtedly impact both organizational climate a nd job satisfaction in community colleges in the immediate future. The oldest members of the generation known as baby boomers will be retiring in the next few years, causing an inor dinately large number of job vacancies in many industries; one of the areas that will strongl y be affected by this phenomenon is in the administration of community colleges (Campbe ll, 2006). Community colleges would be well advised to start planning now, if they have not already done so, as to how they will respond to the large number of positions with in their upper administrations th at need to be filled. This process will surely have an impact on the or ganizational climate of these institutions, and transitively, on job satisfaction. Thus, this is a nother area that we will be considering in this study. Guiding Studies This study was a modified replic ation of a series of studies conducted at the University of Florida, some of which have been previously cited, and all of which ex amined the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfact ion within higher educational settings, many of which were community colleges. A brief summary of each follows. In a study examining the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructio nal officers, a survey measuring organizational

PAGE 37

24 climate and job satisfaction variables was sent to the chief instructional officers at all member colleges of the American Association of Commu nity Colleges (Chappell, 1995). Roughly 51% of these surveys were returned, and an analysis of the responses led to some rather revealing conclusions. Foremost, it was determined that the organizational climate variables that significantly impacted job satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizational struct ure and evaluation. Further, it was determined that the size of the community college had a significant impact on participati on in decision making, autonomy, power, control, salary, benef its and professional effectiveness. As study conducted simultaneously to th e Chappell (1995) study investigated organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Florida community college health occupations program directors (P almer, 1995). This study sought to determine which aspects of organizational climate promote and enhance job sa tisfaction, and to further determine the degree of job satisfaction, among health occupations pr ogram directors in Florida community colleges. Surveys measuring the variables of interest were distributes to all health occupations program directors in Florida community co lleges; roughly 71% of the surv eys were returned. The results indicated that the most important factor of organizational climate wa s internal communication, and the factor most in need of improvement wa s political climate. Participation in decision making and professional effectiveness were th e most important factors among the position characteristics, and salary, benefits and aut onomy were most in need of improvement. The respondents were generally satisfied, overall, wi th their positions. Inte restingly, there was no significant relationship found between job satisfac tion and organizational climate. The Chappell and Palmer studies caught the attention of a numb er of researchers, which led to a series of subsequent studies.

PAGE 38

25 One of the more noteworthy research studies in this sequence was an analysis of the relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents (Evans, 1996). This study specif ically sought to determine if differences existed in job satisfaction variables within the context of organizational climate. A survey measuring the variables of interest was sent to th e presidents of all institutions in the American Association of Community Colle ges. Thorough scrutiny of the responses showed that the organizational climate factors most closely related to job satisf action were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizationa l structure, and prof essional development opportunities. Additional, it was de termined that a presidents re lationship with the board of trustees was the most important determinant of job satisfaction. In an adaptation of the previously mentione d studies, Kellerman (1996) sought to explore the relationship between communi cation climate and job satisfac tion as reported by Floridas community college department chairs. Communicati on climate could be cons idered a related, yet not identical, concept to organizational cl imate. Essentially, communication climate encompasses decision making, reciprocity, feedb ack perception, feedback responsiveness and feedback permissiveness. Similar to the methodology of the earlier studies, a survey was sent to all academic department chairs in Florida commun ity colleges. The response s indicated that their overall level of job satisfaction was rather high, and additionally that job satisfaction was significantly related to communication climate. A study of selected organizational climate f actors and job satisfaction variables among teachers in a large suburban school district was conducted to explore these factors in a suburban Florida school district (Paulson, 1997). A distinctive aspect of th is study was the inclusion of the variables of school level and union affiliation. The survey instrument in this study was

PAGE 39

26 distributed to all 1685 teachers in an entire school district, in cluding elementary, middle and high school levels. Significant differences were f ound in all job satisfac tion and organizational climate factors with respect to school level, although the relationship between these factors and union membership was extremely minor. Continuing in this line of studies, a further research inquiry inves tigated the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfact ion as reported by mid-level collegiate campus recreation coordinators (DeMiche le, 1998). To reveal whether organizational climate factors and job satisfaction factors enhance or detract from job satisfactio n and organizational climate, a survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all 545 mid-level campus recreation coordinators in the directory of the National Intramural Recreati onal Sports Association, with an approximate response rate of 52%. The responses showed that, overall, the program directors were satisfied with their colleges and their jobs The organizational climate factors that were shown to influence job satisfac tion were evaluation, regard for personal concerns, professional development opportunities and political climate. Mo reover, job satisfaction was also affected by relationship with colleagues a nd autonomy, power and control. Demographic variables were generally not determinan ts of job satisfaction. The next study in this series of investigations was directed toward the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction for community college chief business officers (Zabetakis, 1999). For the purposes of the st udy under discussion, organizational culture is nearly synonymous with organizational climate. Surveys were distributed to the entire 277 chief business officers of community colleges belongin g to the Community College Business Officers Organization, and the response ra te was roughly 51%. Respondents perceived the organizational factors with the highest levels at their institutions were regard for personal concern, professional

PAGE 40

27 development opportunities, intern al communication and evaluati on. Quite similarly, respondents were most satisfied with the organizational fact ors of regard for personal concerns, professional development opportunities, evaluation and intern al communication. The most highly perceived job satisfaction variables were relationships with supervisor, participation in decision making, professional effectiveness, rela tionships with subordinates a nd relationships with peers. Gratto (2001) extended this research to study the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction for directors of physical plant on college campuses. An electronic survey was disseminated to the co llege physical plant directors be longing to the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officer s; the study achieved a response rate of 37%. An analysis of the responses indicated that the organizational climate factors whic h most significantly relate to job satisfaction were regard for personal c oncerns, internal comm unication, organizational structure and evaluation. Continuing with this trend, a subsequent research study expl ored the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multi-campus community college systems (Baile y, 2002). A survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all campus executi ve officers of multi-campus community colleges listed in the Higher Education Directory A total of 199 surveys were returned out of 429 that were sent out, resulting in a response rate of 46%. Results indicated that the organizational climate variables of regard for personal concerns and evaluation were the most strongly related to job satisfaction. Further, internal communi cation was the greatest predictor of overall satisfaction, followed by regard for personal c oncerns, professional development opportunities, and low levels of political climate.

PAGE 41

28 Another study in this area inve stigated the relationship betw een organizational climate and job satisfaction for athletic compliance direct ors of NCAA Division I in stitutions (Lawrence, 2003). In all, 346 surveys were distributed to a ll NCAA Division I compliance directors, and 164 were returned. Thus, there was a 46% response rate. The responde nts overall satisfaction with their positions was reasonably high, and most strongly related to the organizational climate factors of evaluation, promotion and regard fo r personal concerns. The respondents greatest levels of satisfaction with organizational clim ate factors occurred with regard for personal concerns, and professional development opportunities. Subsequently, Peek (2003) studied the relatio nship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by institut ional research staff at Florida community colleges. A survey measuring the variables of interest was sent to the heads of institutional research of all 28 community colleges in Florida, as listed in th e Higher Education Directory. This study enjoyed a 75% response rate. The organizational climate f actors with the highest perceived levels were professional development opportunities, evalua tion and internal communication. Generally, overall satisfaction with organizational climate wa s quite high. He highest rated factors for job satisfaction were professional eff ectiveness, relationship with supe rvisor, relationship with peers, and relationship with subordinates. Next, policy and organizational factors and their relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct / part-time faculty in north central Florida public community college was considered (LeFevreStephens, 2004). A survey instrument was di stributed to part-time faculty through their department chairs. Of 667 surveys distributed, 224 were completed and returned, yielding an approximate response rate of 33%. Analysis of the responses showed th at respondents overall satisfaction with the position was fairly high, and significantly associated with the organizational

PAGE 42

29 climate factors of evaluation, pr omotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents highest levels of satisfaction were with re gard for personal concerns and professional development opportunities. Lastly, the most import ant job satisfaction fact ors were relationships with peers, relationship with supervisor, relationship with subordinates, and professional effectiveness. Lastly, the relationship between organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by community college executive secretaries and / or associates to the president was researched (Sofianos, 2005). For this study, the survey was dist ributed to the executive secretaries of the presidents of the 342 community colleges in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. There were 137 surveys returned, which represents a 40% response rate. The statistical analyses of this study found very strong associations betw een the constructs of or ganizational climate and job satisfaction. Overall, satisfa ction with organizational climat e was above average, with the factors of evaluation, regard for personal conc erns, and organizational structure receiving the highest levels of satisfaction. Th ese factors also received the highe st ratings for perceived level at the institution. Summary As early as the 1990s, OBani on (1994) warned community co llege leaders of a changing political climate, and social trends, that clearly dictated teaching and learning needed to become the schools most important priority, because of the imminent transformation in the learning patterns of students. More recently, Morgan (2005) identified the unprecedented challenges facing community colleges, and provided a mo del for community colleges to emulate, by focusing on improving organizational climate and j ob satisfaction factors. Additionally, Bowman and Spraggs (2005) cautioned community colleges th at the level of success which has sustained

PAGE 43

30 them in the past will not sustain them for the fu ture, as well as providi ng a new framework that will moved community colleges from success to significance. This review of the literature has indicated a wealth of psychological theories, paradigms, and hypotheses concerning job satisfaction, organizat ional climate, and th e interaction between them. While preliminary indications suggest a si gnificant and definite relationship between the two variables, further research exploring this relationship across a variet y of settings and over a range of academic positions is imperative. The ex isting research clearly suggests that there are differences in the dynamics of the relationshi p for different professional roles in higher education. Especially needed is research in community colleges, which have quietly and gradually become a major force in higher education over the last four decades. The present study examined this relationship with a focus on the differences between full-time and part-time faculty, which has become a significant, if not divisive, dichotomy in higher education.

PAGE 44

31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigat e the relationship between assessments of organizational climate and job satisfaction as appl ied to full-time and part-time faculty members at a community college nationally recognized as a leader in the learning college movement. In addition, this study investigated differences in job satisfaction and the independent variables regarding the number of years in position as a fulltime and pa rttime faculty employee at the institution, ethnicity of the instructor, di scipline, age, degree level and gender. This study was a modified replic ation of the work done by Chapell (1995) that tested the theoretical constructs on community college chief instructional officers. Other studies such as Palmer (1995), Evans (1996), Kellerman (1996), Pa ulson (1997), DeMichel e (1998), Zabetakis (1999), Gratto (2001), Bailey (2002), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), LeFevre-Stevens (2004), and Sofianos (2005) used the same instrument fo r measuring those theoretical constructs while targeting other administrative positions. The inst rument, which was also applied to the previous studies, utilized the following organizational cl imate variables integral to determining job satisfaction: Internal communication Organizational structure Political climate Professional development opportunities Evaluation Promotion Regard for personal concerns. While looking at these same factors in mu ch the same way, this author modified Chappells original instrument in order to examine information related to full-time faculty and part-time faculty at one partic ular community college (see Appe ndix C). This examination was

PAGE 45

32 designed as a survey-type study, meaning no interven tion was done with or to the participants. The information was only gathered from the pa rticipants without any treatment, and then analyzed by the researcher. A nationally-recognized community college in Florida was utilized for the purpose of this study. This research was based on the three following questions: Research question 1: How do community college full-ti me and part-time instructors perceive organizational climate in their re spective institution, using a set of seven identified factors for climate? Research question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community college full-time and part-time instructors? Research question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors with the organizational clim ate of their respective institution? Afterward, the survey results were analyzed and used to distinguish which items were relevant to the full-time and part-time faculti es understanding of the seven components of organizational climate. Attention was also given to the five grouped fact ors of job satisfaction and their importance, particularly with regard how these factors pertained to the full-time and part-time faculties duties. To facilitate the an alysis and development of an explanatory outline of the population, additional data was gathered to better measure organi zational climate, job satisfaction, and sociodemographic status. The Population and Sample All full-time and part-time faculty members who were mathematics, behavioral science or English instructors at a community college we will refer to as Alpha Beta Community College were invited to participate in the research study. The full-time faculty population within the mathematics department at Alpha Beta Commun ity College was approximately 30 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resour ce records. The full-time f aculty population within the behavioral sciences department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 18

PAGE 46

33 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The full-time faculty population within the English department at Alpha Be ta Community College was approximately 27 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource r ecords. The part-time faculty population within the mathematics department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 30 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource r ecords. The part-time faculty population within the behavioral sciences department at Alpha Beta Comm unity College was approximately 9 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The part-time faculty population within the English department at Alpha Be ta Community College was approximately 25 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. Alpha Beta Community College Alpha Beta Community College (ABCC) is a tw o-year public institut ion in the state of Florida, with approximately 30,000 students. A BCC is a nationally recognized institution that excels in a number of areas. Of 1200 co mmunity colleges nationally, ABCC ranks 54th in the number of associates degrees awarded, 35th in the number of arts a nd sciences degrees awarded, 13th in the number of Communication Technology, and 99th in the number of two-year certificates awarded. Of the 28 community colleges in the Stat e of Florida System, ABCC has the 7th highest capture rate of local high sc hool graduates, and the associat e of arts program has the 7th highest retention rate and 6th highest success rate. Alpha Beta Community Colle ge was authorized by the 1957 Florida Legislature and became the states first comprehensive community college. The College was divided into three divisions: college credit, adu lt education and the Mary Karl vocational school. Although one president administered the divisions, they essent ially functioned as sepa rate entities under the local county school system.

PAGE 47

34 Gamma County Community College, also a separate entity under the school system, merged with Alpha Beta Junior College in 1965. The 1968 Legislature co mbined the divisions into a single administrative unit under a District Board of Trustees inde pendent of the county school system. In 1971, the official name of the College was changed from Alpha Beta Junior College to Alpha Beta Community College. Today, ABCC has evolved from a small campus into an academically superior multicampus institution providing educational and cultur al programs for the citi zens of local counties. ABCC has fostered a tradition of excellence in academics and service to a growing community. The College now serves more than 30,000 students annually. A leader in the areas workforce and economic development initiatives, ABCC is continually developing new technological means to deliver educational services to the community. Leading the list is th e new Advanced Technology Center (ATC). The Center is an innovative educational partnership among ABCC, se veral local county sc hool districts and the business communities of the local counties. The ATC offers opportunities for high school students and adult community college st udents to pursue technology-based fields. ABCC is accredited by the Commission on Co lleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associate of arts, associate of applied sc ience and associate of science degrees and is approved by the state of Florida. Numer ous professional and academic organizations confer special accr editation to various College progr ams. ABCC also is a member of the American Association of Community Co lleges and an approved institution for higher education for veterans and war orphans. Organizational Climate Issues at the Institution There are several organizational climate variab les whose presences at ABCC are such that faculty responses may offer a unique perspective from faculty at similar institutions. The first

PAGE 48

35 such variable is organizational structure. There have been numerous and frequent organizational changes at this institution in recent years. The extent to which full-time and part-time faculty are involved in, or are even aware of the status of the organizationa l structure are quite different. Full-time faculty members constitute a majo rity representation on every planning committee within the institution, while part-time faculty memb ers have very little, if any, representation in these areas. Thus perceptions of, and consequen tly, satisfaction with or ganizational structure could differ radically be tween these two groups. This difference in involvement with inst itutional planning will potentially affect perceptions of another organiza tional climate variable political climate. Part-time faculty members at the institution may be unaware of sp ecific issues and initia tives that the planning committees of the college are addressing, and coul d thus have a limited perspective of what may be deemed a political issue at the college. In addition, ABCC is enteri ng a time of uncertainty within its upper administration as numerous indi viduals prepare for retirement. Full-time faculty members may be more cognizant of these upcomi ng changes and, accordingly, to the politics that will come with new leadership. Lastly, the issue of professional developmen t opportunities at the in stitution is indeed a complex one. Alpha Beta Community College is considered a lead ing institution in terms of the amount of resources that are used for the prof essional development of faculty members. There are numerous professional development workshop s that occur on campus throughout the year, as well as opportunities to travel to both regiona l and national (and, on so me limited occasions, international) professional organization conferences, worksh ops and other meetings. The oncampus opportunities are generally open to all faculty members, wh ether full-time or part-time; however, generally participation is much great er for full-time faculty members. There are

PAGE 49

36 numerous possible reasons for this; many part-t ime faculty members come to campus only for their class meeting, and have ot her obligations, either employmen t or family matters, that may prevent them from coming to campus at other times, whereas full-time faculty members are obstensibly on campus during norma l business hours a much greater amount of time. Then too, there is the issue that part-time faculty may be less motivated to attend these sessions, as their participation in them is completely voluntary, wh ile there may be expectations, either explicit or implied, that full-time faculty members attend a certain number of these sessions per academic year. Further, availability of funds for faculty members to attend the regional and national meetings is almost exclusively available only to full-time faculty members, and hence there is virtually no part-time faculty involvement in thes e types of opportunities. All of these factors imply that there could be disparate differen ces in the perceptions and satisfaction with professional development opportunities between fu ll-time and part-time faculty members. Procedure for Data Collection The author contacted the vice-president for academic affairs at the institution, asked for their participation and th eir endorsement of this project at th e college. In return, they were offered a summary of the entire re port and a report of the aggregat e date specific to their college departments (mathematics, behavioral or Engl ish) at all the main campus, and all branch campuses, of Alpha Beta Community College. To protect the confidentiality of the faculty members, the college requested that the surveys be sent in bulk to the appropriate departments, who would in turn distribute the surveys to all th eir full-time and part-time faculty members. The author was put in touch with the chairpersons of the appropriate departme nts, who then handled distribution of the surveys. Included in the su rvey packets was a copy of the survey (Appendix A), a letter of invitation (Appendix B) and an in formed consent form (Appendix C) and a selfaddressed stamped envelope. The participants we re asked to fill out the responses within a two-

PAGE 50

37 week time frame; the deadline was indicated on both the cover letter a nd the questionnaire. Contact addresses and phone numbers were offered to those interested in following the research results. A follow-up e-mail was used to increase the chance of an acceptable response rate one week prior to the deadline. In total, 118 community colleges faculty members were invited to partic ipate in the survey. Upon their return, the surveys were inspected for error, coded, and analyzed to complete the research. Based on the demographic data receiv ed by the respondent, a profile of the community college instructors was developed. The information illustrated the community college instructors perceptions of organizational climate, their levels of satisfaction with organizational climate, and the importance of each of the job satisfaction variables related to their responsibilities. Instrumentation With regard to the two standard ized Likert scales used in th is survey (Likert, 1935), shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, as was used with rela ted studies (DeMichele, 1998; Evans, 1996; Palmer, 1995), a set of seven organizationa l climate factors was examined in order to determine their relationship to the job satisfaction variables re ported by community college full-time and parttime instructors. The seven organizational climate factors included and defined were: Internal communicationthe colleges formal and informal communication processes and style. Organizational structurethe colleges hierarchical channels of authority and administrative operation. Political climatethe nature and complexity of the colleges internal politics, or the degree to which employees must operate within a pol itical framework in order to accomplish their tasks. Professional development opportunitiesthe op portunities for employees to pursue and participate in activities to enhance job performance.

PAGE 51

38 Evaluationthe colleges procedures for evaluating employees through positive feedback intended to provide professiona l growth for the employee. Promotionthe colleges commitment to intern al promotion and advancement from within the organization. Regard for personal concernthe colleges se nsitivity to, and regard for, the personal concerns and well being of the employees. The climate factors were used in two scales: the organizatio nal climate scale and the job satisfaction scale (Sofianos, 2005). Job satisfaction variables were identified and applied to vari ous other studies that were relevant to organizational climate and job sati sfaction, and subsequently combined the following factors: Participation in decision-makingthe coll eges process for decision-making and opportunities for mental and emotional involvem ent by the employee to participate in that process. Autonomy, power, and controlthe degree of discretion that an employee was able to wield while performing his or her job. Relationship with colleaguesthe quality of the affiliation that an employee maintains with his or her peers, subordinates, and supervisor. Salary and benefitsthe perceived equity and adequacy of the salary and benefits package received by the employee. Professional effectivenessthe perceived overa ll effectiveness of the employee in his or her position. According to Chappell (1995), the instrument was tested for validity, reliability, and consistency (Appendix D). The Board of Directors on the National Council of Instructional Administrators then revised her initial survey. In addition, it was field-tested to substantiate validity, reliability, and cons istency. On two different instances, nine community college professionals completed Part I of the validation process. Subsequently, a range of responses was recorded to confirm the validity and reliability. Consistency was established by comparing the answers received in both the pretest and posttest from eight of the nine community college professionals who completed the field test in its entirety (Chappell, 1995) (Sofianos, 2005, p. 63).

PAGE 52

39 Procedure for Analysis Research Questions 1 and 3 As stated earlier, the first and third re search questions of this study are: How did community college full-time and part-time instructors perceive organizational climate in their respectiv e institutions, using a set of seven identified factors for climate? and How satisfied were the community colle ge full-time and part-time instructors with the organizational climate of their respective institution? These questions were addressed through two types of statistical analysis: paired t -tests were conducted, and the Pearson produc t-moment correlation coefficients, r (which will be referred to as simply the correlation coefficient henceforth), were calculated. Paired t -tests are used to determine whether sign ificant differences exist between two sets of paired data (i.e., variables that are measured on the same subject). In the present study, this test is used to examine whether significan t differences exist between corresponding item assessments of organizational climate and satisf action with organizational climate. This test requires that the paired differences be indepe ndent and identically no rmally distributed. The correlation coefficient, r is perhaps the most universally used statistical measure of correlation or association. This study uses correl ation coefficients to measure the relationships between the corresponding items on the orga nizational climate and satisfaction with organizational climate scales. Examining the aggreg ate correlation coefficients for all pairs of items provides a reasonably valid indication of th e strength of associa tion between these two factors.

PAGE 53

40 Research Question 2 To facilitate the answering of this issue concerning the determining factors for job satisfaction, a logistic regre ssion was conducted to investigat e the association between job satisfaction and the appropriate se t of independent variables. Furt her, the instrument requested subjects to assess their total satisfaction with their individu al position, as well as with their institution on a five-point Likert scale. This job satisfaction was coded into two categories: those who selected the highest level of job satisfaction (5 or 4 on th e Likert scale), and those who selected another level (3, 2 or 1). Results of a factor analysis were calculated and used to create a mathematical model for job satisfact ion, by running a logi stic regression. Logistic regression is used to predict valu es of a dependent vari able from a list of independent variables. This is accomplished thro ugh determine the percent of the variance in the dependent variable explained by each of the i ndependent variables, ra nk-ordering the relative influence of the independent variables, and measur ing interaction effects. This study specifically used binomial logistic regression, since the dependent va riable of job satisfaction was treated as a dichotomy, that is, a variable which only takes on the values of 0 or 1. In this case, a value of 1 corresponded to the highest level of satisfac tion, and 0 corresponded to all other values. The factor scores for each independent variable, along with the corresponding significance levels, allow us to identify which can be consid ered determinants of job satisfaction. Summary The study of this research regarding job sa tisfaction and organizational climate is an attempt to continue to understa nd the development of community college full-time and part-time faculty members. Their recorded perceptions of their institutions or ganizational climate and their list of importance job satisfa ction criterias can be used to alter a negative climate and/or

PAGE 54

41 continue a positive one at their institution. Analyt ical and statistical findings of this research are presented in Chapter 4.

PAGE 55

42 Table 3-1. Organizational climate scale Response item Highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied Instructions: Please rate the level or de gree to which the following qualities listed below you perceive to be present at your community college, with five (5) indicating the highest level of presence a nd one (1) indicating the lowest level of presence Internal communication: the college's formal and informal communication process and style 5 4 3 2 1 Organizational structure: the college's organizational structure and administrative operation 5 4 3 2 1 Political climate: the nature and complexity of the college's internal politics 5 4 3 2 1 Professional development opportunities: the opportunity for the college's instructors to pursue and participate in professional development activities 5 4 3 2 1 Evaluation: the college's procedures for evaluating the instructors 5 4 3 2 1 Promotion: the college's commitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization 5 4 3 2 1 Regard for personal concerns: the colleges sensitivity to and regard for the personal concerns of the instructors 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 56

43 Table 3-2. Job satisfaction factors Response item Most important Important Neutral Not important Least important Instructions: Please rate how important each of the following fact ors is to you in your position as an instructor, with five (5) i ndicating the highest level of importance and one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance. Participating in decisionmaking: the college's process for decision-making and opportunities for involvement by the instructor 5 4 3 2 1 Autonomy, power, and control: the degree of autonomy, power, and control held by the instructor 5 4 3 2 1 Relationship with peers: the quality of the instructors relationships with peers 5 4 3 2 1 Relationship with subordinates: the quality of the instructors' relationships with subordinates 5 4 3 2 1 Relationship with supervisors: the quality of the instructors relationships with supervisor 5 4 3 2 1 Salary: the salary of the instructor 5 4 3 2 1 Benefits: the benefits of the instructor 5 4 3 2 1 Professional effectiveness: the perceived overall effectiveness of the instructor in her/his position 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 57

44 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Opening Remarks To test the relationship between perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction among full-time and part-time community college facu lty, this chapter will analyze the data from the survey instrument discussed in Chapter 3. In particular, the analysis will seek to answer the following three research questions. Research Question 1: How did community college fulltime and part-time instructors perceive organizational climate in their re spective institutions, using a set of seven identified factors for climate? Research Question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community college full-time and part-time instructors? Research Question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors with the organizational clim ate of their respective institution? Survey Responses All full-time and part-time faculty members in the departments of Behavioral Sciences, English and Mathematics at a community college within the State of Florida Community College System were invited to participate. These partic ipants received a survey (Appendix A), invitation letter (Appendix B), letter of informed c onsent (Appendix C), and an addressed, stamped envelope to return the survey. The surveys were sent in bulk to the participating departments, and the individual surveys were distributed by depart mental staff to faculty in those departments. This was done both to protect individual confid entiality and to ensure that no faculty member was excluded from the sample. Participants were asked to complete and return the survey within two weeks of receipt. In total, 118 individuals received surv eys, and 65 completed surveys were returned. Thus, there was a 55.1% re sponse rate for this survey.

PAGE 58

45 Frequencies Job Status There were 64 responses to the question rega rding job status (Table 4-1). Of these respondents, 38 (59.4%) were full-time, wh ile 26 respondents (40.6%) were part-time instructors. Number of Years with Institution All 65 subjects answered the question concerning the number of years that they have been at the community college (Table 4-2). Eight individuals (12.3%) had been at the school for less than 1 year, 25 individuals (38.5% ) had been at the school between 1 and 5 years, 14 individuals (21.5%) had been at the school between 6 and 10 years, 9 individuals (13.8%) had been at the school between 11 and 14 years, and 9 individu als (13.8%) had been at the school 15 or more years. Number of Years in Community College System There were 64 responses to the question conc erning the number of years working in the community college system (Table 4-3). Four re spondents (6.3%) had been in the system for less than 1 year, 20 respondents (31.3%) had been in the system between 1 and 5 years, 18 respondents (28.1%) had been in the system betw een 6 and 10 years, 11 respondents (17.2%) had been in the system between 11 and 14 years, a nd 11 respondents (17.2%) had been in the system 15 or more years. Ethnicity There were 61 responses to the ethnicity quest ion (Table 4-4). No respondents selected Asian American, 30 respondents (49.2%) selected Black / African American, 5 respondents (8.2%) selected Hispanic, 22 respondents (36.1%) selected White / Caucasian, 3 respondents (4.9%) selected Native American, and 1 responde nt (1.6%) selected o ther for ethnicity.

