<%BANNER%>

Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Middle School Principals in Central Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021920/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Middle School Principals in Central Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (143 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: central, climate, factors, florida, job, middle, organizational, principal, relationship, satisfaction, school
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify and analyze the relationship between organizational climate variables and job satisfaction characteristics. Further, this study investigated whether job satisfaction varied as a function of the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan school grades designated for the past three years. This public middle school study was a modified replication of previous research done in higher education. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the variables of interest were distributed to public middle school principals from seven counties in Central Florida. In total, 97 individuals received the electronic survey and 51 completed the surveys for a 53% response rate. Results of this study found the majority of the respondents were Caucasian (84.0%), male (56.9%), between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%), and held a master?s degree (64.7%) or doctorate (27.5%). Thirty-six percent (36.0%) of the respondents reported working as a middle school principal for 4 to 7 years, with 1 to 3 of those years in their current school (44.0%). Statistical analysis of the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction revealed that middle school principals in Central Florida rated their overall mean satisfaction with their position and the district generally high (above 3.8). Data analysis revealed that the statistically significant climate variables leading to job satisfaction were: professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and participation with decision making. Only assignment of a mentor was found to be a statistically significant predictor for Central Florida middle school principals ratings of importance with position characteristics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021920:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021920/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction among Middle School Principals in Central Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (143 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: central, climate, factors, florida, job, middle, organizational, principal, relationship, satisfaction, school
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify and analyze the relationship between organizational climate variables and job satisfaction characteristics. Further, this study investigated whether job satisfaction varied as a function of the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan school grades designated for the past three years. This public middle school study was a modified replication of previous research done in higher education. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the variables of interest were distributed to public middle school principals from seven counties in Central Florida. In total, 97 individuals received the electronic survey and 51 completed the surveys for a 53% response rate. Results of this study found the majority of the respondents were Caucasian (84.0%), male (56.9%), between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%), and held a master?s degree (64.7%) or doctorate (27.5%). Thirty-six percent (36.0%) of the respondents reported working as a middle school principal for 4 to 7 years, with 1 to 3 of those years in their current school (44.0%). Statistical analysis of the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction revealed that middle school principals in Central Florida rated their overall mean satisfaction with their position and the district generally high (above 3.8). Data analysis revealed that the statistically significant climate variables leading to job satisfaction were: professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and participation with decision making. Only assignment of a mentor was found to be a statistically significant predictor for Central Florida middle school principals ratings of importance with position characteristics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021920:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101109_AAAAAB INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T06:17:20Z PACKAGE UFE0021920_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4386 DFID F20101109_AAACME ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kindt_c_Page_099thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
93da7733881dff8383928dd05f77610e
SHA-1
ee024e73f4b8f15b0b76c2943b1cdb6c3ff6a567
4557 F20101109_AAACLQ kindt_c_Page_092thm.jpg
bcbaa39192de282c9f227f2a1e6ad632
478d993c09d370fba68ff9405a9cbaf6c4b25b84
93866 F20101109_AAABJC kindt_c_Page_137.jpg
5259b8fa29ca4c83f3ea5be5a63eaf85
6ef89f9762f8fdd485cad2466f6953e871d4d2f4
76011 F20101109_AAABIO kindt_c_Page_123.jpg
030b6a619bb109d1a4c1c71e2ffedde9
c53c69a1737d7a9deb2b8137dd80cb4e3c6a7d84
68320 F20101109_AAABHZ kindt_c_Page_107.jpg
943a23347eae2969f6d856cfa3a91c11
18a67b7bc65c9da38b0aaaa4f4db3b3397fe957a
17546 F20101109_AAACMF kindt_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
619b2c5245c90d1fd6b5ace224617170
7090545aa905ae0531da69d7193c1f8cd9550cf0
16364 F20101109_AAACLR kindt_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
1872d353161c18eac8553c6a40583c5e
a8211332961be33bbc932b65fc5738c07c0964fb
79845 F20101109_AAABJD kindt_c_Page_139.jpg
3a441fea788d7c4e3776bd2c49f7c679
bcd1404f839f68babe2be6684fee3b5a2e702ee0
14211 F20101109_AAABIP kindt_c_Page_124.jpg
846fd56fb9a36a5046241b090a99bb40
99f1b28ccea0d39d48ddd16a48ff660a40791736
4954 F20101109_AAACMG kindt_c_Page_100thm.jpg
e827ac766449aff2bd929e2a835fd774
214badf07f6b614171b724cc36cf8aa3f9ec8d0f
4595 F20101109_AAACLS kindt_c_Page_093thm.jpg
b0ff6bc852f6de4f675a9f9014af7d8d
ed3d62c67d2c51aa6897f2b4be75d799628a249c
96962 F20101109_AAABJE kindt_c_Page_140.jpg
f73924922df1e7bafc7ed3350d54b6fe
e815abad714b36e4c3db624e4d9417846cb6c8c4
53720 F20101109_AAABIQ kindt_c_Page_125.jpg
6a75ff83ad02a0917948acfe22f45854
75dec90b549dacb65d0baa6ea138d5c002a7b10e
16693 F20101109_AAACMH kindt_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
ad92fa2bf9c6b825bc0e7c9b79d99311
c117d867e51b6d34e1f7ba68b2189d0a85886d74
16247 F20101109_AAACLT kindt_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
59fbb7be393586b1eecfb11e0c8d0799
035d68ffca56acf38d4cfaa7b48f15a9e95ec50a
91977 F20101109_AAABJF kindt_c_Page_141.jpg
278fc619a3c943a9ad7139e3741bce37
bf1314020c0d130c2b81f08de644946f1ebb09a5
60791 F20101109_AAABIR kindt_c_Page_126.jpg
7210ffda7dfe04ebf3c8daa89a592587
c4d0c9f631e26238b2f26fb3233fbd67df5c9682
4806 F20101109_AAACMI kindt_c_Page_101thm.jpg
b805399ff4b5df56d94ce514c8f5adf1
de8ef1e91e44aca36a84b64a0624b062aa45ee60
4638 F20101109_AAACLU kindt_c_Page_094thm.jpg
ac42910eec48373357f3f6f4c126aad2
b01a6f2d9a9bf4ca54acfded3d6614c2a30e8be7
82512 F20101109_AAABJG kindt_c_Page_142.jpg
2872ff021bf82e4946580dc44e6ea94f
af1316076da4393b2a7d06b559189b8d41e67c17
40643 F20101109_AAABIS kindt_c_Page_127.jpg
580362986913410c7e6574aae3137a9f
e2487376c2b576cb1bfab5ecafe7a737e4738582
12569 F20101109_AAACMJ kindt_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
d6d265b8de94c72839df517dfaaeeca8
d9ddfecb3c09dd758fdb8bd4908b129f68a9caa8
9792 F20101109_AAACLV kindt_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
b253eed89dc42811fa708bb5aee304d0
2e7a07f59c6d6c21a53d0a41eb8be9de58613b46
55854 F20101109_AAABJH kindt_c_Page_143.jpg
6342147bf2935a79ee82b910b4e0f67b
25c2c7db094b15567d65de3ab64c3545fd0a44a7
47569 F20101109_AAABIT kindt_c_Page_128.jpg
5a160181e9fdb1c12bbbbe85abc3142a
285f8e1667f2e1737ba98fcefdcf867cb5e4b937
3749 F20101109_AAACMK kindt_c_Page_102thm.jpg
194a83a21afa990e72c0fd108d3a8104
be57b7019266b9394a7e6bb14e0ffcf3357bc1c2
274244 F20101109_AAABJI kindt_c_Page_001.jp2
8e1328d121f628ee4e33b7a933218d7e
4423b3ba54ab54e0db0524b04a808d8f506dd5a3
15340 F20101109_AAACML kindt_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
1250721404d43a26e1cf3c600cdf204c
d945998aaa53ea294e5ad0f9684b4f4dbdd66954
2969 F20101109_AAACLW kindt_c_Page_095thm.jpg
d1ab1727530f322c0d632d8847217505
d97f746f7889976446ade50866127122f7a3c92d
25119 F20101109_AAABJJ kindt_c_Page_002.jp2
74a9d6b49a443abf6bed9a5d61195104
fa23cb5fecbe6d919c5a199d503dcb38783c9e77
66881 F20101109_AAABIU kindt_c_Page_129.jpg
3f1c7d25472a7b5b84822d64e30f1445
56ffe75fceb141100f1a019334cbc2e92c2ec4ba
6905 F20101109_AAACNA kindt_c_Page_110thm.jpg
3a4295c1369d34ed441f7f5a5ea8b975
00bd5f8e4b84b60c6841a994c11f0db9723471c3
4507 F20101109_AAACMM kindt_c_Page_103thm.jpg
7e8d3ae04139cf771d80b5185826688b
abe9ae7fe8dcfa8cedbde3f512177c6c351a71b4
17809 F20101109_AAACLX kindt_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
7ddc52f191ddca8ace9e104d05cc44c1
076078e615598684251a1116e12ed35ae3886672
46063 F20101109_AAABJK kindt_c_Page_003.jp2
cad14183891a1c04b935d43fc9676e57
dd1b18f37d5df61a898c8a2355c964e34d809ebe
77789 F20101109_AAABIV kindt_c_Page_130.jpg
f9d98543f52203f8912900884130bdbe
fc721edb31b87627e5dadc4e097ed109967404ad
26009 F20101109_AAACNB kindt_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
84b2df49f9caea5dfa0605563a4d8106
051f287c7ba7d030bb99aab62365be41a19d2fbf
26145 F20101109_AAACMN kindt_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
0a1c9d2636a5c7222422d3d7a0034873
8985c142bc375c4bd7906e1c9f0ba67f3d6a0ac5
5205 F20101109_AAACLY kindt_c_Page_096thm.jpg
4eff59c1061e30ce2850048f1660c50f
db7e6a4777dd113ba88068b267a722f8ee63f94f
1018088 F20101109_AAABJL kindt_c_Page_004.jp2
9a0af59a83c8cb1343034b11c29769bd
2fc2f3263af67bedea9c505620d6ccf3f992c81b
74866 F20101109_AAABIW kindt_c_Page_131.jpg
b369d8c226c35c3d415fa0dc14201f2e
f30372e1b695e7298628616cf097714f500da9e4
7320 F20101109_AAACNC kindt_c_Page_111thm.jpg
5eae0f38aeb1abb9c13966c8f9baf5e9
99cef71bef14b6e84409f6470b98f7faafd5b4fb
7478 F20101109_AAACMO kindt_c_Page_104thm.jpg
fb5c4c383d315d3cc9fa65388afc353b
93d8a8176fb140bb99c88772abd53a527da90357
17091 F20101109_AAACLZ kindt_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
203c59f13316849451b86915c5fe9760
60320d828d09aa9397dc521a7c8a357c54eaf4fa
235160 F20101109_AAABJM kindt_c_Page_005.jp2
2a6fc023533227d23f1960991d516884
4efbd0f78c4d16ef69b7bbbcba9cd8c05fc57313
63306 F20101109_AAABIX kindt_c_Page_132.jpg
34ecf2801061d9e352bd7e0099a4e84e
c9f639b32cfa4d8beee78a514463783bb4cbd430
1051956 F20101109_AAABKA kindt_c_Page_019.jp2
178c6bf1ff521e67c0a3cdfd9a5d394b
43e477d78a9c9975f2b1687a1a8b26cf1accafa0
26876 F20101109_AAACND kindt_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
409ad9c723d16d27bd6940d65ed3d656
02ce000b8d79cee6829b1562a85ab117ead73256
12525 F20101109_AAACMP kindt_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
4b57b2dac85e29e483543f41c48067fe
5152c2d35bcc9e4c7a5583dd692c6dc97ca8cb7a
1051970 F20101109_AAABJN kindt_c_Page_006.jp2
b054ccfea3d49694d3242f888526d0b5
da2e04696d4e8836131b53d368300654efaaa42a
61032 F20101109_AAABIY kindt_c_Page_133.jpg
bebf2fc7e78098e06f9e611b143502cd
16d2c1fbeafd5ad07ab201bf1527e2cc86330ef9
1051964 F20101109_AAABKB kindt_c_Page_020.jp2
047224c9e8938b280d0256fda0c0b8f1
a8c62fecb90580d724ecb92b5185203eee1a4fde
7045 F20101109_AAACNE kindt_c_Page_112thm.jpg
65705abf79fd377e7ceb2eb3602b6b5a
0e647bd57e6e5126524b8f6aa6c6398a49de47b9
3745 F20101109_AAACMQ kindt_c_Page_105thm.jpg
3f82c24dc71e3ac0cda1c08750adc034
f995726183eae29cf185a29f3da7bb4737d2b0a3
1051984 F20101109_AAABJO kindt_c_Page_007.jp2
f5816bd80ec92616c406899e65044d56
19e2ff376e333c2ba0dc5afd25c1a5d7664fd325
21409 F20101109_AAABIZ kindt_c_Page_134.jpg
3866ef1f2e1fdf3f829aea443fe97758
721b7d7782b9a7bb9152b2581361cba726dbf0fe
1051950 F20101109_AAABKC kindt_c_Page_021.jp2
3141ce0f406e44879562e36e149569f4
66a45691e76395b76236d783f83565db63ed0d02
25648 F20101109_AAACNF kindt_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
8b251abad6bdc90fd4658c0651fa2a30
24d38bc2daee0eac02f28fa01fa73104325f44b9
13090 F20101109_AAACMR kindt_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
3b8ae6929bc9fc41c6e624b9ac948910
939332996095e828f7a99dd4855029b4a59e9814
F20101109_AAABJP kindt_c_Page_008.jp2
a703922a94ac9923cdc9ce02713d1869
6cdfbeed59e40a8b7cb9e625713211daef36761b
687168 F20101109_AAABKD kindt_c_Page_022.jp2
9b45bc77fee1982cfe52ac1b7374ed3f
20fc7b3ff767c6c4f4bd68710b35add87eb9a199
6976 F20101109_AAACNG kindt_c_Page_113thm.jpg
179ee47e4d19d0cdbf72b45d68295181
a52670e31ce2b1c58a7b3e4ab3a6d6d1c3e1e7c1
3902 F20101109_AAACMS kindt_c_Page_106thm.jpg
a9a71483dde265c8b248ee9c07e46ccc
27eaf2bebc2bbc47519479f50035b9225a60a3a0
1051983 F20101109_AAABJQ kindt_c_Page_009.jp2
2d41cc6672a9d142f4bd3b2005526204
190bcf3c9d94f0bfe73a8d24a0fb2b3becba6ac5
1051982 F20101109_AAABKE kindt_c_Page_024.jp2
864b00b3979af33d8bf938798fb60350
9bcd402311587492b481979550c54275a903643f
25327 F20101109_AAACNH kindt_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
bfbc913392701d12dc7ce2762c43a92f
5401f30dfc97c7139d5177b39108d9b1b3f67806
20734 F20101109_AAACMT kindt_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
85c2cd5d40df34c01760f1a9f808df0d
9b58b95937c9cca655dffadeeab2dbbd4c807eb8
1051975 F20101109_AAABJR kindt_c_Page_010.jp2
0dd2fd288c23ad3198fc0e673d984855
9cade39a4ea8cd18ed87096fa503800f7e26e431
1051979 F20101109_AAABKF kindt_c_Page_025.jp2
0405d1fbc096f7f1058ba1f382b4a996
ed0c8dae7e54680c7043b87bbacc70a32f0cb758
6922 F20101109_AAACNI kindt_c_Page_114thm.jpg
c19285f8c1dfbec781428a7073ce0c0f
d6a17c94c5c64d46d649666166b5d60055d3f91d
6302 F20101109_AAACMU kindt_c_Page_107thm.jpg
427c7bb923ad548facc83b94f12e07c6
870e56c8a793f4e2b6484be4ded5088b3ff7aa33
F20101109_AAABJS kindt_c_Page_011.jp2
340a790c2d9c70605998fcbbabdea819
459dee8dc2a316ee89d54860891292fcac0e19c9
1051927 F20101109_AAABKG kindt_c_Page_026.jp2
609681da09bf5bc9a0bd01b0f8372467
91dd5b52ccd64a94ea79b265d32dd2189b00fb51
27049 F20101109_AAACNJ kindt_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
f628c08f119a91ed60d00869f9cb5e10
47304a4379ead031307e7fad7102d6cf96364edb
12775 F20101109_AAACMV kindt_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
1f1adefa374023d5f29b575ff87ff3e4
e15c31aa1074adbf4c367f14e82bffb264afa15e
934412 F20101109_AAABJT kindt_c_Page_012.jp2
31e00df9bdf7e6f098e007599cf68e1a
62a16246f076901a43ff73d26de3a98c5b30954b
1051902 F20101109_AAABKH kindt_c_Page_027.jp2
20ad4d4ee7f0f115e2e4cf8e3e2311e9
9a8e5927c0ba0d68b45e843831bc2142f9172524
7189 F20101109_AAACNK kindt_c_Page_115thm.jpg
2851b16493764635136c25448577da1f
8efeea49f8dd890628eba5d1c1b4cfdd5911d002
3876 F20101109_AAACMW kindt_c_Page_108thm.jpg
8d20ad8fc18da4182c5d163a8d50cc3f
835a70ada74297f3bd934b4bcf3b63a06e1f8878
756524 F20101109_AAABJU kindt_c_Page_013.jp2
a94b930f8e9d703d6a53c23a7178787d
2f1f377c6d767b48f6ec477dbca7d985c4946c14
F20101109_AAABKI kindt_c_Page_028.jp2
f5bc57e73b755039c49092eb520956ec
e607001f556526d744a2bf80b33ba6d827912a59
27097 F20101109_AAACNL kindt_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
0c1398f933ca8cdd607a25e86fb4ae35
be72f9b9c9dccf326e8047bc7aaa22382f90e722
1051963 F20101109_AAABKJ kindt_c_Page_030.jp2
8ae95be8bc6b9d1e5701936dda79ede6
d11301ed7f1b2b333ca0282fbc22e31e1c83aeb0
1733 F20101109_AAACOA kindt_c_Page_124thm.jpg
2980d4eaccd4072a7f23ccad71c60a16
96e10f0b1375cf9190d85b59e48fb2ad0f72abbf
26223 F20101109_AAACNM kindt_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
b145e91bb0c5acbcd2e329a5b81f0372
5019b2fa6eee4f886a73caf3ede93a603b3e6216
15496 F20101109_AAACMX kindt_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
8466d9735c14358ee86807c84ff270a4
33103057fa089a659ac84948a0ba37d8abdce9b0
912527 F20101109_AAABJV kindt_c_Page_014.jp2
bafbe202520ea669e6673f1bacbed6b2
83ba9dd61d6fbad43711f72a5c715e16633356b6
1051953 F20101109_AAABKK kindt_c_Page_031.jp2
922b9f1246010b84466a3b40aca95988
2f4a498357fd254ec0a99d901c901a4464a95bd5
14578 F20101109_AAACOB kindt_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
b55937205d88b50ffdb9ad79323c5afe
6aba03b15d0ca14b48d3b4562cb8894212accb3a
7291 F20101109_AAACNN kindt_c_Page_117thm.jpg
d14ef0828a406b9d463a5de7a6863846
10f608324783ffb4eea49910ae5592b34e4a572d
F20101109_AAACMY kindt_c_Page_109thm.jpg
fa95364c7f538ff5458cb9d274930d1e
be8704f1f1c362807c2a18a9a7854965d5446023
631773 F20101109_AAABJW kindt_c_Page_015.jp2
40e686f0e1ead8a5b90ce59f52a6ebfd
9e4df2cfab22eb48f437bb8d9c2ea09cbf7943f8
1051914 F20101109_AAABKL kindt_c_Page_032.jp2
2ca588f295ecace93ddcc9ff5738714d
8e580f0d8cd325309a1f80499cb7fc8d394e66d4
3862 F20101109_AAACOC kindt_c_Page_125thm.jpg
52f39db0e4584b4457d9108d06b57485
393c1587a1f940547780fc18a0f7dc43c5749370
7003 F20101109_AAACNO kindt_c_Page_118thm.jpg
154e229612bc84556be81f09c3bb625e
de893438537fb808cfc6b4202b07acb33b480bdc
26339 F20101109_AAACMZ kindt_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
d7d48b05df5704dd86757f76ed09dbc5
0aed9a18e8291179a2806b5cc836469c91f158cf
1051985 F20101109_AAABJX kindt_c_Page_016.jp2
669f16693894aea17b4ebe8c5308c516
9f5851060f92669d79f55dc58e77e89dfd42af5e
1051941 F20101109_AAABLA kindt_c_Page_048.jp2
0e0a8f68d697fb63b22906095c24a43b
5712098af5eb8a868ceff3e69d87ce154c62e2a2
1051883 F20101109_AAABKM kindt_c_Page_033.jp2
a7795564b8d289d5497ad9033fa0ab48
0a60c40454f24080ab0631b9855a3dcb94c2be6b
16410 F20101109_AAACOD kindt_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
040b89f4903f779a3c189f67e99bb234
c211720618b0be7da6bb62972358b3e8b191e6ae
26319 F20101109_AAACNP kindt_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
72cf82f87a7d1912f772338623cb0c8a
616c989dc3a32e429feb541d1e6f0a6b867ad082
1051977 F20101109_AAABJY kindt_c_Page_017.jp2
812308decf7b5d5d2dcbe1c3d8446595
b03c58482e0be0f50f2eb8e82709c9443d6f716a
353897 F20101109_AAABLB kindt_c_Page_049.jp2
df8cdace319789a45a2acead73aca9e6
b8a77335b374c1b692d599e147ece90db12bc5eb
F20101109_AAABKN kindt_c_Page_034.jp2
c3aa61f1ca2a2b769bfa6eacca588dbb
c18e645dc7fb96ebbf3c0e4737ae4a1071fd648f
4473 F20101109_AAACOE kindt_c_Page_126thm.jpg
0ee7d31383bfa5f3806dec96adc01828
bbd95f6a430ee7ca5c45cd95d1556b183e056e7d
7075 F20101109_AAACNQ kindt_c_Page_119thm.jpg
7834b98477c16d724b45da5f712a8d2b
75a1e62268ef46aad7912b501d57f1072b49cbc4
F20101109_AAABJZ kindt_c_Page_018.jp2
f75ebaa4b848278da88a5641e28c9393
3b45dce896d1a0dd9f29241b9dea9c734538ff7c
F20101109_AAABLC kindt_c_Page_050.jp2
90e272a7cd5b10a071424c08b7b3e486
46fa16936dbc5dd00c90a1c6e9aff6a973f3f7fe
F20101109_AAABKO kindt_c_Page_035.jp2
a28b86b70c17cd46a986610867b115c2
198dc28e58eba682e75db586dce4597f75a581a2
13894 F20101109_AAACOF kindt_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
d99923cf4bdd4a373d6a68177704b93b
6532782a8c75d1c19bdf2c8c7beac8df8729ae3c
26594 F20101109_AAACNR kindt_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
fa922e824b732e8756be444d201c3c6b
5473d17b7336bc03d2c59afa1d6c4b14d2ead1f2
F20101109_AAABLD kindt_c_Page_051.jp2
c7bfd80f9201e4f18daf92aac0beeaee
0efa97f1fbe298869b5fca4cedfbddd36555bfe4
1051918 F20101109_AAABKP kindt_c_Page_036.jp2
2172446e398007470a404a2620ce7b4b
ebddcfc44e491a752bac1b49dc6c655529ff53b4
14849 F20101109_AAACOG kindt_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
cc7b5d20d0d9f2cfdbb078b6eaef0351
53047e4e6bc657a85f41817da23fe44ae6d0d706
7141 F20101109_AAACNS kindt_c_Page_120thm.jpg
19e700909a1ab993a8983f2a3cb0e873
8b3c20d53c4c76779fcf81d5f969a506bc3b8f94
1051955 F20101109_AAABLE kindt_c_Page_052.jp2
1ab58e2e0dee68d25ee4d4e742c2b2a4
167431cbdd1042712f661fb790e07ce173552de5
1051974 F20101109_AAABKQ kindt_c_Page_037.jp2
b0b4ffdcfe23538b1467728aab4b6ea1
6c6b68a4198975b04332fb7fc466e5a76e4a4cb2
4314 F20101109_AAACOH kindt_c_Page_128thm.jpg
0b0ee6ca40cff10bac5dd6ebb01eb6e3
f9d0a859c4cfa7194f02ca493dcc032a470dd873
27123 F20101109_AAACNT kindt_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
35cb8bc4d1c889cfdd982fa069b0c7ef
24017477047e7f5b60e4625dfe1fc40775724061
1051962 F20101109_AAABLF kindt_c_Page_053.jp2
283695c66ca3128ab71f0fd2ee9e6698
1d9691b9609a648ba6c74d778a261af227d634a8
1051976 F20101109_AAABKR kindt_c_Page_038.jp2
6ab6f883d62c46b3fba57d73f6b345a3
78288835f48ad57581b7c0f957fa8325277bc514
20914 F20101109_AAACOI kindt_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
313d3e6be799153628c34fb9dad250c6
e9e53e3a8cc0dd1bb47e6a6518d38daedd860777
7347 F20101109_AAACNU kindt_c_Page_121thm.jpg
fd1e2d48b4b84de287624c79d540acd5
9dd8f6d27484e120bada420b77e9a169b00e4693
1045228 F20101109_AAABLG kindt_c_Page_054.jp2
776bfe0e3dd7cc8d18795eea1a39e66a
2bd1710ae57c51cdd226039dadf10ce8511e8f54
1051960 F20101109_AAABKS kindt_c_Page_039.jp2
f8e4768fb620fa87cb9f10ae9401838a
497152516367e95e89b8394ab1abc860f8079bcb
5851 F20101109_AAACOJ kindt_c_Page_129thm.jpg
0c2f8f180f62b13cb443790798c9fb76
318eca21546f5591ed47dc185a16e6d5579ec988
27406 F20101109_AAACNV kindt_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
50b18a87e634750f126a91b45634383a
1884f4cfe1561b7d1bd48a92349d691e1b19ed4b
1029563 F20101109_AAABLH kindt_c_Page_055.jp2
d351950458718920f1a7b5eed269bc27
14d49cb9fc5489f0e1357313e44fc80cf69ef99f
F20101109_AAABKT kindt_c_Page_040.jp2
9e8b1013ec59404403ab2563cd7fadc9
c8849bfddc06d4f696f798c10b8e236fd87c3dc3
23038 F20101109_AAACOK kindt_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
533eedbb87d5d9a62d95a4a5b6ba373e
8f98807bcbe7af5768d005d988c99e3049a72b40
7262 F20101109_AAACNW kindt_c_Page_122thm.jpg
300b47bb4435f43fdc789e5489ec4d71
8d9e50ba6818280180232e5de71a7cbc001e0bce
1051965 F20101109_AAABLI kindt_c_Page_056.jp2
93d4490d0620f2c62d7263f3c9c33dca
e752987e19c52c3c472143d27f5e20a6059f8c0f
1051946 F20101109_AAABKU kindt_c_Page_041.jp2
47e1a1a00ed31c08614d058ae9bf9ca7
22f9387a0df1127f88bcb438844e14a295deb7bc
6751 F20101109_AAACOL kindt_c_Page_130thm.jpg
731d357cf3aea9fd476af1763ec03892
b14e925fdc12689e8353508cdf8200b39240a9f7
23639 F20101109_AAACNX kindt_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
7738cb7a2fe5f802c476e23631e9618d
52aab4d69b83caf35466ca017bd7942d59d81bca
F20101109_AAABLJ kindt_c_Page_057.jp2
93a36048b3ad69a6fdb0ff19453ff427
413a97ca5b828616faa86e2f8b184f175da2fe2c
1051978 F20101109_AAABKV kindt_c_Page_042.jp2
ead48fb8815522d247125a46147d6de2
f4f21341ed5e1dcedd86be067d26a81a5e88f096
6721 F20101109_AAACPA kindt_c_Page_138thm.jpg
9b50ebc69cbfca91107f78c15eeb3f04
b0e6a30977e51f102a12bb16149a2dae61b11926
22226 F20101109_AAACOM kindt_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
61326663b0e3d73ff02de75af374f0fd
b76a0d03dc2149c586d64e5a9dcc5d8ebe520b1d
938920 F20101109_AAABLK kindt_c_Page_058.jp2
3e7a06263559c00871aa07012c03745b
cc0f89750fb47af5ae27c35c892e528d6b430498
23189 F20101109_AAACPB kindt_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
2cb90bbf4c6faae8ae4f8341e8b23dab
b763c9b913fc40972cf749a108442dd01052110e
6054 F20101109_AAACON kindt_c_Page_131thm.jpg
b5d703c0c075215458de584f495ee2bc
0567777f514157e8b62ae5ea8e9f34b856613578
6966 F20101109_AAACNY kindt_c_Page_123thm.jpg
2fd20f70c9cfd146a59dfea048e4f616
4d8f2f0190aed5d6ea39f3dfab8b7f5888f11e85
1004451 F20101109_AAABLL kindt_c_Page_059.jp2
f92791e267c3cc9fcfb7c1615f86c647
da4ba61a6815a367a3744cbdd3c91e32afdbeb5d
F20101109_AAABKW kindt_c_Page_043.jp2
e1a9b7697e0cc1f07d0eca76b8e32e1a
631e354a1ccb60e6bab2a97c3ba44f692c8e1965
6199 F20101109_AAACPC kindt_c_Page_139thm.jpg
ae700dfa59d3028d7912e03c9c11d9ae
32269a1b60db49481e1c91e65ba20c149988b5e8
19122 F20101109_AAACOO kindt_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
f26158f88001e136d51d7224758d0547
ed59cadb4dbd8ab53db5d5d0532aa14448ec1175
4763 F20101109_AAACNZ kindt_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
82891fe08464508bbcdd53388ee62763
b944e8dde8aacdbec1887a4aaeb9ddd9ebd3e93d
934476 F20101109_AAABLM kindt_c_Page_060.jp2
2989cdf0ceda678078239d9481843dad
9822ac4d8d59840e98759fae335bba41d992eab7
F20101109_AAABKX kindt_c_Page_044.jp2
5e32b683fdac4a4e687ef209e5f4e2ad
f8fd8970e362627c0dc784d23fe37d2cfb0feddf
F20101109_AAABMA kindt_c_Page_075.jp2
5760674340ef45304ce91a32be593b81
21d64813679aea0fd236bb06dcda38c95fb311e6
26648 F20101109_AAACPD kindt_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
e0f5796467c412ed12af214b845d121f
a96088e446002a54232f7e27cfa8713f90bfaff6
5332 F20101109_AAACOP kindt_c_Page_132thm.jpg
20b5f7d48a53aa7034ef97700d75ed22
f7f3080447ca2e28eeaf10f3783b35e7ae347881
1010542 F20101109_AAABLN kindt_c_Page_061.jp2
30bdd0765a758c3578d8ec96ffb1493d
c905b6d66c3bc68241a1117b17e5221fdd2adc39
1051959 F20101109_AAABKY kindt_c_Page_046.jp2
26b6ba77bd6d0b04aab7991ffa4586d9
b9d6295cc4e7ee00c3b7a77dbbba8eb400988de9
F20101109_AAABMB kindt_c_Page_076.jp2
021b4b6a34a1e57636556eb09b4d1264
ceced794343ad87136ae4c94444a2220d3ecce91
6920 F20101109_AAACPE kindt_c_Page_140thm.jpg
0bae6cac4167c71058e84c20fd627a02
c11cd406f03b9fa5aa80e8948994bf5fc20c0a13
18393 F20101109_AAACOQ kindt_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
e5c3a7001d8c7114299475c22481c12a
4621f4482ecac17aceed3bd2fde9f2d868a8d5b3
1051981 F20101109_AAABLO kindt_c_Page_062.jp2
f82c7f51316df2c27c0d4e588c909881
b69e943d694804c1bb405ef36b1a9573f9879da8
1051930 F20101109_AAABKZ kindt_c_Page_047.jp2
5b4e3f6ed0748dad99978183829b6afe
48fe823c0be3b9f418af72fbd5bc440e483a8b56
1036338 F20101109_AAABMC kindt_c_Page_077.jp2
65258cf08fc5699de353ef424ad006cb
bd671b81bffe1164ae3c8faf44ffc0e7152b8e53
26202 F20101109_AAACPF kindt_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
bd32a93b3721c3e99efcf53088d0f289
7f894005a94be4e1864c9f0632ba80edd12a58e9
5656 F20101109_AAACOR kindt_c_Page_133thm.jpg
e895cb8daa1a798cb3e2d96304f46e63
7b08d3463cf801050c2649c8e01cf2f33c7fabfe
1034654 F20101109_AAABLP kindt_c_Page_063.jp2
f02bac8f4c1a990d96ad1517fb2399cc
9e6ec9a7712e28cf990e7bb763310ee23b056507
F20101109_AAABMD kindt_c_Page_078.jp2
9b718e41f988856ed0c9c124c9b1b871
76e56954862eb6d3816342f1036c485bb958855e
6974 F20101109_AAACPG kindt_c_Page_141thm.jpg
cdc74afb1ccc4445812cc570a1d6d5e3
55872387d8824ac3e8270d5666b11bc6f267102f
7281 F20101109_AAACOS kindt_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
c521d35d4ee7ecedcc9352e377ddab6f
eb324a2a4174a184fa94fec99c076d8f73c340fa
1022917 F20101109_AAABLQ kindt_c_Page_064.jp2
0328d11d9990c02201f0046e1d135ed5
e32cf05d9c52cc4b29c7080ea97d6026d8160e9e
F20101109_AAABME kindt_c_Page_079.jp2
f57a4d3bdc16e15035011e7c42e3624d
352a7f0c6bf9473db49c6a55c1b0d73c6287f827
23792 F20101109_AAACPH kindt_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
f30e47a0959625b5550d1c23c79f12e0
693b6ae712e618b19e633015832d5e3ca0297b7a
2331 F20101109_AAACOT kindt_c_Page_134thm.jpg
ac0df5e104d40c92f2c74145249a0df4
51d9f483c46dc30f6014360e1a38eabd2c62e124
F20101109_AAABLR kindt_c_Page_065.jp2
34bc93aafc9af567749484e7df0516d5
e88b630b356cc391176bf5b63f9755f3a98821f1
F20101109_AAABMF kindt_c_Page_080.jp2
f9d4f0afd2ec87b5387e23e5e17ed191
17cf3115412e5536798efd7acbaed9888e33b79c
6500 F20101109_AAACPI kindt_c_Page_142thm.jpg
dc8f93e92648648043e9c64a851bd696
7456b40ba75e5bbb1ce36ede38905740739248e4
23459 F20101109_AAACOU kindt_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
4057caed9209c62aec932bcadcf975b8
5739cad064b213c8b605ad454799c3832f259a0e
F20101109_AAABLS kindt_c_Page_067.jp2
9e8d82f8c454497af366e3206d45b967
50d21a5764a2ddcaba905e12ecfe1ae44d017be4
F20101109_AAABMG kindt_c_Page_081.jp2
dcf70bc95e4c07061d891bde727bb208
3fd6702db784ec871ca49304933b2f1b2a5dc29f
18114 F20101109_AAACPJ kindt_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
ad9d4b64e4db2a049cc15b156ed0c891
17bfb1c06db18b77a599430f572ad27863abf9fb
6456 F20101109_AAACOV kindt_c_Page_135thm.jpg
5d98b499319a82fc34d6ff8ed3593569
98fe4aa47b29460dd68e6ee942aace88ab6edde7
F20101109_AAABLT kindt_c_Page_068.jp2
6eaf4a11c5c916fdd726c5d2fb160f7d
bc28b95ad80e4db5432b1dbd00270b6e24fcb252
1051943 F20101109_AAABMH kindt_c_Page_082.jp2
6403b9c6d5f5bed136c3e2f8ee3caacf
946a88d5b2bfe9c7febe06a2602004e85e8f2d94
4985 F20101109_AAACPK kindt_c_Page_143thm.jpg
786665af77f5e7304c41b8d67f567051
a78f468a5ee91d8c581de6a9e9cadd6070081d8e
7170 F20101109_AAACOW kindt_c_Page_136thm.jpg
a00ff42487df301f7a5822e26341bfec
c3568f10ffd8c477c8d1a7431508ffbe2ca234ad
1051980 F20101109_AAABLU kindt_c_Page_069.jp2
498df424feeb5dd531506c5da4c13ddc
7e9ac18e645726ec5d09338865f6a81f6adc8bde
1051895 F20101109_AAABMI kindt_c_Page_083.jp2
e8254e6396bb7d065a2078b99fb83c8a
bc52957b85be3ea30697e7ea2b537ebfa484ae82
164803 F20101109_AAACPL UFE0021920_00001.mets FULL
e386c5f714400f902662e839958c85c4
5ef077784b0a7dee83ebcae29657c08152671b2e
25779 F20101109_AAACOX kindt_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
b426c6a260f3859b9fe5643127f348d7
35106d708c5c4d153e22875b18a3144fbf2cf966
1051942 F20101109_AAABLV kindt_c_Page_070.jp2
db6a0c08007ff8e76e8de70a1d05b96d
edaf533eea3efe7b3fc88fdf82b78417fc6a85cd
1051932 F20101109_AAABMJ kindt_c_Page_084.jp2
eba239e2dc76d5be006dd43868e8afea
8612da687920e14077c0cce97bec6c00f14a26e4
7161 F20101109_AAACOY kindt_c_Page_137thm.jpg
cbab7e85d85e44c74e098b63ff3f9bc7
6cdbf11fc2a55089ae461f1d1ecde8bffedbcac4
1051929 F20101109_AAABLW kindt_c_Page_071.jp2
ae33176775d8880aeecc0703f603bb05
107b1fb7405146618a40d8975d46e5bd0b9e0455
F20101109_AAABMK kindt_c_Page_085.jp2
50e410a8e96739270bed38a00e821e77
c82264fbe79fbe6fbce75b5178fdc9f0f1ea277f
F20101109_AAABML kindt_c_Page_086.jp2
e8681c0766f5d7a7aea620caeb27a146
83ce5ec8cc4da5e800ae63e4333a52dc22927ca8
24902 F20101109_AAACOZ kindt_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
23c0438b5ff891c448d0874c9e04333a
4990a899c80c6d311e5b9573378b19874e6f9912
1051961 F20101109_AAABLX kindt_c_Page_072.jp2
e4cf158fbbb9b872b54be4d37b01f307
5dcdcb2be6ed8880037df2c4fd5f0f4b54df9c64
712496 F20101109_AAABNA kindt_c_Page_101.jp2
4a470e8357a51f77c1f228361a6246ba
a20244d5fd5546e64c1b73fa72756b1f90650222
1051973 F20101109_AAABMM kindt_c_Page_087.jp2
d2b21d8b7cae8db9c2120176939e0bb4
75f2c77841a3b018f2a5156b9b3d0cd1ce010304
1051931 F20101109_AAABLY kindt_c_Page_073.jp2
90321d6ce33a17202f411efaf8f48a2a
41f83dd6d716cd1d5d7e8c8787a527fbbcf4dd74
518215 F20101109_AAABNB kindt_c_Page_102.jp2
7ce787e622474a3910bd6ea21f9ea513
735ac4a1557858a27532aa38cf829820f398fca4
F20101109_AAABMN kindt_c_Page_088.jp2
6f313afb3cf770e06a185742d38e376a
92caafa38e6a7c0ffe08475e440667376bc77b9c
1051915 F20101109_AAABLZ kindt_c_Page_074.jp2
3c3a2dc76a529076a90d4934fbc395e5
644a46f77fcc28f2b38f400621e90d9627f8e178
685400 F20101109_AAABNC kindt_c_Page_103.jp2
9cf99dd01e5322d746c01d40e5f0a685
9a5f3461fe0b67f1c32a4beac5b1e5530769d972
F20101109_AAABMO kindt_c_Page_089.jp2
3215c8cd0976a268d409cef42a7ee829
19951f324fbec47c488fae0d075c92374b703dc8
1051968 F20101109_AAABND kindt_c_Page_104.jp2
8759f0685484970d41fe5bc92f5f7fbf
e385f3f57b4d631632f33793c1bfb862a33baa85
165322 F20101109_AAABMP kindt_c_Page_090.jp2
602f6afa027b4900e8abe4133d4c2fd4
74d73671da9caa054d13892c4adfc3f8c613e3b4
521431 F20101109_AAABNE kindt_c_Page_105.jp2
a47cd435977c1c991aacd2da3331b834
65f3332ce5392ae6f570c9b4a1cc3456672c519b
624311 F20101109_AAABMQ kindt_c_Page_091.jp2
df9123b9c5eedbbc67226fa532f4f476
cdfcbe27e5b8c26bf8f9f06b918eabb0a6b4748d
501555 F20101109_AAABNF kindt_c_Page_106.jp2
cec8a8c678b05f8e662fce8217a23879
eebc29d674c6acf52f3ce7b7c5dddfca9364d3a1
628332 F20101109_AAABMR kindt_c_Page_092.jp2
11ae0d6d75c7a8bd0d5ec29c1ff7b352
96142ec6f1f98778ab06243d281a144faf818b23
935105 F20101109_AAABNG kindt_c_Page_107.jp2
78f841f69bf71e3ec9778163b10bd991
c8d4fc7aeb4a5f0acecbdf01cbe747120a7ac5c9
709374 F20101109_AAABMS kindt_c_Page_093.jp2
26e3f293c7911d9ff0fb5a8d182e1a68
aa2ecf607ea4018c2d78fc6598171e7a10e5e0a9
484139 F20101109_AAABNH kindt_c_Page_108.jp2
38a8f184fefd200248b24307c874c102
1f08cec7a41994495b92b2cc32ce6a6e9dcf75fd
690338 F20101109_AAABMT kindt_c_Page_094.jp2
f850fc3ddce0194db22950285bf3de1d
1db4b1efb741dfc9a8be742e3c81efed0615913d
649282 F20101109_AAABNI kindt_c_Page_109.jp2
75d7ebbe4bc8fcced7d4e820e50e51b3
9f9a6e6c9f3a32f931d7b40e256feadd0bf11488
365203 F20101109_AAABMU kindt_c_Page_095.jp2
8c3378d9e29637650d84e118ee11cdce
d972dac98a97246e5902848c815a7f161353f2e7
F20101109_AAABNJ kindt_c_Page_110.jp2
fc72795f9f8adb971a7e89f7c103821b
8aaf8fc4d460fbfa2ec98bdfb5bfa00b9f55a979
737934 F20101109_AAABMV kindt_c_Page_096.jp2
771fdebee82d80e6601c4d6f3351f1b2
91fb1feb194ac221f2e5d21ee688e6b4359d3621
1051972 F20101109_AAABNK kindt_c_Page_111.jp2
fe63f44349fcf3d23e8b253500af1c36
c75db536619a9e190900ee21b07f6affb48c2b8a
764918 F20101109_AAABMW kindt_c_Page_097.jp2
26d2191b55b356b83bd69cb41519c8fe
c684b98b507f5bc0d38c82bebd6b8cbeb5736961
F20101109_AAABNL kindt_c_Page_112.jp2
bc66dfb77f823e88b6f606e39ac4dc85
af50c50f7f44adf224827b47fa155cd91d646d7d
534235 F20101109_AAABMX kindt_c_Page_098.jp2
dd424e87bb8403e7dce8720698ed4a6d
7645055c268b91fa1a83c979031c452f6ef8614c
445869 F20101109_AAABOA kindt_c_Page_127.jp2
a8b4c9a90a8e8c6d68e28ae0effa4432
840d11552c526d6b5f5ba140f348466f13b71a24
1051917 F20101109_AAABNM kindt_c_Page_113.jp2
0a822caba78781413fa992028ac64036
0ba923cf448d5782ef0160c164befbf860a8371e
538709 F20101109_AAABOB kindt_c_Page_128.jp2
0b4bc6f0d57e806604df19a6eccf12c7
13422bb6301f0b905a3c15dc30a83bd57296720f
1051939 F20101109_AAABNN kindt_c_Page_114.jp2
e8cf42f05909c736be8d4b9857e0213d
058873231c79c534b7b62f6ec817549c337092e6
655327 F20101109_AAABMY kindt_c_Page_099.jp2
e3de5dbaf935c53455ea1c12ff2eaa05
2f238f5135e3fe8008a741407748dc379d5a0463
811303 F20101109_AAABOC kindt_c_Page_129.jp2
e5eb2376b19c56c523704953bb69dbd7
331be7e078750b1ad259497b8971faf23da3ba0c
F20101109_AAABNO kindt_c_Page_115.jp2
d7ae43cbd8a5d65815e607b682e985dd
8e1cd55ab8a0611394842738af32a1274244540d
789307 F20101109_AAABMZ kindt_c_Page_100.jp2
0e6e0da7c0e44b94e0ad3475fed54c07
e97f2719291d15413b45546d5499a208b107cc63
1005805 F20101109_AAABOD kindt_c_Page_130.jp2
a65edf62ca3d5cf9f3cb464f95ce2a89
8df994cce490f77e4b811c13d12518bafc869a2e
F20101109_AAABNP kindt_c_Page_116.jp2
d9167e737e487ca175c189392d010024
b6ba3e6b87216b41e60ebcee441297105ef2a877
930142 F20101109_AAABOE kindt_c_Page_131.jp2
30a5a8b3392255fa675fc126e6ff3122
acc6d17a1f479f1f9c1493afcb4d247c29a96d0a
1051951 F20101109_AAABNQ kindt_c_Page_117.jp2
f89254e7ae879831d431697f0af97b76
60d8a22654aa7508c749d721e18a7cfb7d616dd3
764987 F20101109_AAABOF kindt_c_Page_132.jp2
6224fe4e07305cceb76966b4300438b1
49a98115866f5b491786b3ea3bf2370b5ce94b3f
F20101109_AAABNR kindt_c_Page_118.jp2
cc7f7a3fca4309eeab9c2dc12bb66d82
e14fcdd60c28f5edb430c4c77d11d5233eee20b1
736168 F20101109_AAABOG kindt_c_Page_133.jp2
1cd6252f96aa02775a5cecf59dcbe341
1dd558c9a1dffd6b98dc422e97bc45c6d5cd0d07
F20101109_AAABNS kindt_c_Page_119.jp2
d315dff5a192d24366652b553881ed5e
8aa567bdf3880970953bb49fdab169c703cb1065
184286 F20101109_AAABOH kindt_c_Page_134.jp2
3a4439de82ed45011817d81582df131d
fec349f402e221bbbaa88f70d015d1d4ffdc82df
1051986 F20101109_AAABNT kindt_c_Page_120.jp2
5334861b21523d1c4a3f15d874809ed6
780c04ab5a2f09010bc10e2370f6dc64a727c583
F20101109_AAABOI kindt_c_Page_135.jp2
33dbbb8ef7f3766ba404a7d442f47892
954d7cf1127cc457c211a5151c949ab1341cec20
F20101109_AAABNU kindt_c_Page_121.jp2
b970e2aa77ff0c1d985913b5e330f364
c0e8c2a7477621394dc370db40560b011de2d7b6
F20101109_AAABOJ kindt_c_Page_136.jp2
066e39874dfc87e43e2ddd2b83c13150
796f4b73970bce3572981163c00a25128823a536
F20101109_AAABNV kindt_c_Page_122.jp2
4d5e0d7bf6bca2b5e113c99afedc4789
7a490f41564baaf9d2eed96372834b4c22618bc4
F20101109_AAABOK kindt_c_Page_137.jp2
f5b15e07f49aa99994de8c891f51ff9c
a519fba7a34ee84c0a16c9a406b51fbe2d9f3b1a
F20101109_AAABNW kindt_c_Page_123.jp2
aa7dfdc5237d5560fa6bafdf27dd59cd
4f5e297203b78577a360719e5dc7b5cb3d0e5dc3
1051938 F20101109_AAABOL kindt_c_Page_138.jp2
5c9eaa51f7c3aa648ef5b0895185af96
93af00960d124d488ea23b8d0839daad1df8f185
98966 F20101109_AAABNX kindt_c_Page_124.jp2
227c02af8618de5395cbb55bbc069873
ca69ccb74fabcb4882ccec1ccc1bb07055b1fff9
1051908 F20101109_AAABOM kindt_c_Page_139.jp2
71f5306d6e96d4a975028cb48040a46e
8a71f724a77a10a0a0ef3033665b5d68a8121b9b
F20101109_AAABNY kindt_c_Page_125.jp2
d9f2a9121891c23b57cb2ff13fcfa7b0
a18f7e753ca50b55ea51c403e1319706dd623997
25271604 F20101109_AAABPA kindt_c_Page_010.tif
78c8a2e688c9e36e20ddb0759649b8b9
b70963eedf6ed5fc10e0eec6c5b71f958d0cdf0c
F20101109_AAABON kindt_c_Page_140.jp2
1ca793ea98ac551ed7cb6dde0cc850eb
3a0a04daa9b98503ca76d03cf917a7f57cae47be
F20101109_AAABPB kindt_c_Page_011.tif
f95e33b55953ffe8c959d784d6ef2c3f
f0158aef77607a122d2cf8097953dee3f56b28e3
1051967 F20101109_AAABOO kindt_c_Page_141.jp2
e5ee82ec825d1043b62e8857fdf4a34c
a27ed186f3df4b2cff5ad29105186e58220cfe87
896902 F20101109_AAABNZ kindt_c_Page_126.jp2
c30f93206cbfe4c3793e3964d8b72807
6d6b4083366cbd3480dfb9905c91878c9ad7a9f5
F20101109_AAABPC kindt_c_Page_012.tif
73ed7e9edd3c3853383be87dfe101965
7e5099e634c097e459619f771c94a3605b9661e8
1051952 F20101109_AAABOP kindt_c_Page_142.jp2
5d71a8f4ecd94a924bc0d48da08851dc
9b49394a2cfbca2cdc572d2ed042bb8625c5849c
F20101109_AAABPD kindt_c_Page_013.tif
1692bdb01318effbeb017f6748c87753
bbdccbc0148fe8a1dd006d8708238a53ba1dfb1e
722420 F20101109_AAABOQ kindt_c_Page_143.jp2
4ef2a9376ce1705934dbb848ade40501
9c4a2ff5c674e40b20af72739b3e664314cefe5d
F20101109_AAABPE kindt_c_Page_014.tif
15cafb2eb0b6a6ab3ff3a1fec2ee3f58
7e447c484e49fe710be1e0f13168f11f1686512b
F20101109_AAABOR kindt_c_Page_001.tif
7039ecc1897a2905a0f3795ea53c93fa
5d34214381bc2a63a88d09094f12585e94f37de3
F20101109_AAABPF kindt_c_Page_015.tif
0885bb93b2a0480f80b452e2a2216f86
9b662fdb4d69ffa71625bceb1a9846aa433d7a66
F20101109_AAABOS kindt_c_Page_002.tif
0bbdb7b5c01d83f76a7bd728235c8f07
3a83d351422c15192ccdd2e48f20135fbd5ef5ab
F20101109_AAABPG kindt_c_Page_016.tif
8ce5e83ad419001c2fdd092d8c8cc0c7
6d05987681a47c5ee6cb4bf61ad9998522767ff3
F20101109_AAABOT kindt_c_Page_003.tif
dd87100165f6f67aa0012b9f87a8be12
fdfb04af9af06fd0cfd4e685159a58091be75811
F20101109_AAABPH kindt_c_Page_017.tif
26275c4059465153a089cbf984347888
35e50f31059a7c420abcd136c034953dec078262
F20101109_AAABOU kindt_c_Page_004.tif
4978bf73546b2a5ab91373d19de03334
448e3b025a5c910ec805279c8a099f59fe7870c0
F20101109_AAABPI kindt_c_Page_018.tif
a1f9154bda1e15170b25188314fcddc4
cc7fede0e8160b5c7680eba1721f3d1fa8845a6e
F20101109_AAABOV kindt_c_Page_005.tif
53e51d344a056f30343cf76fcfba1974
5376f2ef1b1fc179f2825b1c1b9e31a1d6e8d40f
F20101109_AAABPJ kindt_c_Page_019.tif
efadd5f0ff1fc1aa4b3c8ccf61b28b41
f8842ad630a5b5d33d4bd7a212bef3b261db3b6c
F20101109_AAABOW kindt_c_Page_006.tif
4086d4c352f21dd764bfd259e7260ad9
ddebfa4a98e5def47ef92fd4ed53612a289cbed9
F20101109_AAABPK kindt_c_Page_020.tif
d1098da13f763900093163a38c2e3219
26d0e6c5f60b1c409183e5a1ea49c67de760f436
F20101109_AAABOX kindt_c_Page_007.tif
51126e019d5a90ff0f5834f7581a8763
423f85de87acc1c809d5a929994f4ad89bf73fe1
F20101109_AAABPL kindt_c_Page_021.tif
d7b0bd84fa29f6ff1db545f2cfc4858f
c5273b8c23e8e532f6128301774deb3aff9f343f
F20101109_AAABOY kindt_c_Page_008.tif
2c2996a18319d4210bacc675a9e020c0
567d31486473bf90412d1d40d6c02ff68d5c8d7a
F20101109_AAABQA kindt_c_Page_037.tif
465126aefdbd8484f3ca23636e706dc0
d5946b3af6daf53b8d90eb332919fab69e93de94
F20101109_AAABPM kindt_c_Page_022.tif
d0bb16f7dc6223831773ede23a07821a
26e1d69939bc50b254cacf2ae760abd1f8ef3ec5
F20101109_AAABQB kindt_c_Page_038.tif
3bbead7819731bf25a5ac4ee568c89e5
13090dfa20e89ed0b5bee16f71f49055253c6aa6
F20101109_AAABPN kindt_c_Page_024.tif
7d6bf8e713cbde9edc300c75c3d6dd0a
7d89d951935916e0951e7c45784024864fd79d23
F20101109_AAABOZ kindt_c_Page_009.tif
d3fe8dc5711fd9a9d561367cdbdb96de
6e9ed99143ee54eaecdec584620962545646d388
F20101109_AAABQC kindt_c_Page_039.tif
441a413227cf2c3634175163fc3db424
39f053f495fe29b6afcf75a0280c1441cb41774f
F20101109_AAABPO kindt_c_Page_025.tif
5d8a51389a7abe73cd080c21a463669b
2d1d0355690e63ae395b338123859cb0f2a2c096
F20101109_AAABQD kindt_c_Page_040.tif
dd4e0960bfddaf6e87fe4ba5c31d0f09
f69e383f1c45d2701dfbb83b3988f81c0c84ec01
F20101109_AAABPP kindt_c_Page_026.tif
84dee583e618b7d4cd2bb75720bd4fc3
d2b9175e0d0dcd3c533156fbee0a4185a2824833
F20101109_AAABQE kindt_c_Page_041.tif
4347ac4f1a005009213eb53b54dbc7f9
9166a3dceb7e15dc66e1982c7319efcd5aeca44f
F20101109_AAABPQ kindt_c_Page_027.tif
016361ea6aa98da879beb81223ce148a
e881d0cc5e7470b584ab9ef16c963ac75a58a6d7
F20101109_AAABQF kindt_c_Page_042.tif
3b5ca130f5e2ee81c49a74e0e34679ad
5629fd2fc2e60fcb95deb4c93571d71bd8586511
F20101109_AAABPR kindt_c_Page_028.tif
a5bc91bd5f7f1cfb6f7dc1e7bd603d98
5ca8785eef6fe76ce42f7748afaca7fa8e74c099
F20101109_AAABQG kindt_c_Page_043.tif
8cb7ced5263e56299e12899f7a3f8ac6
8ada432efe14089f80a772b42210f26401d21edf
F20101109_AAABPS kindt_c_Page_029.tif
379a257cf36de6a089a8f525b4530b7b
a4ce7884ea7b87e803bed87203116d2bd364c7bf
F20101109_AAABQH kindt_c_Page_044.tif
324b3eb0d01bcefc12c09d82a76d3ceb
890c92ca8db49eb62191f87b83d94379a2328d94
F20101109_AAABPT kindt_c_Page_030.tif
92a64caa3ef9037f956a7dfc06a0e96a
2fa49cc04641dce464587e01d322948163dbeb44
F20101109_AAABQI kindt_c_Page_045.tif
e9a95a500ba2bef50c81386e9f84310c
645ab1ef8a2bde8298680241d15c6e4ec219b758
F20101109_AAABPU kindt_c_Page_031.tif
26658ae1da665064b155db6467d8de15
0c0d2c9185e48986aacf6500f563e73fff236f78
F20101109_AAABQJ kindt_c_Page_046.tif
9d6c2480b645ca42e7b16b4f3d64634c
69bcd09b9af73fa1c1071adcd3634e9a67121e6c
F20101109_AAABPV kindt_c_Page_032.tif
6d33e088ff77dd66449685fec9f2eab9
7c60b606bf248c8993c9c030b9b629019403dd84
F20101109_AAABQK kindt_c_Page_047.tif
2bc59f7d5765e247e6c2c6850f209856
9350e79da51a1e3d994b3fa9937eaed693b5ff07
F20101109_AAABPW kindt_c_Page_033.tif
1070214117c4e701397907765b775a7c
8a1dfe0d356d7d66e9c847e184dcc22449056f26
F20101109_AAABQL kindt_c_Page_048.tif
bc948116d464c6a818690883dddfc28d
6637cfd5c9db7d3d62723378af759988e365675c
F20101109_AAABPX kindt_c_Page_034.tif
ccdd154cb9d59a2ec11a1de62a98ce53
3dfbc9f58ad6df12a0f456dbca59993ab0ff85f3
F20101109_AAABQM kindt_c_Page_049.tif
3a9b1404aeb9f62f86d5cdc09050d3eb
641537ed64609729a1dd02db66d37abe40491c1d
F20101109_AAABPY kindt_c_Page_035.tif
0cdc4f45247231be208f4f3f4ff9911d
2315b19cce2ff60592c95449a8183e6b65b87c50
F20101109_AAABRA kindt_c_Page_063.tif
edfa9b704019e12c76b3b226e65ad24c
58ff38a208595949e8a06a0af4105e080461f768
F20101109_AAABQN kindt_c_Page_050.tif
7a266fae74f6225339048a57884f6ae9
214332419e44fb024aab1e2adc2d8436f1a2ff71
F20101109_AAABPZ kindt_c_Page_036.tif
57c93415500db58c2143d214c5a96909
e6779233d00a1778bbfd38c7d7e8f48054697454
F20101109_AAABRB kindt_c_Page_064.tif
5ecbf23e580c10045ded7ecd5a183e09
3f14427da383dd584b68a45e89872ed4e36db94c
F20101109_AAABQO kindt_c_Page_051.tif
c03dd2f4f7549ad1733a13ecc4d18a20
e6ced890f080b311581f7788777f10e7fb7eba05
F20101109_AAABRC kindt_c_Page_065.tif
9e418de59da11041e6cf8c3c11360de9
66b536151cb64a45a006b0d8942003c58efe39d4
F20101109_AAABQP kindt_c_Page_052.tif
e7c8dd4932143116346b7b61746edb9f
88409ea4724d332cfc6095044ca2f13c35d54a62
F20101109_AAABRD kindt_c_Page_067.tif
d94ca42f1259d118710ffeea89c89955
6a58dbc130f4159f3e0b0c220be952527b3901f5
F20101109_AAABQQ kindt_c_Page_053.tif
6aa056b848cf2da12aec436325eb42db
6fbc5bfcd3053600a16912667d303bfebc0fea99
F20101109_AAABRE kindt_c_Page_068.tif
67e914a2a0a89776ac6f6f1319288d3f
0acea10bb659d5274182c4809a98deee20fdf48e
F20101109_AAABQR kindt_c_Page_054.tif
2db79e5156f6d1e10da7e488ed7d1098
73927bfac9d930c1820887dfa6cf62bb4c875078
F20101109_AAABRF kindt_c_Page_069.tif
378f2e3b3bf66724bc51328b657e9c66
df950a9bc7b5014698ad60edbaef161261bb5335
F20101109_AAABQS kindt_c_Page_055.tif
1b03712ba0057c584dc14e201edf0d02
ecb0e647f16465c8696bd5d1d2e7ec4314f9eb6d
F20101109_AAABRG kindt_c_Page_070.tif
3570f0fb48ae44c8e5fe3794bd0663e3
237e3029bafbae3aca40f9a0f93cb472a2bb149a
F20101109_AAABQT kindt_c_Page_056.tif
b23b7e6cb874067cadb0f51e49eebe29
bfcdf630018141d59ef6196f1c9064cd4df82783
F20101109_AAABRH kindt_c_Page_071.tif
89e2715c50ff3fe5596153beada5e6e8
303824e120dc1e898cc85a2fb3f4046556215ea4
F20101109_AAABQU kindt_c_Page_057.tif
847bf4f6e1dc59cd39c2766718b1dff0
9fedcea89f533cf34db954f28662d08577f50e64
F20101109_AAABRI kindt_c_Page_072.tif
49bafffa201bc7348b8a623b01bc85a8
86f15cff2d34a7462daf677df0fd6d023537ca75
F20101109_AAABQV kindt_c_Page_058.tif
75a853ae8df37c0ec59f1bb4d5aa5f7f
c061effb15c55407fe5d79d6d93e327811d09caf
F20101109_AAABRJ kindt_c_Page_073.tif
ec7e50331d909c4cbc6db78723359a43
a1c615be5fffdf3ecc349eebe80ab147d1c06566
F20101109_AAABQW kindt_c_Page_059.tif
2727bd712eff935ef8d4d7ce53cd77ed
4c9043088233a5b4f86beb3469daef7f231edcc4
F20101109_AAABRK kindt_c_Page_074.tif
30404f3da23ffceb8ce2ba625583d44d
e1c6b836284a82dc6082273ba838a11628c4b9ad
F20101109_AAABQX kindt_c_Page_060.tif
11d05cae1c66cce269d302164cfd5a39
873f21203bbc7e05dbabf4c1c8f8e3cac810daae
F20101109_AAABRL kindt_c_Page_075.tif
4f86afadb9c0dfff7d444651f8a15e30
9f084ec47579cf925e7c7ec5db089201b326de90
F20101109_AAABQY kindt_c_Page_061.tif
af3ae5f04ab814734a992dbe3a972427
0bfcef4250f13d204f2c90ef61a47a679fed4c04
F20101109_AAABSA kindt_c_Page_090.tif
4060f04ab3acfd3e801f7a3c160c15b6
3f6b3731baf9c89bb2d035a68f35a1dc6c9b8474
F20101109_AAABRM kindt_c_Page_076.tif
2645ba3ff71230dcb91232b398d2a93f
03e0eeada7b691ad39be060393d8389c9b88ae8a
F20101109_AAABQZ kindt_c_Page_062.tif
05ce1154bb09d4c6ba2567791cfdacef
b7d45b7f181ef674ba70b67621c218328ce4d517
F20101109_AAABSB kindt_c_Page_091.tif
c2b7af7d44ea647c104c2f413d2b9d47
052bf6d50e8f17c1c6008e97433ee086c576150c
F20101109_AAABRN kindt_c_Page_077.tif
4873636404695429534002685aaa5f50
d4e53657ae9e6f9ab81da4b9cd8a3077902cf07e
F20101109_AAABSC kindt_c_Page_092.tif
295acc3fc3b9def43d2b86652a239228
ed6439ca00d7bd767cf11aa3ce74840d6170ac9b
F20101109_AAABRO kindt_c_Page_078.tif
ee357468803c55a4e92bfd67d7873a47
d1da891fd7809c21c4671854dbbf4d81ce5d26ce
F20101109_AAABSD kindt_c_Page_093.tif
a2346362b63ce61010312831601427ac
89943e54af821ac7281a8857c4071a2781183ded
F20101109_AAABRP kindt_c_Page_079.tif
64831e6e2dc849b15f4cbde7443b9981
a9750e7801b64e593cfd4d4dd0ae4ce0d2a59a9e
F20101109_AAABSE kindt_c_Page_094.tif
b9fcd93d0faca3c309fb57c8c941f158
4190ef17a1dc753c6669066f2251c8e272f9c443
F20101109_AAABRQ kindt_c_Page_080.tif
1ddf67b9b837f33a3bda46bc44ddebd9
7e3c996350b617cf44607bcd8b453b2ffbcca95a
F20101109_AAABSF kindt_c_Page_095.tif
9ce86b9ca9c5ad9d6b190dbc57acbdd0
217a513622bffd236d95decacb146e3aead444bb
F20101109_AAABRR kindt_c_Page_081.tif
3f4cbedd7db3fa459521ab4774d610f9
108f7c8171bfec6e9d57f449ec76f7f38e6d0ddb
F20101109_AAABSG kindt_c_Page_096.tif
5cd94ba65fab66404ea5c9e06bf6571d
62d4fb62aa14bbf5948bb7101c2212b594194192
F20101109_AAABRS kindt_c_Page_082.tif
2a45f83635b16b867b1a0ed3755d42be
31836ccf39f3f01a773deb753d4f59a96e47711f
F20101109_AAABSH kindt_c_Page_097.tif
c8bbe5f88f990adc6f7aa83a83422c36
a3e9b4c4ab76ca014be26122eefefee7cb796290
F20101109_AAABRT kindt_c_Page_083.tif
fff1c40415c00ef5f81848e6bfe2e886
41fb52d64374e6b5f8d313d5cc1ba9e2f086acbb
F20101109_AAABSI kindt_c_Page_098.tif
4e16576595cda5150e6dd930afff022d
7ebfd66de1e766f49d554e200a07e8dd3af42ab5
F20101109_AAABRU kindt_c_Page_084.tif
4578a9d6cc5cdb6ab107c7d143388588
5e7b75ef5a31455aef5bb8c1299782a218b388a2
F20101109_AAABSJ kindt_c_Page_099.tif
3aa36254b954308237a83968572eae8c
18b200df6f3eb33b4ca46ef736492832105d6b28
F20101109_AAABRV kindt_c_Page_085.tif
d82baddab0e7664216c4c18dec0a6c38
227f4f5f2ed37a6a140fdeb42432a26209f89251
F20101109_AAABSK kindt_c_Page_100.tif
2807a5dce938082c2c792c9a0c86303e
3a3facb3d8c2642ec21f34a37b4b73adbed5c27f
F20101109_AAABRW kindt_c_Page_086.tif
c14dce2e743f081d0fa74e0271a544b0
4ab164578b4b199b6cf5952180715959204088c0
F20101109_AAABSL kindt_c_Page_102.tif
23704ee94a4083120f88d1246fad49b2
61b14dcd66dcceb986620094549f2476a2049baa
F20101109_AAABRX kindt_c_Page_087.tif
2556764e94b9f946c8c75c59a1507d3d
fabe40f878e6631567bab589a4d1ccb61822dde3
F20101109_AAABTA kindt_c_Page_117.tif
5a7c17b29c18821e73d78be21aeaa68b
c17a09852916a65e3131a6bb2c1184684da43044
F20101109_AAABSM kindt_c_Page_103.tif
341e86e9017ea160edbe4b10ff91a05a
f021b9ed9365497d5ec948ba541a24688348a4a3
F20101109_AAABRY kindt_c_Page_088.tif
eefdb1a48501335459959e3297d3a809
6c3b37ccfaf30a6ace4947ff0865d3dd9927f552
F20101109_AAABTB kindt_c_Page_118.tif
898c481b546c2f9e3f1d10b818c1856a
1d8f16fdfba450532757f4dcb817876b3530df63
F20101109_AAABSN kindt_c_Page_104.tif
d08a0f45f5ced808cce678822467b991
e7bd869fbcf84c79b67e895afd62163ab7b6e86c
F20101109_AAABRZ kindt_c_Page_089.tif
d53e298e07573bf335977929540fa3e2
c6bbbb25ef25cbc2e0489d82a47236e95e2d4fc8
F20101109_AAABTC kindt_c_Page_119.tif
2bbc1e5a6bb40fd50300475a6a3a7fda
fa1c44401f6f922bf5aebebad1fb6222fda88a4b
F20101109_AAABSO kindt_c_Page_105.tif
b9b757f52d7de80daa57bc70cd48ca48
4184b535e463282dfaa5cd9d9fcdbc047136cd14
F20101109_AAABTD kindt_c_Page_120.tif
d17705dd38a53f62832a4beb3599a465
a171725093534ddc4076efdbea69e100da5eb7ac
F20101109_AAABSP kindt_c_Page_106.tif
72b90687bc3fd19e749f1f5bae449af0
237288fb6b1db1092fc19a9c0e5cd9d721f3dd32
F20101109_AAABTE kindt_c_Page_121.tif
061d255cf722890d66e4fdb57f2ac357
71281bcb66c5e6b93ef154246bc25f3ee4a86524
F20101109_AAABSQ kindt_c_Page_107.tif
290ed6cef0aef7ca8c9b862fac8d94ce
4063c53a8b011aac4700d674688d95ccd6163235
F20101109_AAABTF kindt_c_Page_122.tif
d713bb5bdf900fc2baefd8e01307c6a0
689c7c3d1e264f4aa92f0f61b60ea38f8821bdb7
F20101109_AAABSR kindt_c_Page_108.tif
f490aafc18acd59775fa5d1c38e1154e
29e062fb4dbbe8de818e9daa9a913e5fc92c72e0
F20101109_AAABTG kindt_c_Page_123.tif
45233287a27d24ed5964313337c9309c
d441204fed3419de5915866dcb372dd619174829
F20101109_AAABSS kindt_c_Page_109.tif
cc7b520e38c627fc633386b2c8e92f81
bb1eb8a8f35fa2ef2bf90c4f921f8fdbf6b3d351
F20101109_AAABTH kindt_c_Page_124.tif
d477f3ba324b338bc7282beb5db98e97
0fc445ad97028e65b8f1f08c24b2ec114d015f87
F20101109_AAABST kindt_c_Page_110.tif
179b6987749c8d9d07a1ae10f345febf
63aac2d06a1c4547978d2c0cdc5ec1bd4a2e6a4a
F20101109_AAABTI kindt_c_Page_125.tif
e8e39aa94102c3fd78c6fbd47033ba5d
da627da55914de0c015f22dbefadc546e29739bb
F20101109_AAABSU kindt_c_Page_111.tif
7ebdf075766604e136c5be672f54c772
46ad9f2e9cc92fd00b93095020e7bd1f8e7433db
F20101109_AAABTJ kindt_c_Page_126.tif
ae3d855cbcb43fdcb98d787b99278881
c609bbfc43e3aaa1c6421a048aeb61599c324c33
F20101109_AAABSV kindt_c_Page_112.tif
741f38cf4a6fef9026a0b918d479ff22
0f861b11cc0d602349048eaa5360727e4a7065a9
F20101109_AAABTK kindt_c_Page_127.tif
244bf120708bcae0e0d21f48e3d08968
8545c110a7d50becb4d30cce82f7a380cd673338
F20101109_AAABSW kindt_c_Page_113.tif
ea4364716b467c4cae1c32f53f6f90b8
1a22fc6d3f922f37ab6ecd1d3d7bbcd6d40f4ef0
F20101109_AAABTL kindt_c_Page_128.tif
adf7a569bbdf5b56de6ba70d745890c4
1366c4fd469314654f26f438260448f7a569bfe7
F20101109_AAABSX kindt_c_Page_114.tif
e1f221cfaa36d300190b1b0a27219fdf
122e54256c35b4fbab49ac1384c68dc3e22159f8
F20101109_AAABTM kindt_c_Page_129.tif
c1b4a9ed132043fccf41f07f9557e316
e0f33fce064b6809df20b5f24241a45c5c7736b2
F20101109_AAABSY kindt_c_Page_115.tif
e907361789cbf6c4f32eb45fa205d8ce
78e75fd206a339d51ec40eef9e1ada4c476911d5
F20101109_AAABUA kindt_c_Page_143.tif
7555f99aac4aea05ab45739692f6e8b3
c2511814c52e9ac0e3a715d039a94a3cc3efb23a
F20101109_AAABTN kindt_c_Page_130.tif
3ba531a192cf34b9c5cf340af565c26b
59494bb58f1db3ff7acb8e5b7ea5e122f0d6352e
F20101109_AAABSZ kindt_c_Page_116.tif
f8e5dd9620ac71622bf6ea441153f656
ad418fce46024dadc296c388e9cdbdae7036bc18
9079 F20101109_AAABUB kindt_c_Page_001.pro
d62d52549b4a651f447975bf69a940b2
86cbf160e7297b2ba8f1903b27c719355955893c
F20101109_AAABTO kindt_c_Page_131.tif
5cc9e401d953ebf23bc474bb0a19b13e
23cefacafdc11aeb33c9bf539431d869e1774e7f
859 F20101109_AAABUC kindt_c_Page_002.pro
6514e2d7e89d53a523b84f3090158b2b
ce35de37bf5e012ed2e4b9d159159e24602dea8b
F20101109_AAABTP kindt_c_Page_132.tif
02da738ae00b9e0be7894ce7d2b68565
b828467cf62587503ed924816c97d658f6439127
1767 F20101109_AAABUD kindt_c_Page_003.pro
3c6ba7ed22b163f6bdaa963ed705521b
a512edeb65ca78561fb509d2eeb7ebb498fdef6b
F20101109_AAABTQ kindt_c_Page_133.tif
ddf98819c90ca5e676c5a16bc6484152
06cd710c12d85ea5539d6416c5912044b2ab53fa
45849 F20101109_AAABUE kindt_c_Page_004.pro
3768b7c2c70fc6940a2a612fc6e556bd
5f71971e7c753badab13f2f048b442a537e4a951
F20101109_AAABTR kindt_c_Page_134.tif
45c6daafd367a041846427bd32428692
923f0efecd2ab3779cef110e2c9cf7b86f1602df
2148 F20101109_AAACAA kindt_c_Page_018.txt
4dcfc690b9e7f3c2ec9897d719bf88c8
c1765412da99b980295ee5a3ef4b9d580135abd5
102415 F20101109_AAABUF kindt_c_Page_006.pro
d05c75f0cedbcf6edcd2fa1404bb0c96
e223241923f02200c54045a4edbfab7fb9542947
F20101109_AAABTS kindt_c_Page_135.tif
a6dd874e369a335b10516c9a59ddd8dd
ca46adaaac3b14190aee097ad1a144d27622024b
2543 F20101109_AAACAB kindt_c_Page_019.txt
65883c15a5d37a8708bdff1ebacce7c9
d3e616bc70550194f1ef99d2735cbe190d34f98c
119989 F20101109_AAABUG kindt_c_Page_007.pro
c74de89d5852c359f71694ced89741b7
016da47ece0763f9f9bda45c432a30e125eb86f0
F20101109_AAABTT kindt_c_Page_136.tif
cb8943ec58f560b382b5c5c64f448c48
a73755e1c78afd9dc9054ae83f7ebe922f3e8f17
2070 F20101109_AAACAC kindt_c_Page_020.txt
824be299e9ce4d8cd72a2a47dff3b73c
89a4abbde2f1c4493ebead08689e04678cb8e1ce
77873 F20101109_AAABUH kindt_c_Page_008.pro
aa13b433ab6a871bfba371cf022681aa
04281f67a0ebef18ebca21c561ff85ac056a972b
F20101109_AAABTU kindt_c_Page_137.tif
6cad2a5971c326dbccc01f5a207e9f1e
3b81b8451510273abb5c318a098a656f7812a252
1935 F20101109_AAACAD kindt_c_Page_021.txt
c4b1a5437d870b3426383b54529b8f78
89cb001763682e9d69140443c2a71bfd5f2534ab
72436 F20101109_AAABUI kindt_c_Page_009.pro
c61217398fab10d70cf40b98bd5cf42d
a7bb542ca316b4e32bf2d0303f8aebf9a4990b71
F20101109_AAABTV kindt_c_Page_138.tif
9c15db3d541f36b5b78484aaa161b623
af0911217fdc0ec4180223f10d793992988a69d5
1265 F20101109_AAACAE kindt_c_Page_022.txt
7d83ff367a90bba32534b06416cb8983
0ee18d17ccc7406bc624e645608820137cd6b624
78340 F20101109_AAABUJ kindt_c_Page_010.pro
599ff3f5e97c8dcbeaef064b1c34f97e
448e39f8f897646319339068dd1a2a6d93f70d25
1993 F20101109_AAACAF kindt_c_Page_023.txt
5ac5efa7b181483a9c18c2cc831049f0
e3dd442cc8bf7e2f9e35ae134fd651d909f03b46
42502 F20101109_AAABUK kindt_c_Page_011.pro
3ac6373b4a768e2f59317ed70496d326
56488e636fc723a398716e4e6f398d0fecb73515
F20101109_AAABTW kindt_c_Page_139.tif
5d8f97ae71becbd87cc9aa09318efa67
5d0fc181907fa3f1ac9b1843ec483fc51a37390c
2271 F20101109_AAACAG kindt_c_Page_024.txt
fc08d6711d0d94f58165d5e3aa47de62
c13bc00570652676eed0f52e3896bc9be48b0665
50610 F20101109_AAABVA kindt_c_Page_029.pro
11da80e91f2918975849e5ecfedfb975
b72ca7969b973a86e0137574ba37be8060a1a216
43452 F20101109_AAABUL kindt_c_Page_012.pro
6b10dbf41f7899c20bce545908694d7c
ca42bd9425dbf46d03cbeeb3f9cc69b055eb0702
F20101109_AAABTX kindt_c_Page_140.tif
9c4ca47b0e3efdaa15aa3f0aad3e3c3f
6f81af89ccd27b921a3d16e74add0556baf6360a
2595 F20101109_AAACAH kindt_c_Page_025.txt
8b460a06597f5f89b9d4afd32f32140f
80e3ff33675fdddf036e443d422c801853401440
34198 F20101109_AAABUM kindt_c_Page_013.pro
1158da9fae2fa31d3fb8a35f5731156c
5d15ef83acda33e30af27df76b2dbe2a70489936
F20101109_AAABTY kindt_c_Page_141.tif
e9c6902d63a97f68894c0b561e3de3b2
e5e51f49ca37295d5b80beab122a6499235d7d31
2109 F20101109_AAACAI kindt_c_Page_026.txt
e08bc7e6cdd45dad06dfebc733105570
20fe5669684c56ea14e88e96a0fe995235f4a281
51747 F20101109_AAABVB kindt_c_Page_030.pro
fb59cbdecf8416d86454acea59bb02e4
7ebd722452366880037e8f78cc573dcd3aa9833e
39895 F20101109_AAABUN kindt_c_Page_014.pro
f3a44dc64960db9e02eabc267391f250
3a821469113b3a145fa30001a81842d99508f667
F20101109_AAABTZ kindt_c_Page_142.tif
d99032ac1690542b5e8967b5cfab5bea
7e02c6f412b49ce678dc65f03f6d3cb5bbc72068
2103 F20101109_AAACAJ kindt_c_Page_027.txt
2b46bbc7570a58b39ef25670151f0926
42fa51e1747abcaed2e078ed5fc280c4f4f3dd38
56406 F20101109_AAABVC kindt_c_Page_031.pro
331048dbb3ede2c6c124c13f1db1e618
9f3438d43a44ba573445c437a7afc4be6e5bcac1
27933 F20101109_AAABUO kindt_c_Page_015.pro
eeb1877a9a79beff923740ee4a5553ba
59db3c2be36c0e5b944b40ff252e6c2704bf6ecf
1909 F20101109_AAACAK kindt_c_Page_028.txt
2d2b4566ea930383e776c6cf7328160c
d42739f3aad7bd916db474f8fd2ab8386dedd748
53602 F20101109_AAABVD kindt_c_Page_033.pro
ad685339c137aa8e11319d4ff6e17d4e
677dea24531141c1b3cd72aa472301a489012989
54962 F20101109_AAABUP kindt_c_Page_016.pro
90abc96f49907c86c4cbda2f38c792dd
c36f3ba8bf3d820e84bd06c07ebbedb64f801392
54336 F20101109_AAABVE kindt_c_Page_034.pro
7b559955badda6aa2ccdd58840079926
a87182afbae72efb69865cebc6ab563ffa4a3fd4
51565 F20101109_AAABUQ kindt_c_Page_017.pro
6aa807c4b0cd863158dcf588ccfd700d
7a1a922532a6643c18b1c0559c80cde65a34620c
2046 F20101109_AAACAL kindt_c_Page_029.txt
2942881f912af8c8992b71b238f63410
a2b2313193bc8eba15aa9a01e8e739afab8ea5e5
47968 F20101109_AAABVF kindt_c_Page_035.pro
0a0fc2dcbc1840c384e3a4443049efd6
cf99ea46d6c5f4316cf39254cd42c46b9c0eb1f6
53611 F20101109_AAABUR kindt_c_Page_018.pro
b336626b73a10ac1856455372c0e401b
c1890a49477575f99a52c1c5d77155c4e12882e1
2147 F20101109_AAACBA kindt_c_Page_044.txt
a4afcaff1b0871e1a181b39fcc8b98ee
0a15d5d7bd50c2b0bb61827e419388c6c19ad2b2
2076 F20101109_AAACAM kindt_c_Page_030.txt
29cf7cc266ee37be938639b7a0416593
44b82359519bbc08ef4bc31f643f26042e75132f
50030 F20101109_AAABVG kindt_c_Page_036.pro
2109d14b3dd088766a39491486ad20d9
2bce769b4118e65a1ae431a040ab2439165b67d9
58973 F20101109_AAABUS kindt_c_Page_019.pro
3fd05179aca1cbbcb0c1b4e42dc5b63e
08d1cebf68599ce2cfefef9ca60fb8d770df4715
2172 F20101109_AAACBB kindt_c_Page_045.txt
dd1dbfe79413e1c2b529299b878a531a
33765889c3602a7774f033945c8ad7820418813a
2261 F20101109_AAACAN kindt_c_Page_031.txt
02f37a41998e93c7dc70c7fc3068562d
d5be78a6f4aca8b1ac4a7e97ecfa945996c12386
52638 F20101109_AAABVH kindt_c_Page_037.pro
a214fbfa76a011f85ec3a1b8db330181
281c9deb4cbc3e98ec4aee0d553c0bff4f206ae5
50236 F20101109_AAABUT kindt_c_Page_020.pro
bd508c9cfe24486de13e885c89b86b3c
42fe25710dc253ea2750c29c913bfecf98b89129
2125 F20101109_AAACBC kindt_c_Page_046.txt
e89e2aea258d8f0a1b74c92e6599a4a8
ebab72518556761b235880615ec06060becb9c4f
2157 F20101109_AAACAO kindt_c_Page_032.txt
c503c3e7a044b54df95b78e82d4c4b3f
bbd250188fdf6f0b3aaf73c162f728351836569d
52748 F20101109_AAABVI kindt_c_Page_038.pro
931c84f13e4214166bdfe0edbcdb3cd8
b3e35653f803077aac5a71bfe8b14bdba1e23647
48892 F20101109_AAABUU kindt_c_Page_021.pro
9a53c5c6d4648bd2e6056ea2db864379
92fae2bc34f774349ddcf09617d3707bce97c4b1
2064 F20101109_AAACBD kindt_c_Page_047.txt
42a95a3eaa3c4da30bf37a8036516130
2ce475a26f297337ca4ed61ca66456b0b0b70148
F20101109_AAACAP kindt_c_Page_033.txt
508c96dc4e88be84778f25cadfa1c18e
910917711e5d287db90f4426e0467ada8977c857
46883 F20101109_AAABVJ kindt_c_Page_039.pro
76f39b5901b0def6eea4df719f2f21b6
1850088dbda15965b73323933accbde3334d790b
30396 F20101109_AAABUV kindt_c_Page_022.pro
f43d27329d3a510e55f7e737cdc8f682
c2a3f4073a47f8c12453748472a725db312a7ce2
2012 F20101109_AAACBE kindt_c_Page_048.txt
45c2ffda5f1883069e7081cb7c1b42f4
4ba98e4b302bdeff20d510fb3d2f947d945085fa
2143 F20101109_AAACAQ kindt_c_Page_034.txt
f1b534e241072ba11e1490dbc533c9ba
d3d171f224ecf8dfa618041a8eaae36b7264c750
48771 F20101109_AAABVK kindt_c_Page_040.pro
2ac27148f7cb71f8854ddc725e21e469
440a5b8e8d0521415199f6e40feb14e80fb863ba
59771 F20101109_AAABUW kindt_c_Page_025.pro
8561915112633257b006f89c80449cc2
53295dea3060d759e83b504c7e666b2c04c1dc99
623 F20101109_AAACBF kindt_c_Page_049.txt
092878967097ab490cb7fd4260b0e55e
9472d6d5cfd86459da7aac21b06a3add1466b231
1943 F20101109_AAACAR kindt_c_Page_035.txt
b8165c0a03b2331448a7baa40bb0f029
edd98bef7a22c02fd4ad53f873b7c630d914e274
55721 F20101109_AAABVL kindt_c_Page_041.pro
cace01d8d3d3c20d6c35c1d767c3a24e
e9f051ec3358e1bef97f031dda0e388f3c03f1d1
53615 F20101109_AAABUX kindt_c_Page_026.pro
2f5ef74947ce6afb2a3a885ec16a53e3
43078044a4a3a509856f3a671868d6cc608cd941
2442 F20101109_AAACBG kindt_c_Page_050.txt
c8ede436ee594895636d51235b20402a
6c260c52bf6236462036bdb7c7f8c4e2d08b5318
64425 F20101109_AAABWA kindt_c_Page_056.pro
ab542eb3e73692d021afaee3a652da7c
2f075d36f9f4f6f5f9ee2ac057a2182a7f00501b
1977 F20101109_AAACAS kindt_c_Page_036.txt
68e8f565be5cd5d492ccdcbd873ed523
b4d8499ebe06952a2d9e726a88ced1969f502f4f
53626 F20101109_AAABVM kindt_c_Page_042.pro
8504c3aa409ef3c51e74fc6e85f5ceeb
3269918280fa09d17e9d38e4757c13e6bd443f66
53474 F20101109_AAABUY kindt_c_Page_027.pro
f0a357f6ad62f6381efc3aba84ce005b
8b98c1a1b3332145fe472bcee7187da8ea890f6b
2231 F20101109_AAACBH kindt_c_Page_051.txt
2b216502cd8a2d5e920486b9b64a9e96
ca13599648b12787ddeff11d5ec95fb0ac098160
51537 F20101109_AAABWB kindt_c_Page_057.pro
1992a335d5ca959b40d92452976cb286
a644984bf45f966eb932a1a979ca1d1206856d74
53199 F20101109_AAABVN kindt_c_Page_043.pro
298c9dfdf5c1e3b7f976983d959fa5c3
69c0efe14499fb4538af4360d32f6b45101e999b
48194 F20101109_AAABUZ kindt_c_Page_028.pro
41a27b370a7029b52dce4d3b82c7c27e
d7235ef104fa75cc459a6cc8bdc6db03c7dffed1
2003 F20101109_AAACBI kindt_c_Page_052.txt
08cdad8f713cd79c387c6ab17be19410
94c61d2d96556d1c3b6b02d512d4c570cca936fb
F20101109_AAACAT kindt_c_Page_037.txt
e3b0e17f98a44f2d1fb770e259509c24
826174e41d14de6d2e971993030346028a325c4a
54633 F20101109_AAABVO kindt_c_Page_044.pro
6f0d917d16d7db592ae8e598e582d64a
d54fc860b5861e40bb60e7ee00f320b3d15d3379
2121 F20101109_AAACBJ kindt_c_Page_053.txt
ecb9a20df0c94fde501ad72c8ce5a403
4c7cd05c5ef0ad75d0a34c9c32419178809d4627
41864 F20101109_AAABWC kindt_c_Page_058.pro
52f07d6e0fabf9b06be9dbe6aba8ab0c
1c839e83aa40ab753f1423ebef72fb2ed2eac5d2
2079 F20101109_AAACAU kindt_c_Page_038.txt
e49c60971da313cefef5f736d3bb081e
9f9d0ea427d8728f812628729dfb54c5b9284a94
55268 F20101109_AAABVP kindt_c_Page_045.pro
fab2f1745fb87e2e1f4f90f24ab82254
1faad5343bb2fbedd52b844e1516ffea9c400db4
2088 F20101109_AAACBK kindt_c_Page_054.txt
620da94eeb16062fc0170c2ba686efbe
beb7f93e89ca226d87da8e8f06c4708524837d92
44433 F20101109_AAABWD kindt_c_Page_059.pro
654c11752d9afccb84ceeb75a1d17cac
cc261f02619d8f5d62262d451854f97cb926187f
1888 F20101109_AAACAV kindt_c_Page_039.txt
cf17666df77a836ce743a8d98d21c37c
23e1e4c89736d8f5eb5a2e435cc5f354bd945e23
53951 F20101109_AAABVQ kindt_c_Page_046.pro
97fb85b54a27123bf6fb24638ca6657b
d17dfadbd329b3e283686815545de14d2227e284
1854 F20101109_AAACBL kindt_c_Page_055.txt
f7abc66abdd90592f20439fff5bf519f
77b7bc6f1385aa2502e8b63c0c4d8b79ec1245a0
41906 F20101109_AAABWE kindt_c_Page_060.pro
1477aba2e00c389f7ea16beebac353da
56ffe48c0da5f58f0c65a414187572e0fb102135
1946 F20101109_AAACAW kindt_c_Page_040.txt
c0796e489853365e113dcb7e64e28a9c
7b67f633ec5f5268297892bf1bdb74b1e7a7ee37
51643 F20101109_AAABVR kindt_c_Page_047.pro
62336de0b6bf9cefd670245ff2bef59b
62f78267b935a7b1f6a1ea7b139973c09f545164
1982 F20101109_AAACCA kindt_c_Page_071.txt
29e1b11db48b09e51df7ff75495588ab
74f4a4c0f0a10aa26ef1c41907c07b9bc27f8ff1
44550 F20101109_AAABWF kindt_c_Page_061.pro
7d7a7f25ecaa263c4c365c65118e55aa
226193a82bd98c4d733d09b822a6292004f6925d
2189 F20101109_AAACAX kindt_c_Page_041.txt
f8a9a8c47dfe9a3a565a89215085f50d
c013c3e58e0d9a48c2a45c950d881294a91a1e0a
49716 F20101109_AAABVS kindt_c_Page_048.pro
dd47cc6a202f922f83ab990007d8bfc7
2f4ec9f13dc9e66df3186f775059d3655af538c8
2057 F20101109_AAACCB kindt_c_Page_072.txt
fb4d04aad2b0552eb1c1b84e512f9eb3
0fbc7d718a2278596b99d8ccdd781d1d4c4c050f
2690 F20101109_AAACBM kindt_c_Page_056.txt
9df6f696ebf818be3a582dba982534a9
a74924e1781276433bed2eaca7e102f0f5057c92
49743 F20101109_AAABWG kindt_c_Page_062.pro
0b3b30de813614e153606370420a0739
ca916b9653dfdc34e36252465d3e6e0a1c4b1db6
2115 F20101109_AAACAY kindt_c_Page_042.txt
9c568e6fa1fc58677c3ca0d2b50d679f
6dd4e2c70fbd0b516f02373a92a5f45a14bfcb3b
15455 F20101109_AAABVT kindt_c_Page_049.pro
0d906aa5a3d7f61e28d63094fe414b4a
c80598529bffdb76a2e61981c9fabb5db39a01d6
2028 F20101109_AAACCC kindt_c_Page_073.txt
47e11d0836d5125336333809cd29874b
5c119e88c9bb71b75d7c439f96f0c61506d7c497
2073 F20101109_AAACBN kindt_c_Page_057.txt
fa38bb9d72419431fd30d7955e45d9c2
0eca75c3f92feccaa9ccd3a8f4bb8b796642518b
46514 F20101109_AAABWH kindt_c_Page_063.pro
55de4481b54fca705369f7af13766474
10801afd1f3e6e3965ef9504d0b17480de92baa3
2092 F20101109_AAACAZ kindt_c_Page_043.txt
8706a0f520c38e693ba4f12c00929389
4dd9805d1fda5da38c35c99a78674bb4e8c51f3d
57036 F20101109_AAABVU kindt_c_Page_050.pro
dbc821abe0d3ede416bc71b5e0f4db6f
48c46bf7739dbaba1f2534e7e0d8d1b641e29292
1954 F20101109_AAACCD kindt_c_Page_074.txt
897a34c081a40ad2b5b5ce67bc6ac69c
ff97e4f4e4b08c5c7fe14e28a788488ccb13a25d
1680 F20101109_AAACBO kindt_c_Page_058.txt
35cc8e46a144b98ad8b6dc94c82dcf8b
192de7390f23d76e0ff458850f6e19c10b34ab82
