<%BANNER%>

An Analysis of the Relationship between Select Organizational Climate Factors and Job Satisfaction Factors as Reported b...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042687/00001

Material Information

Title: An Analysis of the Relationship between Select Organizational Climate Factors and Job Satisfaction Factors as Reported by Community College Personnel
Physical Description: 1 online resource (102 p.)
Language: english
Creator: SAN GIACOMO,ROSE-MARIE C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration 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 investigate the overall satisfaction with organizational climate factors across seven studies of various levels of community college personnel. A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a significant relationship between satisfaction with organizational climate factors and the importance of job satisfaction factors across the studies. The community college personnel under investigation were college presidents, branch campus executive officers, senior business officers, senior instructional officers, institutional researchers, mid-level managers, and executive secretaries/associates to the president. The community colleges were all members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and/ or listed in the Higher Education Directory (HED). During the course of conducting seven distinct, but related studies, a total of 3,370 surveys were sent and 1,539 were returned, rendering a 46% rate of return. The data were analyzed to determine the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the organizational climate factors, and the overall perception of the existence of these factors. These analyses revealed that while satisfaction with organizational climate factors was consistently reported as high among all community college personnel, the percentage of personnel that were satisfied with each factor decreased as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Moreover, satisfaction with an organizational climate factor was not necessarily the same a perceiving a high level of the existence of that factor. Finally, some job satisfaction factors can be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, which does not support Herzberg?s classification system that categorized a factor as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Results of this descriptive study have implications for the 1) understanding of motivational factors for various levels of community college personnel, 2) attraction and retention of highly qualified professionals and, 3) development of a positive organizational climate.
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.
Statement of Responsibility: by ROSE-MARIE C SAN GIACOMO.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042687:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042687/00001

Material Information

Title: An Analysis of the Relationship between Select Organizational Climate Factors and Job Satisfaction Factors as Reported by Community College Personnel
Physical Description: 1 online resource (102 p.)
Language: english
Creator: SAN GIACOMO,ROSE-MARIE C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration 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 investigate the overall satisfaction with organizational climate factors across seven studies of various levels of community college personnel. A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a significant relationship between satisfaction with organizational climate factors and the importance of job satisfaction factors across the studies. The community college personnel under investigation were college presidents, branch campus executive officers, senior business officers, senior instructional officers, institutional researchers, mid-level managers, and executive secretaries/associates to the president. The community colleges were all members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and/ or listed in the Higher Education Directory (HED). During the course of conducting seven distinct, but related studies, a total of 3,370 surveys were sent and 1,539 were returned, rendering a 46% rate of return. The data were analyzed to determine the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the organizational climate factors, and the overall perception of the existence of these factors. These analyses revealed that while satisfaction with organizational climate factors was consistently reported as high among all community college personnel, the percentage of personnel that were satisfied with each factor decreased as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Moreover, satisfaction with an organizational climate factor was not necessarily the same a perceiving a high level of the existence of that factor. Finally, some job satisfaction factors can be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, which does not support Herzberg?s classification system that categorized a factor as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Results of this descriptive study have implications for the 1) understanding of motivational factors for various levels of community college personnel, 2) attraction and retention of highly qualified professionals and, 3) development of a positive organizational climate.
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.
Statement of Responsibility: by ROSE-MARIE C SAN GIACOMO.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042687:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS AND JOB SATISFACTION FACTORS AS REPORTED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PERSONNEL By ROSEMARIE CARLA SAN GIACOMO 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 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Rose Marie Carla San Giacomo