PAGE 59

46 Gender There were 61 respondents who answered the question about their gender (Table 4-5). Twenty-five individuals (41.0%) were male, and 36 (59.0%) were female. Validity and Reliability Factor analysis is a decompositi onal process that analyzes a se t of data containing multiple variables, with a goal of identif ying a minimal set of factors th at can adequately explain, and even represent, all of the variables. A principa l components analysis is one form of a factor analysis which identifies factors by considering, and analyzing, all of the total variance in the original data as a means of identif ying factors. This form of factor analysis, which is used in this study, is the appropriate form to use when one does not have any expectation of the amount of variance which we would expect particular vari ables to explain. Princi pal components analyses are generally followed by a subsequent analysis ca lled factor rotation, which attempts to re-orient the results so as to better associ ate each variable with the appropr iate factor or factors. Varimax rotation is used in this study, si nce this is an orth ogonal rotation and is the most commonly used with principal factor analysis. Other types of rotation can be us ed with a principal components analysis, but are generally used only in highly specialized circumstances. A principal component factor analysis was run on the survey responses to verify the dimensionality, and hence the validity of score-base d inferences, of the instrument. The results of this analysis are pres ented in Table 4-6. The analysis id entified four components. Items are considered to be loaded onto a component when their factor loading for that component exceeds 0.40, and factor loadings for all other components are less then 0.40. The following five items loaded onto Compone nt 1: participation in decision making (factor loading of 0.708), autonomy, power and c ontrol (factor loadi ng of 0.712), importance of salary (factor loading of 0.791), importance of benefits (factor loading of 0.740), and

PAGE 60

47 importance of professional effectiveness (f actor loading of 0.662) Consequently, this component has been referred to as Benefits of Position. The following three items loaded onto Component 3: relationship w ith peers (factor loading of 0.728), relationship with subordinates (factor load ing of 0.792), and relationship with supervisor (factor loading of 0.781). A ccordingly, this component has been labeled Coworker Relationships. It was expected that the remaining elemen ts would load onto a single component, which would have been called Organ izational Climate. However, two distinct components were actually identified from these items. Component 2, which we call Organizational Climate A, was composed of the items political clim ate (factor loading of 0.587), professional development opportunities (factor loading of 0.78) evaluation (factor loading of 0.7945) and promotion (factor loading of 0.879). The rema ining two items, inter nal communication and organizational structure, lo aded onto Component 4 (with factor loadings of 0.856 and 0.897, respectively), which we call Organizational Climat e B. One item, regard for personal concerns, was discarded because it has a high factor lo ading for both components (factor loading of 0.497 for Organizational Climate A; factor load ing of 0.430 for Organizational Climate B).. Reliability analyses were run for each of th e four components. Component 1 (Benefits of Position) had a reliability coefficient of8014 0 Component 2 (Organizational Climate A) had a reliability coefficient of8211 0 Component 3 (Coworker Relationships) had a reliability coefficient of8058 0 Component 4 (Organizational Climate B) had a reliability coefficient of8385 0 This information is summarized in Table 7. For the purposes of this study, components were considered reliable if alpha exceeded 0.70, hence all four reliabilities were within acceptable limits, and accordingly, al l four components are considered reliable.

PAGE 61

48 Research Question 1 The first research question of this study s ought to determine how full-time and part-time faculty members perceived organi zational climate at their institu tion. Organizational climate was defined in terms of the following factors: Internal communication Organizational structure Political climate Professional development opportunities Evaluation Promotion Regard for personal concerns Each item was measured via a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 corresponding to a very high level of the factor under discussion, 4 corres ponding to a high level, 3 corresponding to a moderate level, 2 corresponding to a low level, and 1 corresponding to a very low level. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven items are: organizational structure 4.07, regard for personal concerns 3.79, professi onal development opportunities 3.77, internal communication 3.72, evaluation 3.64, promotion 3.38, and political climate 3.34. Notice that all factors had a mean greater than 3, which was th e neutral value. Conse quently, each factor was perceived to have an above average level. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for each item contained a lower bound greater than 3, in dicating that this fi nding is statistically significant. The mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence inte rval for each item is found in Table 4-8. A description of the results of each ite m follows, with a breakdown of how job status (full-time versus part-time) affected the perceptions of faculty members. Internal Communication There were 64 responses for the level of perceived internal communication at the institution (Table 4-9). Th ere were 15 faculty members (23.4%) who rated internal

PAGE 62

49 communication as very high at the institution, 26 faculty members (40.6%) who gave a rating of high, 16 faculty members (25.0%) who gave a ra ting of moderate, 6 faculty members (9.4%) who gave a rating of low, and 1 faculty member ( 1.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a majority (64.0%) of faculty members res ponding to this question perceived internal communication to be either high or very hi gh, while most (89.0%) respondents perceived internal communication to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in perceptions of internal communication between full-time and part-time f aculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 3.68, while the mean rating for part -time faculty was 3.81. This difference was not statistically significant (528 0 t,599 0 p ). Organizational Structure There were 64 responses for the level of perceived organizationa l structure at the institution (Table 4-10). Th ere were 23 faculty members (35.9%) who rated organizational structure as very high at the in stitution, 27 faculty members (42. 2%) who gave a rating of high, 11 faculty members (17.2%) who gave a rating of moderate, and 3 faculty members (4.7%) who gave a rating of low. Overall, a majority (78.1%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived organizational structure to be either high or very hi gh, while most (95.3%) respondents perceived organizational st ructure to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significan t difference existed in perceptions of organizational structure between full-time and pa rt-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 4.19, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.92. This difference was not statistically significant (231 1 t,223 0 p).

PAGE 63

50 Political Climate There were 63 responses for the level of perceived internal communication at the institution (Table 4-11). There were 10 faculty members (15.9%) who rated political climate as very high at the institution, 22 faculty member s (34.9%) who gave a rating of high, 16 faculty members (25.4%) who gave a ratin g of moderate, 9 faculty memb ers (14.3%) who gave a rating of low, and 6 faculty members (9.5%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a slight majority (50.8%) of faculty members respond ing to this question perceived pol itical climate to be either high or very high, while most (76.2%) respondents perceived polit ical climate to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in perceptions of political climate between full-time and part-time faculty me mbers. The mean rating for full-time faculty members was 3.61, while the mean rating for part-time faculty members was 2.88. The difference was statistically significant (430 2 t,018 0 p ). Full-time faculty members perceived a higher level of political climate than did th eir part-time counterparts. Professional Development Opportunities There were 65 responses for the level of perc eived professional development opportunities at the institution (Table 4-12). There were 25 faculty members (38.5%) who rated professional development opportunities very high at the instit ution, 17 faculty members (26.2%) who gave a rating of high, 11 faculty members (16.9%) who gave a rating of modera te, 7 faculty members (10.8%) who gave a rating of low, and 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a majority (64.7%) of faculty me mbers responding to this question perceived professional development opportunities to be eith er high or very high, while most (81.6%) respondents perceived professional development opport unities to be moderate, high or very high.

PAGE 64

51 A t -test was run to determine if a significan t difference existed in perceptions of professional development opportunities between fu ll-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty members was 4.13, while the mean rating for part-time faculty members was 3.19. The difference was statistically significant (057 3 t,003 0 p ). Full-time faculty members perceived a higher level of professional developmen t opportunities than did their part-time counterparts. Evaluation There were 65 responses for the level of perceived evaluation at the institu tion (Table 4-13) summarizes the responses to this item. Th ere were 15 faculty members (23.1%) who rated evaluation as very high at the in stitution, 23 faculty members (35. 4%) who gave a rating of high, 20 faculty members (30.8%) who gave a rating of moderate, 4 faculty members (6.2%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a majority (58.5%) of faculty members respond ing to this question perceived ev aluation to be either high or very high, while most (89.3%) respondents perc eived evaluation to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in perceptions of evaluation between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 3.50, while the mean rating for part-time faculty wa s 3.88. This difference was not statistically significant (441 1 t,155 0 p). Promotion There were 63 responses for the level of perceived promotion at the institution (Table 4-14) summarizes the responses to this item. Th ere were 14 faculty members (22.2%) who rated promotion as very high at the in stitution, 17 faculty members (27. 0%) who gave a rating of high,

PAGE 65

52 17 faculty members (27.0%) who gave a rating of moderate, 8 faculty members (12.7%) who gave a rating of low, and 7 faculty members (11. 1%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a slight minority (49.2%) of faculty members res ponding to this question perceived promotion to be either high or very high, while most ( 76.2%) respondents perceive d internal communication to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in per ceptions of promotion between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 3.58, while the mean rating for part-time faculty members was 2.96. This difference was not statistically significant (920 1 t,060 0 p ). Regard for Personal Concerns There were 65 responses for the level of perc eived regard for personal concerns at the institution. Table 4-15 summarizes the responses to this item. There were 22 faculty members (33.8%) who rated regard for pers onal concerns as very high at the institution, 19 faculty members (29.2%) who gave a rating of high, 14 faculty members (21.5%) who gave a rating of moderate, 7 faculty members (10.8%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a majority (63.0%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived internal communication to be either hi gh or very high, while most (84.5%) of respondents perceived internal comm unication to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in perceptions of regards for personal concerns between full-time and parttime faculty members. The mean rating for fulltime faculty was 3.66, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.88. This difference was not statistically significant (760 0 t,450 0 p).

PAGE 66

53 Summary of Research Question 1 Results Of the seven factors this study uses to de fine organizational c limate, organizational structure was the most highly perceived at the institution, with 78.1% of respondents rating the level as high or very high. Table 4-16 su mmarizes the percent of respondents selecting a high or very high rating for all factors. The ratings for all seven factors were analy zed to determine if statistically significant differences existed in the perceptions of these f actors. Of the seven fact ors, only political climate and professional development opport unities showed significant diffe rences with regard to job status; for both factors, full-time faculty perceived higher levels than part-time faculty. Research Question 2 To identify the determinants of job satisfacti on for our data, a binomial logistic regression was performed. This form of logistic regression, which is also called bina ry logistic regression, can be used with independent variables of any data type. This method wa s appropriate for this study, since the factors we are c onsidering include interval/ratio, ordinal and nominal data. Table 4-17 presents the results of this analysis. Job satisfaction, the depe ndent variable in this analysis, was recoded into a dichotomous (binary) variable Responses of 4 (high job satisfaction) and 5 (very high job satisfaction) were co ded to 1s. All other responses we re coded to 0s. The logistic regression included the following vari ables: all four components identified by the factor analysis (benefits of position, organiza tional climate A, coworker re lationships, and organizational climate B) as well as job status, number of y ears at the institution, ethnic group and gender. The likelihood ratio test indicated that the model was statistically significant (03 0 p). However, the only variable in the model which was statistically signifi cant was Organizational Climate A (which consisted of political c limate, professional development opportunities, evaluation and promotion). This item had a log odds ratio of 8.450, meaning the average

PAGE 67

54 prediction for an individual to be highly satisfie d or very highly satisfie d with their position will be 8.450 times as great for every 1 unit increase in their Organizational Climate a factor score. Research Question 3 The third research que stion addresses how satisfied faculty members are with the components of organizational climate at the inst itution. The same seven factors are used to represent organizational climate as in research qu estion 1, and the same 5point Likert scales are used. The results of research que stion 1 indicated the levels of organizational climate variables (i.e., evaluation) which faculty perceived to be present. A rating of 5 for evaluation would indicate a very high perceived level of evalua tion for faculty at the institution. The same individual might rate satisfaction with evaluation at the in stitution with a 2, implying that while a very high level of evaluation was perceived, th e quality of that evaluation was in fact dissatisfying. In descending order, the mean responses fo r the seven items are: regard for personal concerns 3.80, professional development opport unities 3.69, organizational structure 3.66, evaluation 3.60, internal communi cation 3.54, promotion 3.37, and political climate 3.36. Notice that all factors had a mean greater than 3, whic h was the neutral value. Consequently, each factor was perceived to have an above average level. Additionally, the 95% c onfidence interval for each item contained a lower bound greater than 3, indicating that this finding is statistically significant. The mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval for each item is found in Table 4-18. A description of the results of each it em follows, with a breakdown of how job status (full-time versus part-time) affected the satisfaction of faculty members. Internal Communication There were 65 responses for the level of sati sfaction with internal communication at the institution (Table 4-19). Ther e were 10 faculty members (15.4% ) who rated their satisfaction

PAGE 68

55 with internal communication as very high at th e institution, 26 faculty members (40.0%) who gave a rating of high, 21 faculty members (32. 3%) who gave a rating of moderate, 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 55.4% of faculty members re sponding to this question rated satisfaction with internal communication to be either high or very high, while 87.7% of respondents rated satisfaction with internal communication to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant diff erence existed in satisfaction with internal communication between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating from fulltime faculty was 3.42, versus a mean rating from part-time faculty of 3.65. This difference was not statistically significant (921 0 t,361 0 p ). Organizational Structure There were 65 responses for the level of sati sfaction with organizati onal structure at the institution (Table 4-20). Ther e were 12 faculty members (18.5% ) who rated their satisfaction with organizational structure as very high at the institution, 25 faculty members (38.5%) who gave a rating of high, 24 faculty members (36. 9%) who gave a rating of moderate, 2 faculty members (3.1%) who gave a rating of low, and 2 faculty members (3.1%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 57.0% of faculty members re sponding to this question rated their satisfaction with organizational structure to be either high or very high, while 93.9% of respondents rated their satisfaction with organizati onal structure to be moderate, hi gh or very high. It is quite interesting, and rather atypical, that the most neutral category, moderate, should have such a high percentage of responses in this instance 36. 9%. Some possible reasons for this phenomenon, and some potential implications, are discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 69

56 A t -test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with organizational structure between full-time and pa rt-time faculty members. The mean rating from full-time faculty was 3.53, and the mean rating from part-time faculty was 3.81. This difference was not statistically significant (213 1 t,230 0 p ). Political Climate There were 64 responses for the level of satisfac tion with political clim ate at the institution (Table 4-21) summarizes the responses to this item. There were 13 faculty members (20.0%) who rated satisfaction with political climate as very high at the institut ion, 17 faculty members (26.2%) who gave a rating of high, 19 faculty me mbers (29.2%) who gave a rating of moderate, 10 faculty members (15.4%) who gave a rating of low, and 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 46.2 of faculty members responding to th is question rated their satisfaction with political climate to be either high or very high, while 75.4% of respondents perceived political climate to be moderate, high or very high. These satisfaction percentages are much higher than comparable studies have found. This aberration will be discussed further in Chapter 5. A t -test was run to determine if a significant diff erence existed in satisfaction with political climate between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean response for full-time faculty members was 3.18 and the mean response for part-time faculty members was 3.56. This difference is not statistically significant (230 1 t,223 0 p). Professional Development Opportunities There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with professional development opportunities at the instit ution (Table 4-22). There were 19 faculty members (29.2%) who rated satisfaction with professional de velopment opportunities very high at the institution, 23 faculty

PAGE 70

57 members (35.4%) who gave a rating of high, 11 faculty members (16.9%) who gave a rating of moderate, 8 faculty members (12.3%) who gave a rating of low, and 4 faculty members (6.2%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 64.6% of faculty memb ers responding to this question rated their satisfaction with prof essional development opportunities as either high or very high, while 81.5% of respondents rated their satisfac tion with professional development opportunities as moderate, high or very high. These percentage s are interesting, in th at the institution under discussion is one which places a very high priority and a great deal of its resources, toward professional development. It would have to been reasonable to expect much greater percentages of respondents selecting high a nd very high, and fewer selec ting low and very low. This will be discussed more in Chapter 5. A t -test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with professional development opportunities between fu ll-time and part-time faculty members. The mean response for full-time faculty members was 3.87 and the mean response for part-time faculty members was 3.38. The difference is not statistically significant (609 1 t,113 0 p). Evaluation There were 65 responses for the level of sa tisfaction with evalua tion at the institution (Table 4-23). There were 13 faculty members (20. 0%) who rated evaluation as very high at the institution, 25 faculty members (38.5%) who ga ve a rating of high, 18 faculty members (27.7%) who gave a rating of moderate, 6 faculty memb ers (9.2%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of ve ry low. Overall, 58.5% of faculty members responding to this question rated th eir satisfaction with ev aluation to be either high or very high, while 86.2% of respondents perceived evaluatio n to be moderate, high or very high.

PAGE 71

58 A t -test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with evaluation between full-time and part-time facu lty members. The mean response for full-time faculty members was 3.50 and the mean respons e for part-time faculty members was 3.73. The difference is not statistically significant (850 0 t,399 0 p ). Promotion There were 65 responses for the level of sa tisfaction with promo tion at the institution (Table 4-24). There were 17 faculty members (26. 2%) who rated satisfaction with promotion as very high at the institution, 12 faculty member s (18.5%) who gave a rating of high, 20 faculty members (30.8%) who gave a ratin g of moderate, 10 faculty memb ers (15.4%) who gave a rating of low, and six faculty members (9.2%) who gave a rating of very low. Ov erall, 44.7% of faculty members responding to this question perceived promo tion to be either high or very high, while 75.5% of respondents perceived internal communi cation to be moderate, high or very high. In Chapter 5 we will discuss this issue further; in particular, we will examine what would be considered a good versus a poor timeline for promotion. A t -test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with promotion between full-time and part-time facu lty members. The mean response for full-time faculty members was 3.47 and the mean respons e for part-time faculty members was 3.15. The difference is not statistically significant (985 0 t,328 0 p). Regard for Personal Concerns There were 65 responses for the level of perc eived regard for personal concerns at the institution (Table 4-25). Ther e were 24 faculty members (36.9% ) who rated regard for personal concerns as very high at the in stitution, 15 faculty members (23. 1%) who gave a rating of high, 18 faculty members (27.7%) who gave a rating of moderate, 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave

PAGE 72

59 a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 60.0% of faculty members responding to th is question rated their satisfac tion with regard for personal concerns to be either high or very high, while 87.7% of responde nts rated their satisfaction with regard for personal concerns to be moderate, high or very high. A t -test was run to determine if a significant di fference existed in satisfaction with regard for personal concerns between full-time and parttime faculty members. The mean rating for fulltime faculty was 3.76, while the mean rating for pa rt-time faculty was 3.81. This difference is not statistically significant (150 0 t,882 0 p ). Summary of Research Question 3 Results Of the seven factors this study uses to de fine organizational climate, professional development opportunities had the highest satisfaction at the institution, with 64.6% of respondents rating the level as h igh or very high. Table 426 summarizes the percent of respondents selecting a high or v ery high rating for all factors. The ratings for all seven factors were analy zed to determine if statistically significant differences existed in the perceptions of thes e factors. None of th e seven factors showed significant differences with regard to job status. Summary of Perceptions of Organizational Clim ate and Satisfaction with Organizational Climate Table 4-27 reports means and standard deviatio ns associated with th e perceptions of, and satisfaction with, each of the seven organizatio nal climate factors. Correlations between perceptions and satisfactions on li ke items are also reported. The correlation coefficients calculated for th e perception measure and satisfaction measure of the factors of organizational climate were statistically sign ificant, with the exception of political climate, which had a correlation close to zero (019 0 r). The correlation between

PAGE 73

60 perceptions of, and satisfaction with, organizational structure, though statistically significant, was fairly weak (342 0 r). All other correlations from the table are rather strong, ranging from 610 0 r (for internal communication) to 828 0 r (for regard for personal concerns). Summary A survey instruments measuring variables related to organizational climate and job satisfaction was distributed to all full-time and pa rt-time faculty in the de partments of Behavioral Science, English and Mathematics at an institution in the State of Florida community college system. Sixty five completed surveys were retu rned, out of 118 surveys that were distributed, yielding a. 55.1% response rate. The validity of the survey instrument was ascertained via principal component factor analysis, which identified four distinct components of the variables in th e survey. The Component 1, labeled Benefits of Position, c ontained the variables p articipation in decision making, autonomy, power and control, importanc e of salary, importance of benefits, and importance of professional effectiveness. Comp onent 2, labeled Organizational Climate A, contained the variables political climat e, professional development opportunities, evaluation and promotion. Component 3, labe led Coworker Relationships, contained the variables relationship with pe ers, relationship with subordi nates, and relationship with supervisor. Component 4, labele d Organizational Climate B, c ontained the variables internal communication and organizationa l structure. Reliability coeffi cients were computed for all four components, and each was greater th an 0.80, indicating strong reliability. In examining which factors received the highest ratings, it was noted th at both the subjects perception and satisfaction of organizational clim ate were rated the highest in organizational structure, professional development opportunities and regard for personal concerns. With the sole exception of political climate, there were highly significant correlations between the

PAGE 74

61 perception and satisfaction scales of all seven variables constit uting organizational climate. Significant differences in percep tion of organizational climate between full-time and part-time faculty members existed only for the variables of political climate and professional development opportunities. Additionally, ther e were no significant differe nces in satisfaction with organizational climate between full-time and part-time faculty members. A logistic regression was run to identify the determinants of job satisfaction, using the four components identified by the fact or analysis, as well as the vari ables of job status, number of years at the institution, ethnic group and gender. Only the component O rganizational Climate A was found to be a statistically significant determinant of job sa tisfaction, with a logs odd ratio of 8.450. Recall that this component included variables political c limate, professional development opportunities, evaluation and pro motion. The consequences of these findings, and their implications for community college administrations, will be discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 75

62 Table 4-1. Job status Status n Percentage Full-Time 38 59.4 Part-Time 26 40.6 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-2. Number of years at the institution Number of years n Percentage less than one 8 12.3 one to five 2538.5 six to ten 1421.5 Eleven to fourteen 9 13.8 Fifteen or more 9 13.8 Total 65100.0 Table 4-3. Number of years in the community college system Number of years n Percentage less than one 4 6.3 one to five 2031.3 six to ten 1828.1 Eleven to fourteen 1117.2 Fifteen or more 1117.2 Total 64100.0 Table 4-4. Ethnicity Ethnic Group n Percentage Asian American 0 0.0 Black / African American 30 49.2 Hispanic 5 8.2 White / Caucasian 22 36.1 Native American 3 4.9 Other 1 1.6 Total 61 100.0 Table 4-5. Gender Gender n Percentage Male 25 41.0 Female 36 59.0 Total 61 100.0

PAGE 76

63 Table 4-6. Rotated component ma trix from factor analysis Component Item 1 2 3 4 h2 Internal Communication 0.064 0.188 0.099 0.856 0.782 Organizational Structur e 0.052 0.194 0.080 0.897 0.851 Political Climate 0.243 0.587 -0.1620.354 0.555 Professional Development Opportunities-0.1160.718 0.111 0.104 0.553 Evaluation 0.120 0.795 0.128 0.275 0.738 Promotion 0.011 0.879 0.126 0.053 0.789 Regard for Personal Concerns 0.267 0.497 0.081 0.430 0.509 Participation in Decision Making 0.708 0.232 0.127 0.086 0.580 Autonomy, Power and Control 0.712 0.204 -0.1660.260 0.643 Relationship with Peers 0.359 0.355 0.728 0.039 0.786 Relationship with Subordinates 0.218 0.316 0.792 -0.051 0.776 Relationship with Supervisor 0.183 -0.1630.781 0.265 0.740 Salary Importance 0.791 -0.0600.240 0.025 0.688 Benefits Importance 0.740 -0.1580.335 0.076 0.690 Professional Effectiveness Importance 0.662 0.038 0.307 -0.053 0.536 Table 4-7. Reliability data from factor analysis Component Cronbach Alpha 1. Benefits of Position 0.8014 2. Organizational Climate A 0.8211 3. Coworker Relationships 0.8058 4. Organizational Climate B 0.8385 Table 4-8. Descriptive statistics for pe rceptions of organizational variables 95% confidence interval Variable Mean Standard Deviation Lower bound Upper bound Internal communication 3.72 0.985 3.47 3.97 Organizational structure 4.07 0.854 3.85 4.28 Political climate 3.34 1.153 3.05 3.64 Professional development opportunities3.77 1.309 3.44 4.11 Evaluation 3.64 1.033 3.37 3.90 Promotion 3.38 1.293 3.05 3.71 Regard for personal concerns 3.79 1.142 3.49 4.08 Table 4-9. Perceptions of internal communication Rating n Valid Percentage Very High Perception 15 23.4 High Perception 26 40.6 Moderate Perception 16 25.0 Low Perception 6 9.4 Very Low Perception 1 1.6 Total 64 100.0

PAGE 77

64 Table 4-10. Percentages of organizational structure Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 23 35.9 High Perception 27 42.2 Moderate Perception 11 17.2 Low Perception 3 4.7 Very Low Perception 0 0.0 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-11. Perceptions of political climate Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 10 15.9 High Perception 22 34.9 Moderate Perception 16 25.4 Low Perception 9 14.3 Very Low Perception 6 9.5 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-12. Perceptions of prof essional development opportunities Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 25 38.5 High Perception 17 26.2 Moderate Perception 11 16.9 Low Perception 7 10.8 Very Low Perception 5 7.7 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-13. Perceptions of evaluation Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 15 23.1 High Perception 23 35.4 Moderate Perception 20 30.8 Low Perception 4 6.2 Very Low Perception 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-14. Perceptions of promotion Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 14 22.2 High Perception 17 27.0 Moderate Perception 17 27.0 Low Perception 8 12.7 Very Low Perception 7 11.1 Total 63 100.0

PAGE 78

65 Table 4-15. Perceptions of re gard for personal concerns Rating n Percentage Very High Perception 22 33.8 High Perception 19 29.2 Moderate Perception 14 21.5 Low Perception 7 10.8 Very Low Perception 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-16. Percentages of respondents selectin g a rating of High of Very High for each factor Factor Percent rating as high or very high Organizational Structure 78.1 Professional Development 64.7 Internal Communication 64.0 Regard for Personal Concerns 63.0 Evaluation 58.5 Political Climate 50.8 Promotion 49.2 Table 4-17. Binomial logistic re gression of job satisfaction model Variable Parameter EstimateStandard ErrorSignificanceLog Odds Ratio Constant -1.504 3.343 0.653 0.202 Benefits of Position 0.514 0.358 0.152 2.056 Organizational Climate A 1.491 0.513 0.004 8.450 Coworker Relationships 0.196 0.396 0.620 0.247 Organizational Climate B -0.032 0.448 0.944 0.005 Job Status 0.845 0.991 0.394 0.728 Years at Institution 0.169 0.435 0.698 0.151 Ethnic Group 0.344 0.453 0.448 0.576 Gender 0.276 0.871 0.752 0.100

PAGE 79

66 Table 4-18. Descriptive statistics for sa tisfaction with organizational variables 95% confidence interval Variable Mean Standard Deviation Lower bound Upper bound Internal communication 3.54 1.001 3.27 3.76 Organizational structure 3.66 0.923 3.41 3.87 Political climate 3.36 1.200 3.06 3.66 Professional development opportunities3.69 1.198 3.42 4.02 Evaluation 3.60 1.058 3.33 3.86 Promotion 3.37 1.282 3.05 3.70 Regard for personal concerns 3.80 1.162 3.50 4.09 Table 4-19. Satisfactions w ith internal communication Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 10 15.4 High Satisfaction 26 40.0 Moderate Satisfaction 21 32.3 Low Satisfaction 5 7.7 Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-20. Satisfaction with organizational structure Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 10 15.4 High Satisfaction 26 40.0 Moderate Satisfaction 21 32.3 Low Satisfaction 5 7.7 Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-21. Satisfaction with political climate Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 13 20.0 High Satisfaction 17 26.2 Moderate Satisfaction 19 29.2 Low Satisfaction 10 15.4 Very Low Satisfaction 5 7.7 Total 64 100.0

PAGE 80

67 Table 4-22. Satisfaction with prof essional development opportunities Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 19 29.2 High Professional Satisfaction 23 35.4 Moderate Satisfaction 11 16.9 Low Satisfaction 8 12.3 Very Low Satisfaction 4 6.2 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-23. Satisfaction with evaluation Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 13 20.0 High Satisfaction 25 38.5 Moderate Satisfaction 18 27.7 Low Satisfaction 6 9.2 Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-24. Satisfaction with promotion Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 17 26.2 High Satisfaction 12 18.5 Moderate Satisfaction 20 30.8 Low Satisfaction 10 15.4 Very Low Satisfaction 6 9.2 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-25. Satisfaction with regard for personal concerns Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 24 36.9 High Satisfaction 15 23.1 Moderate Satisfaction 18 27.7 Low Satisfaction 5 7.7 Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6 Total 65 100.0

PAGE 81

68 Table 4-26. Percentages of respondents selectin g a rating of High or Very High for each factor Factor Percent rating as high or very high Professional Development 64.6 Regard for Personal Concerns 60.0 Evaluation 58.5 Organizational Structure 57.0 Internal Communication 55.4 Promotion 47.7 Political Climate 46.2 Table 4-27. Means and standard deviati ons of organizational climate scales Perception of Organizational Climate Satisfaction with Organizational Climate Items Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Correlation Internal Communication 3.75 0.976 3.54 1.001 0.610* Organizational Structure 4.09 0.849 3.66 0.923 0.342* Political Climate 3.33 1.191 3.36 1.200 0.019 Professional Development Opportunities 3.77 1.284 3.69 1.198 0.806* Evaluation 3.66 1.050 3.60 1.058 0.749* Promotion 3.37 1.274 3.37 1.282 0.747* Regard for Personal Concerns 3.77 1.170 3.80 1.162 0.828* significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 82

69 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Opening Remarks The relationship between organizational clim ate and job satisfaction within the realm higher education, as in other areas of business and industry, is a complex one, yet one which has overwhelming implications for the efficient function of any institution, or organization. In this study, we sought to learn more about this re lationship among community college faculty. This broad goal of understanding this co mplex relationship required th e combination several distinct tasks: to measure faculty members perceptions of organizational climate, to measure faculty members level of job satisfacti on (particularly in the context of organizati onal climate), to use this data on organizational climate and job sati sfaction (along with some demographic data) to identify the determinants of job satisfaction, and finally to isolate the effects on job states (i.e., full-time versus part-time) on each of the above factors. To help in the answering these question, thr ee research questions we re posed to guide the study. These questions are listed below. Research Question 1 How did community college full-time and part -time instructors perceive organizational climate in their respective institutions, using a set of seven identified factors for climate? Research Question 2 What were the determinants of job satisfa ction among community college full-time and part-time instructors? Research Question 3 How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors with the organizational climate of th eir respective institution?