46085 F20101109_AAABWI kindt_c_Page_064.pro
0cdcc33801d318cf89765811066182a1
999afda135bf402f40b5d94e51e71b54d91e4087
53507 F20101109_AAABVV kindt_c_Page_051.pro
a94c2d79b5a4bc44695a87ba4bc6c817
fc44d43756f086ac5172e82728e825dde77486e9
2094 F20101109_AAACCE kindt_c_Page_075.txt
51bc59990cdfab088e1bda059692cefd
42d81f94fcafe080c9ca7826223528e55de05aeb
1766 F20101109_AAACBP kindt_c_Page_059.txt
4d19edb46ee13c9f2ce5f874f018ede8
7cd1ee12072d1d67c1be95821455eec44e41e1d8
53357 F20101109_AAABWJ kindt_c_Page_065.pro
e344f0ca7f0ca288ecb6d20f84e92864
2256b3de32c5356b146b82445b51e39dae5b9b94
50075 F20101109_AAABVW kindt_c_Page_052.pro
19155ad686437821671d7d73082bc831
38e703d38fd879157efc09377f408f4247afc4d9
2122 F20101109_AAACCF kindt_c_Page_076.txt
314d2253ef5a3af9e860325c492a442a
6abeced43eda61c84f25b26aa7c1cc9ca9a47ff7
1676 F20101109_AAACBQ kindt_c_Page_060.txt
97a09c6c2e5597b8eba385b5d190d0ac
fb5705c9be70fb9da8366e8061e3ab51676220ad
46588 F20101109_AAABWK kindt_c_Page_066.pro
03d1342303e169f88456412256b09675
7e079b771c155abf6b1a0775777bf962a8013a38
51493 F20101109_AAABVX kindt_c_Page_053.pro
c58a42446731d71dae9091a8bbb202be
e2ade999371d0d1d86f6d644bdcdd12cf9d0e253
1979 F20101109_AAACCG kindt_c_Page_077.txt
2e8cce17c1077148637e4e0e3f9cc813
28cb1d5eca44fc6bf9f858f36f063f90eeddde2a
51086 F20101109_AAABXA kindt_c_Page_083.pro
ebd7cc451d6bd1a5d68a1f77fe06d397
54da832039049a6844a33cfa0a1ae00ff22be5df
1832 F20101109_AAACBR kindt_c_Page_061.txt
5c2bdf612183f7a3ef7f9cb74c0cbb45
f92b30a91e116625ebdb7cba12eab47de19f9426
52220 F20101109_AAABWL kindt_c_Page_067.pro
99585f30afd3c3cce77de23d19af71bd
8f31c39b690fb135ca1ea8960c6b4d4110264ec0
47503 F20101109_AAABVY kindt_c_Page_054.pro
a0003a91c5ee95bddfcd0a27c23b252d
99c69c3d60f70628d1c4a1210a9fed47e15cbb33
2222 F20101109_AAACCH kindt_c_Page_078.txt
d4ed503e1eab21f3b76a1bb7fea57d9b
766e55e4486bed6a4ee6b801564717670045f4be
54925 F20101109_AAABXB kindt_c_Page_084.pro
a986b789a82fa8c9a273ffd9b6c4015b
343b192135312a7722484b45752a23dc0682bbca
1965 F20101109_AAACBS kindt_c_Page_062.txt
ae6860c8f68cfe7a88d510770e2980b0
1360e8634ae6c94f1a05b33afe4a18e848c5eba9
50850 F20101109_AAABWM kindt_c_Page_068.pro
6e7e8ea88978db907720637a328946b0
0223875b1509cf7e8d92867b15a6cf128e0577bc
45720 F20101109_AAABVZ kindt_c_Page_055.pro
56bf0eb2bfbe5b1c99434648ebb5a9f2
794a48ea6836f6a5de8a16e6eab596fec88b3450
2083 F20101109_AAACCI kindt_c_Page_079.txt
99bc774d8be8060918b48f96718cbb7f
1b2de05f5c386f66c9c13329a447a8f7fc219f4f
51369 F20101109_AAABXC kindt_c_Page_085.pro
4f511bd95357855bbe73750b107f39a9
55f020811a72e30fe05bd51dafce76f852e7c14e
1824 F20101109_AAACBT kindt_c_Page_064.txt
d0bd7109d5d476d5206a6ea076ece4f6
2e94378b7c137e99c7fe4397f9b55bf71cdce49e
53251 F20101109_AAABWN kindt_c_Page_069.pro
bfc6f5e962edeb9a94eb7b80522a8c28
aa55e24f6cff9b775c536ed1c09d9d6d77febeb2
F20101109_AAACCJ kindt_c_Page_080.txt
6309a3d2c5d6ca9721e5cdf0d789f741
e9b16ce2847d5aab2b0811a5f6483e0c56903280
2098 F20101109_AAACBU kindt_c_Page_065.txt
47a170859071d4432585d91535e37012
9f230ef4762dcbadf59ff64ac20787420dc0a83a
52031 F20101109_AAABWO kindt_c_Page_070.pro
5cf0ccf6865e84dbed6cf82b68ed2cb1
e58c41201c98f46e20989eb22622f8e3f1409bfe
2036 F20101109_AAACCK kindt_c_Page_081.txt
93c32585f1378b281cb9a808e97e332c
98cb50e3be8beda61f94aef67cabc7efb2dd01d0
52243 F20101109_AAABXD kindt_c_Page_086.pro
d6df987ac6c41f15168e1916360d77ab
2aebd22482bee00d4a3029a33cdc6938328ef798
F20101109_AAACBV kindt_c_Page_066.txt
e7ef717503b52d8a816eae45ec9a3ff2
7ebe917da44b48b6e137767589f4307ce736ffbf
48600 F20101109_AAABWP kindt_c_Page_071.pro
78a4694a9ec5f2533fb9ea8c0736edda
e85ad0e318fef8dee300399bfe78bb207e93d340
2583 F20101109_AAACCL kindt_c_Page_082.txt
d5c17dfaca06d577131387eabd732b88
ba1c67aa4d08f012483025691f56061859dbf0fa
52906 F20101109_AAABXE kindt_c_Page_087.pro
e87d5bbeb46aaf0333ef1b6e12b50531
ef10b22245c650640a872e6b296939d5c6f5d7c1
2052 F20101109_AAACBW kindt_c_Page_067.txt
e88b1531abbd81804ed39ac80ebb5058
f1c894b931782d611ea49d783fae9dd81a97cdb4
52286 F20101109_AAABWQ kindt_c_Page_072.pro
ab307470aeaa99e075cdf428eca8ac94
0538c3b4c10a1af2711c4e46dd443043f16c71c0
2123 F20101109_AAACCM kindt_c_Page_083.txt
bddc7459dc698da41749846e9b84b994
40c3b465b8b7ebf5bea6b5f66d43e938e5637601
57289 F20101109_AAABXF kindt_c_Page_088.pro
ac57f42317fd9be79ae7c710c2dd04d6
7c744781cad92d4da6bd3dd8e12acf6ca3c16f1f
2001 F20101109_AAACBX kindt_c_Page_068.txt
db519eceb87a4d0ed7e7f60cd9c8cfed
b4601595f2862d84675da616276145611f2ea03e
51550 F20101109_AAABWR kindt_c_Page_073.pro
15f6c6c1e6570b4f3befea590ae920df
fc41ae27bf7188c764e22d72c59bc94516c1eab4
2039 F20101109_AAACDA kindt_c_Page_097.txt
6ff477a0816961a3d97f82efa5ce437d
55d95484e81f5f56275cc17570fa6e027615ecbd
52117 F20101109_AAABXG kindt_c_Page_089.pro
8f882cbc1f3997b7fdba7ffe69f70128
c55426adfa6f82a6172199306866e160b6457fcc
F20101109_AAACBY kindt_c_Page_069.txt
34676e76a6950ad6ebed9c996b2f4ce7
5c03602b1cf83039a4741a28852d1109b12c208d
49588 F20101109_AAABWS kindt_c_Page_074.pro
c593176383479cd60193a441405369e8
f5da55ad606e36a3e326f0a1cbd52778ddb1109e
1309 F20101109_AAACDB kindt_c_Page_098.txt
3c7a63f272aba53d4183e7b08fee9178
58a901f5b84a18ab544c040e61d868e88fe8ead8
2210 F20101109_AAACCN kindt_c_Page_084.txt
cb7fb6afd2104a589e2a84aa03154515
19a5f39875e9df930c1c52556290d9b9fe32177c
7101 F20101109_AAABXH kindt_c_Page_090.pro
48521c9fb6e902f3264136d190183939
a83a54a293dcad157207814cde269bcaa46e2e45
F20101109_AAACBZ kindt_c_Page_070.txt
ed0735ddd1807afa5bdafaff54ead6e3
21298990b2f3db34dec53b9a0fa093b31554c8dd
52871 F20101109_AAABWT kindt_c_Page_075.pro
ab8fa792cd635e9ccc0cdb76fc8fa371
0cc0feb8b14fb0462b6c7f08bae96ed31a55eb56
1466 F20101109_AAACDC kindt_c_Page_099.txt
45cf385dcc6e46f05ea029007d94ef2d
c36d19013129472d29b916c04a4271ecf8fe3280
F20101109_AAACCO kindt_c_Page_085.txt
4fad047189ac55e26bf1938149ae9eb6
047915368df05c0fe73f339dff27d49f730f3bf1
33075 F20101109_AAABXI kindt_c_Page_091.pro
0b8f192537830a2fdca608969f7851b3
957db675d84fa93132e245d3ead93939ff56620f
46585 F20101109_AAABWU kindt_c_Page_077.pro
d9c0e6e35daa1fd18236b1cce7d316b5
d0efe0ed058b43238cf66a3bcc0bbb91e5b2bec3
F20101109_AAACDD kindt_c_Page_100.txt
60e010afcb3eb9eb55024a06ba4d8cd4
89d25a597616d7c42a2df72ff64d3d6353d8d3d4
2055 F20101109_AAACCP kindt_c_Page_086.txt
0dc681fec3d2e33d6345e15cf0a22367
a394532d225a7405a0a5a11ea3a039a50d816bf1
32079 F20101109_AAABXJ kindt_c_Page_092.pro
a8fa2605be4547f604a252ff773752f0
595989f55c90a29d5e6b293c1c7683454e0e4e67
55427 F20101109_AAABWV kindt_c_Page_078.pro
2ef03b563349feffb916498b7be68264
45362f57c53ee7d653ae0607c10262e7fd18bed2
1983 F20101109_AAACDE kindt_c_Page_101.txt
4c88e6561d776638eee9d4a50f406507
275d5f30f965095fd4984dc78d6f10d3190b8351
F20101109_AAACCQ kindt_c_Page_087.txt
57c1aa653f98dbae5d94c27f1480d414
a13fd0a31d723cd10b958f0eb6e7c8775104b3d3
35590 F20101109_AAABXK kindt_c_Page_093.pro
b0ade35c4ee27014ff0086c2ce992e05
ba9b1773e12b82a7f13e55c04663ee37303c0cb5
52049 F20101109_AAABWW kindt_c_Page_079.pro
394f5a049bfaf2d54893d27dbb7dfaa7
410cb56a1e2724e6046e51cdafe20a0d6e110b2e
1082 F20101109_AAACDF kindt_c_Page_102.txt
ad4b0a565a016a39ff65a44b8860defc
7d9ad2558fa97fa28d56afcddbd417b8d4583257
28087 F20101109_AAABYA kindt_c_Page_109.pro
6c4086c41b8ea68a845309d6386e6904
7bf7f7e16276468624bbbc9029476a49c83951ae
2241 F20101109_AAACCR kindt_c_Page_088.txt
39823937df843ca339919a51d3a5f09f
74d6d03a2fc9e9583f5a986cac52a9c916e8735c
36402 F20101109_AAABXL kindt_c_Page_094.pro
2cccf1ff6854072d02e80d3638c2e561
5acf61df675714c330311d1c7dad178dcd3ceac4
52816 F20101109_AAABWX kindt_c_Page_080.pro
165826c77d9fe3a2a470c9caa6b94c1e
486355444cb899362938d30cb33533984d858f54
1551 F20101109_AAACDG kindt_c_Page_103.txt
47cf7429a0b926cd8200b70df7a49672
ac8034b65976464c6cd54f8f9bbd9a9938a4d856
61827 F20101109_AAABYB kindt_c_Page_110.pro
96f27d8cfb5848bc13a757cd2ae18e0e
6f161eee812113048dd6f6a45a83a14ca93160f7
2058 F20101109_AAACCS kindt_c_Page_089.txt
fc2c9748d6454a9e0022dc03857e9b7c
4c761c072bf8e1daa51c2c9e5b9c89da098a054d
19165 F20101109_AAABXM kindt_c_Page_095.pro
1e77fdf5068cdf7ae74eb6bae0848e60
9e6e80c13fa69606907dfd824f10618ced03f05c
50926 F20101109_AAABWY kindt_c_Page_081.pro
da59aef561768959ef847664d39acae3
0e9bd533d6e93bf628d39ad4a9a20802c21f8f92
2987 F20101109_AAACDH kindt_c_Page_104.txt
056261408ebdf030eadc31ad683fd02a
81009a4cd6a8a4f374822fc406021d6672b16b77
50975 F20101109_AAABYC kindt_c_Page_111.pro
8e24cfd5e4924b22c7555dc681dce29f
a1bed64ab3ca5f0bc5c0e53d899e176382582915
284 F20101109_AAACCT kindt_c_Page_090.txt
031aabf90460dfb8662b307d034e493a
da401633d5ef97bf01e791135ae4df3c10c3c70c
36357 F20101109_AAABXN kindt_c_Page_096.pro
276dc81298e441d98ae0693a927b47a2
45adeeba2afec7ffbd0786955ead424f097e1a1e
62534 F20101109_AAABWZ kindt_c_Page_082.pro
ad8fcfd710c590e1f41ed360e7658036
164ca35530e2e14346dc9c280adcd94c4ff3b97c
1293 F20101109_AAACDI kindt_c_Page_105.txt
0d265ee2f5c23fd3ad05260ce2a8b0c7
538c8716abe3349233ad3ad43af312ae587a0153
52713 F20101109_AAABYD kindt_c_Page_112.pro
9ee711133e64e4055b55ab15f3b87e28
8374887b52352eaf1322134db0111fe877fd754d
1532 F20101109_AAACCU kindt_c_Page_091.txt
7b89d9f37c532598f7e760983258f11d
4432be9bc55905255ea567471cb275b9738d7409
40849 F20101109_AAABXO kindt_c_Page_097.pro
3103097800bd39b33684781eb9fd67f6
5779785b8ec752ce11ad02eacecdbc2a21719dc8
978 F20101109_AAACDJ kindt_c_Page_106.txt
7a7449de4de291f4dcb3139a94d10d73
7d33667b20cd64ea976fbeef2fcc5cddc4b89713
1555 F20101109_AAACCV kindt_c_Page_092.txt
73f1b13e6522dc5e797943ed5a55af2b
c83a682057f414961fd0c232ebe47563af42f24d
27372 F20101109_AAABXP kindt_c_Page_098.pro
e0ea4dcf874f9e47d7611b44b329cb4c
f43b7b099d1193b83758eaaebb636ad21b222153
2071 F20101109_AAACDK kindt_c_Page_107.txt
0b48e05140b31754b60e3681de72089d
1cd085986873e23e40e707c17291cedb53588dd3
51089 F20101109_AAABYE kindt_c_Page_113.pro
9dcd97a9aa0b672fb9203f737d8e0efd
2b8d5c9f6dd92bd700217504b676e8eb430c842b
1673 F20101109_AAACCW kindt_c_Page_093.txt
65559d6bd0360a54d137a3cab5775158
089c84ba247cf06103c3d0739c3076ed8cd53284
30880 F20101109_AAABXQ kindt_c_Page_099.pro
73e7cb123cc743a7207678dba11b515f
44eb1ea0fd8058f6810070a24fd60046414ac4f9
983 F20101109_AAACDL kindt_c_Page_108.txt
8eb3007a3cc3cd42537a6f73ce72f71a
88ee24631e72f5633e40009d8859107c89a28a9d
50827 F20101109_AAABYF kindt_c_Page_114.pro
701d41373f0d0db0ecc3c0bf314040ce
9a24f7c44e51049ba02b090cf584821ddae8cb7f
1776 F20101109_AAACCX kindt_c_Page_094.txt
7155c7b6531a6fb1ddde15fbb092098f
91583c1d448a5039fb28d1004c332798740ba7e7
41131 F20101109_AAABXR kindt_c_Page_100.pro
06d5eae47f296d657dd381969aa2b1fb
c380df798eb3cd251ebb9888cdfa589b059a9896
1927 F20101109_AAACEA kindt_c_Page_123.txt
d7c721f02ae84018c09288a251003a22
fdc9bebbd266e6b7ec8884621d8ce6795c989239
1564 F20101109_AAACDM kindt_c_Page_109.txt
bbabea96ab2b85ce2c8f4154255e2b46
9349df7b721f29e3c62ed6ec895257425c396e1f
53315 F20101109_AAABYG kindt_c_Page_115.pro
b0e0bdca13992337e4bc08545c9a50da
2a23c665a035f5afb27db0389af8f4bc8a3c5802
937 F20101109_AAACCY kindt_c_Page_095.txt
58edae9b3163e584ba8c42c2ded17812
10270aa94f53f421a41c6e114e74590a15ebfaf1
39571 F20101109_AAABXS kindt_c_Page_101.pro
99e2540c806199b72a1bebdb0dd57e34
a73f069036b95cd0e71ad5497d3715c4dc059b6a
172 F20101109_AAACEB kindt_c_Page_124.txt
22f82c77112ef471ec9af39a7406d758
fcb9af9a6bb23409dc8b64b01960d2fa05fde7c7
2672 F20101109_AAACDN kindt_c_Page_110.txt
4706c475264616f3ac248aefcd540f14
6d6e491e2f5a646b218a2ccae1b232b76ab70999
53679 F20101109_AAABYH kindt_c_Page_116.pro
81029c54f8ebd1501f6c87e073a0e840
597f11e17d4330a51ab6678f915d0cbe676eeaef
1764 F20101109_AAACCZ kindt_c_Page_096.txt
f4969766f4e85964a2ba0dacab1e153e
ea2d47380a58228a7175ed56abe4b81123c84f85
23780 F20101109_AAABXT kindt_c_Page_102.pro
a44f23452af51f54dd372228704abe51
da89023cdad0b6562ddc67a855393a6a72ba20ef
3058 F20101109_AAACEC kindt_c_Page_125.txt
fa41b102c528c07b0ffc2dae7b776348
fc1f30140782494961404b65a07a3ba220c660c3
52805 F20101109_AAABYI kindt_c_Page_117.pro
fe4eae0c8580b884db2d16edaeb0e0e7
086200cffbd12d13113b4a58573301b7720c7878
31968 F20101109_AAABXU kindt_c_Page_103.pro
12bd7454ccec5ea4be8eb012cf97c993
57033428a088b79c710c5bb2a08ad53e739e289c
1339 F20101109_AAACED kindt_c_Page_126.txt
b5f136ebb22047eb40fa458b8fde7f34
234437f385f95d8ff1d8a1c1bd3f8c97e3e42f37
2048 F20101109_AAACDO kindt_c_Page_111.txt
11d40b189ed7c26f98ecd54553d382fe
69515f27ed495bec1f8d74cde4595651c9410ec6
49525 F20101109_AAABYJ kindt_c_Page_118.pro
14479183b88a943fa18918f6136979d0
b2a9ae14630d5e6eecd823ce301a0fd7eb589984
59144 F20101109_AAABXV kindt_c_Page_104.pro
add0cac547a6a3b9df69252e66888cd9
1c2736d0f9b25035f560132add182d9545860fec
878 F20101109_AAACEE kindt_c_Page_128.txt
8eacebb5d775ccfe96b4b7b70b53326f
4a763ee4be1e99d3d074d7d8bdbbccbb3a7b7f97
2077 F20101109_AAACDP kindt_c_Page_112.txt
0291acf1aba7a36cd15a4167d77bc91a
ac3f839cfc1d7c49ac2b0be64fe41fdbe5725e8c
53122 F20101109_AAABYK kindt_c_Page_119.pro
7991815ed2f3e32f0f55f13a4bd67910
bad25ac45c0f163eb519780ac8089b85920f6218
23969 F20101109_AAABXW kindt_c_Page_105.pro
89ae387b29b8393288b6d05df1fb273a
a87bd7ab5114cc5ac92e2ac4ea6fd46a1584920b
1501 F20101109_AAACEF kindt_c_Page_129.txt
70a1b965d38519db1734c1dd5c47d5f3
6e1c421b759c278adb966985b0dbcb6d610cf59c
2015 F20101109_AAACDQ kindt_c_Page_113.txt
f2927b273768f084baeedd2fb7dbe5d4
1c41eaac46a2a87fb3fc9ad9e0d4cd18960c3013
54487 F20101109_AAABYL kindt_c_Page_120.pro
ebe95de46ddb3efca25d6afb016580e1
0b260ee53bec7b632bc7279aec949ba9dfff382a
21020 F20101109_AAABXX kindt_c_Page_106.pro
b67bc46b5ccf179809f18ae8e017d493
e8c26c5b42da41e190f1a1fed651c7dbd262f85c
1921 F20101109_AAACEG kindt_c_Page_130.txt
87ba72da2175ee7df131b7ff80df071a
0bb1179dadb7016606a26a5b2d99443d8de5b872
51482 F20101109_AAABZA kindt_c_Page_135.pro
0038753e71d65f956b9ee3f06a262660
8240b5a2d8a91eea9ae5fb61821fca79f8ba5247
2011 F20101109_AAACDR kindt_c_Page_114.txt
b8e762bf30da7321a24b202da879e034
9a31b38b1f9311d1ffdfcbc8af90fae5d6b9af4b
55806 F20101109_AAABYM kindt_c_Page_121.pro
962fbd7d6d09a75180f37d942feb755e
11307dc74804f927a064c0d2f734488bd996b183
40295 F20101109_AAABXY kindt_c_Page_107.pro
81403a42b86d907bbe6cf6cfaac39964
e2028a61e9e231381ac32c88701bd5746a681489
1839 F20101109_AAACEH kindt_c_Page_131.txt
8d541b3535b0eda28725bf465e13371a
5a28f0b9abe4375d89d9fc01cf880720213fc397
59431 F20101109_AAABZB kindt_c_Page_136.pro
4a32bde5cf068cbdbe92889bc01e4aca
8b822a77c0ca8d1c088340dca0a40ef19ba2e886
2096 F20101109_AAACDS kindt_c_Page_115.txt
5a50c82664e131f802a769f69d7acd11
a2a34d85f926a7d919094eb08a609185abbd16bd
55465 F20101109_AAABYN kindt_c_Page_122.pro
c30d5f473049e99b41d4196831682227
88481faeadb2806f625a2ec624736f457e1d7139
20422 F20101109_AAABXZ kindt_c_Page_108.pro
ae6549bd3a04cfdacb05b1552f6ff865
7d63bfcca02768f87e987ce0e5e1108d4e3b80de
1429 F20101109_AAACEI kindt_c_Page_132.txt
dbdabfeb73101d6f201e1ed6f4b82fd6
9fff04b0f8ce463f526300a56344c6d84a15fa5b
58987 F20101109_AAABZC kindt_c_Page_137.pro
56915f45918fc70dedee28e521d01761
ced9f434dac3897df84e3c34bde6830cd1c13f54
2108 F20101109_AAACDT kindt_c_Page_116.txt
bf4539c1119e28167b1b5c6fd3abf562
c00448bbb8258612247546a0b1367db59d1ce06e
46917 F20101109_AAABYO kindt_c_Page_123.pro
b2aa38c207f4f81dcf05dad706a3985b
796609ab243ed38a822979ad98410ab798cf5e9b
1387 F20101109_AAACEJ kindt_c_Page_133.txt
f5133cf9e342c1ec9f96b57f4fe29173
f1b795a6ae43c8f085927d2fef154c5acde236ba
52615 F20101109_AAABZD kindt_c_Page_138.pro
1a8686639f66fa28e0561e1a7fa01112
4e09a2bcf3336a74293a496a23356a904888b61f
2075 F20101109_AAACDU kindt_c_Page_117.txt
86e2307c603f67164587c93bfba2a319
3ad6285c706212217acd645614c9df27832af146
4252 F20101109_AAABYP kindt_c_Page_124.pro
00ef16a4c7873dc6cf9a311e7972ce9b
7140ee9585a1342c51515408a4201769efa257d6
228 F20101109_AAACEK kindt_c_Page_134.txt
8766b26ef87291ac402828809c55eee9
d39adf0804690b540b9f02f03b3f33638319745a
47956 F20101109_AAABZE kindt_c_Page_139.pro
0bc9af5980240fa489b6798c0ad3bf04
024f1a1eafea2797f67651578c59c42c5afd5277
1998 F20101109_AAACDV kindt_c_Page_118.txt
b5063ab7a2f4faf7ac469fe871369140
b887cf351b6d7a6ad257da7ff2d03bf9c16a6612
64641 F20101109_AAABYQ kindt_c_Page_125.pro
5faf2f9baad161061c8c2b3013ebd44d
909ad8d2fadb85b97ec6fd78203352ac914958ea
2117 F20101109_AAACEL kindt_c_Page_135.txt
a1aa9682870541a8015c9f815629c44b
3ecbe94b7d16e2e19b7c9518d9d7e34f2dc58596
2135 F20101109_AAACDW kindt_c_Page_119.txt
bda67153721e02d143b16f5ac7e2faae
1317710b3ad05bc703b172aeeca176b4992e1c95
33504 F20101109_AAABYR kindt_c_Page_126.pro
d21865fe936958eb821ee28aadec14b6
4f0a4101428d8c8e5f0ec2a2028bcc9d049ef920
1464 F20101109_AAACFA kindt_c_Page_003thm.jpg
cdb6b51b1f5be21b85387b8b0f93acf4
db0eead29e1b77fcb7c8660453e2729c8bbfa213
2424 F20101109_AAACEM kindt_c_Page_136.txt
8df55ea799001aeea3a28002eb074c6a
76664e4b6216eff42b36331e30c9a202e8ec8395
62932 F20101109_AAABZF kindt_c_Page_140.pro
55f6df01e3017994de63173a9cda38be
894ed609915b0605917092f1fda110fc1417a72f
2142 F20101109_AAACDX kindt_c_Page_120.txt
9709815f588dd541ca10b7f42b532e5f
05bbf61e302dfc5b875a728e85c9fc70f7943a21
17335 F20101109_AAABYS kindt_c_Page_127.pro
4346ce158df532f4b24dcd9514f49f0c
13141f022a15c34fb4642ed10fec4fcb4bd93dfc
23472 F20101109_AAACFB kindt_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
57e921608f6e1c3e7b169dca40c3e9d4
ccb2eda80c261bf07596708c77c9eb0871c1803c
2414 F20101109_AAACEN kindt_c_Page_137.txt
18ac2dad44f3f5d58d74d6e23fed753e
76a554522e4fd65feb4699f49abfedd9a110b971
58968 F20101109_AAABZG kindt_c_Page_141.pro
b6a0f000db567a7f64e4067706ef3274
aa1e2781f48ed969d32c9015127fe5d9cfb33245
2192 F20101109_AAACDY kindt_c_Page_121.txt
402a65ad8853f305b7c3d80b40dd85ce
0242dd6ea6c18fd64b299a85fbb0eb74b656a36d
6968 F20101109_AAACFC kindt_c_Page_004thm.jpg
2a281f44120aa642e51ee5ff5897867f
01d554fb3969b752a6a4b0030853e1d8921dd0d8
2161 F20101109_AAACEO kindt_c_Page_138.txt
a178c31f662ccb1ac68e751a2942fff1
366a76357e4d7c4ac6ea2da2bc8c8af981d2706c
52647 F20101109_AAABZH kindt_c_Page_142.pro
757b5f679887786a8fa34df31ca035ba
b5ec40e770ba35e259494c36d0fbfcd67592ddcc
2204 F20101109_AAACDZ kindt_c_Page_122.txt
c4d2da19ff9ab1c8fc56207500c58a94
a5bfa1b3dfb845266628a0c3266c06fae319baf7
22195 F20101109_AAABYT kindt_c_Page_128.pro
3da6d9447e3b2a7b3c7e0538adeacd1e
0acf3dd078be113f8bbe0c8ecbf43105a00189c9
7332 F20101109_AAACFD kindt_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
a62a60fa7fc9dcfb4877d1e81b893cfb
595fa124abdff5fdfb0c332c7686504eb7f7026a
31265 F20101109_AAABZI kindt_c_Page_143.pro
e0f1ebc06c71a97c477159641d646660
7e4752b9842bc943d3394dfae561dfbce1643bd3
39824 F20101109_AAABYU kindt_c_Page_129.pro
3755a8beab8fd88db727ff8cca51f9d2
3227a0ae3152210cf30272463616a7eb53f7d8cc
2472 F20101109_AAACFE kindt_c_Page_005thm.jpg
8cc8a0f8854bc9116de6ddab99370d87
18c544d10724f907107939b024b2afd8bc9c56b1
1984 F20101109_AAACEP kindt_c_Page_139.txt
dc4fc1aa58beed256122180dac889abc
7cdd91c3358fabb60f172bc789ead37c5d745234
505 F20101109_AAABZJ kindt_c_Page_001.txt
138b0a5290bda5009c6ecb8387bc5c13
0f383a6911f7f398661644012c4c8698bc76f9d0
50870 F20101109_AAABYV kindt_c_Page_130.pro
c296af7d9956dd108a5ebc4ca12eb382
24c62348d539beafc5f85871ae26ec0a612e0919
19723 F20101109_AAACFF kindt_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
f3825fd94a4de2316f5e640505607b2b
cd9daaeb588bee11291401e2430afc233e32469f
2585 F20101109_AAACEQ kindt_c_Page_140.txt
e6aeba62510da8689155e5d3a2982c38
d9ca286f6222658e789aa71bd49f63c63b0a7e8f
91 F20101109_AAABZK kindt_c_Page_002.txt
e824e364497bd3a4c28d8377783c324a
6ac2994128164567c2758ced49b3dc28247fcd61
47791 F20101109_AAABYW kindt_c_Page_131.pro
0ba746209e556fc501e63734e78b5124
77a6a90d9f15f12868b13409049d0a76deeefe92
5002 F20101109_AAACFG kindt_c_Page_006thm.jpg
d06e913471d3c0a58c124f6adbf70836
8ffba1c18590a81e76c2759869cf6db3d42473da
2418 F20101109_AAACER kindt_c_Page_141.txt
66f38d4eccefc08c576ea769ac32c1f3
e22c173ac6a76352025cd191f871f855ef305f5c
124 F20101109_AAABZL kindt_c_Page_003.txt
5ec4d3278b3067782cddec9f63901dca
1fcf6d7bf2187c545aec3747ada468c25845d7f7
37170 F20101109_AAABYX kindt_c_Page_132.pro
4f4b97009d25e28e0144a60b8dd4c746
fb1c1cf03a9969a6e3c3ae8a60b5b4b7ba840174
24039 F20101109_AAACFH kindt_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
7c1a7870bd501a27481bc8c13d8e0462
4c49326b7d0aab31564e7d42cb3a3c494267d040
2173 F20101109_AAACES kindt_c_Page_142.txt
8c53b3b4bbb4a9836e17152bfad58387
9b9db201836a4064cf60bc3726aea8c3c9f8b5ce
1864 F20101109_AAABZM kindt_c_Page_004.txt
9be70df0f9114df04adfe922f8c7df70
b5715b27f6b1ddeb3f5df7c118dbcb9174de53e5
36034 F20101109_AAABYY kindt_c_Page_133.pro
1d936ea1b0e147a2c41651105ab29972
ba2b1d7ff81988f5f42b9f6806b7282d38a1ba21
5942 F20101109_AAACFI kindt_c_Page_007thm.jpg
f5ab02883cde8cc6512d51596eacfe48
0852323e25068c2e6659690f0f66eccaebab673a
1297 F20101109_AAACET kindt_c_Page_143.txt
39d39a12ff3afe9a48b53d060c49f559
441ab03967d0d6723882bb6dc169bd31790bcd08
428 F20101109_AAABZN kindt_c_Page_005.txt
27ca77a45c8ef94626cd394d8f7fa17c
02a3856ff4a68314fc78a76622e14fa010c18a29
5796 F20101109_AAABYZ kindt_c_Page_134.pro
bb34c027f4b235e571f1440592f3cefc
cc68a2a6f5bf2ef5ad68b2a3312c47a6f04acf5a
19181 F20101109_AAACFJ kindt_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
53cbf5c553b825368acbde0d10c1a162
296555e22f4e76a0f671cbca828b2f50f3a516e6
2401 F20101109_AAACEU kindt_c_Page_001thm.jpg
c48fbc53488a059b4f98588336db1844
0775224d9bb59442365c6a3f419c0929f4e8ee0b
4177 F20101109_AAABZO kindt_c_Page_006.txt
9d8b503cb75e2e510ca4fc350bced3c5
7c280c066c155648d16299f3c7f145ce7f1c55cc
5037 F20101109_AAACFK kindt_c_Page_008thm.jpg
b84e9540213e8df7597d5167e810c0f4
7c210dd1efe20ba4e738e8618f4c14cb80cef952
791275 F20101109_AAACEV kindt_c.pdf
790e4b27d105bffbcfcfcb82e0b14d42
e5c03e4e35603f45f879fd082742dbc535823eb9
4912 F20101109_AAABZP kindt_c_Page_007.txt
7412d460ebc0b969167ae73618ce6a00
d1a9bc6dc230bbffd29d60897dcd4edc5da56415
19876 F20101109_AAACFL kindt_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
92cb9af87b1913c8ca023987263ae15e
68834f77cf8eb301f7d2b741649830b911c1ba01
7715 F20101109_AAACEW kindt_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
bf428d2b4aab07705f8b647b403f1d04
77ccf2a4e32794505f02534d500f0236599664bd
3206 F20101109_AAABZQ kindt_c_Page_008.txt
d1927717afcb0648574121abab9dd609
7b8b30f65be1cd5c28d3c8d4104137cd541b06ae
4894 F20101109_AAACFM kindt_c_Page_009thm.jpg
4694484ea62a3c31966afea94e8e8d9f
d16c6f19216ca3a23206d23dc4c6bfbce07cc19b
3271 F20101109_AAACEX kindt_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
74d0aa6929e6a028fbb162815457adef
af679330536539c2cdb9e9edc3202936fdd79ebf
2855 F20101109_AAABZR kindt_c_Page_009.txt
c10b78d50572c7658adfb76f59cc9879
5ef15c6480be984f905c01ce135938d6c97f3f93
25455 F20101109_AAACGA kindt_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
a18452a8a42a2a2165c5215283d11791
3b842ddcfd341bafd4240bacf7ac5dc7b16797a0
6616 F20101109_AAACFN kindt_c_Page_010thm.jpg
d264330aca93719dd5a5c3845156c200
669d16e77e34bafaa82a23d6356da7ee817f71e5
1343 F20101109_AAACEY kindt_c_Page_002thm.jpg
b82c63f51c34a85cdedf035cbc063392
839802b9a7b4c97189450c0f4acea2022b36a700
3066 F20101109_AAABZS kindt_c_Page_010.txt
c42ec540fc7cba1cec72439bbb716c38
a4f1186a4a8699f4bb0d785207dccca968173ff8
6800 F20101109_AAACGB kindt_c_Page_017thm.jpg
c5858a8f3ffa3f3ecb571be0416da37c
712c45b383eb293377ef2121035f35458e957ac7
16506 F20101109_AAACFO kindt_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
66c979351ba13ed48b8490f54a0544ef
532ecba03d712de5cf2c5851e8e37781b90ed499
3800 F20101109_AAACEZ kindt_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
524e0304105200cae92b7135a7983285
ddc8d1469ec120540d2c6ec5dcf639776d1f83b2
1722 F20101109_AAABZT kindt_c_Page_011.txt
fe982629a5b9fc8129f59fb7f2fdc42b
5bc1636e1f55eceb4a6ca0519b274f4b0a9f1306
4504 F20101109_AAABDA kindt_c_Page_091thm.jpg
71fb99f8d8cbf6750818121636765295
f1217f7717edaf3b3b1f0bdaf395f0145cedfb24
26902 F20101109_AAACGC kindt_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
979e8609a46ad8fc68229bd484b666da
0c8bef6430836b114cd009fcbebe839e2148fc37
4540 F20101109_AAACFP kindt_c_Page_011thm.jpg
c19891222314d7dd9b3e58753b164c32
9c3fed25b239c2df64244eca1bb8957c3c23693b
1724 F20101109_AAABZU kindt_c_Page_012.txt
bdb9a314f581eb2bee9945f726f90601
e863597b948e45040e3b9c77d1cdb57e5e80319c
53972 F20101109_AAABDB kindt_c_Page_076.pro
8124e6ba45042398f5a003ab0826618c
c61cebc0185996bfcbf1adb543766b60ad0114c8
7218 F20101109_AAACGD kindt_c_Page_018thm.jpg
f17efe69cfcf9115ec483b338df26445
b95c04ef170ff00459f53e7875dc79afe63148f8
1390 F20101109_AAABZV kindt_c_Page_013.txt
87f2f7a397929b42ffd7c3b54cc03b4f
c4dd8843481ed845559151ea14733c7cb6096ce2
1037524 F20101109_AAABDC kindt_c_Page_066.jp2
223a4c4f8c6ced987ec648972834ebe2
fe9e08a787cdc2cea89c8baac8334eeeb9def7ba
25297 F20101109_AAACGE kindt_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
0100de411ebb973bbc7d9eea2456638a
66df4acd558241ea1a40ffbb3198c7e9ecc8a7d6
1825 F20101109_AAABZW kindt_c_Page_014.txt
de92332134e1d6a728c90d39276f1560
75dbce80b7a31abf5cf6d25a89864d6cca5cfc3b
54485 F20101109_AAABDD kindt_c_Page_032.pro
8d94db595ba09b8320f792b308e7bdfa
eff1408ef43c27b52d38a55ec379d22ed4cf3eab
7071 F20101109_AAACGF kindt_c_Page_019thm.jpg
62c89d09f6a829ca707ee48f220dd4ec
111d6f26efd2af88e952b57a8cd26448d3265bc7
18754 F20101109_AAACFQ kindt_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
7e33d65d910da8193e9eebe2fbcb7db3
4019cd189ba4fb96b6f362431d8f8ecd6d6f986a
1121 F20101109_AAABZX kindt_c_Page_015.txt
6f91dc83d359b4e398f49c94ac9abd03
20117de9a9ec682ab9ecdd6774726102afc1ee24
714 F20101109_AAABDE kindt_c_Page_127.txt
08f5b736748ba64ef79ebcece66f2057
8ac1c01814e182accbe751792ed4f03d5f7918f8
25596 F20101109_AAACGG kindt_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
3ccca8f40061015621ad07c2b0939991
244d9b7a2b847dc69d611a30963931bacd11ecc0
5375 F20101109_AAACFR kindt_c_Page_012thm.jpg
8f927c25025e82f6d85c539a53f380af
c07092f224df3043bc935d271df95d2e3ce1f728
2242 F20101109_AAABZY kindt_c_Page_016.txt
50262413c14be88f1c393b6654d535d2
59f9899a2ab9db27c7abc7c92a97e91dc6c23d30
20993 F20101109_AAABDF kindt_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
c57ada737cc0f672c93c1da65ac372e2
82c9c5a49bd3d55864ae13d48af788e01a38f279
F20101109_AAACGH kindt_c_Page_020thm.jpg
8b5fde5fb7fceedd7e81bfc885b3773c
47f84230b6ef950f698e2e70d5cc9ff821738c70
15953 F20101109_AAACFS kindt_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
49e94ea3797aab87cef2cbe6c3697c74
0df683f50d6bdef53eadf19f1777646ab401a0fa
F20101109_AAABZZ kindt_c_Page_017.txt
eb91e1e11369ff456dc517818b11318b
121cf90d2b48fd198cae56cd1cb400b1a61cf245
F20101109_AAABDG kindt_c_Page_066.tif
300acf62d8a1ae6556f4b7897cbb7838
ed1ac958646fcb9913b732ab072677ea630bf9d1
23984 F20101109_AAACGI kindt_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
b155b8565fedafd2286d61eef3b90791
b077eddcf411aefb85dcb10fe6cb89c807061d39
4929 F20101109_AAACFT kindt_c_Page_013thm.jpg
294e30abd115a8462b2b7fe5122109df
4833d1932bae238d913bae8ce55cf8b52e659447
F20101109_AAABDH kindt_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
8a0a7c38d61a4eab93e127de44d01f1e
6833ddb4de9dcf79d34e010a872f744e257bc6a8
6930 F20101109_AAACGJ kindt_c_Page_021thm.jpg
0ec128aaa4f464198cbffbcdfd2c3c13
d83b14b97412e054c6472463a027578d1d17f0e1
20499 F20101109_AAACFU kindt_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
6af771c6fcdea5e3df920a1b26fb704e
be9fa81c8ad19647e11f95cd6e97be8c06c9b87e
79323 F20101109_AAABDI kindt_c_Page_052.jpg
b1d5133cce2de729698a15d02f878be5
a7a1afd9dbfd8d0a68334fe2c62708c5da7e913d
16961 F20101109_AAACGK kindt_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
1cc5fd6ec03bccdb19eb2d580702ab77
c1cb62b4104b22a15ad298107f73d4996f000977
5873 F20101109_AAACFV kindt_c_Page_014thm.jpg
74410fc385302bd5c3c3277d8e068df2
8dfdf8003fc7d31e33aa3c9f009b9f9f25285b31
10511 F20101109_AAABDJ kindt_c_Page_005.pro
7fafb4160a24de844c2546d811d18066
6d7021f7d9ac486416ed3ce5875423c7f915993c
4717 F20101109_AAACGL kindt_c_Page_022thm.jpg
329779b87856e31f2cd68bdd69dae204
15bfecfca5def77a26bef47340072759c3508b53
41325 F20101109_AAABCU kindt_c_Page_106.jpg
29d3d71559e488415a35d24c8c42959b
0fe31f1a0b6bb3806b123802ec57f445743ff68b
15626 F20101109_AAACFW kindt_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
7bb85e6675d512e965e0dee27290f162
4675b9cd4f8a0060cedd6a9eac6a5e45e3e411b3
7174 F20101109_AAACHA kindt_c_Page_030thm.jpg
5aa4e62cfe198cf0065d964d84f7f80f
3e03def13e57e6cea8134c4118e807d9488159ed
1847 F20101109_AAABDK kindt_c_Page_063.txt
4020a6ee73429538150c28d70659e900
fe3a72447f9e30248b0f1ed0a38a0e3ad1e00a84
24288 F20101109_AAACGM kindt_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
435c23dda04edbd9ad2a43196ee34761
7000e4a58848ec2178aa47ecd372f83afe51ba40
25248 F20101109_AAABCV kindt_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
0ea260b4495ad8e0ae306e6df7a2eb71
5cc46d39d4c4a8c5521e265c7c6ce96db1603302
4253 F20101109_AAACFX kindt_c_Page_015thm.jpg
c990ba333c3da7d0440b4ec7022c8de5
a30dec4d454a1dd4d235d406c164c203fbdab5fe
27022 F20101109_AAACHB kindt_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
9f386f390e4a19176d8e70d74599dfc7
f16e0b8e13e59b9a7fa968ea82b5665f81f082ab
6629 F20101109_AAABDL kindt_c_Page_055thm.jpg
ba307e92bdd7b5351c08bce94a9199a0
00935edf73c070f45a6706ffc895e26cf92462d9
6854 F20101109_AAACGN kindt_c_Page_023thm.jpg
0baf61a345b180556557c3ac3c124078
ea0cfaf281578558fa2fc13def8fcd589aba7b51
26864 F20101109_AAABCW kindt_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
c69c190eae384b2ff0af7769cd70f0ec
ed50de930f9a94fb1f7f879137812e7f9c029c75
26989 F20101109_AAACFY kindt_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
9692a3111d04fef8f69d91c371175ff1
b78187fd7bdc4c9f5f82dd6464112fab561e0b19
7607 F20101109_AAACHC kindt_c_Page_031thm.jpg
3e5155eca483cf1b9a206826f74adec9
9aff5e2ece4079e1b991916710732507a870d78c
213234 F20101109_AAABEA UFE0021920_00001.xml
df8360992e1f405518b419b3235bbe66
bb9ba53fa7526f643ad5d5a489894d1ef9009d36
83603 F20101109_AAABDM kindt_c_Page_119.jpg
db384a52acae4b95acca732dbbdd508b
95fe79677f289a8c085524030ec1c41ceed798af
27649 F20101109_AAACGO kindt_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
7ba6c4d046ff5c67f8bfff9a5d0dc7e0
b3ad26f3ffb1aaae3849f8e7e522612ca1a12ee9
25055 F20101109_AAABCX kindt_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
6edfa80b18fb4f26f6478108048e3bd5
87cfe0c9ea11a011135688acb62c33a746991e73
7400 F20101109_AAACFZ kindt_c_Page_016thm.jpg
0ec0be468a93cedbfbe34c1f1861d79c
a89515b62feba45b063b8a7c23d47b8a4d3c2737
27491 F20101109_AAACHD kindt_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
5b5b9cb16dffdce9b1f260d75537ac41
2c600a8550baca7721b05a039832f8d47e69be1b
47514 F20101109_AAABDN kindt_c_Page_023.pro
8efdf137fa8ea642fadd2838a41be388
31d0f984702b5c4c110a898f36034825667c172b
26877 F20101109_AAACGP kindt_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
621067c7ef491ae4aed34c79d63a7c9e
51597dc36807a8006ba938bdb9d13a0392d3377b
7329 F20101109_AAABCY kindt_c_Page_116thm.jpg
8b7f004b26cf0084f2046907c0334beb
b71f76bdea2087f969cb46a7dc331f26e1ac2922
7283 F20101109_AAACHE kindt_c_Page_032thm.jpg
eb54b5964dc9fb546b4a9551256e81b4
8b3f4caaa71a24131710e7cb83476d829cf8db1c
F20101109_AAABDO kindt_c_Page_023.tif
f21e560a497cbcbf3904a3a2d55a8e69
8e6cf4ad93b304d370eb0189a19c876e028b0a6d
7231 F20101109_AAACGQ kindt_c_Page_025thm.jpg
148602882d5f90385d4d885da84853db
895c1ddcbeb5583cb1b9f9c6a364842da694daca
33397 F20101109_AAABCZ kindt_c_Page_095.jpg
30facc56f86caed524835c95bda71634
b564d74777a176726a8a83f5c1c6ae701a66d746
27037 F20101109_AAACHF kindt_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
d2f9077cf2dc5a7e1555bfc8567cbbef
a500ec4e6c1ed663d08f61b570ed0600f3d71fbf
26351 F20101109_AAABED kindt_c_Page_001.jpg
8c76ebc18a4bf508228351dd71ee9a6c
d419c3b17531c6022552f2bae824b390a293f420
7184 F20101109_AAACHG kindt_c_Page_033thm.jpg
761df103c4450bacc715af9537926bf3
d493f5ceb0d4defd9e9d7fc697a49ca8c89b2acf
10069 F20101109_AAABEE kindt_c_Page_002.jpg
cb20d0b8d0e961a84636bdea99b1d490
47108cbe2dd06af7989e8a8b68936adcd9701b49
87278 F20101109_AAABDP kindt_c_Page_138.jpg
645f5780c14d870a5015d890d3b8c451
5a179230a3674591638118ed2b6f9d6d37ebc73f
27313 F20101109_AAACGR kindt_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
3e85ee9809009db9071202b038d447f2
462d7d10ffc53ee76d9712032b692241426142a0
26914 F20101109_AAACHH kindt_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
722d5ff11cd8a14df3f52d84b061aa84
543164dcf7fe3439ca2d548a912195063ddfde57
11539 F20101109_AAABEF kindt_c_Page_003.jpg
081ac845fe9b0b595dad4b8e16d6215d
825f85930dbe970c98088def164f85d9ca3079d1
56907 F20101109_AAABDQ kindt_c_Page_024.pro
65decc2c6d5704ff14968db5a472d67b
fee6261a50cca27594f535aa9f70859c567d6847
7388 F20101109_AAACGS kindt_c_Page_026thm.jpg
cd222ad5210aa7a8d94daea5cee19545
73886979a9c981b1584443ae7a1461d47ddfe29d
7352 F20101109_AAACHI kindt_c_Page_034thm.jpg
442da0a8fcc81c5a6b66f7aa2d31f1f0
f75535576026cec5207f6f80df345f85cb8abe89
74757 F20101109_AAABEG kindt_c_Page_004.jpg
1e8c67e7c4fbc3c44adc4e6087c06e70
ad7db417f9e4536a7c46932713eca67c332d99ed
92792 F20101109_AAABDR kindt_c_Page_019.jpg
c223eca8cc74150a4da3aae43835d3d8
92489377458df644e162e2b934f9bd0534b81c6b
27033 F20101109_AAACGT kindt_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
5b3b3e7d0bbe664544da0e47c5f27ada
8af7c5967bc230de7fa888c71c18ec3cf9253133
23960 F20101109_AAACHJ kindt_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
5fa1851488f450c28f7f06ff755f4a25
c6e6f4e7d3c8967506dac367f0c359333455bede
23213 F20101109_AAABEH kindt_c_Page_005.jpg
3ea47423844958299d964da8b0f87052
79f1fc05d280fab9790986437da87c45ed3347a7
F20101109_AAABDS kindt_c_Page_045.jp2
dbc6617cb570d53ec6d7c859c03c1c35
3e4f6ea4f7c2660b19012f4c5557c53ce710635c
7344 F20101109_AAACGU kindt_c_Page_027thm.jpg
2651926a812d8c90b81e335a8c712614
3fa2ee231201857c0eba11c42b1dbf7dbf232bc8
6743 F20101109_AAACHK kindt_c_Page_035thm.jpg
c2e1fa5b2e3d7833b22bcec3694cf292
6c6d4600e6a879842e9a069d8c0d663c99c47eb9
102362 F20101109_AAABEI kindt_c_Page_007.jpg
aea1a7e8466f1f25e0481e01acc85f0f
a5cf1bc634f8ae856808d6e8146dc8fa38f7ffb8
1051958 F20101109_AAABDT kindt_c_Page_029.jp2
4196b7a00d45c5fb09bbf86bf9f7737b
3f1dd3e19702c27fa315962b5f7077db8e142e8f
25046 F20101109_AAACGV kindt_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
c506f29202688d238fd71aca37340908
01d728afbf04c6f9672eb52356c2913263c306e5
25454 F20101109_AAACHL kindt_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
fd13c87f0fc14d359d526f607535534a
8d8f432a6708a707103eb6f3f285bbb5e43bde99
71870 F20101109_AAABEJ kindt_c_Page_008.jpg
fbc08746c7ac7bcd2e98a4f926928f52
0f166e4c495ef917b867c93db57e6d51b143c283
F20101109_AAABDU kindt_c_Page_023.jp2
44cacc3a7378fa71cac94183d57183b2
ff05cd4f35dc96f59f8eeb2ea2f927301863cda7
6705 F20101109_AAACGW kindt_c_Page_028thm.jpg
fc1e29aa4acc0b31d74edaef9f6399a1
6c7546f9e8fc141a5a8d4fd6eb86c838125c0201
7481 F20101109_AAACIA kindt_c_Page_043thm.jpg
a5ff551bf1f939c68055943bc3759411
a29ce0908fe2ea53befb9746de42364a40a6eb52
6824 F20101109_AAACHM kindt_c_Page_036thm.jpg
2a096f7cf83959621668a2d9cb26ab00
3345958454db703db61c49ea383db9bca38b253f
68097 F20101109_AAABEK kindt_c_Page_009.jpg
c67dfc48c11f5de714ab45ed3d5e5ff8
de1193db62c43e1ce9723683f2da92658699d24a
4151 F20101109_AAABDV kindt_c_Page_127thm.jpg
5b630de74b9367bc623c1275983924b9
5634c04f3b22baac3c3e39672127794f564e728b
25370 F20101109_AAACGX kindt_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
d574dc5a899ab0602417923428e1fa54
989e99feabe920f37c8ec176e1c4c505087cf32e
27104 F20101109_AAACIB kindt_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
806638bbc95c23c041e87ff6f47888e0
0f0b8a4aab138a760b747ce4b6d94b5646a5ce6e
26654 F20101109_AAACHN kindt_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
24915918fead75fd8f134c87b6b54b07
f13be5902b44fd9c297ff74a3df73cb16647f42d
84641 F20101109_AAABEL kindt_c_Page_010.jpg
e21ec37af150c912ed38115bfd76c697
756ba6e2f8cac6392dd9d4db63376223db018681
79654 F20101109_AAABDW kindt_c_Page_006.jpg
a59caee6daba28c579cd63b3da3d3c88
c71f1631490cd0ece33421cf8e3605be0184ab3b
6671 F20101109_AAACGY kindt_c_Page_029thm.jpg
8f561b66be729363f6d8fd929ed809ac
dc40114dcd30a4ef3efd88d3ca1503b3e80309f8
7582 F20101109_AAACIC kindt_c_Page_044thm.jpg
c0975cd58b744753cb740d2d629307e4
3232c2d24b7d15e5bba3bb9e77e2a187923ecf8e
7060 F20101109_AAACHO kindt_c_Page_037thm.jpg
1b77fed0d7f06610058bb222b0d866a8
83012521ce53d7a24c258b03575d1d68bb3ec428
59417 F20101109_AAABEM kindt_c_Page_011.jpg
1a61bec7b3a59b5d8fc1d074a9c1e13d
11453b61db7cd40166b4da5479819d5d80443b79
7443 F20101109_AAABDX kindt_c_Page_024thm.jpg
f62c6dbedffe977d524eb4e70ed44642
7b230163c417970be5a7e78d055c78fa4ff93614
26173 F20101109_AAACGZ kindt_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
4367ba19fed6051dca7c41c000151d1b
d1e34542fad4c33ef22fe986d21f69ba8e07e875
84620 F20101109_AAABFA kindt_c_Page_026.jpg
159ba5f7ceb1740a6d1f6ebfa8271c52
a6c8cab81ea68eba1af3db2235ee1e91989bc8d6
27705 F20101109_AAACID kindt_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
4823bc2091821eb6901e62df8ada6599
93f8ac991a733b8667ae428981b6b3eb405b7104
26263 F20101109_AAACHP kindt_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
7fb27e943fa9df3b724e112377d5e77b
f197b37f8524975509022741745885d077f41d5a
68126 F20101109_AAABEN kindt_c_Page_012.jpg
af3ea7e2c808f53e576d4baef1e3343c
b72d01e2582804fea0c20e5d48e7d092ac531990
F20101109_AAABDY kindt_c_Page_101.tif
7dfbc21691abce2fc3966976d739d4fb
aa66e675d1c4c42710761e3f295ba3a805083939
83425 F20101109_AAABFB kindt_c_Page_027.jpg
f8711ebc2dc705e442aeb56b6d67ccd1
dda27ef038a5bf3ff6b870527d95c4649726552e
7333 F20101109_AAACIE kindt_c_Page_045thm.jpg
86a05fc22f9e72d8099064ed8a392790
8c0fcda7ac3530823629b506e367e1a5e8729396
7274 F20101109_AAACHQ kindt_c_Page_038thm.jpg
6f2a9e2d1d26be5c04cc9b6f6afad7d0
94be880e1b374bb327bf2bb4b3911d6ed4899035
55626 F20101109_AAABEO kindt_c_Page_013.jpg
888a549b4988b335cd130af02a426beb
16448e6073e78a087c56c8e15d65e0445f978d38
91343 F20101109_AAABDZ kindt_c_Page_050.jpg
ebc508a10206147f02542d4176f5e4a2
a73912be717338f8537b873ff220b7e7dba25226
78391 F20101109_AAABFC kindt_c_Page_028.jpg
fd0edc8b4c8c77cd6d425fc8fc2163e3
8e93609b3e2343f6fe62ffec95a8f2da7ae8b624
26779 F20101109_AAACIF kindt_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
3ac148c6d33f68581e8180826c1f07f9
35d2013d5afd21cb383c6563328bfca2ac6caa5a
23754 F20101109_AAACHR kindt_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
cbe1b7dd57590cd9f773cf7033150553
15e15f2edef4e9a2b56d123b8fbc7ea8b28314a9
F20101109_AAABEP kindt_c_Page_014.jpg
77fe8dfd2197952c55a807166bb8007e
117789811cd9db2f246671021d8d2898febf6a3f
81188 F20101109_AAABFD kindt_c_Page_029.jpg
dfbd4aba4271f197332f4e7940f5dd08
db7a8ef623c39201e2bfbb883355e1f57121d3e4
7305 F20101109_AAACIG kindt_c_Page_046thm.jpg
437ee6fc7a17bf57a56c21d5f4b3e079
9b53d903615236a45fa0d7b9b6d417ac700adb1b
82354 F20101109_AAABFE kindt_c_Page_030.jpg
99c8e79671cd75365b35282526af5b44
ffe7cb7c47f8040f40739330783035d3c5e80e74
25870 F20101109_AAACIH kindt_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
f915721dd709c75addf339dbd352644a
70bf117cd689d6d93526405e0de83166682a546a
6843 F20101109_AAACHS kindt_c_Page_039thm.jpg
45875cccc3ab7632561b14c98a825a83
54c36a4b7e1751aea1846952c80d7ebb333f0b50
48816 F20101109_AAABEQ kindt_c_Page_015.jpg
29dfbd94fae937b7adc31836afeaca7c
69f9010c7c30a35785a2b9b73d613c6541fd345d
88342 F20101109_AAABFF kindt_c_Page_031.jpg
0ad6974aa01f5c4796cba8bece771082
f2e8263d6ede29356386fdb7a09770770d20d4bc
7180 F20101109_AAACII kindt_c_Page_047thm.jpg
dab762505b07395ef986acde5ceb1297
c6d4ffffd34a0e3b104c1624fdb2acf450ef01f2
24524 F20101109_AAACHT kindt_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
d977ca0ac1ad8464d4cf4a1370e3259d
e6dada8df0c7681de3fef2d0dd3c3bf79be625ae
87492 F20101109_AAABER kindt_c_Page_016.jpg
fadd066b5fdbed9d085cda06fbd3fa8f
88501dd6510fb524ac38be3932df8c28edf42f46
86171 F20101109_AAABFG kindt_c_Page_032.jpg
8b29face4d23ce817c4f44638b1c35e9
9fd19149e8d1a1cb2a0e61a0e529429ea273a7b3
24718 F20101109_AAACIJ kindt_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
525e308a11f18e5c14ba056599fe60e7
946114d30c9b9bc60f3ceadaf1ebcd0155b51648
6991 F20101109_AAACHU kindt_c_Page_040thm.jpg
ec57052ca2bf5cdd36792b09d8265bf2
caf78b1513a1a545df9b332ce7b6cabcbc0fb3ab
81935 F20101109_AAABES kindt_c_Page_017.jpg
97384b35f72c3170ece451f4e6204f4e
2163fc6b0dd16f8f932717d05d409fb4002c0d9c
84133 F20101109_AAABFH kindt_c_Page_033.jpg
6126c1776cf6413c2d64357ca3fdd648
658227f462441e66f6143e5b9deee5f5d518a58b
6730 F20101109_AAACIK kindt_c_Page_048thm.jpg
083f4c972912f44aee1afb04b6e83060
9021fb39a1010d3be05f818414caa97c37d24f7b
28697 F20101109_AAACHV kindt_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
a86fa0996df750038b779ad6bffe78b4
a20fd54eb3c9549c0eef6694cf2b94ad229d4d13
84442 F20101109_AAABET kindt_c_Page_018.jpg
ce89cc0de1d3d1f2acb59f6a2561b097
a5a3a74d822d972848979b722bfb4cf3917f629f
83533 F20101109_AAABFI kindt_c_Page_034.jpg
d155db70d525e69d3f6c3794fccd4a74
c5fdfe6f0054c83ebe40dd7e6ae0cc1beceaa0bc
10007 F20101109_AAACIL kindt_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
631875ddf516cd12f6607d42f1ef2926
4799f98727e9826a9fb04eca44f711b900d02ff5
7546 F20101109_AAACHW kindt_c_Page_041thm.jpg
f97ebfdc06cb17c2dacd9100e993bf0f
aac8304555aa4a331c24caf09fb38809ea954740
80892 F20101109_AAABEU kindt_c_Page_020.jpg
9811d3f29930fee67fe48d8ffef75f2b
a9d1703536428056caf86dc4ce50d43a42235b7e
76201 F20101109_AAABFJ kindt_c_Page_035.jpg
4cc466afe2134ebb255beb99ea1e74dd
41f3559a394de675495c6ac9da170798af7e0970
25479 F20101109_AAACJA kindt_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
8074516ffc3100f2ad1d3d34dc99f81e
f3bbc83ff6a31fb74192fb83122b67f7a46d37b7
2970 F20101109_AAACIM kindt_c_Page_049thm.jpg
9126301b7252b97fc27e43a0e81a2a1d
a33b28248df624f1a563a61c516cfac14b3983cd
27238 F20101109_AAACHX kindt_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
02a69f987bc7a9aeb364888807c9fdb9
acde9c567bde2914ce73ed3402e790ad81642c14
77392 F20101109_AAABEV kindt_c_Page_021.jpg
9c08ccb47bf99996215f994b6139c6e7
b726ee20b6287a5611e701aad7253bfaebdb92e2
80674 F20101109_AAABFK kindt_c_Page_036.jpg
8690d972d572b61ff01666527e1d6182
21c2cccb206163aba806553f7efac6ef35f15598
6871 F20101109_AAACJB kindt_c_Page_057thm.jpg
fa7063588fbfce22d0105eaedc48a94d
23216cb5e8df2e5a4a8156a89676755380bcdf6c
25761 F20101109_AAACIN kindt_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
d508d5c43f5be091719a682b71260129
3c01a5356814b32dccd6f5e6a6782d6c744d82b7
7214 F20101109_AAACHY kindt_c_Page_042thm.jpg
8eb1fd50a3558545e55524590e43821a
0a3a9cd647e5079dbd3570627e6c7121cf0f60d6
51780 F20101109_AAABEW kindt_c_Page_022.jpg
27912e93e3b91d1bad3a2c3917df955f
daf061325161f9c8e18a2d34209f1fc124561134
85365 F20101109_AAABFL kindt_c_Page_037.jpg
72057c444197cb697baa9355a831b6a6
561b354d013f63c6fb7e0ebb29a1f591528c1c02
6204 F20101109_AAACJC kindt_c_Page_058thm.jpg
a947b31e0c4364c750f7e7269e2fd138
940e1cf4caffe34188d279cc6e84cce6288ac98b
7175 F20101109_AAACIO kindt_c_Page_050thm.jpg
649d0ab711dc08486417130b36ba732a
f98f9188ccc8c2b17369ad289f2e48f3b97f7d33
27236 F20101109_AAACHZ kindt_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
06897d3a942fe6409ca70d621b26b665
f6677fb2f15eb2d999d70021a68799fe8dfb0734
77390 F20101109_AAABEX kindt_c_Page_023.jpg
e1505e41ae237b98536522f090d838a8
aa189c7b65f15e45ab6d455bd9be63a078eaed2d
74875 F20101109_AAABGA kindt_c_Page_054.jpg
9eeb6784c7330697d028b56ab452c7ae
74ffd377e8f8582aaa4977a97107b32d5d0ab5cc
84844 F20101109_AAABFM kindt_c_Page_038.jpg
4c12b126d85c79d9d0befb205236b087
6a03896be262ac09a0b574bd4f2c50eeb2d083dd
22943 F20101109_AAACJD kindt_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
561b561d06a9b5c9c4691e01639749b0
e1ea34bae6450b9f08e2e7b16c3194ef2cd57e9c
25623 F20101109_AAACIP kindt_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
ac364ef01c6a84f2e144ff0ebe85d263
15575a7376ce70a8cff26f3d3f8d36d41eb976bb
89197 F20101109_AAABEY kindt_c_Page_024.jpg
9eff72ef87a92bb62ea1ca8b04613e6e
d84ece76d2e55ece551f3cff2e949b1c22f524f8
74785 F20101109_AAABGB kindt_c_Page_055.jpg
b6ac154b77c597a32a230fd4b5d43cf3
492069bdabb3c4dd0891cc5d8ba41a086bdaaa7c
75187 F20101109_AAABFN kindt_c_Page_039.jpg
0df7eb7cfd4e18c2bfc0c74a277891a9
cff839882a5eefeb64c2bd27f279de521504e481
6810 F20101109_AAACJE kindt_c_Page_059thm.jpg
4d1a112c34e186a92a9bec9f5456621c
0fa31c56350552c5a0d59376e0bb9befb9c556d1
7021 F20101109_AAACIQ kindt_c_Page_051thm.jpg
3bbab502ca4fa98b94125a9887432bef
8d88060783f378c933087f7619d8f9dfca33c943
92118 F20101109_AAABEZ kindt_c_Page_025.jpg
20a9587e0a596921cbf65322a968d970
0730e72efe56474c893f149b811aa9bced612206
94219 F20101109_AAABGC kindt_c_Page_056.jpg
afd5e3e1327348781461d2308afb1619
666cd3302ed3e551836f04bc1ed9e988c80bd55a
79247 F20101109_AAABFO kindt_c_Page_040.jpg
7eaa808d0988880c81509e1439ea523d
62513514de9c5d2ef35fd243fcbbda84cc403e8a
22306 F20101109_AAACJF kindt_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
cec77acf570f7144631fd3e019921ae2
477cc455030c728262bb49f28f9bf5e6cd22c17f
25414 F20101109_AAACIR kindt_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
9ba4198fee87035f6733086324841d9d
5a4784989b9708ae432f9a8ab941807cdc955855
81803 F20101109_AAABGD kindt_c_Page_057.jpg
18ee0de668616134695060bd5ed0d12a
3a5e01337754cce7b1ce57d99bd54bf7fc581395
89006 F20101109_AAABFP kindt_c_Page_041.jpg
0a577bf4bb4658cde9ba70f5dc69e472
c5b52db6cad785a2c6bd9d873f2e1cb5f0ed0244
5928 F20101109_AAACJG kindt_c_Page_060thm.jpg
115cd80bb90a2229e4ae62e2ca415624
1033c5995ac41ec445edae6a76d97d147a916f8e
7089 F20101109_AAACIS kindt_c_Page_052thm.jpg
2f686523e9431dfa71e3e045b601d931
559081bfd74654e89bde672d70fe4c6b87841540
69477 F20101109_AAABGE kindt_c_Page_058.jpg
87849a48ccbd20d39f24c1d3b6e58f9e
4a95131c23861daea75359482f745157052580c3
85811 F20101109_AAABFQ kindt_c_Page_042.jpg
6c0ee6c59f43a4667278c95c95ec50e5
36cef88da2b1613f6798d7b7fead5a2772700d95
23545 F20101109_AAACJH kindt_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
a5a84111dd2a509b86e18f5a0e9d4f27
c472f005c699b9da9b736533d373eafbd3e0639d
72739 F20101109_AAABGF kindt_c_Page_059.jpg
88d15ac0b8375f654fc9303b60c75db2
868422c273e36013bd1dce5b183ee4e2cd69dfed
6782 F20101109_AAACJI kindt_c_Page_061thm.jpg
253ad6eb3291496b249decd889c58675
99334b2d0cfce238105c6b1676b4ed0663503e7c
25260 F20101109_AAACIT kindt_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
2e82ec9f7fe0d05f1d003579da53f350
866b87d09f9d5438252a6d737cbc0fd7c59b9537
68420 F20101109_AAABGG kindt_c_Page_060.jpg
60da2e3b7cb2476857db632a3b3ca005
e93db87d4ad40353a403c34bb12e015f6fdae5ed
84839 F20101109_AAABFR kindt_c_Page_043.jpg
f11f515cfa5102afbd11b3dee4718453
8b121cb7f323df5cd6dd45864af5ba9b0c3c9818
24887 F20101109_AAACJJ kindt_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
696c21e8292c2acf6f4c6600d3001eae
30c6f5cd735adf6a5fe72e0a95e8674fb0e59c1e
6947 F20101109_AAACIU kindt_c_Page_053thm.jpg
8030f0017999be0e387deced2b8bdc72
b469cb28bdd296d7490d3cd2cd886cc00cd4f0ef
73311 F20101109_AAABGH kindt_c_Page_061.jpg
13f5ec51dd56b1c71906435237ccc76e
00626fc9e022e05bdda1536bfb13f17b2ab1ac3d
86612 F20101109_AAABFS kindt_c_Page_044.jpg
56b05314b34b511667abdeca4f364ed7
dd9d3839742a66aa5d3a866cc8ffd74a93f17118
6943 F20101109_AAACJK kindt_c_Page_062thm.jpg
73487ab816b4c3d96a509e6036a770d2
ab524d8993692ae013263535e330010035a9769d
22856 F20101109_AAACIV kindt_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
1624eb24a75d1aa823432ee390f0dae7
e437f71cb0a02f56a5d273445580d3c732441ad2
80404 F20101109_AAABGI kindt_c_Page_062.jpg
042b1e5d27384a08144e7a9180fcb4ae
e818944d334d32f8a5ace15b84d728b93b4d856c
86837 F20101109_AAABFT kindt_c_Page_045.jpg
89ec03b9a22ead7c2adf93395f3352df
53a7243b09bea593658950137a352ac37304c097
23801 F20101109_AAACJL kindt_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
8b4d7f672bdb38606c2c5d90e2c55d11
5ac527dec000ef500d2d6a862d344ecef9c390d4
6610 F20101109_AAACIW kindt_c_Page_054thm.jpg
382f7d83c37cc35c885404b92550eedd
cc039a10bef68d08ad9dace1d997c1780efcbac2
75295 F20101109_AAABGJ kindt_c_Page_063.jpg
0bf5a0d05cd6206c2c7d03fce7e4bd9a
199ca64ada54f910448504b0c9522756f4c351cc
85633 F20101109_AAABFU kindt_c_Page_046.jpg
64f3385678313d4b3afa8adac157aae7
94ed967f8dd8b1ab5047ba6a73098e484fa6c34d
24731 F20101109_AAACKA kindt_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
668ea7cb8cfa70b8aee7a6ea5d20cd31
373022816f463d92c8ff929100a4ea14acdf1ff1
6594 F20101109_AAACJM kindt_c_Page_063thm.jpg
9d0b5efc0e0ad8170d7bf3131b078411
fa25fb79e4ebc0633dac0f8981514725bd8bf90a
23543 F20101109_AAACIX kindt_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
fb879bb74feabccc0548f870a250527c
2af66191c7c4971c4fbe1f12ca707e2f3acd6a4a
73566 F20101109_AAABGK kindt_c_Page_064.jpg
6714ccf1e661bcacd5c8e2c49a1c8abf
0f9b3220c67b0969e5a493d0e5925d0f02a851d0
83671 F20101109_AAABFV kindt_c_Page_047.jpg
2b16c84ef4b57dc559821f98d9638844
bac81bdef143203537811555d98ef271b9d260a4
6872 F20101109_AAACKB kindt_c_Page_071thm.jpg
5d5183460bd97484ca2afbd6c29ecb9e
0f14b9c1a383704861d09381dc70e7e35d8d2e48
23303 F20101109_AAACJN kindt_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
724c06487f193bd465ee67c095ed09c6
854e515b2ae12356571572401296c7bfec51f5cc
27958 F20101109_AAACIY kindt_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
e5b063e9545716c18b13f3ccce267455
e5bdc27c91b4ff98b5f2d9ab002874574b3e354f
83811 F20101109_AAABGL kindt_c_Page_065.jpg
3fed4ce48af6fcbd90e1e54fb16429a9
06cdf6921ec524fd2a7132ad36e0eed1814af61d
79325 F20101109_AAABFW kindt_c_Page_048.jpg
bbd92015c89e9ecbd4cae24404b51a1d
5587074dec19a3304d9c9806742657f4633f4c53
26456 F20101109_AAACKC kindt_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
19ae10488c2a762d94c895ecda334a0d
7a943b6eb6354ca065be75f04996ea6bb66bbc5f
F20101109_AAACJO kindt_c_Page_064thm.jpg
9fcfed842ac201798d8e56b0ebc58b5f
12c2c362c122b5c19f629aff0b5bb9e43fb851da
7431 F20101109_AAACIZ kindt_c_Page_056thm.jpg
c3b02ced81e4052298573d38999ea25b
ed7957b890e4627c280bf2fdb4bd86524012681d
81831 F20101109_AAABHA kindt_c_Page_080.jpg
e35115cadc3f4940435384a3588d08a7
c9574663feb76c7be6cdfa6ba7bfb9cb3779071a
74824 F20101109_AAABGM kindt_c_Page_066.jpg
6a78c93e10b06b549afc533ac1ef4749
60ff07d564d87904388768ba9c56e07d563a4d2a
31027 F20101109_AAABFX kindt_c_Page_049.jpg
adef96bab512cc3734f09be7e43fb1c6
cbb248d5bd07c62adceb208ca04ab2bd5d1339f0
7166 F20101109_AAACKD kindt_c_Page_072thm.jpg
5ec921c4bb2d99883984a6a9947fff4a
b1db1bcb0d0b9da8ae3f14261e92e8c4ba00a68a
26786 F20101109_AAACJP kindt_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
6409afdfc56e44a8ae7e18aedf1b141d
21e9e954b663c073f01cce9ec310d5d3b1bc5cd9
80538 F20101109_AAABHB kindt_c_Page_081.jpg
777ed5db709630279d429ee224514b90
127edcee65399382c73640f21b1ac6d536c916b3
82380 F20101109_AAABGN kindt_c_Page_067.jpg
09a8daf142394bcc6c6d4fdf7acd21a1
1790aa018ff0b29fac20401bfc3db4e3613e590a
83123 F20101109_AAABFY kindt_c_Page_051.jpg
ce43472f121af19b1972981bb90a046b
605c040717b0e536cba6978aefbc4508158821b9
26087 F20101109_AAACKE kindt_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
280e3bc5f943d6f49e2510810ec05311
c50b8e112777735c1439cb81fcbe6dea1eb819c3
F20101109_AAACJQ kindt_c_Page_065thm.jpg
c54c6371da6e1a07e4119baa07e7590a
b270a9f19001f1da71e88c93b89c77aca06bde57
97351 F20101109_AAABHC kindt_c_Page_082.jpg
cbf8f6251261bb87693a08e1f1aa175d
20a556b530d89770e92692b3a4c1df4340c334e5
80568 F20101109_AAABGO kindt_c_Page_068.jpg
9256b62fe3a8794345a753415a65a0ee
117da239fc80502f6604c856a840a50509fd6b06
80509 F20101109_AAABFZ kindt_c_Page_053.jpg
54001751acc0ec19867f84a4e7eb9bd4
7107212a6e2a683bf23aa38d9c5fc664d08ca613
7049 F20101109_AAACKF kindt_c_Page_073thm.jpg
55c8e56aa93fbf4e7b0e851245670873
608c97f0472a7e5b87937243e7676821bdedd6ee
23651 F20101109_AAACJR kindt_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
2fa03c8778117fb5a4b87c059df72573
6618a3680de718afab5a7841036f9bb53e1180a7
83827 F20101109_AAABGP kindt_c_Page_069.jpg
c513786cfd3fdf87480980c3f54e2205
3ae27e0ad2b0cda047cd5286e9b3b47e34d875f6
77019 F20101109_AAABHD kindt_c_Page_083.jpg
c6011100cb25e6c4dc4218cb25a17147
5e2c4de06ad1b4913be0c79fa5bdfd5b6bf3611a
24799 F20101109_AAACKG kindt_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
a63103b8de4add53e85cc7103fed2d2f
f48168f28b5ef5e990eb218fb73eb99ccd561544
F20101109_AAACJS kindt_c_Page_066thm.jpg
5a403088823b9d4479ba1062870aae3e
8fa62166307f6e587a6d33146ba6c7db04a058f6
81575 F20101109_AAABGQ kindt_c_Page_070.jpg
7ae8abd08d5ecf886e9d825237906079
0eb63feb892d47c0a123a363fc007e1762ba1d1b
84671 F20101109_AAABHE kindt_c_Page_084.jpg
380e5d82196071ae46ba6958559f4ce5
88325a8118b6bea3a05c9354a8e878b62fe23fb9
6944 F20101109_AAACKH kindt_c_Page_074thm.jpg
c477710cca5e802d2e244baad8c5d8bf
3504824f712d31657aabebf01ee5832e7b714f89
25963 F20101109_AAACJT kindt_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
447a3e55cb8a3bf2a20ca0cdf9677b95
a7377dca3a4d7a6335e90b46a6d486660efe10d9
78094 F20101109_AAABGR kindt_c_Page_071.jpg
85fde28bd962c76fe612bfb7ea791ce3
08596eac77e16c5525439f8246275031a721ba06
F20101109_AAABHF kindt_c_Page_085.jpg
374e3107f73abbe1fc5c2181c3bfd404
4d13e509f4d9506e666e06be88e7ea59511eb864
25998 F20101109_AAACKI kindt_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
1b09b75ac58d52e064a279e4d7ee41e9
70be0619291da5c02bc593fffb4dda88b1715188
82131 F20101109_AAABHG kindt_c_Page_086.jpg
0df42996cee16a1b16e5abb475f27bee
fd0a9855fb817bb15cf19996cdf9deb8933e679c
7202 F20101109_AAACKJ kindt_c_Page_075thm.jpg
4c7d6edd05164d689608e10a9cac31cc
c9b9341ca8c232c07f3c4cde974b8ca4532da884
6821 F20101109_AAACJU kindt_c_Page_067thm.jpg
460f5ec88054f880dd39db30414a7227
d3c5f4a3efa4d1b81ab4d454c203a4910ce9c51c
83880 F20101109_AAABGS kindt_c_Page_072.jpg
3e66e65fd2eaf29db1b0ce81b0aa96d9
a19817709e593426493663f6782a8c30e9cb1953
83833 F20101109_AAABHH kindt_c_Page_087.jpg
df44b102272a614d82de687f40349156
6760a1150aa18744f0328f98f4c5aeccf3f26928
26848 F20101109_AAACKK kindt_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
8d8c23a3e11a1cb9c2b2f94599ec9ac5
555e6da206bd746df27813e58fd3510b467178d4
25335 F20101109_AAACJV kindt_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
ce24cc45d157088418c12ef447178ff1
549240976abdf9861e0609c6e4af4f814988e1ac
81755 F20101109_AAABGT kindt_c_Page_073.jpg
ff166626bf1ad94ca9dad3d6e9c6d3ff
7f40972443cfb0f1751f0dea0e1870f643d54f97
89018 F20101109_AAABHI kindt_c_Page_088.jpg
6488817b8ab762261969f90673455d17
0bf78084ddfc641376df6c95d5bd04fe8a185d4a
7215 F20101109_AAACKL kindt_c_Page_076thm.jpg
d7c8f5c0aac3bf29c4100eda826c8fc7
74c2b6aa48cbacb40847844144776830c1674ec3
6880 F20101109_AAACJW kindt_c_Page_068thm.jpg
7eefa0b18168856d281c3510511d8c21
84f3bead358fcbb12929c6b2e99b5b95a5684f31
79167 F20101109_AAABGU kindt_c_Page_074.jpg
9f99ef41c0887c48754792e188898b29
d805ae78fcdcdad3e92ed43cd2bfd94fd4331563
80991 F20101109_AAABHJ kindt_c_Page_089.jpg
804c6b5e3a8800d232e9815a3517ed7d
c1c00dfea8f2ab1247c4e5f538d216485e1fa039
25847 F20101109_AAACLA kindt_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
06eee594596162ec02e575249ee328f4
a55d731e946010eff17d79076c008b007d31c905
22645 F20101109_AAACKM kindt_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
f5509ef11e42dfd8d365caaf2714e7b8
710956b647a5f3cabd0ade32d2f325a35e8c90bc
26366 F20101109_AAACJX kindt_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
1c05ddb41d93fd7ddffa06fa993aa402
76c5aaec786106597564174cdaf75d9c8383977b
83174 F20101109_AAABGV kindt_c_Page_075.jpg
a07e499438a4fc4021fe8475b2ba518d
988978e9994e0273d4135188e126d2dbb18b7b13
18507 F20101109_AAABHK kindt_c_Page_090.jpg
f5569a15b40578f0c5566b31bc87e3b7
2cdd3114543969e0c4368f28e6ee17c770aeef85
7051 F20101109_AAACLB kindt_c_Page_084thm.jpg
28a6e8aa9238f9618c995df9ef58af2e
c9fd6feaf8a46fab91a3c2d5cb0031025d433f3d
F20101109_AAACKN kindt_c_Page_077thm.jpg
c2fcfb014589ba283da28f31571d4102
397ae06ce81b970eab6b8fdfb12e996f924d7c66
7034 F20101109_AAACJY kindt_c_Page_069thm.jpg
4fcd3ee3ec215ba4b6ec130a6e5b1481
43dd554d0f8488fc21ebb744c5658cf45fc1c6d9
84956 F20101109_AAABGW kindt_c_Page_076.jpg
f94633b1dfcc593e4c0aa44815a6a278
2799691adb3884a3ebde6efb14e4f314202c4bb6
51452 F20101109_AAABHL kindt_c_Page_091.jpg
992ff8e3924a33e115649335b0a56b64
5ec38a3cd7b07d0927bf47f22d224c2cf5ff438e
25383 F20101109_AAACLC kindt_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
cf2379376f605a97bc669836e1962c9b
5f06ad55156513f6875d7403e988121e3b6079c9
26444 F20101109_AAACKO kindt_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
111a2ea58122eb2cce0678afbda47a19
92619d31180dae7e9e20d73a897ee037f1791b22
7143 F20101109_AAACJZ kindt_c_Page_070thm.jpg
35648a7179e642c3d2a4caf6129a3f62
b1aed6ed8d082f67d05409b3470a7910e7899153
74240 F20101109_AAABGX kindt_c_Page_077.jpg
6bef1ee9a203f7a3f6fd6f996384dac9
200766198ab53e7a21b0435e1d1e64109b8c83f5
40546 F20101109_AAABIA kindt_c_Page_108.jpg
fbbe93a0a0f392a4b162cbca9142f662
601cc796b0342f38ff5d2315ef6adf744fe22cd3
53555 F20101109_AAABHM kindt_c_Page_092.jpg
4bdf4f24b43433ca85feff38648918cc
cb707cf96661fc77fc4d98f47dfd2942e4de860e
7009 F20101109_AAACLD kindt_c_Page_085thm.jpg
1f1d414972d46f986a72b1d695a2fff4
7e5c98026dc1175ff78dd03722dfc3beb3cc9afd
7195 F20101109_AAACKP kindt_c_Page_078thm.jpg
93b8d860b8bd60beaf281fb5522decd2
d4b715dfbac9f1614cc47cc04829585599461dd0
85353 F20101109_AAABGY kindt_c_Page_078.jpg
dd882fa8cf2347d757e82a15ab16de15
cec62a72ff0476a47446c19bc7da2d9e8f2c28b1
49982 F20101109_AAABIB kindt_c_Page_109.jpg
5e792c73bba6bb2ebe7a720e90dfb83d
ad6e82470ced2d4fa3b49039032679debcd3d02d
56336 F20101109_AAABHN kindt_c_Page_093.jpg
d4f041ebd2e5280ca1c41c35775d3a75
64cadcf3af5a15e65ccd301133e748b4fba96765
26108 F20101109_AAACLE kindt_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
400a2912314510eafc20e7d9a6e27028
00dac44900c301397bc923397daec6654b3c2384
26117 F20101109_AAACKQ kindt_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
1779db59a1170ee00b6e25080ebb6dde
3e99aeed253c011bc46f90bbbb12509cf3379355
81433 F20101109_AAABGZ kindt_c_Page_079.jpg
d2326747dc0e31fbf098d0eb85ebee41
7587334d6d2c63eac2df78440b17b6000aec7402
94658 F20101109_AAABIC kindt_c_Page_110.jpg
764535198a8922880581dd0d747fa316
3baaea1bb27cc34c16a55a9afd238dc583f4567d
56391 F20101109_AAABHO kindt_c_Page_094.jpg
2e640c3fae89c7516df66e1172573b6e
6be9672f5aa60070bf180f00f68a038c4a587cf1
7013 F20101109_AAACLF kindt_c_Page_086thm.jpg
e7a80fedada250c24ea310805cb9485c
49a265193ddf4916acf2f14d38839f2ae3ba6283
7187 F20101109_AAACKR kindt_c_Page_079thm.jpg
3f22761427bcbbcdb1e3184e2cb1f4e1
68a1dc662e14953e9cb5b242d53876ad1cda88d9
81201 F20101109_AAABID kindt_c_Page_111.jpg
ff62c60b096f782f70a5c9a36ab46438
b49acf807b114f4a311a56131176576076b406f2
58255 F20101109_AAABHP kindt_c_Page_096.jpg
e34d15381830d409d6fd7fce3162ac4d
98e8b817d69fda866bf70ac3a4ea94ec9f50deed
26280 F20101109_AAACLG kindt_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
fb9ab64c241b5eb6920dc7e12c48a901
6229f4421ae954bcc9118f89da6bc11d4984684d
25625 F20101109_AAACKS kindt_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
fd55d60fb513a120242ca10cbae65820
d66af1fd76225b81665793bda796c583b3951de7
84368 F20101109_AAABIE kindt_c_Page_112.jpg
de13b8f16feacc77913b65235395ae95
bf17312dcc4a3b8d955b698f32dd983745fef3a4
60724 F20101109_AAABHQ kindt_c_Page_097.jpg
170f929e447ea4dccea978f1a66b473e
6f94ed02dd0a48d2f0d5dbbd09bf2123a5cfaf63
7188 F20101109_AAACLH kindt_c_Page_087thm.jpg
02993222d94be19b91a8e5b7dd625478
f70f05940b3d9d22cd87a8085b4bce0381b3e5d1
7171 F20101109_AAACKT kindt_c_Page_080thm.jpg
a0194fc2d2754db3d5cdf54c39ed5523
ad1b09c1d90d699554907dadf89d919b7e483916
80386 F20101109_AAABIF kindt_c_Page_113.jpg
578d1301d93fc89e0f026927039d195a
12131ea02555fecbc8d9c209565e97fa4261b2df
44154 F20101109_AAABHR kindt_c_Page_098.jpg
47d6622d371335d1d864108384574941
1e4dc92c2e48c4c204511dae1cc50943fc4addc6
28068 F20101109_AAACLI kindt_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
aab39c1fa65e0b4b5e4a065b6006ffe0
e277cfc9d0cde3bd71096e102e289daa30624b8c
24824 F20101109_AAACKU kindt_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
45a3838e41a35b35dec04e7e5576c189
49f424446629967e9e252f465bf83704ca94c060
80396 F20101109_AAABIG kindt_c_Page_114.jpg
e38c84109b6582f11353ed7826aeeb5a
d746a9172471d26ccde14565f0ba261918753c8e
51628 F20101109_AAABHS kindt_c_Page_099.jpg
f9d394e886f0afac7ac9a0d64fd6086f
26e855a6c6f93c6820f0a21ad4f2e2d478112bb0
7503 F20101109_AAACLJ kindt_c_Page_088thm.jpg
44b7bfbd282f8d1bf7d2131b3b15a7bd
bd4fbd3a54bec2f469a4d263e77a6c92f248be1a
84189 F20101109_AAABIH kindt_c_Page_115.jpg
0ad125221511591714f795972f6151ce
377d5d55bd8ea68f708815bc357862b89136a696
26150 F20101109_AAACLK kindt_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
ca3dad4eec3286af3a42e66a3c73c802
8abca157aabf8b09b2d7e5640d9ab9b38f82b3aa
7091 F20101109_AAACKV kindt_c_Page_081thm.jpg
c856019a25e887dbeb2117c836390ca2
db40aa540de2bc1ee3a401efafc510466975ee98
86688 F20101109_AAABII kindt_c_Page_116.jpg
9493f93adb81bb17f8e363624ab7349b
2b23d02f03a5cd8466826054c46fd0fc0cc70764
63432 F20101109_AAABHT kindt_c_Page_100.jpg
e3c1e37bb788c19dcec6dcc3713ab92a
0875217a5bc9f15b73200306bf3e624970c690ba
7314 F20101109_AAACLL kindt_c_Page_089thm.jpg
f4ef71b5eb1ee6c0f184c2d803ab0294
78f79abf2cd424a59a8d6f1c767e1d5dcb08da0e
26731 F20101109_AAACKW kindt_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
2ec9797b9bc0a342fa2841fdbd0bb673
00c07aeaa372f666931deed4ade499b2f1aacab6
83215 F20101109_AAABIJ kindt_c_Page_117.jpg
50dbea7fda7ee3c2062547758d8991ba
7858fac53a311c6d1e625ce8b9c4ffdbd5a98017
58091 F20101109_AAABHU kindt_c_Page_101.jpg
cd9cac1325a71ec5c124eaf295595331
3c85498faed08fe57e719b8e12c96fc4d38e2883
4874 F20101109_AAACMA kindt_c_Page_097thm.jpg
4b90162e3ed374cd87021afaf1704edf
ff8dd3c4e85a7e0d07c3a6fb2fd6ea0cf09f479f
6170 F20101109_AAACLM kindt_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
48bb1310921c4402d081d48ac84daf14
fe39209bacaa7e16eb6c29cd29ae0f5c103d2996
7127 F20101109_AAACKX kindt_c_Page_082thm.jpg
13fb35405e12325a7fc786be75cb6c70
6e154de6eaebd8c4454d271183da4a6cac56405e
79224 F20101109_AAABIK kindt_c_Page_118.jpg
5947f5e4cb147779a6d01efcd06e58c8
be9b8bb6e848834400c509597524f0df386b3232
42698 F20101109_AAABHV kindt_c_Page_102.jpg
e3911cbf244f75ccdc48ce9e2fc03ea5
dc2385999a678d3fa909141644f82b78da6bdb3e
13068 F20101109_AAACMB kindt_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
14051238170d2c5f2707d126db37bc33
54ec1aa1104bb1b336daa2f9634f8951e1ab5e5b
2141 F20101109_AAACLN kindt_c_Page_090thm.jpg
f2c5c78cf23c7551e9568cecd1aaa169
f0e48283eece13a91e30cd7b8c0cc7bebd9a33cb
22347 F20101109_AAACKY kindt_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
de475e4deb446a0b5bc7f4a2d4b5210a
7b370349ef8afd63c187ce7d72fb0c4810beea91
83465 F20101109_AAABIL kindt_c_Page_120.jpg
fb5ac80c83f2f3bf1120355457fd41b9
9d1cc7915a0861d2f80c110536dec9effe0946ba
54011 F20101109_AAABHW kindt_c_Page_103.jpg
3b8f666035f7e535b662edc2f759397b
705edda8ef143556977f1214c4df16911262e881
3711 F20101109_AAACMC kindt_c_Page_098thm.jpg
0b428bb02dd617d1627b1d830aed3e53
c636a78708b5677f1466bfc67aca1fb9c0ce0e01
15773 F20101109_AAACLO kindt_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
62f8cd68519d34a2dc0d7632e35d9c77
d737422bdb90243bbf24f93c2cca9d70c8da802a
6600 F20101109_AAACKZ kindt_c_Page_083thm.jpg
e1bd9d1a2f2efc6b9d10b5f4cfadc822
e755748dca2216947dcab4995aaee9dc14fdbfdb
81281 F20101109_AAABJA kindt_c_Page_135.jpg
b8f812e65f79d8f73a7a57f26ab5d363
fbe7221e25f4d4ad48431e7b14f638f85123ad6c
85919 F20101109_AAABIM kindt_c_Page_121.jpg
02a8a2186421344efbeccea8d598f7c5
c4c00c9ff52292b68a4ab1b0666353ce2c838960
84100 F20101109_AAABHX kindt_c_Page_104.jpg
f915c776e66cc7ac9d0180adaaad41d4
c0611faa1ef880733ef2fac643147bebf4a6c14c
15048 F20101109_AAACMD kindt_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
2ac93fabb28741067024e72c203df379
f3d4c2da80090b41b06ef72962f402049a9244c1
15560 F20101109_AAACLP kindt_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
5ca772f12a1448bdafdc007e1e3a4afb
7eb997687fde99ebb02926412a3a776f8154b667
92337 F20101109_AAABJB kindt_c_Page_136.jpg
4ce0afbf43e80a7524ce9800d1c20fda
e5a9cdfcf4ac76c600cf86335befa69d7073dc17
86585 F20101109_AAABIN kindt_c_Page_122.jpg
a70af68d2df4a05397c63a6a86e652e4
92013b48c8bda9decd78ea362da17ca33ed4120c
43759 F20101109_AAABHY kindt_c_Page_105.jpg
6112552e162be7add798dbc070d636b0
d521d0c5ab9426c3ec16815b709a3bf6878b8e6a







RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION
AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
IN CENTRAL FLORIDA

















By

CAROL ANN KIND


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

2008


































2008 Carol Ann Kindt


































To my husband, Hahns and our two sons, Aaron and Zachary.









ACKNOWLDGMENTS

I owe much of my success today to my parents. I was raised by two caring, responsible,

educated adults who instilled in me that I could do anything I put my mind to and they meant it.

As a child I always had a safe place to fall and parents who would continually guide me even

when I did not think that I needed it.

I would not be where I am today without my husband, Hahns, who has been by my side

for the last 20 years supporting my efforts and encouraging me to never give up on my dreams. I

know it is probably cliche to say that I was also inspired by the birth of my children, Aaron and

Zachary, but their initial presence in my life stirred something deep inside me and continues to

move me forward.

Several years ago when I heard about a doctoral program offered locally through the

University of Florida, I was determined to be accepted. I remember my entrance interview with

Dr. Clark and Dr. Doud when they fired several questions at me to try to reveal my beliefs and

attitudes. If there was one thing I knew at that point in my career it was that I wanted to be the

best educational leader possible and I wanted to learn from the University of Florida-they must

have been convinced.

The Educational Leadership program has been one of the most challenging and gratifying

experiences of my life. I am in great debt to the professors who challenged my beliefs and made

me continually reflect upon who I was and what my core beliefs really were-a practice that I

will continue for the rest of my life. I will never forget my cohort experience. We were family

to each other for many years. I made some life-long friends and am grateful for the support from

Lori Benton, James Russo, and Twila Patten.









I also owe a large debt of gratitude to my chair, Dr. Doud. He taught me the value of

inquiry, shared vision and servant leadership-all of these are now deeply engrained in my core

values. I know I have become a better educational leader through this experience, and I will be

forever grateful to the University of Florida for stretching my intellectual abilities and really

making me think.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ....................................................... ........................................ 4

L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................................................................. 9

L IST O F T E R M S ............................................................................... 12

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 14

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ................................................................16

Statem ent of th e P rob lem .................................................................................................. 16
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate................................................. 17
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 18
R e se arch Q u e stio n s ........................................................................................................... 19
L im station s of the Stu dy ..............................................................................19
D elim stations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 20
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 20
Su m m ary of th e C h apter ................................................................................................... 22

2 L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W ................................................................................................. 23

M middle School Principal .......................................................................23
The Role of the Middle School Principal ................... ....................... 23
Contemporary Challenges............................................. 26
Research Studies ................................................ ........................ 27
Jo b S atisfa ctio n ........................... .. .. .................................................................... .. 2 9
M o tiv atio n .....................................................................3 0
O organizational C lim ate................... ..............................................................35
D im tensions of Organizational Clim ate .......................................................... ..36
O organizational T theory ................................................................................................. 36
Principals and Job Satisfaction ....................................................................................... ..39
Principals and Job Satisfaction Summary ........................................................... 47
Sum m ary of the Chapter .................. ................................. ...... .... .......... .... 48

3 D E SIG N O F TH E STU D Y ................................................................ .................................50

Research Questions .................................... .. .. ... ....... .. ............50
M methodology ............................. ............ ..................... 51
P o p u latio n ............................................. ........... ............................................ 5 1
Procedure for D ata C collection .......................................................................... .................. 52
Instrumentation ................................... .. .... .... .................. 53
O organizational C lim ate Factors .............. .................... ............................ ...............53


6











Job Satisfaction V ariables........... .................................................................. ........ .. .... .. 54
Statistical A n aly sis........... ................................................................................ ...... ......54
Summary of the Chapter .............................. .... ................ ... ............. 55

4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA................................ ............... 56

Survey R espon ses ........................... ............ .............................. ............... 57
Profile for M iddle School Principals in Central Florida............................................. 58
G en d er ...... .. ....... .......................... ................................................ 5 8
A g e ....... ......... ................ ............................................................. 5 8
E th n ic ity .. .... .. ....... ................................ ... ...............................................5 8
L evel of E education ...... ....... .................................. ... .................................58
Number of Years as a School Principal ................................ ................. ....58
Number of Years as a Principal in Current School .............. ................59
S a la ry ............................................................................................... .. 5 9
Participation in an Induction Program ................................. ............ ...... ....59
Assignment of a Mentor ............... .............. .................60
Sch ool D district .............................................................60
School Classification by Location ................. ................................60
Size of Student Population .......................... .......... ....... .........60
Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Lunch .......................61
The FCAT Grade for Past 3 Years ...............................................61
R e search Q u e stio n 1 ............................................................................................................... 6 1
Internal C om m unication ..............................................................62
O organizational Structure ..............................................................63
Political Climate................................................63
Professional Development Opportunities ............................... ............... 63
E v alu atio n .................................................................6 4
P ro m o tio n ...........................................................................................6 4
R egard for Personal Concern .................................................................. 64
Summary of Research Question 1 Results ............................................................. 65
R e search Q u e stio n 2 ............................................................................................................... 6 6
Internal C om m unication ..............................................................66
O organizational Structure ..............................................................67
Political Climate................................................67
Professional Development Opportunities ............................... ............... 68
E v alu atio n .................................................................6 8
P ro m o tio n ...........................................................................................6 9
Regard for Personal Concern ................................. .......................... .........69
Summary of Research Question 2 Results ............................................................. 70
R e search Q u e stio n 3 ........................................................................................................... 7 1
Participation in D decision M making .............................................. ............... 71
A utonom y, P ow er, and C control ................................................................................... 72
R relationship w ith P eers.....................................................72
R relationship w ith Subordinates ................................................................................... 73
Relationship with Supervisor .......................... ........................ .. ................ 73


7









Salary and Benefits .................. .................. ................. ............ ...... ... .... 74
Professional Effectiveness ................ ... .................................................................74
Overall Satisfaction with Principal Position and School District................................75
Summary of Research Question 3 Results...................................................................... 76
R research Question 4 ...................................... .. .... ........ ........ .... 77
R research Q u estion 5 .............. .. .............................................................................. .. .... .. 7 9
Sum m ary of Research Question 5 ....................................................................................... 81
Central Florida Middle School Principal Comments...........................................................81
Sum m ary of the C hapter............ .................................................................... ........ .. ....... .. 85

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................... ................................110

D e sig n o f th e S tu d y ........................................................................................................ 1 10
Findings ..... ........... ............. ................ ... ...................... 111
Demographic Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida.........................111
Research Question 1 ............. ............ .. .............. .. ................... 112
Research Quesiton 2 ............ ............................. .. ................... 113
Research Question 3 ................... .......................... .. ................... 115
R research Q question 4 ............................................ ............... .......... 117
Research Question 5 ............... ......................... ...... .......................... 118
C onclu sions.......... .........................................................118
Implications ................. ....... .... ........... .... 119
Recommendations for Further Research.............................. ...................................122
Sum m ary of the C hapter........ ......... ......... .......... ........................ ............... 123

APPENDIX

A L E T TE R O F IN V IT A TIO N ......... ................. ................................................................ 125

B ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL ......................126

C ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................127

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................. ..................... 135

BIO GRAPH ICAL SK ETCH .............. ........................................................ .................... ..... 143















8









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1. G ender of R espondents....... ............................................................................ ..... ..........9 1

4-2. Age of Respondents......... ............ ............................... ......... 91

4-3. E ethnicity of R espondents............................................... .............................. ....................9 1

4-4. E education L evel of R respondents ........................................ ............................................91

4-5. Y ears of Service as a P principal ...................................................................... .................. 9 1

4-6. Years of Service as a Principal in Current Middle School.......................................... 91

4-7. Salary of Respondent Middle School Principals............................................................ 92

4-8. Participation in a Principal Induction Program ........................................ .....................92

4-9. M entor Status ................................................... 92

4-10. Principal by School D istrict.............................................. .................... ............... 92

4-11. School Classification by Location .................................................................... 92

4-12 School Student P population Size......................................... .............................................93

4-13. Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch ........................................................ 93

4-14. State of Florida School FCAT Grade for Last Three Years...............................................93

4-15. Descriptive Statistics for Presence of Organizational Variables................. ............. ...93

4-16. Internal C om m unication ............................ ................................................... .................. 93

4-17. O organizational Structu re............................................................ .....................................94

4 -1 8 P o litic a l C lim ate ............................................................................................................. 9 4

4-19. Professional Development Opportunities...................... ..... ........................... 94

4-20. E valuation .............................. .... .................................................. ............ 94

4 -2 1. P rom option .........................................................................94

4-22. Regard for Personal Concern ......... ............................95









4-23. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High" for the
P resen ce of E ach V ariab le .............................. ........................................ .....................9 5

4-24. Correlations of Middle School Principals' Perceptions of Organizational Climate.............96

4-25. Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction with Organizational Variables..............................96

4-26. Satisfaction with Internal Communication....................... ........................... ............... 97

4-27. Satisfaction with Organizational Structure............................................... ......... ...... 97

4-28. Satisfaction w ith Political Clim ate ............................................... ............................ 97

4-29. Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities.................. ...............97

4-30. Satisfaction w ith Evaluation Processes ........................................ .......................... 97

4-31. Satisfaction with Prom otion Opportunities ........................................ ....... ............... 98

4-32. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concern ........................................ ............ .........98

4-33. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High" for the
Satisfaction of Each V ariable................................................ ................................... 98

4-34. Correlations of Middle School Principals' Perceptions of Organizational Climate
Satisfaction................... ..... ............. ..........................................99

4-35. Descriptive Statistics for Importance with Job Satisfaction Variables ............................100

4-36. Participation in D decision M aking......... ................. .................................. ............... 100

4-37. A utonom y, Pow er and C control ......... ................. ...................................... ............... 100

4-38. R relationship w ith P eers ......... ..... ............ ................. ...................................................100

4-39. R relationship w ith Subordinates ......... ................. ..................................... ............... 101

4-40. R relationship w ith Supervisor........... ................. .. ....... ..................... ............... 101

4-41. Salary and Benfits................................. .. ... .... .... ........... 101

4-42 P professional E effectiveness ......... .. ............... ................. ............................................... 10 1

4-43. Overall Satisfaction with Middle School Princpal Position......................... ............101

4-44. Overall Satisfaction with School District ............................. ................. ........ ....... 102

4-45. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Position and District Satisfaction..............................102









4-46. Percentage of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High" for the
Im portance of E ach V variable ................................................................ ..................... 102

4-47. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Job Satisfaction Variables.............................103

4-48. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Relationship Between Measures of Job
Satisfaction, Measures of Organizational Climate and Overal Job Satisfaction ............104

4-49. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal
D em graphic D ata ..................................................... ....... .. ...... .... 105

4-50. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal
Education/Experience ........................ ........ .. .. ........ .. ............. 106

4-51. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and School
D em graphic D ata ..................................................... ....... .. ...... .... 107

4-52. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal Demographic
D a ta ................... ............................................................ ................ 1 0 7

4-53. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal
Education/Experience ........................ ........ .. .. ........ .. ............. 108

4-54. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and School Demographic
D ata ......................................................................................................... . 1 0 9









LIST OF TERMS


A+ Plan


A Plus Plan


Autonomy, power, and control


Evaluation


Internal communication


Job satisfaction


Middle school reform act




Middle school principal


No Child Left Behind (NCLB)


Florida's plan to increase student achievement
utilizing an assessment tool that includes a
criterion-referenced test (CRT) and a norm-
referenced test (NRT) to assign a grade from A to F
to each Florida school.