PAGE 3

3 T his dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Nancy San Giacomo, who emphasized the importance of education, helped me with my lessons throughout her life, and who instilled in me the inspiration to set high goals and the confidence to achieve them, and to t he memory of my father, Anthony San Giacomo, who was my role model for hard work, pers istence, and personal sacrifice.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the casual observer, a doctoral dissertation may appear to be solitary work. However, to complete a project of this magnitude requires a network of support, and I am indebted to many people. First I give thanks to God for allowing me to complete this task and to my church family, for their faithful prayers and support. Speci al thanks go to those individuals whose support was vital to persevering toward the goal of the doctorate: Dr. Susan Chappell, Janet Daley, Wilm a Jackson, Dr. Peter D. Smith, Dr. Ted Sofianos, and Dr. Sonja Vegdhal Each of these individuals shared their unique points of view in a caring and thoughtful manner at times when only they knew how much their opinion mattered. I give special thanks to committee chair, Dr. David Honeyman, whose insight and encouragement were instrumental in this student developing the perseverance and enthusiasm needed to complete the program. I am grateful to the entire committee for valuable feedback which greatly enhanced the learning process. Dr. Cynthia Garvan deserves special thanks for being there at the right time and pushin g me not only to finish this degree but also to help me see the greater potential for application of the knowledge gained in this quest. Thanks to all members of the cohort who provided invaluable associations encouragement, and friendship throughout this process.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 13 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 15 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 17 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 18 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 19 Summary ................................................................................................................ 19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 20 Job Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 21 Job Satisfaction Theories ........................................................................................ 22 Content Theories .............................................................................................. 23 Maslows hierarchy of needs ...................................................................... 23 Herzbergs motivationhygiene (two factor) theory ..................................... 24 Process Theories ............................................................................................. 25 Equity theory .............................................................................................. 25 Expectancy (V.I.E. ) theory ......................................................................... 25 Job Satisfaction Factors under Consideration ........................................................ 27 Participation in Decision Making (1) ................................................................. 27 Autonomy, Power and Control (2) .................................................................... 27 Relationships with Colleagues (35) ................................................................. 28 Salary and Benefits (67) .................................................................................. 29 Professional Effectiveness (8) .......................................................................... 29 Organizational Climate ............................................................................................ 30 Organizational Climate Theories ............................................................................. 31 The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) ...................... 31 The Organizational Climate Index (OCI) ........................................................... 32 PersonEnvironment Fit Theory ........................................................................ 33 Total Quality Management (TQM) .................................................................... 34 Organizational Climate Factors under Investigation ............................................... 35 Internal Communication (1) .............................................................................. 35 Organizational Structure (2) ............................................................................. 36 Political Climate (3) .......................................................................................... 36

PAGE 6

6 Professional Development Opportunities (4) .................................................... 37 Evaluation (5) ................................................................................................... 37 Promotion (6) .................................................................................................... 37 Regard for Personal Concern (7) ..................................................................... 38 Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in Higher Education .......................... 38 Summary ................................................................................................................ 39 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 41 Historical Overview of Meta Analytic Methodology ................................................. 41 Meta Analysis as a Research Method .................................................................... 43 Independent Variables ..................................................................................... 44 Dependent Variables ........................................................................................ 44 Steps Involv ed in a MetaAnalytical Study .............................................................. 44 Problem Formulation ........................................................................................ 45 Data Collection ................................................................................................. 45 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 4 5 Presentation of Results .................................................................................... 45 Detailed Methodology ............................................................................................. 46 Method to Retrieve Sample of Studies ............................................................. 46 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ....................................................................... 46 Statistical Methods ........................................................................................... 47 Summary ................................................................................................................ 48 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................................ 49 Response Rate ....................................................................................................... 49 Description of the Seven Studies ............................................................................ 50 Gender and Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 50 Classificati on of Community Colleges .............................................................. 50 Number of Years Served Within the Community College System .................... 51 Overall Ratings for Each Factor .............................................................................. 51 Satisfaction Ratings .......................................................................................... 52 Perception R atings ........................................................................................... 52 Importance of Job Satisfaction Ratings ............................................................ 53 Satisfaction with Organizational Climate Factors .................................................... 53 Satisfaction with Internal Communication (IC2) ................................................ 53 Satisfaction with Organizational Structure (OS2) ............................................. 54 Satisfaction with Political Climate (PC2) ........................................................... 55 Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities (PDO2) ................. 55 Satisfaction with Evaluation (EVAL2) ............................................................... 56 Satisfaction with Promotion (PROMO2) ........................................................... 57 Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concern (RPC2) ................................... 57 Perception of Existence of Organizational Climate Factors .................................... 58 Perception of Internal Communication (IC3) ..................................................... 58 Perception of Organizational Structure (OS3) .................................................. 58 Perception of Political Climate (PC3) ............................................................... 59