PAGE 83

70 Design of the Study A survey instrument was used to gather the data needed to address the research questions. This survey (Appendix A) is a m odified replica of instruments us ed in previous studies on this topic (Chappell, 1995; Palmer, 1995; Evans, 1996; Kellerman, 1996; Paulson, 1997; DeMichele, 1998; Zabetakis, 1999; Gratto, 2001; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; LeFevreStevens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005). A purposive samp le was used for this study; the survey instrument was distributed to all faculty (ful l-time and part-time) in the departments of behavioral science, mathematics and Englis h at Alpha Beta Comm unity College (ABCC), located in Florida. This was a voluntary re sponse sample. The ad ministration of ABCC encouraged all faculty members in these departme nts to complete the su rvey, and all responses were completely anonymous. Sixty-five complete d surveys were returned, out of 118 that were distributed. The responses found on th ese surveys were then statisti cally analyzed to answer our three research questions. Conclusions Faculty Perception of Organizational Climate Based on the findings of this study, community college faculty perceive organizational climate to be neither extremely high, nor extremel y low. Five-point Likert scales were used to measure faculty members perceptions of each of the seven factors which make up organizational climate, with 5 representing a very high level and 1 representing a very low level. The mean response for each factor was significantly greater than 3, which represented a level of moderate, and hence faculty members perceived or ganizational structure at the institution to be greater than what would be a neutral level. A discussion of faculty per ceptions of each of the factors follows.

PAGE 84

71 Internal communication The mean response overall for perceptions of th e level of internal communication was 3.72 with a standard deviation of 0.985, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.47 to 3.97. Additionally, 64.0% of those re sponding to this item perceived the level of internal communication at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in perceived levels of internal comm unication between full-time and part-time faculty. Recall that internal communication may be defined as an institutions communication procedures and techniques, whether official or unofficial. In an examination of the relationships of community college administrations and board s of trustees, Deas (1994) determined that communication was indeed a component of the organizational climate of an institution. Interviews with numerous administrators a nd trustees overwhelmingly indicated that communication was a quite critical component of climate. Indeed, there was a general consensus that the manner in which top-level decisions were communicated down the chain of command could have a greater impact on reaction to that decision than the nature of the decision itself. Given the obvious importance of a strong internal communication system, the high perception that the faculty has of internal communi cation at the institution is an advantage to the organizational climate. Further, the absence of a significant difference with regards to job status in this area is an indication that the internal communication procedures of the institution do not discriminate against the part-time instructor, wh ich is not only an i ndication of appropriate communication channels, but will contribute posi tively to the divide between community fulltime faculty and adjuncts, through cons istent and equitable treatment. Organizational structure The mean response overall for perceptions of th e level of organizational structure was 4.07 with a standard deviation of 0. 854, and a 95% confidence interval for this value of 3.85 to 4.28.

PAGE 85

72 Additionally, 78.1% of those res ponding to this item perceive d the level of organizational structure at the institution to be either high or very high. Ther e was no significant difference in perceived levels of organi zational structure between fu ll-time and part-time faculty. Recall that organizational structure may be defi ned as an institutions hierarchal means of governance and executive configuration. Within the community college setting, organizational structures have advanced numerous and varied wa ys, covering the spectrum from structures with strong roots in the heavily stru ctured public school system mode l (Deegan & Tillery, 1985) to independent entities governed by more localized bodies, such as boards of trustees (Cohen & Brawer, 2002). As early as the late 1970s, Katz and Kahn (1978) observed a commonality between all community colleges and similar two-y ear institutions was that they promoted open systems due to the inherent str eam of events that behave as periodic ebb and flow within the institutions. The common bond that all organizations shared wa s that they advanced open systems due to the natural current of activity that acted as a consistent ebb and flow continuum in an organization. Since that time, there is evid ence that community college administrators and boards of trustees are considering a much br oader range of bureaucr atic methodologies and developing the necessary techniques to create more efficient and favorable systems (Amey & Twombly, 1992). With an understanding of the importance of maintaining organizational structures systems that adhere to current models within a community college setting; it is indeed gratifying to observe the positive response to this item that this study found. That better than three out of every four faculty members in the sample consid ered the college organizational structure to be either high or very high indicates an efficiently run institution.

PAGE 86

73 A phenomenon that is of some interest with regard to percepti ons of organizational structure in this particular study is the absence of any significant difference in the perceived level of organizational structure between full-time a nd part-time faculty members, given the very disparate perspectives that thes e two groups would likely have a bout the organizational structure of the institution. Alpha Beta Community College has undergone numerous and frequent organizational changes in recent years. This is an aspect of the administration of the institution in which full-time faculty members have had a gr eat deal more involvement, and accordingly probably have a more intimate knowledge of, than part-time faculty members have had. Thus, it would be reasonable to believe di fferences in the perceptions of organizational structure would exist relative to job status; however, this was not the case. Political climate The mean response overall for perceptions of th e level of political climate was 3.34 with a standard deviation of 1.153, and a 95% confiden ce interval for this value of 3.05 to 3.64. Additionally, 50.8% of those responding to this item perceived the level of political climate to be either high or very high. Ther e was a significant difference in perceived levels of political climate between full-time and part-time faculty, with full-time faculty perceiving the higher levels. Recall that political climate may be define d as the character and intricacy of an institutions internal politics, or the extent to which employees must function within a political structure in order to achieve co mpletion of their assigned duties. Political climate is a separate and distinct, yet interrelated concept to organi zational structure that can have a considerable impact on organizational climate (Honeyman et al ., 1996). While the political machinations of an institution are often controversial and potentially volatile, it is n ecessary to be able to function within this framework if one wants to effect institutional change (B lock, 1987). Associations

PAGE 87

74 between positions of authority, communication archetypes, the di stribution of resources and leadership techniques all have a bearing on political climate, and thus these aspects all are components of organizational climate. The observed significant difference in perceptions of political climate between full-time and part-time faculty members is understandabl e, given the aforementioned disparity in the levels of involvement that these two groups have in the administrati ve structure of the institution, particularly through the heavy re presentation which full-time facu lty has on the various planning committees of the college. Thus full-time faculty members are much more likely to have a more accurate, and current, understanding of what the major political issues within the college are; part-time faculty will surely have much more limited, and perhaps dated, views on what the relevent political concerns are. Another issue which could potenti ally impact perceptions of the political climate of the school is the number of indivi duals within the institutions upper administration that are preparing to retire in the next few years, which will leave a la rge number of vacancies to be filled. This is not an issue which is unique to this institution; i ndeed, it is a nationwide phenomenon, not only among community colleges, but among all organizations, due to the baby boomer generation approaching its retirement age. Campbell (2006) has documented the breadth of this problem and its consequences for the nations community colleges, as well as outlining some measures that these institutions s hould start taking to prepare for this situation. The full-time faculty members at Alpha Beta are quite aware of this impending changing of the guard, and undoubtedly have begun to anticip ate what types of cha nges will be occurring within the upper echelon of the administration, which will in turn have trickle-down effects on all levels of college leadership. Thus it is both sensible and rational to postulate that full-time

PAGE 88

75 faculty members are more sensitive to the changes in political climate that will be forthcoming, and will have a very different outlook on this si tuation that the part-t ime faculty members who have less vested in this situation. Professional development opportunities The mean response overall for perceptions of the level of professional development opportunities was 3.77 with a standa rd deviation of 1.309, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.44 to 4.11. Additionally, 64.7% of those responding to this item perceived the level of professional development opportunities to be either high or ve ry high. There was a significant difference in perceived levels of professional developmen t opportunities between fu ll-time and part-time faculty, with full-time faculty perceiving the higher levels. Recall that professional development opportunitie s may be defined as the opportunities for faculty and staff to engage in activities to improve and augment their occupational capabilities and job performance. Professional development opportunities are very often vital motivators and sources of growth and encouragement for the faculty of an institution. It has long been recognized that growth is a fundamental elemen t of professional development, and accordingly acts as a conduit to job satisfaction; more over, the primary rationale for institutional administration to institute prof essional development activities is to promote their faculty members growth as professiona l educators (Herzberg et al., 1959). Further, Ewell (1993) determined through a through review and examina tion of existing evidence that organizations (including, but not limited to educational instit utions) which have made a priority of devoting time and other resources to the ongoing preparati on and professional development of their staff inevitably achieve improved retention rates, whic h ultimately results in enhanced cost-benefit ratios. Ultimately, when administrations fully comprehend and appreciate the virtues of providing and encouraging their faculty to be trained in new pedagogical innovations and

PAGE 89

76 educational techniques, which will in turn enrich the value of their work, and their worth to the institution, morale and job satisfaction will in cidentally be improved (Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Vaughan, 1986). A study which interviewed faculty at a Mi dwestern community college concerning professional development activities revealed that these faculty chose to teach in a community college because of the increased emphasis on teac hing in these settings, an d that they preferred having professional development oppor tunities, since thes e activities have a major impact on the quality of their teaching, and hence on thei r careers (Fugate & Amey, 2000). Unfortunately, many institutions fail to adequately integrate ad junct faculty into these professional development activities; indeed, only 31% of community colleges offer any type of formal orientation activity to their part-time faculty (McGui re, 1993). Community colleges need to expand their reactions to the concerns of part-time faculty, which incl udes, but is by no means limited to, increased inclusion in professional development activities. See Perrin (2000) for a thorough review of the ways in which community college professional development programs disenfranchise adjunct faculty, as well as other sub-popula tions of the faculty at large. Perceptions of the level of professional de velopment opportunities were unusually high in this study, compared to comparab le studies, which could be attri buted to the inordinately high amount of resources that this particular inst itution devotes to prof essional development. However, the significantly higher perception of professional devel opment opportunities with regard to job status was in fact to be e xpected. There are many professional development experiences that take place at the institution every semester, as well as occasions for faculty to attend regional and national conferences and meetings. The on-campus opportunities are generally open to both full-time a nd part-time faculty members. Ava ilability of funds for faculty

PAGE 90

77 members to attend the regional and national meetings is almost exclusively available to full-time faculty members, and hence there is virtually no part-time faculty involvement in these types of opportunities. This situation is li kely a factor in the perceive d differences in professional development opportunities. Evaluation The mean response overall for perceptions of evaluation was 3.64 with a standard deviation of 1.033, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.37 to 3.90. Additionally, 58.5% of those responding to this item perceived the level of ev aluation to be either hi gh or very high. There was no significant difference in perceived levels of evaluation between full-time and part-time faculty. Recall that evaluation may be defined as an institutions practices and processes for assessing the performances of faculty and staff, and through providing positive feedback intended to result in professional growth for thos e being evaluated. The value of well-timed and frequent evaluation cannot be overstated, for it conveys the institutions philosophy and emphasis on quality and efficiency (Langley, 1994). Some positive aspects of a continual evaluation system include a formal analysis of the results, perpetual improvements in performance, the ability to formulate fair and e ffectual personnel decision s, and an overall sense of confidence in the admi nistrative value of the evaluative pr ocess, and the knowledge of when it becomes necessary to implement the alternative pr ocedures if little or no results are rendered (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Hersey et al., 1996). Evaluation is the m echanism which guarantees that both positive and negative reinforcements are used to reinforce and sustain desired behaviors (Epstein, 1982). Finally, evaluation is a mean s to influence operations through both positive and negative reinforcement (Bolman and Deal, 1997).

PAGE 91

78 Perceptions of evaluation were found to be somewhat low compared to other organizational climate variables. The percentage of faculty members selecting a response of either high or very high for their perceived level of evaluation at the institution was 58.5%. While this is clearly a majority of respondents, that percentage is lower than the corresponding figure for other organizational climate variables. Additionally, 30.8% of respondents selected a response of moderate, which is the neutral re sponse. That nearly a th ird of faculty would be neutral about such an important topic as eval uation is academically interesting, yet a major concern from a practical standpoint for the institution. This is an area that institutions would do well to give additional attention. Promotion The mean response overall for perceptions of promotion was 3.38 with a standard deviation of 1.1293, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.05 to 3.71. Additionally, 49.2% of those responding to this item perceived the level of pr omotion to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in perceived levels of promotion between full-time and part-time faculty. Recall that promotion may be defined as an institutions propensity toward internal promotion and progression of the positions of individuals within the institution. Promotion generally entails increased influence and status, as well as greater benefits, salary, or both. Promotion is generally based on the quality of ev aluations, dedication to th e institution, and work ethic (Vaughn, 1986). Successful or ganizations commonly promote in ternally rather than filling openings externally (Nanus, 1992; Collins and Porras, 1994). Typical reasons for promoting from within include the benef its of dealing with a known i ndividual (unknown quantities can offer a certain level of risk), the occurrence of increased morale, ini tiative and dedication among promoted employees, and the ability to avoid the heavy costs associated with recruiting of new

PAGE 92

79 personnel (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Promotion is mot often regarded as an emotionally fulfilling and, accordingly, has a positive influence on organizational climate. Regard for personal concerns The mean response overall for perceptions of regard for personal concerns was 3.79 with a standard deviation of 1.142, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.49 to 4. 08. Additionally, 63.0% of those responding to this item perceived the level of regard for personal concerns to be either high or very high. There was no si gnificant difference in perceived levels of regard for personal concerns between full-time and part-time faculty. Recall that regard for personal concerns may be defined as an institutions sensitivity to, and regard for, the personal concerns and well-being of the faculty and staff (Duncan & Harlacher, 1994; Vroom, 1964). Regard for pers onal concerns can be viewed as a high relationship leadership approach, since the needs, desires, and concerns of employees are indeed both salient and critical (Herse y et al., 1996). Blau (2001) found that employees who had a sense that their organization had sincere concern for th eir welfare and were sensitive to their needs and concerns are have greater loyalty to the organization, and are much more likely to stay. From an interpersonal perspective, trust is deemed to be the basis of regard for personal concerns (Covey, 1991). Not surprisingly, regard for personal concerns is a primary c ontributor to job satisfaction, and will ultimately enhance organizati onal climate (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Faculty Satisfaction with Organizational Climate Overall, the data indicated that faculty members were generally satisfied with organizational climate variables at the institution. Five-point Likert scales were used to measure faculty members satisfaction with each of the seven factors which make up organizational climate, with 5 representing a ve ry high level of satisfaction and 1 representing a very low level. The mean response for each factor was significantly greater than 3, which represented a level of

PAGE 93

80 moderate, and hence faculty members were more satisfied than dissatisfied with organizational climate at the institution. A discussion of faculty satisfaction with each of the factors follows. Internal communication The mean response overall for satisfaction wi th internal communication was 3.52 with a standard deviation of 0.992, and a 95% confiden ce interval for this value is 3.27 to 3.76. Additionally, 55.4% of those res ponding to this item rated their satisfaction with internal communication at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisfaction with internal communication between full-time and part-time faculty. Organizational structure The mean response overall for satisfaction with organizational structure was 3.64 with a standard deviation of 0.915, and a 95% confiden ce interval for this value is 3.41 to 3.87. Additionally, 57.0% of those respon ding to this item rated their satisfaction with organizational structure at the institution to be either high or very high. Ther e was no significant difference in satisfaction with organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty. Political climate The mean response overall for satisfaction with political climate was 3.36 with a standard deviation of 1.200, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.06 to 3.66. Additionally, 46.2% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with political climate to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisf action with political climate between full-time and part-time faculty. Professional development opportunities The mean response overall for satisfaction with professional development opportunities was 3.72 with a standard deviation of 1.188, a nd a 95% confidence interval is 3.42 to 4.02. Additionally, 64.6% of those res ponding to this item rated thei r satisfaction w ith professional

PAGE 94

81 development opportunities to be either high or ve ry high. There was no significant difference in satisfaction with professional de velopment opportunities between full-time and part-time faculty. Evaluation The mean response overall for satisfaction wi th evaluation was 3.59 with a standard deviation of 1.065, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.33 to 3.86. Additionally, 58.5% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction w ith evaluation to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisfactio n with evaluation between full-time and parttime faculty. Promotion The mean response overall for satisfaction wi th promotion was 3.38 with a standard deviation of 1.291, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.05 to 3.70. Additionally, 44.7% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction w ith promotion to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisfactio n with promotion between full-time and parttime faculty. Regard for personal concerns The mean response overall for satisfaction with regard for personal concerns was 3.80 with a standard deviation of 1.171, and a 95% confiden ce interval is 3.50 to 4.09. Additionally, 60.0% of those responding to this item ra ted their satisfaction with regard for personal concerns to be either high or very high. Ther e was no significant difference in satisfaction with regard for personal concerns between fulltime and part-time faculty. The Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction This relationship between orga nizational climate and job sati sfaction has been continually investigated in a series of studi es conducted at the University of Florida, some of which have been previously cited, and all of which examined the relationsh ip between organizational climate

PAGE 95

82 and job satisfaction within highe r educational settings, many of which were community colleges. A brief summary of each follows. In a study examining the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructio nal officers, a survey measuring organizational climate and job satisfaction variables was sent to the chief instructional officers at all member colleges of the American Association of Commu nity Colleges (Chappell, 1995). Roughly 51% of these surveys were returned, and an analysis of the responses led to some rather revealing conclusions. Foremost, it was determined that the organizational climate variables that significantly impacted job satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizational struct ure and evaluation. Further, it was determined that the size of the community college had a significant impact on participati on in decision making, autonomy, power, control, salary, bene fits and professional effectiveness. As study conducted simultaneously to th e Chappell (1995) study investigated organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Florida community college health occupations program directors (P almer, 1995). This study sought to determine which aspects of organizational climate promote and enhance job sa tisfaction, and to further determine the degree of job satisfaction, among health occupations pr ogram directors in Florida community colleges. Surveys measuring the variables of interest were distributes to all health occupations program directors in Florida community co lleges; roughly 71% of the surv eys were returned. The results indicated that the most important factor of or ganizational climate was internal communication, and the factor most in need of improvement wa s political climate. Participation in decision making and professional effectiveness were th e most important factors among the position characteristics, and salary, benefits and aut onomy were most in need of improvement. The

PAGE 96

83 respondents were generally satisfi ed, overall, with their positions Interestingly, there was no significant relationship found betw een job satisfaction and organi zational climate. The Chappell and Palmer studies caught the atte ntion of a number of researcher s, which led to a series of subsequent studies. One of the more noteworthy research studies in this sequence was an analysis of the relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents (Evans, 1996). This study specif ically sought to determine if differences existed in job satisfaction variables within the context of organizational climate. A survey measuring the variables of interest was sent to th e presidents of all institutions in the American Association of Community Colle ges. Thorough scrutiny of the responses showed that the organizational climate factors most closely related to job satisf action were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizationa l structure, and prof essional development opportunities. Additional, it was de termined that a presidents re lationship with the board of trustees was the most important determinant of job satisfaction. In an adaptation of the previously mentione d studies, Kellerman ( 1996) sought to explore the relationship between communi cation climate and job satisfac tion as reported by Floridas community college department chairs. Communicati on climate could be cons idered a related, yet not identical, concept to organizational cl imate. Essentially, communication climate encompasses decision making, reciprocity, feedb ack perception, feedb ack responsiveness and feedback permissiveness. Similar to the methodology of the earlier studies, a survey was sent to all academic department chairs in Florida commun ity colleges. The responses indicated that their overall level of job satisfacti on was rather high, and additiona lly that job satisfaction was significantly related to communication climate.

PAGE 97

84 A study of selected organizational climate f actors and job satisfaction variables among teachers in a large suburban school district was conducted to explore thes e factors in a suburban Florida school district (Paulson, 1997). A distinctive aspect of th is study was the inclusion of the variables of school level and union affiliation. The survey instrument in this study was distributed to all 1685 teachers in an entire school district, in cluding elementary, middle and high school levels. Significant differences were f ound in all job satisfac tion and organizational climate factors with respect to school level, although the relationship between these factors and union membership was extremely minor. Continuing in this line of studies, a further research inquiry inves tigated the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfact ion as reported by mid-level collegiate campus recreation coordinators (DeMiche le, 1998). To reveal whether orga nizational climate factors and job satisfaction factors enhance or detract from job satisfactio n and organizational climate, a survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all 545 mid-level campus recreation coordinators in the directory of the National Intramural Recreational Sports Association, with an approximate response rate of 52%. The responses showed that, overall, the program directors were satisfied with their colleges and their jobs The organizational climate factors that were shown to influence job satisfac tion were evaluation, regard fo r personal concerns, professional development opportunities and political climate. Mo reover, job satisfaction was also affected by relationship with colleagues a nd autonomy, power and control. Demographic variables were generally not determinants of job satisfaction. The next study in this series of investigations was directed toward the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction for community college chief business officers (Zabetakis, 1999). For the purposes of the study under discussion, organizational culture is

PAGE 98

85 nearly synonymous with organizational climate. Surveys were distributed to the entire 277 chief business officers of community colleges belong ing to the Community College Business Officers Organization, and the response rate was roughly 51%. Respondents perceived the organizational factors with the highest levels at their instituti ons were regard for pers onal concern, professional development opportunities, intern al communication and evaluation. Quite similarly, respondents were most satisfied with the organizational fact ors of regard for personal concerns, professional development opportunities, evaluation and intern al communication. The most highly perceived job satisfaction variables were relationships with supervisor, participation in decision making, professional effectiveness, rela tionships with subordinates a nd relationships with peers. Gratto (2001) extended this research to study the relati onship between organizational climate and job satisfaction for directors of physical plant on college campuses. An electronic survey was disseminated to the co llege physical plant directors be longing to the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officer s; the study achieved a response rate of 37%. An analysis of the responses indicated that the organizational climate factors whic h most significantly relate to job satisfaction were regard for personal c oncerns, internal communi cation, organizational structure and evaluation. Continuing with this trend, a subsequent research study expl ored the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multi-campus community college systems (Bailey, 2002). A survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all campus executi ve officers of multi-campus community colleges listed in the Higher Education Directory A total of 199 surveys were returned out of 429 that were sent out, resulting in a response rate of 46%. Results indicated that the organizational climate variables of regard for personal concerns and evaluation were the most strongly related

PAGE 99

86 to job satisfaction. Further, internal comm unication was the greatest predictor of overall satisfaction, followed by regard for personal c oncerns, professional development opportunities, and low levels of political climate. Another study in this area investigated the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction for athletic compliance direct ors of NCAA Division I in stitutions (Lawrence, 2003). In all, 346 surveys were distributed to a ll NCAA Division I compliance directors, and 164 were returned. Thus, there was a 46% response ra te. The respondents ove rall satisfaction with their positions was reasonably high, and most strongly related to the organizational climate factors of evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents greatest levels of satisfaction with organizational clim ate factors occurred with regard for personal concerns, and professional development opportunities. Subsequently, Peek (2003) studied the relatio nship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by institut ional research staff at Florida community colleges. A survey measuring the variables of interest was sent to the heads of institutional research of all 28 community colleges in Florida, as listed in th e Higher Education Director y. This study enjoyed a 75% response rate. The organizational climate f actors with the highest perceived levels were professional development opportunities, evaluati on and internal communication. Generally, overall satisfaction with organizational climate wa s quite high. He highest rated factors for job satisfaction were professional eff ectiveness, relationship with supe rvisor, relationship with peers, and relationship with subordinates. Next, policy and organizational factors and their relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct / part-time faculty in north central Florida public community college was considered (LeFevreStephens, 2004). A survey instrument was di stributed to part-time faculty through their

PAGE 100

87 department chairs. Of 667 surveys distributed, 224 were completed and returned, yielding an approximate response rate of 33%. Analysis of the responses showed th at respondents overall satisfaction with the position was fairly high, and significantly associated with the organizational climate factors of evaluation, promotion and re gard for personal concerns. The respondents highest levels of satisfaction were with re gard for personal concerns and professional development opportunities. Lastly, the most import ant job satisfaction fact ors were relationships with peers, relationship with supervisor, relationship with subordinates, and professional effectiveness. Lastly, the relationship between organizationa l climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college executive secretaries and / or associates to the president was researched (Sofianos, 2005). For this study, the survey was di stributed to the executi ve secretaries of the presidents of the 342 community colleges in the Southern Associ ation of Colleges and Schools. There were 137 surveys returned, which represents a 40% response rate. The statistical analyses of this study found very strong associations betw een the constructs of or ganizational climate and job satisfaction. Overall, satisfa ction with organizational climat e was above average, with the factors of evaluation, regard for personal conc erns, and organizational structure receiving the highest levels of satisfaction. These factors also received the hi ghest ratings for perceived level at the institution. Existing research has shown, through a com positional analysis of the organizational climate-performance relation, that there is no ev idence to support any mediating effects of job satisfaction on relations of orga nizational climate to organizati onal performance and to employee turnover (Griffith, 2006). These findings are consis tent with the more general organizational

PAGE 101

88 literature. The importance of orderly work e nvironments, collegial re lations and supportive leadership is not to be denied. With the sole exception of the political cl imate factor, the faculty perceptions of organizational climate variables a nd their satisfaction with those va riables had highly statistically significant correlations. A reasonabl e conclusion would be that there is a strong relationship between perceptions of organizational climate and j ob satisfaction. Recall that a factor analysis revealed four distinct dimensi ons measured by our instrument: Benefits of Position, Coworker Relationships, Organizational Climate A and Organi zational Climate B. The Benefits of Position dimension included the items participation in decision making, autonomy, power and control, importance of salary, importance of benefits, and importance of personal effectiveness. The Coworker Relationships dimension included the items relationship with peers, relationship with subordinates, and relationship with supervis or. The Organizational Climate A dimension included the items political climate, professi onal development opportunities, evaluation and promotion. The Organizational Climate B dimens ion included the items internal communication and organizational structure. It had been expect ed that these latter two dimensions would have been a single dimension, which would ha ve been called Organizational Climate. Faculty Belief of Import ance of Job Satisfaction Let us turn now to the effects on importan ce variables (autonomy, power, and control, importance of salary, participation in decisi on-making, and importance of benefits) on job satisfaction. The dimension of Benefits of Position (which these importance variables) was not statistically significant in the binary logistic regression, suggesting that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, these items are not signif icant determinants of job satisfaction. The preceding comments not withstanding, there have been far too few organized studies of job satisfaction of community college ad junct faculty (Valadez & Anthony, 2001). While

PAGE 102

89 many adjunct faculty members have chronically unhappy about their working conditions, and many quite vocally so, there is no clear indication that issues of salary result in job turnover among adjunct faculty (Goodall & M oore, 2006). Similarly, while there is ample evidence that the working conditions of many f aculty members have declined in recent years, data do not support a phenomenon of academics leaving the highe r education industry (Bellamy et al., 2003). This is supported the fact that turnover intention has been f ound to be negatively influenced by organizational climate and job satisfaction (E gan et al., 2004). Howe ver, the tendency of community college chairpersons to leave their jobs is indeed dependent on role conflict, unhappiness with policy, administration and salary (Murray & Murray, 1998). Implications There are several important critical and self-e vident implications of our conclusions for community college administrators. Every educati onal institution should be constantly aware of the state of their organizational climate; further, institutions which determine that they have a need to improve the quality and perceptions of their organizational climate would do well acquaint themselves with the results of studies such as this one. The role of faculty in the shaping of curriculum and policy is substantial, and certa inly their attitudes toward organizational climate and job satisfaction will affect th e quality and caliber of their pe rformance with respect to this duty. After examining survey responses, it becam e clear that the institutions which are concerned with forming a productive organiza tional climate and enhancing job satisfaction should take heed of the issues and concerns indicated by the responses. The statistically significant correlations between perceived leve ls of and satisfacti on with, each of the components of organizational climat e (with the exception of political climate) are very telling.

PAGE 103

90 Further, there is great value to the observat ion that the concept of congruence (i.e., fit) is a necessary component of job satisfaction. As early as the beginning of the 1970s behavioral theorists began to investigate how congruence between people and their environment could be qualified (Stern 1970). A sense of f it is an ideal that should be readily apparent to both the individual and those persons with in that individuals environmen t. Numerous research studies have revealed that fit between an employee and their company results in increased productivity, attitudes toward tasks, and j ob satisfaction (Downey, Hellriege l, Phelps, & Slocum, 1975). This theory was supported by the faculty members responses to where they saw themselves professionally in five years. Of those responding, nearly all replied that th ey would either still be teaching at their current position, or that they would be promoted within the institution. Many of the part-time faculty members saw themselves as full-time faculty members in five years. The full-time faculty members who responded indicate d that they would still be teaching in the current capacity, that they would be promoted to an administrative position at the institution, or that they would be retired. Th e phenomenon of an institution a nd an individual faculty member achieving harmony, solidarity, and unity almost une rringly results in more efficient performance and increased achievement (Agyris, 1964; Blau, 1987; Cohen and Brawer, 2002). Shaping organizational climate is thought to be within the pur view of those in authority (Likert, 1967). For instance, research has iden tified robust relationships between organizational climate and managements tendency to stimulate enthusiasm by addressing individuals needs for attainment, association, and control (Litw in, & Stringer, 1968; Stri nger, 2002). Thus, it is imperative that institutional administrations take responsibility for the or ganizational climate of their institution; for if they choose not to addres s problems within the climate no one else has the means to do so effectively.