Florida's middle and high school reform plan to
address career education, workforce certification,
intensive reading instruction, and teacher retention
(House Bill 7087, 2006).

The degree of independence, authority, and
jurisdiction held by middle school principals.

The school district's procedure for assessing the
performance of principals.

The school district's formal interaction processes
between the faculty, staff and district.

The degree of personal gratification that middle
school principals receive from their position.

State legislation aimed at middle level education to
provide academic focus and rigor with challenging
curriculum, highly qualified instructors and strong
leadership (Senate Bill 354, 2004).

The lead administrator serving adolescents in grades
6 through 8.

Federal legislation that has increased accountability
in public schools by putting reading first and
requiring a high quality educational program for all
students by insuring that every educator in Title I
schools is certified by the state in the field that they
are to teach, and requires districts to offer more
"school choice" for parents and students zoned in
low performing schools (Public Law 107-110,
2002).









Organizational climate





Organizational structure

Participation in decision making


Political climate


Professional development opportunities


Professional effectiveness


Promotion



Regard for personal concern


Relationship with colleagues


Salary and benefits


The collective behavior of an organization; it is the
accumulation of intangible perceptions that
individuals have of various aspects of the
environment for an organization (DeMichele, 1998;
Chappell, 1995; Deas, 1994).

The school district's hierarchy of authority.

The school district's executive processes and the
middle school principal's opportunity for
involvement in the process.

The nature and complexity of the school district's
internal and external policies.

The chances for principals to participate in personal
growth opportunities to enhance job performance.

The perceived overall effectiveness of the middle
school principals in their job position.

The school district's commitment to internal
promotion and advancement from within the
organization.

The school district's sensitivity to and regard for
middle school principals' well-being.

The quality of the middle school principals'
interaction with peers, subordinates, and
supervisors.

The compensation and insurance provided for
middle school principals.









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

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION
AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
IN CENTRAL FLORIDA

By

Carol Ann Kindt

May 2008

Chair: James L. Doud
Major: Educational Leadership

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle

school principals in Central Florida and to identify and analyze the relationship between

organizational climate variables and job satisfaction characteristics. Further, this study

investigated whether job satisfaction varied as a function of the principals' gender, age, and

ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in

current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a

mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of

students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan school grades designated for the past

three years.

This public middle school study was a modified replication of previous research done in

higher education. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the variables of interest

were distributed to public middle school principals from seven counties in Central Florida. In

total, 97 individuals received the electronic survey and 51 completed the surveys for a 53%

response rate.









Results of this study found the majority of the respondents were Caucasian (84.0%), male

(56.9%), between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%), and held a master's degree (64.7%) or

doctorate (27.5%). Thirty-six percent (36.0%) of the respondents reported working as a middle

school principal for 4 to 7 years, with 1 to 3 of those years in their current school (44.0%).

Statistical analysis of the relationship between measures of organizational climate and

measures of job satisfaction revealed that middle school principals in Central Florida rated their

overall mean satisfaction with their position and the district generally high (above 3.8). Data

analysis revealed that the statistically significant climate variables leading to job satisfaction

were: professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and

participation with decision making. Only assignment of a mentor was found to be a statistically

significant predictor for Central Florida middle school principals' ratings of importance with

position characteristics.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Institute of Educational Leadership (IEL, 2000) identifies intense job stress,

excessive time requirements, difficulty of satisfying parents and community members, and social

problems that make it hard to focus on instructional issues as some of the problems faced by

today's school principal. Over-crowded schools, a lack of respect, low pay, more complex social

interference, lack of autonomy, and accountability mandates further contribute to decreasing job

satisfaction. Also evident is that the attrition rate for principals is rising. In the 1998 National

Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) study, Doud and Keller reported that

principals were retiring earlier than ever, at an average age of 57. More than half of the NAESP

study participants indicated that they will retire as soon as they are eligible.

Increasing attrition rates caused by job stress are a real concern for a position that is

consistently recognized as essential to the overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996).

Factors that influence the stress level of school principals include the job demands that cause the

professional role to become ambiguous (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 1991). High-stakes, sweeping

federal and state educational reforms have also added to the job demands of the school principal.

No Child Left Behind, The Middle School Reform Act, the A+ Plan and the A Plus Plus Plan are

among those reforms that directly affect the role of the middle school principal.

The legislators who influence the role of the middle school principal have never worked

in this position and may fail to understand the impact such legislation has on the principal's job

responsibilities. Continual changes in legislative requirements can lead to role conflict where job

expectations cannot be met (Matthews & Crow, 2003). Fullan (2001) suggested when reform is

mandated from the top-down without being accompanied by quality support, frustration and

dissatisfaction can occur. Daresh (2002) also indicated that there are several factors that









negatively impact principals' commitment to their positions--external demands being one of

them.

There is a shortage of candidates who are willing to consider the principalship. As the

number of students who enter the nation's schools increases, additional administrative positions

will be needed. For example, results from a 1999 University of Minnesota study estimated that

75% of Minnesota principals will vacate their positions due to retirement or attrition by 2010

while school enrollments are expected to increase by 10 to 20% (IEL, 2000).

As the role of the middle school principal changes and becomes more demanding, it is

likely that many educational leaders will face job satisfaction and organizational climate

concerns in their positions. Several researchers have shown that a relationship between

organizational climate and job satisfaction exists in higher education (Levy, 1989; Chappell,

1995; Palmer, 1995; Evans, 1996; Paulson, 1997; DeMichele, 1998; Zabetaski, 1999; Gratto,

2001; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003; Lawrence, 2003; Stephens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005; Reynolds,

2006). These studies have examined the factors that are related to job satisfaction and

organizational climate. With the increasing demands and high-stakes reforms at the middle

school level, a need to examine organizational climate factors and to identify those factors that

lead to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among middle school principals exists.

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate

Job satisfaction and organizational climate research in higher education is abundant.

Climate factors in K-12 education tend to differ from those found in most higher education

settings. Little research has been done with middle school principals in relation to job

satisfaction and organizational climate. Several studies have been conducted using the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to examine the job satisfaction of public school









principals (Newby, 1999; Bryant, 2001; Brogan, 2004; Stemple, 2004; Wheelis, 2005; Turner,

2006). Recommendations from Turner (2006) suggest using a survey other than the MSQ in

future studies as it was designed over 25 years ago for employees in business and industry.

Job satisfaction is determined by an organization's ability to satisfy the needs, values, and

expectations of employees and can be measured globally to establish a general level of

satisfaction or dimensionally to determine the variables of job satisfaction (DeMichelle, 1998).

Variables such as financial rewards, working conditions, supervisory practices, company

policies, co-workers, opportunities for advancement, security and content of the job all

contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Glick, 1992).

Leadership not only influences job satisfaction but also has a profound effect on an

organization's climate (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Organizational climate is the

collective personality of a school and it is based on what is accepted as the social norms or the

behavior of those who work within that school. Deas (1994) described climate as, "a collection

of intangibles that support and encourage all the players to work toward a common goal-

learning" (p. 44). In light of rising attrition rates and high stakes accountability systems,

principals need a better understanding of what motivates people to work and how to create the

most productive environment possible to ensure that students will achieve.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle

school principals in Central Florida and to identify the factors that enhance or detract from job

satisfaction and organizational climate. Further, the study examined if there was a difference in

means forjob satisfaction by analyzing demographic variables including: the principals' gender,

age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time









in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a

mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of

students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three

years.

Research Questions

1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified
organizational climate factors (internal communication, organizational structure, political
climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard for
personal concern) in their school district?

2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with
the organizational climate in their school districts?

3. How important are the five identified job satisfaction variables (participation in
decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and
benefits; and professional effectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance
of their duties?

4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational
climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position among the Central Florida
middle school principals?

5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics
differ for middle school principals related to the following demographic variables: the
principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as
a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction
program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban
or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan
grades designated for the past three years?

Limitations

Limitation 1: The participants in the survey provided honest answers to all the survey
items.

Limitation 2: The number of middle school principals in the Central Florida area
provided a sufficient population for the study.

Limitation 3: The level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of a principal is a vital
component of the daily operation of a middle school.









Delimitations

Delimitation 1: Results of the study are only as accurate as the responses provided by the
participants are honest and correct.

Delimitation 2: The study was limited to those participants who were willing to respond
to the electronic survey.

Significance of the Study

A review of the literature emphasized the increased level of complexity of job

responsibilities and performance expectations for the middle school principal (Bolman & Deal,

1995; Newby, 1999; Senge, 1990; Turner, 2006; Ubben & Hughes, 1997; Vaill, 1996).

Sweeping, high-stakes federal and state educational reforms have increased job demands of the

middle school principal and compromised job satisfaction. While A Nation at Risk (National

Commission on Academic Excellence, 1983) made several reform recommendations to improve

education, many additional conflicting demands were placed on schools. This report caused

widespread scrutiny of the public school system which required an immediate response from

principals to increase the rigor and relevance in mathematics, science and foreign language.

Principals would also need to develop a plan of action that would assist in re-building the

public's confidence in their schools. Ultimately, this reform exacted a cost by adding many new

job responsibilities to the principalship.

The nation's schools are again embroiled in a cycle of reform. New federal legislation

imposed regulations to correct deficient instructional practices and curriculum, but without

lessening any of the social or political responsibilities on the schools. Since the effectiveness of

schools depends on the success of the principal, it was appropriate to examine what

organizational climate factors and job qualities affected the job satisfaction of principals. The

results will lead to a better understanding of middle school principals' roles and help alleviate









overwhelming, inconsistent, and ineffective practices that generate unnecessary personal, social,

and political demands.

Other research supports these findings by insisting that the role of the principal is vital to

the effective operation of every school (Baughman, 1996; Doud & Keller, 1998). In a study

between 1999 and 2002, (Langer & Boris-Schacter, 2003) conducted interviews with more than

200 principals and found that many were frustrated with role conflicts and the reality of their

work loads. These roles continue to become more complex as principals remain key

instructional leaders, initiators of change, school managers, personnel administrators, problem

solvers, and "boundary spanners" for the school (Goldring, 1990; Fullan, 1991; Vandenberghe,

1995).

The rising attrition rate and the increasing accountability expected of those in this

position created a need to further examine the role of the middle school principal. A three

decade national study of more than 1,400 middle level principals (Petzko, 2002) revealed that in

the next 3 to 5 years more than 50% intended to change occupations completely or retire.

Evidence from this study on middle school principals in Central Florida provided insight into

what factors contribute and detract from middle school principals' job satisfaction. Results from

this study also provided evidence of a difference in means for job satisfaction when controlling

for the principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as

a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction

program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural),

school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades

designated for the past three years.









This study focused on middle school principals in Central Florida and tested beliefs

revealed from the research in higher education about job satisfaction and organizational climate.

The intent of this study was to expose trends related to job satisfaction and organizational

climate factors among K-12 leadership and share the results with middle school principals,

district superintendents, and state leaders. Also included are recommendations for recruitment

and ideas for support and training to encourage middle school principals to remain in their

positions.

Summary

This chapter provided an introduction to the topic of organizational climate and job

satisfaction as they relate to middle school principals. Chapter 2 will provide a review of the

literature regarding middle school principals. This review includes roles and responsibilities;

contemporary challenges and research studies; climate factors; and job satisfiers and dissatifiers.

Chapter 3 examines the survey research methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 presents the

findings of this study. Chapter 5 discusses the results, implications and recommendations from

this study.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among the

middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify the factors that enhance or detract

from job satisfaction and organizational climate. This chapter presents a review of the relevant

literature describing middle school principals, job satisfaction, motivation, motivation theory,

and organizational climate.

The Middle School Principal

The contemporary principal's role is not easily understood. Many stakeholders, both

inside and outside the school, influence that role, creating a need to examine and

"reconceptualize" the role (Matthews & Crow, 2003). This section examines: (a) the role of the

middle school principal and what influences it, (b) contemporary challenges, and (c) research

studies related to the middle school principal.

The Role of the Middle School Principal

Middle schools evolved in the early 1950s after the public became dissatisfied with the

junior high school model which focused on college preparation in foreign language and

mathematics but failed to address the unique emotional and educational challenges of this age

group as they move from childhood into adolescence (George & Alexander, 2003). Public

pressure to change the dynamic of the junior high model had a profound effect on the role of the

middle level principal's job responsibilities. Alexander and Williams (1968) found that the junior

high school model had many qualities from which the middle school movement could benefit

that would forever change the role of the middle level principal.

The role of the principal is consistently recognized as essential to the overall

effectiveness of every school (Baughman, 1996). Drake and Roe (1999) found that the school









principal is part of a complex social system and that the role in this "glass house" can change

depending on with whom the principal is interacting. "Those glass panels are clear from the

perspectives of those looking in, but sometimes they appear clouded from the view inside" (p.

28). Students, teachers, parents, and community members have different expectations of the

principal's behavior and the task of clarifying a professional role through expectations,

traditions, social ties and an understanding of how we do things around here is constant. Internal

and external influences also further define this role. Matthews and Crow (2003) identified the

group of internal influences as: teachers, students, secretaries, custodians, coaches, hall monitors,

librarians and anyone else who works inside the building. External influence is derived from the

superintendent, the school board, other principals, parents, business partners, community

members, and the media. The external influences fuel the new politics in education and if

schools are going to be effective and make a difference in society, principals must have the skills

to use these influences for the betterment of the school (IEL, 2000).

In 1980 the president of the National Middle School Association (NMSA), John Swaim,

organized a committee of middle representatives to write a position paper to bring clarification

and direction to the middle school reform effort begun in the early 60's. The final document

entitled, This We Believe, was published in 1982. The original document has been revised and

rewritten several times in the past two decades and in 2002 a new committee was formed that

approved and released This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents in July 2003.

This report includes 14 characteristics that further define the distinctiveness of successful middle

schools and helps to restructure the role of the middle school principal.

Educators who value working with this age group and are prepared to do so
Courageous, collaborative leadership
A shared vision that guides decisions
An inviting, supportive, and safe environment









High expectations for every member of the learning community
Students and teachers engaged in active learning
An adult advocate for every student
School-initiated family and community partnerships
Curriculum that is relevant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory
Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity
Assessment and evaluation programs that promote quality learning
Organizational structures that support meaningful relationships and learning
School-wide efforts and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety
Multifaceted guidance and support services (National Middle School Association,
2003, p. 7)

The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 2002) identified in

Leading Learning Communities six standards that define the role of effective elementary and

middle school leaders:

Lead schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center.
Set high expectations and standards for the academic and social development of
all students and the performance of adults.
Demand content and instruction that ensure student achievement of agreed-upon
academic standards.
Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and
other school goals.
Use multiple sources of data as diagnostic tools to assess, identify, and apply
instructional improvement.
Actively engage the community to create shared responsibility for student and
school success. (p. 2)

Collectively, these standards serve to create a foundation for leading and attempt to

establish consistency within principals' roles that focuses on student learning. The role of the

principal is shifting and becoming more complex; the principalship can no longer be described in

a word such as manager, leader, practitioner, negotiator, or communicator. Since the middle

school concept was developed by Eichhorn (1966) and Alexander (Alexander & Williams, 1965)

the role of the middle school principal continues to evolve, but a common thread has emerged

that these leaders must concentrate their efforts on developing and maintaining developmentally

appropriate learning environments for adolescents. Valentine, Maher, Quinne, and Irvin (1999)









summarize the role of the middle level principal as someone who must "be professionally adept

in varied situations, knowledgeable about educational research, and aggressive for the middle

level programs they supervise and the middle level students they serve" (p. 56).

Contemporary Challenges

The role of the principal is not only influenced by national associations; but is further

defined today by standards-based reform, high-stakes testing and accountability. Principals must

now pay close attention to academic achievement and the results of standardized tests. The

responsibility for examining test results and facing new challenges lies with the principal who is

now expected to be the instructional leader in data-driven schools (George & Alexander, 2003).

It is the responsibility of the principal to provide staff development on data analysis, techniques

for data-driven instruction, and how to write and monitor individual academic plans that will

meet specific needs of each of their students. The new data-driven role of the principal makes

reviewing results from district benchmark assessments, state norm-reference and criterion-

referenced tests a priority in order to address low performance expectations and low achievement

scores. The role of the principal is in a state of flux and future preparation programs need to

train candidates in the change process, how to analyze and manage rapidly expanding data bases,

increased diversity, and technology (Merseth, 1997).

To bring uniformity in training, universal standards and competencies are being

established for the principalship. Drake and Roe (1999) explain that many states have

established licensure requirements that utilize leadership "domains" developed in 1993 by the

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). A list of 21 leadership

domains were developed and presented in Principalsfor Our Changing Schools (Thomson,

1993). In 1996 Standards for School Leaders, referred to as ISLLC Standards (Interstate School









Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996), identified six standards for school leadership. A school

leader: (1) facilitates the development, articulation, implementation and stewardship of a vision

of learning that is shared and supported by the school community; (2) advocates, nurtures and

sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff

professional growth; (3) ensures management of the organization, operations and resources for a

safe, efficient and effective learning environment; (4) collaborates with families and community

members and mobilizes community resources; (5) acts with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical

manner; and (6) understands, responds, and influences the overall political, social and economic,

legal and cultural contexts (Valentine, et al, 1999).

Today's schools are continually monitored by federal, state and local assessment

practices. Many principals struggle to meet standards imposed by new legislation as they

feverishly train teachers to disaggregate data and maximize instructional time with a calendar

that is inundated with testing days. Many principals wrestle with their philosophies of what is

appropriate and effective as they realize that each day a student is tested, a teacher loses valuable

instructional time. As the role of the principal expands and changes, it is important to review

research that has contributed to the development of this leadership position.

Research Studies

The first national study of the middle level principalship entitled The Junior High

Principalship (Rock & Hemphill, 1966) was conducted by the National Association of

Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Over the next several decades, the NASSP continued to

examine the nature and role of middle level leadership. In 1981, a team of researchers from the

NASSP brought unity between "junior high" and "middle school" advocates by forming a

common language that referred to both groups as "middle level" (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, &









Keefe, 1981). The Middle Level Principalship: A Survey of Middle Level Principals and

Programs resulted in two noteworthy findings: first, that both middle and junior high school

principals had more in common than previously thought; and second, that middle level education

was unique in that it functions as a bridge between elementary and secondary schools. During

the eighties and nineties, middle level administrators delivered a comprehensive educational

model centered on the needs of adolescent learners (Valentine, et al, 1999). This wide-ranging,

unified focus would bring tremendous responsibility to the middle level principals and expand

their professional roles.

Over the last 80 years, theoretical concepts of leadership have been identified. Many

empirical studies were undertaken to classify leadership behaviors. Initially, studies on

leadership behavior were conducted at the University of Iowa, Ohio State University and the

University of Michigan

Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) examined the effects of three different types of

leadership for handling decision-making situations at the University of Iowa. These included

authoritarian leadership where the leader made all the decisions and assumed full responsibility;

democratic leadership where discussion and shared decision making were encouraged and

suggestions of ideas from subordinates were considered; and laissez-faire leadership where the

leaders did not lead and the subordinates made all the decisions (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2003).

Findings from these studies showed that of the three styles, subordinates preferred the

democratic approach and the authoritarian style was favored least. These results helped to

describe and classify leader behavior. Understanding leadership behavior can help leaders

motivate and encourage others.









Research on leadership behavior at Ohio State University by Ralph Stogdilll resulted in a

two-dimensional model of (a) initiating structure and (b) consideration (Hersey, Blanchard, &

Johnson, 1996). Initiating structure is defined as the extent of leadership behavior that is task-

oriented. Consideration is defined as the extent to which a leader considers a subordinate's

feelings and ideas. This study marked the first time in history that leadership traits were plotted

on two separate axis. Subsequently studies that examined these traits were conducted with

superintendents, teachers and principals.

The Michigan State studies examined factors that made leaders effective or ineffective.

Researchers explored the production-centered and employee-centered leadership behaviors.

Production-centered leadership focused on the technical aspects of the job and seeing the

employees as a means to an end. The employee-centered leader took personal interest in the

lives and needs of the workers. The findings suggested that the most effective leaders were both

production-centered and employee-centered (Hersey et al, 1996).

Employees seek different things from their jobs and there are a variety of leadership

styles that will help to motivate and encourage workers. It is important for leaders to understand

what factors contribute to their own effective or ineffective practices in order to maximize

productivity of their subordinates and create an environment where people feel valued and

satisfied (Pardee, 1990).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been a focus of research for many years and has been one of the

most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior (Hopkins, 1983; Spector, 1997;

Lawrence, 2003). Studies have focused on productivity, absences and turnover; followed later

by promotion of mental health and quality of work life (Gruneburg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983).









Organizational job satisfaction has been evaluated on a scale to reveal a broad level of

satisfaction or the variables of job satisfaction (Glick, 1992; DeMichelle, 1998). Financial

rewards, working conditions, supervisory practices, company policies, relationships with co-

workers, opportunities for advancement, security and content of the job are job satisfaction

variables that have been considered.

Over time, researchers have developed many different definitions of job satisfaction.

One such definition describes a worker's subjective appraisal of whether his or her requirements

of the work environment are met (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Chappell, 1995; Peek, 2003). Vroom

(1964) defines job satisfaction as "the affective orientation of individuals toward work roles they

are presently occupying" (p. 99). Johanshishi (1985) and Satterlee (1988) contend that a worker

finds job satisfaction through the emotional feelings toward the job during the course of

employment. Herzberg (1966) also asserts that "job enrichment,"-defined as giving employees

more freedom, authority, feedback, greater challenges where they are accountable and can

maximize their skills-is central to motivation. Hersey et al (1996) explains that job satisfaction

is a very important factor when looking at what motivates people to work. Understanding what

motivates people to work and how this relates to job satisfaction are key elements in improving

educational excellence (Pardee, 1990).

Motivation

Pardee (1990) conducted a study on three theories of motivation in the workplace as it

directly relates to work productivity and job satisfaction in the educational environment. The

research revealed that motivation is vital to improving output from workers and that educational

leaders need a firm understanding of how motivation relates to job satisfaction in order to

maximize productivity. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2003) assert that school administrators









believe that motivation is a critical determinant of performance in schools. Motivation to work

varies among people but many leaders are unaware of the factors that contribute to or detract

from motivation. Hersey et al (1996) described their study on motivation as an explanation for

answers to questions about human nature that will bring a greater understanding of the power

that motivation has on future behavior. Covington (1992) explains:

Simply put motivation deals with the why of behavior: Why, for example, do
individuals choose to work on certain tasks and not on others; why do they exhibit more
or less energy in the pursuit of these tasks; and why do some people persist until the task
is completed, whereas others give up before they really start, or in some cases pursue
more elegant solutions long after perfectly sensible answers have presented themselves?
(pp. 12-13)

One of the most noted research studies on motivation was done by Elton Mayo (1933) as

he examined various environmental influences on workers productivity and morale at the

Western Electric Company in Chicago. This study will be examined in more depth under

organizational theory.

A review of literature on motivation and job satisfaction shows that four historical studies

have contributed significantly to the understanding of motivation and leadership. Pardee (1990),

Chappell (1995), DeMichelle (1998), Peek (2003) and Lawrence (2003) utilized this research in

their studies to assist with examining the elements that influence the behavior and motivation of

human beings. The four studies include: (a) Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, (b) Herzberg's

Motivation-Hygiene Theory, (c) McClelland's Need for Achievement Theory, and (d)

McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y.

Maslow 's Hierarchy of Needs is a renowned theory that is used for the study of

motivation inside organizations. Maslow (1954) identified five basic groups of human needs that

serve to classify motives and suggests that, in order to truly understand human behavior, it is

imperative to examine an individual's personal aspirations. Maslow further suggests that an









individual could not move to a higher level without first satisfying the needs at each of the lower

levels. Marzano (2003) lists the five categories of needs in hierarchical order as follows:

Basic needs that include food and water,
The need for personal safety,
Social needs including the need to belong,
Esteem needs that include feelings of self-respect and the respect of others, and
Self-actualization or the need for a sense of personal fulfillment. (p. 148)

Many human beings are successful at achieving the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy but not

many people will achieve the level of self-actualization. Despite great interest in the hierarchy

theory, there has been limited research done to validate the theory; yet, there is conclusive

evidence to support that individuals will determine their personal needs on the five categories

that Maslow defined (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2003). Herzberg's Motivation Hygiene Theory has

contributed tremendously to the nature of human motivation (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976).

Understanding what motivates workers to produce can assist leaders in creating an environment

that will enhance job satisfaction and, subsequently, productivity.

While Maslow believed satisfied needs created the greatest motivation, Herzberg (1966)

believed that hygiene factors alone could not improve performance. Herzberg's Motivation

Hygiene Theory is a theory grounded in Maslow's earlier work. Frederick Hertzberg postulated

a theory that job factors motivate employees. He examined the attitudes of 200 men while they

worked. From this, he created a two-dimensional paradigm of factors that he theorized would

influence workers. The paradigm included motivation and hygiene factors. Motivating

(intrinsic) factors include achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and

possibilities of growth while hygiene (extrinsic) factors consist of company policy, supervision,

working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, and status motivators (Herzberg, Mausner &

Snyderman, 1959).









This two-factor theory suggests that satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not function as

opposites but are separate and distinct. Rather, that the opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction

and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. While most of the intrinsic factors do

serve as motivators for employees, hygiene factors do not influence motivation--but their

absence can lead to job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1976). Herzberg's two-factor theory examines

the elements of motivation which are relevant to the work environment (Pardee, 1990).

McClelland's Needfor Achievement Theory, proposed by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark,

and Lowell (1976), maintains that motivation is associated with learning through the

environment and a person will learn to repeat behavior that will lead to satisfaction of a need.

Production in an organization can increase with the integration of achievement theory. Workers

will produce more if their jobs are linked to a high need and when the behavior to satisfy that

need is triggered, the result is more work geared toward the goals of the overall organization

(McClelland et al., 1959).

McGregor 's Theory Xand Theory Y are two distinct assumptions of human behavior and

motivation. Theory X leadership assumes that workers are characterized by a lack of ambition,

responsibility and an overall dislike of work, and leaders respond to these characteristics by

using coercion and constant redirection in order to achieve the goals of the organization (Beck,

1990; Hersey et al, 1996). Theory X assumes that people are motivated by money, fringe

benefits, and the threat of punishment (Hersey, et al, 1996). In response to this theory, managers

closely monitor and control their employees in order to keep them focused on the organization's

goals and attain maximum production from them.

McGregor (1960) thought that a modified version of Theory X that considered the human

relations concept in the work environment would benefit a larger scope of managers. This is









Theory Y. McGregor's Theory Y assumes that the average worker is characterized by a desire to

seek out responsibility. People can be creative and self- directed, but it is the responsibility of

the manager to foster these qualities in the workers through leadership that motivates and

inspires.

When examining educational settings, it is noteworthy to examine motivation theory as it

relates to workers as learners. John Atkinson's (1957) and McClelland's (1965) "drive theory"

explains that motivation for learners can be categorized in terms of two opposing forces: striving

for success and the fear of failure. It is theorized that over time people vacillate toward one of

two tendencies when faced with a new task: success oriented or failure avoidant (Marzano,

2003). Success instills confidence in people and results in future successes and avoidance can

turn into self-handicapping behaviors like procrastination.

"Attribution theory" deals with students' perceptions of how they achieved a prior

success or their perception of what caused a past failure (Weiner, 1972; Weiner, Frieze, Kulka,

Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). Individuals attribute four causes to their success including

ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty (Marzano, 2003). Covington (1992) explained that the

most influential factor in attribution theory is the role that effort plays in an individual's

achievement, for example, "if students believe their failures are from a lack of trying, then they

are more likely to remain optimistic about succeeding in the future" (p. 16). Attribution theory

brought a new perspective to drive theory as it became clear that motivation can be modified as

an individual examines personal effort and attributes associated with a task.

Covington (1992) also explained the importance of self-worth in relation to motivation

and asserted that the search for self acceptance is one of the most notable human priorities. Self-

acceptance was described as the acceptance of status in one's peer group and if self-acceptance is









based on high achievement, then only a few high performing individuals can achieve a sense of

self-worth (Marzano, 2003).

In The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, Joseph

LeDoux (1996) examined the role that emotions play in motivation and explained the lack of

control that humans have over their emotions. "Anyone who has tried to fake an emotion, or

who has been the recipient of a faked one, knows all too well the futility of the attempt." (p. 19).

Motivation can be driven out of emotions such as fear, obsession, anger, envy, or love and can

often override an individual's value system in order to reach a goal.

The theory of self-system takes into consideration the four previous theories and helps

individuals decide whether to engage in a new challenge (Marzano, 2003). Csikszentmihalyi

(1990) explains that "self' is everything that transcends through our conscious minds including

desires, actions, fears, and pleasures-but most importantly, it is a hierarchy of personal goals.

This theory reveals an individual's deepest needs and aspirations.

These last five theories examined a complex set of dynamics that can encourage or dispel

an individual's motivation. It is vital for educational leaders to understand what influences

human motivation in order to manipulate internal and external sources within an organization to

create an effective working climate.

Organizational Climate

Organizational climate is the environmental quality of any school, department or district

(Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2003). The focal point in this study is centered on the relationship

between job satisfaction and organizational climate as it relates to middle school principals. This

section examines the (a) dimensions of organizational climate and (b) organizational theory.









Dimensions of Organizational Climate

The focus of organizational climate research is to examine organizational policies,

practices and procedures (Schein, 2000). Litwin and Stringer (1968) claimed that organizational

climate provides a connection between the systems of an organization and the behavior or

motivations of employees. Peterson and Spencer (1990) defined an institution's environment as

a comprehensive look that includes all internal and external organizationally related elements.

Peterson and White (1992) defined climate as "the current, common patterns of important

dimensions of organizational life or its members." (p. 181).

A review of research reveals that organizational climate has been described in very broad

terms such as leadership, classroom instruction, classroom management, the physical

surroundings, and the nature and tone of relationships within the organization (Anderson, 1982;

Gottsfreson, Hybl, Gottsfredson, & Castandea, 1986). Contemporary studies of organizational

climate have focused on the human relations aspect of an organization. Deal and Kennedy's

(1983) concept of climate is stated as "the collective personality of a school based upon an

atmosphere distinguished by the social and professional interactions of the individuals in the

school" (p. 14). This definition focuses on collegiality and professionalism and examines the

way people interact within the school and the extent to which they approach their work

(Marzano, 2003).

Organizational Theory

Lunenburg & Ornstein (2003) state that during a regular work day, most actions taken by

school administrators are grounded in theory rather than simple practices or procedures. The

development of organizational theory began in the twentieth century. Two separate management

perspectives emerged under classical organizational theory: scientific management that focuses









on work and workers, and administrative management that is concerned with how the

organization functions administratively. Taylor's (1911) scientific management approach was

developed from a study that focused on finding "one best way" to perform a task for the greatest

efficiency. Lunenburg and Ornstein report Taylor's scientific management resulted in four

guiding principals: (a) scientific job analysis that requires extensive observation of a certain job

function to find the most efficient procedures; (b) selection ofpersonnel where workers are

strategically placed in positions that would maximize their talents and bring another layer of

efficiency to ensure maximum output; (c) management cooperation where mangers monitor

performance, and (d)functional supervising that separated administrative duties from worker

responsibilities to ensure a clear understanding of everyone's role. Taylor's global job analysis

continues to influence the structure and productivity of today's organizations with regard to

workers and management.

Administrative management is a global perspective that examines how the organization

functions administratively. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2003) reported that Fayol presented

management as a continuous process of five functions: planning, organizing, commanding,

coordinating, and controlling. He also developed 14 guiding principals for managers that give

emphasis specifically to chain of command, allocation of authority, order, efficiency, equity, and

stability.

Gulick, while serving for Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, built with Urwick their

ideas of the functions of managers from Fayol's 14 Principals of Management and coined the

acronym POSDCoRB (Gulick & Urwick, 1937). It identifies the seven functions of a manager

as: planning defined as the creating of an action plan that is goal oriented; organizing defined as

the formal structure of an organization that is aligned with the organization's goals; staffing









defined as the procedures for recruiting, training and maintaining personnel in positive working

conditions; directing defined as the manager's duty of continual decision-making and

disseminating these decisions to the workforce for continual direction and focus; coordinating

defined as finding connections within the work to assist with consistency within departments and

processes; reporting defined as a checks and balances procedure that keeps all personnel

informed of progress through observation, data collection and research; and budgeting defined as

the fiscal responsibility for the overall organization. In classical organizational theory, the

focus of the leader of an organization was based on the overall needs of that organization

(output) rather than on the needs of an individual's working relationship (people).

During the human relations movement, the benefits of looking beyond organizational

efficiency to human affairs erupted. Mayo's (1933) study fueled this movement with research

done at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric. A six-year study was performed on groups of

female and male workers. The first study separated females into a control and experimental

group. The lighting in the experimental group was varied along with other environmental

factors. Interestingly, the production of both female groups improved even as the environment

worsened. Mayo found improved productivity resulted from increased morale, a feeling of

belonging, and effective management where motivating, leading, participative decision-making

and effective communication were exercised (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2003).

The second study was performed on male workers who were presented with incentive

pay that would increase as their production increased. The results revealed the formation of a

group dynamic where operating norms were established for what was acceptable output for the

group members. Those that exceeded or fell short were chastised by the group. The incentive









pay was completely ignored. The importance of understanding group behavior as a manager was

acknowledged.

The human relations approach accepts that people are motivated by social and

psychological needs and economic incentives. These needs include recognition, belongingness,

security, and the perceptions of individuals including their beliefs, motivations, and values.

Hersey et al (1996) conclude that the recognition of "task" from the scientific movement and

"relationship" from the human relations approach "has characterized the writings on leadership

ever since the conflict between scientific management and the human relations schools of

thought became apparent" (p. 101).

Principals and Job Satisfaction

Many studies have examined factors that influence the job satisfaction of elementary,

middle, and high school principals and assistant principals. One such study (Turner, 2006)

assessed job satisfaction of middle school principals in upstate South Carolina using the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Responses to this questionnaire were the primary

focus of the study. The researcher also examined the relationship between the following

demographics and job satisfaction for middle school principals: age, years of service, gender,

race, salary, and school size. The population included 9 counties and 28 middle schools. The

sample chosen from this population included 17 middle schools. Of the 17 middle schools, 15

principals responded. The results revealed that the job satisfaction levels of these middle school

principals' ranged from satisfied to very satisfied within their current position. Eighty-six

percent (86%) indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied, with more that 13% indicating

that they were very satisfied.









Turner (2006) found that the level of job satisfaction for middle school principals

increased with age-respondents over 55 years of age had the highest mean score in every

dimension on the MSQ. These dimensions included moral values, creativity, social service,

achievement, and responsibility. Of these dimensions, principals over 55 reported the highest

mean score for social service and the lowest mean score was security. Principals under the age

of 45 had the highest mean score in achievement and the lowest mean score in moral values.

Turner (2006) found a relationship between gender and job satisfaction for middle school

principals. Females mean satisfaction score was 3.8 while the mean score for males was 3.5. The

highest mean score for females was in social service (4.43) while their lowest mean score was in

achievement (4.0). Male respondents also had their highest mean in social service (4.04) and

their lowest mean score in achievement (3.87).

Only three African American principals were included in Turner's (2006) study. He

found no significant relationship between race and job satisfaction which was attributed to the

small sample size. Responses from the African-Americans in this study revealed moral values as

the highest mean score (4.2) while the highest mean score from Caucasian participants was

(4.23) for social service.

Turner (2006) also examined the impact of salary on job satisfaction for middle school

principals. The study revealed that two middle school principals earning annual salaries between

$75,000 and $100,000 rated their satisfaction level as extremely satisfied: the others earning

between $50,000 and $75,000 indicated they were very satisfied. Those earning between

$75,000 and $100,000 had higher mean scores in every dimension than those earning between

$50,000 and $75,000 per year.









Finally, this study examined the relationship between job satisfaction for middle school

principals and school size. Respondents from all category levels "from fewer than 300 students"

to "over 1,000 students" were satisfied. A trend related to the five dimensions of job satisfaction

was not observed in the mean values between enrollment categories. Recommendations from

this study suggest replication using a survey other than the MSQ as it was designed over 25 years

ago for employees in business and industry. Also recommended was the addition of open-ended

questions to the survey which could lead to more insightful findings.

Newby (1999) assessed the general satisfaction level of 188 middle school principals in

Virginia as measured by the MSQ. Newby began by measuring the levels of satisfaction of

middle school principals according to specific demographic variables such as gender, age,

degree, experience, school location, and school size. Middle school principals' job satisfaction

was measured according to the 20 dimensions measured on the MSQ. Results of the

demographic variables were then compared to the results of the 20 dimensions to reveal any

significant relationships. A mean score of 3.65 (SD= .57) for the principals' General Satisfaction

indicated that these principals were "Satisfied" (3.00-3.99) with their positions. All the General

Satisfaction scores were within the "Satisfied" range with regard to the demographic variables.

When examining the mean scores of the 20 dimensions of the MSQ, a range of "Slightly

Satisfied" (2.00-2.99) to "Very Satisfied" (4.00-4.99) was revealed. The dimension of

Compensation ranked the lowest (M= 2.83, SD= .94) and Social Service ranked the highest (M=

4.19, SD= .73). Demographically, females along with older and younger principals were

significantly more satisfied than males with Activity and Variety. Principals with specialist

degrees were significantly more satisfied with achievement than those principals with masters

and doctorates. The research revealed that middle principals who work in suburban schools were









significantly more satisfied with Compensation, Supervision, and Working Conditions than those

principals who worked in urban or rural schools. Principals at schools considered large (over

800 students) were significantly more satisfied with General Satisfaction, Advancement and

Security than those who worked with smaller student populations.

Newby (1999) recommended more research on job satisfaction in the principalship. As

the nation continues to promote high-stakes testing, the relationship of student performance and

job satisfaction could be examined. Further recommendations include a comparison study

between high school, middle school, and elementary school principals' satisfaction and finally,

the integration of more qualitative data with interviews and open-ended survey questions.

Stemple (2004) replicated Newby (1999) to examine job satisfaction among high school

principals in Virginia. Using the (MSQ), Stemple analyzed the job satisfaction of 183 high

school principals in relation to gender, age, and salary, number of assistant principals, years as a

principal, tenure, school socio-economic status, and school size. Principals were least satisfied

with compensation (M= 12.84; SD= 4.62) and most satisfied with being of service to others

(M=19.39; SD =3.77). A significant predictor of job satisfaction was the number of assistant

principals. Those principals who reported five or more assistant principals had significantly

higher levels of satisfaction (M=69.70; SD=15.93) than those who had less than two (M=65.14;

SD= 12.62).

Sodoma (2005) conducted a study that examined the job satisfaction of Iowa public

school principals. This study contrasted the job satisfaction of current principals to the

perceptions found in a study from 1999. The analysis included demographic variables of sex,

years served as a principal, years served in present school, and school type. Using Hertzberg's

Motivation and Hygiene Factor theory, the researcher examined the relationship between overall









job satisfaction and leadership and management tasks to determine if there was a significant

change from 1999 to 2005. The population included principals working in public elementary,

middle/junior high, and high schools. A 76% response rate was achieved in the 1999 study; the

2005 study yielded a response rate of 64%.

The results showed that principals were more satisfied in 2005 than those surveyed in

1999 even though principals in 2005 had more responsibilities and greater accountability. Both

studies found that principals were very satisfied with their relationships with teachers, parents,

administrative teams/cabinet, board of education, and with the quality of their relationship with

the superintendent and their sense of achievement. Areas generating less satisfaction for the

principal included the time commitment that the community places on the principal, salary, and

the community image of school administrators. Both studies revealed less satisfaction with the

time demands on the principalship and reported a trend that principals were spending more time

on management duties than leadership tasks. Contradicting Herzberg's theory, the results

showed that principals were more satisfied with hygiene factors than with motivation, and

principals who spent more time on management and leadership activities were overall more

satisfied.

Wheelis' (2005) study examined the relationship between School Performance Scores

(SPS) and job satisfaction of principals in Louisiana. The sample (1328 elementary, middle and

high school principals in Louisiana) was surveyed using the Short Form Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire (MSQ) in addition to three demographic questions and three open-ended

questions. Results from Wheelis (2005) revealed no significant difference in intrinsic, extrinsic,

and general satisfaction levels with regard to gender, size of school, type of school, highest

degree earned, or socioeconomic label of the school. A significant relationship was found









between general job satisfaction and intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction,

socioeconomic label and type of school. Additional responses indicated that time management,

amount of paperwork, and instructional leader versus manager were their greatest challenges.

According to Wheelis, the most satisfying aspect of the job was the students themselves and the

opportunity to work closely with them.

Border (2004) studied job satisfaction within a sample of Florida's middle school

assistant principals' as a factor in maintaining an administrative workforce in the future. Eighty

(80) middle school assistant principals from six school districts were surveyed using the Job

Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Bowling Green State University. Results revealed that a

majority (90%) of the assistant principals were satisfied with their positions. The greatest degree

of satisfaction (83%) was in relation to the supervision they received at work along with their

relationships with colleagues (82%). The participants were least satisfied (50%) with salary and

promotion considerations. Work, pay, promotion, supervision, people, and the job in general had

a negative correlation to tenure. The analysis also revealed that 42.5% of the assistant principals

desired to become principals in the future.

Brogan (2003) studied the job satisfaction of 128 high school principals in Idaho using

the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (MSQ). The study included 13

demographic questions pertaining to school enrollment, gender, years in current position, years

of experience as a high school principal, highest degree earned, geographic region, and ethnicity.

Participants were also asked if they would be willing to change professions if another job

opportunity became available in the next 12 months. Results of the study found a small level of

difference between high school principals related to gender in their general job satisfaction with

males (M=78.43, SD=8.96) having marginally higher levels of satisfaction than females









(M=75.81, SD=10.22). Principals with more experience as well as those who had the most

support (i.e., highest number of vice/assistant principals) reported higher levels of general

satisfaction than their counterparts. The level of education of the principal was reported to have

no significant relationship to general job satisfaction.

Greska (2003) used the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) to

assess the level of job satisfaction of middle school assistant principals in North Carolina.

Selected demographic variables including age, ethnicity, level of education, number of years as

an assistant principal, salary, school location, number of students on free and reduced-priced

meals, and school performance results were examined. Results indicated no significant

relationship between overall job satisfaction and the demographic variables; although the level of

satisfaction did vary based on the assistant principals' future plans and primary duties at the time.

Overall, the participants indicated they were satisfied with their work, opportunity for

advancement, supervision, relationship with co-workers, and the job in general. Assistant

principals in this study had a neutral or ambivalent response to salary.

Barry (2002) studied high school principals in Michigan by analyzing job satisfaction and

its relationship with principals' leadership styles. The study revealed that male principals were

more satisfied with their ability to be promoted than female principals. The relationship between

job satisfaction and salary revealed that those principals who were paid more were more

satisfied. Those principals in larger schools scored significantly higher in transformational

leadership than those in smaller schools. Younger principals had less individualized

consideration for others than principals over 46 years of age. The study also revealed that a

principal's job satisfaction increased when the principal's leadership style was high in

Inspirational Motivation (IM), Individualized Consideration (IC), Idealized Influence (II), and









Intellectual Stimulation (IS)-the transformational leadership styles. Job satisfaction was low

when principals used the transactional leadership styles of Management by Exception (ME) and

Laissez-Faire (LF).

Sablatura (2002) studied the differences between urban, suburban, and rural principals by

comparing job satisfaction among the groups, their professional commitment and willingness to

pursue other principalships. This study also examined what job satisfaction factors were most

closely related to the principals overall job satisfaction. Results showed that principals were well

satisfied with stakeholders and the sense of challenge and accomplishment derived from their

jobs, and that they were moderately satisfied with their relationships with their supervisors and

other district personnel. All groups were less satisfied with salary, but the urban and rural

principals were significantly less satisfied with compensation than the suburban principals.

Variables included age, sex, ethnicity, highest degree earned, administrative experience, campus

level, enrollment, percent of minority students and job satisfaction factors.

Brady (2001) surveyed 162 principals in California to examine self-perceptions of the

school's organizational effectiveness, job performance, level of satisfaction and stress, as they

related to the job itself. Significant relationships between job satisfaction and school

effectiveness, stress, and perceived performance were discovered. Perceived job performance

was related to length of time in current position and years as a principal. The longer a principal

was in the position, the level of one's perceived performance increased. No relationship was

found between job satisfaction and level of school's effectiveness, stress and perceived job

performance with the intention to leave in the near future. The majority of participants in this

study reported their schools to be effective with high levels of perceived job performance and an

overall satisfaction with their positions.









Bryant (2001) also performed a comparison study of principals in low performing or

exemplary schools under the North Carolina's standards and accountability program. The study

was conducted using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and demographic

variables included gender, age, years of work experience, level of education, and 23 sub-test

scales designed to measure facets of job satisfaction. Results of the study demonstrated no

relationship between general job satisfaction and level of education, years of work experience,

and the performance rating of their schools; significant differences were found when male and

female participants were compared separately in relation to theirjob satisfaction scores. Age,

gender, educational level, and activity were variables found to be predictors of general job

satisfaction for principals from both school performance groups.

Principals and Job Satisfaction Summary

In review, the research results of what contributes to job satisfaction are mixed. The

examination of research has shown many demographic factors that contribute to higher job

satisfaction including: gender, in particular being male (Delgado, 2001; Barry, 2002; Brogan,

2003); opportunity for promotion (Barry, 2002); relationship with superiors (Sablatura, 2002;

Border, 2004); years of experience (Brady, 2001; Brogan,2003); social service (Newby, 1999;

Stemple, 2004; Turner, 2006); and the number of assistant principals (Brogan, 2003; Stemple,

2004). The factors that contributed to job dissatisfaction include: low pay (Barry, 2002;

Sablatura, 2002; Border, 2004; Stemple, 2004), job security (Turner, 2006), and time demands

(Sodoma, 2005; Wheelis, 2005). The review of research also revealed factors that had no

significant effect on job satisfaction, including level of education (Bryant, 2001; Brogan, 2003;

Greska, 2003; Wheelis, 2005), and the school performance category (Bryant, 2001; Wheelis,

2005).









Summary

Principals are integral to the success of America's middle schools. Increasing attrition

rates caused by job stress is a growing concern for a position that is consistently recognized as

essential to the overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996). High-stakes, sweeping federal

and state education reforms have added to the job demands of the middle school principal. It is

important to examine the factors that enhance or detract from middle school principals' job

satisfaction.

The role of the principal has been studied for several decades and is continually

scrutinized as new federal, state, and local mandates are enforced. The principal is part of a

complex social system and expectations of this role vary depending on the audience (Drake &

Roe, 1999). These expectations require that the principal is able to perform a myriad of duties in

order to accommodate internal and external stakeholders. In order to be effective, it is vital for

educational leaders to understand what influences human motivation in order to manipulate

internal and external sources within an organization to create an effective working climate.

Motivation is directly related to job satisfaction. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996)

explain that job satisfaction is a very important factor when looking at what motivates people to

work. Understanding what motivates people to work and how this relates to job satisfaction are

key elements in improving educational excellence (Pardee, 1990). Employees seek different

things from their jobs and there are a variety of leadership styles that will help to motivate and

encourage workers. It is important for leaders to understand what factors contribute to their own

effective or ineffective practices in order to maximize productivity of their subordinates and

create an environment where people feel valued and satisfied.









Today's middle school principals must have an understanding of what motivates their

teachers and students as they face public scrutiny like no other time in history. Since the middle

school concept was developed by Eichhorn (1966) and Alexander (Alexander & Williams, 1965)

the role of the middle school principal continues to evolve, but a clear common thread is

emerging that principals must be able to create a quality environment in the school where

teachers, staff and students feel valued and are satisfied with their work. The design of this study

is examined in Chapter 3.









CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among the

middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify the factors that enhance or detract

from job satisfaction and organizational climate. Further, the study examined if there was a

difference in means forjob satisfaction by analyzing demographic variables including: the

principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as a

principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program,

and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school

size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for

the past three years. This chapter presents a description of the research methodology.

Research Questions

Data was obtained from middle school principals using an electronic survey. The survey

was based on the following research questions.

1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified
organizational climate factors (internal communication, organizational structure, political
climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard for
personal concern) in their school district?

2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with
the organizational climate in their school districts?

3. How important are the five identified job satisfaction variables (participation in
decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and
benefits; and professional effectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance
of their duties?

4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational
climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position among the Central Florida
middle school principals?

5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics
differ for middle school principals related to the following demographic variables: the









principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as
a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction
program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban
or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan
grades designated for the past three years?

Methodology

To explore these research questions, several surveys were reviewed from existing studies

on job satisfaction and organizational climate constructs (Levy, 1989; Palmer, 1995; Chappell,

1995; Evans, 1996; DeMichele, 1998; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Stephens, 2004; Sofianos,

2005; Reynolds, 2006). Chappell's (1995) survey was adapted to address the specific population

of middle school principals.

Part I addressed demographic information about the middle school principal. It was

divided into three parts: principal demographics, education/experience demographics and

school/district demographics. In Part II A middle school principals were asked to respond to

questions that addressed the level or degree to which organizational climate factors were present

in their district. In Part II B middle school principals rated their satisfaction with each of the

organizational climate factors as it related to their district. In Part II C middle school principals

rated the importance of job satisfaction factors as they related to their position, and in Part II D

middle school principals were asked to give an overall satisfaction rating for their school and

district. Part III was a short-response question that provided participants with an opportunity to

express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or eliminated from their

position that would increase their overall job satisfaction.

Population

The population for this study included all public middle school principals in seven

Central Florida counties (N=97). The sample included those middle school principals who









completed the electronic survey (N=51). Prior to selection, the researcher coded all potential

candidates according to their district and school. The desired response rate as established by the

researcher was 51%.

Procedure for Data Collection

Prior to the collection of data, a copy of the survey instrument was submitted to the

University of Florida Institutional Review Board for Research with Human Subjects (UFIRB).

After UFIRB approval had been obtained, the researcher assigned all potential participants a user

ID and password and the survey was e-mailed with letters of invitation and approval from the

superintendent. The letter of invitation explained the role of the researcher and the anticipated

role of each participant, giving information regarding how to access the survey. When

participants visited the web site for completion of the instrument, they were asked to give their

consent by clicking on "I agree" prior to having access to the questionnaire. Participants were

informed that they could decline participation or skip any questions they believed to be

inappropriate. They were informed that all responses were confidential to the extent provided by

law. They completed the questionnaire and demographic questions electronically and submitted

it to a secure server at the University of Florida. After two weeks time, 20 principals had

responded to the electronic survey yielding a response rate of 21%. The researcher sent a

reminder e-mail to all principals who had not yet completed the survey. The e-mail notice

contained the link to the web site for completion of the instrument on-line. After the third week,

42 principals had responded to the electronic survey yielding a response rate of 43%. A third

and final e-mail was sent to all principals who had not responded. After four weeks, 51

principals had responded yielding a final response rate of 53%.









Instrumentation

The survey used in this study was adapted from Chappell's (1995) study on job

satisfaction and organizational climate factors in the higher education work place. Chappell

substantiated the instrument's reliability, validity and consistency by field testing. The

instrument's consistency was established using a pre/post test model. The validation process

requested the input of 9 participants, 8 of whom completed both assessments. After comparing

results from the first test administration to the second test administration, the field test produced

a correlation coefficient as high as 0.942. In addition, a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

analysis affirmed that the questions were unambiguous and logical, and sufficient correlations

existed between the responses of the first and second test administrations.

The adapted survey used in this study tested the same theoretical constructs on middle

school principals in Central Florida. A question was added to provide the participants with the

opportunity to express in their own words different aspects that could be added or eliminated

from their position that would increase their overall job satisfaction. The amended survey was

sent to a panel of six district administrators who previously held the position of middle school

principal. The administrators were asked to review the clarity of the questions, the perceived

comfort level in responding to the question for middle school principals, and the accuracy of the

terminology as it related to the position of the school principal. The researcher utilized the

recommendations of the panel in the final instrument.

Organizational Climate Factors

The construct of organizational climate that was tested utilized the following seven

identified organizational climate constructs:

1. Internal communication defined as the school district's formal interaction process
between the faculty, staff and the district.










2. Organizational structure defined as the school district's hierarchy of structure.

3. Political climate defined as the nature and complexity of the school district's internal
and external policies.

4. Professional development opportunities defined as the chance for principals to
participate in personal training to enhance job performance.

5. Evaluation defined as the school district's procedure for assessing the performance of
middle school principals.

6. Promotion defined as the school district's commitment to internal promotion and
advancement from within the organization.

7. Regard for personal concern defined as the school district's sensitivity to and regard
for middle school principals' well-being.

Job Satisfaction Variables

The construct of job satisfaction was examined in relationship to the seven organizational

climate factors previously mentioned. The following is a list of the identified job satisfaction

variables:

1. Participation in decision making defined as the district's executive processes and the
middle school principal's opportunity for involvement in the process.

2. Autonomy, power and control defined as the degree of independence, authority, and
jurisdiction held by middle school principals.

3. Relationship with colleagues defined as the quality of the principals' interactions with
peers, subordinates, and supervisors.

4. Salary and benefits defined as the wages and insurance plans for middle school
principals.

5. Professional effectiveness defined as the perceived overall efficiency of middle
school principals in their job.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were used to describe the sample population.

To address questions 1-3, data concerning the presence of climate factors, satisfaction with









climate factors and the importance of job satisfaction variables were examined to produce a

descriptive profile of middle school principals in Central Florida. Question four was answered

using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation to analyze the relationship between the job

satisfaction variables and organizational climate factors for middle school principals in Central

Florida. Finally, question 5 was addressed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine the

demographic variables including: gender, age, ethnicity, level of education, length of time as a

principal and length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction

program, assignment of a mentor; and the school size, type, Florida A+ Plan grades designated

for the past three years, socioeconomic status and district (independent variables) on the

importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics (dependent

variables).

Summary

This study tested the theories and constructs of organizational climate and its relationship

with job satisfaction as applied to middle school principals in Central Florida. Several studies

have been conducted in other states using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to assess job

satisfaction of school principals (Newby, 1999; Bryant, 2001; Brogan, 2003; Wheeler, 2005;

Turner, 2006). This study examined the presence, level of satisfaction, and overall importance of

organizational climate factors and five identified job satisfaction variables in Central Florida

school district as perceived by middle school principals. The relationship of these two constructs

and specific demographic data were also determined. Results of this study are reported in

Chapter 4.









CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among the

middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify the factors that enhance or detract

from job satisfaction and organizational climate. Further, the study examined if there was a

difference in means forjob satisfaction by analyzing demographic variables including: the

principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as a

principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program,

and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school

size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for

the past three years. Specifically, this study addressed the following 5 questions.

1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified
organizational climate factors (internal communication, organizational structure, political
climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard for
personal concern) in their school district?

2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with
the organizational climate in their school districts?

3. How important are the five identified job satisfaction variables (participation in
decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and
benefits; and professional effectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance
of their duties?

4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational
climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position among the Central Florida
middle school principals?

5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics
differ for middle school principals related to the following demographic variables: the
principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as
a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction
program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban
or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan
grades designated for the past three years?









Survey Responses

Ninety-seven (97) electronic surveys were sent via e-mail to middle school principals in

Central Florida. A letter of invitation explained the role of the researcher and the anticipated role

of each participant, giving information regarding how to access the survey. When participants

visited the web site for completion of the instrument, they were asked to give their consent by

clicking on "I agree" prior to having access to the questionnaire. Participants were informed that

they could decline participation or skip any questions they believed to be inappropriate. They

were informed that all responses were kept confidential to the extent provided by law. They

completed the questionnaire and demographic questions electronically and submitted it to a

secure server at the University of Florida.

Some returned surveys had missing items, however, all responses were recorded and

utilized in the analysis. After two weeks time, 20 principals had responded to the electronic

survey yielding a response rate of 21%. The researcher sent a reminder e-mail to all principals

who did not yet complete the survey. The e-mail notice contained the link to the web site for

completion of the instrument on-line. After the third week, 42 principals had responded to the

electronic survey yielding a response rate of 43%. A third and final e-mail was sent to all

principals who had not responded. After four weeks, 51 principals had responded yielding a

final response rate of 53%.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0, was used and

provided; (a) comprehensive calculation of descriptive statistics, (b) frequency distributions, (c)

correlation coefficients, and (d) analysis of variance. All procedures were calculated using an

alpha level of(<.05*) and/or (< .01**). All significant p values and correlations have been

marked with an asterisk (*) or double asterisk (**) on all the tables.









Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida


Gender

Table 4-1 provides the distribution of middle school principal respondents in Central

Florida according to gender. Fifty-one (51) respondents answered this survey question. As

displayed in Table 4-1, the majority (29, 56.9%) were male compared with 22 (43.1%) female.

Age

Table 4-2 shows the age distribution of middle school respondent principals in Central

Florida. A total of 48 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 27 (56.3%) reported

themselves under the age of 50, and 21 (43.7%) reported being over the age of 51.

Ethnicity

Table 4-3 delineates the distribution of responding middle school principals in Central

Florida according to their ethnicity. Fifty (50) respondents answered this question. Of these, 42

(84.0%) were white, 7 (14.0%) were black and 1 (2.0%) responded as multi-racial.

Level of Education

Table 4-4 provides the distribution of middle school principals (N=51) in Central Florida

according to level of education. Of these, 33 (64.7%) reported they held a masters degree, 4

(7.8%) held a specialist degree and 14 (27.5%) held a doctorate degree.

Number of Years as a Principal

Table 4-5 shows the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according

to years of service as a principal. A total of 50 respondents answered this survey question. Of

these, 7 (14.0%) indicated they had been a principal for less than one year, 14 (28.0%) have been

a principal between 1-3 years, 18 (36.0%) reported serving as a principal for 4-7 years, 3 (6.0%)









reported 8-10 years of service and 8 (16.0%) reported more than 10 years of service as a

principal.

Number of Years as a Principal in Current Middle School

Table 4-6 shows the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according

to years of service as a principal in their current school. A total of 50 respondents answered this

survey question. Of these, 9 (18.0%) indicated that they have worked in their current school for

less than one year, 22 (44.0%) have served their school between 1-3 years, 13 (26.0%) have

served 4-7 years, 4 (8.0%) have served 8-10 years while 2 (4.0%) reported having worked in

their current middle school for more than 10 years .

Salary

Table 4-7 shows a distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according to

salary. A total of 51 respondents answered this survey question. One (2.0%) indicated they had

an annual salary less that $70,000, 15 (29.4%) reported an annual salary between $70,000-

$79,999, 24 (47.0%) reported an annual salary between $80,000-$89,999, 10 (19.6%) reported

an annual salary between $90,000-$99,999 and 1 (2.0%) reported an annual salary above

$100,000.

Participation in a Principal Induction Program

Table 4-8 indicates a distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according

to whether they participated in a principal induction program. Of the 51 respondents, 37 (72.5%)

responded that they had participated in a principal induction program prior to becoming a

principal, 3 (5.9%) indicated they participated in a principal induction program after becoming a

principal, 8 (15.7%) responded they participated in a principal induction program both before









and after becoming a principal, and 3 (5.9%) responded that they had not participated in a

principal induction program.

Assignment of a Mentor

Table 4-9 provides the distribution of the 51 middle school principal respondents in

Central Florida according to whether they were assigned a mentor after becoming a principal.

The majority (29, 56.9%) were assigned a mentor compared with 22 (43.1%) who were not

assigned a mentor.

District

Table 4-10 provides the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida

according to the district where they work. A total of 51 respondents, representing 6 of the 7

counties surveyed, answered this question. Nearly half (25) of the respondents represented one

county. Three counties were represented by 9, 8 and 5 respondents, while the other two counties

had 3 and 1 respondents.

School Classification by Location

Table 4-11 indicates the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida

according to the area (rural, suburban, urban) in which the school is located. Of the 50

respondents, 10 (20.0%) indicated the school where they worked was located in a rural area, 28

(56.0%) indicated their school was located in a suburban area and 12 (24.0%) indicated their

school was located in an urban area.

Size of Student Population

Table 4-12 reports the distribution of 51 middle school principal respondents according to

the size of the student population in their school. Of the 51 respondents, nearly 70% indicated

school sizes in excess of 1000 students. Thirty-two principals (62.7%) reported 1000-1500









students, 3 principals (5.9%) reported more that 1500 students. One (1) principal (2.0%)

reported a school population of less than 500 students. The remaining 15 principals (29.4%) had

schools with 500-999 students enrolled. While these school sizes may appear large, they are

representative of middle schools in Florida.

Percent of Student Population Receiving Free or Reduced Lunch

Table 4-13 documents the distribution of middle school principal respondents (N=51)

according to the percentage of students in their school receiving free or reduced lunch. Of these,

8 (15.7%) indicated a free and reduced lunch rate between 0-25%, 21 (41.2%) indicated this rate

was between 26-50%, 13 (25.5%) indicated this rate was between 51-75%, and 9 (17.6%)

indicated a free and reduced lunch rate between 76-100%.

FCAT Grade for Past Three Years

Table 4-14 shows the number of FCAT "A" grades the principals' school has earned

from the Florida Department of Education during the past three years. Of the 50 respondents, 17

(34.0%) reported that their middle school did not score an A rating during the past three years,

11 (22.0%) scored one A rating during that time, 6 (12.0%) scored two A ratings and 16 (32.0%)

scored an A rating each of the last three years.