PAGE 7

7 Perception of Professional Development Opportunities (PDO3) ...................... 59 Perception of Evaluation (EVAL3) .................................................................... 59 Perception of Promotion (PROMO3) ................................................................ 60 Perception of Regard for Personal Concern (RPC3) ........................................ 61 Importance of Job Satisfaction Factors ................................................................... 61 Importance of Decisionmaking (DM4) ............................................................. 61 Importance of Autonomy, Power, and Control (APC4) ..................................... 62 Importance of Relationship with Peers (RWP4) ............................................... 62 Importance of Relationship with Subordinates (RWSub4) ................................ 63 Importance of Relationship with Supervisor (RWSup4) .................................... 63 Importance of Salary (SAL4) ............................................................................ 63 Impo rtance of Benefits (BENE4) ...................................................................... 64 Importance of Professional Effectiveness (PE4) .............................................. 64 Statistical Significance (p values) ........................................................................... 65 Correlations and Significance between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Factors ............................................................................................. 65 Summary ................................................................................................................ 69 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ....... 84 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 86 Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................ 89 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 102

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Description of the seven studies ......................................................................... 72 4 2 Overall ratings for each factor ............................................................................. 75 4 3 Organizational climate: satisfaction with internal communication (IC2) by job .... 76 4 4 Organizational climate: satisfaction with organizational structure (OS2) by job .. 76 4 5 Organizational climate: satisfaction with political climate (PC2) by job ............... 76 4 6 Organizational climate: satisfaction with professional development opportunities (PDO2) by job ............................................................................... 76 4 7 Organizational climate: satisfaction with evaluation (EVAL2) by job ................... 76 4 8 Organizational climate: satisfaction with promotion (PROMO2) by job ............... 77 4 9 Organizational climate: satisfaction with regard for personal concern (RPC2) by job .................................................................................................................. 77 4 10 Organizational climate: perception of internal communication (IC3) by job ........ 77 4 11 Organizational climate: perception of organizational structure (OS3) by job ...... 78 4 12 Organizational climate: perception of political climate (PC3) by job ................... 78 4 13 Organizational climate: perception of professional development opportunities (PDO3) by job ..................................................................................................... 78 4 14 Organizational climate: perception of evaluation (EVAL3) by job ....................... 78 4 15 Organizational climate: perception of promotion (PROMO3) by job ................... 79 4 16 Organizational climate: perception of regard for personal concern (RPC3) by job ....................................................................................................................... 79 4 17 Job satisfaction: importance of decisionmaking (DM4) by job ........................... 79 4 18 Job satisfaction: importance of autonomy, power, and control (APC4) by job .... 79 4 19 Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with peers (RWP4) by job .............. 80 4 20 Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with subordinates (RWSub4) by job ....................................................................................................................... 80

PAGE 9

9 4 21 Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with supervisor (RWSup4) by job ... 80 4 22 Job satisfaction: importance of salary (SAL4) by job .......................................... 80 4 23 Job satisfaction: importance of benefits (BENE4) by job .................................... 81 4 24 Job satisfaction: importance of professional effectiveness (PE4) by job ............ 81 4 25 Overall p value for each factor ............................................................................ 81 4 26 Correlation coefficient and significance: t he relationship between measures of job satisfaction and measures of organizational climate ................................. 82