PAGE 104

91 However, lack of faculty involvement in change efforts can also have negative consequences (Van Ast, 2006). This is in part necessitated by the often clashing views of students, faculty, and administration on a number of salient issues. Thus, students, faculty and administrators should collaborate on seeking the most effective a nd efficient ways of addressing these issues. This is consistent with findings th at faculty workloads increased expectation for a number of concerns, including societal and student needs (H ouston et al., 2006). Recommendations for Further Research It is recommended that furt her study be conducted to verify these results. These conclusions are based on a voluntar y response survey distributed to three departments at a single institution. A similar study concerning all facu lty members within all departments would be more valuable to an institution. Likewise, a cross-institutional study would offer results that could more appropriately generalized fo r the educational research community. It is recommended that additional research be conducted with the State of Florida community college system to verify whether fa culty perceptions of th e organizational climate within their institution are consistent w ith the colleges organizational priorities. It is recommended that additional research be conducted within the State of Florida community college system to ascertain whethe r perceptions of orga nizational climate are significantly different for full-time versus part -time faculty members. Based on this studys findings, particular attention shoul d be given to the factors of po litical climate and professional development opportunities. It is recommended that additional research be conducted with the State of Florida community college system to verify whether facu lty satisfaction with the organizational climate within their institution is consistent with the colleges organizational priorities.

PAGE 105

92 It is recommended that additional research be conducted within the State of Florida community college system to ascertain whethe r satisfaction with organizational climate is significantly different for full-time versus part-time faculty members. It is recommended that additional research be conducted within the State of Florida community college system to identify the determinants of job satisfaction. Such studies would do well to consider organizational climate as a major factor, as well as importance variables such as those included in this study. It is recommended that further research be conducted within th e State of Florida community college system to explore the potenti al for a collaborative approach to improving organizational structure, involving st udents, faculty and administration. It is recommended that psychom etric research be conducted to develop instruments with improved reliability and validity to measure or ganizational climate (bot h perceptions of and satisfaction with) and job satisfaction. The use of such instruments w ould greatly enhance the effectiveness of future studies with similar goals to this one. It is recommended that additional research be conducted within the State of Florida community college system to measure organiza tional perceptions and satisfaction among other personnel than simply faculty, such as administ rators, administrative staff, and support staff. Ayers (2005) has pointed out the need for instituti ons to take care to differentiate between the perspectives of organizational climate among the different subgroups within an institution. Summary As the number of community colleges, and co mmunity college students, grows in this country, issues of job satisfaction for institutiona l faculty and staff are becoming more critical. The perceptions of faculty and staff regarding organizational climate and job satisfaction are deserving of extensive study and scrutiny, fo r their impact on the atmospheres of these

PAGE 106

93 institutions is both immense and undeniable. Cons equently, this study dete rmined to investigate the characteristics of the relationship between the job satisfaction a nd the perceptions of organizational climate among community college f aculty. A complementary aim of this research was to describe and summarize the perceptions of organizational climate (as determined by a set of seven fundamental factors) of the community college faculty members in our sample, to assess the faculty members satisfaction with thes e indicators of organizational climate, to ascertain whether significant differences existed in these perceptions and satisfactions with respect to job status (i.e., fulltime versus part-time), and to identify the determinants of job satisfaction.

PAGE 107

94 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Part I: Organization and Position Ratings Instructions: Considering your own experience in you r present position, please circle the number of the rating that best represents your opinion or perception of your community college climate. Verbal descriptions of the extremes on the conti nuum have been provided to assist you in choosing your answers. Section A. Please rate the level or degree to which the fo llowing qualities listed below you perceive to be present at your community college, with five (5) indicating the highest level of presence and one (1) indicating the lowest level of presence. 1. Internal communication the colleges formal and informal communication process and style (Ex.: articulation of mission, purpose, values, policies and procedures). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 2. Organizational structure the colleges organizational structure and administrative operation (Ex.: the hierarchical lines of authority and require ments for operating within that hierarchy). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 3. Political climate the nature and complexity of the colleges internal politics (Ex.: the degree to which the instructor must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish his or her job). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 4. Professional development opportunities the opportunity for the instructor to pursue and participate in professional development activities (Ex.: encourag ement to learn, develop, and/or share innovative practices). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 5. Evaluation the colleges procedures for evaluating th e instructor (Ex.: fair and supportive procedures that focus on improvement rather than faultfinding). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 6. Promotion the colleges commitment to internal pr omotion and advancement from within the organization (Ex.: career ladders, internship opportunities, etc.). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present 7. Regard for personal concerns the colleges sensitivity to and rega rd for the personal concerns of the instructor (Ex.: college is supportive and flexible during times of personal emergencies). Highly present 5 4 3 2 1 Not usually present

PAGE 108

95 Section B. Please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the community college qualities listed below, with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfac tion and one (1) indicating the lowest level of satisfaction. 8. Internal communication the colleges formal and informal communication processes and style (Ex.: articulation of mission, purpose, values, policies, and procedures). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 9. Organizational Structure the colleges organizational structur e and administrative operation (Ex.: the hierarchical lines of authority and require ments for operating within that hierarchy). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 10. Political climate the nature and complexity of the colleges internal politics (Ex.: the degree to which the instructor must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish his or her job). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 11. Professional development opportunities the opportunity for the instructor to pursue and participate in professional development activities (Ex.: encouragement to learn, develop, and/or share innovative practices). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 12. Evaluation the colleges procedures for evaluating the instructor (Ex.: fair and supportive procedures that focus on improvement rather than faultfinding). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 13. Promotion the colleges commitment to internal pr omotion and advancement from within the organization (Ex.: career ladders, internship opportunities, etc.). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied 14. Regard to personal concern the colleges sensitivity to and rega rd for personal concerns of the instructor (Ex.: college is supportive and fl exible during times of personal emergencies). Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied

PAGE 109

96 Section C. Please rate how important each of the following fa ctors is to you in your position as instructor with five (5) indicating the highest level of import ance and one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance. 15. Participation in decision-making the colleges process for decisi on-making and opportunities for involvement by the instructor (Ex.: level of input requested for administrative decisions that involve an instructor authorization and endorsement). Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important 16. Autonomy, power, and control the degree of autonomy, power, and control held by the instructor (Ex.: decisions made by an instructor are subject to reversal by their superior). Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important 17. Relationships with colleagues the quality of the relationships with peers, subordinates, and supervisor (Ex.: atmosphere of mutual collegial respect exists). a. with peers: Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important b. with subordinates: Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important c. with supervisor: Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important 18. Salary and benefits the salary and benefits of the instructor (Ex.: salary and benefits package are equitable and comparable with co lleagues in similar situations). a. salary Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important b. benefits Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important 19. Professional effectiveness the perceived overall effectiveness of the instructor in her/his position (Ex.: Am I successful in accomplishing the objectives of my job?). Most important 5 4 3 2 1 Least important Section D. Please circle the level of your ove rall satisfaction with your position, with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) i ndication the lowest level of satisfaction. Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied

PAGE 110

97 Section E. Please circle the level of your overall satisfaction with your college, with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicati on the lowest level of satisfaction. Highly satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Highly dissatisfied Part II: Demographic Information Instructions: Please provide the following demographic information. A. Your current job status: ____Full Time Instructor or ___ Part Time Instructor B. Number of years you have served Daytona Beach Community College with you current job status: ____Less than 1 year ____6-10 years ____1-5 years ____11-14 years ____15 years or more C. Number of years you have served within the community college system ____Less than 1 year ____6-10 years ____1-5 years ____11-14 years ____15 years or more D. Ethnic group: ____Asian American ____White/Caucasian ____Black/African American ____Native American ____Hispanic ____Other: (please indicate) ________ E. Gender: ____Female ____Male F. Personal Career Goal: Where do you see yourself in five years? ____________________________________________________________________________ _______ ___________________________________________________________________________________ G. Please use this space to make any comments or observations relating to the content of this survey: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Thank you! Your time and effort has been an i mmense contribution to the success of this research!

PAGE 111

98 APPENDIX B LETTER OF INVITATION To Full and Part Time Faculty: An Informed Co nsent/Invitation for Participation in Research June 5, 2006 Dear Colleague: On behalf of the Institute of Highe r Education at the University of Fl orida, this letter is to request your participation in a research study on job satisfaction and or ganizational climate between full and part time faculty members at the community college level. All Daytona Beach Community College full and part time faculty members in the Math and Communication departments are being invited to partic ipate by completing the enclosed questionnaire. Please complete and return it to us by Friday, June 23, 2006. A self -addressed stamped envelope is included for your convenience. Results of the research should supply valuable information in extending the body of research perception of job satisfaction a nd organizational climate dynamics for full and part time faculty members. The responses you mark are not intend ed to measure in any way the performance of your administration and all responses will be kept strictly confidential If you would like a copy of the results of this study, please s ubmit a request to our office under separate cover. The data results will be used in partial compliance w ith the requirements for obtaining an E.D. in Higher Education Administra tion. Your supervisor(s) will not have access to answers though they could be subpoenaed by a court of law unde r exceptional circumstances. Any questions or concerns about the participants right s should be directed to the UFIRB office, PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gain esville, FL 32611-2250, tel. 352.392.0433. Thank you in advance for your partic ipation and timely response re garding this research. Cordially, _________________________ Cynthia A. Reynolds Principal Investigator _________________________ Dr. Dale F. Campbell, Supervisor/Committee Chair 229 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 Tel. 352.392.0745 ext. 281

PAGE 112

99 APPENDIX C LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT Informed Consent Protocol Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN FULL AND PART-TIME FACULTY AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEVEL. Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: To gather perceptions about the community college climate from full and part time faculty members at a community college. What you will be asked to do in the study: To please complete all sections/parts, including Parts I and II and Sections A-E. Time required: Approximately 10-15 minutes. Risks and Benefits: No more than minimal risk. There is no direct benefit to the participant in this research. However, it will aid in gathering percep tions about the community college climate from full and part time faculty member who are working at the community college level. Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in this study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The final results will be statistically tabulated and categorized in or der to gain insight as to how this specific population answers the survey questions; subsequently, determin ations will ensue during the final phase of the study and be made available to you if you so desire. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is comp letely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you have any questions about the study : Cynthia A. Reynolds, University of Florida Doctoral Candidate. P.O. Box 222 Galva, KS 67443. Tel. 654.654.4144 Email : reynolds@hometelco.net Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; tel.352.392.0433 Disclosure: I have read the procedure outlined above. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study and have received a copy of this description. (You ma y keep this document. No signature necessary).

PAGE 113

100 APPENDIX D DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS WITH REGARD TO JOB STATUS Perception of Internal Communication5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-1. Perceived Internal Communication versus Job Status Perception of Organizational Structure5 4 3 2Count20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-2. Perceived Organizational Structure versus Job Status

PAGE 114

101 Perception of Political Climate5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-3. Perceived Political Climate versus Job Status Perception of Professional Development Opportunities5 4 3 2 1Count20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-4. Perceived Profe ssional Development Opportuni ties versus Job Status

PAGE 115

102 Perception of Evaluation5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-5. Perceived Eval uation versus Job Status Perception of Promotion5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-6. Perceived Prom otion versus Job Status

PAGE 116

103 Perception of Regard for Personal Concerns5 4 3 2 1Count14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-7. Perceived Regard for Pe rsonal Concerns versus Job Status Satisfaction with Internal Communication5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-8. Satisfaction with Intern al Communication ve rsus Job Status

PAGE 117

104 Satisfaction with Organizational Structure5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job status full time part time Figure D-9. Satisfaction with Organiza tional Structure versus Job Status Satisfaction with Political Climate satisfaction5 4 3 2 1Count14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job statusfull time part time Figure D-10. Satisfaction with Poli tical Climate versus Job Status

PAGE 118

105 Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job statusfull time part time Figure D-11. Satisfaction with Professional Development Oppor tunities versus Job Status Satisfaction with Evaluation5 4 3 2 1Count14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job statusfull time part time Figure D-12. Satisfaction with Evaluation versus Job Status

PAGE 119

106 Satisfaction with Promotion5 4 3 2 1Count12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job statusfull time part time Figure D-13. Perceived Prom otion versus Job Status Satisfaction with Regard to Personal Concerns5 4 3 2 1Count16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 current job statusfull time part time Figure D-14. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concerns versus Job Status

PAGE 120

107 LIST OF REFERENCES AAUP. (2005). Inequalities persist for women and non-tenure track faculty: The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2004-2005. Washington, DC: American Association of Univ ersity Professors. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchanges. In L. Berkowits (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Amey, M. J. & Twombly, S. B. (1992). Re-Vis ioning leadership in community colleges. The Review of Higher Education 15 (2), 125-150. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conf lict between the system and the individual New York: Harper & Row. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individua l and the organization. New York: Wiley. Argyris, C. (1973). Personality and organizational theory revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 141-167. Ayers, D. F. (2005). Organizational climate in its semiotic aspect: A postmodern community college undergoes renewal. Community College Review, 33 (1), 1-21. Bailey, N. I. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multicampus community college system. Doctoral dissertation, Univers ity of Florida, Gainesville. Bellamy, S., Morley, C., Watty, K. (2003). Why business academics remain in Australian universities despite deteriora ting working conditions and re duced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle. Journal of Higher Educa tion Policy and Management, 25 (1), 13-28. Bertz, R. D. Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pers on-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44 (1), 32-54. Blackburn, R. T. & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Blau, G. (2001). Testing the discriminate validity of occupational entrenchment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (1), 85-94. Blau, G. L. (1987). Using a person-environmen t fit model to predict job involvement and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30 240-257. Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positi ve political skills at work San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 121

108 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Ar tistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, D. F., (2006). The New Leadership Ga p: Shortages in Administrative Positions, Community College Journal, 76 (4), 10-14. Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructional officers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (2002). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization theory and design St. Paul, MN: West. Deas, E. (1994). Board and administration rela tionships contributing to community college climate: A case study. Community College Review, 22 (1), 44-52. Deegan, W. L. & Tillery, D. (1985). Renewing the American community college San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. DeMichele, D. J. (1998). The relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction as reported by mid-level collegiate cam pus recreation program coordinators Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Duncan, A. H., & Harlacher, E. L. (1991). The twenty-first century executive leader. Community College Leader, 16 (4), 39-47. Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effec tive schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 1524. Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to tran sfer learning and tu rnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (3), 279-301. Evans, G. L., Jr. (1996). The relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Evans, G. & Honeyman, D. S. (1998). The climate and job satisf action among community college presidents. Visions: The Journal of Applied Rese arch for the Florida Association of Community Colleges, 2 (1), 1-2. Ewell, P. T. (1993). Total quality and academic practice: The idea weve been waiting for? Change, 25 (3), 49-55. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since WWII Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

PAGE 122

109 Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the presidency New York: Macmillan. Forehand, B., & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmen tal variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62 361-382. Fryer, T. W., Jr., & Lovas, J. C. (1990). Leadership in governance: Creating conditions for successful decision-making in the community college San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stag es of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28 (1), 1-22. Gappa, J., & Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. New York: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Glasser, W. (1994). The control theory manager: Combini ng the control theory of William Glasser and the Wisdom of W. Edwards Deming to explain both what quality is and what lead managers do to achieve it New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc. Goodall, D. D. B., & Moore, W., Jr. (2006). The effects of salary on job satisfaction among community college adjunct faculty Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Gratto, F. J. (2001). The relationship between organizatio nal climate and job satisfaction for directors of physical plants Doctoral dissertation, Univer sity of Florida, Gainesville. Griffith, J. (2006). A compositiona l analysis of the organizationa l climate-performance relation: Public schools as organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36 (8), 18-48. Gronbeck, B. E. (1992). Principals of speech communication. New York: Harper Collins. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Com ponents, theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27 (1), 5-20. Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillan. Halpin, A., & Croft, D. (1962). The organizational climate of schools Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational cl imate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center of th e University of Chicago. Hanson, E. M. (1991). Educational administration and organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organiza tional behavior: Utilizing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 123

110 Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publ ishing Company, Inc. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, R. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Honeyman, D. L. (1996). Over View of School Facilities in Florida Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Honeyman, D. S., Wattenbarger, J. L., & Westbrook, K. C. (Eds.). (1996). A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewei, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28 (1), 17-30. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open Schools / Healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hutton, J. B. & Jobe, M. E. (1985). Job sa tisfaction of community college faculty. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 9, 317-324. Kanter, R. M. (1985). The changemasters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation New York: Simon & Shuster, Inc. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kellerman, E. A. (1996). The relationship between communication climate and job satisfaction as reported by Floridas commun ity college department chairs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and comm itment in a high-tech corporation Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. LaFollette, W. R., & Sims, H. P. (1975). Is satis faction redundant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 (2), 257-278. Langley, J. M. (1994). Motivational messages. Currents, 20 (2), 16-19. Lawler, E. E., Hall, D. T. and Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational clim ate: Relationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 139-155.

PAGE 124

111 Lawrence, H. J. (2003). The relationship between organizati onal climate and job satisfaction for athletic compliance directors at NCAA Division I institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. LeFevre-Stephens, L. C. (2004). Policy and organizational climate factors and their relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct/part-time facult y in north central Florida public community colleges Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of pers onality: Selected paper (D. K. Adams & K. E. Zener, Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Likert, K. (1935). The human organization: Its management and value New York: McGrawHill. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization New York: McGraw-Hill. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate Boston: Harvard University Press. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: Concepts and practices Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization New York: Macmillan. McGuire, J. (1993). Part time f aculty: Partners in excellence. Leadership Abstracts, 6 (6), 1-4. McKenzie, R. B., & Lee, D. R. (1998). Managing through incentives: How to develop a more collaborative, productive, and profitable organization New York: Oxford University Press. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relati onship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 424-432. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations New York: The Free Press. Morgan, D. A. (2005). What steps can a community college take to positively impact employee job satisfaction: A case study Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Murray, H. A., Barrett, W. G., & Homburger, E. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age, by the workers at the Harvard psychological clinic New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, J. R., & Murray, J. I. (1998). Job satisf action and the propensity to leave an institution among two-year college division chairpersons. Community College Review, 25 (4), 45-59.

PAGE 125

112 Myran, G., & Howdyshell, L. (1994). Strategi c management of community colleges in a dynamic environment. In G. A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America (pp. 589-602). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. OBanion, T. (1994). Teaching and lear ning: A mandate for the nineties. Community College Journal, 64 (4), 20-25. Olsen, D., & Crawford, L.A. (1998). A five-year st udy of junior faculty ex pectations about their work. Review of Higher Education, 22 (1), 39-54. Owens, R. G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Palmer, C. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college heal th occupations program directors Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Paludi, M. A., & DeFour, D. C. (1989). Res earch on sexual harassment in the academy: Definitions, findings, co nstraints, responses. Initiatives, 52 (3), 43-49. Paulson, G. F. (1997). A study of selected organizational climate factors and job satisfaction variables among teachers in a large suburban school district. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Peek, R. C. (2003). The relationship between organizatio nal climate and job satisfaction as reported by institutional research staff at Florida community college. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Perin, D. (2000). Curriculum and pedagogy to integrate o ccupational and academic instruction in the community college: Implications for faculty development. New York: Community College Research Center. Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., & Mets, L. A. (Eds.). (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on re designing postseco ndary institutions San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1978). The case for subsystem climates in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 3 (1), 151-157. Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-a nalysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 706-719.

PAGE 126

113 Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizationa l climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 126-146. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452. Ralph, J. H., & Fennessey, J. J. (1983). Scienc e or reform: Some ques tions about the effective schools model. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 689-694. Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983) Research on schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31. Sanderson, A., Phua, V., & Herda, D. (2000). The American faculty poll Chicago: National Opinions Research Center. Schneider, B. (1987). E = f(B,P): The road to a radical approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31 (3), 353-361. Smart, J. C., Elton, C. F., & McLaughin, G. W. (1986). Person-environment congruence and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29 216-225. Sofianos, T. (2005). The relationship between organizatio nal climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college executive secretaries. Doctoral dissertati on, University of Florida, Gainesville. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Steers, R. M. & Porter, L.W. (1975). The role of task goal attributes in employee performance Psychological Bulletin, 81 434-452. Stern, G. C. (1970). People in context: Measuring person environment congruence in education and industry New York: Wiley. Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thompson, C. J., & and Dey, E. L. (1998). Pushed to the margins: Sources of stress for African American college and university faculty. Journal of Higher Education 69 (3), 324-345. Tuckman, B. W., & Johnson, C. F. (1987). Effective college management: The outcome approach New York: Praeger. Valadez, J. R., & Anthony, J. S. (2001). Job sa tisfaction and commitment of two-year college part-time faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25 (2), 97-108. Van Ast, J. (2006). Community college faculty, making the paradigm shift. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23 (6), 559-579.

PAGE 127

114 Vanwagoner, R. J., Bowman, L. S., & Spraggs, L. D. (2005). Editors choice: The significant community college. Community College Review, 33 (1), 38-50. Vaughn, G. B. (1986). The community college presidency New York: American Council on Education: Macmillan. Zabetakis, S. (1999). The relationship between organizationa l climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief business officers Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 128

115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cynthia Ann Reynolds received her Bachelor of Music Education degree in 1993, and her Master in Communication degree in 1999, both from the University of Central Florida. In 2004 she received her Educational Specialist degree in higher education administration from the University of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017562/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Full-Time and Part-Time Community College Faculty
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017562:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017562/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Full-Time and Part-Time Community College Faculty
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017562:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG
FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY























By

CYNTHIA ANN REYNOLDS


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006
































Copyright 2006

by

Cynthia Reynolds





























I give thanks for the Love and Grace of God. My unending respect, love and gratitude go to my
husband Michael: I am forever in your debt. To the memory of my mother, Lynn N. Hon who
always supported me in school. To the memory of my grandfather, Lynwood H. Neidig who
received his GED in his 60s. Finally, to all my children and family: may this dissertation provide
you with a better life, encourage you to value your education, and encourage you to love the gift
of learning.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my entire supervisory committee: Dr.

Dale F. Campbell, Dr. David S. Honeyman, Dr. Larry Tyree, and Dr. Lynn Leverty. Their time,

energy and advice made this proj ect a reality. Many thanks go to Dr. Ted Sofianos who led the

way for this dissertation; and to Kristy Presswood, who gave great insight on this subj ect. I am

greatly indebted to the following people for their energy, help, love, prayers, and support to my

family and me during this time: The Alexander Family, Emily Ashworth, Ann Black, The Burns

Family, The Lowell Friesen Family, The Kraig Friesen Family, Galva United Methodist Church,

Wilma Lee Howerton, Jessica Janzen, The Lay Family, Tammy Lenox, Elsie B. Neidig, The

Preston Family, The Reynolds Family, Joy Toll, Nicole Unruh, and The Weaver Family. Finally,

I owe a million thanks to Dr. Michael Reynolds, my husband, one of the most gifted statistical

geniuses and editors I have ever known.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LIST OF TABLES ................. ................. ix......... ...


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. .................... xi


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xii


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Opening Remarks .............. ...............1.....
Statement of the Problem ................. ...............2................

Purpose of the Study ................. ...............3.......... .....
Definitions of Terms ................. ...............3............ ....
Lim stations ................... .......... ...............4.......

Significance of the Study ................. ...............4................
Summary ................. ...............5.................


2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. ...............6.....


Opening Remarks ................. ..... ... ........ ........
Organizational Climate in Educational Settings ................. ...............6............ ...
Characteristics of the Group ................. ...............8................
Disengagement ........._... _...... ___ ...............8....
H indrance .............. ...............9.....

Esprit. ............. ...... __ ...............9....
Intim acy ............... .... ... ..__ ...............9...
Characteristics of the Leader ............. ...... ._ ...............9...
Aloofness ............. ...... ._ ...............9.....

Production emphasis .............. ...............9.....
Thrust .............. ...............10....
Consideration .................... ........... ...............1

Organizational Climate within Educational Settings .............. ...............10....
Open clim ate .............. ...............10....
Autonomous climate .............. ...............10....
Controlled climate ............. ...... __ ...............11....
Fam iliar clim ate ............. ...... ._ ...............11....
Paternal climate ............. ...... __ ...............11....
Closed clim ate ............. ...... __ ...............11....
Intellectual Clim ate .............. ...............13....
Achievement Standards ............. ...... ._ ...............13....

Personal Dignity ............. ...... __ ...............14....












Organizational Effectiveness............... .............1
O rderliness............... ..............1

Im pulse Control ................. ... ........ ... ... ....... ... ...........1
A Postmodern Perspective on Organizational Climate ................. ....__ .............15

Organizational Climate Factors in this Study ......._..__ ............ ....._._ ...........1
Internal Communication .....__ ................. ........__ ..........1

Organizational Structure................ ..............1
Political Climate ................. ... .. ..._._ ........... ..........1

Professional Development Opportunities............... .............1
Evaluation............... ...............1
Promotion .............. ... ...............17...

Regard for Personal Concerns .............._ ....... ...............18......
Job Satisfaction in Education. ....._._................. ...............18. ....
Job Satisfaction Factors in this Study ..............__.......... ...............20..
Participation in Decision Making ........................._ ...............20.....
Autonomy, Power and Control ................. ...............20........ .....
Relationships with Colleagues .............. ...............21....
Salary and Benefits ................. ...............21...............
Professional Effectiveness................. ............2

Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction ................. ...............22......._._...
Guiding Studies .............. ...............23....
Summary ....._. ................. ........._._.........29


3 IVETHODOLOGY ................. ...............31........ ......


Introducti on ................. .......... ...............31.......

The Population and Sample ................. ...............32................
Alpha Beta Community College ................... ...............33..
Organizational Climate Issues at the Institution............... ..............3
Procedure for Data Collection ................. ...............36................
Instrumentation ............. ...... ._ ...............37....
Procedure for Analysis .............. ...............39....
Research Questions 1 and 3............... ...............39...
Research Question 2 ............. ...... __ ...............40...
Sum mary ............. ...... ._ ...............40....


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............44....


Opening Remarks .............. ...............44....
Survey Responses ............. ...... __ ...............44....

Frequencies ............. ...... ._ ...............45....
Job Status ............. _.. .... .. ..__..... ...............45.
Number of Years with Institution ..................... ...............45 .....
Number of Years in Community College System ....._____ ...... ..___ ............__..45
Ethnicity .............. ...............45....
G ender ................ ...............46...

Validity and Reliability............... ..............4












Research Question 1 .............. ...............48....
Internal Communication .............. ...............48....

Organizational Structure................ ..............4
Political Clim ate ............... ... .... ... ............5

Professional Development Opportunities............... .............5
Evaluation............... ...............5
Promotion .............. ... ...............5 1..

Regard for Personal Concerns .................. ...............52................
Summary of Research Question 1 Results .............. ...............53....
Research Question 2 .............. ...............53....
Research Question 3 .............. ...............54....
Internal Communication ................. ...............54.................

Organizational Structure................ ..............5
Political Clim ate ............... ... .... ... ............5

Professional Development Opportunities............... .............5
Evaluation............... ...............5
Promotion .............. ... ...............58...

Regard for Personal Concerns .................. ...............58................
Summary of Research Question 3 Results .............. ... ............. .. ... .........5
Summary of Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Satisfaction with

Or ganizational Climate ................. ...............59.......... .....
Sum m ary ................. ...............60.......... ......


5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............69................


Opening Remarks .............. ...............69....
Research Question 1 .............. ...............69....
Research Question 2 ................ ...............69........... ....
Research Question 3 .............. ...............69....

Design of the Study .............. ...............70....
Conclusions............... .. .. ... .. ...............7
Faculty Perception of Organizational Climate .............. ...............70....
Internal communication............... .............7

Organizational structure .............. ...............71....
Political climate ................. ............ .... ...............73.....
Professional development opportunities .............. ...............75....
Evaluation............... ...............7
Promotion ................. ...............78.................

Regard for personal concerns ................. ........... ...............79. ....
Faculty Satisfaction with Organizational Climate............... ...............79
Internal communication............... .............8

Organizational structure .............. ...............80....
Political climate ................. ............ .... ...............80.....
Professional development opportunities .............. ...............80....
Evaluation............... ...............8
Promotion ................. ...............81.................

Regard for personal concerns ................. ...............81................











The Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction ................... .....81
Faculty Belief of Importance of Job Satisfaction ................. ............... ......... ...88
Im plications .............. .. ...... .... ... .. ........8
Recommendations for Further Research .............. ...............91....
Summary ................. ...............92.................


APPENDIX

A SURVEY INSTRUMENT................ ...............9

B LETTER OF INVITATION ................. ...............98.......... .....

C LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT ................. ......... ...............99.....

D DIFFERENCES INT PERCEPTIONS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS WITH REGARD TO JOB STATUS .........100

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............107................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............115......... ......











LIST OF TABLES


Table page


3-1. Organizational climate scale............... ...............42.

3-2. Job satisfaction factors............... ...............43

4 -1. Job statu s ................ ...............62......_... ..