Research Question 1

The first research question asked to what extent middle school principals report the

presence of seven identified organizational climate factors. The seven organizational climate

variables under investigation are listed below and coded as follows:

IC: Internal Communication
OS: Organizational Structure
PC: Political Climate
PD: Professional Development Opportunities
EVAL: Evaluation









PRO: Promotion
RPC: Regard for Personal Concern

Respondents were asked to rate presence of the seven organizational climate variables using a 5-

point Likert scale: 5 represented very high; 4 represented high; 3 represented moderate; 2

represented low; and 1 represented very low presence of the organizational climate variable in

their school district. The mean and standard deviation for each variable is reported in Table 4-

15. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven variables are: professional

development (4.53), organizational structure (4.45), internal communication (4.02), evaluation

(3.88), regard for personal concern (3.84), political climate (3.78), and promotion (3.76). Three

was the neutral value and all variables had a mean greater than 3 indicating that each variable

was perceived to have an above average level of presence in their school district. A description

of the results of each factor follows.

Internal Communication

Table 4-16 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principal

respondents in Central Florida to the openness of internal communication in their school district

which is defined as the school district's formal interaction processes between faculty, staff and

the district. Of these, 17 principals (33.3%) indicated their district had very high open

communication, 22 principals (43.1%) rated communication as high open, 9 (17.7%) reported

some open internal communication, 2 (3.9%) rated communication as usually closed and 1

(2.0%) reported very closed internal communication in their school district. Overall, a vast

majority (48, 94.1%) of the middle school principals responding to this question perceived

internal communication in their school district to have very high, high, or some openness, while

only 3 (5.9%) identified such communication as usually closed or very closed.









Organizational Structure

Table 4-17 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principals in

Central Florida according to the presence of organizational structure (the hierarchy or chain of

command) in their school district. Of these respondents, 27 (53.0%) indicated their districts

were very highly structured, 20 (39.2%) rated the structure as high, and 4 (7.8%) rated the

structure as moderate. None of the principals responding to this survey reported the

organizational structure of their school district as loose or very loose.

Political Climate

Table 4-18 provides the distribution of responses from 50 middle school principals in

Central Florida to the nature and complexity of the school district's political climate including

internal and external policies and whether their presence in their school district is highly political

or not highly political. Of these, 11 (22.0%) indicated the political climate was very high, 23

(46.0%) rated the climate high, 11 (22.0%) rated it as moderate, 4 (8.0%) reported low presence

of political climate and 1 (2.0%) rated the political climate in their school district as very low.

Most (90.0%) of the middle school principal respondents perceived political climate to be

moderate or higher.

Professional Development Opportunities

Table 4-19 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida according to the encouragement they receive to participate in professional

development opportunities in their school district. All 51 respondents (100%) rated their

encouragement to participate in professional development opportunities as moderate (4, 7.8%),

high (16, 31.4%) or very high (31, 60.8%). No middle school principals in Central Florida









reported that they were not encouraged to participate in professional development provided by

their school district.

Evaluation

Table 4-20 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida according to how supportive the evaluation process or district's procedure for

assessing principal performance is in their school district. Only 4 of the 51 principal respondents

reported the support they received was low (2, 3.9%) or very low (2, 3.9%). Moderate support

was reported by 12 (23.5%) principals, and 35 (68.7%) felt they received high or very high

support through the evaluation process in their school district.

Promotion

Table 4-21 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida according to their district's commitment to internal promotion and advancement

within their school district. No principals reported a very low commitment from their district

regarding opportunities for promotion, although 4 principals (7.8%) did report such commitment

as low. The 47 remaining principals reported their district's commitment level regarding

opportunities for promotion as moderate (15, 29.4%), high (21, 41.2%), or very high (11,

21.6%).

Regard for Personal Concern

Table 4-22 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida according to the level of sensitivity by their school district for each principal's

personal well-being. Twenty (20) principals (39.2%) indicated a very high level of sensitivity

regarding their personal well-being by their school district, 15 principals (29.4%) rated that

sensitivity as high, 7 (13.7%) rated the level of sensitivity as moderate, 6 (11.8%) rated it as low









and 3 (5.9%) rated the sensitivity as very low. Overall, most (82.3%) of the middle school

principals responding to this question perceived the level of sensitivity for principals' well-being

by their school district to be moderate, high or very high.

Summary of Research Question 1 Results

Table 4-23 shows the percent of responses from middle school principals in Central

Florida who selected a rating of "high" or "very high" for each of the seven variables used to

define organizational climate. Professional development opportunities and organizational

structure were the variables most frequently rated as high or very high (92.2%) by the principal

respondents. In descending order, the frequency responses for the other 5 variables are: internal

communication (76.4%), evaluation (68.7%), regard for personal concern (68.6%), political

climate (67.0%), and promotion (62.8%).

Table 4-24 provides an analysis of the factors that were perceived to be present with

regard to organizational climate. A Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation was done to more

wholly understand the relationship among these climate factors. If the p value was less than 0.05

(and/or) less than 0.01, significant correlations were noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a

double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could

be negative and significant or positive and significant. There were no significant positive

correlations at the 0.05 level. There were negative significant correlations at the .05 level

between internal communication and political climate (-.324) and between political climate and

evaluation (-.335). Positive significant correlation occurred at the .01 level between internal

communication and evaluation (.441), internal communication and promotion (.396), internal

communication and regard for personal concern (.455), professional development opportunities

and evaluation (.427), evaluation and promotion (.516), evaluation and regard for personal









concern (.595) and promotion and regard for personal concern (.622). There were negative

significant correlations at the .01 level between political climate and promotion (-.398), and

political climate and regard for personal concern (-.431).

Research Question 2

The second research question asked to what extent middle school principals are satisfied

with the organizational climate in their school district. The same climate variables were applied.

The seven climate variables under investigation are listed below and coded as follows:

IC: Internal Communication
OS: Organizational Structure
PC: Political Climate
PD: Professional Development Opportunities
EVAL: Evaluation
PRO: Promotion
RPC: Regard for Personal Concern

Respondents were asked to rate the seven variables using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5

representing very high satisfaction; 4 representing high satisfaction; 3 representing moderate

satisfaction; 2 representing low satisfaction; and 1 representing very low satisfaction with the

organizational climate in their school district. The mean and standard deviation for each variable

is reported in Table 4-25. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven variables are:

professional development (4.30), regard for personal concern (3.98), organizational structure

(3.94), internal communication (3.86), evaluation (3.82), promotion (3.59), and political climate

(3.43). Three was the neutral value and all variables had a mean greater than 3. A description of

the responses to each variable follows.

Internal Communication

Table 4-26 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida to their satisfaction with internal communication as part of the organizational









climate in their school district. A total of 50 respondents answered this survey question. Of

these, 13 (26.0%) rated their satisfaction with internal communication as very high, 21 (42.0%)

rated their satisfaction as high, 12 (24.0%) rated their satisfaction as moderate, and 4 (8.0%)

reported their satisfaction with internal communication in their school district as low. An overall

majority (46, 92.0%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived their

satisfaction with internal communication in their school district to be moderate, high or very

high.

Organizational Structure

Table 4-27 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principals in

Central Florida to the satisfaction with organizational structure (the school district's chain of

command) as part of the district's organizational climate. Of these 51 respondents, 17 (33.3%)

rated a very high level of satisfaction with organizational structure as a variable of organizational

climate in their school district, 19 principals (37.3%) rated satisfaction as high, 10 (19.6%) rated

it as moderate, and 5 (9.8%) rated low satisfaction with organizational structure as a variable in

organizational climate in their school district. Overall, 46 (90.2%) of the middle school

principals responding to this variable perceived their satisfaction with the organizational

structure in their school district to be either high, very high, or moderate.

Political Climate

Table 4-28 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principals in

Central Florida according to their satisfaction with how the political climate, including the nature

and complexity of internal and external policies, affects the organizational climate in their school

district. Of these 51 responses, 28 (54.9%) indicated very high or high satisfaction with how the

political climate affects the organizational climate in their school district, 10 (19.6%) rated their









satisfaction as moderate, and 13 (25.5%) rated it low or very low. A slight majority (54.9%) of

the middle school principals who responded to this organizational climate variable perceived

their satisfaction with the political climate in their school district as either high or very high,

while (45.1%) of the respondents perceived their satisfaction with the political climate as

moderate, low or very low in their school district.

Professional Development Opportunities

Table 4-29 shows the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central

Florida to satisfaction with the professional development opportunities variable as a contributor

to the organizational climate in their school district. Fifty (50) respondents answered this survey

question. Of these, 43 principals (86.0%) indicated very high or high satisfaction with

professional development opportunities as a contributor to organizational climate in their school

district, 10% (5) of the principal respondents rated their satisfaction with this variable as

moderate, and 2 (4.0%) rated their satisfaction as low. A majority (86.0%) of the middle school

principals responding to this variable reported their satisfaction with how professional

development opportunities contributed to organizational climate in their school district as either

high or very high, while most (96.0%) respondents perceived that satisfaction to be moderate,

high or very high.

Evaluation

Table 4-30 documents the distribution of responses from 51 Central Florida middle

school principals to their satisfaction with how evaluation contributes to organizational climate.

Of these respondents, 13 (25.5%) indicated very high satisfaction, 21 (41.2%) rated their

satisfaction as high, 12 (23.5%) rated satisfaction as moderate, and 5 (9.8%) reported low

satisfaction with the evaluation variable as a contributor to organizational climate. Overall, a









majority (66.7%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived either

high or very high satisfaction with evaluation as a contributor to organizational climate in their

school district, while most (90.2%) respondents perceived their satisfaction with evaluation to be

moderate, high or very high in their school district.

Promotion

Table 4-31 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principals in

Central Florida according to their satisfaction with promotion opportunities as a contributor to

organizational climate in their school district. Eleven (11) of these principals (21.6%) indicated

very high satisfaction with promotion, 14 principals (27.4%) rated satisfaction as high, 21

(41.2%) rated their satisfaction moderate, 4 (7.8%) rated satisfaction as low and 1 (2.0%)

reported very low satisfaction with promotion opportunities as a contributor to organizational

climate in their school district. It is noted that 5 principals (9.8%) perceived this variable as

contributing to low or very low satisfaction to the organizational climate in their school district.

Overall, less than half (25) of the respondents (49.0%) perceived their satisfaction with

promotion to be high or very high, while a slight majority (51.0%) of the middle school principal

respondents responding to this question perceived their satisfaction with promotion as a

contributor to organizational climate in their school district to be moderate, low or very low.

Regard for Personal Concern

Table 4-32 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida to their satisfaction with district administrators' regard for their personal concern

and well-being. Of these 51 responses, 24 principals (47.1%) indicated very high satisfaction

with regard to district sensitivity for their personal concern and well-being, 12 principals (23.5%)

rated that sensitivity satisfaction as high, 7 (13.7%) rated it as moderate, 6 (11.8%) rated it low









and 2 (3.9%) rated it very low. Overall, a majority (70.6%) of the middle school principals

responding to this variable perceived their satisfaction with how the district administrators'

sensitivity to their personal concern and well-being impacts organizational climate to be either

high or very high, while most (84.3%) respondents perceived their satisfaction to be moderate,

high or very high.

Summary of Research Question 2 Results

Table 4-33 summarizes the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida who selected a satisfactory rating of "high" or "very high" for each of the seven

variables that contribute to the organizational climate in their school district. Of the seven

variables used to define organizational climate, professional development opportunities clearly

ranked the highest level of satisfaction among principals (86.0%). In descending order, the

frequency of "high" or "very high" levels of satisfaction responses for the remaining variables

was: organizational structure and regard for personal concern (70.6% each), internal

communication (68.0%), evaluation (66.7%), political climate (54.9%), and promotion (49.0%)

in their school districts.

Table 4-34 provides an analysis of the variables which were perceived to be an influence

on principal satisfaction with the organizational climate of a school district. A Pearson's

Product-Moment Correlation was done to better understand the relationships between seven

climate satisfaction variables. If the p value was less than 0.05 (and/or) less than 0.01,

significant correlations were noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**

Results were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negative and significant

or positive and significant. There were no significant positive or negative correlations at the 0.05

level. Positive significant correlation occurred at the .01 level with each variable. The









correlations ranged from a low (.382) between satisfaction with organizational structure and

satisfaction with professional development opportunities to a high (.730) between satisfaction

with organizational structure and satisfaction with internal communication.

Research Question 3

The third research question examined how important seven job satisfaction variables

were to middle school principals in Central Florida. The seven job satisfaction variables under

investigation are listed below and coded as follows:

PDM: Participation in Decision Making
APC: Autonomy, Power and Control
RWP: Relationship with Peers
RWSB: Relationship with Subordinates
RWSP: Relationship with Supervisor
SB: Salary and Benefits
PE: Professional Effectiveness

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of the seven variables using a 5-point

Likert scale, with 5 representing a very high importance to job satisfaction; 4 representing high

importance; 3 representing moderate importance; 2 representing low importance; and 1

representing very low importance to job satisfaction. The mean and standard deviation for each

variable is found in Table 4-35. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven variables

are: professional effectiveness (4.75), relationship with subordinates (4.55), relationship with

peers (4.51), relationship with supervisor (4.49), participation in decision making (4.12), salary

and benefits (4.00), and autonomy, power and control (3.94). Three was the neutral value and all

factors had a mean greater than 3. A description of the results of each factor follows.

Participation in Decision Making

Table 4-36 shows the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central

Florida to the level of importance they give to participation in decision making with job









satisfaction. A total of 51 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 17 (33.3%)

indicated participation in decision making as having a very high level of importance, 26 (51.0%)

rated such participation as having high importance, 5 (9.8%) rated it of moderate importance,

and 3 (5.9%) rated participation in decision making as having low importance to job satisfaction.

Overall, a majority (84.3%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived

the importance of their participation in decision making to be either high or very high, while

most (94.1%) respondents perceived the level of importance regarding their participation in

decision making to have a moderate, high or very high relationship to job satisfaction.

Autonomy, Power and Control

Table 4-37 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida describing the extent to which they view autonomy, power and control as an

important variable to theirjob satisfaction. Of the 51 respondents, 11 (21.6%) indicated this

variable to have a very high level of importance, 26 principals (51.0%) rated it as having high

importance, and 14 (27.4%) rated the importance of autonomy, power and control as moderate.

Overall, a majority (72.6%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived

autonomy, power and control to have either high or very high importance to job satisfaction,

while all (100.0%) respondents perceived autonomy, power and control to have a moderate, high

or very high importance to job satisfaction.

Relationship with Peers

Table 4-38 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals to the

level of importance they give to developing good relationships with peers in their position. Fifty-

one (51) respondents answered this survey question, 32 of them (62.7%) indicating the

importance as very high, 14 (27.5%) rating the importance high, 4 (7.8%) rating this importance









as moderate, and 1 (2.0%) rating their relationship with peers as having low importance to job

satisfaction. Overall, a majority (90.2%) of the middle school principals responding to this

variable perceived their relationship with peers to be of either high or very high importance to

theirjob satisfaction. Most respondents (98.0%) perceived their relationship with peers to have

moderate, high or very high importance to job satisfaction.

Relationship with Subordinates

Table 4-39 documents the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida to the level of importance that their relationship with subordinates has on job

satisfaction. Of the 49 responses, 31 (63.3%) indicated subordinate relationships had very high

importance, 16 principals (32.7%) rated such relationships as having high importance, 1 (2.0%)

rated the importance as moderate, and 1 (2.0%) rated subordinate relationships as having very

low importance to job satisfaction. Overall, a majority (96.0%) of the middle school principals

responding to this variable perceived the level of importance of their relationship with

subordinates to have either high or very high relation to job satisfaction, while most (98.0%)

respondents perceived the importance of subordinate relationships to job satisfaction to be

moderate, high or very high.

Relationship with Supervisor

Table 4-40 shows the distribution of Central Florida middle school principal responses

regarding the level of importance of their relationship with their supervisor as a variable in job

satisfaction. A total of 49 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 28 (57.2%)

indicated a very high level of importance, 18 principals (36.7%) rated this importance as high, 2

(4.1%) rated it as having moderate importance, and 1 (2.0%) reported their relationship with

their supervisor to have low importance to job satisfaction. Overall, a majority (93.9%) of the









middle school principals responding to this variable perceived their relationship with their

supervisor to have high or very high importance tojob satisfaction, while most (98.0%)

respondents perceived their relationship with their supervisor to have moderate, high or very

high importance to their job satisfaction.

Salary and Benefits

Table 4-41 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida to the level of importance that their salary and benefits contribute to job

satisfaction as a middle school principal. A total of 51 respondents answered this survey

question. Of these, 14 (27.5%) indicated salary and benefits were of very high importance, 25

principals (49.0%) rated their importance high, 10 (19.6%) rated this variable as having moderate

importance, and 2 (3.9%) rated salary and benefits as having low importance to job satisfaction.

Overall, a majority (76.5%) of the middle school principals respondents perceived their salary

and benefits to have either a high or very high relationship with job satisfaction, while nearly all

respondents (96.1%) perceived salary and benefits as having moderate, high or very high

importance to job satisfaction.

Professional Effectiveness

Table 4-42 provides the distribution of middle school principal responses to the level of

importance that their professional effectiveness has to job satisfaction. Fifty-one (51)

respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 38 (74.5%) indicated professional

effectiveness has a very high level of importance to job satisfaction; another 13 principals

(25.5%) rated importance of professional effectiveness as high. Overall, all of the middle school

principals (100%) responding to this question perceived professional effectiveness to have either

high or very high importance to their job satisfaction (Table 4-46).









Overall Satisfaction with Principal Position and School District

Table 4-43 shows the distribution of responses from 51 Central Florida middle school

principals to the level of overall satisfaction with their position as a middle school principal. Of

those respondents, 21 (41.2%) indicated their overall satisfaction was very high, 19 (37.3%)

rated their overall satisfaction was high, 7 (13.7%) rated their overall satisfaction was moderate,

and 4 (7.8%) reported their overall satisfaction as a middle school principal was low. A majority

(78.5%) of the middle school principals reported their overall job satisfaction to be either high or

very high, while most (92.2%) respondents perceived their overall level of job satisfaction to be

moderate, high or very high.

Table 4-44 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida to the level of their overall satisfaction with their school district as a variable of

job satisfaction. Fifty (50) respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 16 (32.0%)

indicated a very high level of overall satisfaction with their school district, 20 principals (40.0%)

rated their satisfaction as high, 6 (12.0%) rated their satisfaction as moderate, and 8 (16.0%)

rated overall satisfaction with their school district as low. Overall, a majority (72.0%) of the

middle school principals responding to this question perceived their satisfaction with their school

district to be either high or very high, while most (84.0%) respondents perceived their overall

level of satisfaction with the school district to be moderate, high or very high.

The mean and standard deviation for overall satisfaction with the middle school principal

position and the school district is reported in Table 4-45. Respondents rated both factors

generally positively as 3 was the neutral value and both had a mean greater than 3; position

satisfaction (4.1) and school district satisfaction (3.9). Thus, the relationship between both









overall satisfaction with their position as principal and overall satisfaction with the school district

is linked closely with job satisfaction.

Summary of Research Question 3 Results

Table 4-46 documents the distribution of responses from middle school principals in

Central Florida according to selecting a rating of "high" or "very high" for the level of

importance for each variable. Of the seven variables used to explore job satisfaction in this

study, professional effectiveness was the variable all (100%) principals perceived to have "high"

or "very high" importance to job satisfaction. In descending order, the frequency responses for

the rest of the variables are: relationship with subordinates (96.0%), relationship with supervisor

(93.9%), relationship with peers (90.2%), participation in decision making (84.3%), salary and

benefits (76.5%) and autonomy, power and control (72.6%) response rate for a "high" or "very

high" level of importance to job satisfaction as a middle school principal.

In addition, Table 4-47 provides an analysis of the job satisfier variables identified for

this study and rated by middle school principal respondents. A Pearson's Product-Moment

Correlation was computed to better understand the relationships between and among these job

satisfaction variables. If the p value was less than 0.05 (and/or) less than 0.01, significant

correlations were noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results

were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negative and significant or

positive and significant. No significant negative correlations were found at either the 0.05 or

0.01 levels. Significant positive correlation occurred at the .05 level between participation in

decision making and salary and benefits (.306); between autonomy, power and control and

relationship with subordinates (.290); and between autonomy, power and control and

professional effectiveness (.338). Positive significant correlation also occurred at the .01 level









between participation in decision making and autonomy, power and control (.360); and between

relationship with subordinates and relationship with supervisor (.716).

Research Question 4

The fourth research question asked if there were significant relationships, according to

Central Florida middle school principals, between measures of job satisfaction and

organizational climate factors, as well as satisfaction with the position. The construct of

organizational climate was examined utilizing the following seven identified organizational

climate variables:

1. Internal Communication (IC): the school district's formal interaction process
between the faculty, staff and the district

2. Organizational Structure (OS): the school district's hierarchy of structure.

3. Political Climate (PC): the nature and complexity of the school district's internal
and external policies.

4. Professional Development Opportunities (PDO): the chance for principals to
participate in personal training to enhance job performance.

5. Evaluation (EVAL): the school district's procedure for assessing the performance of
middle school principals.

6. Promotion (PRO): the school district's commitment to internal promotion and
advancement from within the organization.

7. Regard for Personal Concern (RPC): the school district's sensitivity to and regard
for an individual middle school principal's well-being.

The construct of job satisfaction was examined in relationship to the seven organizational

climate variables previously mentioned. The following are a list of the identified job satisfaction

variables:

1. Participation in Decision Making (PDM): the district's executive processes
and the middle school principal's opportunity for involvement in the process.









2. Autonomy, Power and Control (APC): the degree of independence, authority,
and jurisdiction held by middle school principals.

3. Relationship with Colleagues: the quality of the principal's interactions
with peers (RWP), subordinates (RWSB), and supervisors (RWSP).

4. Salary and Benefits (SB): the wages and insurance plans for middle school
principals.

5. Professional Effectiveness (PE): the perceived overall efficiency of middle
school principals in their job.

A Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation was done to better understand the relationships

between and among these factors. The results are displayed in Table 4-48. Relationships were

considered significant if the value was less than .05 and highly significant if less than .01. If the

p value was less than 0.05 (and/or) less than 0.01, significant correlations were noted by a single

asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on two-tailed tests.

Correlations so noted could be negative and significant or positive and significant.

No significant negative relationships were found at the .05 or .01 levels. Significant

positive relationships were found at the .05 level with participation in decision making and

evaluation (.291) and relationship with supervisor and evaluation (.291). Significant positive

relationships at the .01 level include relationship with subordinates and professional development

opportunities (.401) and relationship with supervisor and professional development opportunities

(.507). Overall satisfaction with the position had significant positive relationships at the .01

level with each organizational climate variable and are listed in descending order: overall

satisfaction with the district (.723), regard for personal concern (.625), evaluation (.555),

promotion (.535), internal communication (.526), professional development opportunities (.485),

political climate (.462), and organizational structure (.408). Overall satisfaction with the school

district also had significant positive relationships at the .01 level with all organizational climate









variables. These relationships, in descending order are: evaluation (.841), regard for personal

concern (.772), political climate (.750), overall satisfaction with position (.723), internal

communication (.702), promotion (.684), organizational structure (.613), and professional

development opportunities (.607).

Research Question 5

The fifth, and final, research question asked if the importance and satisfaction ratings of

institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principals in Central Florida.

Two analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed using the SPSS General Linear Model

(GLM) one-way ANOVA to answer this question. In the first analysis the dependent variable

was the total score of means for Part II, Section B, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics.

The independent variables were categorized as follows: (a) the principals' gender, age, and

ethnicity; (b) the principals' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in

current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a

mentor; and (c) the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of

students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three

years.

Table 4-49 documents Central Florida middle school principals' gender, age and ethnicity

to see if any of these demographic factors were statistically significant predictors for rating the

satisfaction with institutional characteristics. Table 4-50 provides the significance of principal

respondents' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position,

annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor to the

satisfaction with institutional characteristics and Table 4-51 shows the significance of the

district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and









reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. None of the

results from these three analyses were statistically significant indicating that the effect of these

demographic variables did not affect the ratings of the satisfaction with institutional

characteristics for middle school principals in Central Florida.

In the second analysis the dependent variable was the total score of means for Part II,

Section C, Importance of Position Characteristics. The independent variables were categorized

as follows: (a) the principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; (b) the principals' level of education,

length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an

induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and (c) the district, school location (urban,

suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+

Plan grades designated for the past three years.

Table 4-52 provides the significance of Central Florida middle school principals' gender,

age and ethnicity to ratings of importance of position characteristics. Table 4-53 provides

middle school principal respondents' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of

time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of

a mentor to see if any of these variables were statistically significant. A significant relationship

was found with the assignment of a mentor affecting the ratings of importance of position

characteristics, as evidenced by F(1,49)=5.409, p<.05. A post hoc test was not used because

there were fewer than three groups.

Table 4-54 analyzed the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size,

percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past

three years to see if any of these school or district factors were statistically significant. No

significant differences were found.









Summary of Research Question 5

Responses from middle school principals in Central Florida revealed a statistically

significant relationship between the assignment of a mentor as a predictor for the ratings of

importance of position characteristics. None of the other demographic variables including the

principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; or the principals' level of education, length of time as a

principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program;

or the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free

and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years were found to

be statistically significant predictors of the ratings of the satisfaction with institutional

characteristics and importance of position characteristics.

Central Florida Middle School Principal Comments

The final part of the study included a short-response question that provided participants

with an opportunity to express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or

eliminated from their role that would increase their overall job satisfaction with the middle

school principalship. Forty (40) principals commented on different aspects of their role that

either add or distract from their overall job satisfaction. The responses fell into a variety of

categories including local control, tenure, time constraints, support, and other.

Many of the principals expressed a desire for more local control in order to implement

discipline for ESE students and regulate class size based on instructional needs rather than on a

state statute that is not funded. One principal commented that state and federal mandates

"routinely demonstrate little or no understanding of conditions on the ground." Another

principal explained that he would be leaving education after 23 years of service because of a lack









of understanding from state and federal agencies of what it takes to effectively lead a school as

demonstrated by the unrealistic mandates of NCLB and AYP.

I would eliminate the punishment at the state and federal level caused by NCLB.
I would lobby at the state level to make our legislators understand the real factors that go
into a school attaining AYP. While the state and federal government seem to find only
one factor in a school becoming successful...that being the staff... I would propose to
help them understand that many factors influence a student's academic success...I have a
problem when NONE of the middle schools in the county (with the exception of the
small magnet schools) have made AYP, but only the two Title I middle schools face
restructuring and were told that the entire staff may be moved and/or principal and
administrative staff s futures are uncertain.

High-stakes testing was mentioned as an aspect of the job that needed to be eliminated because

"Excessive emphasis is placed on high-stakes testing" and "The stress that is put on everyone

with the FCAT-specifically the school grading" has a negative effect on job satisfaction.

Many principals also voiced concerns about district interruptions with last minute requests from

multiple departments that do not communicate and the sheer volume of paperwork/computer

input that can monopolize their time and keep them from being an instructional leader.

One aspect currently is the increased amount of paperwork and data that a principal is
responsible for. This takes away time that should be spent with students and teachers.

The daily interruptions/requests from personnel at the county office for an endless stream
of information and data (i.e., Please submit by...). Let me do my job-focusing on the
needs of my students, staff and school.

The amount of time on District mandated tasks could be reduced.

My greatest problem exists when different departments at the district level all have their
reports due at the same time. The amount of paperwork/computer input seems
overwhelming at times when trying to run a school with all the problems of students and
faculty that go along with it.

Many principals also requested more autonomy to make site-based decisions.

More support for decisions made by principals and more autonomy for principals to run
their schools is needed.









I would add school-based decision-making authority. The district should be there to
support the school principal, not visa versa.

Allow the principal great flexibility with discipline. Especially if there are safety
concerns.

More control over hiring of personnel-Not allowing the county to place ineffective
personnel in our schools.

I would like to have more voice in policies that effect (sic) personnel.

More local control.

Several principals expressed a desire to eliminate tenure in order to improve the quality

of instruction. Having the power to remove an ineffective teacher immediately would have a

direct affect on the quality of instruction in their schools. The removal of tenure would also

ensure job security of those teachers who are on annual contract and highly effective by

eliminating the fear of being bumped by a teacher with tenure who could be a lot less effective.

This would also assist principals with developing a culture of trust with new teachers instead of a

culture of fear-a fear of losing their position their first three years of employment despite

effective performance.

The system protects the ineffective teacher far too much.

Do away with tenure for all employees.

Power to put every faculty and staff member on annual contract in order to promote
continued effectiveness.

Tenure... needs to go.

I wish all staff members were on annual contract and were paid higher for giving up
professional service contract safety provisions. Kids would benefit.

I would eliminate the possibility of losing highly qualified and dedicated teachers who
are annual contract teachers, and may be bumped out of a job because of another
teacher's seniority at a school that is downsizing. I spent my first three years building a
faculty that is cohesive and positive, the anxiety of possibly losing one that is an asset
wreaks havoc on planning, and on the teachers themselves.









One principal commented on the challenge to balance work and home, and manager

versus instructional leader "Manager vs instructional leader... too much management...need to

balance time to be effective in both areas... and still have a life." Others requested more time

added to the school day to assist with staff development and planning or more support staff. One

principal stated she/he would like to have "more time to work with and conference with teachers,

students, and parents." The elimination of supervision from the principal's role such as facilities,

maintenance, and custodians would provide principals with more time to supervise and monitor

the instructional practices as the primary responsibility in order to keep the school's focus on

student achievement.

I would eliminate the responsibility for facilities maintenance and operation. This
responsibility is very time intensive and requires principals to spend many hours
supervising custodians and maintenance issues. If another layer of building supervisor
existed to manage facilities, many hours would be given back to principals of the
school-this is our primary responsibility in order to improve the level of student
achievement.

Some principals would have liked a mentor or ajob coach to guide them through their

first year. One principal commented on being an African American male and feeling "as if I am

on an island by myself' as he was unsuccessful forging relationships or a mentorship with other

African American male administrators because there were none.

A few principals expressed a desire to be paid more and have consideration for higher

degrees while a few expressed a high level of satisfaction including one who said, "I am very

satisfied with my job and would not change anything about it at this time" and another who

desired not to change any aspect of her job even though she recognized how stressful the position

has become. Finally, another principal expressed that every aspect was important and that "time

and experience will.. result in increased job satisfaction."









Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among the middle

school principals in Central Florida and to identify the variables that enhance or detract from job

satisfaction and organizational climate. The study also examined if there was a difference in

means forjob satisfaction by analyzing demographic variables including: the principals' gender,

age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time

in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a

mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of

students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three

years.

A total of 97 electronic surveys were sent via e-mail to middle school principals in Central

Florida. Fifty-one (51) surveys were returned, representing a 53% return rate. Some returned

surveys had missing items; however, all responses were recorded and utilized in the analysis.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0, was used and provided; (a)

comprehensive calculation of descriptive statistics, (b) frequency distributions, (c) correlation

coefficients and (d) analysis of variance. All significant p values and correlations have been

marked with an asterisk (*) on all the tables. All procedures were calculated using an alpha level

of .05 and/or .01.

From the data generated by this study the profile of a "typical" Central Florida middle

school principal was likely to be a white/Caucasian (84.0%) male (56.9%) between 41 and 50

years of age (41.7%) with a master's degree (64.7%). The principal had four to seven years of

experience as a principal (36.0%) with one to three of those years in their current school

(44.0%). The principal earns between $80,000 and $90,000 per year (47.0%), participated in an









induction program prior to becoming a principal (72.5%) and was assigned a mentor after

becoming a principal (56.9%). The principal is likely to work in a suburban district (56.0%), in a

school with a population between 1000-1500 students (62.7%) with 26% to 50% of the students

on free and reduced-priced lunch (41.2%). Based on FCAT performance, the school will not

have received an A grade from the Florida Department of Education in the past three years

(34.0%).

The first research question asked the extent to which middle school principals report the

presence of seven identified organizational climate factors including internal communication,

organizational structure, political climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation,

promotion, and regard for personal concern. Respondents were asked to rate the seven variables

using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representing a very high presence; 4 representing a high

presence; 3 representing a moderate presence; 2 representing a low presence; and 1 representing

a very low presence.

The three climate variables receiving the highest mean rating (Table 4-15) were

professional development opportunities (4.53), organizational structure (4.45), and internal

communication (4.02). The two climate variables receiving the lowest mean ratings were

promotion (3.76) and political climate (3.87). A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was

conducted (Table 4-24) and there were negative significant correlations at the .05 level between

internal communication and political climate (-.324) and between political climate and

evaluation (-.335). Positive significant correlation occurred at the p<.01 level between internal

communication and evaluation (.441), internal communication and promotion (.396), internal

communication and regard for personal concern (.455), professional development opportunities

and evaluation (.427), evaluation and promotion (.516), evaluation and regard for personal









concern (.595) and promotion and regard for personal concern (.622). Negative significant

correlations at the p<.01 level occurred between political climate and promotion (-.398), and

political climate and regard for personal concern (-.431).

The second research question asked to what extent middle school principals are satisfied

with the organizational climate in their school districts (Table 4-34). The same climate variables

were applied. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted and positive significant

correlation occurred at the .01 level in all variables. The correlations ranged from a low (.382)

between satisfaction with organizational structure and satisfaction with professional development

opportunities to a high (.730) between satisfaction with organizational structure and satisfaction

with internal communication.

The three climate variables receiving the highest mean rating (Table 4-25) were

professional development opportunities (4.30), regard for personal concern (3.98), and

organizational structure (3.94). The two climate variables receiving the lowest mean ratings were

promotion (3.59) and political climate (3.43).

The third research question examined how important seven job satisfaction variables

were to middle school principals in Central Florida. The seven job satisfaction variables under

investigation are as follows: participation in decision making, autonomy, power and control,

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

effectiveness. Respondents were asked to rate the seven variables using a 5-point Likert scale. A

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted (Table 4-47) and positive significant

correlation occurred at the p<.05 level between participation in decision making and salary and

benefits (.306), between autonomy, power and control and relationship with subordinates (.290)

and between autonomy, power and control and professional effectiveness (.338). Positive









significant correlation also occurred at the p<.01 level between participation in decision making

and autonomy, power and control (.360) and between relationship with subordinates and

relationship with supervisor (.716). The three job satisfaction variables receiving the highest

mean rating (Table 4-35) were professional effectiveness (4.75), relationship with subordinates

(4.55), and relationship with peers (4.51). The two job satisfaction variables receiving the lowest

mean ratings were autonomy power and control (3.94) and salary and benefits (4.00).

The fourth research question asked if there were significant relationships, according to

Central Florida middle school principals, between measures of job satisfaction and

organizational climate factors, as well as satisfaction with the position. The construct of

organizational climate was examined utilizing the seven identified organizational climate

variables and the construct of job satisfaction was examined in relationship to the seven

organizational climate variables. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted and the

results are reported in Table 4-48. There were significant positive relationships at the p<.05

level with participation in decision making and evaluation and relationship with supervisor and

evaluation (both .291). Several factors had significant positive relationships at the p<.01 level

including relationship with subordinates and professional development opportunities (.401) and

relationship with supervisor and professional development opportunities (.507). Overall

satisfaction with the position had significant positive relationships at the p<.01 level with all

organizational climate factors and are in descending order as follows: overall satisfaction with

the district (.723), regard for personal concern (.625), promotion (.535), internal communication

(.526), professional development opportunities (.485), political climate (.462), evaluation (.555),

and organizational structure (.408). Overall satisfaction with the district also had significant

positive relationships at the p<.01 level with all organizational climate factors and are in









descending order as follows: evaluation (.841), regard for personal concern (.772), political

climate (.750), overall satisfaction with position (.723), internal communication (.702),

promotion (.684), organizational structure (.613), and professional development opportunities

(.607).

The fifth, and final, research question asked if the importance and satisfaction ratings of

institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principals in Central Florida.

The SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) one way analysis of variance ANOVA was utilized to

answer this question. Results are summarized in Table 4-53. There was only one statistically

significant relationship in the Central Florida middle school principals' ratings of importance of

institutional and position characteristics and it was found to be the assignment of a mentor (.024)

as a predictor for the ratings of importance of position characteristics.

Finally, the study concluded with a short-response question that provided participants

with an opportunity to express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or

eliminated from their position that would increase their overall job satisfaction. The responses

fell into a variety of categories including local control, tenure, time constraints, support, and

other.

Many of the principals expressed a desire for more local control and more autonomy to

make site-based decisions out of a frustration with state and federal mandates such as NCLB,

AYP and high-stakes testing. Principals also expressed a desire to abolish tenure in order to

have the power to remove an ineffective teacher immediately. They commented on the

challenges of balancing work and home responsibilities as well as those of a manager versus

instructional leader. Some principals expressed a sense of isolation and a desire to have a mentor

or ajob coach. A few principals expressed a desire to be paid more while some expressed a high









level of satisfaction and a desire not to change any aspect of their jobs even though they

recognized how stressful the position has become. The consequences of these findings, and their

implications for middle school principals, will be discussed in Chapter 5.









Table 4-1. Gender of Respondents (N=51)
Status n Percentage
Male 29 56.9
Female 22 43.1
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-2. Age of Respondents (N=48)
Age n Percentage
30-40 Years of Age 9 18.7
41-50 Years of Age 20 41.7
51-60 Years of Age 19 39.6
Total 48 100.0


Table 4-3. Ethnicity of Respondents (N=50)
Ethnic Group n Percentage
Asian American 0 0.0
Black/African American 7 14.0
Hispanic 0 0.0
White/Caucasian 42 84.0
Multi-racial 1 2.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-4. Education Level of Respondents (N=51)
Degree n Percentage
Masters 33 64.7
Specialist 4 7.8
Doctorate 14 27.5
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-5. Years of Service as a Middle School Principal (N=50)
Number of Years n Percentage
Less than 1 Year 7 14.0
1 to 3 14 28.0
4 to 7 18 36.0
8 to 10 3 6.0
10 or more 8 16.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-6. Years of Service as a Principal in Current Middle School (N=50)
Number of Years n Percentage
Less than 1 year 9 18.0
1 to 3 22 44.0
4 to 7 13 26.0
8 to 10 4 8.0
10 or more 2 4.0
Total 50 100.0









Table 4-7. Salary of Respondent Middle School Principal (N=51)
Salary n Percentage
Less than $70,000 1 2.0
$70,000-$79,999 15 29.4
$80,000-$89,999 24 47.0
$90,000-$99,999 10 19.6
$100,000 or more 1 2.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-8. Participation in a Principal Induction Program (N=51)
Participation n Percentage
Participated in an induction program before 37 72.5
becoming a principal.
Participated in an induction program after 3 5.9
becoming a principal.
Both 8 15.7
Did not participate in an induction program 3 5.9
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-9. Mentor Status (N=51)
Status n Percentage
Assigned a mentor 29 56.9
Not assigned a mentor 22 43.1
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-10. Principal by School District (N=51)
District n Percentage
County A 8 15.7
County B 0 0.0
County C 25 49.0
County D 1 2.0
County E 9 17.6
County F 5 9.8
County G 3 5.9
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-11. School Classification by Location (N=50)
Area n Percentage
Rural 10 20.0
Suburban 28 56.0
Urban 12 24.0
Total 50 100.0









Table 4-12. School Student Population Size (N=51)
Number of Students n Percentage
Less than 500 1 2.0
500-999 15 29.4
1000-1500 32 62.7
Above 1500 3 5.9


Total


51 100.0


Table 4-13. Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch (N=51)
Percentage of Students n Percentage
0-25 8 15.7
26-50 21 41.2
51-75 13 25.5
76-100 9 17.6
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-14. State of Florida School FCAT Grade for Last Three Years (N=50)
Each Year Received A Rating n Percentage
None in the last three years 17 34.0
One in the last three years 11 22.0
Two in the last three years 6 12.0
Three in the last three years 16 32.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-15. Descriptive Statistics for Presence of Organizational Variables


N

Mean
Std.
Deviation


IC OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC
Valid 51 51 50 51 51 51 51
Missing 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.02 4.45 3.78 4.53 3.88 3.76 3.84
.93 .64 .95 .64 1.03 .89 1.24


Table 4-16. Internal Communication (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very high open communication 17 33.3
High open communication 22 43.1
Some open communication 9 17.7
Usually closed communication 2 3.9
Very closed communication 1 2.0
Total 51 100.0









Table 4-17. Organizational Structure (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very high structure 27 53.0
High structure 20 39.2
Moderate structure 4 7.8
Loose structure 0 0.0
Very loose structure 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-18. Political Climate (N=50)
Rating n Percentage
Very high political climate 11 22.0
High political climate 23 46.0
Moderate political climate 11 22.0
Low political climate 4 8.0
Very Low political climate 1 2.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-19. Professional Development Opportunities (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very high encouragement 31 60.8
High encouragement 16 31.4
Moderate encouragement 4 7.8
Low encouragement 0 0.0
Very low encouragement 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-20. Evaluation (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very high support 16 31.4
High support 19 37.3
Moderate support 12 23.5
Low support 2 3.9
Very low support 2 3.9
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-21. Promotion (N=51)


Rating
Very high encouragement
High encouragement
Moderate encouragement
Low encouragement
Very low encouragement
Total


Percentage
21.6
41.2
29.4
7.8
0.0
100.0









Table 4-22. Regard for Personal Concern (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very high sensitivity 20 39.2
High sensitivity 15 29.4
Moderate sensitivity 7 13.7
Low sensitivity 6 11.8
Very low sensitivity 3 5.9
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-23. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High"
for the Presence of Each Variable
Variable Percent rating as high or very high
Professional development opportunities 92.2
Organizational structure 92.2
Internal communication 76.4
Evaluation 68.7
Regard for personal concern 68.6
Political climate 67.0
Promotion 62.8










Table 4-24. Correlation of Middle School Principals' Perceptions of Organizational


Climate

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


OS
.186


PC
-.324*


.190 .022
51 50
-.238


PD
.217

.126
51
.185


.096 .194
50 51
-.201


EVAL
.441**

.001
51
.082

.569
51
-.335*


.162 .017
50 50
.427**


PRO
.396**

.004
51
.190

.181
51
-.398**

.004
50
.427


.002 .187
51 51
.516**


EVAL Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


RPC
.455**

.001
51
.241

.088
51
-.431**

.002
50
.207

.146
51
.595**


.000 .000
51 51
.622**


.000
51


*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
IC = Internal Communication
OS = Organizational Structure
PC = Political Climate
PDO = Professional Development Opportunities
EVAL = Evaluation
PRO = Promotion

Table 4-25. Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction with Organizational Variables
IC OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC
N Valid 50 51 51 50 51 51 51
Missing 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean 3.86 3.94 3.43 4.30 3.82 3.59 3.98
Std. .90 .97 1.14 .81 .93 .98 1.21
Deviation


PDO


PRO









Table 4-26. Satisfaction with Internal Communication (N=50)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 13 26.0
High Satisfaction 21 42.0
Moderate Satisfaction 12 24.0
Low Satisfaction 4 8.0
Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-27. Satisfaction with Organizational Structure (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 17 33.3
High Satisfaction 19 37.3
Moderate Satisfaction 10 19.6
Low Satisfaction 5 9.8
Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-28. Satisfaction with Political Climate (N=51)
Rating n Percentage


Very High Satisfaction
High Satisfaction
Moderate Satisfaction
Low Satisfaction
Very Low Satisfaction
Total


9 17.6
19 37.3
10 19.6
11 21.6
2 3.9
51 100.0


Table 4-29. Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities (N=50)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 24 48.0
High Satisfaction 19 38.0
Moderate Satisfaction 5 10.0
Low Satisfaction 2 4.0
Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0
Total 50 100.0

Table 4-30. Satisfaction with Evaluation Process (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 13 25.5
High Satisfaction 21 41.2
Moderate Satisfaction 12 23.5
Low Satisfaction 5 9.8
Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0









Table 4-31. Satisfaction with Promotion Opportunities (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 11 21.6
High Satisfaction 14 27.4
Moderate Satisfaction 21 41.2
Low Satisfaction 4 7.8
Very Low Satisfaction 1 2.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-32. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concern (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 24 47.1
High Satisfaction 12 23.5
Moderate Satisfaction 7 13.7
Low Satisfaction 6 11.8
Very Low Satisfaction 2 3.9
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-33. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High"
for the Satisfaction with Each Variable
Variable Percent rating as high or very high
Professional Development Opportunities 86.0
Organizational Structure 70.6
Regard for Personal Concern 70.6
Internal Communication 68.0


Evaluation
Political Climate
Promotion


66.7
54.9
49.0










Table 4-34. Correlation of Middle School Principals' Perceptions of Organizational


Climate Satisfaction
OS PC


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


.730** .650**

.000 .000
50 50
.624**


PD
.504**

.000
49
.382**


.000 .006
51 50
.541**


EVAL
.666**

.000
50
.587**

.000
51
.697**


.000 .000
50 51
.551**


PRO
.593**

.000
50
.541**

.000
51
.646**

.000
51
.481**


.000 .000
50 50
.618**


EVAL Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


RPC
.664**

.000
50
.700**

.000
51
.560**

.000
51
.458**

.001
50
.690**


.000 .000
51 51
.666**


*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
IC = Satisfaction with internal communication
OS = Satisfaction with organizational structure
PC = Satisfaction with political climate
PDO = Satisfaction with professional development opportunities
EVAL = Satisfaction with evaluation
PRO = Satisfaction with promotion


.000
51


PDO


PRO









Table 4-35.


Descriptive Statistics for Importance of Job Satisfaction
PDM APC RWP RWSB RWSP
Valid 51 51 51 49 49
Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00


Mean 4.12 3.94 4.51 4.55
Std. .82 .71 .73 .74
Deviation
PDM = Importance of Participation with Decision Making
APC = Importance of Autonomy, Power and Control
RWP = Importance of Relationship with Peers
RWSB = Importance of Relationship with Subordinates
RWSP = Importance of Relationship with Supervisor
SB = Importance of Salary and Benefits
PE = Importance of Professional Effectiveness


4.49
.68


Variables
SB PE
51 51
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.75
.80 .44


Table 4-36. Participation in Decision Making (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Importance 17 33.3
High Importance 26 51.0
Moderate Importance 5 9.8
Low Importance 3 5.9
Very Low Importance 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-37. Autonomy, Power and Control (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Importance 11 21.6
High Importance 26 51.0
Moderate Importance 14 27.4
Low Importance 0 0.0
Very Low Importance 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-38. Relationship with Peers (N=51)


Rating n
Very High Importance 32
High Importance 14
Moderate Importance 4
Low Importance 1
Very Low Importance 0
Total 51


Percentage
62.7
27.5
7.8
2.0
0.0
100.0









Table 4-39. Relationship with Subordinates (N=49)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Importance 31 63.3
High Importance 16 32.7
Moderate Importance 1 2.0
Low Importance 0 0.0
Very Low Importance 1 2.0
Total 49 100.0

Table 4-40. Relationship with Supervisor (N=49)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Importance 28 57.2
High Importance 18 36.7
Moderate Importance 2 4.1
Low Importance 1 2.0
Very Low Importance 0 0.0
Total 49 100.0

Table 4-41. Salary and Benefits (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Importance 14 27.5
High Importance 25 49.0
Moderate Importance 10 19.6
Low Importance 2 3.9
Very Low Importance 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-42. Professional Effectiveness (N=51)


Rating n
Very High Importance 38
High Importance 13
Moderate Importance 0
Low Importance 0
Very Low Importance 0
Total 51


Percentage
74.5
25.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0


Table 4-43. Overall Satisfaction with Middle School Principal Position (N=51)
Rating n Percentage
Very High Satisfaction 21 41.2
High Satisfaction 19 37.3
Moderate Satisfaction 7 13.7
Low Satisfaction 4 7.8
Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0









Table 4-44. Overall Satisfaction with
Rating
Very High Satisfaction
High Satisfaction
Moderate Satisfaction
Low Satisfaction
Very Low Satisfaction
Total


School District (N=50)
n Percentage
16 32.0
20 40.0
6 12.0
8 16.0
0 0.0
50 100.0


Table 4-45. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Position and District Satisfaction
Position District
N Valid 51 50
Missing 0.00 1.00
Mean 4.12 3.88
Std. .93 1.04
Deviation

Table 4-46. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of "High" or "Very High"
for the Importance of Each Variable
Variable Percent rating as high or very


Professional Effectiveness
Relationship with Subordinates
Relationship with Supervisor
Relationship with Peers
Participation in Decision Making
Salary and Benefits
Autonomy, Power and Control


high
100.0
96.0
93.9
90.2
84.3
76.5
72.6









Table 4-47. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Job Satisfaction Variables


PDM



APC



RWP


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


APC
.360**

.009
51


RWP
-.035

.805
51
-.057


RWSB
.167

.252
49
.290*


.691 .043
51 49
.030

.840
49


RWSB Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
RWSP Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
SB Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


RWSP
.206

.155
49
.260

.072
49
.176

.227
49
.716**


.000
48


*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
PDM = Satisfaction with Participation of Decision Making
APC = Satisfaction with Autonomy, Power and Control
RWP = Satisfaction with Relationship with Peers
RWSB = Satisfaction with Relationship with Subordinates
RWSP = Satisfaction with Relationship with Supervisor
SB = Satisfaction with Salary and Benefits
PE = Satisfaction with Professional Effectiveness


SB
.306*

.029
51
.248

.079
51
.171

.230
51
-.121

.407
49
.095


PE
.252

.074
51
.338*

.015
51
.039

.786
51
.170

.243
49
.203


.517 .163
49 49
.227


.109
51









Table 4-48. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Relationship Between Measures of Job
Satisfaction, Measures of Organizational Climate and Overall Job Satisfaction


IC OS PC PDO EVAL


PDM



APC



RWP


Pearson .214 .060 .268 .249
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .137 .678 .057 .081
N 50 51 51 50


.291*


.038
51


Pearson .079 .024 -.018 .129 .075
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .079 .866 .902 .372 .600
N 50 51 51 50 51
Pearson .200 .071 .139 .085 .193
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .165 .618 .330 .556 .174
N 50 51 51 50 51


RWSB Pearson .088 .035 .024 .401** .106
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .546 .088 .870 .005 .468
N 49 49 49 48 49
RWSP Pearson .283* .250 .165 .507** .291*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .084 .258 .000 .042
N 49 49 49 48 49
SB Pearson -.004 .000 .176 -.054 -.054
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .978 1.000 .216 .712 .708
N 50 51 51 50 51
PE Pearson .069 -.036 .024 .164 .034
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .634 .802 .866 .255 .810
N 50 51 51 50 51


PRO RPC SWPOS
.186 .002 .192

.191 .987 .177
51 51 51
.109 -.119 .072

.448 .406 .617
51 51 51
.186 .147 .204

.190 .302 .151
51 51 51
.186 .164 .127

.202 .261 .383
49 49 49
.180 .225 .278

.215 .121 .053
49 49 49
.000 -.228 .227

1.000 .108 .109
51 51 51
.030 -.085 -.072


.835 .554
51 51


.617
51


SWPOS Pearson .526** .408** .462** .485** .555** .535** .625** 1.000
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51


SWDIS Pearson .702** .613** .750** .607** .841
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 49 50 50 49 50
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
IC = Internal Communication
OS = Organizational Structure
PC = Political Climate
PDO = Professional Development Opportunities


** .684** .772** .723**


.000 .000
50 50


.000
50


SWDIS
.255

.074
50
.100

.489
50
.136

.345
50
.124

.399
48
.251

.085
48
-.188

.186
51
.025

.861
50
.723**


50
1.000


50









Table 4-48. Continued
EVAL = Evaluation
PRO = Promotion
RPC = Regard for Personal Concern
PDM = Participation in Decision Making
APC = Autonomy, Power and Control
RWP = Relationship with Peers
RWSB = Relationship with Subordinates
RWSP = Relationship with Supervisor
SB = Salary and Benefits
PE = Professional Effectiveness
SWPOS = Satisfaction with Position
SWDIS = Satisfaction with District

Table 4-49. One-Way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal
Demographic Data
Sums of df Mean F Sig
squares squares
Gender Between groups .127 1 .127 .191 .664
Within groups 32.714 49 .668
Total 32.841 50
Age Between groups 8.813 25 .353 .384 .989
Within groups 20.218 22 .919
Total 20.031 47
Ethnicity Between groups .677 3 .226 .330 .804
Within groups 32.164 47 .684
Total 32.841 50









Table 4-50. One-Way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal
Education/Experience
Sums of df Mean F Sig


Level of education


Years as a principal


Years in current school


Annual salary


Participation in an
induction program

Assignment of a mentor


Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total


squares
.977
31.864
32.841
10.354
22.113
32.466
8.640
23.826
32.466
.968
31.873
32.841
.779
32.062
32.841
1.365
31.477
32.841


squares
.488
.664

.647
.670

.864
.611

.242
.693

.260
.682

1.365
.642


.736 .484


.996 .512


1.414 .210


.349 .843


.381 .767


2.125 .151









Table 4-51. One-Way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and School


Demographic Data


School district Between groups
Within groups
Total
School location Between groups
Within groups
Total
School size Between groups
Within groups
Total
Percent of students on free Between groups
and reduced lunch Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (No A's in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (One A in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (Two A's in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (Three A's Between groups
in last three years) Within groups
Total


Sums of df Mean F Sig


squares
10.272
22.569
32.841
.272
32.569
32.841
.498
32.343
32.841
3.731
29.110
32.841
2.334
30.507
32.841
.104
32.737
32.841
.148
32.694
32.841
.962
31.879
32.841


squares
1.027
.564

.091
.693

.166
.688

1.244
.619

2.334
.623

.104
.668

.148
.667

.962
.651


1.821 .088


.131 .941


.241 .867


2.008 .126


3.749 .059


.156 .694


.221 .640


1.479 .230


Table 4-52. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal
Demographic Data


Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total


Sums of
squares
.040
8.571
8.611
3.468
4.783
8.250
.273
8.338
8.611


df Mean F Sig


squares
.040
.175

.139
.217

.091
.177


.229 .635


.638 .861


.513 .675


Gender


Age


Ethnicity









Table 4-53. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal
Education/Experience
Sums of df Mean F Sig


Level of education


Years as a principal


Years in current school


Annual salary


Participation in an
induction program

Assignment of a mentor


Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total


squares
.243
8.368
8.611
3.557
4.972
8.529
1.719
6.810
8.529
.211
8.400
8.611
.476
8.135
8.611
.856
7.755
8.611


squares
.122
.174

.222
.151

.172
.175

.053
.183

.159
.173

.856
.158


.697 .503


1.476 .168


.984 .473


.289 .883


.917 .440


5.409 .024*









Table 4-54. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and School


Demographic Data


School district Between groups
Within groups
Total
School location Between groups
Within groups
Total
School size Between groups
Within groups
Total
Percent of students on free Between groups
and reduced lunch Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (No A's in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (One A in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (Two A's in Between groups
the last three years) Within groups
Total
FCAT Grade (Three A's Between groups
in last three years) Within groups
Total


Sums of df Mean F Sig


squares
1.300
7.311
8.611
.446
8.165
8.611
.186
8.425
8.611
.086
8.524
8.611
.155
8.496
8.611
.535
8.076
8.611
.603
8.008
8.611
.085
8.526
8.611


squares
.130
.183

.149
.174

.062
.179

.029
.181

.155
.173

.535
.165

.603
.163

.085
.174


.711 .709


.856 .471


.345 .793


.159 .923


.661 .420


3.247 .078


3.691 .061


.487 .489









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was conducted to analyze the relationship between various aspects of

organizational climate and job satisfaction as it relates to middle school principals in Central

Florida. Further, this study investigated if job satisfaction varied as a function of particular

demographic characteristics. The research specifically addressed the following five questions:

1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified
organizational climate factors (internal communication, organizational structure, political
climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard for
personal concern) in their school district?

2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with
the organizational climate in their school districts?

3. How important are the five identified job satisfaction variables (participation in
decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and
benefits; and professional effectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance
of their duties?

4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational
climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position among the Central Florida
middle school principals?

5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics
differ for middle school principals related to the following demographic variables: the
principals' gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals' level of education, length of time as
a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction
program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urban, suburban
or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan
grades designated for the past three years?

Design of the Study

A survey instrument from existing studies on job satisfaction and organizational climate

factors in the work place was used to gather data needed to address the research questions (Levy,

1989; Palmer, 1995; Chappell, 1995; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Lefevre, 2004;

Stephens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005). The survey (Appendix C) was adapted from Chappell (1995)









to address the specific population of middle school principals. The population for this study

included public middle school principals in seven Central Florida counties (N=97). The sample

included those middle school principals who completed the electronic survey. This was a

voluntary response sample. They were informed that all responses would be kept confidential to

the extent provided by law. They completed the questionnaire and demographic questions

electronically and submitted it to a secure server at the University of Florida. Fifty-one (N=51)

surveys were completed yielding a response rate of 53%. The responses from these surveys were

statistically analyzed to answer the five research questions.

Findings

The focus of this study was on the position of middle school principal in Central Florida.

The role of the middle school principal has been described as key instructional leader, initiator of

change, school manager, personnel administrator, problem solver, and the "boundary spanner"

for the school (Goldring, 1990; Fullan, 1991; Vandenberghe, 1995). For the purpose of this

study, middle school principal refers to the lead administrator serving adolescents in grades 6

through 8.

Demographic Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida

A middle school principal in Central Florida participating in this study was likely to be a

white/Caucasian (84.0%) male (56.9%) between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%) with a master's

degree (64.7%). This profile is similar to findings in previous studies of educational leaders

using this same survey instrument which found educational leaders to be white/Caucasian males

(Chappell, 1995; Evans 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Peek, 2003). This profile is also similar to

findings in previous studies of middle school administrators which found middle school

principals to be white/Caucasian males with master's degrees (Doud, 1989; Doud & Keller,









1998; Newby 1999; Turner, 2006). The campus that he works on is located in a suburban area

(56.0%) similar to Newby's study in 1999. Doud and Keller (1998) found principals to fit the

same profile and that they were likely to have four to seven years of experience as a principal

(36.0%). In this study, one to three of those years were in their current school (44.0%).

Research Question 1

Middle school principals in Central Florida perceived the seven measures of

organizational climate in a generally positive light. The factors analyzed were internal

communication, organizational structure, political climate, professional development

opportunities, evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concern. Similar to findings in

Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), Stephens (2004), and Reynolds (2006), the

highest mean scores were reported in the areas of professional development opportunities (4.53),

organizational structure (4.45), and internal communication (4.02). The data from Part II,

Section A suggested that middle school principals in Central Florida thought they worked in

districts that encouraged professional development, had clear hierarchical structures, and an

effective formal interaction process that promoted internal communication. Yet, when principals

had the opportunity to speak in their own words at the end of the survey, they repeatedly

complained about district interruptions and requests with unreasonable timelines that may pull a

principal away from their instructional supervision responsibilities. They also complained that

the district did not communicate effectively between departments causing principals to respond

to several people about the same issue.

The responses of middle school principals in Central Florida yielded the lowest mean

score for promotion (3.76), which was also the lowest rated organizational climate factor for

Stephens (2004) and Reynolds (2006). A low score for promotion indicated that middle school









principals in Central Florida were not as confident with their school district's commitment to

internal promotion and advancement within the organization as they were with the other

organizational climate factors.

The organizational climate factor, political climate, was significantly negatively

correlated to the climate factors internal communication (-.324), evaluation (-.335), promotion

(-.398) and regard for personal concern (-.431). These results are consistent with other studies

using the same survey instrument (Chappell, 1995; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Stephens,

2004). These data may suggest that formal interactions between the principal and the district and

the assessment of principal performance are negatively associated in a highly political

environment along with opportunities for advancement and a regard for the principal's well-

being. Significant positive relationships between the organizational factor internal

communication and evaluation (.441), promotion (.396), and regard for personal concern (.455),

suggest that when formal interaction processes are present, perceptions of assessment,

opportunities for advancement and concern for personal well-being are elevated. Comparable to

Peek (2003) other positive relationships were found between the organizational factors of

evaluation and professional development opportunities (.427), promotion (.516), and regard for

personal concern (.595), revealing that the assessment of middle school principals is positively

associated with professional growth, opportunities for advancement and a sensitivity to their

personal well-being.

Research Question 2

Using the same 7 climate factors, middle school principals in Central Florida reported a

high overall satisfaction with organizational climate factors as indicated in the mean distribution

(Table 4-25). Satisfaction with regard to professional development opportunities (4.30), regard









for personal concern (3.98), and organizational structure (3.94) were the three most highly rated

factors. Internal communication (3.86) is not rated in the top three as it was in perception of

organizational climate and is followed by evaluation (3.82) when principals considered their

level of satisfaction with the organizational climate factors. These findings are also comparable

to Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003) and Stephens (2004). The lowest rated factor,

political climate (3.43), was consistent with findings in Chappell (1995). This shows that middle

school principals in Central Florida are less satisfied in a highly political climate.

In addition, Central Florida middle school principals' overall satisfaction with their

position was high (4.12) (Table 4-45). The most frequent response was that middle school

principals in Central Florida had a "very high satisfaction" with their position (41.2%) (Table 4-

43). The mean overall score for satisfaction with their district (3.88) was slightly lower than

overall satisfaction with their position (4.12). The most frequent response (40.0%) (Table 4-44)

was "high satisfaction" for Central Florida middle school principals' overall satisfaction with

their school district. This indicates that most respondents are satisfied with their positions and

districts, but they could be more satisfied with each.

When examining the relationships between the organizational factors as they related to

middle school principals' satisfaction with each factor, a significant relationship was found

between all factors (Table 4-34). My data indicate that the satisfaction with each factor

significantly influences the satisfaction level of every other factor. The significance of these

relationships may warrant further study to examine the relevance of each of the organizational

climate factors and how they influence the job satisfaction of principals.









Research Question 3

The analysis of means shows that middle school principals in Central Florida indicated

that all 7 job satisfaction variables were important in performing their job responsibilities (Table

4-35). The job satisfaction variables under investigation were participation in decision making;

autonomy, power and control; relationship with peers, subordinates, and supervisors; salary and

benefits; and professional effectiveness. The highest score was found when these principals

were asked about the importance of professional effectiveness (4.75). All (100%) (Table 4-46)

of the respondents rated professional effectiveness as "very high importance" or "high

importance" with regard to their position as a middle school principal. Relationships with

subordinates (4.55), peers (4.51) and supervisors (4.49) were also highly rated, followed closely

by the importance of decision making (4.12). However, salary and benefits and autonomy,

power, and control were found to be less important to these middle school principals than the

other factors. These findings are consistent with previous research conducted by Levy (1989),

Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), and Stephens (2004) using the same survey

instrument. These data suggest that competence at work is linked to self-esteem and therefore

consistent with Herzberg's theory which lists achievement, recognition, and work itself as the

best motivation for workers.

The mean responses to the importance of participation with decision making (4.12) were

followed by salary and benefits (4.00). This finding is consistent with Herzberg's Motivation

Hygiene Theory that examined hygiene (extrinsic) factors of company policy, supervision,

working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, and status and found that they did not

influence motivation and were not central to job satisfaction (Herzberg, et al 1959). These

results are consistent with the claims of other studies that salary and benefits were not essential









tojob satisfaction (Levy, 1989; Chappell, 1995; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003;

Stephens, 2004). Finally, the importance of autonomy, power, and control (3.94) was the lowest

rated job satisfaction variable for the middle school principal respondents which may indicate

that their job satisfaction is not derived from individual autonomy and assumed power within

their position. This finding is similar to those in Peek (2003) and Stephens (2004). Although

when principals had the opportunity to respond to an open-ended question about what aspects of

the position enhance or distract from their overall satisfaction, the desire for more local control in

response to national, state, and district mandates (including class size reduction, NCLB, AYP

and high-stakes testing) was mentioned repeatedly.

A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analyzed each job satisfier to see if there were

any significant correlations between each variable that would influence a middle school principal

in Central Florida. Analogous to Lawrence (2003) and Stephens (2004), positive significant

relationships existed between the organizational factor autonomy, power and control, and

relationship with subordinates (.290), professional effectiveness (.338), and decision making

(.360) (Table 4-47). These data indicate that having a high degree of independence and authority

in their principal position influences their overall job performance and the ability to make

decisions. Positive significant relationships were also revealed between participation in decision

making and salary and benefits (.306). As with Chappell (1995), Peek (2003), and Stephens

(2004), a positive significant relationship was found between subordinates and relationship with

supervisors (.716). These findings suggest that the ability to make decisions influences

principals' levels of satisfaction with their compensation, and their relationships within their

schools are influenced by their relationships with their supervisor. This satisfaction with









relationships within a school may make principals feel more confident with their performance

and more at ease with their supervisor.

Research Question 4

During statistical analysis, numerous relationships between measures of job satisfaction

(Table 4-48) and measures of organizational climate were revealed. Significant positive

relationships were discovered between the job satisfier variable evaluation and the organizational

climate factors participation with decision making (.291) and relationship with supervisor (.291).