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TERM S BRANCH CAMPUS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: primarily responsible for the daily administration of a branch campus in a multicampus sy stem. All facets of the student s experience at the branch campus fell under the purview of the branch campus executive officer (Bailey, 2002). CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER S: primary responsibilities are to manage the business of financial affairs of the institution and to keep the chief executive officer and board apprised of the institutions financial condition. The chief business officer is responsible for creating operating systems and selecting and training the personnel to carry out these functions effectively (Zabetakis, 1999). CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL OFFICERS: responsible for overseeing a community colleges academic program, including faculty recruitment and development and program identification and development (Chappell, 1995). EXECUTIVE SECRETARY/ASSOCIATE: entrusted with various forms of correspondence, duties and organizational skills performed on a routine basis directed by the executive order of the institution; one that superintends and manages the executives affairs (Sofianos, 2005). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS: charged with gathering data about and for the college with the intent to publish these data for use by senior leadership (Peek, 2003). JOB SATISFACTION: the extent to which people like their jobs (Levin, 1995). It is considered a measurable construct when related to both positive and negative attitude and emotion (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson & Capwell, 1957). MIDDLE LEVEL ADMINISTRATION/ MIDDLE MANAGEMENT: the deans and directors of support or college services, between the first level of supervision and the top executives (Levy, 1989). ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: the collective personality of an organization; it is an accumulation of intangible perceptions that individuals have of various aspects of the environment of an organization (Deas, 1994; Lunenburg and Ornstein, 1991; Owens, 1991). PRESIDENTS: the chief administrators at the institution. The president is responsible for the daily operations of the coll ege. This administrator serves as the liaison between the board of trustees and the colleges administration, faculty, staff, and student body (Evans 1996).

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS AND JOB SATISFACTION FACTORS AS REPORTED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PERSONNEL By Rose Mari e Carla San Giacomo May 2011 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to investigate the overall satisfaction with organizational climate factors across seven studies of various levels of community co llege personnel A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a significant relationship between satisfaction with organizational climate factors and the importance of job satisfact ion factors across the studies. The community college personnel under investigation were college presidents, branch campus executive officers, senior business officers, senior instructional officers, institutional researchers, midlevel managers, and executive secretaries/associates to the president. The community colleges w ere all members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and/ or listed in the Higher Education Directory (HED). During the course of conducting seven distinct, but related studies, a total of 3,370 surveys were sent and 1,539 were returned, rendering a 46% rate of return. The data were analyzed to determine the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the organizational climate factors, and the overall perception of the existence of these factors.

PAGE 12

12 These analyses revealed that while satisfaction with organizational climate factors was consistently reported as high among all community college personnel, the percentage of personnel that were satisfied with each factor decreased as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Moreover, satisfaction with an organizational climate factor was not necessarily the same a perceiving a high level of the existence of that factor. Finally, some job satisfaction factors can be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic moti vators which does not support Herzbergs classification system that categorized a factor as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Results of this descriptive study have implications for the 1) understanding of motivational factors for various levels of community college personnel, 2) attraction and retention of highly qualified professi onals and, 3) development of a positive organizational climate.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Historically, there was little interest in the study of job satisfaction and motivation until the 1930s after the studies related to efficiency were released about the Western Electric Company in Hawthorne, Illinois. Before this, it was believed that if the environment where individuals worked was manipulated to an optimum level, then productivity would increase (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). These studies became known as the Hawthorne studies and were designed to determine the optimum level of illumination in a production plant. Two groups of employees were studied: one group received an increase in illumination and the other did not. As expected, the group receiving increased light also increased productivity. However, what w as surprising was that the group that did not receive increased illumination also increased productivity. There was no direct, simple relationship between the illumination level and the production output of the workers (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). The Hawthorne studies raised more questions than they answered leading researchers to begin to explore behavioral reasons that might have had an impact on the studies. One important finding was the realization that human variability is an important determinant of productivity (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Patterns established among workers influenced worker behavior more than deliberate controls imposed on physical working conditions. This discovery questioned the previously held belief that employees behaved lik e machines, and therefore there was only one way to perform a given task (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).