4-2. Number of years at the institution ................. ...............62......... ..

4-3. Number of years in the community college system ...._.._ ................ ........._... ...6

4-4. Ethnicity............... ...............6

4-5. Gender .............. ...............62....


4-6. Rotated component matrix from factor analysis............... ...............63

4-7. Reliability data from factor analysis............... ...............63

4-8. Descriptive statistics for perceptions of organizational variables .............. .....................6

4-9. Perceptions of internal communication ........._... .....__ ...............63.

4-10. Percentages of organizational structure ........._._.._................_.._ ..........6

4-1 1. Perceptions of political climate ........._.._.. .......... ...............64..

4-12. Perceptions of professional development opportunities ....__. ................ .. ........._.._..64

4-13. Perceptions of evaluation. ........._.._.._ ...._. __ ...............64.

4-14. Perceptions of promotion. ........._.._ ..... ._._ ...............64..

4-15. Perceptions of regard for personal concerns. .....__.___ ........_._.....__ ........._.....65

4-16. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of "High" of "Very High" for each factor ...65

4-17. Binomial logistic regression of job satisfaction model .............. ..... ............... 6

4-18. Descriptive statistics for satisfaction with organizational variables............... ...............6

4-19. Satisfactions with internal communication............... .............6


4-20. Satisfaction with organizational structure .............. ...............66....

4-21. Satisfaction with political climate .............. ...............66....











4-22. Satisfaction with professional development opportunities............... .............6

4-23. Satisfaction with evaluation. ................ ........................ ........................67

4-24. Satisfaction with promotion............... ...............6

4-25. Satisfaction with regard for personal concerns............... ...............67

4-26. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of "High" or "Very High" for each factor ...68

4-27. Means and standard deviations of organizational climate scales .............. .....................6











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

D-1. Perceived Internal Communication versus Job Status ................. ............................100

D-2. Perceived Organizational Structure versus Job Status............... ...............100

D-3. Perceived Political Climate versus Job Status ................. ...............101.............

D-4. Perceived Professional Development Opportunities versus Job Status............... ................101

D-5. Perceived Evaluation versus Job Status............... ...............102

D-6. Perceived Promotion versus Job Status ......... .......__.___ ...............102...

D-7. Perceived Regard for Personal Concerns versus Job Status ................. .......................103

D-8. Satisfaction with Internal Communication versus Job Status ................. .. ......_._. .......103

D-9. Satisfaction with Organizational Structure versus Job Status .............. .....................0

D-10. Satisfaction with Political Climate versus Job Status ................. .......... ................1 04

D-11. Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities versus Job Status .................1 05

D-12. Satisfaction with Evaluation versus Job Status .............. ...............105....

D-13. Perceived Promotion versus Job Status ................ ...............106........... .

D-14. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concerns versus Job Status............... .................10









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 Education

PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG
FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY

By

Cynthia Ann Reynolds

December 2006

Chair: Dale F. Campbell
Maj or: Higher Education Administration

The purpose of our study was to explore faculty perceptions of organizational climate at

their institution, faculty satisfaction with organizational climate at their institution, overall

faculty job satisfaction, and the relationships among these constructs. Our study also sought to

determine if there were significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty members'

perceptions or satisfaction in any of these areas. The Einal aim of our study was to use logistic

regression to identify the determinants of job satisfaction.

Our study was a modified replication of previous research. Copies of a survey instrument

measuring the variables of interest in our study were distributed to all full-time and part-time

faculty members in the departments of behavioral science, English, and mathematics at a

community college in Florida. In total, 118 individuals received surveys, and 65 completed

surveys were returned. Thus, there was a 55.1% response rate for this survey.

Results of our study showed that the faculty surveyed generally had a positive perception

of the levels of organizational climate variables at the institution, and generally had positive

satisfaction with organizational climate variables at their institution. The only significant

differences in perceptions of the level of organizational climate variables between full-time and










part-time faculty members occurred for the factors of political climate and professional

development opportunities. There were, however, no significant differences in satisfaction with

organizational climate variables between full-time and part-time faculty. Finally, the statistically

significant determinants of job satisfaction were identified to be political climate, professional

development opportunities, evaluation, and promotion.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Opening Remarks

Since the 1920s and the beginning of the industrial revolution, studies of organizational

structure and j ob satisfaction among employees have represented a maj or investigation of the

business industry. As early as the well-known Hawthorne Study (Mayo, 1933), behavioral

researchers have acknowledged, and scrutinized, the palpable link between the organizational

structure of an establishment and the job satisfaction of its workers. Early research concerning

job satisfaction shows that satisfaction is affected by the organizational climate (LaFollette &

Sims, 1975; Lawler, Hall & Oldman, 1974; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973). Organizational climate

is the amalgamation of indefinable and informal assessments of individuals concerning

innumerable facets of their employment setting (Deas, 1994; Steers & Porter, 1975). These

studies found that an organization' s structure and processes do not directly influence job

satisfaction, but do directly influence perceptions of the organizational climate, which in turn

directly influences job satisfaction.

Numerous researchers have identified a variety of benefits of employee j ob satisfaction,

both to the employees and to an organization as a whole (Premack & Wanous, 1985; Schneider,

1987). Increased employee job satisfaction has been found to be associated with better employee

performance (Bertz & Judge, 1994), greater corporate commitment and longer employment

periods (Blau, 1987; Megliano et al., 1989; Schneider, 1987; Smart, Elton, & McLaughlin,

1986), decreased levels of job-related stress (Olsen & Crawford, 1998), and greater experiences

of professional successes (Bertz & Judge, 1994). Given the importance of job satisfaction in any

work-related setting, and given the well-documented relationship between organizational climate

and job satisfaction, these two factors need further study in a variety of occupational settings.









Statement of the Problem

Organizational climates in higher education institutions are very different from the

organizational climates in other areas of business and industry. Thus, studies of the relationship

between organizational climate and j ob satisfaction conducted in a setting other than an

educational institution will not be very revealing in considering the nature of the relationship for

college and university faculty. Indeed, the focus on teaching, learning, and student outcomes in

higher educational institutions is very different from the focus on fiduciary concerns present in

business and industry (Deas, 1994; Evans & Honeyman, 1998).

Job satisfaction and organizational climate in higher education settings are still broad

considerations, because of the differences in professional atmospheres among different types of

institutions (such as community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research universities).

Different surroundings create a different sense of organizational climate (and consequently job

satisfaction) in these diverse higher educational settings meriting further study. For instance,

40% of full-time community college faculty have considered the option of leaving the profession

(Sanderson, Phua & Herda, 2000), indicating excessive j ob dissatisfaction in this setting.

Other factors render the community college setting ripe for extended studies of faculty job

satisfaction and organizational climate. Escalated dependence on part-time faculty is a maj or

issue in community colleges. According to U. S. Department of Education data, in 2003, 46.3%

of all college teaching faculty were part-time faculty, up from 30.2% in 1975 (AAUP, 2005).

These statistics seem particularly significant given the wealth of literature lamenting the working

conditions facing part-time faculty. While many have speculated, few educational researchers

have tried to determine part-time faculty job satisfaction. Further, there is virtually no research in

the literature comparing the j ob satisfaction levels of full-time and part-time within the same

institution. Our study is concerned with community colleges, and whether perceived










organizational climate and job satisfaction differs between full-time and part-time instructors

within a community college setting.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of our study was to investigate the relationship between organizational

climate and j ob satisfaction as applied to full-time and part-time faculty members at a

community college. Our study was conducted to determine whether differences in job

satisfaction exist within the context of organizational climate, and to further to examine how

these relationships differ when employment statuses (i.e., full-time vs. part-time) are considered.

In particular, our study addressed the following research questions:

* Research question 1: How do community college full-time and part-time instructors
perceive organizational climate in their respective institution, using a set of seven
identified factors for climate?

* Research question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community
college full-time and part-time instructors?

* Research question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time
instructors with the organizational climate of their respective institution?

Definitions of Terms

* Adjunct or part-time: individuals appointed to teach credit-bearing courses that are part
of the regular academic curriculum during the regular academic year (including fall, spring
and summer terms) and whose employment is on some basis other than a full-time
contract. This category also includes on-call instructors whose employment depends on
adequate enrollment in courses, temporary hires, paid and unpaid, and those who teach as
substitutes, as "Hill-ins" appointments. It does not refer to faculty appointed to full-time
positions without eligibility for tenure, faculty appointed on specific-length contracts,
faculty who are hired on research or sponsored-program grants with no teaching
responsibilities or graduate teaching assistants.

* Job satisfaction: This term refers to the emotional state which results from one's appraisal
of their j ob experiences. For the purposes of this study, j ob satisfaction involves the
following fiye factors: 1) participation in decision making; 2) autonomy, power and
control; 3) relationship with colleagues; 4) salary and benefits; and 5) professional
effectiveness.










*Organizational Climate: the accumulation of intangible perceptions that individuals have
of various aspects of the work environment of an organization. In this study, this is
operationally defined as a composite of the following seven factors: 1) internal
communication; 2) organizational structure; 3) political climate; 4) professional
development opportunities; 5) evaluation; 6) promotion; and 7) regard for personal
concerns.

Limitations

The results of our study are limited by the fact that this is an observational study. A survey

instrument has been used to gather data about subj ects' attitudes without any manipulation of

circumstances or controlling of factors. At best, our study can only uncover associations between

variables, and cannot identify any causative relationships.

The sampling method used in our study also limits our results. The study uses a purposive

sample of all full-time and part-time behavioral science, mathematics and English professors at a

single institution, a community college in the state of Florida. Despite the fact that this sampling

procedure does not permit the generalization of results to any clearly-defined larger population,

there is nonetheless value in such studies, which can reveal hints and indications concerning the

relationships between factors. If a sufficient number of such studies achieve similar results, this

can lend support, and even credence to such findings, which can then be validated through more

extensive, procedurally rigorous research.

Another sampling issue faced in this study is that the survey was essentially a voluntary

response survey. This aspect of the data collection procedure can bias results. Then, too, there is

the issue that our survey is not measuring job satisfaction and organizational climate perceptions,

but rather subj ects reported levels of job satisfaction and organizational climate.

Significance of the Study

This research is significant in several areas. Job satisfaction is in essence characterized by

numerous social factors, economic conditions, inclinations determined by one's personal history,









and other character elements. This multidimensionality will require multiple studies, conducted

in a variety of settings. Finally, there is a dearth of studies examining job satisfaction and

organizational climate of part-time faculty within a community college setting.

Summary

There is extensive literature of psychological theories, paradigms, and hypotheses

concerning job satisfaction, organizational climate, and the interaction between them in the

private sector. This study extends the research focused on the community college sector in higher

education (Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Sofianos, 2005). The present study examined this

relationship with a focus on the differences between full-time and part-time faculty.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Opening Remarks

The collective aggregate of indefinable perceptions that individuals have of countless

aspects of the work environment of an organization is referred to by the term organizational

climate. One early research study defined organizational climate as a "set of characteristics that

describe an organization and that (a) distinguish it from other organizations, (b) are relatively

enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in the organization" (Forehand &

Gilmer, 1964, p. 362). Powell and Butterfield (1978) defined it somewhat differently, focusing

on organizational climate as the way members view an organization in a holistic, individualistic

sense. While this term does not have a universally accepted definition, and in fact there are other

terms that are used interchangeably in the literature, organizational climate is indeed an

important and significant concept in the study of job satisfaction. The literature is replete with

studies documenting strong relationships between organizational climate and such factors as job

satisfaction, workplace morale and employee retention. While examinations of organizational

climate were at one time limited to organizational structures in business and industry, the last

decade has seen an increased interest in organizational climate within the Hield of education.

Organizational Climate in Educational Settings

The perceived nature of schools and other educational settings as place of employment is

of acute interest to educational researchers and school practitioners, although this has not always

been the case. Due to a lack of cohesion in the field, the concept of the professional atmosphere,

or ambiance, has been studied under an assortment of names, including organizational culture,

organizational character, organizational ideology, informal organization and organizational

health. While some educational organizational theorists have posited somewhat differentiated









meanings for some of these terms, it is all too common for certain stakeholders of our

educational system (most often school administrations, faculty and parents) to use such

expressions almost arbitrarily, with no precise, mutually-acknowledged characterization.

From an academic standpoint, these ambiguous, indistinct terms, which seem to create a

penumbra of vagueness and uncertainty around the concept, are most unappealing. However, the

laypersons who use them do so with good reason namely that the feeling of climate in a school

is a very real concept, yet an elusive one as well. Many organizational theorists have struggled

with characterizing the concept over the years, with variable levels of success. However, the

generic notion of the climate (concerning working conditions) of a school has long been

recognized as having a relationship with the educational effectiveness of a school. In fact,

improved organizational climate is a significant part of the education reform movement. One

model of effective schools asserts that educational effectiveness is the product of a supportive

climate containing increased expectations, strong leadership, a focus on competency and a

mechanism for monitoring student development (Edmonds, 1979). For these and other reasons,

organizational climate has entered in the American educational lexicon, and is generally viewed

as a favorable, if not essential, factor for promoting academic achievement.

While a positive organizational climate is widely viewed as a desirable outcome, there

appears to be little consensus as to exactly what this constitutes. This is because, as previously

mentioned, there is no clear definition of organizational climate. Indeed, the empirical research

within the literature demonstrating a clear link between organizational climate and educational

outcomes is meager (Purkey & Smith, 1981; Ralph & Fennessy, 1983; Rowan, Bossert &

Dwyer, 1983). However, it should be noted that the tendency of an institution to pursue a

positive organizational climate need not be dependent only upon connections between climate









and educational effectiveness; indeed, a positive work climate is an important goal regardless.

The benefits of a nourishing climate within an organization include collegiality, ingenuousness,

intellectual distinction, heightened morale, and allegiance, among other favorable traits; hence a

positive organizational climate within an organizational should be viewed as a noteworthy goal

distinct from any potential connection to academic impact (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991).

Some of the earliest studies of organizational climate is an educational setting is the

landmark work of Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963), which was conducted at the elementary school

level. Utilizing a different line of reasoning than was the norm for the conventional industry-

based organizational climate studies of the day, these researchers chose to direct their attention to

the central characteristics of the teacher-teacher and teacher-principal relationships in the

elementary schools involved in the study. This led Halpin and Croft to develop the widely used

Organizational Climate Descriptive Questionnaire (OCDQ), which can be used to create a

summary of the organizational climate of an elementary school.

The OCDQ was designed as an endeavor to assess and record the climates of elementary

schools, with the nature of these climates being described in terms of "open" or "closed". The

OCDQ measures eight different dimensions of organizational climate via Likert scale items. The

eight dimensions, which are listed below, either measure the characteristics of the group or

characteristics of the principal (i.e., the "leader").

Characteristics of the Group

Disengagement

The term disengagement refers to the propensity of teachers to perform their assigned tasks

through rote, treating these j obs as routine, without expending a great deal of mental effort, and

without embracing the tasks with any sense of passion or commitment.










Hindrance

The term hindrance refers to a state in which teachers within a school have a sense that

their ability to work is in some way being encumbered by the actions of their principal. This

generally occurs when teachers feel their principal has fostered an overly bureaucratic

environment, or that the principal has assigned tedious and unnecessary tasks (i.e. "busy work).

Esprit

From the French expression esprit de corps, which is roughly translated as "team spirit", the

term esprit refers to as sense of morale which is cultivated through a sense of group

accomplishment and through a favorable social setting.

Intimacy

The term intimacy refers to a sense of deep-seeded friendship among the teachers of

school. This ideal goes well past the condition of a good working relationship; indeed, this term

implies a certain level of warmth and closeness.

Characteristics of the Leader

Aloofness

The term aloofness refers to a principal who maintains a calculated professional distance

from the teachers, through the use of reserved and distant behavioral traits. In the vernacular of

the profession, such a professor might be referred to as "stuffy".

Production emphasis

The term production emphasis refers to a rather restrictive environment, in which teachers

are given little latitude. Such an environment is characterized by heavy regulation, in which the

principal practices micro-management and encourages little if any feedback from teachers

concerning their work environment.









Thrust

The term thrust refers to a sense of professional momentum that is created through the

behavior of the principal. This generally results from a principal who is innovative, highly

dynamic, and who leads by example. Usually, faculty responds quite well to this style of

leadership and engages in the types of behavior being modeled by their principal, which causes

an effective and efficient learning environment.

Consideration

The term consideration refers to the perceived conviviality of a principal. This also

describes the principal who does a little something extra, to be helpful for the teachers at the

school, even to the extent of granting personal favors on occasion.

Organizational Climate within Educational Settings

After administering the OCDQ to a number of elementary school employees, Halpin and

Croft sought to identify any patterns that surfaced among the eight dimensions. Six different

categories of climate were identified based on responses. A brief profile of each level of climate

follows.

Open climate

This is the least restrictive and most efficient climate profile as identified by the OCDQ.

Within an open climate, teachers work together easily and efficiently, promoting a strong sense

of team high spirit. They are not inundated with continuous tedium, and the group members

enjoy friendly relations. The principal demonstrates a belief system that facilitates problem

solving from the faculty members.

Autonomous climate

This climate profile is somewhat more restrictive than an open climate. Within an

autonomous climate, teachers are granted the freedom to develop their own social relationships.










Morale is generally high, although not as high within an open climate. Teachers achieve their

goals and work cohesively. The principal remains aloof, and is skillful at modeling desired

behavior.

Controlled climate

This climate profile is fairly restrictive. Within a controlled climate, workers tend to be

quite task-oriented and broke tendency with the social needs. They feel an urgency to complete

a given assignment, and usually work individually. Job satisfaction comes from task completion

rather than social fulfillment. The principal in this case is domineering and authoritative.

Familiar climate

This climate profile is not very restrictive, but neither is it very efficient. Within a familiar

climate, the environment is conspicuously friendly while catering to the social needs of the

group. The principal exhibits little control, and there is an espousal of group belongingness.

Most faculty members do not work to their full capacity, coupled with little direction and

evaluation. Job satisfaction tends to be average and is predicated on social relationships.

Paternal climate

This climate profile is fairly restrictive and fairly inefficient. Within a paternal climate, one

observes ineffective attempts by the principal to control the faculty and to satisfy their social

needs. The principal is generally considered by the faculty to be ineffectual concerning work

achievement and motivation. Although the principal tries to be everywhere and do everything at

once, there is little effect to achieve progress. Friendly relationships are typically nonexistent,

while also provoking a sense of futility.

Closed climate

This is perhaps the least desirable of the climate profile types. Within a closed climate,

there are two maj or problems present. First, there is little to no social cohesiveness, which










consequently causes apathy. Secondly, there is minimal task achievement, resulting in dwindling

productivity. Busy work often substitutes itself for an individual's achievement value, and j ob

satisfaction is at a nominal level.

Many factors contributed to the need for an instrument, such as the OCDQ, which attempts

to gauge organizational climate. Mainly, these reasons centered on a genuine recognition that

school districts, school administrators and educational activists were in a position to effect

change in our schools, and the information gathered from a tool such as the OCDQ could be

beneficial in working toward that end. There are differences in the "moods" within schools that

is, in some sense, differentiated from morale and disposition. Further, in a school with a

negative, even paralyzing mood, improving the situation would prove to be extremely arduous

without an accurate and comprehensive assessment of that mood. It was believed that a climate

profile generated by the OCDQ would be helpful in efforts to improve the working environments

within schools.

In the years since its inception, the OCDQ has proven to be a most useful and valued tool

in the measurement of organizational climate variables, particularly in the K-12 setting.

However, the instrument has been revised twice one revision improved its ability to measure

organizational climate in the elementary setting, and another revision modified the questionnaire

to be more conducive to the high school setting (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Despite these

results, the OCDQ has been shown not to be applicable to settings within higher education

(Owens, 1991).

Another instrument that has been widely used in the measurement of organizational

climate is the Organizational Climate Index (OCI; Stern, 1970). This survey was designed under

the belief that any measure of organizational climate must take into account not only perceptions










of the environment, but also the attributes of the individual (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). This

approach was based on the work of earlier organizational theorists such as Lewin (1935), as well

as Murray, Barrett, and Homburger (193 8). Central to these theories is the idea that individuals

needs (need) and organizational needs (press) will come into dispute; this is known as need-press

theory. The OCI was, in essence, a combination of two separate instruments. The first was the

Activities Index, which was intended to measure individual needs, and the other was the College

Characteristics Index, which was design to measure organizational needs. There were six

different facets of organizational climate that the OCI is able to appraise. A discussion of each

follows.

Intellectual Climate

The dimension of intellectual climate describes one in which there is definite emphasis on

academic pursuits. This can be construed to include a broad spectrum of scholarly interests. In

such a school, the administration is generally very supportive of any intellectual activity that

teachers may be interested in; and, in fact, teachers are often encouraged to maintain such

interests. It may not be surprising that schools with high intellectual climate scores tend to also

have higher levels of educational effectiveness.

Achievement Standards

The dimension of achievement standards measures the tendency of a school to maintain

high criteria for students' scholarly performance. Students are held accountable for their

progress, and teachers are additionally held accountable for the progress of their students. In such

a setting, satisfactory task completion results in accolades, and occasionally, in certain rewards.

Standards of achievement are set for both the quality and the quantity of the students'

assignments.









Personal Dignity

The dimension of personal dignity is the one that addresses the professional behavior of

individuals, both in how they conduct themselves and in how they treat others. A key component

of personal dignity is the sense of integrity and honor with which people do their j obs. This

would also encompass the level of respect people treat each other with, which in essence creates

an encouraging and supportive environment.

Organizational Effectiveness

The dimension of organizational effectiveness describes an institution that is efficacious in

meeting their obj ectives, particularly when such efficacy is at least in part due to the

administrative infrastructure of the organization. In the common parlance, this would be

described as a well run, shipshape organization. Administration serves as an impetus rather than

an impediment to success.

Orderliness

The dimension of orderliness describes a work environment with a significant amount of

regulation regarding employees' behavior. This factor measures the degree to which

management (or, in an educational setting, administration) exerts control over the commonplace,

day-to-day operation of the organization. Schools that score high in this dimension generally

place pressure on teachers to follow the rules of the institution, which are generally more

stringent than for schools scoring lower in this area.

Impulse Control

The Einal dimension of impulse control is an evaluation of a school's tendency to oppress

any impulsive behavior on the part of employees. This suggests a relatively domineering work

environment. Schools with low scores on this dimension usually lack the internal mechanism to

detect potential instances of deleterious, impetuous attempts in a sufficiently timely manner to









address the offensive behavior before it becomes a source of organizational hardship.

Conversely, schools with high scores in this area are capable of identifying and contending with

the capricious inclinations of its faculty and staff to the point of diverting any problematic

situations.

The OCI presents a composite portrayal of organizational climate in terms of the six

preceding factors. The applicability and usefulness of this instrument to educational organization

has been supported by numerous studies throughout its existence (Owens, 1995).

A Postmodern Perspective on Organizational Climate

Recently, it has been argued that within postmodern community college settings, such

climate assessments can be informative in acquiring knowledge of the comprehensive

organizational climate of a college, but fail to produce an apposite portrayal of how various

individuals interpret their organizational setting, especially within a context of administrative

departmentalization and growing diversity (Ayers, 2005). Stated differently, postmodern

community colleges retains a level of heterogeneity among their personnel all of whom may

view the organizational climate rather distinctively thus, climate surveys run the risk of

overlooking the perspectives of subgroups with disparate roles and observations within the

institution. Clearly, postmodern theory demands a broadening of our understanding of the

concept of organizational climate within the realm of higher education (Ayers, 2005).

Organizational Climate Factors in this Study

Internal Communication

Communication has been identified as an aspect of organizational climate (Deas, 1994).

Effective, open lines of communication are essential within any organization; without them, it is

essentially impossible for the organization to perform adequately (Gronbeck, 1992; Langley,










1994). Communication is the passage of meaning among individuals through the sharing of facts

and opinions (Hanson, 1991).

Organizational Structure

One primary factor that has been shown to impact organizational climate within

educational establishments is organizational structure. This term generically refers to the

bureaucracy and administrative processes within an institution. Especially in the college and

university setting, organizational structure varies among institutions. For instance, many

community colleges adopted an organizational structure similar to those of public school systems

(Deegan & Tillery, 1985). However, in recent years a number of community colleges have

disavowed this approach in favor of one that is less bureaucratic and allows for greater academic

freedom (Cohen & Brawer, 2002; Amey and Twombly, 1992). Conversely, some have suggested

that less bureaucratic organizational structures are often ineffective in a community college

setting (Tuckman & Johnson, 1987).

Political Climate

A separate, but interrelated, factor to organizational structure that affects the

organizational climate of an institution is political climate (Honeyman et al., 1996). It was noted

by Block (1987) that while the political machinations of an organization are frequently litigious,

it is necessary to be able to operate within this framework if one wants to institute organizational

change. Relationships between positions of power, communication patterns, allocation of

resources and leadership styles all have an impact on political climate, and hence these factors all

are components of organizational climate.

There will routinely be both beneficial and non-beneficial aspects to the political climate

within any educational institution, and hence the capacity to function efficiently amidst both

types of traits does become imperative (Mintzberg, 1989). Additionally, the political climate of










any institution is established by power relationships, interdependence, resources, deficiencies,

communication, and realizing intended and unintended consequences (Honeyman et al., 1996).

Professional Development Opportunities

Educational institutions offer opportunities to their faculty and staff as a means of

acquiring new skills, keeping individuals' knowledge bases current, and emphasizing the

importance of lifelong learning. Research has shown that the importance that school districts and

institutions place on professional development is strongly association with teacher satisfaction,

decreased levels of employee turnover, and increased educational effectiveness (Ewell, 1993).

When schools affirm the importance of providing avenues for self-improvement that also

enhance the productivity of the institution, the benefits are increased morale and faculty j ob

sati sfacti on.

Evaluation

The term evaluation is used here to denote an institution's framework for assessing the

performance of faculty and staff through constructive criticism provided for the purpose of

promoting professional growth (Halpin, 1966). Evaluation should be an ongoing process,

performed regularly and frequently, to belie an institution' s commitment to academic excellence

(Langley, 1994). Also, evaluation is a course of action that utilizes both positive and negative

reinforcement in the feedback which it provides (Bolman and Deal, 1997).

Promotion

Promotion in higher education is a process which is inextricably linked to organizational

climate. The criteria for promotion generally include productivity, service to the institution and

favorable evaluations (Vaughn, 1986). The compensation includes increased rank and pay,

including all the accompanying benefits. The benefits to the institution include j ob satisfaction









on the part of the recipients of promotion, but also an overall increased sense of morale and

positive organizational climate (Lunenburg & Omstein, 1991).

Regard for Personal Concerns

The factor of regard for personal concerns measures an institutions official response to

personal issues among employees that potentially affect their well being and the performance of

their j ob (Duncan & Harlacher, 1994). When employees perceive that their institution takes an

interest in their personal concerns and individual needs, the result is generally an increased sense

of dedication and commitment to that institution (Blau, 2001). In essence, institutional regard for

personal concerns has an advantageous effect on both organizational climate and j ob satisfaction.

As previously noted, one aspect of organizational climate that renders it an extensive area

of study is the definite relationship it shares with job satisfaction. While many researchers have

determined this to be a significant relationship (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Hersey et al.,

1996; Gruneberg, 1979; Myran & Howdyshell, 1994; Spector, 1997; Bolman & Deal, 1997), the

association is indeed a complex one. To facilitate a discussion of the connections between these

two variables, a review of job satisfaction among educators follows.

Job Satisfaction in Education

There are a number of different characteristics that have been shown to affect faculty

perceptions of job satisfaction. Personal variables, such as ethnicity, gender and age, can play a

role in job satisfaction, depending on environmental reactions and the presence or lack of support

systems, whether formal or informal (Hagedomn, 2000; Paludi & DeFour, 1989; Thompson &

Dey, 1998). Further, there are different disciplines can often form distinct sub-cultures within

academe, which has been shown to have some effect on job satisfaction, particularly with regard

to preferences concerning amount of time spent on teaching versus research (Finkelstein, 1984).

Similarly, the type of institution one is at can also be a significant factor, since differing










institutional settings can have markedly different faculty expectations, educational philosophies

and priorities. The alignment of the "personality" of an institution with one' s personal

preferences is very often associated with job satisfaction (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995).

It has been proposed that the types of factors influencing j ob satisfaction at educational

institutions fall into the three categories of environmental conditions, environmental responses,

and social contingencies (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). Environmental conditions would

encompass such factors as the type of institution type or the makeup of the student body. This

differs from the category of environmental responses, which includes official institutional

processes, such as tenure and promotion decisions. The third and final category of social

contingencies involves factors external to the institution, and of a personal nature, such as family

concerns.