These data reveal that a principal's evaluation is influenced by the principal's ability to make

decisions and the principal's interaction with his/her supervisor. Similar to the findings of

Lawrence (2003), the organizational climate factor professional development opportunities had a

positive correlation with the job satisfier variables relationship with subordinates (.401) and

relationship with supervisors (.507) (Table 4-48). These findings suggest that principals'

professional growth is influenced by the relationships with those they supervise and those who

supervise them. These findings are a testament to the value of continued professional growth

and to Maslow's (1954) hierarchal need for esteem that includes feelings of self-respect and

respect for others.

Finally, significant positive correlations were found between the Central Florida middle

school principals' overall job satisfaction with their position and their district in relation to all

organizational climate factors. These findings (Table 4-48) reveal the influence that each

organizational climate factor has on school-based leaders and on school districts in regard to job

satisfaction. Two highly significant relationships in regard to both overall satisfaction with their

position and district were regard for personal concern and evaluation indicating that overall

satisfaction of middle school principals is related to the way they are professionally assessed and









personally regarded (Table 4-48). This finding is consistent with Johanshishi (1985) and

Satterlee (1988) who reported that a worker finds job satisfaction through the emotional feelings

toward the job. This finding also supports McGregor's Theory Y (1960) that assumes the

average worker does not inherently dislike work but assumes that workers are creative, self-

directed and these qualities are brought out by managers who motivate and inspire. A middle

school principal's job satisfaction is related to how they are assessed and whether a district or a

supervisor considers their personal well-being. District and state leaders may want to review

employee-centered leadership from the Michigan State studies which would recommend

supervisors to take a personal interest in the lives and needs of their school leaders (Hersey et al.,

1996).

Research Question 5

This question was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to see whether

significant differences existed in the means of satisfaction with institutional characteristics and

the importance of position characteristics when compared by demographic variables. Only one of

the demographic variables under examination was found to relate significantly. The assignment

of a mentor was found to be a predictor for Central Florida middle school principals' ratings of

importance of position characteristics (Table 4-53). This finding may suggest that the

principalship can be isolating and support is desired for professional fulfillment. It may be

prudent to consider the findings from Mayo's research (1933) that found improved productivity

comes from several factors, including a feeling of belonging.

Conclusions

Several studies in higher education have used the same survey instrument to examine job

satisfaction and organizational climate and have produced comparable results. The data on the









presence of organizational climate factors, including regard for personal concern and

professional development opportunities, were similarly ranked in this as well as previous studies

(Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003; Lawrence, 2003;

Stephens, 2004; Reynolds, 2006). The job satisfaction variables found to be the most important

(professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and

participation in decision making) are also consistent with studies using the same instrument

(Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003).

Respondents rated their overall satisfaction with position and the district generally high

with means above 3.8. Central Florida middle school principals overall satisfaction with their

position and their district was consistent to other educational positions previously investigated

(Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003).

Implications

As the role of the middle school principal changes and becomes more demanding, it is

likely that many educational leaders will face job satisfaction and organizational climate

concerns in their positions. School district leaders should be aware that organizational climate

plays an important role in the satisfaction of school principals. Thus, it is important that they

should have procedures and practices in place to monitor the state of the climate of their

organization. This awareness could lead to an enhanced working climate in K-12 education

which should lead to a more productive and satisfied workforce.

Many of the results reveal a need for district and state leaders to consider the human

relations approach when working with school-based leaders, including the need for recognition,

belongingness, security, and an understanding of their beliefs, motivations and values. It is

important to consider the principals' responses to the open-ended question concerning what









aspects of the position enhance or distract from their overall satisfaction. Concerns including

"The ability of the state to add programs/issues with no funding attached" may require district

and state leaders to reflect on all the implications of a bill they are attempting to pass and to build

in appropriate funding and some latitude for interpretation by principals based on the needs of

each school. Legislators need to realize that each new mandate that is passed adds to all the

other existing mandates that a principal is required to follow, but nothing is removed in order to

make "time" for the new initiative. Because of the nature of the school calendar and the current

culture of educational reform, demands of high-stakes test results contribute to high levels of

stress for school administrators. "The amount of paperwork/computer input seems

overwhelming at times when trying to run a school." "There is too much intrusion from the state

and federal government on local practices and policies. They routinely demonstrate little or no

understanding of 'conditions on the ground'."

It is accurate to consider that principals are hired as instructional leaders and should be

expected to follow all national, state and local mandates, but they should also be trusted to

understand better than anyone how to implement reform in their schools in order to maximize its

impact. "The constraints that the state and district put on individual schools-i.e., class size

amendment, mandatory remedial reading, certification, etc"-with "more local control" need to

occur to improve overall job satisfaction. It is also important that districts and schools are

funded appropriately.

Finally, in light of the pressures that come with high-stakes testing, it may be of some

importance to review tenure and how this can directly affect the quality of instruction in a

school. Responses from principals on tenure ("Eliminate the possibility of losing highly

qualified and dedicated teachers who are on annual contract and may be bumped out of a job









because of another teacher's seniority." "With a union and its rules, there are teachers that

should not be teaching." "We should be able to release ineffective teachers without having to

jump through so many hoops.") reveal that tenure has a negative influence on a principals' job

satisfaction. Several studies conducted on teacher effectiveness and how this influences student

achievement found that teachers' knowledge, skills, and preparation matter to student

achievement even more than teacher experience, class size or pupil-teacher ratio (Strauss &

Sawyer, 1986; Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fetler, 1999;

Fuller, 1999). Because principals feel there is an "excessive emphasis placed on high-stakes

testing," "... specifically the school grading system," it is reasonable to consider that having little

control to remove a teacher who is ineffective and could jeopardize the overall results would

increase the levels of anxiety for school principals.

District and state leaders would be prudent to consider the highest rated job satisfaction

variables of professional effectiveness; relationship with subordinates; supervisors, and peers;

and participation in decision making as significant aspects of the job that contribute to job

satisfaction. Having a highly political climate can negatively affect a principal's perception of

internal communication, evaluation, opportunities for promotion and overall well-being. It may

also be shrewd for state and district leaders to reflect upon the isolation that a new principal may

endure and to consider assigning mentors to new principals as a standard practice to ensure that

new principals don't experience such feelings of isolation.

My data also revealed that principals need opportunities to grow professionally, as this is

tied to their relationships with the people they interact with the most-their subordinates and

supervisors. Finally, principals derive a significant amount of satisfaction from their own

professional effectiveness and how they are valued through their assessment. Middle school









principals in Central Florida were not as confident with their school district's commitment to

internal promotion and advancement within the organization. Thus, the "human" factor should

be of great concern to district and state leaders so that they might better understand how to retain

leaders within the K-12 field who feel valued and who are willing and able to maintain a level of

high performance in their current position. Principals who feel appreciated for their job

performance will likely remain in their position and will better lead children toward success.

Recommendations for Further Research

Increasing attrition rates caused by job stress are a real concern for a position that is

consistently recognized as essential to the overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996).

Understanding what motivates people to remain in their positions and what helps them to

perform effectively is vital to addressing the principal shortage. Further study should be

conducted to verify these results, as this appears to be the first examination of middle school

administrators using this survey instrument. Based on the principals' personal comments, topics

such as local control, tenure and time constraints should be examined further.

Researchers may want to consider why some of the data from the objective sections

conflicted with the personal responses received from the principals. Most principals rated their

satisfaction with organizational structure (70.6%) and internal communication (68.0%) (Table 4-

33) as "high" or "very high" but at the end of the survey, they repeatedly complained about

district interruptions with last minute requests and that the district did not communicate

effectively between departments. Principals also provided conflicting responses when rating the

importance of autonomy, power and control. This variable received the lowest mean rating

(3.94) (Table 4-35), but when principals had the opportunity to respond about what aspects of the

position enhance or distract from their overall satisfaction, the desire for more local control in









response to national, state, and district mandates (including class size reduction, NCLB, AYP

and high-stakes testing) was mentioned repeatedly. Finally, when examining Table 4-34 my data

indicate that a significant relationship was found between all factors and may warrant further

study to examine the relevance of each of the organizational climate factors and how they

influence the job satisfaction of principals.

All conclusions are based on voluntary responses from principals in seven school

districts in Central Florida. The following research possibilities exist with regard to continued

study of organizational climate and job satisfaction of K-12 administrators using the same survey

instrument.

Examine the responses from middle school principals in all 67 counties in Florida.

Examine the responses of middle school principals who are members of the National

Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP).

Examine the responses of K-12 administrators at the elementary and high school levels.

Conduct a comparative study between principals and assistant principals.

Add interview questions on local control, tenure, and time constraints to create a mixed-

methods study.

Summary

A review of the literature emphasized the increased level of complexity of job

responsibilities and performance expectations for the middle school principal (Senge, 1990;

Bolman & Deal, 1995; Vaill, 1996; Ubben & Hughes, 1997; Newby, 1999; Turner, 2006). As

the job becomes more demanding and attrition rates continue to rise, issues of job satisfaction for

middle school principals become more critical. The perceptions of school leaders regarding

organizational climate and job satisfaction are worthy of broader study and analysis, for the









performance of these leaders is directly related to the performance of our nation's schools and,

consequently, is tied to our children's future success.












APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INVITATION


47



Uni'Versirs of Florida PO Box 117049
Collciu of Education Gainesville, FL 32611-7049
Department of Educational Leadership (352) 392-2391
Policy and Foundations (352) 846-0131

Febriuan 19, 2007

Dear Colleague:

My name is Carol Kindt and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. I am
conducting a study on the relationship of organizational climate factors and job satisfaction for
middle school principals in Central Florida. I expect that the results of this research will provide
direction for enhancing .'b sl .al.factioni and iniproi ing climate ar this % iral position in middle
level education.
I request your participation in this research project. The superintendent of your district has
endorsed the study. I would appreciate it if : ou would take a few minutes to answer questions on
the online survey. You will be asked to complete the survey on the enclosed web address with
the password below. The ;un ei I ill take about 10 minutes. Your pro. ac II be protected and
your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You do not have to answer
any question you do not wish to answer. The completed siri e ", ill be submitted to a secure
server at the University of Florida.

To take the online survey, you must select "I aSre&e" on the website, agreeing that you have read
this letter of invitation and agree to consent. You may print a copy of this letter i.r \ our record.
by pressing the control button and the letter p.

The results of the survey will be provided to you at your request. There is no anticipated risk,
compensation, nor benefits for pa rrT ;paing in the study. Your participation is strictly voluntary
and you are free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty.

Should you have questions about your rights as a research participant, contact IRB office at i3 i
392-9433 or irb2flufl.edu. If you need additional information or have questions about the
survey, please contact me at (407) 273-3558 or my faculty advisor, Dr. James Doud, at (352) 392-
2391, ext. 275.

The survey website address and password are listed below:

Website: 1'ittpi, 'ro.e ufi eau.'-l:ir3t:in3ie phCi

Password: principal

Thank you very much fIr Oour pairicip;'iion in this study.

Sincerely,


CApproved by
Carol A. Kindt iJnl,,ersry of Florida
Principal Investigator institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007-U-0086
For Use Througrn 021/62008









APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL


Dr. Jennifer E. Reeves
Area Superintendent
Southwest Learning Community
Orange County Public Schools
6501 Magic Way # 100A
Orlando, FL 32809
e-mail: reevesj@ocps.net
phone: 407-318-3110
fax: 407-318-3013

Mrs. Kathleen L. Palmer
Executive Area Director
West Learning Community
Orange County Public Schools
1399 Windermere Road
Winter Garden, FL 34787
e-mail: palmerk@ocps.net
phone: 407-905-3200
fax: 407-905-3206

Dr. Janice Pratt
Deputy Superintendent
Instruction and Curriculum
Orange County Public Schools
445 W. Amelia Street
Orlando, FL 32801
e-mail: prattj@ocps.net
phone: 407-317-3265
fax: 407-317-3355


Mrs. Maria Vazquez
Executive Area Director
Southwest Learning Community
Orange County Public Schools
6501 Magic Way # 100A
Orlando, FL 32809
e-mail: vazquem@ocps.net
phone: 407-318-3110
fax: 407-318-3013

Ms. Marilyn Doyle-Patterson
Associate Superintendent
Curriculum Administration
Orange County Public School
445 W. Amelia Street
Orlando, FL 32801
e-mail: doylepm@ocps.net
phone: 407-317-3318
fax: 407-317-3369

Mr. John Meinecke
Senior Facilities Manager
Fiscal Services
Facilities Services
6501 Magic Way
Orlando, FL 32809
e-mail: meinecj@ocps.net
phone: 407-317-3700, 5006
fax: 407-468-6002








APPENDIX C
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE



Middle School Principal Questionnaire



Part I

Principal Demographic Data

Please tell a little about yourself. (Fill in or check where appropriate):
1. Gender

SFemale Male


2. Age


3. Ethnicity
SAsian Black Hispanic 0 Multi-racial White
Other: I


Education/Experience


4.Your level of education (highest degree earned):
SMasters Specialist 0 Doctorate
5. How many years have you served:
(Please put a zero if you have been in your position for less than 12 months).


a. As a principal:


F


b. As a principal in your current school: F









6. Annual Salary
SLess than $70,000
S$70,000-$79,999
[ $80,000-$89,999
S$90,000-$99,999
S$100,000 or more

7. Did you participate in a principal induction program?
SYes, before becoming a principal.
SYes, after becoming a principal.
SYes, both before and after becoming a principal.
SNo

8. When you became a principal did your district assign you a mentor?
SYes
SNo

School Democraphics


9. The name of your school district (Ex: Orange, Brevard, etc.):
I

10. The area in which your school is located is best described as:
Rural
Suburban
Urban

11. School Size
SLess than 500 students
S500-999 students
S1000-1499 students
S1500-1999 students
S2000 or more students

12. Percentage of students on free and reduced lunch:
S0-25 percent
S26-50 percent
S51-75 percent
S76-100 percent








13. School's FCAT Grades (A, B, C, D, F, or N/A):


2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006


Part II

Section A


Considering your experiences as a middle school principal in your district, please
choose the number of the rating that best represents your belief about your
district's climate. A description of the scale has been provided to aid you in
selecting your answers.

Please rate the level or degree to which the following qualities are present in your
school district, with five (5) indicating the highest level of presence and one (1)
indicating the lowest level of presence.

14. Internal Communication--defined as the school district's formal interaction process
between the faculty, staff and the district (Ex: articulation of mission, vision, goals and
expectations).


Open Communication
n 5. 4.


n 3.


Closed Communication
r 2. n 1.


15. Organizational Structure--defined as the school district's hierarchy of structure (Ex:
chain of command and lines of authority).


Highly Structured
S5.


n 4.


n 3.


Loosely Structured
0 2. 0


16. Political Climate--defined as the nature and complexity of the school district's internal
and external policies (Ex: the degree to which a principal must operate within a political
framework in order to accomplish his/her job).


Highly Political
n 5.


n 4.


Not Highly Political
n 2. n


7

7

7


n 3.









17. Professional Development Opportunities--defined as the chance for principals to
pursue and participate in training to enhance job performance (Ex: encouragement by
superiors to learn, participate, develop, and share innovative practices).


Participation Highly Encouraged
0 5. r 4.


Participation Not Encouraged


n 3.


0 2.


S1.


18. Evaluation--defined as the school district's procedure for assessing the performance of
middle school principals (Ex: relevant and meaningful process that focuses on improving
leadership rather than fault finding).


Supportive Evaluation Procedures
Procedures


n 5.


n 4.


n 3.


Non Supportive Evaluation


n 2.


S1.


19. Promotion--defined as the school district's commitment to internal promotion and
advancement from within the organization (Ex: career ladders, mentorship and internship
opportunities).


Internal Promotions Encouraged
Encouraged
S5. 4.


Internal Promotions Not


n 3.


n 2.


n 1.


20. Regard for Personal Concern--defined as the school district's sensitivity to and
regard for middle school principals' well-being (Ex: the district is supportive and flexible
during times of personal emergencies).


High Sensitivity
r 5.


. 3.


Low Sensitivity
r 2.


Section B
Considering your district, please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the
organizational qualities listed below, with five (5) indicating the highest level of
satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of satisfaction.





21. Internal Communication--defined as the school district's formal interaction process
between the faculty, staff and the district (Ex: articulation of mission, vision, goals and
expectations).


Highly Satisfied
0 5.


1 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. 1.


Si.









22. Organizational Structure--defined as the school district's hierarchy of structure (Ex:
chain of command and lines of authority).


Highly Satisfied
n 5.


n 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. i.


23. Political Climate--defined as the nature and complexity of the middle school's internal
and external policies (Ex: the degree to which a principal must operate within a political
framework in order to accomplish his/her job).


Highly Satisfied
0 5.


n 4.


n 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. n


24. Professional Development Opportunities--defined as the chance for principals to
pursue and participate in training to enhance job performance (Ex: encouragement by
superiors to learn, participate, develop, and share innovative practices).


Highly Satisfied
n 5.


n 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. 0 1.


25. Evaluation--defined as the school district's procedure for assessing the performance of
middle school principals (Ex: relevant and meaningful process that focuses on improving
leadership rather than fault finding).


Highly Satisfied
0 5.


n 4.


n 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. n


26. Promotion--defined as the school district's commitment to internal promotion and
advancement from within the organization (Ex: career ladders, mentorship, and internship
opportunities).


Highly Satisfied
r 5.


. 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. 0 1.


27. Regard for Personal Concern--defined as the school district's sensitivity to and
regard for middle school principals' well-being (Ex: the district is supportive and flexible
during times of personal emergencies).


Highly Satisfied
0 5.


n 4.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. n


n 3.











Section C

Please rate how important each of the following factors is to you in your position
as a middle school principal with five (5) indicating the highest level of importance
and one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance.



28. Participation in Decision Making--defined as the school district's process for decision
making and the middle school principal's opportunity for involvement in the process (Ex:
level of input requested from school-based administration by the executive cabinet).


Most Important
S5.


n 3.


Least Important
0 2.


29. Autonomy, Power, and Control--defined as the degree of independence, authority,
and jurisdiction held by middle school principals (Ex: the degree that decisions made by
middle school principals can be overturned by district personnel).


Most Important
S5.


0 4.


n 3.


Least Important
S2.


30. Relationship With Colleagues--defined as the quality of the principals' interactions
with peers, subordinates, and supervisors (Ex: a collegial atmosphere of respect exists).

a. With Peers


Most Important
S5.


n 4.


n 3.


Least Important
S2.


b. With Subordinates


Most Important
S5.


] 3.


Least Important
S2.


c. With Supervisors


Most Important
n 5.


Least Important
n 2.


S1.


S1.


S1.


S1.


n 4.


n 3.


n 1.









31. Salary and Benefits--defined as wages and insurance plans for middle school
principals (Ex: salary and benefit packages are equitable and comparable with other middle
school principals).


Most Important
0 5.


0 4.


n 3.


Least Important
S2.


32. Professional Effectiveness--defined as the perceived overall efficiency of middle
school principals in their jobs (Ex: "Am I successful in accomplishing the objective of my
position?").


Most Important
n 5.


n 4.


n 3.


Least Important
r 2.


Section D

Please rate your overall satisfaction with your position as a middle school principal
with five (5) indicating the highest level of importance and one (1) indicating the
lowest level of importance.


33. Please select the level of your overall satisfaction with your position with five
(5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of
satisfaction.


Highly Satisfied
S5.


n 4.


n 3.


Highly Dissatisfied
n 2. n 1.


34. Please select the level of your overall satisfaction with your district with five (5)
indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of
satisfaction.


Highly Satisfied
n 5.


0 4.


Highly Dissatisfied
r 2. 1.


S1.


Si.


n 3.












Part III

Please answer the following question:


35. If you had the opportunity to change anything about your job, what aspects) would
you add or eliminate to increase your overall job satisfaction?









LIST OF REFERENCES


Alexander, W. M., & Williams, E. (1965). Schools for the middle years. Educational
Leadership 23, 217-223.

Alexander, W. M., & Williams, E. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

Anderson, C. S. (1982). A search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 52, 368-420.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359-372.

Baughman, K. S. (1996). Increasing teacher job satisfaction: A study of the changing role
of the secondary principal. American Secondary Education, 24, 19-22.

Bailey, N. I. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction
as reported by branch campus executive officers in multicampus community
college systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Barry, D. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and leadership style: A study of Michigan high
schoolprincipals. Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University,
Kalmazoo.

Beck, R .C. (1990). Motivation: Theories and principals (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper Perennial.

Border, H. R. (2004). Job satisfaction ofFlorida's middle school assistant principals as a
factorfor preserving an administrative workforce. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Brady, D. B. (2001). Correlates ofjob satisfaction among California school principals.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work
adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure and career success. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-54.

Brogan, G. B. (2003). Job satisfaction ofIdaho high school principals. Doctoral
dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello.









Bryant, L. R. (2001). An investigation offactors influencing job satisfaction ofprincipals
in low performing and exemplary schools. Doctoral dissertation, Fayetteville State
University, Fayetteville.

Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructional officers.
Doctoral dissertations, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-ii ,t th perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.

Daresh, J. C. (2002). What it means to be a principal: Your guide to leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture and school performance. Educational
Leadership, 40(5), 14-15.

Deas, E. (1994). Board and administrative relationships contributing to community
college climate: A case study. Community College Review, 22 (1), 44-52.

Delgado, L. L. (2001). Correlates ofjob satisfaction among high school principals.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

DeMichele, D. J. (1998). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction as reported by mid-level collegiate campus recreation program
coordinators. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Doud, J. L. (1989). A ten-year study: The K-8 principal in 1988. Alexandria, VA: National
Association of Elementary School Principals.

Doud, J. L., & Keller, E. P. (1998). A ten year study: The K-8 principal in 1998.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.

Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1999). The principalship (5thed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Eichorn, D. (1966). The middle school. New York: The Center for Applied Research.









Evans, G. L. (1996). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction as reported by community college presidents. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Ferguson, R.F. (1991, Summer). Paying for public education: New evidence on how
and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28 (2), 465-498.

Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of
Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding Schools Accountable (pp. 265-298).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Fetler, M. (1999, March 24). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test
results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (http://epaa.asu.edu).

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Fuller, E. J. (1999). Does teacher certification matter? A comparison of TAAS
performance in 1997 between schools i ith low and high percentages of certified
teachers. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center.

George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students 1i ithi,,,t coercion. New York:
Harper Collins.

Glick, N. L. P. (1992). Job satisfaction among academic administrators. Research in
Higher Education, 33, 625-639.

Goldring, E. B. (1990). Elementary school principals as boundary spanners: Their
engagement with parents. Journal ofEducational Administration, 1, 53-62.

Gottsfredson, D. C., Hybl, L. G., Gottfredson, G. D., & Casteneda, R. P. (1986). School
climate assessment instruments: A review. In H. Feiberg, A. Driscoll, &
S. Knight (Eds.), School Climate (pp. 49-81). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research.

Gratto, F. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction
for directors ofphysical plants. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Greska, T. J. (2003). Job satisfaction of middle school assistant principals in North
Carolina. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Mississippi, Oxford.









Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understand job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hammer, W. C., & Organ, D. (1978). Organizational behavior: An appliedpsychological
approach. Dallas, TX: Business Publications.

Hersey P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Mangaement of organizational
behavior: Utilizing human resources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.

Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, R. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hopkins, A. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowan
& Allenheld.

House Bill 7087. (2004). Retrieved November 2, 2006 from
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2006/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h708705er.pdf

The Institute of Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadershipfor student
learning: Reinventing the principalship. Washington, DC.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996). Standards for school leaders.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Johanshishi, B. (1985). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction of academic administrators in selected community colleges and
universities. Doctoral dissertation: Oklahoma University, Oklahoma.

Langer, S., & Boris-Schacter, S. (2003, October). Principal, the embattled principal.
NAESP: Challenging the image of the American principalship, 83, 14-18. Retrieved
March 9, 2004, from
http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=1000& action=print

Lawrence, H. J. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction for athletic compliance directors at NCAA Division 1 institutions.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of
emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.









Levy, S. G. (1989). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by
Pennsylvania community college middle-level administrators (Doctoral
dissertation, Lehigh University, 1989).

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 Publishing Company.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2003). Educational administration concepts and
practices (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation andpersonality. New York: Harper & Row.

Matthews, L. J., & Crow, G. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role
conceptionsfor contemporary principals and assistant principals. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York:
Macmillan.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American
Psychologists, 20, 321-333.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1959). The
achievement motive. New York: Irvington.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Merseth, K. K. (1997). Cases in educational administration. New York: Addison
Wesley.

National Association of Elementary School Principals (2002). Leading learning
communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.
Minneapolis, MN: Lifetouch Inc.









National Commission on Educational Excellence. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing
Office.

National Middle School Association (1982). This we believe. Macon, GA: OmniPress.

National Middle School Association (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for
young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Transaction Publishers.

Newby, J. E. (1999). Job satisfaction of middle school principals in Virginia. Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Palmer, C. K. (1995). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Florida
community college health occupations program directors. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pardee, R. L. (1990). Motivation thi,,i ie. ofMaslow, Herzberg, McGregor and
McClelland: A literature review of selected ither i e. dce living i iithjob
satisfaction and motivation. ERIC Document Reproduction No ED 316 767.

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 organizational climate and job satisfaction
as reported by industrial research staff at Florida community colleges. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate.
In W. G. Tierny (ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research No. 68
(pp. 3-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, M. W., & White, T. H. (1992). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their
environments: Different views or different models of organization? Research in
Higher Education, 33, 177-204.

Petzco, V. N. (2002). Recommendations and implications emerging from a national study
of middle school level leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga.

Public Law 107-110. (2002, January 8). Retrieved February 10, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Reynolds, C. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction
among full-time and part-time community college faculty. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.









Rock, D. A., & Hemphill, J. K. (1966). The junior high principalship. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Sablatura, D. A. (2002). Comparisons ofjob satisfaction among urban, suburban, and
rural schoolprincipals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston.

Satterlee, B. (1987). A study to determine job satisfaction of the engineering/industrial
faculty at Delgado Community College. ERIC Document Reproductive Service
ED 336 593.

Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate (pp. 23-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Senate Bill 354. (2004). Retrieved February 10, 2006 from
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2004/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0354er.pdf

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sodoma, B. (2005). Job satisfaction of owa public school principals. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls.

Sofianos, T. J. (2005). The relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction as reported by community college executive secretaries and/or associates to
the president. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stephens LeFevre, L. C. (2004). Policy and organizational clmate factors and their
relationship to job satisfaction of adjunct/part-time faculty in north central Florida
public community colleges. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Stemple, J.D. (2004). Job satisfaction of high school principals in Virginia. Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Strauss, R. P., & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student
competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5 (1), 41-48.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principals of scientific management. New York: Harper &
Brothers.

Thomson, S. D. (Ed.).(1993). Principals for our changing schools. Fairfax, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.









Turner, C. S. (2006). A study ofjob satisfaction i/ ith situational characteristics and
occurrences among middle school principals in SNitlh Carolina. Doctoral dissertation,
South Carolina University, Orangeburg.

Ubben, G. C., & Hughes, L. W. (1997). The principal: Creative leadershipfor effective
schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vaill, P. V. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of
permanent white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level
principalship. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.

Valentine, J. W., Maher, M. C., Quinne, D. M., & Irvin, L.I. (May, 1999). The changing
roles of effective middle level principals. Middle School Journal, 30(5), 53-56.

Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creative management of a school: A matter of visions and
daily interventions. Journal ofEducationalAdministration, 2, 31-51.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wahba, N. A., & Bridwell, L. G (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on
the need of hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 15, 212-240.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago:
Markham.

Weiner, B., Fieze, L., Kula,A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosembaum, R. (1971). Perceiving
the cause of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,
R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner [Eds.], Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
Behavior (pp. 95-121). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Wheelis, V. L. (2005). The relationship between school performance scores and job
satisfaction ofprincipals in Louisiana. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech
University, Ruston.

Zabetakis, S. (1999). The relationship between organizational culture and job
satisfaction as reported by community college chief business officers. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Carol Ann Kindt was born in 1967 in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The youngest of four

children, she grew up in Cocoa Beach, graduating from Cocoa Beach High School in 1985. She

earned her B.A. in English from the University of Central Florida in 1991, her M.S. in

educational leadership from Nova Southeastern in 1997, and her Ed.S. in educational leadership

from the University of Florida in 2002.

Upon graduating in August of 1991 with her B.A. in English, Carol was hired by Orange

County Public Schools (OCPS) as a teacher's aide. During her tenure with OCPS, Carol

assumed the roles of teacher's aide, permanent substitute, language arts teacher for both 6th and

7th grades, administrative dean, assistant principal, principal on assignment at two elementary

schools and one middle school, and middle school principal. Carol has been a middle school

principal with OCPS for the past 6 years.

After completing her Ed.D. program, Carol plans to continue to work for OCPS as a

middle school principal. Carol has been married to Hahns Kindt for 20 years. They have two

sons: Aaron, age 19 (a University of Florida student) and Zachary, age 18 (a senior in high

school).





PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMA TE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CENTRAL FLORIDA By CAROL ANN KINDT 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 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Carol Ann Kindt 2

PAGE 3

To my husband, Hahns and our tw o sons, Aaron and Zachary. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLDGMENTS I owe much of my success today to my parent s. I was raised by two caring, responsible, educated adults who instilled in me that I could do anything I put my mind to and they meant it. As a child I always had a safe place to fall a nd parents who would continually guide me even when I did not think that I needed it. I would not be where I am today without my husband, Hahns, who has been by my side for the last 20 years supporting my efforts and encouraging me to never give up on my dreams. I know it is probably clich to say that I was also inspired by the birth of my children, Aaron and Zachary, but their initial presence in my life stirred something d eep inside me and continues to move me forward. Several years ago when I heard about a doc toral program offered locally through the University of Florida, I was determined to be accepted. I remember my entrance interview with Dr. Clark and Dr. Doud when they fired several ques tions at me to try to reveal my beliefs and attitudes. If there was one thing I knew at that point in my career it was that I wanted to be the best educational leader possible an d I wanted to learn from the Un iversity of Floridathey must have been convinced. The Educational Leadership program has been one of the most challenging and gratifying experiences of my life. I am in great debt to the professors who challenged my beliefs and made me continually reflect upon who I was and what my core beliefs really werea practice that I will continue for the rest of my life. I will never forget my cohort experience. We were family to each other for many years. I made some life-long friends and am grateful for the support from Lori Benton, James Russo, and Twila Patten. 4

PAGE 5

5 I also owe a large debt of gratitude to my chair, Dr. Doud. He taught me the value of inquiry, shared vision and servant leadershipall of these are now deeply engrained in my core values. I know I have become a better educatio nal leader through this experience, and I will be forever grateful to the University of Florida for stretching my intellectua l abilities and really making me think.

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF TERMS...........................................................................................................................12 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .16 Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate..........................................................................17 Purpose of the Study...............................................................................................................18 Research Questions.................................................................................................................19 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ ..........19 Delimitations of the Study..................................................................................................... .20 Significance of the Study............................................................................................... .........20 Summary of the Chapter.........................................................................................................22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................23 Middle School Principal.........................................................................................................23 The Role of the Middle School Principal..........................................................................23 Contemporary Challenges............................................................................................ ......26 Research Studies................................................................................................................27 Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................................................29 Motivation...............................................................................................................................30 Organizational Climate......................................................................................................... ..35 Dimensions of Organizational Climate.............................................................................36 Organizational Theory.............................................................................................. .........36 Principals and Job Satisfaction......................................................................................... ......39 Principals and Job Satisfaction Summary...............................................................................47 Summary of the Chapter.........................................................................................................48 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................5 0 Reseach Questions....................................................................................................... ...........50 Methodology...........................................................................................................................51 Population..................................................................................................................... ..........51 Procedure for Data Collection........................................................................................... .....52 Instrumentation......................................................................................................... ..............53 Organizational Climate Factors..............................................................................................53 6

PAGE 7

Job Satisfaction Variables.......................................................................................................54 Statistical Analysis..................................................................................................................54 Summary of the Chapter.........................................................................................................55 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................................................56 Survey Responses...................................................................................................................57 Profile for Middle School Prin cipals in Central Florida.........................................................58 Gender................................................................................................................................58 Age.....................................................................................................................................58 Ethnicity.......................................................................................................... ...................58 Level of Education.............................................................................................................58 Number of Years as a School Principal.............................................................................58 Number of Years as a Principal in Current School............................................................59 Salary.................................................................................................................................59 Participation in an Induction Program.............................................................................. .59 Assignment of a Mentor............................................................................................. ........60 School District...................................................................................................................60 School Classification by Location.....................................................................................60 Size of Student Population......................................................................................... ........60 Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Lunch.....................................................61 The FCAT Grade for Past 3 Years....................................................................................61 Research Question 1...............................................................................................................61 Internal Communication............................................................................................. .......62 Organizational Structure........................................................................................... .........63 Political Climate.................................................................................................. ...............63 Professional Development Opportunities..........................................................................63 Evaluation..........................................................................................................................64 Promotion...........................................................................................................................64 Regard for Personal Concern.............................................................................................64 Summary of Research Question 1 Results.........................................................................65 Research Question 2...............................................................................................................66 Internal Communication............................................................................................. .......66 Organizational Structure........................................................................................... .........67 Political Climate.................................................................................................. ...............67 Professional Development Opportunities..........................................................................68 Evaluation..........................................................................................................................68 Promotion...........................................................................................................................69 Regard for Personal Concern.............................................................................................69 Summary of Research Question 2 Results.........................................................................70 Research Question 3.................................................................................................................71 Participation in Decision Making................................................................................... ...71 Autonomy, Power, and Control.........................................................................................72 Relationship with Peers......................................................................................................72 Relationship with Subordinates.........................................................................................73 Relationship with Supervisor.............................................................................................73 7

PAGE 8

8 Salary and Benefits............................................................................................................74 Professional Effectiveness......................................................................................... ........74 Overall Satisfaction w ith Principal Position and School District......................................75 Summary of Research Question 3 Results.........................................................................76 Research Question 4...............................................................................................................77 Research Question 5...............................................................................................................79 Summary of Research Question 5......................................................................................81 Central Florida Mi ddle School Principal Comments..............................................................81 Summary of the Chapter.........................................................................................................85 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................110 Design of the Study..............................................................................................................110 Findings................................................................................................................................111 Demographic Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida...........................111 Research Question 1........................................................................................................112 Research Quesiton 2........................................................................................................113 Research Question 3........................................................................................................115 Research Question 4........................................................................................................117 Research Question 5........................................................................................................118 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................118 Implications................................................................................................................... .......119 Recommendations for Further Research...............................................................................122 Summary of the Chapter................................................................................................123 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INVITATION................................................................................................125 B ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMA TE QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL........................126 C ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................127 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................143

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Gender of Respondents..........................................................................................................91 4-2. Age of Respondents...............................................................................................................91 4-3. Ethnicity of Respondents.......................................................................................................91 4-4. Education Level of Respondents........................................................................................... 91 4-5. Years of Service as a Principal.......................................................................................... ....91 4-6. Years of Service as a Prin cipal in Current Middle School ....................................................91 4-7. Salary of Respondent Middle S chool Principals...................................................................92 4-8. Participation in a Pr incipal Induction Program .....................................................................92 4-9. Mentor Status.........................................................................................................................92 4-10. Principal by School District..................................................................................................92 4-11. School Classification by Location........................................................................................92 4-12. School Student Population Size............................................................................................93 4-13. Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch.................................................................93 4-14. State of Florida School FCAT Grade for Last Three Years .................................................93 4-15. Descriptive Statistics for Pres ence of Organizational V ariables..........................................93 4-16. Internal Communication.......................................................................................................93 4-17. Organizational Structure.......................................................................................................94 4-18. Political Climate........................................................................................................ ...........94 4-19. Professional Development Opportunities.............................................................................94 4-20. Evaluation.............................................................................................................................94 4-21. Promotion................................................................................................................ .............94 4-22. Regard for Personal Concern.............................................................................................. ..95

PAGE 10

10 4-23. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Presence of Each Variable .................................................................................................95 4-24. Correlations of Middle School Principals Perceptions of Organizational Clim ate.............96 4-25. Descriptive Statistics for Satisf action with Organiza tional Variables ..................................96 4-26. Satisfaction with Internal Communication...........................................................................97 4-27. Satisfaction with Organizational Structure...........................................................................97 4-28. Satisfaction with Political Climate...................................................................................... .97 4-29. Satisfaction with Professi onal Developm ent Opportunities.................................................97 4-30. Satisfaction with Evaluation Processes................................................................................97 4-31. Satisfaction with Promotion Opportunities..........................................................................98 4-32. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concern....................................................................98 4-33. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Satisfaction of Each Variable.............................................................................................98 4-34. Correlations of Middle School Principals Perceptions of Organizational Clim ate Satisfaction.........................................................................................................................99 4-35. Descriptive Statistics for Importa nce with Job Satisfaction Variables...............................100 4-36. Participation in Decision Making.......................................................................................10 0 4-37. Autonomy, Power and Control...........................................................................................100 4-38. Relationship with Peers.................................................................................................. ....100 4-39. Relationship with Subordinates..........................................................................................101 4-40. Relationship with Supervisor............................................................................................. .101 4-41. Salary and Benfits....................................................................................................... ........101 4-42. Professional Effectiveness............................................................................................... ...101 4-43. Overall Satisfaction with Mi ddle School Princpal Position ...............................................101 4-44. Overall Satisfaction with School District...........................................................................102 4-45. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Position and District S atisfaction..................................102

PAGE 11

11 4-46. Percentage of Respondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Im portance of Each Variable...........................................................................................102 4-47. Pearson Product Moment Correlati on for Job Satisfaction Variables ................................103 4-48. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Relationship B etween Measures of Job Satisfaction, Measures of Organizationa l Climate and Overal Job Satisfaction ............104 4-49. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Inst itutional Characteristics and Principal De mographic Data...........................................................................................................105 4-50. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Inst itutional Characteristics and Principal Education/Experience ......................................................................................................106 4-51. One-way ANOVA, Satisfaction with In stitutional Characte ristics and School De mographic Data...........................................................................................................107 4-52. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal Dem ographic Data..................................................................................................................................107 4-53. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Pos ition Characteristics and Principal Education/Experience ......................................................................................................108 4-54. One-way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and School Dem ographic Data..................................................................................................................................109

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TERMS A+ Plan Floridas plan to increase student achievement utilizing an assessment tool that includes a criterion-referenced test (CRT) and a normreferenced test (NRT) to assign a grade from A to F to each Florida school. A Plus Plan Floridas middle and high school reform plan to address career education, workforce certification, intensive reading instruct ion, and teacher retention (House Bill 7087, 2006). Autonomy, power, and control The degree of independence, authority, and jurisdiction held by mi ddle school principals. Evaluation The school districts pr ocedure for assessing the performance of principals. Internal communication The school distri cts formal interaction processes between the faculty, staff and district. Job satisfaction The degree of personal gr atification that middle school principals receive from their position. Middle school reform act State legisla tion aimed at middle level education to provide academic focus and rigor with challenging curriculum, highly qualified instructors and strong leadership (Senate Bill 354, 2004). Middle school principal The lead administrator serving adolescents in grades 6 through 8. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Federal legi slation that has increased accountability in public schools by putting reading first and requiring a high quality educational program for all students by insuring that every educator in Title I schools is certified by the stat e in the field that they are to teach, and requires districts to offer more school choice for parents and students zoned in low performing schools (Public Law 107-110, 2002).

PAGE 13

13 Organizational climate The collective beha vior of an organi zation; it is the accumulation of intangible perceptions that individuals have of va rious aspects of the environment for an organi zation (DeMichele, 1998; Chappell, 1995; Deas, 1994). Organizational structure The school districts hi erarchy of authority. Participation in decision making The school districts executiv e processes and the middle school principals opportunity for involvement in the process. Political climate The nature and comp lexity of the school districts internal and external policies. Professional development opportunities The chances for principals to part icipate in personal growth opportunities to enhance job performance. Professional effectiveness The perceive d overall effectiven ess of the middle school principals in their job position. Promotion The school district s commitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization. Regard for personal concern The school di stricts sensitivity to and regard for middle school principals well-being. Relationship with colleagues The quali ty of the middle school principals interaction with peer s, subordinates, and supervisors. Salary and benefits The compensa tion and insurance provided for middle school principals.

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pr esented to Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CENTRAL FLORIDA By Carol Ann Kindt May 2008 Chair: James L. Doud Major: Educational Leadership The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle school principals in Central Florida and to identify and analyze th e relationship between organizational climate variables and job satisfact ion characteristics. Further, this study investigated whether job satisfaction varied as a function of the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, pa rticipation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urba n, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan school grades designated for the past three years. This public middle school study was a modified replication of previ ous research done in higher education. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the variables of interest were distributed to public middle school principals from seven coun ties in Central Florida. In total, 97 individuals received the electronic survey and 51 completed the surveys for a 53% response rate.

PAGE 15

15 Results of this study found the majority of the respondents were Ca ucasian (84.0%), male (56.9%), between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7 %), and held a masters degree (64.7%) or doctorate (27.5%). Thirty-six percent (36.0%) of the respondents reported working as a middle school principal for 4 to 7 years, with 1 to 3 of those years in their current school (44.0%). Statistical analysis of the relationship be tween measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction revealed that middle school principals in Central Florida rated their overall mean satisfaction with th eir position and the dist rict generally high (above 3.8). Data analysis revealed that the statistically signifi cant climate variables leading to job satisfaction were: professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and participation with decision making. Only assign ment of a mentor was found to be a statistically significant predictor for Central Florida middle school principals ratings of importance with position characteristics.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Institute of Educational Leadership (IEL, 2000) identifies intense job stress, excessive time requirements, difficulty of satisfy ing parents and community members, and social problems that make it hard to focus on instruct ional issues as some of the problems faced by todays school principal. Ove r-crowded schools, a lack of respect, low pay, more complex social interference, lack of autonomy, and accountability mandates fu rther contribute to decreasing job satisfaction. Also eviden t is that the attrition rate for principals is rising. In the 1998 National Association of Elementary Sc hool Principals (NAESP) study, Doud and Keller reported that principals were retiring earlier than ever, at an average age of 57. More than half of the NAESP study participants indicated th at they will retire as s oon as they are eligible. Increasing attrition rates cause d by job stress are a real c oncern for a position that is consistently recognized as essential to th e overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996). Factors that influence the stress level of school principals include the job demands that cause the professional role to become ambiguous (Lune nberg & Ornstein, 1991). High-stakes, sweeping federal and state educational reforms have also ad ded to the job demands of the school principal. No Child Left Behind, The Middle School Reform Act, the A+ Plan and the A Plus Plus Plan are among those reforms that directly affect th e role of the middle school principal. The legislators who influence the role of the middle school principal have never worked in this position and may fail to understand the impact such legisl ation has on the principals job responsibilities. Continual change s in legislative requirements can le ad to role conflict where job expectations cannot be met (Matthews & Crow, 2003). Fullan (2001) suggested when reform is mandated from the top-down without being accompanied by quality support, frustration and dissatisfaction can occur. Daresh (2002) also indicated that there ar e several factors that

PAGE 17

17 negatively impact principals commitment to th eir positions--external demands being one of them. There is a shortage of candida tes who are willing to consider the principalship. As the number of students who enter th e nations schools increases, a dditional administrative positions will be needed. For example, results from a 1999 University of Minnesota study estimated that 75% of Minnesota principals wi ll vacate their positions due to retirement or attrition by 2010 while school enrollments are expected to increase by 10 to 20% (IEL, 2000). As the role of the middle school principa l changes and becomes more demanding, it is likely that many educational leaders will face job satisfaction and organizational climate concerns in their positions. Several resear chers have shown that a relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction exis ts in higher education (Levy, 1989; Chappell, 1995; Palmer, 1995; Evans, 1996; Paulson, 1997; DeMichele, 1998; Zabetaski, 1999; Gratto, 2001; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003; Lawrence, 2003; Stephens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005; Reynolds, 2006). These studies have examined the factor s that are related to job satisfaction and organizational climate. With the increasing demands and high-stakes reforms at the middle school level, a need to examine organizational clim ate factors and to identify those factors that lead to job satisfaction and dissatisfacti on among middle school pr incipals exists. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate Job satisfaction and organizati onal climate research in hi gher education is abundant. Climate factors in K-12 education tend to diffe r from those found in most higher education settings. Little research ha s been done with middle school principals in relation to job satisfaction and organizational climate. Several studies have been conducted using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to examine the job satisfaction of public school

PAGE 18

18 principals (Newby, 1999; Bryant 2001; Brogan, 2004; Stemple, 2004; Wheelis, 2005; Turner, 2006). Recommendations from Tu rner (2006) suggest using a su rvey other than the MSQ in future studies as it was designed over 25 years ago for employees in business and industry. Job satisfaction is determined by an organizatio ns ability to satisfy the needs, values, and expectations of employees and can be measured globally to establish a general level of satisfaction or dimensionally to determine the va riables of job satisfaction (DeMichelle, 1998). Variables such as financial rewards, work ing conditions, supervisory practices, company policies, co-workers, opportuni ties for advancement, security and content of the job all contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Glick, 1992). Leadership not only influences job satisfa ction but also has a profound effect on an organizations climate (Marzano, Waters, & Mc Nulty, 2005). Organizational climate is the collective personality of a school and it is based on what is accepted as the social norms or the behavior of those who work with in that school. Deas (1994) de scribed climate as, a collection of intangibles that support and encourage al l the players to work toward a common goal learning (p. 44). In light of rising attrition rates and high stakes accountability systems, principals need a better understa nding of what motivates people to work and how to create the most productive environment possible to ensure that students will achieve. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among middle school principals in Central Flor ida and to identify the factors that enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational clim ate. Further, the study examined if there was a difference in means for job satisfaction by anal yzing demographic variables incl uding: the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time

PAGE 19

19 in current position, annual salar y, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urba n, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. Research Questions 1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified organizational climate factors (internal communication, organi zational structure, political climate, professional development opportunitie s, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern) in their school district? 2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with the organizational climate in their school districts? 3. How important are the five identified jo b satisfaction variables (participation in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and benefits; and professional eff ectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance of their duties? 4. What is the relationship between the meas ures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position am ong the Central Florida middle school principals? 5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principa ls related to the following demographic variables: the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participatio n in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and th e district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years? Limitations Limitation 1: The participants in the survey provided honest answer s to all the survey items. Limitation 2: The number of middle school pr incipals in the Central Florida area provided a sufficient population for the study. Limitation 3: The level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of a principal is a vital component of the daily operation of a middle school.

PAGE 20

20 Delimitations Delimitation 1: Results of the study are only as accurate as the re sponses provided by the participants are honest and correct. Delimitation 2: The study was limited to those participants who were willing to respond to the electronic survey. Significance of the Study A review of the literature emphasized the increased level of complexity of job responsibilities and performance expectations for the middle sc hool principal (Bolman & Deal, 1995; Newby, 1999; Senge, 1990; Turner, 2006; Ubben & Hughes, 1997; Vaill, 1996). Sweeping, high-stakes federal and state educational reforms have increased job demands of the middle school principal and compromised job satisfaction. While A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Academic Excellence, 1983) made several reform recommendations to improve education, many additional conflicting demands we re placed on schools. This report caused widespread scrutiny of the public school system which required an immediate response from principals to increase the rigor and relevance in mathematics, science and foreign language. Principals would also need to develop a plan of action that would assi st in re-building the publics confidence in their schools. Ultimately, this reform exacted a cost by adding many new job responsibilities to the principalship. The nations schools are again embroiled in a cy cle of reform. New federal legislation imposed regulations to correct deficient instru ctional practices and curriculum, but without lessening any of the social or po litical responsibilities on the school s. Since the effectiveness of schools depends on the success of the principa l, it was appropriate to examine what organizational climate factors and job qualities affected the job sa tisfaction of principals. The results will lead to a better understanding of middle school principals ro les and help alleviate

PAGE 21

21 overwhelming, inconsistent, and in effective practices that genera te unnecessary personal, social, and political demands. Other research supports these findi ngs by insisting that the role of the prin cipal is vital to the effective operation of every school (B aughman, 1996; Doud & Keller, 1998). In a study between 1999 and 2002, (Langer & Bo ris-Schacter, 2003) conducted in terviews with more than 200 principals and found that many were frustrated with role conflicts an d the reality of their work loads. These roles continue to beco me more complex as principals remain key instructional leaders, initiato rs of change, school managers, personnel administrators, problem solvers, and boundary spanners for the school (Goldring, 1990; Fullan, 1991; Vandenberghe, 1995). The rising attrition rate and the increasing accountability expected of those in this position created a need to further examine the ro le of the middle school principal. A three decade national study of more than 1,400 middle leve l principals (Petzko, 2002) revealed that in the next 3 to 5 years more than 50% intended to change occupations co mpletely or retire. Evidence from this study on middle school principa ls in Central Florida provided insight into what factors contribute and detract from middle school principals job satisfaction. Results from this study also provided evidence of a difference in means for job satisfaction when controlling for the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals leve l of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, particip ation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the dist rict, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of student s on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years.

PAGE 22

22 This study focused on middle school principals in Central Florida and tested beliefs revealed from the research in higher education ab out job satisfaction and or ganizational climate. The intent of this study was to expose trends related to job satisfa ction and organizational climate factors among K-12 leadership and shar e the results with middle school principals, district superintendents, and st ate leaders. Also included are recommendations for recruitment and ideas for support and training to encourage middle school prin cipals to remain in their positions. Summary This chapter provided an introduction to the topic of organizational climate and job satisfaction as they relate to middle school princi pals. Chapter 2 will provide a review of the literature regarding middle school principals. Th is review includes roles and responsibilities; contemporary challenges and research studies; climate factors; and j ob satisfiers and dissatifiers. Chapter 3 examines the survey research methodol ogy used in this study. Chapter 4 presents the findings of this study. Chapter 5 discusses the results, implications and recommendations from this study.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study was to determin e the degree of job satisfaction among the middle school principals in Centra l Florida and to identify the f actors that enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational climate. This chapter presents a review of the relevant literature describing middle school principals, job satisfaction, motivation, motivation theory, and organizational climate. The Middle School Principal The contemporary principals role is not easily understood. Many stakeholders, both inside and outside the school, influence th at role, creating a need to examine and reconceptualize the role (Matthews & Crow, 2003) This section examines : (a) the role of the middle school principal and what influences it, (b) contemporary challenges, and (c) research studies related to the middle school principal. The Role of the Middle School Principal Middle schools evolved in the early 1950s af ter the public became dissatisfied with the junior high school model which focused on co llege preparation in foreign language and mathematics but failed to address the unique emo tional and educational ch allenges of this age group as they move from childhood into adol escence (George & Alexander, 2003). Public pressure to change the dynamic of the junior high model had a profound effect on the role of the middle level principals job responsibilities. Alex ander and Williams (1968) found that the junior high school model had many qualities from whic h the middle school movement could benefit that would forever change the role of the middle level principal. The role of the principal is consistently recognized as essential to the overall effectiveness of every school (Baughman, 1996). Drake and Ro e (1999) found that the school

PAGE 24

24 principal is part of a complex so cial system and that the role in this glass house can change depending on with whom the prin cipal is interacting. Those gl ass panels are clear from the perspectives of those looking in, but sometimes they appear clouded from the view inside (p. 28). Students, teachers, parent s, and community members have different expectations of the principals behavior and the task of clarifying a professi onal role through expectations, traditions, social ties and an understanding of how we do things around here is constant. Internal and external influences also further define this role. Matthews and Cr ow (2003) identified the group of internal influences as: te achers, students, secretaries, cu stodians, coaches, hall monitors, librarians and anyone else who works inside the bu ilding. External influence is derived from the superintendent, the school board, other princi pals, parents, business partners, community members, and the media. The external influences fuel the new politics in education and if schools are going to be effective an d make a difference in society, pr incipals must have the skills to use these influences for the be tterment of the school (IEL, 2000). In 1980 the president of the National Middl e School Association (NMSA), John Swaim, organized a committee of middle re presentatives to write a positi on paper to bring clarification and direction to the middle school reform effort begun in the early 60s. The final document entitled, This We Believe, was published in 1982 The original document has been revised and rewritten several times in the past two decad es and in 2002 a new committee was formed that approved and released This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents in July 2003. This report includes 14 characteristics that further define the distinctiveness of successful middle schools and helps to restructure the role of the middle school principal. Educators who value working with this age group and are prepared to do so Courageous, collaborative leadership A shared vision that guides decisions An inviting, supportive, and safe environment

PAGE 25

25 High expectations for every memb er of the learning community Students and teachers engaged in active learning An adult advocate for every student School-initiated family and community partnerships Curriculum that is rele vant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity Assessment and evaluation programs that promote quality learning Organizational structures that support meaningful relationships and learning School-wide efforts and policies that fo ster health, wellness, and safety Multifaceted guidance and support services (National Middle School Association, 2003, p. 7) The National Association of Elementary Schoo l Principals (NAESP, 2002) identified in Leading Learning Communities six standards that define the ro le of effective elementary and middle school leaders: Lead schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center. Set high expectations and st andards for the academic and social development of all students and the pe rformance of adults. Demand content and instruction that ensu re student achievement of agreed-upon academic standards. Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and other school goals. Use multiple sources of data as diagnos tic tools to assess, identify, and apply instructional improvement. Actively engage the community to create shared responsibility for student and school success. (p. 2) Collectively, these standards serve to crea te a foundation for leading and attempt to establish consistency within prin cipals roles that focuses on stude nt learning. The role of the principal is shifting and becoming more complex; the principalship can no longer be described in a word such as manager, leader, practitioner, negotiator, or communicator. Since the middle school concept was developed by Eichhorn (1966) and Alexander (Alexander & Williams, 1965) the role of the middle school principal continue s to evolve, but a common thread has emerged that these leaders must concentrate their effo rts on developing and maintaining developmentally appropriate learning environments for adolescents. Valentine, Maher, Quinne, and Irvin (1999)

PAGE 26

26 summarize the role of the middle level principal as someone who must b e professionally adept in varied situations, knowledgeable about educ ational research, and a ggressive for the middle level programs they supervise and the middl e level students they serve (p. 56). Contemporary Challenges The role of the principal is not only influen ced by national associations; but is further defined today by standards-based reform, high-stakes testing and accountability. Principals must now pay close attention to academic achievement and the results of standardized tests. The responsibility for examining test re sults and facing new challenges lies with the pr incipal who is now expected to be the instruc tional leader in data-driven sc hools (George & Alexander, 2003). It is the responsibility of the principal to provi de staff development on data analysis, techniques for data-driven instruction, and how to write a nd monitor individual academic plans that will meet specific needs of each of their students. The new data-driven role of the principal makes reviewing results from distri ct benchmark assessments, state norm-reference and criterionreferenced tests a priority in order to address low performance expectations and low achievement scores. The role of the principal is in a stat e of flux and future preparation programs need to train candidates in the change process, how to analyze and manage rapidly expanding data bases, increased diversity, and technology (Merseth, 1997). To bring uniformity in training, universa l standards and competencies are being established for the principalship. Drake and Roe (1999) explain that many states have established licensure requirements that utilize leadership domains developed in 1993 by the National Policy Board for Educational Admini stration (NPBEA). A list of 21 leadership domains were developed and presented in Principals for Our Changing Schools (Thomson, 1993). In 1996 Standards for School Leaders, referred to as ISLLC Standards (Interstate School

PAGE 27

27 Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996), identified six standards for school leadership. A school leader: (1) facilitates the development, articulation, implem entation and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by th e school community; (2) advocates, nurtures and sustains a school culture and instructional pr ogram conducive to student learning and staff professional growth; (3) ensures management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning environmen t; (4) collaborates with families and community members and mobilizes community resources; (5) act s with integrity, fairne ss, and in an ethical manner; and (6) understands, responds, and influen ces the overall political, social and economic, legal and cultural contexts (Valentine, et al, 1999). Todays schools are continually monitored by federal, state and local assessment practices. Many principals struggle to meet standards imposed by new legislation as they feverishly train teachers to disaggregate data and maximize in structional time with a calendar that is inundated with testing da ys. Many principals wrestle with their philosophies of what is appropriate and effective as they realize that each day a student is tested, a teacher loses valuable instructional time. As the role of the principal expands and changes, it is important to review research that has contributed to the de velopment of this leadership position. Research Studies The first national study of the mi ddle level principalship entitled The Junior High Principalship (Rock & Hemphill, 1966) was conducted by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Over th e next several decades, the NASSP continued to examine the nature and role of middle level leader ship. In 1981, a team of researchers from the NASSP brought unity between junior high and middle school advocates by forming a common language that referred to both groups as middle level (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, &

PAGE 28

28 Keefe, 1981). The Middle Level Principalship: A Survey of Middle Level Principals and Programs resulted in two noteworthy findings: first, that both middle and junior high school principals had more in common than previously thought; and second, that middle level education was unique in that it functions as a bridge between elementary and secondary schools. During the eighties and nineties, middle level administrators delivered a comprehensive educational model centered on the needs of a dolescent learners (Valentine, et al, 1999). This wide-ranging, unified focus would bring tremendous responsibil ity to the middle level principals and expand their professional roles. Over the last 80 years, theoretical concepts of leadership have been identified. Many empirical studies were undertaken to classify leadership behaviors. Initially, studies on leadership behavior were conducte d at the University of Iowa, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) examined the effects of three different types of leadership for handling decision-making situations at the Univer sity of Iowa. These included authoritarian leadership where the leader made all the decision s and assumed fu ll responsibility; democratic leadership where discussion and shared decision making were encouraged and suggestions of ideas from subordi nates were considered; and lais sez-faire leadership where the leaders did not lead and the subordinates made all the decisions (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2003). Findings from these studies showed that of the three styles, subordinates preferred the democratic approach and the authoritarian style was favored least. These results helped to describe and classify leader behavior. Understanding leadersh ip behavior can help leaders motivate and encourage others.

PAGE 29

29 Research on leadership behavior at Ohio St ate University by Ralph Stogdilll resulted in a two-dimensional model of (a) initiating struct ure and (b) considerati on (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996). Initiating structure is defined as the extent of lead ership behavior that is taskoriented. Consideration is defined as the exte nt to which a leader considers a subordinates feelings and ideas. This study mark ed the first time in history that leadership traits were plotted on two separate axis. Subsequently studies that examined these traits were conducted with superintendents, teachers and principals. The Michigan State studies examined factors th at made leaders effective or ineffective. Researchers explored the produc tion-centered and employee-centered leadership behaviors. Production-centered leadership focused on the te chnical aspects of th e job and seeing the employees as a means to an end. The employeecentered leader took personal interest in the lives and needs of the workers. The findings sugg ested that the most effective leaders were both production-centered and employee-cente red (Hersey et al, 1996). Employees seek different things from their jobs and there are a va riety of leadership styles that will help to motivate and encourage wo rkers. It is important for leaders to understand what factors contribute to their own effective or ineffective practices in order to maximize productivity of their subordinates and create an environment where people feel valued and satisfied (Pardee, 1990). Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction has been a focus of res earch for many years and has been one of the most frequently studied variables in orga nizational behavior (H opkins, 1983; Spector, 1997; Lawrence, 2003). Studies have focused on produc tivity, absences and turnover; followed later by promotion of mental health and quality of work life (Gruneburg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983).

PAGE 30

30 Organizational job satisfaction has been evalua ted on a scale to reveal a broad level of satisfaction or the variables of job satisfaction (Glick, 1992; DeMichelle, 1998). Financial rewards, working conditions, s upervisory practices, company po licies, relationships with coworkers, opportunities for advancement, security and content of the job are job satisfaction variables that have been considered. Over time, researchers have developed many different definitions of job satisfaction. One such definition describes a wo rkers subjective appraisal of whether his or her requirements of the work environment are met (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Chappell, 1995; Peek, 2003). Vroom (1964) defines job satisfaction as the affective orientation of indi viduals toward work roles they are presently occupying (p. 99). Johanshishi (1985) and Satterlee (1988) contend that a worker finds job satisfaction through th e emotional feelings toward the job during the course of employment. Herzberg (1966) also asserts that job enrichment,defined as giving employees more freedom, authority, feedback, greater ch allenges where they are accountable and can maximize their skillsis central to motivation. Hers ey et al (1996) explains that job satisfaction is a very important factor when looking at what motivates people to work. Understanding what motivates people to work and how this relates to job satisfaction are key elements in improving educational excellence (Pardee, 1990). Motivation Pardee (1990) conducted a study on three theories of motivation in th e workplace as it directly relates to work producti vity and job satisfaction in the educational environment. The research revealed that motivation is vital to improving output from workers and that educational leaders need a firm understandi ng of how motivation re lates to job satisfaction in order to maximize productivity. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2003) assert that school administrators

PAGE 31

31 believe that motivation is a critical determinant of performance in schools. Motivation to work varies among people but many leaders are unaware of the factors that c ontribute to or detract from motivation. Hersey et al (1996) describe d their study on motivation as an explanation for answers to questions about human nature that will bring a greater unde rstanding of the power that motivation has on future behavi or. Covington (1992) explains: Simply put motivation deals with the why of behavior: Why, for example, do individuals choose to work on certain tasks and not on others; why do they exhibit more or less energy in the pursuit of these tasks; and why do some people persist until the task is completed, whereas others give up before they really start, or in some cases pursue more elegant solutions long after perfectly sensible answers have presented themselves? (pp. 12-13) One of the most noted research studies on motivation was done by Elton Mayo (1933) as he examined various environmental influences on workers productivity and morale at the Western Electric Company in Chicago. This study will be examined in more depth under organizational theory. A review of literature on motiv ation and job satisfaction shows that four historical studies have contributed significantly to the understanding of motivati on and leadership. Pardee (1990), Chappell (1995), DeMichelle (1998), Peek (2003) and Lawrence (2003) utilized this research in their studies to assist with examining the elemen ts that influence the behavior and motivation of human beings. The four studies include: (a) Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, (b) Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory, (c) McClellands Need for Achievement Theory, and (d) McGregors Theory X and Theory Y. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs is a renowned theory that is used for the study of motivation inside organizations. Maslow (1954) identified five ba sic groups of human needs that serve to classify motives and s uggests that, in order to truly u nderstand human behavior, it is imperative to examine an individuals personal aspirations. Maslow fu rther suggests that an

PAGE 32

32 individual could not move to a higher level with out first satisfying the needs at each of the lower levels. Marzano (2003) lists the five categories of needs in hierarchical order as follows: Basic needs that include food and water, The need for personal safety, Social needs including the need to belong, Esteem needs that include feelings of se lf-respect and the resp ect of others, and Self-actualization or the need for a se nse of personal fulfillment. (p. 148) Many human beings are successful at achieving the lower levels of Maslows hierarchy but not many people will achieve the level of self-actualiza tion. Despite great interest in the hierarchy theory, there has been limited research done to validate the theory; yet, there is conclusive evidence to support that individuals will determin e their personal needs on the five categories that Maslow defined (Lun enburg & Ornstein, 2003). Herzbergs Motivation Hygiene Theory has contributed tremendously to the nature of human motivation (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Understanding what motivates workers to produce can assist leaders in creating an environment that will enhance job satisfaction and, subsequently, productivity. While Maslow believed satisfied needs create d the greatest motivation, Herzberg (1966) believed that hygiene factors alone could not improve performance. Herzbergs Motivation Hygiene Theory is a theory grounded in Maslows earlier work. Frederick He rtzberg postulated a theory that job factors motivate employees. He examined the attitude s of 200 men while they worked. From this, he created a two-dimensiona l paradigm of factors that he theorized would influence workers. The paradigm included motivation and hygiene factors. Motivating (intrinsic) factors includ e achievement, recognition, work itsel f, responsibility, advancement, and possibilities of growth while hyg iene (extrinsic) factors consist of company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, sala ry, and status motivators (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).

PAGE 33

33 This two-factor theory suggests that satis faction and dissatisfac tion do not function as opposites but are separate and distinct. Rather, th at the opposite of satisf action is no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfacti on is no dissatisfaction. While most of the intrinsic factors do serve as motivators for employees, hygiene f actors do not influence motivation--but their absence can lead to job dissatisf action (Herzberg, 1976). Herzbergs two-factor theory examines the elements of motivation which are relevant to the work envir onment (Pardee, 1990). McClellands Need for Achievement Theory proposed by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1976), maintains that motivation is associated with learning through the environment and a person will learn to repeat beha vior that will lead to satisfaction of a need. Production in an organization can increase with th e integration of achievement theory. Workers will produce more if their jobs are linked to a hi gh need and when the behavior to satisfy that need is triggered, the result is more work gear ed toward the goals of the overall organization (McClelland et al., 1959). McGregors Theory X and Theory Y are two distinct assumptions of human behavior and motivation. Theory X leadership assumes that workers are characterized by a lack of ambition, responsibility and an overall di slike of work, and leaders resp ond to these characteristics by using coercion and constant redirection in order to achieve the goals of the organization (Beck, 1990; Hersey et al, 1996). Theory X assumes that people are motivated by money, fringe benefits, and the threat of punishment (Hersey, et al, 1996). In response to this theory, managers closely monitor and control their employees in order to keep th em focused on the organizations goals and attain maximum production from them. McGregor (1960) thought that a modified vers ion of Theory X that considered the human relations concept in the work e nvironment would benefit a larger scope of managers. This is

PAGE 34

34 Theory Y. McGregors Theory Y assumes that the average worker is characterized by a desire to seek out responsibility. People can be creative and selfdirected, but it is the responsibility of the manager to foster these qualities in the workers through leadership that motivates and inspires. When examining educational settings, it is noteworthy to examine motivation theory as it relates to workers as learners. John Atkinson s (1957) and McClellands (1965) drive theory explains that motivation for lear ners can be categorized in terms of two opposing forces: striving for success and the fear of failure. It is theori zed that over time people v acillate toward one of two tendencies when faced with a new task: su ccess oriented or failu re avoidant (Marzano, 2003). Success instills confiden ce in people and results in futu re successes and avoidance can turn into self-handicapping be haviors like procrastination. Attribution theory deals with students perceptions of how th ey achieved a prior success or their perception of what caused a past failure (Weiner, 1972; Weiner, Frieze, Kulka, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). Individuals attr ibute four causes to their success including ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty (Marza no, 2003). Covington (1992) explained that the most influential factor in attri bution theory is the role that effort plays in an individuals achievement, for example, if students believe their failures are from a lack of trying, then they are more likely to remain optimistic about succeedi ng in the future (p. 16). Attribution theory brought a new perspective to drive theory as it became clear that motivation can be modified as an individual examines personal effort a nd attributes associ ated with a task. Covington (1992) also explained the importance of self-worth in relation to motivation and asserted that the search for self acceptance is one of the most notable human priorities. Selfacceptance was described as the accep tance of status in ones peer group and if self-acceptance is

PAGE 35

35 based on high achievement, then only a few high performing individuals can achieve a sense of self-worth (Marzano, 2003). In The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life Joseph LeDoux (1996) examined the role that emotions play in motivation and explained the lack of control that humans have over their emotions. Anyone who has tried to fake an emotion, or who has been the recipient of a faked one, knows a ll too well the futility of the attempt. (p. 19). Motivation can be driven out of emotions such as fear, obsession, anger, envy, or love and can often override an individuals value system in order to reach a goal. The theory of self-system takes into consid eration the four previous theories and helps individuals decide whether to engage in a ne w challenge (Marzano, 2003). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) explains that self is everything that transcends through our conscious minds including desires, actions, fears, and pleasuresbut most importantly, it is a hierarchy of personal goals. This theory reveals an individual s deepest needs and aspirations. These last five theories examined a complex set of dynamics that can encourage or dispel an individuals motivation. It is vital for edu cational leaders to understand what influences human motivation in order to mani pulate internal and external sour ces within an organization to create an effective working climate. Organizational Climate Organizational climate is the environmental qua lity of any school, department or district (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2003). The focal point in this study is centered on the relationship between job satisfaction and organi zational climate as it relates to middle school principals. This section examines the (a) dimensions of organi zational climate and (b) organizational theory.

PAGE 36

36 Dimensions of Organizational Climate The focus of organizational climate research is to examine orga nizational policies, practices and procedures (Schein, 2000). Litwin and Stringer ( 1968) claimed that organizational climate provides a connection be tween the systems of an organization and the behavior or motivations of employees. Peterson and Spencer (1990) defined an instit utions environment as a comprehensive look that includes all internal a nd external organizationally related elements. Peterson and White (1992) defined climate as the current, common patterns of important dimensions of organizational life or its members. (p. 181). A review of research reveals that organizati onal climate has been de scribed in very broad terms such as leadership, classroom inst ruction, classroom management, the physical surroundings, and the nature and tone of rela tionships within the or ganization (Anderson, 1982; Gottsfreson, Hybl, Gottsfredson, & Castandea, 1 986). Contemporary studies of organizational climate have focused on the human relations as pect of an organizati on. Deal and Kennedys (1983) concept of climate is st ated as the collective persona lity of a school based upon an atmosphere distinguished by the social and profe ssional interactions of the individuals in the school (p. 14). This definition focuses on colleg iality and professionalism and examines the way people interact within the school and the extent to whic h they approach their work (Marzano, 2003). Organizational Theory Lunenburg & Ornstein (2003) state that duri ng a regular work day, most actions taken by school administrators are grounded in theory rather than simple practices or procedures. The development of organizational theo ry began in the twentieth cent ury. Two separate management perspectives emerged under classical organizational theory: scient ific management that focuses

PAGE 37

37 on work and workers, and administrative management that is concerned with how the organization functions ad ministratively. Taylors (1911) scie ntific management approach was developed from a study that focused on finding one best way to perform a task for the greatest efficiency. Lunenburg and Orns tein report Taylors scientific management resulted in four guiding principals: (a) scientific job analysis that requires extensive obs ervation of a certain job function to find the most efficient procedures; (b) selection of personnel where workers are strategically placed in positions that would maximize their tale nts and bring another layer of efficiency to ensure maximum output; (c) management cooperation where mangers monitor performance, and (d) functional supervising that separated administ rative duties from worker responsibilities to ensure a clear understanding of everyones ro le. Taylors global job analysis continues to influence the struct ure and productivity of todays organizations with regard to workers and management. Administrative management is a global perspective that examines how the organization functions administratively. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2003) reported th at Fayol presented management as a continuous process of fi ve functions: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. He also developed 14 guiding principals fo r managers that give emphasis specifically to chain of command, allocation of authority, order, efficiency, equity, and stability. Gulick, while serving for Franklin D. Roosev elts administration, built with Urwick their ideas of the functions of managers from Fayols 14 Principals of Management and coined the acronym POSDCoRB (Gulick & Urwi ck, 1937). It identifies the se ven functions of a manager as: planning defined as the creating of an ac tion plan that is goal oriented; organizing defined as the formal structure of an organization that is aligned with th e organizations goals; staffing

PAGE 38

38 defined as the procedures for recruiting, traini ng and maintaining personne l in positive working conditions; directing defined as the managers duty of continual decision-making and disseminating these decisions to the workfo rce for continual direction and focus; coordinating defined as finding connections within the work to assist with consistency within departments and processes; reporting defined as a checks and balances procedure that keeps all personnel informed of progress through observati on, data collection and research; and budgeting defined as the fiscal responsibility for the overall organizat ion. In classical or ganizational theory, the focus of the leader of an organization was based on the overall needs of that organization (output) rather than on the needs of an individuals working relationship (people). During the human relations movement, th e benefits of looking beyond organizational efficiency to human affairs erup ted. Mayos (1933) study fueled this movement with research done at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric. A six-year study was performed on groups of female and male workers. The first study sepa rated females into a control and experimental group. The lighting in the experimental group was varied along with other environmental factors. Interestingl y, the production of both female groups improved even as the environment worsened. Mayo found improved productivity resu lted from increased morale, a feeling of belonging, and effective management where motiv ating, leading, particip ative decision-making and effective communication were exercise d (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2003). The second study was performed on male work ers who were presented with incentive pay that would increase as their production increased. The results revealed the formation of a group dynamic where operating norms were establis hed for what was acceptable output for the group members. Those that exceeded or fell sh ort were chastised by the group. The incentive

PAGE 39

39 pay was completely ignored. The importance of understanding group behavi or as a manager was acknowledged. The human relations approach accepts that people are motivated by social and psychological needs and economic incentives. Th ese needs include recognition, belongingness, security, and the perceptions of individuals including their beliefs, motiv ations, and values. Hersey et al (1996) conclude th at the recognition of task from the scientific movement and relationship from the human relations approach has characterized the writings on leadership ever since the conflict between scientific ma nagement and the human relations schools of thought became apparent (p. 101). Principals and Job Satisfaction Many studies have examined factors that in fluence the job satisfaction of elementary, middle, and high school principa ls and assistant principals. One such study (Turner, 2006) assessed job satisfaction of middle school prin cipals in upstate South Carolina using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Respons es to this questionnaire were the primary focus of the study. The researcher also exam ined the relationship between the following demographics and job satisfaction for middle school principals: age, years of service, gender, race, salary, and school size. The population included 9 counties and 28 middle schools. The sample chosen from this population included 17 middle schools. Of the 17 middle schools, 15 principals responded. The results revealed that the job satisfacti on levels of th ese middle school principals ranged from satisfied to very sati sfied within their curre nt position. Eighty-six percent (86%) indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied, with more that 13% indicating that they were very satisfied.

PAGE 40

40 Turner (2006) found that the level of job satisfaction for middle school principals increased with agerespondents over 55 years of age had the highest mean score in every dimension on the MSQ. These dimensions includ ed moral values, creativity, social service, achievement, and responsibility. Of these dimensions, principals over 55 reported the highest mean score for social service and the lowest m ean score was security. Principals under the age of 45 had the highest mean score in achievement and the lowest mean score in moral values. Turner (2006) found a relationship between ge nder and job satisfac tion for middle school principals. Females mean satisfaction score wa s 3.8 while the mean score for males was 3.5. The highest mean score for females was in social serv ice (4.43) while their lowest mean score was in achievement (4.0). Male respondents also had thei r highest mean in social service (4.04) and their lowest mean score in achievement (3.87). Only three African American principals were included in Turners (2006) study. He found no significant relationship be tween race and job satisfaction which was attributed to the small sample size. Responses from the African-A mericans in this study revealed moral values as the highest mean score (4.2) wh ile the highest mean score from Caucasian participants was (4.23) for social service. Turner (2006) also examined the impact of salary on j ob satisfaction for middle school principals. The study revealed th at two middle school principals earning annual salaries between $75,000 and $100,000 rated their satisfaction level as extremely satisfied: the others earning between $50,000 and $75,000 indicated they were very satisfied. Those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 had higher mean scores in every dimension than those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year.

PAGE 41

41 Finally, this study examined the relationshi p between job satisfaction for middle school principals and school size. Respondents from all category levels from fe wer than 300 students to over 1,000 students were satisf ied. A trend related to the five dimensions of job satisfaction was not observed in the mean values between enrollment categories. Recommendations from this study suggest replication using a survey othe r than the MSQ as it was designed over 25 years ago for employees in business and industry. Al so recommended was the addition of open-ended questions to the survey which coul d lead to more insightful findings. Newby (1999) assessed the general satisfaction level of 188 middle school principals in Virginia as measured by the MSQ. Newby bega n by measuring the levels of satisfaction of middle school principals according to specific de mographic variables such as gender, age, degree, experience, school loca tion, and school size. Middle school principals job satisfaction was measured according to the 20 dimensions measured on the MSQ. Results of the demographic variables were then compared to th e results of the 20 dimensions to reveal any significant relationships. A mean score of 3.65 (SD = .57) for the principals General Satisfaction indicated that these principals were Satisfied (3.00-3.99) with their pos itions. All the General Satisfaction scores were within the Satisfied ra nge with regard to the demographic variables. When examining the mean scores of the 20 di mensions of the MSQ, a range of Slightly Satisfied (2.00-2.99) to Very Satisfied (4.00 -4.99) was revealed. The dimension of Compensation ranked the lowest (M = 2.83, SD = .94) and Social Servic e ranked the highest (M = 4.19, SD = .73). Demographically, females along w ith older and younger principals were significantly more satisfied than males with Activity and Variety. Principals with specialist degrees were significantly more satisfied with achievement than those pr incipals with masters and doctorates. The research revealed that mi ddle principals who work in suburban schools were

PAGE 42

42 significantly more satisfied with Compensation, S upervision, and Working Conditions than those principals who worked in urban or rural schools. Principals at schools considered large (over 800 students) were significantly more satisfied with General Satisfaction, Advancement and Security than those who worked with smaller student populations. Newby (1999) recommended more research on j ob satisfaction in the principalship. As the nation continues to promote high-stakes testing, the relations hip of student performance and job satisfaction could be examined. Furt her recommendations incl ude a comparison study between high school, middle school, and elementa ry school principals sa tisfaction and finally, the integration of more qualitative data with interviews and open-ended survey questions. Stemple (2004) replicated Newby (1999) to examine job satisfaction among high school principals in Virginia. Using the (MSQ), St emple analyzed the job satisfaction of 183 high school principals in relation to gender, age, and salary, number of assistan t principals, years as a principal, tenure, school socio-ec onomic status, and school size. Pr incipals were least satisfied with compensation (M= 12.84; SD= 4.62) and most sa tisfied with being of service to others (M=19.39; SD =3.77). A significant predictor of job satisfaction was the number of assistant principals. Those principals who reported five or more assistant prin cipals had significantly higher levels of satisfaction (M=69.70; SD=15.93) than those who had less than two (M=65.14; SD= 12.62). Sodoma (2005) conducted a study that examin ed the job satisfaction of Iowa public school principals. This study contrasted the j ob satisfaction of current principals to the perceptions found in a study from 1999. The anal ysis included demograp hic variables of sex, years served as a principal, years served in present school, and school type. Using Hertzbergs Motivation and Hygiene Factor th eory, the researcher examined the relationship between overall

PAGE 43

43 job satisfaction and leadership and management tasks to determine if there was a significant change from 1999 to 2005. The population included principals working in public elementary, middle/junior high, and high school s. A 76% response rate was achieved in the 1999 study; the 2005 study yielded a response rate of 64%. The results showed that principals were more satisfied in 2005 than those surveyed in 1999 even though principals in 2005 had more responsibilities and greater accountability. Both studies found that principals were very satisfied with their relationships with teachers, parents, administrative teams/cabinet, board of education, and with the quality of their relationship with the superintendent and their sense of achieveme nt. Areas generating less satisfaction for the principal included the time commitment that the community places on the principal, salary, and the community image of school administrators. Bo th studies revealed less satisfaction with the time demands on the principalship and reported a tr end that principals were spending more time on management duties than leadership tasks. Contradicting Herzbergs theory, the results showed that principals were more satisfied with hygiene factors th an with motivation, and principals who spent more time on management and leadership activities were overall more satisfied. Wheelis (2005) study examined the relations hip between School Performance Scores (SPS) and job satisfaction of prin cipals in Louisiana. The sa mple (1328 elementary, middle and high school principals in Louisi ana) was surveyed using the S hort Form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) in addition to three demographic questions and three open-ended questions. Results from Wheelis (2005) revealed no significant difference in intrinsic, extrinsic, and general satisfaction levels wi th regard to gender, size of school, type of school, highest degree earned, or socioeconomic label of th e school. A significant relationship was found

PAGE 44

44 between general job satisfaction and intrinsic job satisfaction, extrin sic job satisfaction, socioeconomic label and type of school. Additi onal responses indicated that time management, amount of paperwork, and instructional leader versus manager we re their greates t challenges. According to Wheelis, the most satisfying aspect of the job was the studen ts themselves and the opportunity to work closely with them. Border (2004) studied job satisfaction within a sample of Floridas middle school assistant principals as a factor in maintaining an administrative workforce in the future. Eighty (80) middle school assistant principals from si x school districts were surveyed using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Bowling Green State Universi ty. Results revealed that a majority (90%) of the assistant principals were sa tisfied with their positions. The greatest degree of satisfaction (83%) was in rela tion to the supervision they rece ived at work along with their relationships with colleagues (82%). The participants were least satisfied (50%) with salary and promotion considerations. Work, pay, promotion, supervision, people, and the job in general had a negative correlation to tenure. The analysis also revealed that 42.5% of the assistant principals desired to become principals in the future. Brogan (2003) studied the job satisfaction of 128 high school principals in Idaho using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire S hort Form (MSQ). The study included 13 demographic questions pertaining to school enrollment, gender, ye ars in current position, years of experience as a high school principal, highest degree earned, geographi c region, and ethnicity. Participants were also asked if they would be willing to change professions if another job opportunity became available in the next 12 months Results of the study found a small level of difference between high school princi pals related to gender in thei r general job satisfaction with males (M=78.43, SD=8.96) having marginally highe r levels of satisfaction than females

PAGE 45

45 (M=75.81, SD=10.22). Principals with more experience as well as those who had the most support (i.e., highest number of vice/assistant principals) repo rted higher levels of general satisfaction than their co unterparts. The level of education of the principal was reported to have no significant relationship to general job satisfaction. Greska (2003) used the Job Descriptive I ndex (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) to assess the level of job satisfaction of middle school assistan t principals in North Carolina. Selected demographic variables in cluding age, ethnicity, level of education, number of years as an assistant principal, salar y, school location, number of st udents on free and reduced-priced meals, and school performance results were examined. Results indicated no significant relationship between overall job satisfaction and the demographic variables; although the level of satisfaction did vary based on the as sistant principals future plans and primary duties at the time. Overall, the participants indicated they were satisfied with their work, opportunity for advancement, supervision, relati onship with co-workers, and the job in general. Assistant principals in this study had a neutral or ambivalent response to salary. Barry (2002) studied high school principals in Michigan by analyzi ng job satisfaction and its relationship with principals l eadership styles. The study reveal ed that male principals were more satisfied with their ability to be promoted than female principals. The relationship between job satisfaction and salary revealed that thos e principals who were paid more were more satisfied. Those principals in larger schools scored significantly higher in transformational leadership than those in smaller schools. Younger principals had less individualized consideration for others than principals over 46 years of age. The study also revealed that a principals job satisfaction increased when the principals leadership style was high in Inspirational Motivation (IM), Individualized Cons ideration (IC), Idealized Influence (II), and

PAGE 46

46 Intellectual Stimulation (IS)the transformational leadership styles. Job satisfaction was low when principals used the trans actional leadership styles of Ma nagement by Exception (ME) and Laissez-Faire (LF). Sablatura (2002) studied the differences betw een urban, suburban, and rural principals by comparing job satisfaction among the groups, their professional commitment and willingness to pursue other principalships. This study also ex amined what job satisfac tion factors were most closely related to the principals overall job satisfaction. Results show ed that principals were well satisfied with stakeholders and the sense of challenge and accomplishment derived from their jobs, and that they were moderate ly satisfied with their relations hips with their supervisors and other district personnel. All groups were less satisfied with salary, but the urban and rural principals were significantly less satisfied with compensation than the suburban principals. Variables included age, sex, ethnicity, highest degree earned, administrative experience, campus level, enrollment, percent of minority students and job satisfaction factors. Brady (2001) surveyed 162 principals in Calif ornia to examine self-perceptions of the schools organizational effectivene ss, job performance, level of sa tisfaction and stress, as they related to the job itself. Significant relationships between job satisfaction and school effectiveness, stress, and perceived performan ce were discovered. Perceived job performance was related to length of time in current position and years as a principal. The longer a principal was in the position, the level of ones perceive d performance increased. No relationship was found between job satisfaction and level of schools effectiveness, stress and perceived job performance with the intention to leave in the near future. The majority of participants in this study reported their schools to be effective with high le vels of perceived job performance and an overall satisfaction w ith their positions.

PAGE 47

47 Bryant (2001) also performed a comparison study of principals in low performing or exemplary schools under the North Carolinas st andards and accountability program. The study was conducted using the Minnesota Satisfac tion Questionnaire (MSQ) and demographic variables included gender, age, years of work experience, leve l of education, and 23 sub-test scales designed to measure facets of job sati sfaction. Results of the study demonstrated no relationship between general job satisfaction and level of educa tion, years of work experience, and the performance rating of their schools; significant differences were found when male and female participants were compared separately in relation to their job satisfaction scores. Age, gender, educational level, and activity were va riables found to be predictors of general job satisfaction for principals from both school performance groups. Principals and Job Satisfaction Summary In review, the research results of what contributes to job satisfaction are mixed. The examination of research has shown many demogr aphic factors that contribute to higher job satisfaction including: gender, in particular being male (Delgado, 2001; Barry, 2002; Brogan, 2003); opportunity for promotion (Barry, 2002); re lationship with superiors (Sablatura, 2002; Border, 2004); years of experience (Brady, 2001; Brogan,2003); social service (Newby, 1999; Stemple, 2004; Turner, 2006); and the number of assistant principals (Brogan, 2003; Stemple, 2004). The factors that contri buted to job dissatisfaction in clude: low pay (Barry, 2002; Sablatura, 2002; Border, 2004; St emple, 2004), job security (Tur ner, 2006), and time demands (Sodoma, 2005; Wheelis, 2005). The review of re search also revealed factors that had no significant effect on job satisfa ction, including leve l of education (Bryant, 2001; Brogan, 2003; Greska, 2003; Wheelis, 2005), and the school pe rformance category (Bryant, 2001; Wheelis, 2005).

PAGE 48

48 Summary Principals are integral to the success of Americas middle schools. Increasing attrition rates caused by job stress is a gr owing concern for a position that is consistently recognized as essential to the overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996) High-stakes, sweeping federal and state education reforms have added to the job demands of the middle school principal. It is important to examine the factor s that enhance or detract from middle school principals job satisfaction. The role of the principal has been studied for several decades and is continually scrutinized as new federal, stat e, and local mandates are enforce d. The principal is part of a complex social system and expectations of this role vary depending on the audience (Drake & Roe, 1999). These expectations require that the principal is able to perform a myriad of duties in order to accommodate internal and external stakeholders. In order to be effective, it is vital for educational leaders to understand what influe nces human motivation in order to manipulate internal and external sources w ithin an organization to create an effective working climate. Motivation is directly related to job satisfaction. Herse y, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) explain that job satisfaction is a very important factor when lo oking at what motivates people to work. Understanding what motivat es people to work and how this relates to job satisfaction are key elements in improving educational excellen ce (Pardee, 1990). Employees seek different things from their jobs and there are a variety of leadership styles that will help to motivate and encourage workers. It is important for leaders to understand what factors contribute to their own effective or ineffective practices in order to maximize productivity of their subordinates and create an environment where peop le feel valued and satisfied.

PAGE 49

49 Todays middle school principals must have an understanding of what motivates their teachers and students as they face public scrutiny like no other time in history. Since the middle school concept was developed by Eichhorn (1966) and Alexander (Alexander & Williams, 1965) the role of the middle school principal conti nues to evolve, but a clear common thread is emerging that principals must be able to cr eate a quality environmen t in the school where teachers, staff and students feel valued and are satis fied with their work. The design of this study is examined in Chapter 3.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to determin e the degree of job satisfaction among the middle school principals in Centra l Florida and to identify the f actors that enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational climate. Further, the study examined if there was a difference in means for job satisfaction by an alyzing demographic variables including: the principals gender, age, and et hnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annu al salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, sc hool location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunc h, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. This chapter presen ts a description of the research methodology. Research Questions Data was obtained from middle school principals using an electronic survey. The survey was based on the following research questions. 1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified organizational climate factors (internal communication, organi zational structure, political climate, professional development opportunitie s, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern) in their school district? 2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with the organizational climate in their school districts? 3. How important are the five identified jo b satisfaction variable s (participation in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and benefits; and professional eff ectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance of their duties? 4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position am ong the Central Florida middle school principals? 5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principa ls related to the following demographic variables: the

PAGE 51

51 principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participatio n in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and th e district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years? Methodology To explore these research questions, several surveys were reviewed from existing studies on job satisfaction and organizational climate constructs (Levy, 1989; Palmer, 1995; Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; DeMichele, 1998; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Step hens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005; Reynolds, 2006). Chappells (1995) survey was adapted to a ddress the specific population of middle school principals. Part I addressed demographic information about the middle school principal. It was divided into three parts: pr incipal demographics, education/experience demographics and school/district demographics. In Part II A middl e school principals were asked to respond to questions that addressed the leve l or degree to which organizationa l climate factors were present in their district. In Part II B middle school principals rated th eir satisfaction w ith each of the organizational climate factors as it related to thei r district. In Part II C middle school principals rated the importance of job satisfact ion factors as they related to their position, and in Part II D middle school principals were asked to give an overall satisfaction rating for their school and district. Part III was a short-re sponse question that prov ided participants with an opportunity to express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or eliminated from their position that would increase thei r overall job satisfaction. Population The population for this study included all pub lic middle school principals in seven Central Florida counties (N=97). The sample included those middle school principals who

PAGE 52

52 completed the electronic survey (N=51). Prior to selection, the research er coded all potential candidates according to their dist rict and school. The desired response rate as established by the researcher was 51%. Procedure for Data Collection Prior to the collection of data, a copy of the survey instrument was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Boar d for Research with Human Subjects (UFIRB). After UFIRB approval had been obtained, the researcher assigned all potential participants a user ID and password and the survey was e-mailed w ith letters of invitation and approval from the superintendent. The letter of i nvitation explained the ro le of the researcher and the anticipated role of each participant, giving information regarding how to access the survey. When participants visited the web site for completion of the instrument, they were asked to give their consent by clicking on I agree prior to having a ccess to the questionnaire. Participants were informed that they could decline participati on or skip any questions they believed to be inappropriate. They were informed that all resp onses were confidential to the extent provided by law. They completed the questionnaire and de mographic questions electronically and submitted it to a secure server at the Un iversity of Florida. After tw o weeks time, 20 principals had responded to the electronic survey yielding a re sponse rate of 21%. The researcher sent a reminder e-mail to all principals who had not yet completed the survey. The e-mail notice contained the link to the web site for completion of the instrument on-line. After the third week, 42 principals had responded to the electronic surv ey yielding a response rate of 43%. A third and final e-mail was sent to all principals who had not responded. After four weeks, 51 principals had responded yielding a final response rate of 53%.

PAGE 53

53 Instrumentation The survey used in this study was ad apted from Chappells (1995) study on job satisfaction and organizational cl imate factors in the higher edu cation work place. Chappell substantiated the instruments reliability, validity and consistency by field testing. The instruments consistency was established using a pre/post test model. The validation process requested the input of 9 particip ants, 8 of whom completed both assessments. After comparing results from the first test administration to the second test administration, the field test produced a correlation coefficient as high as 0.942. In addition, a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analysis affirmed that the questions were una mbiguous and logical, and sufficient correlations existed between the responses of the fi rst and second test administrations. The adapted survey used in this study test ed the same theoretical constructs on middle school principals in Central Flor ida. A question was added to pr ovide the particip ants with the opportunity to express in their own words different aspects that could be added or eliminated from their position that would in crease their overall job satisf action. The amended survey was sent to a panel of six district administrators who previously held the position of middle school principal. The administrators were asked to re view the clarity of the questions, the perceived comfort level in responding to the question for mi ddle school principals, a nd the accuracy of the terminology as it related to the pos ition of the school principal. The researcher utilized the recommendations of the panel in the final instrument. Organizational Climate Factors The construct of organizational climate th at was tested utilized the following seven identified organizational climate constructs: 1. Internal communication defined as the school district s formal interaction process between the facult y, staff and the district.

PAGE 54

54 2. Organizational structure defined as the school districts hierarchy of structure. 3. Political climate defined as the nature and complexity of the school dist ricts internal and external policies. 4. Professional development opportunities defined as the chance for principals to participate in personal trai nings to enhance job performance. 5. Evaluation defined as the school districts pro cedure for assessing the performance of middle school principals. 6. Promotion defined as the school districts co mmitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization. 7. Regard for personal concern defined as the school districts sensitivity to and regard for middle school principals well-being. Job Satisfaction Variables The construct of job satisfaction was examined in relationship to the seven organizational climate factors previously mentioned. The followi ng is a list of the identified job satisfaction variables: 1. Participation in decision making defined as the districts executive processes and the middle school principals opportunity for involvement in the process. 2. Autonomy, power and control defined as the degree of independence, authority, and jurisdiction held by middl e school principals. 3. Relationship with colleagues defined as the quality of the principals interactions with peers, subordinates, and supervisors. 4. Salary and benefits defined as the wages and insu rance plans for middle school principals. 5. Professional effectiveness defined as the perceived overall efficiency of middle school principals in their job. Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations we re used to describe the sample population. To address questions 1-3, data concerning the presence of climate factors, satisfaction with

PAGE 55

55 climate factors and the importance of job satisfa ction variables were examined to produce a descriptive profile of middle school principals in Central Florida. Question four was answered using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation to analyze the relationship between the job satisfaction variables and organi zational climate factors for middl e school principals in Central Florida. Finally, question 5 was addressed usi ng Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine the demographic variables including: ge nder, age, ethnicity, level of education, length of time as a principal and length of time in current positi on, annual salary, participation in an induction program, assignment of a mentor; and the school si ze, type, Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years, socioeconomic status and district (indepe ndent variables) on the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics (dependent variables) Summary This study tested the theories and constructs of organizational climate and its relationship with job satisfaction as applied to middle school principals in Ce ntral Florida. Several studies have been conducted in other states using the Minnesota Satisfaction Qu estionnaire to assess job satisfaction of school principals (Newby, 1999; Bryant, 2001; Brogan, 2003; Wheeler, 2005; Turner, 2006). This study examin ed the presence, level of satisfa ction, and overall importance of organizational climate factors and five identified job satisfaction variab les in Central Florida school district as perceived by middle school princi pals. The relationship of these two constructs and specific demographic data were also determined. Results of this study are reported in Chapter 4.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to determin e the degree of job satisfaction among the middle school principals in Centra l Florida and to identify the f actors that enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational climate. Further, the study examined if there was a difference in means for job satisfaction by an alyzing demographic variables including: the principals gender, age, and et hnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annu al salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, sc hool location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunc h, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. Specifically, this study addressed the following 5 questions. 1. To what extent do middle school principals report the presence of seven identified organizational climate factors (internal communication, organi zational structure, political climate, professional development opportunitie s, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern) in their school district? 2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with the organizational climate in their school districts? 3. How important are the five identified jo b satisfaction variable s (participation in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and benefits; and professional eff ectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance of their duties? 4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position am ong the Central Florida middle school principals? 5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principa ls related to the following demographic variables: the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participatio n in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and th e district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years?

PAGE 57

57 Survey Responses Ninety-seven (97) electronic surveys were se nt via e-mail to middle school principals in Central Florida. A letter of invitation explained the role of the researcher and the anticipated role of each participant, giving information regardi ng how to access the survey. When participants visited the web site for completion of the instru ment, they were asked to give their consent by clicking on I agree prior to having access to the que stionnaire. Participants were informed that they could decline partic ipation or skip any questions they be lieved to be inappropriate. They were informed that all responses were kept conf idential to the extent provided by law. They completed the questionnaire and demographic qu estions electronically and submitted it to a secure server at the University of Florida. Some returned surveys had missing items, however, all responses were recorded and utilized in the analysis After two weeks time, 20 principa ls had responded to the electronic survey yielding a response rate of 21%. The rese archer sent a reminder e-mail to all principals who did not yet complete the survey. The e-ma il notice contained the link to the web site for completion of the instrument on-line. After the third week, 42 principals had responded to the electronic survey yielding a response rate of 43%. A third and final e-mail was sent to all principals who had not responded. After four weeks, 51 principals had responded yielding a final response rate of 53%. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0, was used and provided; (a) comprehensive calculation of descriptive statistics, (b) frequency distributions, (c) correlation coefficients, and (d) an alysis of variance. All proce dures were calculated using an alpha level of (<.05*) and/or (< .01**). All sign ificant p values and correlations have been marked with an asterisk (*) or double asterisk (**) on all the tables.

PAGE 58

58 Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida Gender Table 4-1 provides the distribu tion of middle school princi pal respondents in Central Florida according to gender. Fifty-one (51) respondents answered this survey question. As displayed in Table 4-1, the majority (29, 56.9%) were male compared with 22 (43.1%) female. Age Table 4-2 shows the age dist ribution of middle school respon dent principals in Central Florida. A total of 48 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 27 (56.3%) reported themselves under the age of 50, and 21 ( 43.7%) reported being over the age of 51. Ethnicity Table 4-3 delineates the dist ribution of responding middle sc hool principals in Central Florida according to their ethnicit y. Fifty (50) respondents answered this question. Of these, 42 (84.0%) were white, 7 (14.0%) were black and 1 (2.0%) responded as multi-racial. Level of Education Table 4-4 provides the distribu tion of middle school principals (N=51) in Central Florida according to level of education. Of these, 33 ( 64.7%) reported they held a masters degree, 4 (7.8%) held a specialist degree and 14 (27.5%) held a doctorate degree. Number of Years as a Principal Table 4-5 shows the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according to years of service as a principal. A total of 50 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 7 (14.0%) indicated they had been a principal for less than one year, 14 (28.0%) have been a principal between 1-3 years, 18 (36.0%) reported serving as a principal for 4-7 years, 3 (6.0%)

PAGE 59

59 reported 8-10 years of service and 8 (16.0%) re ported more than 10 y ears of service as a principal. Number of Years as a Principal in Current Middle School Table 4-6 shows the distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according to years of service as a principa l in their current school. A tota l of 50 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 9 (18.0%) indicated that they have worked in their current school for less than one year, 22 (44.0%) have served th eir school between 1-3 years, 13 (26.0%) have served 4-7 years, 4 (8.0%) have served 8-10 ye ars while 2 (4.0%) reported having worked in their current middle school for more than 10 years Salary Table 4-7 shows a distribution of middle schoo l principals in Central Florida according to salary. A total of 51 respondents answered this survey question. One (2.0%) indicated they had an annual salary less that $70,000, 15 (29.4%) re ported an annual salary between $70,000$79,999, 24 (47.0%) reported an annual sa lary between $80,000-$89,999, 10 (19.6%) reported an annual salary between $90,000-$99,999 and 1 (2.0 %) reported an annual salary above $100,000. Participation in a Principal Induction Program Table 4-8 indicates a distribution of middle school principals in Central Florida according to whether they participated in a principal induction program. Of the 51 respondents, 37 (72.5%) responded that they had participated in a pr incipal induction program prior to becoming a principal, 3 (5.9%) indicated they participated in a principal induction program after becoming a principal, 8 (15.7%) responded they participated in a principa l induction program both before

PAGE 60

60 and after becoming a principal, and 3 (5.9%) re sponded that they had not participated in a principal induction program. Assignment of a Mentor Table 4-9 provides the distribution of th e 51 middle school principal respondents in Central Florida according to whether they were assigned a mentor after becoming a principal. The majority (29, 56.9%) were assigned a mentor compared with 22 (43.1%) who were not assigned a mentor. District Table 4-10 provides the distribution of middle school prin cipals in Central Florida according to the district where they work. A total of 51 respondents, representing 6 of the 7 counties surveyed, answered this question. Nearly half (25) of the respondents represented one county. Three counties were represented by 9, 8 a nd 5 respondents, while the other two counties had 3 and 1 respondents. School Classification by Location Table 4-11 indicates the distribution of mi ddle school principals in Central Florida according to the area (rural, suburban, urban) in which the school is located. Of the 50 respondents, 10 (20.0%) indicated th e school where they worked was located in a rural area, 28 (56.0%) indicated their school wa s located in a suburban area and 12 (24.0%) indicated their school was located in an urban area. Size of Student Population Table 4-12 reports the distri bution of 51 middle school princi pal respondents according to the size of the student populati on in their school. Of the 51 re spondents, nearly 70% indicated school sizes in excess of 1000 students. Th irty-two principals (62.7%) reported 1000-1500

PAGE 61

61 students, 3 principals (5.9%) reported more that 1500 students. One (1) principal (2.0%) reported a school population of less than 500 studen ts. The remaining 15 principals (29.4%) had schools with 500-999 students enroll ed. While these school sizes may appear large, they are representative of middl e schools in Florida. Percent of Student Population Recei ving Free or Reduced Lunch Table 4-13 documents the distribution of middle school principal respondents (N=51) according to the percentage of students in their sc hool receiving free or reduced lunch. Of these, 8 (15.7%) indicated a free and reduced lunch rate between 0-25%, 21 (41.2%) indicated this rate was between 26-50%, 13 (25.5%) indicated this rate was between 51-75%, and 9 (17.6%) indicated a free and reduced lunch rate between 76-100%. FCAT Grade for Past Three Years Table 4-14 shows the number of FCAT A grades the principals school has earned from the Florida Department of Education during the past three years. Of the 50 respondents, 17 (34.0%) reported that their middl e school did not score an A rati ng during the past three years, 11 (22.0%) scored one A rating during that time, 6 (12.0%) scored two A ratings and 16 (32.0%) scored an A rating each of the last three years. Research Question 1 The first research question asked to what extent middle school principals report the presence of seven identified organizational clim ate factors. The seven organizational climate variables under investigation are li sted below and coded as follows: IC: Internal Communication OS: Organizational Structure PC: Political Climate PD: Professional Development Opportunities EVAL: Evaluation

PAGE 62

62 PRO: Promotion RPC: Regard for Personal Concern Respondents were asked to rate presence of the seven organizational clim ate variables using a 5point Likert scale: 5 represen ted very high; 4 represented hi gh; 3 represented moderate; 2 represented low; and 1 represented very low pres ence of the organizational climate variable in their school district. The mean and standard deviation for each variable is reported in Table 415. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven variables are: professional development (4.53), organizationa l structure (4.45), internal communication (4.02), evaluation (3.88), regard for personal concern (3.84), political climate (3.78) and promotion (3.76). Three was the neutral value and all vari ables had a mean greater than 3 indicating that each variable was perceived to have an above average level of presence in their school district. A description of the results of each factor follows. Internal Communication Table 4-16 provides the distribution of responses from 51 middle school principal respondents in Central Florida to the openness of internal communica tion in their school district which is defined as the school di stricts formal interaction pro cesses between faculty, staff and the district. Of these, 17 pr incipals (33.3%) indicated thei r district had very high open communication, 22 principals (43.1%) rated co mmunication as high open, 9 (17.7%) reported some open internal communication, 2 (3.9%) ra ted communication as usually closed and 1 (2.0%) reported very closed inte rnal communication in their school district. Overall, a vast majority (48, 94.1%) of the middle school prin cipals responding to this question perceived internal communication in their sc hool district to have very hi gh, high, or some openness, while only 3 (5.9%) identified such communication as usually closed or very closed.

PAGE 63

63 Organizational Structure Table 4-17 provides the distri bution of responses from 51 middle school principals in Central Florida according to the presence of organi zational structure (the hierarchy or chain of command) in their school distri ct. Of these respondents, 27 (53.0%) indicated their districts were very highly structured, 20 (39.2%) rated the structure as high, and 4 (7.8%) rated the structure as moderate. None of the principals responding to this survey reported the organizational structure of their school district as loose or very loose. Political Climate Table 4-18 provides the distri bution of responses from 50 middle school principals in Central Florida to the nature and complexity of the school districts political climate including internal and external policies and whether their pres ence in their school distri ct is highly political or not highly political. Of these, 11 (22.0%) indicated the political climate was very high, 23 (46.0%) rated the climate high, 11 (22.0%) rated it as moderate, 4 (8.0%) reported low presence of political climate and 1 (2.0%) ra ted the political climate in their school district as very low. Most (90.0%) of the middle schoo l principal respondents percei ved political climate to be moderate or higher. Professional Development Opportunities Table 4-19 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida according to the encouragement they receive to partic ipate in professional development opportunities in their school dist rict. All 51 respondent s (100%) rated their encouragement to participate in professional development opportunities as moderate (4, 7.8%), high (16, 31.4%) or very high (31, 60.8%). No middle school principals in Central Florida

PAGE 64

64 reported that they were not encouraged to pa rticipate in professional development provided by their school district. Evaluation Table 4-20 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida according to how supportive the ev aluation process or districts procedure for assessing principal performance is in their school district. Only 4 of the 51 principal respondents reported the support they received was low (2, 3.9%) or very low (2, 3.9%). Moderate support was reported by 12 (23.5%) principals, and 35 ( 68.7%) felt they received high or very high support through the evaluation proce ss in their school district. Promotion Table 4-21 provides the distri bution of responses from mi ddle school principals in Central Florida according to their districts co mmitment to internal promotion and advancement within their school district. No principals reported a very low commitment from their district regarding opportunities for prom otion, although 4 principals (7.8 %) did report such commitment as low. The 47 remaining principals reported their districts commit ment level regarding opportunities for promotion as moderate (15, 29.4%), high (21, 41.2%), or very high (11, 21.6%). Regard for Personal Concern Table 4-22 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida according to the le vel of sensitivity by their school district for each principals personal well-being. Twenty (20) principals ( 39.2%) indicated a very high level of sensitivity regarding their personal well-being by their school district 15 principals (29.4%) rated that sensitivity as high, 7 (13.7%) rate d the level of sensitivity as m oderate, 6 (11.8%) rated it as low

PAGE 65

65 and 3 (5.9%) rated the sensitivity as very lo w. Overall, most (82.3%) of the middle school principals responding to this ques tion perceived the level of sensit ivity for principals well-being by their school district to be moderate, high or very high. Summary of Research Question 1 Results Table 4-23 shows the percent of responses from middle school prin cipals in Central Florida who selected a rating of high or very high for each of the seven variables used to define organizational climate. Professional development opportunities and organizational structure were the variables most frequently rated as high or very hi gh (92.2%) by the principal respondents. In descending order, the frequency re sponses for the other 5 variables are: internal communication (76.4%), evaluation (68.7%), regard for personal concern (68.6%), political climate (67.0%), and promotion (62.8%). Table 4-24 provides an analysis of the factors that were perceived to be present with regard to organizational climate. A Pears ons Product-Moment Correlation was done to more wholly understand the relationship among these climate factors. If the p value was less than 0.05 (and/or) less than 0.01, significant correlations we re noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on tw o-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negative and significant or positive and significant. There were no significant positive correlations at the 0.05 level. There were negative significant correla tions at the .05 level between internal communication and political c limate (-.324) and between political climate and evaluation (-.335). Positive significant correlatio n occurred at the .01 level between internal communication and evaluation (.441), internal communication and promotion (.396), internal communication and regard for personal concer n (.455), professional de velopment opportunities and evaluation (.427), evaluation and promoti on (.516), evaluation and regard for personal

PAGE 66

66 concern (.595) and promotion and regard for personal concer n (.622). There were negative significant correlations at the .01 level between political climate and promotion (-.398), and political climate and regard for personal concern (-.431). Research Question 2 The second research question asked to what extent middle school principals are satisfied with the organizational climate in their school dist rict. The same climate variables were applied. The seven climate variables unde r investigation are listed below and coded as follows: IC: Internal Communication OS: Organizational Structure PC: Political Climate PD: Professional Development Opportunities EVAL: Evaluation PRO: Promotion RPC: Regard for Personal Concern Respondents were asked to rate the seven vari ables using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representing very high satisfac tion; 4 representing high satisfac tion; 3 representing moderate satisfaction; 2 representing low satisfaction; a nd 1 representing very lo w satisfaction with the organizational climate in their school district. Th e mean and standard deviation for each variable is reported in Table 4-25. In descending order, the mean responses for the seven variables are: professional development (4.30), regard for pe rsonal concern (3.98), organizational structure (3.94), internal communication ( 3.86), evaluation (3.82), promotion (3.59), and political climate (3.43). Three was the neutral valu e and all variables had a mean gr eater than 3. A description of the responses to each variable follows. Internal Communication Table 4-26 provides the distri bution of responses from mi ddle school principals in Central Florida to their satisfaction with intern al communication as part of the organizational

PAGE 67

67 climate in their school district. A total of 50 re spondents answered this survey question. Of these, 13 (26.0%) rated their sati sfaction with internal communi cation as very high, 21 (42.0%) rated their satisfaction as high, 12 (24.0%) rated thei r satisfaction as moderate, and 4 (8.0%) reported their satisfaction with in ternal communication in their schoo l district as low. An overall majority (46, 92.0%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived their satisfaction with internal communi cation in their school district to be moderate, high or very high. Organizational Structure Table 4-27 provides the distri bution of responses from 51 middle school principals in Central Florida to the satisfaction with organizational structure (the school districts chain of command) as part of the distri cts organizational climate. Of these 51 respondents, 17 (33.3%) rated a very high level of satisfaction with organizational structure as a variable of organizational climate in their school district, 19 principals ( 37.3%) rated satisfaction as high, 10 (19.6%) rated it as moderate, and 5 (9.8%) rated low satisfaction with organizationa l structure as a variable in organizational climate in their school district Overall, 46 (90.2%) of the middle school principals responding to this va riable perceived their satisf action with the organizational structure in their school district to be either high, very high, or moderate. Political Climate Table 4-28 provides the distri bution of responses from 51 middle school principals in Central Florida according to their satisfaction with how the political climate, including the nature and complexity of internal and ex ternal policies, affect s the organizational cl imate in their school district. Of these 51 responses, 28 (54.9%) indicate d very high or high satisfaction with how the political climate affects the organizational climate in their school distri ct, 10 (19.6%) rated their

PAGE 68

68 satisfaction as moderate, and 13 (25.5%) rated it low or very low. A slight majority (54.9%) of the middle school principals who responded to th is organizational climat e variable perceived their satisfaction with the political climate in th eir school district as ei ther high or very high, while (45.1%) of the respondents perceived their satisfaction with the political climate as moderate, low or very low in their school district. Professional Development Opportunities Table 4-29 shows the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to satisfaction with th e professional development opportuni ties variable as a contributor to the organizational climate in their school distri ct. Fifty (50) respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 43 principals (86.0%) in dicated very high or high satisfaction with professional development opportunities as a contribu tor to organizational c limate in their school district, 10% (5) of the princi pal respondents ra ted their satisfaction with this variable as moderate, and 2 (4.0%) rated thei r satisfaction as low. A majo rity (86.0%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable reported their satisfa ction with how professional development opportunities contributed to organizationa l climate in their school district as either high or very high, while most (96.0%) respondents perceived that satisfaction to be moderate, high or very high. Evaluation Table 4-30 documents the distribution of responses from 51 Central Florida middle school principals to their satisfa ction with how evaluation contribu tes to organizational climate. Of these respondents, 13 (25.5 %) indicated very high satisf action, 21 (41.2 %) rated their satisfaction as high, 12 (23.5%) ra ted satisfaction as moderate and 5 (9.8%) reported low satisfaction with the evaluation va riable as a contributor to orga nizational climate. Overall, a

PAGE 69

69 majority (66.7%) of the middle school principals responding to th is variable perceived either high or very high satisfaction with evaluation as a contributor to organizational climate in their school district, while most (90.2% ) respondents perceived their sati sfaction with evaluation to be moderate, high or very high in their school district. Promotion Table 4-31 provides the distri bution of responses from 51 middle school principals in Central Florida according to their satisfaction w ith promotion opportunities as a contributor to organizational climate in their school district. Eleven (11) of these prin cipals (21.6%) indicated very high satisfaction with promotion, 14 principals (27.4%) rated sa tisfaction as high, 21 (41.2%) rated their satisfaction moderate, 4 ( 7.8%) rated satisfaction as low and 1 (2.0%) reported very low satisfaction with promotion opportunities as a contribut or to organizational climate in their school district. It is noted that 5 principals (9.8%) perceived this variable as contributing to low or very low satisfaction to the organizational climate in their school district. Overall, less than half (25) of the respondents (49.0%) per ceived their satisfaction with promotion to be high or very high, while a slight majority (51.0%) of the middle school principal respondents responding to this question perceive d their satisfaction with promotion as a contributor to organizational climate in their school district to be moderate, low or very low. Regard for Personal Concern Table 4-32 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to their satisfacti on with district administrators re gard for their personal concern and well-being. Of these 51 responses, 24 princi pals (47.1%) indicated very high satisfaction with regard to district sensitivity for their pe rsonal concern and well-being, 12 principals (23.5%) rated that sensitivity satisfaction as high, 7 (13.7 %) rated it as moderate, 6 (11.8%) rated it low

PAGE 70

70 and 2 (3.9%) rated it very low. Overall, a majority (70.6%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable per ceived their satisfaction with ho w the district administrators sensitivity to their personal concern and well-be ing impacts organizational climate to be either high or very high, while most (84.3%) respondents perceived their satisfaction to be moderate, high or very high. Summary of Research Question 2 Results Table 4-33 summarizes the distribution of re sponses from middle school principals in Central Florida who selected a sa tisfactory rating of high or very high for each of the seven variables that contribute to the organizational cl imate in their school district. Of the seven variables used to define organizational climate, professional development opportunities clearly ranked the highest level of satis faction among principals (86.0%). In descending order, the frequency of high or very hi gh levels of satisfaction respons es for the remaining variables was: organizational structure and regard for personal conc ern (70.6% each), internal communication (68.0%), evaluation (66.7%), political climate (54.9%), and promotion (49.0%) in their school districts. Table 4-34 provides an analysis of the variab les which were perceived to be an influence on principal satisfaction with the organizationa l climate of a school district. A Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation was done to better understand the relationships between seven climate satisfaction variables. If the p va lue was less than 0.05 (and/or) less than 0.01, significant correlations were noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negative and significant or positive and significant. Ther e were no significant positive or negative correla tions at the 0.05 level. Positive significant correlation occurred at the .01 level with each variable. The

PAGE 71

71 correlations ranged from a low (.382) between sa tisfaction with organizational structure and satisfaction with professional development opportunities to a high (.730) between satisfaction with organizational structure and satis faction with internal communication. Research Question 3 The third research question examined how important seven job satisfaction variables were to middle school principals in Central Florida. The seven job satisfaction variables under investigation are listed be low and coded as follows: PDM: Participation in Decision Making APC: Autonomy, Power and Control RWP: Relationship with Peers RWSB: Relationship with Subordinates RWSP: Relationship with Supervisor SB: Salary and Benefits PE: Professional Effectiveness Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of the seven variables using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representi ng a very high importance to job satisfaction; 4 representing high importance; 3 representing moderate importa nce; 2 representing low importance; and 1 representing very low importance to job satisfact ion. The mean and standard deviation for each variable is found in Table 4-35. In descending or der, the mean responses for the seven variables are: professional effectiveness (4.75), relationship with subordi nates (4.55), relationship with peers (4.51), relationship with s upervisor (4.49), participation in decision making (4.12), salary and benefits (4.00), and autonomy, power and control (3.94). Three was the neutral value and all factors had a mean greater than 3. A descri ption of the results of each factor follows. Participation in Decision Making Table 4-36 shows the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to the level of importa nce they give to participati on in decision making with job

PAGE 72

72 satisfaction. A total of 51 res pondents answered this survey question. Of these, 17 (33.3%) indicated participation in decision making as ha ving a very high level of importance, 26 (51.0%) rated such participation as ha ving high importance, 5 (9.8%) rate d it of moderate importance, and 3 (5.9%) rated participation in decision making as having low importa nce to job satisfaction. Overall, a majority (84.3%) of th e middle school principals respondi ng to this variable perceived the importance of their particip ation in decision making to be either high or very high, while most (94.1%) respondents perceived the level of importance regarding their participation in decision making to have a moderate, high or very high relationship to job satisfaction. Autonomy, Power and Control Table 4-37 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida describing the extent to which they view autonomy, power and control as an important variable to their j ob satisfaction. Of the 51 responde nts, 11 (21.6%) indicated this variable to have a very high level of importan ce, 26 principals (51.0%) rated it as having high importance, and 14 (27.4%) rated the importance of autonomy, power and control as moderate. Overall, a majority (72.6%) of th e middle school principals respondi ng to this variable perceived autonomy, power and control to have either high or very high importance to job satisfaction, while all (100.0%) respondents pe rceived autonomy, power and control to have a moderate, high or very high importance to job satisfaction. Relationship with Peers Table 4-38 provides the distri bution of responses from middl e school principals to the level of importance they give to developing good relationships with peers in their position. Fiftyone (51) respondents answered this survey question, 32 of them (62.7%) indicating the importance as very high, 14 (27.5%) rating the importance high, 4 (7.8%) rating this importance

PAGE 73

73 as moderate, and 1 (2.0%) rating their relationshi p with peers as having low importance to job satisfaction. Overall, a major ity (90.2%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived their relationship with peers to be of eith er high or very high importance to their job satisfaction. Most res pondents (98.0%) perceived their re lationship with peers to have moderate, high or very high im portance to job satisfaction. Relationship with Subordinates Table 4-39 documents the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to the level of importance that their relationship with subordinates has on job satisfaction. Of the 49 responses, 31 (63.3%) indi cated subordinate relationships had very high importance, 16 principals (32.7%) rated such re lationships as having high importance, 1 (2.0%) rated the importance as moderate, and 1 (2.0%) rated subordinate relationships as having very low importance to job satisfacti on. Overall, a majority (96.0%) of the middle school principals responding to this variable perceived the leve l of importance of their relationship with subordinates to have either high or very high relation to job satisfact ion, while most (98.0%) respondents perceived the importance of subordina te relationships to j ob satisfaction to be moderate, high or very high. Relationship with Supervisor Table 4-40 shows the distribution of Centra l Florida middle school principal responses regarding the level of im portance of their relationship with thei r supervisor as a variable in job satisfaction. A total of 49 res pondents answered this survey question. Of these, 28 (57.2%) indicated a very high level of importance, 18 prin cipals (36.7%) rated th is importance as high, 2 (4.1%) rated it as having moderate importance, and 1 (2.0%) reported th eir relationship with their supervisor to have low importance to job satisfaction. Overall, a majority (93.9%) of the

PAGE 74

74 middle school principals responding to this vari able perceived their re lationship with their supervisor to have high or very high importance to job satisfaction, while most (98.0%) respondents perceived their relati onship with their supe rvisor to have moderate, high or very high importance to their job satisfaction. Salary and Benefits Table 4-41 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to the level of importance that their salary and benef its contribute to job satisfaction as a middle school principal. A to tal of 51 respondents an swered this survey question. Of these, 14 (27.5%) indicated salary and benefits were of very high importance, 25 principals (49.0%) rated their im portance high, 10 (19.6%) rated this variable as having moderate importance, and 2 (3.9%) rated salary and benefi ts as having low importance to job satisfaction. Overall, a majority (76.5%) of the middle school principals res pondents perceived their salary and benefits to have either a high or very high relationship with job sati sfaction, while nearly all respondents (96.1%) perceived salary and benefi ts as having moderate, high or very high importance to job satisfaction. Professional Effectiveness Table 4-42 provides the distri bution of middle school principa l responses to the level of importance that their professional effectiven ess has to job satisfaction. Fifty-one (51) respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 38 (74.5%) indicated professional effectiveness has a very high le vel of importance to job satisfaction; another 13 principals (25.5%) rated importance of profe ssional effectiveness as high. Ov erall, all of the middle school principals (100%) responding to th is question perceived professional effectiveness to have either high or very high importance to th eir job satisfaction (Table 4-46).

PAGE 75

75 Overall Satisfaction with Principa l Position and School District Table 4-43 shows the distribution of res ponses from 51 Central Florida middle school principals to the level of overall satisfaction with their position as a middle school principal. Of those respondents, 21 (41.2%) indicated their overall satisfaction wa s very high, 19 (37.3%) rated their overall satisfaction was high, 7 (13.7%) rated their overa ll satisfaction was moderate, and 4 (7.8%) reported their overall satisfaction as a middle school pr incipal was low. A majority (78.5%) of the middle school principals reported their ove rall job satisfaction to be either high or very high, while most (92.2%) respondents perceived their overall level of job satisfaction to be moderate, high or very high. Table 4-44 provides the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida to the level of th eir overall satisfaction with their school distri ct as a variable of job satisfaction. Fifty (50) respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 16 (32.0%) indicated a very high level of ove rall satisfaction with their school district, 20 principals (40.0%) rated their satisfaction as high, 6 (12.0%) rated thei r satisfaction as m oderate, and 8 (16.0%) rated overall satisfaction with th eir school district as low. Ov erall, a majority (72.0%) of the middle school principals responding to this question perceived thei r satisfaction with their school district to be either high or very high, while most (84.0%) respondents perceived their overall level of satisfaction with the school district to be moderate, high or very high. The mean and standard deviation for overall satisfaction with the middle school principal position and the school district is reported in Table 4-45. Respondents rated both factors generally positively as 3 was the neutral value and both had a mean greater than 3; position satisfaction (4.1) and school dist rict satisfaction (3.9). Thus, the relationship between both

PAGE 76

76 overall satisfaction with their posi tion as principal and overall satisfa ction with the school district is linked closely with job satisfaction. Summary of Research Question 3 Results Table 4-46 documents the distribution of responses from middle school principals in Central Florida according to selecting a rating of high or very high for the level of importance for each variable. Of the seven variab les used to explore job satisfaction in this study, professional effectiveness was the variable all (100%) principa ls perceived to have high or very high importance to job satisfaction. In descending order, th e frequency responses for the rest of the variables are: relationship with subordinates (96.0 %), relationship with supervisor (93.9%), relationship with peers (90.2%), participation in deci sion making (84.3%), salary and benefits (76.5%) and autonomy, power and contro l (72.6%) response rate for a high or very high level of importance to job satisf action as a middle sc hool principal. In addition, Table 4-47 provides an analysis of the job satisfier variables identified for this study and rated by middle school principa l respondents. A Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation was computed to better understand th e relationships between and among these job satisfaction variables. If the p value was less than 0.05 (a nd/or) less than 0.01, significant correlations were noted by a si ngle asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negati ve and significant or positive and significant. No significant negative correlations we re found at either the 0.05 or 0.01 levels. Significant positive correlation occurred at the .05 level between participation in decision making and salary and benefits (.306) ; between autonomy, power and control and relationship with subordinate s (.290); and between autonom y, power and control and professional effectiveness (.338). Positive signif icant correlation also occurred at the .01 level

PAGE 77

77 between participation in decision making and au tonomy, power and control (.360); and between relationship with subordinates and re lationship with supervisor (.716). Research Question 4 The fourth research question asked if ther e were significant relati onships, according to Central Florida middle school principals, be tween measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as sa tisfaction with the positi on. The construct of organizational climate was examined utilizi ng the following seven identified organizational climate variables: 1. Internal Communication (IC): the school districts formal interaction process between the facult y, staff and the district 2. Organizational Structure (OS): the school districts hi erarchy of structure. 3. Political Climate (PC): the nature and complexity of the school districts internal and external policies. 4. Professional Development Opportunities (PDO): the chance for principals to participate in personal trai nings to enhance job performance. 5. Evaluation (EVAL): the school districts procedure for assessing the performance of middle school principals. 6. Promotion (PRO): the school districts commitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization. 7. Regard for Personal Concern (RPC): the school districts sensitivity to and regard for an individual middle school principals well-being. The construct of job satisfaction was examined in relationship to the seven organizational climate variables previously mentioned. The following are a list of the identified job satisfaction variables: 1. Participation in Decision Making (PDM): the districts executive processes and the middle school principals op portunity for involvement in the process.

PAGE 78

78 2. Autonomy, Power and Control (APC): the degree of independence, authority, and jurisdiction held by middle school principals. 3. Relationship with Colleagues: the quality of the principals interactions with peers (RWP) subordinates (RWSB) and supervisors (RWSP) 4. Salary and Benefits (SB): the wages and insurance plans for middle school principals. 5. Professional Effectiveness (PE): the perceived overall efficiency of middle school principals in their job. A Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation was do ne to better understand the relationships between and among these factors. The results are displayed in Table 4-48. Relationships were considered significant if the value was less than .0 5 and highly significant if less than .01. If the p value was less than 0.05 (and/or ) less than 0.01, significant corre lations were noted by a single asterisk for 0.05* or a double asterisk for 0.01**. Results were based on two-tailed tests. Correlations so noted could be negative and significant or positive and significant. No significant negative re lationships were found at the .05 or .01 levels. Significant positive relationships were found at the .05 leve l with participation in decision making and evaluation (.291) and relationship with supervis or and evaluation (.291). Significant positive relationships at the .01 level include relationshi p with subordinates and professional development opportunities (.401) and relationshi p with supervisor and professional development opportunities (.507). Overall satisfaction with the position had significant positive relationships at the .01 level with each organizational c limate variable and are listed in descending order: overall satisfaction with the district (.723), regard for personal co ncern (.625), evaluation (.555), promotion (.535), internal communication (.526), professional development opportunities (.485), political climate (.462), and organizational structur e (.408). Overall sati sfaction with the school district also had signifi cant positive relationships at the .01 level with all orga nizational climate

PAGE 79

79 variables. These relationships, in descending order are: eval uation (.841), regard for personal concern (.772), political clim ate (.750), overall satisfaction with position (.723), internal communication (.702), promotion (.684), organiza tional structure (.613 ), and professional development opportunities (.607). Research Question 5 The fifth, and final, research question asked if the importance and sa tisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principals in Central Florida. Two analysis of variance (ANOVA) were pe rformed using the SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) one-way ANOVA to answer this question. In the first analysis the dependent variable was the total score of means for Part II, Section B, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics. The independent variables were categorized as follows: (a) the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; (b) the principa ls level of education, le ngth of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, pa rticipation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and (c) the district, sc hool location (urban, s uburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. Table 4-49 documents Central Florida middle sc hool principals gender, age and ethnicity to see if any of these demographi c factors were statistically significant predictors for rating the satisfaction with institutional char acteristics. Table 4-50 provides the significance of principal respondents level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor to the satisfaction with institutional characteristics and Table 4-51 s hows the significance of the district, school location (urba n, suburban or rural), school size percent of students on free and

PAGE 80

80 reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. None of the results from these three analyses were statistical ly significant indicating th at the effect of these demographic variables did not affect the ra tings of the satisfaction with institutional characteristics for middle school pr incipals in Central Florida. In the second analysis the dependent variable was the total score of means for Part II, Section C, Importance of Position Characteristics. The independent variables were categorized as follows: (a) the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; (b) the principa ls level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and (c) the dist rict, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. Table 4-52 provides the significan ce of Central Florida middl e school principals gender, age and ethnicity to ratings of importance of position characteristics. Table 4-53 provides middle school principal respondents level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual sala ry, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor to see if any of these variables were statistically significant. A significant relationship was found with the assignment of a mentor a ffecting the ratings of importance of position characteristics, as evidenced by F(1,49)=5.409, p<.05. A post hoc test was not used because there were fewer than three groups. Table 4-54 analyzed the distri ct, school location (urban, s uburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years to see if any of thes e school or district factors were statistically significant. No significant differences were found.

PAGE 81

81 Summary of Research Question 5 Responses from middle school principals in Central Florida revealed a statistically significant relationship between the assignment of a mentor as a predicto r for the ratings of importance of position characteristics. None of the other demographic variables including the principals gender, age, and ethnic ity; or the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annu al salary, participation in an induction program; or the district, school location (u rban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades de signated for the past three years were found to be statistically significant predictors of the ratings of the satisfac tion with institutional characteristics and importance of position characteristics. Central Florida Middle School Principal Comments The final part of the study included a shortresponse question that provided participants with an opportunity to express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or eliminated from their role that would increase their overall job satisfaction with the middle school principalship. Forty (40) principals commented on different aspects of th eir role that either add or distract from their overall job sa tisfaction. The responses fell into a variety of categories including local control, tenure, ti me constraints, support, and other. Many of the principals expressed a desire fo r more local control in order to implement discipline for ESE students and regu late class size based on instru ctional needs ra ther than on a state statute that is not funde d. One principal commented that state and federal mandates routinely demonstrate little or no understa nding of conditions on the ground. Another principal explained that he would be leaving education after 23 year s of service because of a lack

PAGE 82

82 of understanding from state and federal agencies of what it takes to effectively lead a school as demonstrated by the unrealistic mandates of NCLB and AYP. I would eliminate the punish ment at the state and federal level caused by NCLB. I would lobby at the state leve l to make our legislators unders tand the real factors that go into a school attaining AYP. While the st ate and federal government seem to find only one factor in a school becoming successful that being the sta ffI would propose to help them understand that many factors infl uence a students academic successI have a problem when NONE of the middle schools in the county (with the exception of the small magnet schools) have made AYP, but only the two Title I middle schools face restructuring and were told that the entir e staff may be moved and/or principal and administrative staffs futures are uncertain. High-stakes testing was mentioned as an aspect of the job that needed to be eliminated because Excessive emphasis is placed on high-stakes tes ting and The stress that is put on everyone with the FCATspecifically the school gradi ng has a negative effect on job satisfaction. Many principals also voiced concer ns about district inte rruptions with last minute requests from multiple departments that do not communicate and the sheer volume of paperwork/computer input that can monopolize their time and keep them from being an instructional leader. One aspect currently is the increased amount of paperwork and data that a principal is responsible for. This takes away time that should be spent with students and teachers. The daily interruptions/requests from personnel at the county office fo r an endless stream of information and data (i.e., Please subm it by). Let me do my jobfocusing on the needs of my students, staff and school. The amount of time on District ma ndated tasks could be reduced. My greatest problem exists when different depa rtments at the district level all have their reports due at the same time. The am ount of paperwork/computer input seems overwhelming at times when trying to run a school with all the pr oblems of students and faculty that go along with it. Many principals also requested more autonomy to make site-based decisions. More support for decisions made by principals and more autonomy for principals to run their schools is needed.