Much of contemporary job satisfaction theory borrows heavily from the pioneering work

of Herzberg and his fellow researchers (1957). Their model of the workplace based on intrinsic

factors ("motivations") and extrinsic factors ("hygienes") provided a theoretical basis for a recent

model of faculty j ob satisfaction based on "mediators" and "triggers" (Hagedorn, 2000). Stated

simply, mediators refer to a wide class of factors, including, in the terminology of Herzberg,

motivations and hygienes, as well as other fixed conditions, such as personal variables. On the

other hand, the term trigger is used to denote any change in one's situation; this change may

involve an external or internal factor. Using these theoretical models, and other similar ones, a

whole host of studies examining j ob satisfaction have been conducted; many of these endeavors

were successful in identifying some of the correlates of faculty j ob satisfaction.









Job Satisfaction Factors in this Study

Participation in Decision Making

One factor that has been linked to faculty job satisfaction is involvement in the decision-

making process. Decision making has been referred to as the core of an institution power and

educational effectiveness (Fryer & Lovas, 1990). In particular, this study is concerned with the

potential that individuals have to engage mentally and emotionally in that process, as described

by Daft (1983). Lunenburg and Ornstein (1991) have identified four stages of the process of

effective decision making:

* Define the problem.
* Possible alternatives.
* Realize the predicted consequences.
* Staying the course regarding the alternative solution.

It has been asserted that increased involvement by affected employees enhances the

decision making process, and results in more beneficial decisions being made (Peterson et al.,

1997). Indeed, Honeyman and colleagues (1996) have suggested that effective decision making

will result from a setting in which the decision making process is initiated at the lower levels of

the hierarchal structure. Organizations with established decision-making procedures that include

employees throughout different levels are more productive, effective and efficient (Bolman &

Deal, 1997).

Autonomy, Power and Control

While not precisely synonymous, the terms autonomy, power and control are very closely

related. All of these ideals are associated with the degree of authority and independence that

employees have over the functions and conditions of their j obs. Autonomy has been described as

the degree of independence that an individual or department has in the performance of their

duties (Kanter, 1985), while control extends past one's own job functions to having some









authority over others' job functions (Pfeffer, 1992). Power has been defined as a feeling of self-

assurance one has in exerting control over others in an organization (Glasser, 1994).

Relationships with Colleagues

The factor of relationships with colleagues is a measure of the value of one' s involvement,

whether friendships or simply working relationships, with coworkers. Not surprisingly, friendly

working relationships have been associated with favorable levels of job satisfaction (Hutton &

Jobe, 1985). At the management level, good interpersonal skills are critical for the management

to stay attuned to the needs and attitudes of their employees (Fisher, 1984). The consensus of the

numerous studies which have investigated this area is that collegiality within a college or

university tends to support both educational effectiveness and job satisfaction.

Salary and Benefits

The relationship between the perceived fairness of employees' salary and benefits and j ob

satisfaction is indeed an intricate one. While an unsatisfactory salary and benefits level has been

shown to significantly affect j ob dissatisfaction; yet, a positive, even general, level of salary and

benefits is not sufficient to create a strong sense of job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959;

McKenzie & Lee, 1998). It has been noted that corporations have attempted multiple ways of

creating salary and benefit packages that will motivate workers, and that benefit packages that

attempt to more closely tie rewards with productivity, including stock options and profit sharing

plans, are based on Adams (1965) equity theory (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

Professional Effectiveness

Herzberg and associates (1959) were among the first to note that personal accomplishment

and personal professional growth are two factors which can heavily influence job satisfaction,

and further that for individuals who take ownership of their work, their vocational pursuits will

be their greatest motivation. However, the concept of professional effectiveness also includes









such factors as efficiency, fiduciary effectiveness, survivability, and professional advances,

which have all been shown to be components of job satisfaction (Kunda, 1992). Not surprisingly,

a link has been found between the extent to which one derives satisfaction from a sense of

professional accomplishment and the level within the hierarchal structure in an organization that

an individual achieves.

Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction

From the previous discussions, it becomes clear that while organizational climate and j ob

satisfaction are separate and distinct concepts, they have an extremely strong relationship.

Further, the interplay between these two variables differs greatly between corporate and

academic settings (Argyris, 1957, 1964, 1973; Herzberg, 1957, 1959, 1966; Lunenburg &

Ornstein, 1991; Hersey, 1996; Gruneberg, 1979; Spector, 1997; Bolman & Deal, 1997). The

implication for this study is that generalizations concerning organizational climate and job

satisfaction that were conducted within an industrial or corporate setting are far less relevant than

those carried out in an educational venue. Accordingly, a review of some of the more germane

investigations in this area follows.

Evans and Honeyman (1998) examined the relationship between organizational climate

and job satisfaction in community colleges. A significant relationship was found between job

satisfaction and organizational climate. In particular, the organizational climate factors of regard

for personal concerns, organizational structure, opportunities for professional development, and

internal communication were most strongly associated with j ob satisfaction.

Miller (2003) studied the relationship between organizational climate and professional

burnout in the libraries and computing service centers of higher education institutions. This study

found a strong relationship between positive organizational climate characteristics and low levels

of professional burnout.









Sofianos (2004) examined the relationship between organizational climate and job

satisfaction among executive secretaries to the presidents of community college. The results of

this analysis found that j ob satisfaction among individuals in this position was strongly related to

organizational climate; and this relationship was most significant among the organizational

climate factors institutional regard for personal concern, relationship with coworkers, and salary

and benefits.

There is another factor facing community colleges that needs to be mentioned, as it will

undoubtedly impact both organizational climate and j ob satisfaction in community colleges in

the immediate future. The oldest members of the generation known as "baby boomers" will be

retiring in the next few years, causing an inordinately large number of job vacancies in many

industries; one of the areas that will strongly be affected by this phenomenon is in the

administration of community colleges (Campbell, 2006). Community colleges would be well

advised to start planning now, if they have not already done so, as to how they will respond to

the large number of positions within their upper administrations that need to be filled. This

process will surely have an impact on the organizational climate of these institutions, and

transitively, on job satisfaction. Thus, this is another area that we will be considering in this

study .

Guiding Studies

This study was a modified replication of a series of studies conducted at the University of

Florida, some of which have been previously cited, and all of which examined the relationship

between organizational climate and job satisfaction within higher educational settings, many of

which were community colleges. A brief summary of each follows.

In a study examining the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction

as reported by community college chief instructional officers, a survey measuring organizational









climate and j ob satisfaction variables was sent to the chief instructional officers at all member

colleges of the American Association of Community Colleges (Chappell, 1995). Roughly 51% of

these surveys were returned, and an analysis of the responses led to some rather revealing

conclusions. Foremost, it was determined that the organizational climate variables that

significantly impacted j ob satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal

communication, organizational structure and evaluation. Further, it was determined that the size

of the community college had a significant impact on participation in decision making,

autonomy, power, control, salary, benefits and professional effectiveness.

As study conducted simultaneously to the Chappell (1995) study investigated

organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by Florida community college health

occupations program directors (Palmer, 1995). This study sought to determine which aspects of

organizational climate promote and enhance job satisfaction, and to further determine the degree

of job satisfaction, among health occupations program directors in Florida community colleges.

Surveys measuring the variables of interest were distributes to all health occupations program

directors in Florida community colleges; roughly 71% of the surveys were returned. The results

indicated that the most important factor of organizational climate was internal communication,

and the factor most in need of improvement was political climate. Participation in decision

making and professional effectiveness were the most important factors among the position

characteristics, and salary, benefits and autonomy were most in need of improvement. The

respondents were generally satisfied, overall, with their positions. Interestingly, there was no

significant relationship found between j ob satisfaction and organizational climate. The Chappell

and Palmer studies caught the attention of a number of researchers, which led to a series of

subsequent studies.









One of the more noteworthy research studies in this sequence was an analysis of the

relationship between organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by community

college presidents (Evans, 1996). This study specifically sought to determine if differences

existed in job satisfaction variables within the context of organizational climate. A survey

measuring the variables of interest was sent to the presidents of all institutions in the American

Association of Community Colleges. Thorough scrutiny of the responses showed that the

organizational climate factors most closely related to job satisfaction were regard for personal

concerns, internal communication, organizational structure, and professional development

opportunities. Additional, it was determined that a president' s relationship with the board of

trustees was the most important determinant of job satisfaction.

In an adaptation of the previously mentioned studies, Kellerman (1996) sought to explore

the relationship between communication climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by Florida' s

community college department chairs. Communication climate could be considered a related, yet

not identical, concept to organizational climate. Essentially, communication climate

encompasses decision making, reciprocity, feedback perception, feedback responsiveness and

feedback permissiveness. Similar to the methodology of the earlier studies, a survey was sent to

all academic department chairs in Florida community colleges. The responses indicated that their

overall level of job satisfaction was rather high, and additionally that j ob satisfaction was

significantly related to communication climate.

A study of selected organizational climate factors and j ob satisfaction variables among

teachers in a large suburban school district was conducted to explore these factors in a suburban

Florida school district (Paulson, 1997). A distinctive aspect of this study was the inclusion of the

variables of school level and union affiliation. The survey instrument in this study was









distributed to all 1685 teachers in an entire school district, including elementary, middle and high

school levels. Significant differences were found in all job satisfaction and organizational

climate factors with respect to school level, although the relationship between these factors and

union membership was extremely minor.

Continuing in this line of studies, a further research inquiry investigated the relationship

between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by mid-level collegiate campus

recreation coordinators (DeMichele, 1998). To reveal whether organizational climate factors and

job satisfaction factors enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational climate, a

survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all 545 mid-level campus recreation

coordinators in the directory of the National Intramural Recreational Sports Association, with an

approximate response rate of 52%. The responses showed that, overall, the program directors

were satisfied with their colleges and their j obs. The organizational climate factors that were

shown to influence job satisfaction were evaluation, regard for personal concerns, professional

development opportunities and political climate. Moreover, job satisfaction was also affected by

relationship with colleagues and autonomy, power and control. Demographic variables were

generally not determinants of job satisfaction.

The next study in this series of investigations was directed toward the relationship between

organizational culture and j ob satisfaction for community college chief business officers

(Zabetakis, 1999). For the purposes of the study under discussion, organizational culture is

nearly synonymous with organizational climate. Surveys were distributed to the entire 277 chief

business officers of community colleges belonging to the Community College Business Officers

Organization, and the response rate was roughly 51%. Respondents perceived the organizational

factors with the highest levels at their institutions were regard for personal concern, professional









development opportunities, internal communication and evaluation. Quite similarly, respondents

were most satisfied with the organizational factors of regard for personal concerns, professional

development opportunities, evaluation and internal communication. The most highly perceived

job satisfaction variables were relationships with supervisor, participation in decision making,

professional effectiveness, relationships with subordinates and relationships with peers.

Gratto (2001) extended this research to study the relationship between organizational

climate and j ob satisfaction for directors of physical plant on college campuses. An electronic

survey was disseminated to the college physical plant directors belonging to the Association of

Higher Education Facilities Officers; the study achieved a response rate of 37%. An analysis of

the responses indicated that the organizational climate factors which most significantly relate to

job satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizational

structure and evaluation.

Continuing with this trend, a subsequent research study explored the relationship between

organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in

multi-campus community college systems (Bailey, 2002). A survey measuring the variables of

interest was distributed to all campus executive officers of multi-campus community colleges

listed in the Higher Education Directory. A total of 199 surveys were returned out of 429 that

were sent out, resulting in a response rate of 46%. Results indicated that the organizational

climate variables of regard for personal concerns and evaluation were the most strongly related

to job satisfaction. Further, internal communication was the greatest predictor of overall

satisfaction, followed by regard for personal concerns, professional development opportunities,

and low levels of political climate.









Another study in this area investigated the relationship between organizational climate and

job satisfaction for athletic compliance directors of NCAA Division I institutions (Lawrence,

2003). In all, 346 surveys were distributed to all NCAA Division I compliance directors, and 164

were returned. Thus, there was a 46% response rate. The respondents' overall satisfaction with

their positions was reasonably high, and most strongly related to the organizational climate

factors of evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents' greatest

levels of satisfaction with organizational climate factors occurred with regard for personal

concerns, and professional development opportunities.

Subsequently, Peek (2003) studied the relationship between organizational climate and j ob

satisfaction as reported by institutional research staff at Florida community colleges. A survey

measuring the variables of interest was sent to the heads of institutional research of all 28

community colleges in Florida, as listed in the Higher Education Directory. This study enjoyed a

75% response rate. The organizational climate factors with the highest perceived levels were

professional development opportunities, evaluation and internal communication. Generally,

overall satisfaction with organizational climate was quite high. He highest rated factors for job

satisfaction were professional effectiveness, relationship with supervisor, relationship with peers,

and relationship with subordinates.

Next, policy and organizational factors and their relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct /

part-time faculty in north central Florida public community college was considered (LeFevre-

Stephens, 2004). A survey instrument was distributed to part-time faculty through their

department chairs. Of 667 surveys distributed, 224 were completed and returned, yielding an

approximate response rate of 3 3%. Analysis of the responses showed that respondents' overall

satisfaction with the position was fairly high, and significantly associated with the organizational









climate factors of evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents'

highest levels of satisfaction were with regard for personal concerns and professional

development opportunities. Lastly, the most important j ob satisfaction factors were relationships

with peers, relationship with supervisor, relationship with subordinates, and professional

effectiveness.

Lastly, the relationship between organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by

community college executive secretaries and / or associates to the president was researched

(Sofianos, 2005). For this study, the survey was distributed to the executive secretaries of the

presidents of the 342 community colleges in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

There were 137 surveys returned, which represents a 40% response rate. The statistical analyses

of this study found very strong associations between the constructs of organizational climate and

job satisfaction. Overall, satisfaction with organizational climate was above average, with the

factors of evaluation, regard for personal concerns, and organizational structure receiving the

highest levels of satisfaction. These factors also received the highest ratings for perceived level

at the institution.

Summary

As early as the 1990's, O'Banion (1994) warned community college leaders of a changing

political climate, and social trends, that clearly dictated teaching and learning needed to become

the schools most important priority, because of the imminent transformation in the learning

patterns of students. More recently, Morgan (2005) identified the unprecedented challenges

facing community colleges, and provided a model for community colleges to emulate, by

focusing on improving organizational climate and j ob satisfaction factors. Additionally, Bowman

and Spraggs (2005) cautioned community colleges that the level of success which has sustained









them in the past will not sustain them for the future, as well as providing a new framework that

will moved community colleges from success to significance.

This review of the literature has indicated a wealth of psychological theories, paradigms,

and hypotheses concerning j ob satisfaction, organizational climate, and the interaction between

them. While preliminary indications suggest a significant and definite relationship between the

two variables, further research exploring this relationship across a variety of settings and over a

range of academic positions is imperative. The existing research clearly suggests that there are

differences in the dynamics of the relationship for different professional roles in higher

education. Especially needed is research in community colleges, which have quietly and

gradually become a maj or force in higher education over the last four decades. The present study

examined this relationship with a focus on the differences between full-time and part-time

faculty, which has become a significant, if not divisive, dichotomy in higher education.










CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between assessments of

organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as applied to full-time and part-time faculty members

at a community college nationally recognized as a leader in the learning college movement. In

addition, this study investigated differences in job satisfaction and the independent variables

regarding the number of years in position as a full- time and part- time faculty employee at the

institution, ethnicity of the instructor, discipline, age, degree level and gender.

This study was a modified replication of the work done by Chapell (1995) that tested the

theoretical constructs on community college chief instructional officers. Other studies such as

Palmer (1995), Evans (1996), Kellerman (1996), Paulson (1997), DeMichele (1998), Zabetakis

(1999), Gratto (2001), Bailey (2002), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), LeFevre-Stevens (2004),

and Sofianos (2005) used the same instrument for measuring those theoretical constructs while

targeting other administrative positions. The instrument, which was also applied to the previous

studies, utilized the following organizational climate variables integral to determining job

sati sfacti on:

* Internal communication
* Organizational structure
* Political climate
* Professional development opportunities
* Evaluation
* Promotion
* Regard for personal concerns.

While looking at these same factors in much the same way, this author modified

Chappell's original instrument in order to examine information related to full-time faculty and

part-time faculty at one particular community college (see Appendix C). This examination was










designed as a survey-type study, meaning no intervention was done with or to the participants.

The information was only gathered from the participants without any treatment, and then

analyzed by the researcher. A nationally-recognized community college in Florida was utilized

for the purpose of this study.

This research was based on the three following questions:

* Research question 1: How do community college full-time and part-time instructors
perceive organizational climate in their respective institution, using a set of seven
identified factors for climate?

* Research question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community
college full-time and part-time instructors?

* Research question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time
instructors with the organizational climate of their respective institution?

Afterward, the survey results were analyzed and used to distinguish which items were

relevant to the full-time and part-time faculties' understanding of the seven components of

organizational climate. Attention was also given to the five grouped factors of job satisfaction

and their importance, particularly with regard how these factors pertained to the full-time and

part-time faculties' duties. To facilitate the analysis and development of an explanatory outline

of the population, additional data was gathered to better measure organizational climate, j ob

satisfaction, and socio-demographic status.

The Population and Sample

All full-time and part-time faculty members who were mathematics, behavioral science or

English instructors at a community college we will refer to as Alpha Beta Community College

were invited to participate in the research study. The full-time faculty population within the

mathematics department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 30 according to

the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The full-time faculty population within the

behavioral sciences department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 18









according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The full-time faculty population

within the English department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 27

according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The part-time faculty population

within the mathematics department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 30

according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The part-time faculty population

within the behavioral sciences department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately

9 according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records. The part-time faculty population

within the English department at Alpha Beta Community College was approximately 25

according to the 2004/2005 ABCC human resource records.

Alpha Beta Community College

Alpha Beta Community College (ABCC) is a two-year public institution in the state of

Florida, with approximately 30,000 students. ABCC is a nationally recognized institution that

excels in a number of areas. Of 1200 community colleges nationally, ABCC ranks 54th in the

number of associates degrees awarded, 35th in the number of arts and sciences degrees awarded,

13th in the number of Communication Technology, and 99th in the number of two-year

certificates awarded.

Of the 28 community colleges in the State of Florida System, ABCC has the 7th highest

capture rate of local high school graduates, and the associate of arts program has the 7th highest

retention rate and 6th highest success rate.

Alpha Beta Community College was authorized by the 1957 Florida Legislature and

became the state's first comprehensive community college. The College was divided into three

divisions: college credit, adult education and the Mary Karl vocational school. Although one

president administered the divisions, they essentially functioned as separate entities under the

local county school system.









"Gamma" County Community College, also a separate entity under the school system,

merged with Alpha Beta Junior College in 1965. The 1968 Legislature combined the divisions

into a single administrative unit under a District Board of Trustees independent of the county

school system. In 1971, the official name of the College was changed from Alpha Beta Junior

College to Alpha Beta Community College.

Today, ABCC has evolved from a small campus into an academically superior multi-

campus institution providing educational and cultural programs for the citizens of local counties.

ABCC has fostered a tradition of excellence in academics and service to a growing community.

The College now serves more than 30,000 students annually.

A leader in the area's workforce and economic development initiatives, ABCC is

continually developing new technological means to deliver educational services to the

community. Leading the list is the new Advanced Technology Center (ATC). The Center is an

innovative educational partnership among ABCC, several local county school districts and the

business communities of the local counties. The ATC offers opportunities for high school

students and adult community college students to pursue technology-based fields.

ABCC is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of

Colleges and Schools to award associate of arts, associate of applied science and associate of

science degrees and is approved by the state of Florida. Numerous professional and academic

organizations confer special accreditation to various College programs. ABCC also is a member

of the American Association of Community Colleges and an approved institution for higher

education for veterans and war orphans.

Organizational Climate Issues at the Institution

There are several organizational climate variables whose presence at ABCC are such that

faculty responses may offer a unique perspective from faculty at similar institutions. The first









such variable is organizational structure. There have been numerous and frequent organizational

changes at this institution in recent years. The extent to which full-time and part-time faculty are

involved in, or are even aware of, the status of the organizational structure are quite different.

Full-time faculty members constitute a maj ority representation on every planning committee

within the institution, while part-time faculty members have very little, if any, representation in

these areas. Thus perceptions of, and consequently, satisfaction with organizational structure

could differ radically between these two groups.

This difference in involvement with institutional planning will potentially affect

perceptions of another organizational climate variable political climate. Part-time faculty

members at the institution may be unaware of specific issues and initiatives that the planning

committees of the college are addressing, and could thus have a limited perspective of what may

be deemed a political issue at the college. In addition, ABCC is entering a time of uncertainty

within its upper administration as numerous individuals prepare for retirement. Full-time faculty

members may be more cognizant of these upcoming changes and, accordingly, to the politics that

will come with new leadership.

Lastly, the issue of professional development opportunities at the institution is indeed a

complex one. Alpha Beta Community College is considered a leading institution in terms of the

amount of resources that are used for the professional development of faculty members. There

are numerous professional development workshops that occur on campus throughout the year, as

well as opportunities to travel to both regional and national (and, on some limited occasions,

international) professional organization conferences, workshops and other meetings. The on-

campus opportunities are generally open to all faculty members, whether full-time or part-time;

however, generally participation is much greater for full-time faculty members. There are









numerous possible reasons for this; many part-time faculty members come to campus only for

their class meeting, and have other obligations, either employment or family matters, that may

prevent them from coming to campus at other times, whereas full-time faculty members are

obstensibly on campus during normal business hours a much greater amount of time. Then too,

there is the issue that part-time faculty may be less motivated to attend these sessions, as their

participation in them is completely voluntary, while there may be expectations, either explicit or

implied, that full-time faculty members attend a certain number of these sessions per academic

year. Further, availability of funds for faculty members to attend the regional and national

meetings is almost exclusively available only to full-time faculty members, and hence there is

virtually no part-time faculty involvement in these types of opportunities. All of these factors

imply that there could be disparate differences in the perceptions and satisfaction with

professional development opportunities between full-time and part-time faculty members.

Procedure for Data Collection

The author contacted the vice-president for academic affairs at the institution, asked for

their participation and their endorsement of this proj ect at the college. In return, they were

offered a summary of the entire report and a report of the aggregate date specific to their college

departments (mathematics, behavioral or English) at all the main campus, and all branch

campuses, of Alpha Beta Community College. To protect the confidentiality of the faculty

members, the college requested that the surveys be sent in bulk to the appropriate departments,

who would in turn distribute the surveys to all their full-time and part-time faculty members. The

author was put in touch with the chairpersons of the appropriate departments, who then handled

distribution of the surveys. Included in the survey packets was a copy of the survey (Appendix

A), a letter of invitation (Appendix B) and an informed consent form (Appendix C) and a self-

addressed stamped envelope. The participants were asked to fill out the responses within a two-










week time frame; the deadline was indicated on both the cover letter and the questionnaire.

Contact addresses and phone numbers were offered to those interested in following the research

results. A follow-up e-mail was used to increase the chance of an acceptable response rate one

week prior to the deadline.

In total, 118 community colleges faculty members were invited to participate in the survey.

Upon their return, the surveys were inspected for error, coded, and analyzed to complete the

research. Based on the demographic data received by the respondent, a profile of the community

college instructors was developed. The information illustrated the community college

instructor' s perceptions of organizational climate, their levels of satisfaction with organizational

climate, and the importance of each of the job satisfaction variables related to their

responsibilities.

Instrumentation

With regard to the two standardized Likert scales used in this survey (Likert, 1935), shown

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, as was used with related studies (DeMichele, 1998; Evans, 1996; Palmer,

1995), a set of seven organizational climate factors was examined in order to determine their

relationship to the job satisfaction variables reported by community college full-time and part-

time instructors. The seven organizational climate factors included and defined were:

* Internal communication--the college's formal and informal communication processes and
style.

* Organizational structure-the college's hierarchical channels of authority and
administrative operation.

* Political climate--the nature and complexity of the college's internal politics, or the degree
to which employees must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish their
tasks.

* Professional development opportunities--the opportunities for employees to pursue and
participate in activities to enhance job performance.










* Evaluation--the college's procedures for evaluating employees through positive feedback
intended to provide professional growth for the employee.

* Promotion--the college's commitment to internal promotion and advancement from within
the organization.

* Regard for personal concern--the college's sensitivity to, and regard for, the personal
concerns and well being of the employees.

The climate factors were used in two scales: the organizational climate scale and the job

satisfaction scale (Sofianos, 2005).

Job satisfaction variables were identified and applied to various other studies that were

relevant to organizational climate and job satisfaction, and subsequently combined the following

factors :

* Participation in decision-making--the college's process for decision-making and
opportunities for mental and emotional involvement by the employee to participate in that
process.

* Autonomy, power, and control--the degree of discretion that an employee was able to
wield while performing his or her j ob.

* Relationship with colleagues--the quality of the affiliation that an employee maintains
with his or her peers, subordinates, and supervisor.

* Salary and benefits--the perceived equity and adequacy of the salary and benefits package
received by the employee.

* Professional effectiveness--the perceived overall effectiveness of the employee in his or
her position.

"According to Chappell (1995), the instrument was tested for validity, reliability, and
consistency (Appendix D). The Board of Directors on the National Council of
Instructional Administrators then revised her initial survey. In addition, it was field-tested
to substantiate validity, reliability, and consistency. On two different instances, nine
community college professionals completed Part I of the validation process. Sub sequently,
a range of responses was recorded to confirm the validity and reliability. Consistency was
established by comparing the answers received in both the pretest and posttest from eight
of the nine community college professionals who completed the field test in its entirety
(Chappell, 1995)" (Sofianos, 2005, p. 63).










Procedure for Analysis


Research Questions 1 and 3

As stated earlier, the first and third research questions of this study are:

"How did community college full-time and part-time instructors perceive

organizational climate in their respective institutions, using a set of seven

identified factors for climate?"


and

"How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors

with the organizational climate of their respective institution?"

These questions were addressed through two types of statistical analysis: paired t-tests

were conducted, and the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, r (which will be

referred to as simply the correlation coefficient henceforth), were calculated.

Paired t-tests are used to determine whether significant differences exist between two sets

of paired data (i.e., variables that are measured on the same subj ect). In the present study, this

test is used to examine whether significant differences exist between corresponding item

assessments of organizational climate and satisfaction with organizational climate. This test

requires that the paired differences be independent and identically normally distributed.

The correlation coefficient, r, is perhaps the most universally used statistical measure of

correlation or association. This study uses correlation coefficients to measure the relationships

between the corresponding items on the organizational climate and satisfaction with

organizational climate scales. Examining the aggregate correlation coefficients for all pairs of

items provides a reasonably valid indication of the strength of association between these two

factors.









Research Question 2

To facilitate the answering of this issue concerning the determining factors for j ob

satisfaction, a logistic regression was conducted to investigate the association between job

satisfaction and the appropriate set of independent variables. Further, the instrument requested

subjects to assess their total satisfaction with their individual position, as well as with their

institution on a five-point Likert scale. This job satisfaction was coded into two categories: those

who selected the highest level of job satisfaction (5 or 4 on the Likert scale), and those who

selected another level (3, 2 or 1). Results of a factor analysis were calculated and used to create a

mathematical model for job satisfaction, by running a logistic regression.

Logistic regression is used to predict values of a dependent variable from a list of

independent variables. This is accomplished through determine the percent of the variance in the

dependent variable explained by each of the independent variables, rank-ordering the relative

influence of the independent variables, and measuring interaction effects. This study specifically

used binomial logistic regression, since the dependent variable of job satisfaction was treated as

a dichotomy, that is, a variable which only takes on the values of 0 or 1. In this case, a value of 1

corresponded to the highest level of satisfaction, and 0 corresponded to all other values. The

factor scores for each independent variable, along with the corresponding significance levels,

allow us to identify which can be considered determinants of job satisfaction.

Summary

The study of this research regarding j ob satisfaction and organizational climate is an

attempt to continue to understand the development of community college full-time and part-time

faculty members. Their recorded perceptions of their institution's organizational climate and

their list of importance j ob satisfaction criteria' s can be used to alter a negative climate and/or










continue a positive one at their institution. Analytical and statistical findings of this research are

presented in Chapter 4.










Table 3-1. Organizational climate scale

.Highly
Respone ite Satisfied Neutral Di-dis-
Respnse temsatisfied satisfied
satisfied

Instructions: Please rate the level or degree to which the following qualities listed
below you perceive to be present at your community college, with five (5)
indicating the highest level of presence and one (1) indicating the lowest level of
presence
Internal communication: the
college's formal and informal
5 4 3 2 1
communication process and
style
Organizational structure: the
college's organizational54321
structure and administrative
operation
Political climate: the nature
and complexity of the 5 4 3 2 1
college's internal politics
Professional development
opportunities: the opportunity
for the college's instructors to
5 4 3 2 1
pursue and participate in
professional development
activities
Evaluation: the college's
procedures for evaluating the 5 4 3 2 1
instructors
Promotion: the college's
commitment to internal
5 4 3 2 1
promotion and advancement
from within the organization
Regard for personal concerns:
the college's sensitivity to and 54321
regard for the personal
concerns of the instructors









Table 3-2. Job satisfaction factors
Most Not Least
Response item Important Neutral
important important important
Instructions: Please rate how important each of the following factors is to you in your
position as an instructor, with five (5) indicating the highest level of importance and
one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance.
Participating in decision-
making: the college's process 54321
for decision-making and
opportunities for
involvement by the instructor
Autonomy, power, and
control: the degree of 5 4 3 2 1
autonomy, power, and
control held by the instructor
Relationship with peers: the
5 4 3 2 1
quality of the instructors
relationships with peers
Relationship with
subordinates: the quality of 5 4 3 2 1
the instructors' relationships
with subordinates
Relationship with
supervisors: the quality of 5 4 3 2 1
the instructor's relationships
with supervisor
Salary: the salary of the 5 4 3 2 1
instructor

Benefits: the benefits of the 5 4 3 2 1
instructor
Professional effectiveness:
the perceived overall 5 4 3 2 1
effectiveness of the
instructor in her/his position









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Opening Remarks

To test the relationship between perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction

among full-time and part-time community college faculty, this chapter will analyze the data from

the survey instrument discussed in Chapter 3. In particular, the analysis will seek to answer the

following three research questions.