PAGE 83

83 I would add school-based decision-making aut hority. The district should be there to support the school principal, not visa versa. Allow the principal great flexibility with di scipline. Especially if there are safety concerns. More control over hiring of personnelNot allowing the county to place ineffective personnel in our schools. I would like to have more voice in policies that effect (sic) personnel. More local control. Several principals expressed a desire to el iminate tenure in order to improve the quality of instruction. Having the power to remove an ineffective teacher im mediately would have a direct affect on the quality of instruction in their schools. The removal of tenure would also ensure job security of those teachers who are on annual contract and highly effective by eliminating the fear of being bumped by a teacher w ith tenure who could be a lot less effective. This would also assist principals with developing a culture of trust with new teachers instead of a culture of feara fear of lo sing their position their first thre e years of employment despite effective performance. The system protects the ine ffective teacher far too much. Do away with tenure for all employees. Power to put every faculty and staff member on annual contract in order to promote continued effectiveness. Tenureneeds to go. I wish all staff members were on annual c ontract and were paid higher for giving up professional service contract safety provisions. Kids would benefit. I would eliminate the possibi lity of losing highly qualifie d and dedicated teachers who are annual contract teachers, and may be bumped out of a job because of another teachers seniority at a school that is downsizing. I spent my first three years building a faculty that is cohesive and positive, the anxi ety of possibly losing one that is an asset wreaks havoc on planning, and on the teachers themselves.

PAGE 84

84 One principal commented on the challenge to balance work and home, and manager versus instructional leader M anager vs instructional leader too much managementneed to balance time to be effective in both areasand s till have a life. Others requested more time added to the school day to assist with staff development and pla nning or more support staff. One principal stated she/he would like to have more time to work with and conference with teachers, students, and parents. The elimin ation of supervision from the prin cipals role such as facilities, maintenance, and custodians would provide princi pals with more time to supervise and monitor the instructional practices as the primary respons ibility in order to keep the schools focus on student achievement. I would eliminate the respons ibility for facilities main tenance and operation. This responsibility is very time intensive and requires princi pals to spend many hours supervising custodians and main tenance issues. If another layer of building supervisor existed to manage facilities, many hours would be given back to principals of the schoolthis is our primary responsibility in order to improve the level of student achievement. Some principals would have liked a mentor or a job coach to guide them through their first year. One principal commented on being an African American male a nd feeling as if I am on an island by myself as he was unsuccessful forg ing relationships or a mentorship with other African American male administrators because there were none. A few principals expressed a desire to be paid more and have consideration for higher degrees while a few expressed a high level of satisfaction including one who said, I am very satisfied with my job and would not change a nything about it at this time and another who desired not to change any aspect of her job ev en though she recognized how stressful the position has become. Finally, another prin cipal expressed that every aspect was important and that time and experience willresult in incr eased job satisfaction.

PAGE 85

85 Summary The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of job satisfaction among the middle school principals in Central Florid a and to identify the variables th at enhance or detract from job satisfaction and organizational clim ate. The study also examined if there was a difference in means for job satisfaction by anal yzing demographic variables incl uding: the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salar y, participation in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and the district, school location (urba n, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years. A total of 97 electronic surveys were sent vi a e-mail to middle school principals in Central Florida. Fifty-one (51) survey s were returned, representing a 53% return rate. Some returned surveys had missing items; however, all responses were recorded a nd utilized in the analysis. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0, was used and provided; (a) comprehensive calculation of descriptive statisti cs, (b) frequency distri butions, (c) correlation coefficients and (d) analysis of variance. All significant p values and correlations have been marked with an asterisk (*) on all the tables. A ll procedures were calculated using an alpha level of .05 and/or .01. From the data generated by this study the profile of a typical Central Florida middle school principal was likely to be a white/Caucasian (84.0%) male (56.9%) between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%) with a maste rs degree (64.7%). The principa l had four to seven years of experience as a principal (36.0%) with one to three of those years in their current school (44.0%). The principal earns between $80,000 and $90,000 per year (47.0%), participated in an

PAGE 86

86 induction program prior to becoming a principal (72.5%) and was assigned a mentor after becoming a principal (56.9%). The principal is like ly to work in a suburban district (56.0%), in a school with a population between 1000-1500 students (62.7%) with 26% to 50% of the students on free and reduced-priced lunch (41.2%). Based on FCAT performance, the school will not have received an A grade from the Florida Depa rtment of Education in the past three years (34.0%). The first research question asked the extent to which middle school principals report the presence of seven identified organizational climate factors including internal communication, organizational structure, politic al climate, professional deve lopment opportunities, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern. Responde nts were asked to rate the seven variables using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representing a very high presence; 4 representing a high presence; 3 representing a moderate presence; 2 representing a low presence; and 1 representing a very low presence. The three climate variables receiving th e highest mean rating (Table 4-15) were professional development opportunities (4.53), or ganizational structure (4.45), and internal communication (4.02). The two climate variables receiving the lowest mean ratings were promotion (3.76) and political climate (3.87). A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted (Table 4-24) and there were negative significant correla tions at the .05 level between internal communication and political climate (-.324) and between political climate and evaluation (-.335). Positive significant correlation occurred at the p<.01 le vel between internal communication and evaluation (.441), internal communication and promotion (.396), internal communication and regard for personal concer n (.455), professional de velopment opportunities and evaluation (.427), evaluation and promoti on (.516), evaluation and regard for personal

PAGE 87

87 concern (.595) and promotion and regard for personal concer n (.622). Negative significant correlations at the p<.01 level occurred between political climate and promotion (-.398), and political climate and regard for personal concern (-.431). The second research question asked to what extent middle school principals are satisfied with the organizational climate in their school dist ricts (Table 4-34). The same climate variables were applied. A Pearson Product-Moment Co rrelation was conducted and positive significant correlation occurred at th e .01 level in all variables. The correlations ranged from a low (.382) between satisfaction with organizational structur e and satisfaction with professional development opportunities to a high (.730) betwee n satisfaction with organizati onal structure and satisfaction with internal communication. The three climate variables receiving th e highest mean rating (Table 4-25) were professional development opportunities (4.30), regard for personal concern (3.98), and organizational structure (3.94). The two climate vari ables receiving the lowest mean ratings were promotion (3.59) and political climate (3.43). The third research question examined how important seven job satisfaction variables were to middle school principals in Central Florida. The seven job satisfaction variables under investigation are as follows: participation in decision making, autonomy, power and control, relationship with peers, subordi nates and supervisor, salary an d benefits and professional effectiveness. Respondents were asked to rate th e seven variables using a 5-point Likert scale. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted (Table 4-47) and positive significant correlation occurred at the p<.05 level between pa rticipation in decision making and salary and benefits (.306), between autonomy, power and co ntrol and relationship wi th subordinates (.290) and between autonomy, power and control and professional effectiveness (.338). Positive

PAGE 88

88 significant correlation also occurred at the p<.01 level between participat ion in decision making and autonomy, power and cont rol (.360) and between relatio nship with subordinates and relationship with supervisor (.716). The three job satisfaction va riables receiving the highest mean rating (Table 4-35) were pr ofessional effectiveness (4.75), relationship with subordinates (4.55), and relationship with peer s (4.51). The two job satisfaction variables receiving the lowest mean ratings were autonomy power and contro l (3.94) and salary and benefits (4.00). The fourth research question asked if ther e were significant relati onships, according to Central Florida middle school principals, be tween measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as sa tisfaction with the positi on. The construct of organizational climate was examined utilizing the seven identified organizational climate variables and the constr uct of job satisfaction was examin ed in relationship to the seven organizational climate variables. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted and the results are reported in Table 4-48. There were significant positive relationships at the p<.05 level with participation in decision making and evaluation and relationshi p with supervisor and evaluation (both .291). Several fa ctors had significant positive re lationships at the p<.01 level including relationship with subordinates and professional development opportunities (.401) and relationship with supervisor and professi onal development opportuni ties (.507). Overall satisfaction with the position had significant positive relationships at the p<.01 level with all organizational climate factors and are in descen ding order as follows: overall satisfaction with the district (.723), regard for personal concern (.625), promoti on (.535), internal communication (.526), professional development opportunities (.485), political climate (.46 2), evaluation (.555), and organizational structure (.408). Overall satisfaction with the district also had significant positive relationships at the p<.01 level with a ll organizational climate factors and are in

PAGE 89

89 descending order as follows: evaluation (.841), regard for personal concern (.772), political climate (.750), overall satisfa ction with position (.723), in ternal communication (.702), promotion (.684), organizational structure (.613) and professional development opportunities (.607). The fifth, and final, research question asked if the importance and sa tisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principals in Central Florida. The SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) one way analysis of variance ANOVA was utilized to answer this question. Results are summarized in Table 4-53. There was only one statistically significant relationship in the Central Florida middle school princi pals ratings of importance of institutional and position characte ristics and it was found to be the assignment of a mentor (.024) as a predictor for the ratings of impor tance of position characteristics. Finally, the study concluded with a short-response question th at provided participants with an opportunity to express, in their own words, different aspects that could be added or eliminated from their position that would incr ease their overall job sati sfaction. The responses fell into a variety of categories including local control, tenure, time constraints, support, and other. Many of the principals expre ssed a desire for more local control and more autonomy to make site-based decisions out of a frustration with state and federal mandates such as NCLB, AYP and high-stakes testing. Principals also ex pressed a desire to abolish tenure in order to have the power to remove an ineffective teacher immediately. They commented on the challenges of balancing work and home responsib ilities as well as those of a manager versus instructional leader. Some principa ls expressed a sense of isolation and a desire to have a mentor or a job coach. A few principals expressed a desire to be paid mo re while some expressed a high

PAGE 90

90 level of satisfaction and a desi re not to change any aspect of their jobs even though they recognized how stressful the positio n has become. The consequences of these findings, and their implications for middle school principa ls, will be discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 91

91 Table 4-1. Gender of Respondents (N=51) Status n Percentage Male 29 56.9 Female 22 43.1 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-2. Age of Respondents (N=48) Age n Percentage 30-40 Years of Age 9 18.7 41-50 Years of Age 20 41.7 51-60 Years of Age 19 39.6 Total 48 100.0 Table 4-3. Ethnicity of Respondents (N=50) Ethnic Group n Percentage Asian American 0 0.0 Black/African American 7 14.0 Hispanic White/Caucasian Multi-racial 0 42 1 0.0 84.0 2.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-4. Education Level of Respondents (N=51) Degree n Percentage Masters 33 64.7 Specialist 4 7.8 Doctorate 14 27.5 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-5. Years of Service as a Middle School Principal (N=50) Number of Years n Percentage Less than 1 Year 7 14.0 1 to 3 14 28.0 4 to 7 8 to 10 10 or more 18 3 8 36.0 6.0 16.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-6. Years of Service as a Prin cipal in Current Middle School (N=50) Number of Years n Percentage Less than 1 year 9 18.0 1 to 3 22 44.0 4 to 7 8 to 10 10 or more 13 4 2 26.0 8.0 4.0 Total 50 100.0

PAGE 92

92 Table 4-7. Salary of Respondent Middle School Principal (N=51) Salary n Percentage Less than $70,000 1 2.0 $70,000-$79,999 15 29.4 $80,000-$89,999 $90,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more 24 10 1 47.0 19.6 2.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-8. Participation in a Principal Induction Program (N=51) Participation n Percentage Participated in an induction program before becoming a principal. 37 72.5 Participated in an induction program after becoming a principal. 3 5.9 Both Did not participate in an induction program 8 3 15.7 5.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-9. Mentor Status (N=51) Status n Percentage Assigned a mentor 29 56.9 Not assigned a mentor 22 43.1 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-10. Principal by School District (N=51) District n Percentage County A 8 15.7 County B County C 0 25 0.0 49.0 County D County E County F County G 1 9 5 3 2.0 17.6 9.8 5.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-11. School Classificat ion by Location (N=50) Area n Percentage Rural 10 20.0 Suburban 28 56.0 Urban 12 24.0 Total 50 100.0

PAGE 93

93 Table 4-12. School Studen t Population Size (N=51) Number of Students n Percentage Less than 500 1 2.0 500-999 15 29.4 1000-1500 Above 1500 32 3 62.7 5.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-13. Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch (N=51) Percentage of Students n Percentage 0-25 8 15.7 26-50 21 41.2 51-75 76-100 13 9 25.5 17.6 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-14. State of Florida School FCAT Grade for Last Three Years (N=50) Each Year Received A Rating n Percentage None in the last three years 17 34.0 One in the last three years 11 22.0 Two in the last three years Three in the last three years 6 16 12.0 32.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-15. Descriptive Statistics for Presence of Organizational Variables IC OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC N Valid 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 Missing 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mean 4.02 4.45 3.78 4.53 3.88 3.76 3.84 Std. .93 .64 .95 .64 1.03 .89 1.24 Deviation Table 4-16. Internal Communication (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high open communication 17 33.3 High open communication 22 43.1 Some open communication 9 17.7 Usually closed communication 2 3.9 Very closed communication 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 94

94 Table 4-17. Organizatio nal Structure (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high structure 27 53.0 High structure 20 39.2 Moderate structure 4 7.8 Loose structure 0 0.0 Very loose structure 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-18. Political Climate (N=50) Rating n Percentage Very high political climate 11 22.0 High political climate 23 46.0 Moderate political climate 11 22.0 Low political climate 4 8.0 Very Low political climate 1 2.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-19. Professional Devel opment Opportunities (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high encouragement 31 60.8 High encouragement 16 31.4 Moderate encouragement 4 7.8 Low encouragement 0 0.0 Very low encouragement 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-20. Evaluation (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high support 16 31.4 High support 19 37.3 Moderate support 12 23.5 Low support 2 3.9 Very low support 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-21. Promotion (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high encouragement 11 21.6 High encouragement 21 41.2 Moderate encouragement 15 29.4 Low encouragement 4 7.8 Very low encouragement 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 95

95 Table 4-22. Regard for Personal Concern (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very high sensitivity 20 39.2 High sensitivity 15 29.4 Moderate sensitivity 7 13.7 Low sensitivity 6 11.8 Very low sensitivity 3 5.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-23. Percentages of Re spondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Presence of Each Variable Variable Percent rating as high or very high Professional development opportunities 92.2 Organizational structure 92.2 Internal communication 76.4 Evaluation 68.7 Regard for personal concern 68.6 Political climate 67.0 Promotion 62.8

PAGE 96

96 Table 4-24. Correlation of Mi ddle School Principals Perceptions of Organizational Climate OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC IC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .186 -.324* .217 .441** .396** .455** .190 .022 .126 .001 .004 .001 51 50 51 51 51 51 OS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N -.238 .185 .082 .190 .241 .096 .194 .569 .181 .088 50 51 51 51 51 PC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N -.201 -.335* -.398** -.431** .162 .017 .004 .002 50 50 50 50 PDO Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .427** .427 .207 .002 .187 .146 51 51 51 EVAL Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .516** .595** .000 .000 51 51 PRO Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .622** .000 51 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). IC = Internal Communication OS = Organizational Structure PC = Political Climate PDO = Professional Development Opportunities EVAL = Evaluation PRO = Promotion Table 4-25. Descriptive Sta tistics for Satisfaction with Organizational Variables IC OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC N Valid 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 Missing 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mean 3.86 3.94 3.43 4.30 3.82 3.59 3.98 Std. .90 .97 1.14 .81 .93 .98 1.21 Deviation

PAGE 97

97 Table 4-26. Satisfaction with Internal Communication (N=50) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 13 26.0 High Satisfaction 21 42.0 Moderate Satisfaction 12 24.0 Low Satisfaction 4 8.0 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-27. Satisfaction with Or ganizational Structure (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 17 33.3 High Satisfaction 19 37.3 Moderate Satisfaction 10 19.6 Low Satisfaction 5 9.8 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-28. Satisfaction with Political Climate (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 9 17.6 High Satisfaction 19 37.3 Moderate Satisfaction 10 19.6 Low Satisfaction 11 21.6 Very Low Satisfaction 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-29. Satisfaction with Professi onal Development Opportunities (N=50) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 24 48.0 High Satisfaction 19 38.0 Moderate Satisfaction 5 10.0 Low Satisfaction 2 4.0 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-30. Satisfaction with Evaluation Process (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 13 25.5 High Satisfaction 21 41.2 Moderate Satisfaction 12 23.5 Low Satisfaction 5 9.8 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 98

98 Table 4-31. Satisfaction with Pr omotion Opportunities (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 11 21.6 High Satisfaction 14 27.4 Moderate Satisfaction 21 41.2 Low Satisfaction 4 7.8 Very Low Satisfaction 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-32. Satisfaction with Rega rd for Personal Concern (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 24 47.1 High Satisfaction 12 23.5 Moderate Satisfaction 7 13.7 Low Satisfaction 6 11.8 Very Low Satisfaction 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-33. Percentages of Re spondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Satisfaction with Each Variable Variable Percent rating as high or very high Professional Development Opportunities 86.0 Organizational Structure 70.6 Regard for Personal Concern 70.6 Internal Communication 68.0 Evaluation 66.7 Political Climate 54.9 Promotion 49.0

PAGE 99

99 Table 4-34. Correlation of Mi ddle School Principals Per ceptions of Organizational Climate Satisfaction OS PC PD EVAL PRO RPC IC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .730** .650** .504** .666** .593** .664** .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 50 50 49 50 50 50 OS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .624** .382** .587** .541** .700** .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 51 50 51 51 51 PC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .541** .697** .646** .560** .000 .000 .000 .000 50 51 51 51 PDO Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .551** .481** .458** .000 .000 .001 50 50 50 EVAL Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .618** .690** .000 .000 51 51 PRO Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .666** .000 51 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). IC = Satisfaction with internal communication OS = Satisfaction with organizational structure PC = Satisfaction with political climate PDO = Satisfaction with profe ssional development opportunities EVAL = Satisfaction with evaluation PRO = Satisfaction with promotion

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-35. Descriptive Statistics for Importance of Job Satisfaction Variables PDM APC RWP RWSB RWSP SB PE N Valid 51 51 51 49 49 51 51 Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Mean 4.12 3.94 4.51 4.55 4.49 4.00 4.75 Std. .82 .71 .73 .74 .68 .80 .44 Deviation PDM = Importance of Particip ation with Decision Making APC = Importance of Autonomy, Power and Control RWP = Importance of Relationship with Peers RWSB = Importance of Relationship with Subordinates RWSP = Importance of Relationship with Supervisor SB = Importance of Salary and Benefits PE = Importance of Prof essional Effectiveness Table 4-36. Participation in Decision Making (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 17 33.3 High Importance 26 51.0 Moderate Importance 5 9.8 Low Importance 3 5.9 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-37. Autonomy, Powe r and Control (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 11 21.6 High Importance 26 51.0 Moderate Importance 14 27.4 Low Importance 0 0.0 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-38. Relationshi p with Peers (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 32 62.7 High Importance 14 27.5 Moderate Importance 4 7.8 Low Importance 1 2.0 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 101

101 Table 4-39. Relationship w ith Subordinates (N=49) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 31 63.3 High Importance 16 32.7 Moderate Importance 1 2.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 Very Low Importance 1 2.0 Total 49 100.0 Table 4-40. Relationship w ith Supervisor (N=49) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 28 57.2 High Importance 18 36.7 Moderate Importance 2 4.1 Low Importance 1 2.0 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 49 100.0 Table 4-41. Salary and Benefits (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 14 27.5 High Importance 25 49.0 Moderate Importance 10 19.6 Low Importance 2 3.9 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-42. Professional Effectiveness (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Importance 38 74.5 High Importance 13 25.5 Moderate Importance 0 0.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 Very Low Importance 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-43. Overall Satisfaction with Middle School Principal Position (N=51) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 21 41.2 High Satisfaction 19 37.3 Moderate Satisfaction 7 13.7 Low Satisfaction 4 7.8 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 102

102 Table 4-44. Overall Satisfaction with School District (N=50) Rating n Percentage Very High Satisfaction 16 32.0 High Satisfaction 20 40.0 Moderate Satisfaction 6 12.0 Low Satisfaction 8 16.0 Very Low Satisfaction 0 0.0 Total 50 100.0 Table 4-45. Descriptive Statistics for Ov erall Position and District Satisfaction Position District N Valid 51 50 Missing 0.00 1.00 Mean 4.12 3.88 Std. .93 1.04 Deviation Table 4-46. Percentages of Respondents Selecting a Rating of High or Very High for the Importance of Each Variable Variable Percent rating as high or very high Professional Effectiveness 100.0 Relationship with Subordinates 96.0 Relationship with Supervisor 93.9 Relationship with Peers 90.2 Participation in Decision Making 84.3 Salary and Benefits 76.5 Autonomy, Power and Control 72.6

PAGE 103

103 Table 4-47. Pearson Product Moment Corre lation for Job Satisfaction Variables APC RWP RWSB RWSP SB PE PDM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .360** -.035 .167 .206 .306* .252 .009 .805 .252 .155 .029 .074 51 51 49 49 51 51 APC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N -.057 .290* .260 .248 .338* .691 .043 .072 .079 .015 51 49 49 51 51 RWP Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .030 .176 .171 .039 .840 .227 .230 .786 49 49 51 51 RWSB Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .716** -.121 .170 .000 .407 .243 48 49 49 RWSP Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .095 .203 .517 .163 49 49 SB Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .227 .109 51 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). PDM = Satisfaction with Part icipation of Decision Making APC = Satisfaction with Autonomy, Power and Control RWP = Satisfaction with Relationship with Peers RWSB = Satisfaction with Relationship with Subordinates RWSP = Satisfaction with Relationship with Supervisor SB = Satisfaction with Salary and Benefits PE = Satisfaction with Professional Effectiveness

PAGE 104

104 Table 4-48. Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Relationship Between Measures of Job Satisfaction, Measures of Organizationa l Climate and Overall Job Satisfaction IC OS PC PDO EVAL PRO RPC SWPOS SWDIS PDM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .214 .060 .268 .249 .291* .186 .002 .192 .255 .137 .678 .057 .081 .038 .191 .987 .177 .074 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 APC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .079 .024 -.018 .129 .075 .109 -.119 .072 .100 .079 .866 .902 .372 .600 .448 .406 .617 .489 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 RWP Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .200 .071 .139 .085 .193 .186 .147 .204 .136 .165 .618 .330 .556 .174 .190 .302 .151 .345 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 RWSB Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .088 .035 .024 .401** .106 .186 .164 .127 .124 .546 .088 .870 .005 .468 .202 .261 .383 .399 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 49 48 RWSP Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .283* .250 .165 .507** .291* .180 .225 .278 .251 .049 .084 .258 .000 .042 .215 .121 .053 .085 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 49 48 SB Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N -.004 .000 .176 -.054 -.054 .000 -.228 .227 -.188 .978 1.000 .216 .712 .708 1.000 .108 .109 .186 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 51 PE Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .069 .036 .024 .164 .034 .030 -.085 -.072 .025 .634 .802 .866 .255 .810 .835 .554 .617 .861 50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 SWPOS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .526** .408** .462** .485** .555** .535** .625** 1.000 .723** .000 .003 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 --50 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 SWDIS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .702** .613** .750** .607** .841** .684** .772** .723** 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 --49 50 50 49 50 50 50 50 50 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). IC = Internal Communication OS = Organizational Structure PC = Political Climate PDO = Professional Development Opportunities

PAGE 105

105 Table 4-48. Continued EVAL = Evaluation PRO = Promotion RPC = Regard for Personal Concern PDM = Participation in Decision Making APC = Autonomy, Power and Control RWP = Relationship with Peers RWSB = Relationship with Subordinates RWSP = Relationship with Supervisor SB = Salary and Benefits PE = Professional Effectiveness SWPOS = Satisfaction with Position SWDIS = Satisfaction with District Table 4-49. One-Way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal Demographic Data Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares Gender Between groups Within groups Total .127 1 .127 .191 .664 32.714 49 .668 32.841 50 Age Between groups Within groups Total 8.813 25 .353 .384 .989 20.218 22 .919 20.031 47 Ethnicity Between groups Within groups Total .677 3 .226 .330 .804 32.164 47 .684 32.841 50

PAGE 106

106 Table 4-50. One-Way ANOVA, Satisfaction with Institutional Characteristics and Principal Education/Experience Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares Level of education Between groups Within groups Total .977 2 .488 .736 .484 31.864 48 .664 32.841 50 Years as a principal Between groups Within groups Total 10.354 16 .647 .996 .512 22.113 33 .670 32.466 49 Years in current sc hool Between groups Within groups Total 8.640 10 .864 1.414 .210 23.826 39 .611 32.466 49 Annual salary Between groups Within groups Total .968 4 .242 .349 .843 31.873 46 .693 32.841 50 Participation in an induction program Between groups Within groups Total .779 3 .260 .381 .767 32.062 47 .682 32.841 50 Assignment of a mentor Between groups Within groups Total 1.365 1 1.365 2.125 .151 31.477 49 .642 32.841 50

PAGE 107

107 Table 4-51. One-Way ANOVA, Sa tisfaction with Institutiona l Characteristics and School Demographic Data Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares School district Between groups Within groups Total 10.272 10 1.027 1.821 .088 22.569 40 .564 32.841 50 School location Between groups Within groups Total .272 3 .091 .131 .941 32.569 47 .693 32.841 50 School size Between groups Within groups Total .498 3 .166 .241 .867 32.343 47 .688 32.841 50 Percent of students on free and reduced lunch Between groups Within groups Total 3.731 3 1.244 2.008 .126 29.110 47 .619 32.841 50 FCAT Grade (No As in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total 2.334 1 2.334 3.749 .059 30.507 49 .623 32.841 50 FCAT Grade (One A in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .104 1 .104 .156 .694 32.737 49 .668 32.841 50 FCAT Grade (Two As in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .148 1 .148 .221 .640 32.694 49 .667 32.841 50 FCAT Grade (Three As in last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .962 1 .962 1.479 .230 31.879 49 .651 32.841 50 Table 4-52. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal Demographic Data Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares Gender Between groups Within groups Total .040 1 .040 .229 .635 8.571 49 .175 8.611 50 Age Between groups Within groups Total 3.468 25 .139 .638 .861 4.783 22 .217 8.250 47 Ethnicity Between groups Within groups Total .273 3 .091 .513 .675 8.338 47 .177 8.611 50

PAGE 108

108 Table 4-53. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and Principal Education/Experience Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares Level of education Between groups Within groups Total .243 2 .122 .697 .503 8.368 48 .174 8.611 50 Years as a principal Between groups Within groups Total 3.557 16 .222 1.476 .168 4.972 33 .151 8.529 49 Years in current sc hool Between groups Within groups Total 1.719 10 .172 .984 .473 6.810 39 .175 8.529 49 Annual salary Between groups Within groups Total .211 4 .053 .289 .883 8.400 46 .183 8.611 50 Participation in an induction program Between groups Within groups Total .476 3 .159 .917 .440 8.135 47 .173 8.611 50 Assignment of a mentor Between groups Within groups Total .856 1 .856 5.409 .024* 7.755 49 .158 8.611 50

PAGE 109

109 Table 4-54. One-Way ANOVA, Importance of Position Characteristics and School Demographic Data Sums of df Mean F Sig squares squares School district Between groups Within groups Total 1.300 10 .130 .711 .709 7.311 40 .183 8.611 50 School location Between groups Within groups Total .446 3 .149 .856 .471 8.165 47 .174 8.611 50 School size Between groups Within groups Total .186 3 .062 .345 .793 8.425 47 .179 8.611 50 Percent of students on free and reduced lunch Between groups Within groups Total .086 3 .029 .159 .923 8.524 47 .181 8.611 50 FCAT Grade (No As in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .155 1 .155 .661 .420 8.496 49 .173 8.611 50 FCAT Grade (One A in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .535 1 .535 3.247 .078 8.076 49 .165 8.611 50 FCAT Grade (Two As in the last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .603 1 .603 3.691 .061 8.008 49 .163 8.611 50 FCAT Grade (Three As in last three years) Between groups Within groups Total .085 1 .085 .487 .489 8.526 49 .174 8.611 50

PAGE 110

110 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was conducted to analyze the relationship between various aspects of organizational climate and job satisfaction as it relates to middle school principals in Central Florida. Further, this study investigated if j ob satisfaction varied as a function of particular demographic characteristics. The research sp ecifically addressed the following five questions: 1. To what extent do middle school principa ls report the presence of seven identified organizational climate factors (internal communication, organi zational structure, political climate, professional development opportunitie s, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern) in their school district? 2. Using the same seven climate factors, how satisfied are middle school principals with the organizational climate in their school districts? 3. How important are the five identified jo b satisfaction variable s (participation in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationships with colleagues; salary and benefits; and professional eff ectiveness) to middle school principals in the performance of their duties? 4. What is the relationship between the measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate factors, as well as job satisfaction with the position am ong the Central Florida middle school principals? 5. Do the importance and satisfaction ratings of institutional and position characteristics differ for middle school principa ls related to the following demographic variables: the principals gender, age, and ethnicity; the principals level of education, length of time as a principal, length of time in current position, annual salary, participatio n in an induction program, and assignment of a mentor; and th e district, school location (urban, suburban or rural), school size, percent of students on free and reduced lunch, and Florida A+ Plan grades designated for the past three years? Design of the Study A survey instrument from existing studies on job satisfaction and organizational climate factors in the work place was used to gather data needed to addr ess the research questions (Levy, 1989; Palmer, 1995; Chappell, 1995; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Lefevre, 2004; Stephens, 2004; Sofianos, 2005). The survey (Appendix C) was adapted from Chappell (1995)

PAGE 111

111 to address the specific population of middle school principals The population for this study included public middle school princi pals in seven Central Florida counties (N=97). The sample included those middle school principals who co mpleted the electronic survey. This was a voluntary response sample. They were informed that all responses would be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. They completed the questionnaire and demographic questions electronically and submitted it to a secure server at the University of Florida. Fifty-one (N=51) surveys were completed yielding a response rate of 53%. The responses from these surveys were statistically analyzed to answer the five research questions. Findings The focus of this study was on the position of middle school principal in Central Florida. The role of the middle school principal has been de scribed as key instructional leader, initiator of change, school manager, personnel administrato r, problem solver, and the boundary spanner for the school (Goldring, 1990; Fullan, 1991; Vandenberghe, 1995). For the purpose of this study, middle school principal refers to the lead administrator serving adolescents in grades 6 through 8. Demographic Profile for Middle School Principals in Central Florida A middle school principal in Ce ntral Florida participating in this study was likely to be a white/Caucasian (84.0%) male (56.9%) between 41 and 50 years of age (41.7%) with a masters degree (64.7%). This profile is similar to findings in previous studies of educational leaders using this same survey instrument which found educational leaders to be white/Caucasian males (Chappell, 1995; Evans 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Pee k, 2003). This profile is also similar to findings in previous studies of middle school administrators which found middle school principals to be white/Caucasian males with masters degrees (Doud, 1989; Doud & Keller,

PAGE 112

112 1998; Newby 1999; Turner, 2006). The campus that he works on is located in a suburban area (56.0%) similar to Newbys study in 1999. Doud and Keller (1998) found principals to fit the same profile and that they were likely to have f our to seven years of experience as a principal (36.0%). In this study, one to three of those y ears were in their curr ent school (44.0%). Research Question 1 Middle school principals in Central Florida perceive d the seven measures of organizational climate in a generally positive li ght. The factors analyzed were internal communication, organizational structure, polit ical climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation, promotion and regard for personal concern. Similar to findings in Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), Stephens (2004), and Reynolds (2006), the highest mean scores were reported in the areas of professional development opportunities (4.53), organizational structure (4.45), and internal co mmunication (4.02). The data from Part II, Section A suggested that middle school principals in Central Florida thought they worked in districts that encouraged profe ssional development, had clear hi erarchical structures, and an effective formal interaction process that promoted internal communication. Yet, when principals had the opportunity to speak in their own word s at the end of the survey, they repeatedly complained about district interruptions and reque sts with unreasonable timelines that may pull a principal away from their instruc tional supervision respons ibilities. They also complained that the district did not communicate effectively betw een departments causing principals to respond to several people about the same issue. The responses of middle school principals in Central Flor ida yielded the lowest mean score for promotion (3.76), which was also the lowest rated organizational climate factor for Stephens (2004) and Reynolds (2006). A low sc ore for promotion indicated that middle school

PAGE 113

113 principals in Central Florida we re not as confident with their school districts commitment to internal promotion and advancement within th e organization as they were with the other organizational climate factors. The organizational climate factor, politic al climate, was significantly negatively correlated to the climate factor s internal communication (-.324) evaluation (-.335), promotion (-.398) and regard for personal concern (-.431). These results are consistent with other studies using the same survey instrument (Chappell, 1995; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Stephens, 2004). These data may suggest that formal interac tions between the principal and the district and the assessment of principal pe rformance are negatively associ ated in a highly political environment along with opportunities for advancem ent and a regard for the principals wellbeing. Significant positive relationships be tween the organizational factor internal communication and evaluation (.441), promotion (.396), and regard for personal concern (.455), suggest that when formal interaction proce sses are present, percep tions of assessment, opportunities for advancement and concern for pers onal well-being are elevated. Comparable to Peek (2003) other positive rela tionships were found between the organizational factors of evaluation and professional development opportun ities (.427), promotion (.516), and regard for personal concern (.595), revealing that the assess ment of middle school principals is positively associated with professional growth, opportunities for advancemen t and a sensitivity to their personal well-being. Research Question 2 Using the same 7 climate factors, middle schoo l principals in Central Florida reported a high overall satisfaction with organi zational climate factors as indi cated in the mean distribution (Table 4-25). Satisfaction with regard to professional development opportuniti es (4.30), regard

PAGE 114

114 for personal concern (3.98), and or ganizational structure (3.94) were the three most highly rated factors. Internal communication (3.86) is not rated in the top three as it was in perception of organizational climate and is followed by evalua tion (3.82) when principals considered their level of satisfaction with the organizational climat e factors. These findings are also comparable to Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003) a nd Stephens (2004). The lowest rated factor, political climate (3.43), was consistent with fi ndings in Chappell (1995). This shows that middle school principals in Central Fl orida are less satisfied in a highly political climate. In addition, Central Florida middle school pr incipals overall satis faction with their position was high (4.12) (Table 4-45). The mo st frequent response was that middle school principals in Central Florida had a very high sa tisfaction with their position (41.2%) (Table 443). The mean overall score for satisfaction with their district (3.88) was slightly lower than overall satisfaction with their position (4.12). The most freq uent response ( 40.0%) (Table 4-44) was high satisfaction for Central Florida mi ddle school principals ove rall satisfaction with their school district. This indi cates that most respondents are satisfied with their positions and districts, but they could be more satisfied with each. When examining the relationships between th e organizational factors as they related to middle school principals satisfaction with each factor, a significan t relationship was found between all factors (Table 4-34). My data indicate that th e satisfaction wi th each factor significantly influences the satisf action level of every other fact or. The significance of these relationships may warrant further study to exam ine the relevance of each of the organizational climate factors and how they influen ce the job satisfaction of principals.

PAGE 115

115 Research Question 3 The analysis of means shows that middle school principals in Central Florida indicated that all 7 job satisfaction variab les were important in performing their job responsib ilities (Table 4-35). The job satisfaction variables under investig ation were participatio n in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationship with p eers, subordinates, and supervisors; salary and benefits; and professional eff ectiveness. The highest score was found when these principals were asked about the importance of professional effectiveness ( 4.75). All (100%) (Table 4-46) of the respondents rated professional effec tiveness as very high importance or high importance with regard to th eir position as a middle school pr incipal. Relationships with subordinates (4.55), peers (4.51) a nd supervisors (4.49) were also highly rated, followed closely by the importance of decision making (4.12). However, salary and benefits and autonomy, power, and control were found to be less important to these middle school principals than the other factors. These findings ar e consistent with previous re search conducted by Levy (1989), Chappell (1995), Lawrence (2003), Peek (2003), and Stephens (2004) using the same survey instrument. These data suggest that competence at work is link ed to self-esteem and therefore consistent with Herzbergs theory which list s achievement, recognition, and work itself as the best motivation for workers. The mean responses to the importance of pa rticipation with deci sion making (4.12) were followed by salary and benefits (4.00). This finding is consistent with Herzbergs Motivation Hygiene Theory that examined hygiene (extrinsic) f actors of company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, sala ry, and status and found that they did not influence motivation and were not central to job satisfaction (Herzberg, et al 1959). These results are consistent with the claims of other st udies that salary and bene fits were not essential

PAGE 116

116 to job satisfaction (Levy, 1989; Chappell, 1995; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003; Stephens, 2004). Finally, the importance of autonomy, power, and control (3.94) was the lowest rated job satisfaction variable for the middle school principal respondents which may indicate that their job satisfaction is not derived from individual aut onomy and assumed power within their position. This finding is similar to thos e in Peek (2003) and St ephens (2004). Although when principals had the opportunity to respond to an open-ended question about what aspects of the position enhance or distract fr om their overall satisfaction, the de sire for more local control in response to national, state, a nd district mandates (including cl ass size reduction, NCLB, AYP and high-stakes testing) was mentioned repeatedly. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analyzed each job satisfier to see if there were any significant correlations between each variable that would influence a middle school principal in Central Florida. Analogous to Lawrence ( 2003) and Stephens (2004), positive significant relationships existed between the organizationa l factor autonomy, pow er and control, and relationship with subordinates (.290), professional effectiveness (.338), and decision making (.360) (Table 4-47). These data indicate that having a high degree of independence and authority in their principal position influences their overall job performance a nd the ability to make decisions. Positive significant relationships were also revealed between participation in decision making and salary and benefits (.306). As with Chappell (1995), Peek (2003), and Stephens (2004), a positive significant relationship was f ound between subordinates and relationship with supervisors (.716). These findings suggest that the ab ility to make decisions influences principals levels of satisfaction with their co mpensation, and their rela tionships within their schools are influenced by their relationships w ith their supervisor. This satisfaction with

PAGE 117

117 relationships within a school may make principa ls feel more confident with their performance and more at ease with their supervisor. Research Question 4 During statistical analysis, numerous relations hips between measures of job satisfaction (Table 4-48) and measures of organizational climate were revealed. Significant positive relationships were discovered be tween the job satisfier variable evaluation and the organizational climate factors participation with decision making (.291) and rela tionship with supervisor (.291). These data reveal that a principa ls evaluation is influenced by the principals ability to make decisions and the principals inte raction with his/her supervisor. Similar to the findings of Lawrence (2003), the organizational climate factor professional development opportunities had a positive correlation with the job satisfier variables relationshi p with subordinates (.401) and relationship with supervisors ( .507) (Table 4-48). These findi ngs suggest that principals professional growth is influenced by the relations hips with those they supervise and those who supervise them. These findings are a testament to the value of conti nued professional growth and to Maslows (1954) hierarchal need for est eem that includes feelings of self-respect and respect for others. Finally, significant positive correlations were found between the Central Florida middle school principals overall job satisfa ction with their position and thei r district in relation to all organizational climate factors. These findings (Table 4-48) reveal the influence that each organizational climate factor has on school-based leaders and on school districts in regard to job satisfaction. Two highly significant relationships in regard to bot h overall satisfaction with their position and district were regard for personal concern and eval uation indicating that overall satisfaction of middle school princi pals is related to the way they are professionally assessed and

PAGE 118

118 personally regarded (Table 4-48). This findi ng is consistent with Johanshishi (1985) and Satterlee (1988) who reported that a worker finds job satisfacti on through the emotional feelings toward the job. This finding also supports Mc Gregors Theory Y (1960) that assumes the average worker does not inherently dislike work but assumes that workers are creative, selfdirected and these qualities are brought out by managers who motivate and inspire. A middle school principals job satisfaction is related to how they are assessed and whether a district or a supervisor considers their personal well-being. Di strict and state leaders may want to review employee-centered leadership from the Mich igan State studies which would recommend supervisors to take a personal inte rest in the lives and needs of th eir school leaders (Hersey et al., 1996). Research Question 5 This question was analyzed using an anal ysis of variance (ANOVA) to see whether significant differences existed in the means of satisfaction with institu tional characteristics and the importance of position characteristics when compared by demographic variables. Only one of the demographic variables under examination was found to relate significantly. The assignment of a mentor was found to be a predictor for Cent ral Florida middle school principals ratings of importance of position characteristics (Table 4-53). This finding may suggest that the principalship can be isolating and support is de sired for professional fulfillment. It may be prudent to consider the findings from Mayos research (1933) that found improved productivity comes from several factors, in cluding a feeling of belonging. Conclusions Several studies in higher education have used the same survey instrument to examine job satisfaction and organizational cl imate and have produced comparab le results. The data on the

PAGE 119

119 presence of organizational climate factors, including regard fo r personal concern and professional development opportunities, were similarly ranked in this as we ll as previous studies (Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003; Lawrence, 2003; Stephens, 2004; Reynolds, 2006). The job satisfac tion variables found to be the most important (professional effectiveness, relationship with subordinates, peers, and supervisors, and participation in decision making) are also consistent with studi es using the same instrument (Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Lawrence, 2003; Peek, 2003). Respondents rated their overall satisfaction wi th position and the district generally high with means above 3.8. Central Florida middle school principals overall satisfaction with their position and their district was consistent to othe r educational positions previously investigated (Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Zabeta kis, 1999; Bailey, 2002; Peek, 2003). Implications As the role of the middle school principa l changes and becomes more demanding, it is likely that many educational leaders will face job satisfaction and organizational climate concerns in their positions. School district leaders should be aware that organizational climate plays an important role in the satisfaction of sch ool principals. Thus, it is important that they should have procedures and pract ices in place to monitor the state of the climate of their organization. This awareness could lead to an enhanced working climate in K-12 education which should lead to a more productiv e and satisfied workforce. Many of the results reveal a need for distri ct and state leaders to consider the human relations approach when working with school-ba sed leaders, including the need for recognition, belongingness, security, and an unde rstanding of their beliefs, mo tivations and values. It is important to consider the principals respons es to the open-ended que stion concerning what

PAGE 120

120 aspects of the position enhance or distract from their overall satisfaction. Concerns including The ability of the state to add programs/issues with no funding attached may require district and state leaders to reflect on all the implications of a bill they are attempting to pass and to build in appropriate funding and some latitude for inte rpretation by principals based on the needs of each school. Legislators need to realize that ea ch new mandate that is passed adds to all the other existing mandates that a principal is require d to follow, but nothing is removed in order to make time for the new initiative. Because of the nature of the school calendar and the current culture of educational reform, demands of high-stak es test results contribute to high levels of stress for school administrators. The amount of paperwork/computer input seems overwhelming at times when trying to run a school There is too much intrusion from the state and federal government on local practices and policie s. They routinely demonstrate little or no understanding of conditions on the ground. It is accurate to consider that principals are hired as instructiona l leaders and should be expected to follow all national, state and local mandates, but they should also be trusted to understand better than anyone how to implement reform in their schools in order to maximize its impact. The constraints that the state and di strict put on individual schoolsi.e., class size amendment, mandatory remedial reading, certification, etcwith m ore local control need to occur to improve overall job satisfaction. It is also important that districts and schools are funded appropriately. Finally, in light of the pressu res that come with high-stakes testing, it may be of some importance to review tenure and how this can di rectly affect the quality of instruction in a school. Responses from principals on tenure (Eliminate the possibili ty of losing highly qualified and dedicated teachers who are on annual contract and may be bumped out of a job

PAGE 121

121 because of another teachers se niority. With a union and its rules, there are teachers that should not be teaching. We should be able to release ineffective t eachers without having to jump through so many hoops.) reveal that tenure has a negative influenc e on a principals job satisfaction. Several studies conducted on teacher effectiveness and how this influences student achievement found that teachers knowledge, skills, and preparation matter to student achievement even more than teacher experien ce, class size or pupil-teacher ratio (Strauss & Sawyer, 1986; Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Darling-Hammon d, 1999; Fetler, 1999; Fuller, 1999). Because principals feel there is an excessive emphasis placed on high-stakes testing, specifically th e school grading system, it is reasona ble to consider that having little control to remove a teacher who is ineffective and could jeopar dize the overall results would increase the levels of anxi ety for school principals. District and state leaders w ould be prudent to consider th e highest rated job satisfaction variables of professional effectiv eness; relationship with subordin ates; supervisors, and peers; and participation in decision making as significa nt aspects of the job that contribute to job satisfaction. Having a highly political climate can negatively affect a pr incipals perception of internal communication, evaluati on, opportunities for promotion and overall well-being. It may also be shrewd for state and dist rict leaders to reflect upon the is olation that a new principal may endure and to consider assigning me ntors to new principals as a st andard practice to ensure that new principals dont experience su ch feelings of isolation. My data also revealed that principals need opportunities to grow professionally, as this is tied to their relationships with the people they interact with the mosttheir subordinates and supervisors. Finally, principa ls derive a significant amount of satisfaction from their own professional effectiveness and how they are va lued through their assessment. Middle school

PAGE 122

122 principals in Central Florida we re not as confident with their school districts commitment to internal promotion and advancement within the organization. Thus, the human factor should be of great concern to district a nd state leaders so that they might better understand how to retain leaders within the K-12 field who f eel valued and who are willing a nd able to maintain a level of high performance in their current position. Pr incipals who feel appreciated for their job performance will likely remain in their positi on and will better lead children toward success. Recommendations for Further Research Increasing attrition rates cause d by job stress are a real c oncern for a position that is consistently recognized as essential to th e overall success of every school (Baughman, 1996). Understanding what motivates people to remain in their positions and what helps them to perform effectively is vital to addressing th e principal shortage. Further study should be conducted to verify these results, as this app ears to be the first exam ination of middle school administrators using this survey instrument. Based on the principals personal comments, topics such as local control, tenure and time constraints should be examined further. Researchers may want to consider why some of the data from the objective sections conflicted with the personal res ponses received from the principals Most principals rated their satisfaction with organizational structure (70.6%) and internal communication (68.0%) (Table 433) as high or very high but at the end of the survey, they repeatedly complained about district interruptions with la st minute requests and that the district did not communicate effectively between departments. Principals al so provided conflicting re sponses when rating the importance of autonomy, power and control. Th is variable received th e lowest mean rating (3.94) (Table 4-35), but when prin cipals had the opportunity to re spond about what aspects of the position enhance or distract from their overall sati sfaction, the desire for more local control in

PAGE 123

123 response to national, state, a nd district mandates (including cl ass size reduction, NCLB, AYP and high-stakes testing) was men tioned repeatedly. Finally, when examining Table 4-34 my data indicate that a significant re lationship was found between all factors and may warrant further study to examine the relevance of each of th e organizational climate factors and how they influence the job satisfac tion of principals. All conclusions are based on voluntary responses from principals in seven school districts in Central Florida. The following resear ch possibilities exist w ith regard to continued study of organizational climate and job satisfaction of K-12 administ rators using the same survey instrument. Examine the responses from middle school prin cipals in all 67 counties in Florida. Examine the responses of middle school prin cipals who are members of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Examine the responses of K-12 administrators at the elementary and high school levels. Conduct a comparative study between prin cipals and assistant principals. Add interview questions on local control, te nure, and time constraints to create a mixedmethods study. Summary A review of the literature emphasized the increased level of complexity of job responsibilities and performan ce expectations for the middle school principal (Senge, 1990; Bolman & Deal, 1995; Vaill, 1996; Ubben & H ughes, 1997; Newby, 1999; Turner, 2006). As the job becomes more demanding and attrition rates continue to rise issues of job satisfaction for middle school principals become more critical. The perceptions of school leaders regarding organizational climate and job satisfaction are worthy of broader study and analysis, for the

PAGE 124

124 performance of these leaders is directly relate d to the performance of our nations schools and, consequently, is tied to our ch ildrens future success.

PAGE 125

125 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INVITATION

PAGE 126

126 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL Dr. Jennifer E. Reeves Mrs. Maria Vazquez Area Superintendent Executive Area Director Southwest Learning Community Southwest Learning Community Orange County Public Schools Orange County Public Schools 6501 Magic Way # 100A 6501 Magic Way # 100A Orlando, FL 32809 Orlando, FL 32809 e-mail: reevesj@ocps.net e-mail: vazquem@ocps.net phone: 407-318-3110 phone: 407-318-3110 fax: 407-318-3013 fax: 407-318-3013 Mrs. Kathleen L. Palmer Ms. Marilyn Doyle-Patterson Executive Area Director Associate Superintendent West Learning Community Curriculum Administration Orange County Public Schools Orange County Public School 1399 Windermere Road 445 W. Amelia Street Winter Garden, FL 34787 Orlando, FL 32801 e-mail: palmerk@ocps.net e-mail: doylepm@ocps.net phone: 407-905-3200 phone: 407-317-3318 fax: 407-905-3206 fax: 407-317-3369 Dr. Janice Pratt Mr. John Meinecke Deputy Superintendent Senior Facilities Manager Instruction and Curriculum Fiscal Services Orange County Public Schools Facilities Services 445 W. Amelia Street 6501 Magic Way Orlando, FL 32801 Orlando, FL 32809 e-mail: prattj@ocps.net e-mail: meinecj@ocps.net phone: 407-317-3265 phone: 407-317-3700, 5006 fax: 407-317-3355 fax: 407-468-6002

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONAL CLIM ATE QUESTIONNAIRE __________________________________________________________________ Middle School Principal Questionnaire __________________________________________________________________ Part I Principal Demographic Data Please tell a little about yourself. (Fill in or check where appropriate): 1. Gender Female Male 2. Age 3. Ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic Multi-racial White other: Education/Experience 4.Your level of education (highest degree earned): Masters Specialist Doctorate 5. How many years have you served: (Please put a zero if you have been in your position for less than 12 months). a. As a principal: b. As a principal in your current school:

PAGE 128

128 6. Annual Salary Less than $70,000 $70,000-$79,999 $80,000-$89,999 $90,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more 7. Did you participate in a principal induction program? Yes, before becoming a principal. Yes, after becoming a principal. Yes, both before and afte r becoming a principal. No 8. When you became a principal did your district assign you a mentor? Yes No School Demographics 9. The name of your school distri ct (Ex: Orange, Brevard, etc.): 10. The area in which your school is located is best described as: rural suburban urban 11. School Size Less than 500 students 500-999 students 1000-1499 students 1500-1999 students 2000 or more students 12. Percentage of students on free and reduced lunch: 0-25 percent 26-50 percent 51-75 percent 76-100 percent

PAGE 129

129 13. School's FCAT Grades (A, B, C, D, F, or N/A): 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 ___________________________________________________________________ Part II Section A _________________________________________________________________________ Considering your experiences as a middle school principal in your district, please choose the number of the rating that best represents your belief about your district's climate. A description of the scale has been provided to aid you in selecting your answers. _________________________________________________________________________ Please rate the level or degree to which the following qualities are present in your school district, with five (5) indicating the highest level of presence and one (1) indicating the lowest level of presence. _________________________________________________________________________ 14. Internal Communication-defined as the school district's formal interaction process between the faculty, staff and the district (Ex: articulation of mission, vision, goals and expectations). Open Communication Closed Communication 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 15. Organizational Structure-defined as the school district's hierarchy of structure (Ex: chain of command and lin es of authority). Highly Structured Loosely Structured 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 16. Political Climate-defined as the nature and complexity of the school district's internal and external policies (Ex: the degree to which a principal must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish his/her job). Highly Political Not Highly Political 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

PAGE 130

130 17. Professional Development Opportunities--defined as the chance for principals to pursue and participate in trainings to enha nce job performance (Ex: encouragement by superiors to learn, participate, develo p, and share innova tive practices). Participation Highly Encouraged Participation Not Encouraged 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 18. Evaluation-defined as the school district's proc edure for assessing the performance of middle school principals (Ex: relevant and meaningful process that focuses on improving leadership rather than fault finding). Supportive Evaluation Procedures Non Supportive Evaluation Procedures 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 19. Promotion-defined as the school district's co mmitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization (Ex: career ladders, mentorship and internship opportunities). Internal Promotions Encouraged Internal Promotions Not Encouraged 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 20. Regard for Personal Concern--defined as the school distri ct's sensitivity to and regard for middle school principa ls' well-being (Ex: the district is supportive and flexible during times of pers onal emergencies). High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. __________________________________________________________________ Section B Considering your district, please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the organizational qualities listed below, with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of satisfaction. ___________________________________________________________________ 21. Internal Communication-defined as the school district's formal interaction process between the faculty, staff and the district (Ex: articulation of mission, vision, goals and expectations). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

PAGE 131

131 22. Organizational Structure-defined as the school district's hierarchy of structure (Ex: chain of command and lin es of authority). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 23. Political Climate-defined as the nature and complexi ty of the middle school's internal and external policies (Ex: the degree to which a principal must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish his/her job). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 24. Professional Development Opportunities--defined as the chance for principals to pursue and participate in trainings to enha nce job performance (Ex: encouragement by superiors to learn, participate, develo p, and share innova tive practices). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 25. Evaluation-defined as the school district's proc edure for assessing the performance of middle school principals (Ex: relevant and mean ingful process that focuses on improving leadership rather than fault finding). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 26. Promotion-defined as the school district's co mmitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the or ganization (Ex: career ladders, mentorship, and internship opportunities). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 27. Regard for Personal Concern--defined as the school distri ct's sensitivity to and regard for middle school principa ls' well-being (Ex: the district is supportive and flexible during times of pers onal emergencies). Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

PAGE 132

132 __________________________________________________________________ Section C Please rate how important each of the foll owing factors is to you in your position as a middle school principal with five (5) indicating the highest level of importance and one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance. ___________________________________________________________________ 28. Participation in Decision Making-defined as the school distri ct's process for decision making and the middle school pr incipal's opportunity for involvement in the process (Ex: level of input requested from school-based administration by the executive cabinet). Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 29. Autonomy, Power, and Control-defined as the degree of independence, authority, and jurisdiction held by middl e school principals (Ex: the de gree that decisions made by middle school principals can be over turned by district personnel). Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 30. Relationship With Colleagues-defined as the quality of the principals' interactions with peers, subordinates, and supervisors (Ex: a collegial atmosphere of respect exists). a. With Peers Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. b. With Subordinates Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. c. With Supervisors Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

PAGE 133

133 31. Salary and Benefits-defined as wages and insura nce plans for middle school principals (Ex: salary and benefit packages are equitable and comparable with other middle school principals). Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 32. Professional Effectiveness-defined as the perceived overall efficiency of middle school principals in their jobs (Ex: "Am I su ccessful in accomplishing the objective of my position?"). Most Important Least Important 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. ___________________________________________________________________ Section D Please rate your overall satisfaction with your position as a middle school principal with five (5) indicating the highest level of importance and one (1) indicating the lowest level of importance. ___________________________________________________________________ 33. Please select the level of your overall satisfaction with your position with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of satisfaction. Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 34. Please select the level of your overall satisfaction with your district with five (5) indicating the highest level of satisfaction and one (1) indicating the lowest level of satisfaction. Highly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

PAGE 134

134 ___________________________________________________________________ Part III Please answer the following question: ___________________________________________________________________ 35. If you had the opportunity to change anything about your job, what aspect(s) would you add or eliminate to increase your overall job satisfaction?

PAGE 135

135 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, W. M., & Williams, E. (1965). Schools for the middle years Educational Leadership 23, 217-223. Alexander, W. M., & Williams, E. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Anderson, C. S. (1982). A search for school climate: A review of the research Review of Educational Research, 52, 368-420. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372. Baughman, K. S. (1996). Increasi ng teacher job satisfaction: A study of the changing role of the secondary principal. American Secondary Education, 24, 19-22. Bailey, N. I. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multicampus community college systems. Doctoral dissertation, Universi ty of Florida, Gainesville. Barry, D. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and leadership st yle: A study of Michigan high school principals. Doctoral dissertation, Wester n Michigan University, Kalmazoo. Beck, R .C. (1990). Motivation: Theories and principals (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Perennial. Border, H. R. (2004). Job satisfaction of Floridas middle school assistant principals as a factor for preserving an adm inistrative work force. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Brady, D. B. (2001). Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pers on-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satis faction, tenure and career success Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-54. Brogan, G. B. (2003). Job satisfaction of Idaho high school principals. Doctoral dissertation, Idaho Stat e University, Pocatello.

PAGE 136

136 Bryant, L. R. (2001). An investigation of factors influen cing job satisfaction of principals in low performing and exemplary schools. Doctoral dissertation, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville. Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructional officers. Doctoral dissertations, University of Florida, Gainesville. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planni ng, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. Daresh, J. C. (2002). What it means to be a princi pal: Your guide to leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture and school performance Educational Leadership, 40(5), 14-15 Deas, E. (1994). Board and administrative re lationships contributing to community college climate: A case study Community College Review, 22 (1), 44-52. Delgado, L. L. (2001). Correlates of job satisfacti on among high school principals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. DeMichele, D. J. (1998). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by mid-level collegiate campus recreation program coordinators. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Doud, J. L. (1989). A ten-year study: The K-8 principal in 1988. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementa ry School Principals. Doud, J. L., & Keller, E. P. (1998). A ten year study: The K-8 principal in 1998. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1999). The principalship (5thed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Eichorn, D. (1966). The middle school. New York: The Center for Applied Research.

PAGE 137

137 Evans, G. L. (1996). The relationship between or ganizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by co mmunity college presidents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ferguson, R.F. (1991, Summer). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28 (2), 465-498. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding Schools Accountable (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Fetler, M. (1999, March 24). High school sta ff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 ( http://epaa.asu.edu ). Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Franciso: Jossey -Bass. Fuller, E. J. (1999). Does teacher certification ma tter? A comparison of TAAS performance in 1997 between schools with low and high percentages of certified teachers. Austin: University of Texas at Aus tin, Charles A. Dana Center. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper Collins. Glick, N. L. P. (1992). Job satisfa ction among academic administrators Research in Higher Education, 33, 625-639. Goldring, E. B. (1990). Elementary school pr incipals as boundary spanners: Their engagement with parents. Journal of Educati onal Administration, 1, 53-62. Gottsfredson, D. C., Hybl, L. G., Gottfredson, G. D., & Casteneda, R. P. (1986). School climate assessment instruments: A review. In H. Feiberg, A. Driscoll, & S. Knight (Eds.), School Climate (pp. 49-81). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. Gratto, F. J. (2001). The relationship between organizatio nal climate and job satisfaction for directors of physical plants. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Greska, T. J. (2003). Job satisfaction of middle school assistant principals in North Carolina. Doctoral Dissertation, Universi ty of Mississippi, Oxford.

PAGE 138

138 Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understand job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hammer, W. C., & Organ, D. (1978). Organizational behavior: An applied psychological approach. Dallas, TX: Business Publications. Hersey P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Mangaement of organizational behavior: Utilizing human r esources (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing. Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, R. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hopkins, A. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Allenheld. House Bill 7087. (2004). Retrieved November 2, 2006 from http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/ 2006/House/bills/bil ltext/pdf/h708705er.pdf The Institute of Educationa l Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship Washington, DC. Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (1996). Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Johanshishi, B. (1985). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction of academic administrators in selected community colleges and universities. Doctoral dissertation: Ok lahoma University, Oklahoma. Langer, S., & Boris-Schacter, S. (2003, October). Principal, the embattled principal. NAESP: Challenging the image of the American principalship, 83, 14-18. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=1000& action=p rint Lawrence, H. J. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction for athletic compliance dire ctors at NCAA Division 1 institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The my sterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

PAGE 139

139 Levy, S. G. (1989). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Pennsylvania community college middle-level administrators (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 1989). 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 Publishing Company. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2003). Educational administration concepts and practices (4th Ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Trans lating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association fo r Supervision and Development. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Matthews, L. J., & Crow, G. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary pr incipals and assistant principals. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition American Psychologists, 20, 321-333. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Cl ark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1959). The achievement motive. New York: Irvington. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill. Merseth, K. K. (1997). Cases in educational administration. New York: Addison Wesley. National Association of Elementa ry School Principals (2002). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Minneapolis, MN: Lifetouch Inc.

PAGE 140

140 National Commission on Educational Excellence. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. National Middle School Association (1982). This we believe. Macon, GA: OmniPress. National Middle School Association (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Transaction Publishers. Newby, J. E. (1999). Job satisfaction of middle school principals in Virginia. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Ins titute and State University, Blacksburg. Palmer, C. K. (1995). Organizational climate and job satisf action as reported by Florida community college health occupations program directors. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Pardee, R. L. (1990). Motivation theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor and McClelland: A literature review of selected theories dealing with job satisfaction and motivation. ERIC Document Reproduction No ED 316 767. Paulson, G. F. (1997). A study of selected organizati onal climate factors and job satisfaction variables among teachers in a large suburban school district. Doctoral dissertation, Univers ity of Florida, Gainesville. Peek, R. C. (2003). The relationship beween organizatio nal climate and job satisfaction as reported by industrial research st aff at Florida community colleges. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). U nderstanding academic culture and climate. In W. G. Tierny (ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research No. 68 (pp. 3-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M. W., & White, T. H. (1992). Facult y and administrator pe rceptions of their environments: Different views or different models of organization? Research in Higher Education, 33 177-204. Petzco, V. N. (2002). Recommendations and implications emerging from a national study of middle school level leadership. Paper presented at the an nual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Resear ch Association, Chattanooga. Public Law 107-110. (2002, January 8). Retrieve d February 10, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/el sec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Reynolds, C. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction among full-time and part-time community college faculty. D octoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 141

141 Rock, D. A., & Hemphill, J. K. (1966). The junior high principalship. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Sablatura, D. A. (2002). Comparisons of job satisfaction among urban, suburban, and rural school principals. Doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Houston, Houston. Satterlee, B. (1987). A study to determine job satisfaction of the engineering/industrial faculty at Delgado Community College. ERIC Document Reproductive Service ED 336 593. Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 23-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Senate Bill 354. (2004). Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/ 2004/Senate/bills/bil ltext/pdf/s0354er.pdf Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sodoma, B. (2005). Job satisfaction of Iowa public school principals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls. Sofianos, T. J. (2005). The relationship between or ganizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community colleg e executive secretaries and/or associates to the president. Doctoral dissertation, Universi ty of Florida, Gainesville. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Applicati on, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stephens LeFevre, L. C. (2004). Policy and organizational cl imate factors and their relationship to job satisfacti on of adjunct/part-time faculty in north central Florida public community colleges. Doctoral dissertation, Univers ity of Florida, Gainesville. Stemple, J.D. (2004). Job satisfaction of high school principals in Virginia. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Ins titute and State University, Blacksburg. Strauss, R. P., & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5 (1), 41-48. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principals of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Thomson, S. D. (Ed.).(1993). Principals for our changing schools. Fairfax, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

PAGE 142

142 Turner, C. S. (2006). A study of job satisfaction with situational characteristics and occurrences among middle school principals in South Carolina. Doctoral dissertation, South Carolina University, Orangeburg. Ubben, G. C., & Hughes, L. W. (1997). The principal: Creative leadership for effective schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Vaill, P. V. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategi es for survival in a world of permanent white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nick erson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level principalship. Reston, VA: National Associat ion of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J. W., Maher, M. C., Quinne, D. M., & Irvin, L.I. (May, 1999). The changing roles of effective middle level principals. Middle School Journal, 30 (5), 53-56 Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creative management of a school: A matter of visions and daily interventions. Journal of Educational Administration 2 31-51. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation New York: Wiley. Wahba, N. A., & Bridwell, L. G (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need of hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 212-240. Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: Fr om mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham. Weiner, B., Fieze, L., Kula,A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosembaum, R. (1971). Perceiving the cause of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner [Eds.], Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior (pp. 95-121). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Wheelis, V. L. (2005). The relationship between school performance scores and job satisfaction of principals in Louisiana. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston. Zabetakis, S. (1999). The relationship between or ganizational culture and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief business officers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 143

143 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Carol Ann Kindt was born in 1967 in Coco a Beach, Florida. The youngest of four children, she grew up in Cocoa Beach, graduating from Cocoa Beach High School in 1985. She earned her B.A. in English from the Universi ty of Central Florida in 1991, her M.S. in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern in 1997, and her E d.S. in educational leadership from the University of Florida in 2002. Upon graduating in August of 1991 with her B. A. in English, Carol was hired by Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) as a teachers aide. During her tenure with OCPS, Carol assumed the roles of teachers aide, permanen t substitute, language arts teacher for both 6th and 7th grades, administrative dean, as sistant principal, principal on assignment at two elementary schools and one middle school, and middle school pr incipal. Carol has been a middle school principal with OCPS for the past 6 years. After completing her Ed.D. program, Carol pl ans to continue to work for OCPS as a middle school principal. Carol ha s been married to Hahns Kindt for 20 years. They have two sons: Aaron, age 19 (a University of Florida st udent) and Zachary, age 18 (a senior in high school).