* Research Question 1: How did community college full-time and part-time instructors
perceive organizational climate in their respective institutions, using a set of seven
identified factors for climate?

* Research Question 2: What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community
college full-time and part-time instructors?

* Research Question 3: How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time
instructors with the organizational climate of their respective institution?

Survey Responses

All full-time and part-time faculty members in the departments of Behavioral Sciences,

English and Mathematics at a community college within the State of Florida Community College

System were invited to participate. These participants received a survey (Appendix A), invitation

letter (Appendix B), letter of informed consent (Appendix C), and an addressed, stamped

envelope to return the survey. The surveys were sent in bulk to the participating departments,

and the individual surveys were distributed by departmental staff to faculty in those departments.

This was done both to protect individual confidentiality and to ensure that no faculty member

was excluded from the sample. Participants were asked to complete and return the survey within

two weeks of receipt. In total, 1 18 individuals received surveys, and 65 completed surveys were

returned. Thus, there was a 55.1% response rate for this survey.










Frequencies


Job Status

There were 64 responses to the question regarding j ob status (Table 4-1). Of these

respondents, 38 (59.4%) were full-time, while 26 respondents (40.6%) were part-time

mnstrctors.

Number of Years with Institution

All 65 subj ects answered the question concerning the number of years that they have been

at the community college (Table 4-2). Eight individuals (12.3%) had been at the school for less

than 1 year, 25 individuals (38.5%) had been at the school between 1 and 5 years, 14 individuals

(21.5%) had been at the school between 6 and 10 years, 9 individuals (13.8%) had been at the

school between 11 and 14 years, and 9 individuals (13.8%) had been at the school 15 or more

years .

Number of Years in Community College System

There were 64 responses to the question concerning the number of years working in the

community college system (Table 4-3). Four respondents (6.3%) had been in the system for less

than 1 year, 20 respondents (31.3%) had been in the system between 1 and 5 years, 18

respondents (28.1%) had been in the system between 6 and 10 years, 11 respondents (17.2%) had

been in the system between 11 and 14 years, and 11 respondents (17.2%) had been in the system

15 or more years.

Ethnicity

There were 61 responses to the ethnicity question (Table 4-4). No respondents selected

Asian American, 30 respondents (49.2%) selected Black / African American, 5 respondents

(8.2%) selected Hispanic, 22 respondents (36.1%) selected White / Caucasian, 3 respondents

(4.9%) selected Native American, and 1 respondent (1.6%) selected 'other' for ethnicity.









Gender

There were 61 respondents who answered the question about their gender (Table 4-5).

Twenty-Hyve individuals (41.0%) were male, and 36 (59.0%) were female.

Validity and Reliability

Factor analysis is a decompositional process that analyzes a set of data containing multiple

variables, with a goal of identifying a minimal set of factors that can adequately explain, and

even represent, all of the variables. A principal components analysis is one form of a factor

analysis which identifies factors by considering, and analyzing, all of the total variance in the

original data as a means of identifying factors. This form of factor analysis, which is used in this

study, is the appropriate form to use when one does not have any expectation of the amount of

variance which we would expect particular variables to explain. Principal components analyses

are generally followed by a subsequent analysis called factor rotation, which attempts to re-orient

the results so as to better associate each variable with the appropriate factor or factors. Varimax

rotation is used in this study, since this is an orthogonal rotation and is the most commonly used

with principal factor analysis. Other types of rotation can be used with a principal components

analysis, but are generally used only in highly specialized circumstances.

A principal component factor analysis was run on the survey responses to verify the

dimensionality, and hence the validity of score-based inferences, of the instrument. The results of

this analysis are presented in Table 4-6. The analysis identified four components. Items are

considered to be loaded onto a component when their factor loading for that component exceeds

0.40, and factor loadings for all other components are less then 0.40.

The following fiye items loaded onto Component 1: "participation in decision making"

(factor loading of 0.708), "autonomy, power and control" (factor loading of 0.712), "importance

of salary" (factor loading of 0.791), "importance of benefits" (factor loading of 0.740), and










"importance of professional effectiveness" (factor loading of 0.662). Consequently, this

component has been referred to as "Benefits of Position".

The following three items loaded onto Component 3: "relationship with peers" (factor

loading of 0.728), "relationship with subordinates" (factor loading of 0.792), and "relationship

with supervisor" (factor loading of 0.781). Accordingly, this component has been labeled

"Coworker Relationships".

It was expected that the remaining elements would load onto a single component, which

would have been called "Organizational Climate". However, two distinct components were

actually identified from these items. Component 2, which we call "Organizational Climate A",

was composed of the items "political climate" (factor loading of 0.587), "professional

development opportunities" (factor loading of 0.78), "evaluation" (factor loading of 0.7945) and

"promotion" (factor loading of 0.879). The remaining two items, "internal communication" and

"organizational structure", loaded onto Component 4 (with factor loadings of 0.856 and 0.897,

respectively), which we call "Organizational Climate B". One item, regard for personal concerns,

was discarded because it has a high factor loading for both components (factor loading of 0.497

for Organizational Climate A; factor loading of 0.430 for Organizational Climate B)..

Reliability analyses were run for each of the four components. Component 1 (Benefits of

Position) had a reliability coefficient ofa = 0.8014 Component 2 (Organizational Climate A)

had a reliability coefficient ofa = 0.8211. Component 3 (Coworker Relationships) had a

reliability coefficient ofa = 0.8058. Component 4 (Organizational Climate B) had a reliability

coefficient of a = 0.83 85 This information is summarized in Table 7. For the purposes of this

study, components were considered reliable if alpha exceeded 0.70, hence all four reliabilities

were within acceptable limits, and accordingly, all four components are considered reliable.










Research Question 1

The first research question of this study sought to determine how full-time and part-time

faculty members perceived organizational climate at their institution. Organizational climate was

defined in terms of the following factors:

* Internal communication
* Organizational structure
* Political climate
* Professional development opportunities
* Evaluation
* Promotion
* Regard for personal concerns

Each item was measured via a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 corresponding to a very high

level of the factor under discussion, 4 corresponding to a high level, 3 corresponding to a

moderate level, 2 corresponding to a low level, and 1 corresponding to a very low level. In

descending order, the mean responses for the seven items are: organizational structure 4.07,

regard for personal concerns 3.79, professional development opportunities 3.77, internal

communication 3.72, evaluation 3.64, promotion 3.38, and political climate 3.34. Notice that all

factors had a mean greater than 3, which was the neutral value. Consequently, each factor was

perceived to have an above average level. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for each

item contained a lower bound greater than 3, indicating that this finding is statistically

significant. The mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval for each item is found in

Table 4-8. A description of the results of each item follows, with a breakdown of how j ob status

(full-time versus part-time) affected the perceptions of faculty members.

Internal Communication

There were 64 responses for the level of perceived internal communication at the

institution (Table 4-9). There were 15 faculty members (23.4%) who rated internal









communication as very high at the institution, 26 faculty members (40.6%) who gave a rating of

high, 16 faculty members (25.0%) who gave a rating of moderate, 6 faculty members (9.4%)

who gave a rating of low, and 1 faculty member (1.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a

maj ority (64.0%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived internal

communication to be either high or very high, while most (89.0%) respondents perceived

internal communication to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of internal

communication between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time

faculty was 3.68, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.81. This difference was not

statistically significant (t = -0.528, p = 0.599).

Organizational Structure

There were 64 responses for the level of perceived organizational structure at the

institution (Table 4-10). There were 23 faculty members (35.9%) who rated organizational

structure as very high at the institution, 27 faculty members (42.2%) who gave a rating of high,

11 faculty members (17.2%) who gave a rating of moderate, and 3 faculty members (4.7%) who

gave a rating of low. Overall, a maj ority (78.1%) of faculty members responding to this question

perceived organizational structure to be either high or very high, while most (95.3%) respondents

perceived organizational structure to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of

organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for

full-time faculty was 4.19, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.92. This difference

was not statistically significant (t = 1.231, p = 0.223 ).









Political Climate

There were 63 responses for the level of perceived internal communication at the

institution (Table 4-11). There were 10 faculty members (15.9%) who rated political climate as

very high at the institution, 22 faculty members (34.9%) who gave a rating of high, 16 faculty

members (25.4%) who gave a rating of moderate, 9 faculty members (14.3%) who gave a rating

of low, and 6 faculty members (9.5%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a slight maj ority

(50.8%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived political climate to be either

high or very high, while most (76.2%) respondents perceived political climate to be moderate,

high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of political

climate between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty

members was 3.61, while the mean rating for part-time faculty members was 2.88. The

difference was statistically significant (t = 2.430, p = 0.018). Full-time faculty members

perceived a higher level of political climate than did their part-time counterparts.

Professional Development Opportunities

There were 65 responses for the level of perceived professional development opportunities

at the institution (Table 4-12). There were 25 faculty members (38.5%) who rated professional

development opportunities very high at the institution, 17 faculty members (26.2%) who gave a

rating of high, 11 faculty members (16.9%) who gave a rating of moderate, 7 faculty members

(10.8%) who gave a rating of low, and 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave a rating of very low.

Overall, a maj ority (64.7%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived

professional development opportunities to be either high or very high, while most (81.6%)

respondents perceived professional development opportunities to be moderate, high or very high.









A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of

professional development opportunities between full-time and part-time faculty members. The

mean rating for full-time faculty members was 4.13, while the mean rating for part-time faculty

members was 3.19. The difference was statistically significant (t = 3.057, p = 0.003 ). Full-time

faculty members perceived a higher level of professional development opportunities than did

their part-time counterparts.

Evaluation

There were 65 responses for the level of perceived evaluation at the institution (Table

4-13) summarizes the responses to this item. There were 15 faculty members (23.1%) who rated

evaluation as very high at the institution, 23 faculty members (35.4%) who gave a rating of high,

20 faculty members (30.8%) who gave a rating of moderate, 4 faculty members (6.2%) who gave

a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a maj ority

(58.5%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived evaluation to be either high or

very high, while most (89.3%) respondents perceived evaluation to be moderate, high or very

high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of evaluation

between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 3.50,

while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.88. This difference was not statistically

significant (t = -1.441, p = 0. 155).

Promotion

There were 63 responses for the level of perceived promotion at the institution (Table

4-14) summarizes the responses to this item. There were 14 faculty members (22.2%) who rated

promotion as very high at the institution, 17 faculty members (27.0%) who gave a rating of high,









17 faculty members (27.0%) who gave a rating of moderate, 8 faculty members (12.7%) who

gave a rating of low, and 7 faculty members (1 1.1%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a

slight minority (49.2%) of faculty members responding to this question perceived promotion to

be either high or very high, while most (76.2%) respondents perceived internal communication

to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of promotion

between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-time faculty was 3.58,

while the mean rating for part-time faculty members was 2.96. This difference was not

statistically significant (t = 1.920, p = 0.060).

Regard for Personal Concerns

There were 65 responses for the level of perceived regard for personal concerns at the

institution. Table 4-15 summarizes the responses to this item. There were 22 faculty members

(33.8%) who rated regard for personal concerns as very high at the institution, 19 faculty

members (29.2%) who gave a rating of high, 14 faculty members (21.5%) who gave a rating of

moderate, 7 faculty members (10.8%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%)

who gave a rating of very low. Overall, a maj ority (63.0%) of faculty members responding to

this question perceived internal communication to be either high or very high, while most

(84.5%) of respondents perceived internal communication to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in perceptions of regards

for personal concerns between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-

time faculty was 3.66, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.88. This difference was

not statistically significant (t = -0.760, p = 0.450).









Summary of Research Question 1 Results

Of the seven factors this study uses to define organizational climate, organizational

structure was the most highly perceived at the institution, with 78.1% of respondents rating the

level as "high" or "very high". Table 4-16 summarizes the percent of respondents selecting a

"high" or "very high" rating for all factors.

The ratings for all seven factors were analyzed to determine if statistically significant

differences existed in the perceptions of these factors. Of the seven factors, only political climate

and professional development opportunities showed significant differences with regard to job

status; for both factors, full-time faculty perceived higher levels than part-time faculty.

Research Question 2

To identify the determinants of job satisfaction for our data, a binomial logistic regression

was performed. This form of logistic regression, which is also called binary logistic regression,

can be used with independent variables of any data type. This method was appropriate for this

study, since the factors we are considering include interval/ratio, ordinal and nominal data. Table

4-17 presents the results of this analysis. Job satisfaction, the dependent variable in this analysis,

was recorded into a dichotomous (binary) variable. Responses of 4 (high j ob satisfaction) and 5

(very high job satisfaction) were coded to l's. All other responses were coded to O's. The logistic

regression included the following variables: all four components identified by the factor analysis

(benefits of position, organizational climate A, coworker relationships, and organizational

climate B) as well as j ob status, number of years at the institution, ethnic group and gender.

The likelihood ratio test indicated that the model was statistically significant ( p = 0.03).

However, the only variable in the model which was statistically significant was Organizational

Climate A (which consisted of political climate, professional development opportunities,

evaluation and promotion). This item had a log odds ratio of 8.450, meaning the average










prediction for an individual to be highly satisfied or very highly satisfied with their position will

be 8.450 times as great for every 1 unit increase in their Organizational Climate a factor score.

Research Question 3

The third research question addresses how satisfied faculty members are with the

components of organizational climate at the institution. The same seven factors are used to

represent organizational climate as in research question 1, and the same 5-point Likert scales are

used. The results of research question 1 indicated the levels of organizational climate variables

(i.e., evaluation) which faculty perceived to be present. A rating of 5 for evaluation would

indicate a very high perceived level of evaluation for faculty at the institution. The same

individual might rate satisfaction with evaluation at the institution with a 2, implying that while a

very high level of evaluation was perceived, the quality of that evaluation was in fact

dissatisfying.

In descending order, the mean responses for the seven items are: regard for personal

concerns 3.80, professional development opportunities 3.69, organizational structure 3.66,

evaluation 3.60, internal communication 3.54, promotion 3.37, and political climate 3.36. Notice

that all factors had a mean greater than 3, which was the neutral value. Consequently, each factor

was perceived to have an above average level. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for

each item contained a lower bound greater than 3, indicating that this finding is statistically

significant. The mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval for each item is found in

Table 4-18. A description of the results of each item follows, with a breakdown of how j ob status

(full-time versus part-time) affected the satisfaction of faculty members.

Internal Communication

There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with internal communication at the

institution (Table 4-19). There were 10 faculty members (15.4%) who rated their satisfaction









with internal communication as very high at the institution, 26 faculty members (40.0%) who

gave a rating of high, 21 faculty members (32.3%) who gave a rating of moderate, 5 faculty

members (7.7%) who gave a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of

very low. Overall, 55.4% of faculty members responding to this question rated satisfaction with

internal communication to be either high or very high, while 87.7% of respondents rated

satisfaction with internal communication to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with internal

communication between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating from full-

time faculty was 3.42, versus a mean rating from part-time faculty of 3.65. This difference was

not statistically significant (t = -0.921, p = 0.361).

Organizational Structure

There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with organizational structure at the

institution (Table 4-20). There were 12 faculty members (18.5%) who rated their satisfaction

with organizational structure as very high at the institution, 25 faculty members (38.5%) who

gave a rating of high, 24 faculty members (36.9%) who gave a rating of moderate, 2 faculty

members (3.1%) who gave a rating of low, and 2 faculty members (3.1%) who gave a rating of

very low. Overall, 57.0% of faculty members responding to this question rated their satisfaction

with organizational structure to be either high or very high, while 93.9% of respondents rated

their satisfaction with organizational structure to be moderate, high or very high. It is quite

interesting, and rather atypical, that the most neutral category, moderate, should have such a high

percentage of responses in this instance 36.9%. Some possible reasons for this phenomenon,

and some potential implications, are discussed in Chapter 5.









A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with

organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating from

full-time faculty was 3.53, and the mean rating from part-time faculty was 3.81. This difference

was not statistically significant (t = -1.213, p = 0.230).

Political Climate

There were 64 responses for the level of satisfaction with political climate at the institution

(Table 4-21) summarizes the responses to this item. There were 13 faculty members (20.0%)

who rated satisfaction with political climate as very high at the institution, 17 faculty members

(26.2%) who gave a rating of high, 19 faculty members (29.2%) who gave a rating of moderate,

10 faculty members (15.4%) who gave a rating of low, and 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave

a rating of very low. Overall, 46.2 of faculty members responding to this question rated their

satisfaction with political climate to be either high or very high, while 75.4% of respondents

perceived political climate to be moderate, high or very high. These satisfaction percentages are

much higher than comparable studies have found. This aberration will be discussed further in

Chapter 5.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with political

climate between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean response for full-time

faculty members was 3.18 and the mean response for part-time faculty members was 3.56. This

difference is not statistically significant (t = -1.230, p = 0.223 ).

Professional Development Opportunities

There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with professional development

opportunities at the institution (Table 4-22). There were 19 faculty members (29.2%) who rated

satisfaction with professional development opportunities very high at the institution, 23 faculty









members (35.4%) who gave a rating of high, 11 faculty members (16.9%) who gave a rating of

moderate, 8 faculty members (12.3%) who gave a rating of low, and 4 faculty members (6.2%)

who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 64.6% of faculty members responding to this question

rated their satisfaction with professional development opportunities as either high or very high,

while 81.5% of respondents rated their satisfaction with professional development opportunities

as moderate, high or very high. These percentages are interesting, in that the institution under

discussion is one which places a very high priority, and a great deal of its resources, toward

professional development. It would have to been reasonable to expect much greater percentages

of respondents selecting "high" and "very high", and fewer selecting "low" and "very low". This

will be discussed more in Chapter 5.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with

professional development opportunities between full-time and part-time faculty members. The

mean response for full-time faculty members was 3.87 and the mean response for part-time

faculty members was 3.3 8. The difference is not statistically significant (t = 1.609 p = 0. 113 ).

Evaluation

There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with evaluation at the institution

(Table 4-23). There were 13 faculty members (20.0%) who rated evaluation as very high at the

institution, 25 faculty members (38.5%) who gave a rating of high, 18 faculty members (27.7%)

who gave a rating of moderate, 6 faculty members (9.2%) who gave a rating of low, and 3

faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 58.5% of faculty members

responding to this question rated their satisfaction with evaluation to be either high or very high,

while 86.2% of respondents perceived evaluation to be moderate, high or very high.









A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with

evaluation between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean response for full-time

faculty members was 3.50 and the mean response for part-time faculty members was 3.73. The

difference is not statistically significant (t = -0.850 p = 0.3 99 ).

Promotion

There were 65 responses for the level of satisfaction with promotion at the institution

(Table 4-24). There were 17 faculty members (26.2%) who rated satisfaction with promotion as

very high at the institution, 12 faculty members (18.5%) who gave a rating of high, 20 faculty

members (30.8%) who gave a rating of moderate, 10 faculty members (15.4%) who gave a rating

of low, and six faculty members (9.2%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 44.7% of faculty

members responding to this question perceived promotion to be either high or very high, while

75.5% of respondents perceived internal communication to be moderate, high or very high. In

Chapter 5 we will discuss this issue further; in particular, we will examine what would be

considered a good versus a poor timeline for promotion.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with

promotion between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean response for full-time

faculty members was 3.47 and the mean response for part-time faculty members was 3.15. The

difference is not statistically significant (t = 0.985, p = 0.328).

Regard for Personal Concerns

There were 65 responses for the level of perceived regard for personal concerns at the

institution (Table 4-25). There were 24 faculty members (36.9%) who rated regard for personal

concerns as very high at the institution, 15 faculty members (23.1%) who gave a rating of high,

18 faculty members (27.7%) who gave a rating of moderate, 5 faculty members (7.7%) who gave









a rating of low, and 3 faculty members (4.6%) who gave a rating of very low. Overall, 60.0% of

faculty members responding to this question rated their satisfaction with regard for personal

concerns to be either high or very high, while 87.7% of respondents rated their satisfaction with

regard for personal concerns to be moderate, high or very high.

A t-test was run to determine if a significant difference existed in satisfaction with regard

for personal concerns between full-time and part-time faculty members. The mean rating for full-

time faculty was 3.76, while the mean rating for part-time faculty was 3.81. This difference is not

statistically significant (t = -0. 150, p = 0.882).

Summary of Research Question 3 Results

Of the seven factors this study uses to define organizational climate, professional

development opportunities had the highest satisfaction at the institution, with 64.6% of

respondents rating the level as "high" or "very high". Table 4-26 summarizes the percent of

respondents selecting a "high" or "very high" rating for all factors.

The ratings for all seven factors were analyzed to determine if statistically significant

differences existed in the perceptions of these factors. None of the seven factors showed

significant differences with regard to job status.

Summary of Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Satisfaction with Organizational
Climate

Table 4-27 reports means and standard deviations associated with the perceptions of, and

satisfaction with, each of the seven organizational climate factors. Correlations between

perceptions and satisfactions on like items are also reported.

The correlation coefficients calculated for the perception measure and satisfaction measure

of the factors of organizational climate were statistically significant, with the exception of

political climate, which had a correlation close to zero (r = 0.019). The correlation between










perceptions of, and satisfaction with, organizational structure, though statistically significant,

was fairly weak (r = 0.342 ). All other correlations from the table are rather strong, ranging from

r = 0.610 (for internal communication) to r = 0.828 (for regard for personal concerns).

Summary

A survey instruments measuring variables related to organizational climate and j ob

satisfaction was distributed to all full-time and part-time faculty in the departments of Behavioral

Science, English and Mathematics at an institution in the State of Florida community college

system. Sixty five completed surveys were returned, out of 118 surveys that were distributed,

yielding a. 55.1% response rate.

The validity of the survey instrument was ascertained via principal component factor

analysis, which identified four distinct components of the variables in the survey. The

Component 1, labeled "Benefits of Position", contained the variables "participation in decision

making", "autonomy, power and control", "importance of salary", "importance of benefits", and

"importance of professional effectiveness". Component 2, labeled "Organizational Climate A",

contained the variables "political climate", "professional development opportunities",

"evaluation" and "promotion". Component 3, labeled "Coworker Relationships", contained the

variables "relationship with peers", "relationship with subordinates", and "relationship with

supervisor". Component 4, labeled "Organizational Climate B", contained the variables "internal

communication" and "organizational structure". Reliability coefficients were computed for all

four components, and each was greater than 0.80, indicating strong reliability.

In examining which factors received the highest ratings, it was noted that both the subj ects'

perception and satisfaction of organizational climate were rated the highest in organizational

structure, professional development opportunities and regard for personal concerns. With the

sole exception of political climate, there were highly significant correlations between the










perception and satisfaction scales of all seven variables constituting organizational climate.

Significant differences in perception of organizational climate between full-time and part-time

faculty members existed only for the variables of political climate and professional development

opportunities. Additionally, there were no significant differences in satisfaction with

organizational climate between full-time and part-time faculty members.

A logistic regression was run to identify the determinants of job satisfaction, using the four

components identified by the factor analysis, as well as the variables of job status, number of

years at the institution, ethnic group and gender. Only the component "Organizational Climate

A" was found to be a statistically significant determinant of job satisfaction, with a logs odd ratio

of 8.450. Recall that this component included variables "political climate", "professional

development opportunities", "evaluation" and "promotion". The consequences of these findings,

and their implications for community college administrations, will be discussed in Chapter 5.










Table 4-1. Job status
Status n Percentage
Full-Time 38 59.4
Part-Time 26 40.6
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-2. Number of years at the institution
Number of years n Percentage
less than one 8 12.3
one to five 25 38.5
six to ten 14 21.5
Eleven to fourteen 9 13.8
Fifteen or more 9 13.8
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-3. Number of years in the community college system
Number of years n Percentage
less than one 4 6.3
one to five 20 31.3
six to ten 18 28.1
Eleven to fourteen 11 17.2
Fifteen or more 11 17.2
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-4. Ethnicity
Ethnic Group n Percentage
Asian American 0 0.0
Black / African American 30 49.2
Hispanic 5 8.2
White / Caucasian 22 36.1
Native American 3 4.9
Other 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0

Table 4-5. Gender
Gender n Percentage
Male 25 41.0
Female 36 59.0
Total 61 100.0














0.782
0.851
0.555
0.553
0.738
0.789
0.509
0.580
0.643
0.786
0.776
0.740
0.688
0.690
0.536


Item

Internal Communication
Organizational Structure
Political Climate
Professional Development Opportunities
Evaluation
Promotion
Regard for Personal Concerns
Participation in Decision Making
Autonomy, Power and Control
Relationship with Peers
Relationship with Subordinates
Relationship with Supervisor
Salary Importance
Benefits Importance
Professional Effectiveness Importance


Table 4-8. Descriptive statistics for perceptions of organizational variables
Variable Mean Standard 95% confidence interval
Deviation Lower bound Upper bound
Internal communication 3.72 0.985 3.47 3.97
Organizational structure 4.07 0.854 3.85 4.28
Political climate 3.34 1.153 3.05 3.64
Professional development opportunities 3.77 1.309 3.44 4.11
Evaluation 3.64 1.033 3.37 3.90
Promotion 3.38 1.293 3.05 3.71
Regard for personal concerns 3.79 1.142 3.49 4.08


Table 4-9. Perceptions of internal communication
Rating n Valid Percentage
Very High Perception 15 23.4
High Perception 26 40.6
Moderate Perception 16 25.0
Low Perception 6 9.4
Very Low Perception 1 1.6
Total 64 100.0


Table 4-6. Rotated component matrix from factor analysis


Component
1 2
0.064 0.188
0.052 0.194
0.243 0.587
-0.116 0.718
0.120 0.795
0.011 0.879
0.267 0.497
0.708 0.232
0.712 0.204
0.359 0.355
0.218 0.316
0.183 -0.163
0.791 -0.060
0.740 -0.158
0.662 0.038


3
0.099
0.080
-0.162
0.111
0.128
0.126
0.081
0.127
-0.166
0.728
0.792
0.781
0.240
0.335
0.307


4
0.856
0.897
0.354
0.104
0.275
0.053
0.430
0.086
0.260
0.039
-0.051
0.265
0.025
0.076
-0.053


Table 4-7. Reliability data from factor analysis
Component Cronbach Alpha
1. Benefits of Position 0.8014
2. Organizational Climate A 0.8211
3. Coworker Relationships 0.8058
4. Organizational Climate B 0.8385






























Table 4-12. Perceptions of professional dl
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 25 38.5
High Perception 17 26.2
Moderate Perception 11 16.9
Low Perception 7 10.8
Very Low Perception 5 7.7
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-13. Perceptions of evaluation
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 15 23.1
High Perception 23 35.4
Moderate Perception 20 30.8
Low Perception 4 6.2
Very Low Perception 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-14. Perceptions of promotion
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 14 22.2
High Perception 17 27.0
Moderate Perception 17 27.0
Low Perception 8 12.7
Very Low Perception 7 11.1
Total 63 100.0


Table 4-10. Percentages of organizational structure
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 23 35.9
High Perception 27 42.2
Moderate Perception 11 17.2
Low Perception 3 4.7
Very Low Perception 0 0.0
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-11i. Perceptions of political climate
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 10 15.9
High Perception 22 34.9
Moderate Perception 16 25.4
Low Perception 9 14.3
Very Low Perception 6 9.5
Total 64 100.0


development opportunities










Table 4-15. Perceptions of regard for personal concerns
Rating n Percentage
Very High Perception 22 33.8
High Perception 19 29.2
Moderate Perception 14 21.5
Low Perception 7 10.8
Very Low Perception 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0


Table 4-16. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of "High" of "Very High" for each
factor
Factor Percent rating as high or very high
Organizational Structure 78.1
Professional Development 64.7
Internal Communication 64.0
Regard for Personal Concerns 63.0
Evaluation 58.5
Political Climate 50.8
Promotion 49.2

Table 4-17. Binomial logistic regression of job satisfaction model
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Significance Log Odds Ratio
Constant -1.504 3.343 0.653 0.202


Benefits of
Position
Organizational
Climate A
Coworker
Relationships
Organizational
Climate B
Job Status
Years at
Institution
Ethnic Group
Gender


0.514

1.491

0.196

-0.032

0.845

0.169

0.344
0.276


0.358

0.513

0.396

0.448

0.991

0.435

0.453
0.871


0.152

0.004

0.620

0.944

0.394

0.698

0.448
0.752


2.056

8.450

0.247

0.005

0.728

0.151

0.576
0.100










Table 4-18. Descriptive statistics for satisfaction with organizational variables
Variable Mean Standard 95% confidence interval
Deviation Lower bound Upper bound
Internal communication 3.54 1.001 3.27 3.76
Organizational structure 3.66 0.923 3.41 3.87
Political climate 3.36 1.200 3.06 3.66
Professional development opportunities 3.69 1.198 3.42 4.02
Evaluation 3.60 1.058 3.33 3.86
Promotion 3.37 1.282 3.05 3.70
Regard for personal concerns 3.80 1.162 3.50 4.09


Table 4-19. Satisfactions with internal communication
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 10 15.4
High Satisfaction 26 40.0
Moderate Satisfaction 21 32.3
Low Satisfaction 5 7.7
Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-20. Satisfaction with organizational structure
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 10 15.4
High Satisfaction 26 40.0
Moderate Satisfaction 21 32.3
Low Satisfaction 5 7.7
Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0


Table 4-21. Satisfaction
Rating
Very High Satisfaction
High Satisfaction
Moderate Satisfaction
Low Satisfaction
Very Low Satisfaction
Total


with political climate
n Percentage
13 20.0
17 26.2
19 29.2
10 15.4
5 7.7
64 100.0










Table 4-22. Satisfaction with professional development opportunities
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 19 29.2
High Professional Satisfaction 23 35.4
Moderate Satisfaction 11 16.9
Low Satisfaction 8 12.3
Very Low Satisfaction 4 6.2
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-23. Satisfaction with evaluation
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 13 20.0
High Satisfaction 25 38.5
Moderate Satisfaction 18 27.7
Low Satisfaction 6 9.2
Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-24. Satisfaction with promotion
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 17 26.2
High Satisfaction 12 18.5
Moderate Satisfaction 20 30.8
Low Satisfaction 10 15.4
Very Low Satisfaction 6 9.2
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-25. Satisfaction with regard for personal concerns
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 24 36.9
High Satisfaction 15 23.1
Moderate Satisfaction 18 27.7
Low Satisfaction 5 7.7
Very Low Satisfaction 3 4.6
Total 65 100.0










Table 4-26. Percentages of respondents selecting a rating of "High" or "Very High" for each
factor


Table 4-27. Means and standard deviations of organizational climate scales
Perception of Satisfaction with
Organizational Climate Organizational Climate orltn
ItemsCorltn
Mean Standard Mean Standard
Deviation Deviation
Internal Communication 3.75 0.976 3.54 1.001 0.610*
Organizational Structure 4.09 0.849 3.66 0.923 0.342*
Political Climate 3.33 1.191 3.36 1.200 0.019
Professional
Development 3.77 1.284 3.69 1.198 0.806*
Opportunities
Evaluation 3.66 1.050 3.60 1.058 0.749*
Promotion 3.37 1.274 3.37 1.282 0.747*
Regard for Personal
3.77 1.170 3.80 1.162 0.828*
Concerns
* significant at the 0.05 level


Factor
Professional Development
Regard for Personal Concerns
Evaluation
Organizational Structure
Internal Communication
Promotion
Political Climate


Percent rating as high or very high
64.6
60.0
58.5
57.0
55.4
47.7
46.2









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Opening Remarks

The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction within the realm

higher education, as in other areas of business and industry, is a complex one, yet one which has

overwhelming implications for the efficient function of any institution, or organization. In this

study, we sought to learn more about this relationship among community college faculty. This

broad goal of understanding this complex relationship required the combination several distinct

tasks: to measure faculty members' perceptions of organizational climate, to measure faculty

members' level of job satisfaction (particularly in the context of organizational climate), to use

this data on organizational climate and j ob satisfaction (along with some demographic data) to

identify the determinants of job satisfaction, and Einally to isolate the effects on job states (i.e.,

full-time versus part-time) on each of the above factors.

To help in the answering these question, three research questions were posed to guide the

study. These questions are listed below.

Research Question 1

How did community college full-time and part-time instructors perceive organizational

climate in their respective institutions, using a set of seven identified factors for climate?

Research Question 2

What were the determinants of job satisfaction among community college full-time and

part-time instructors?

Research Question 3

How satisfied were the community college full-time and part-time instructors with the

organizational climate of their respective institution?










Design of the Study

A survey instrument was used to gather the data needed to address the research questions.

This survey (Appendix A) is a modified replica of instruments used in previous studies on this

topic (Chappell, 1995; Palmer, 1995; Evans, 1996; Kellerman, 1996; Paulson, 1997; DeMichele,

1998; Zabetakis, 1999; Gratto, 2001; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; LeFevre-

Stevens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005). A purposive sample was used for this study; the survey

instrument was distributed to all faculty (full-time and part-time) in the departments of

behavioral science, mathematics and English at Alpha Beta Community College (ABCC),

located in Florida. This was a voluntary response sample. The administration of ABCC

encouraged all faculty members in these departments to complete the survey, and all responses

were completely anonymous. Sixty-Hyve completed surveys were returned, out of 118 that were

distributed. The responses found on these surveys were then statistically analyzed to answer our

three research questions.

Conclusions

Faculty Perception of Organizational Climate

Based on the Eindings of this study, community college faculty perceive organizational

climate to be neither extremely high, nor extremely low. Five-point Likert scales were used to

measure faculty members' perceptions of each of the seven factors which make up

organizational climate, with 5 representing a very high level and 1 representing a very low level.

The mean response for each factor was significantly greater than 3, which represented a level of

'moderate', and hence faculty members perceived organizational structure at the institution to be

greater than what would be a neutral level. A discussion of faculty perceptions of each of the

factors follows.









Internal communication

The mean response overall for perceptions of the level of internal communication was 3.72

with a standard deviation of 0.985, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.47 to 3.97.

Additionally, 64.0% of those responding to this item perceived the level of internal

communication at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant

difference in perceived levels of internal communication between full-time and part-time faculty.

Recall that internal communication may be defined as an institution's communication

procedures and techniques, whether official or unofficial. In an examination of the relationships

of community college administrations and boards of trustees, Deas (1994) determined that

communication was indeed a component of the organizational climate of an institution.

Interviews with numerous administrators and trustees overwhelmingly indicated that

communication was a quite critical component of climate. Indeed, there was a general consensus

that the manner in which top-level decisions were communicated down the chain of command

could have a greater impact on reaction to that decision than the nature of the decision itself.

Given the obvious importance of a strong internal communication system, the high

perception that the faculty has of internal communication at the institution is an advantage to the

organizational climate. Further, the absence of a significant difference with regards to job status

in this area is an indication that the internal communication procedures of the institution do not

discriminate against the part-time instructor, which is not only an indication of appropriate

communication channels, but will contribute positively to the divide between community full-

time faculty and adjuncts, through consistent and equitable treatment.

Organizational structure

The mean response overall for perceptions of the level of organizational structure was 4.07

with a standard deviation of 0.854, and a 95% confidence interval for this value of 3.85 to 4.28.









Additionally, 78. 1% of those responding to this item perceived the level of organizational

structure at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in

perceived levels of organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty.

Recall that organizational structure may be defined as an institution's hierarchal means of

governance and executive configuration. Within the community college setting, organizational

structures have advanced numerous and varied ways, covering the spectrum from structures with

strong roots in the heavily structured public school system model (Deegan & Tillery, 1985) to

independent entities governed by more localized bodies, such as boards of trustees (Cohen &

Brawer, 2002). As early as the late 1970s, Katz and Kahn (1978) observed a commonality

between all community colleges and similar two-year institutions was that they promoted open

systems due to the inherent stream of events that behave as periodic ebb and flow within the

institutions. The common bond that all organizations shared was that they advanced open

systems due to the natural current of activity that acted as a consistent ebb and flow continuum in

an organization. Since that time, there is evidence that community college administrators and

boards of trustees are considering a much broader range of bureaucratic methodologies and

developing the necessary techniques to create more efficient and favorable systems (Amey &

Twombly, 1992).

With an understanding of the importance of maintaining organizational structures

systems that adhere to current models within a community college setting; it is indeed gratifying

to observe the positive response to this item that this study found. That better than three out of

every four faculty members in the sample considered the college organizational structure to be

either high or very high indicates an efficiently run institution.










A phenomenon that is of some interest with regard to perceptions of organizational

structure in this particular study is the absence of any significant difference in the perceived level

of organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty members, given the very

disparate perspectives that these two groups would likely have about the organizational structure

of the institution. Alpha Beta Community College has undergone numerous and frequent

organizational changes in recent years. This is an aspect of the administration of the institution in

which full-time faculty members have had a great deal more involvement, and accordingly

probably have a more intimate knowledge of, than part-time faculty members have had. Thus, it

would be reasonable to believe differences in the perceptions of organizational structure would

exist relative to job status; however, this was not the case.

Political climate

The mean response overall for perceptions of the level of political climate was 3.34 with a

standard deviation of 1.153, and a 95% confidence interval for this value of 3.05 to 3.64.

Additionally, 50.8% of those responding to this item perceived the level of political climate to be

either high or very high. There was a significant difference in perceived levels of political

climate between full-time and part-time faculty, with full-time faculty perceiving the higher

levels.

Recall that political climate may be defined as the character and intricacy of an

institution's internal politics, or the extent to which employees must function within a political

structure in order to achieve completion of their assigned duties. Political climate is a separate

and distinct, yet interrelated concept to organizational structure that can have a considerable

impact on organizational climate (Honeyman et al., 1996). While the political machinations of an

institution are often controversial and potentially volatile, it is necessary to be able to function

within this framework if one wants to effect institutional change (Block, 1987). Associations









between positions of authority, communication archetypes, the distribution of resources and

leadership techniques all have a bearing on political climate, and thus these aspects all are

components of organizational climate.

The observed significant difference in perceptions of political climate between full-time

and part-time faculty members is understandable, given the aforementioned disparity in the

levels of involvement that these two groups have in the administrative structure of the institution,

particularly through the heavy representation which full-time faculty has on the various planning

committees of the college. Thus full-time faculty members are much more likely to have a more

accurate, and current, understanding of what the maj or political issues within the college are;

part-time faculty will surely have much more limited, and perhaps dated, views on what the

relevent political concerns are.

Another issue which could potentially impact perceptions of the political climate of the

school is the number of individuals within the institution's upper administration that are

preparing to retire in the next few years, which will leave a large number of vacancies to be

filled. This is not an issue which is unique to this institution; indeed, it is a nationwide

phenomenon, not only among community colleges, but among all organizations, due to the "baby

boomer" generation approaching its retirement age. Campbell (2006) has documented the

breadth of this problem and its consequences for the nation' s community colleges, as well as

outlining some measures that these institutions should start taking to prepare for this situation.

The full-time faculty members at Alpha Beta are quite aware of this impending "changing

of the guard", and undoubtedly have begun to anticipate what types of changes will be occurring

within the upper echelon of the administration, which will in turn have trickle-down effects on

all levels of college leadership. Thus it is both sensible and rational to postulate that full-time









faculty members are more sensitive to the changes in political climate that will be forthcoming,

and will have a very different outlook on this situation that the part-time faculty members who

have less vested in this situation.

Professional development opportunities

The mean response overall for perceptions of the level of professional development

opportunities was 3.77 with a standard deviation of 1.309, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.44

to 4. 11. Additionally, 64.7% of those responding to this item perceived the level of professional

development opportunities to be either high or very high. There was a significant difference in

perceived levels of professional development opportunities between full-time and part-time

faculty, with full-time faculty perceiving the higher levels.

Recall that professional development opportunities may be defined as the opportunities for

faculty and staff to engage in activities to improve and augment their occupational capabilities

and job performance. Professional development opportunities are very often vital motivators and

sources of growth and encouragement for the faculty of an institution. It has long been

recognized that growth is a fundamental element of professional development, and accordingly

acts as a conduit to j ob satisfaction; moreover, the primary rationale for institutional

administration to institute professional development activities is to promote their faculty

members growth as professional educators (Herzberg et al., 1959). Further, Ewell (1993)

determined through a through review and examination of existing evidence that organizations

(including, but not limited to educational institutions) which have made a priority of devoting

time and other resources to the ongoing preparation and professional development of their staff

inevitably achieve improved retention rates, which ultimately results in enhanced cost-benefit

ratios. Ultimately, when administrations fully comprehend and appreciate the virtues of

providing and encouraging their faculty to be trained in new pedagogical innovations and









educational techniques, which will in turn enrich the value of their work, and their worth to the

institution, morale and j ob satisfaction will incidentally be improved (Kouzes & Posner, 2002;

Vaughan, 1986).

A study which interviewed faculty at a Midwestern community college concerning

professional development activities revealed that these faculty chose to teach in a community

college because of the increased emphasis on teaching in these settings, and that they preferred

having professional development opportunities, since these activities have a maj or impact on the

quality of their teaching, and hence on their careers (Fugate & Amey, 2000). Unfortunately,

many institutions fail to adequately integrate adjunct faculty into these professional development

activities; indeed, only 3 1% of community colleges offer any type of formal orientation activity

to their part-time faculty (McGuire, 1993). Community colleges need to expand their reactions to

the concerns of part-time faculty, which includes, but is by no means limited to, increased

inclusion in professional development activities. See Perrin (2000) for a thorough review of the

ways in which community college professional development programs disenfranchise adjunct

faculty, as well as other sub-populations of the faculty at large.

Perceptions of the level of professional development opportunities were unusually high in

this study, compared to comparable studies, which could be attributed to the inordinately high

amount of resources that this particular institution devotes to professional development.

However, the significantly higher perception of professional development opportunities with

regard to job status was in fact to be expected. There are many professional development

experiences that take place at the institution every semester, as well as occasions for faculty to

attend regional and national conferences and meetings. The on-campus opportunities are

generally open to both full-time and part-time faculty members. Availability of funds for faculty









members to attend the regional and national meetings is almost exclusively available to full-time

faculty members, and hence there is virtually no part-time faculty involvement in these types of

opportunities. This situation is likely a factor in the perceived differences in professional

development opportunities.

Evaluation

The mean response overall for perceptions of evaluation was 3.64 with a standard

deviation of 1.033, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.37 to 3.90. Additionally, 58.5% of those

responding to this item perceived the level of evaluation to be either high or very high. There

was no significant difference in perceived levels of evaluation between full-time and part-time

faculty .

Recall that evaluation may be defined as an institution's practices and processes for

assessing the performances of faculty and staff, and through providing positive feedback

intended to result in professional growth for those being evaluated. The value of well-timed and

frequent evaluation cannot be overstated, for it conveys the institution's philosophy and

emphasis on quality and efficiency (Langley, 1994). Some positive aspects of a continual

evaluation system include a formal analysis of the results, perpetual improvements in

performance, the ability to formulate fair and effectual personnel decisions, and an overall sense

of confidence in the administrative value of the evaluative process, and the knowledge of when it

becomes necessary to implement the alternative procedures if little or no results are rendered

(Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Hersey et al., 1996). Evaluation is the mechanism which guarantees that

both positive and negative reinforcements are used to reinforce and sustain desired behaviors

(Epstein, 1982). Finally, evaluation is a means to influence operations through both positive and

negative reinforcement (Bolman and Deal, 1997).









Perceptions of evaluation were found to be somewhat low compared to other

organizational climate variables. The percentage of faculty members selecting a response of

either "high" or "very high" for their perceived level of evaluation at the institution was 58.5%.

While this is clearly a maj ority of respondents, that percentage is lower than the corresponding

figure for other organizational climate variables. Additionally, 30.8% of respondents selected a

response of "moderate", which is the neutral response. That nearly a third of faculty would be

neutral about such an important topic as evaluation is academically interesting, yet a maj or

concern from a practical standpoint for the institution. This is an area that institutions would do

well to give additional attention.

Promotion

The mean response overall for perceptions of promotion was 3.38 with a standard

deviation of 1.1293, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.05 to 3.71. Additionally, 49.2% of those

responding to this item perceived the level of promotion to be either high or very high. There

was no significant difference in perceived levels of promotion between full-time and part-time

faculty .

Recall that promotion may be defined as an institution's propensity toward internal

promotion and progression of the positions of individuals within the institution. Promotion

generally entails increased influence and status, as well as greater benefits, salary, or both.

Promotion is generally based on the quality of evaluations, dedication to the institution, and work

ethic (Vaughn, 1986). Successful organizations commonly promote internally rather than filling

openings externally (Nanus, 1992; Collins and Porras, 1994). Typical reasons for promoting

from within include the benefits of dealing with a known individual (unknown quantities can

offer a certain level of risk), the occurrence of increased morale, initiative and dedication among

promoted employees, and the ability to avoid the heavy costs associated with recruiting of new










personnel (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Promotion is mot often regarded as an emotionally

fulfilling and, accordingly, has a positive influence on organizational climate.

Regard for personal concerns

The mean response overall for perceptions of regard for personal concerns was 3.79 with a

standard deviation of 1.142, and a 95% confidence interval of 3.49 to 4.08. Additionally, 63.0%

of those responding to this item perceived the level of regard for personal concerns to be either

high or very high. There was no significant difference in perceived levels of regard for personal

concerns between full-time and part-time faculty.

Recall that regard for personal concerns may be defined as an institution' s sensitivity to,

and regard for, the personal concerns and well-being of the faculty and staff (Duncan &

Harlacher, 1994; Vroom, 1964). Regard for personal concerns can be viewed as a high

relationship leadership approach, since the needs, desires, and concerns of employees are indeed

both salient and critical (Hersey et al., 1996). Blau (2001) found that employees who had a sense

that their organization had sincere concern for their welfare and were sensitive to their needs and

concerns are have greater loyalty to the organization, and are much more likely to stay. From an

interpersonal perspective, trust is deemed to be the basis of regard for personal concerns (Covey,

1991). Not surprisingly, regard for personal concerns is a primary contributor to j ob satisfaction,

and will ultimately enhance organizational climate (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991).

Faculty Satisfaction with Organizational Climate

Overall, the data indicated that faculty members were generally satisfied with

organizational climate variables at the institution. Five-point Likert scales were used to measure

faculty members' satisfaction with each of the seven factors which make up organizational

climate, with 5 representing a very high level of satisfaction and 1 representing a very low level.

The mean response for each factor was significantly greater than 3, which represented a level of









'moderate', and hence faculty members were more satisfied than dissatisfied with organizational

climate at the institution. A discussion of faculty satisfaction with each of the factors follows.

Internal communication

The mean response overall for satisfaction with internal communication was 3.52 with a

standard deviation of 0.992, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.27 to 3.76.

Additionally, 55.4% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with internal

communication at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant

difference in satisfaction with internal communication between full-time and part-time faculty.

Organizational structure

The mean response overall for satisfaction with organizational structure was 3.64 with a

standard deviation of 0.915, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.41 to 3.87.

Additionally, 57.0% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with organizational

structure at the institution to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in

satisfaction with organizational structure between full-time and part-time faculty.

Political climate

The mean response overall for satisfaction with political climate was 3.36 with a standard

deviation of 1.200, and a 95% confidence interval for this value is 3.06 to 3.66. Additionally,

46.2% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with political climate to be either

high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisfaction with political climate

between full-time and part-time faculty.

Professional development opportunities

The mean response overall for satisfaction with professional development opportunities

was 3.72 with a standard deviation of 1.188, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.42 to 4.02.

Additionally, 64.6% of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with professional









development opportunities to be either high or very high. There was no significant difference in

satisfaction with professional development opportunities between full-time and part-time faculty.

Evaluation

The mean response overall for satisfaction with evaluation was 3.59 with a standard

deviation of 1.065, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.33 to 3.86. Additionally, 58.5% of those

responding to this item rated their satisfaction with evaluation to be either high or very high.

There was no significant difference in satisfaction with evaluation between full-time and part-

time faculty.

Promotion

The mean response overall for satisfaction with promotion was 3.38 with a standard

deviation of 1.291, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.05 to 3.70. Additionally, 44.7% of those

responding to this item rated their satisfaction with promotion to be either high or very high.

There was no significant difference in satisfaction with promotion between full-time and part-

time faculty.

Regard for personal concerns

The mean response overall for satisfaction with regard for personal concerns was 3.80 with

a standard deviation of 1.171, and a 95% confidence interval is 3.50 to 4.09. Additionally, 60.0%

of those responding to this item rated their satisfaction with regard for personal concerns to be

either high or very high. There was no significant difference in satisfaction with regard for

personal concerns between full-time and part-time faculty.

The Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction

This relationship between organizational climate and j ob satisfaction has been continually

investigated in a series of studies conducted at the University of Florida, some of which have

been previously cited, and all of which examined the relationship between organizational climate










and j ob satisfaction within higher educational settings, many of which were community colleges.

A brief summary of each follows.

In a study examining the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction

as reported by community college chief instructional officers, a survey measuring organizational

climate and j ob satisfaction variables was sent to the chief instructional officers at all member

colleges of the American Association of Community Colleges (Chappell, 1995). Roughly 5 1% of

these surveys were returned, and an analysis of the responses led to some rather revealing

conclusions. Foremost, it was determined that the organizational climate variables that

significantly impacted j ob satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal

communication, organizational structure and evaluation. Further, it was determined that the size

of the community college had a significant impact on participation in decision making,

autonomy, power, control, salary, benefits and professional effectiveness.

As study conducted simultaneously to the Chappell (1995) study investigated

organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by Florida community college health

occupations program directors (Palmer, 1995). This study sought to determine which aspects of

organizational climate promote and enhance job satisfaction, and to further determine the degree

of job satisfaction, among health occupations program directors in Florida community colleges.

Surveys measuring the variables of interest were distributes to all health occupations program

directors in Florida community colleges; roughly 71% of the surveys were returned. The results

indicated that the most important factor of organizational climate was internal communication,

and the factor most in need of improvement was political climate. Participation in decision

making and professional effectiveness were the most important factors among the position

characteristics, and salary, benefits and autonomy were most in need of improvement. The










respondents were generally satisfied, overall, with their positions. Interestingly, there was no

significant relationship found between j ob satisfaction and organizational climate. The Chappell

and Palmer studies caught the attention of a number of researchers, which led to a series of

subsequent studies.

One of the more noteworthy research studies in this sequence was an analysis of the

relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community

college presidents (Evans, 1996). This study specifically sought to determine if differences

existed in job satisfaction variables within the context of organizational climate. A survey

measuring the variables of interest was sent to the presidents of all institutions in the American

Association of Community Colleges. Thorough scrutiny of the responses showed that the

organizational climate factors most closely related to job satisfaction were regard for personal

concerns, internal communication, organizational structure, and professional development

opportunities. Additional, it was determined that a president' s relationship with the board of

trustees was the most important determinant of job satisfaction.

In an adaptation of the previously mentioned studies, Kellerman (1996) sought to explore

the relationship between communication climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by Florida' s

community college department chairs. Communication climate could be considered a related, yet

not identical, concept to organizational climate. Essentially, communication climate

encompasses decision making, reciprocity, feedback perception, feedback responsiveness and

feedback permissiveness. Similar to the methodology of the earlier studies, a survey was sent to

all academic department chairs in Florida community colleges. The responses indicated that their

overall level of job satisfaction was rather high, and additionally that job satisfaction was

significantly related to communication climate.









A study of selected organizational climate factors and job satisfaction variables among

teachers in a large suburban school district was conducted to explore these factors in a suburban

Florida school district (Paulson, 1997). A distinctive aspect of this study was the inclusion of the

variables of school level and union affiliation. The survey instrument in this study was

distributed to all 1685 teachers in an entire school district, including elementary, middle and high

school levels. Significant differences were found in all job satisfaction and organizational

climate factors with respect to school level, although the relationship between these factors and

union membership was extremely minor.

Continuing in this line of studies, a further research inquiry investigated the relationship

between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by mid-level collegiate campus

recreation coordinators (DeMichele, 1998). To reveal whether organizational climate factors and

job satisfaction factors enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational climate, a

survey measuring the variables of interest was distributed to all 545 mid-level campus recreation

coordinators in the directory of the National Intramural Recreational Sports Association, with an

approximate response rate of 52%. The responses showed that, overall, the program directors

were satisfied with their colleges and their j obs. The organizational climate factors that were

shown to influence job satisfaction were evaluation, regard for personal concerns, professional

development opportunities and political climate. Moreover, job satisfaction was also affected by

relationship with colleagues and autonomy, power and control. Demographic variables were

generally not determinants of job satisfaction.

The next study in this series of investigations was directed toward the relationship between

organizational culture and j ob satisfaction for community college chief business officers

(Zabetakis, 1999). For the purposes of the study under discussion, organizational culture is









nearly synonymous with organizational climate. Surveys were distributed to the entire 277 chief

business officers of community colleges belonging to the Community College Business Officers

Organization, and the response rate was roughly 51%. Respondents perceived the organizational

factors with the highest levels at their institutions were regard for personal concern, professional

development opportunities, internal communication and evaluation. Quite similarly, respondents

were most satisfied with the organizational factors of regard for personal concerns, professional

development opportunities, evaluation and internal communication. The most highly perceived

job satisfaction variables were relationships with supervisor, participation in decision making,

professional effectiveness, relationships with subordinates and relationships with peers.

Gratto (2001) extended this research to study the relationship between organizational

climate and j ob satisfaction for directors of physical plant on college campuses. An electronic

survey was disseminated to the college physical plant directors belonging to the Association of

Higher Education Facilities Officers; the study achieved a response rate of 37%. An analysis of

the responses indicated that the organizational climate factors which most significantly relate to

job satisfaction were regard for personal concerns, internal communication, organizational

structure and evaluation.

Continuing with this trend, a subsequent research study explored the relationship between

organizational climate and j ob satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in

multi-campus community college systems (Bailey, 2002). A survey measuring the variables of

interest was distributed to all campus executive officers of multi-campus community colleges

listed in the Higher Education Directory. A total of 199 surveys were returned out of 429 that

were sent out, resulting in a response rate of 46%. Results indicated that the organizational

climate variables of regard for personal concerns and evaluation were the most strongly related










to job satisfaction. Further, internal communication was the greatest predictor of overall

satisfaction, followed by regard for personal concerns, professional development opportunities,

and low levels of political climate.

Another study in this area investigated the relationship between organizational climate and

job satisfaction for athletic compliance directors of NCAA Division I institutions (Lawrence,

2003). In all, 346 surveys were distributed to all NCAA Division I compliance directors, and 164

were returned. Thus, there was a 46% response rate. The respondents' overall satisfaction with

their positions was reasonably high, and most strongly related to the organizational climate

factors of evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents' greatest

levels of satisfaction with organizational climate factors occurred with regard for personal

concerns, and professional development opportunities.

Subsequently, Peek (2003) studied the relationship between organizational climate and j ob

satisfaction as reported by institutional research staff at Florida community colleges. A survey

measuring the variables of interest was sent to the heads of institutional research of all 28

community colleges in Florida, as listed in the Higher Education Directory. This study enjoyed a

75% response rate. The organizational climate factors with the highest perceived levels were

professional development opportunities, evaluation and internal communication. Generally,

overall satisfaction with organizational climate was quite high. He highest rated factors for job

satisfaction were professional effectiveness, relationship with supervisor, relationship with peers,

and relationship with subordinates.

Next, policy and organizational factors and their relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct /

part-time faculty in north central Florida public community college was considered (LeFevre-

Stephens, 2004). A survey instrument was distributed to part-time faculty through their










department chairs. Of 667 surveys distributed, 224 were completed and returned, yielding an

approximate response rate of 33%. Analysis of the responses showed that respondents' overall

satisfaction with the position was fairly high, and significantly associated with the organizational

climate factors of evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concerns. The respondents'

highest levels of satisfaction were with regard for personal concerns and professional

development opportunities. Lastly, the most important j ob satisfaction factors were relationships

with peers, relationship with supervisor, relationship with subordinates, and professional

effectiveness.

Lastly, the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by

community college executive secretaries and / or associates to the president was researched

(Sofianos, 2005). For this study, the survey was distributed to the executive secretaries of the

presidents of the 342 community colleges in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

There were 137 surveys returned, which represents a 40% response rate. The statistical analyses

of this study found very strong associations between the constructs of organizational climate and

job satisfaction. Overall, satisfaction with organizational climate was above average, with the

factors of evaluation, regard for personal concerns, and organizational structure receiving the

highest levels of satisfaction. These factors also received the highest ratings for perceived level

at the institution.

Existing research has shown, through a compositional analysis of the organizational

climate-performance relation, that there is no evidence to support any mediating effects of job

satisfaction on relations of organizational climate to organizational performance and to employee

turnover (Griffith, 2006). These findings are consistent with the more general organizational