PAGE 14

14 Another important finding was that employee perception and job satisfaction were factors that directly related to job per formance (Mayo, 1933). As a result of these studies, Elton Mayo was considered to be one of the pioneers in the advent of behavioral science (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 1966). Zytowski (1968) stated that job satisfaction is proportionate to the degree t hat the elements of the job satisfy the particular needs which the person feels most strongly (p. 399). Another definition is a persons attitude or emotional response (either positive or negative) toward his or her place of work (Beck, 1990). Recent studies reported that more and more people want work that engages the whole person, fulfills social needs, and is meaningful in short, work that is psychologically rewarding (Sisodia, Wolfe & Sheth, 2007, p. 70). Thus, researchers found that there was not an easy explanation for job satisfaction and that many other factors influenced workers job satisfaction. While the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate has been studied for decades in industrial and manufacturing settings, less is known about this relationship as it applies to educational settings (Mayo 1933, Roethlisberger & Dixon 1939, Herzberg 1966). In business and industry the emphasis has been on profit and production, while in education, the focus has been on greater accountability and performance measure relative to teaching and learning and student outcomes ( Lombardi & Capaldi, 1996). However, a growing number of studies have been conducted on public higher education environments examining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate for various types of college administrators (Levy 1989, Chappell 1995, Evans 1996, Zabetakis 1999, Bailey 2002, Peek 2003, Sofianos 2005).

PAGE 15

15 Statement of the Problem The studies mentioned above examined how the work of specific groups of community college personnel was affected by the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. However, little is known about the true effect of these relationships when applied to community college personnel as a whole. A comparison of these various studies would better serve as a further research tool to describe a range of effects regarding job satisfaction and organizational climate in community colleges across th e country As community colleges look ahead, strong leadership is needed to create a climate to enhance excellence and promote learning. The relationship between various levels of community college personnel and job satisf action is central to creating a positive organizational climate. Community colleges are a vital part of the postsecondary education delivery system serving almost half of the undergraduate students in the United States. They provide open access to postsecondary education, prepare students for transfer to 4 year institutions, provide workforce development and skills training, and offer noncredit programs ranging from English as a second language to skills retraining, to community enrichment programs or cultural activities. Traditionally, com munity colleges provided crucial access to higher education for economically and academically disadvantaged students given their close proximity, low costs and open access policy (Cohen and Brawer, 2003). There are also large numbers of students who choo se to attend community college for two years and then transfer to a four year institution to pursue a bachelors degree. Increasingly, community colleges are offering more o pportunities to pursue baccalaureate degrees

PAGE 16

16 The average postsecondary education student has changed drastically over the past 30 years (Oblinger & Verville, 1998). Historically, the majority of college students were the 18year old high school graduate that transitioned to four year colleges after leaving his or her home. However, the c ollege student landscape has changed in recent years C olleges have been admitting more nontraditional students than ever. These students include those that have a career, a home, and other family obligations (Fincher, 2002). The population of nontraditional s tudents includes career changers, persons desiring additional skills for advancement in the workplace, military veterans, and displaced homemakers. The expanding number of this student population has created a demand for higher education that is geared to the nontraditional student (Jarvis, 2000). Furthermore, many of these nontraditional students are geographically placebound due to family and employment responsibilities (Florida Department of Education, 2005). The climate of an organization has been defined as a manifestation of the values, feelings, attitudes, interactions and group norms of the members (Brown and Harvey, 2006). It referred to constructs such as internal communication, organizational structure, professional development and regard f or personal concerns. As such, organizational climate was viewed as an element that meets the emotional needs of its members. If those needs are met, then usually an individual was satisfied with his or her job. On the other hand, j ob dissatisfaction produces uncertainty which could le a d to fear, anxiety, and stress which are counter productive to job performance and meeting the needs of the organization.

PAGE 17

17 Learning more about the nature of the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction among various levels of community college personnel may assist in improving job satisfaction for these individuals within a particular institution. This is important because the relationship between various levels of community college personnel and job sat isfaction is central to creating a supportive and positive organizational climate. Purpose The purpose of this study was to look at the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate across seven studies. The research addressed the following questions: Research Question 1 a) As a group, what is the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the seven organizational climate factors at their respective institutions? b) Using the same seven climate factors as an index, what is the groups overall perception of the existence of these factors at their respective institutions? c) As a group, how did the community college personnel rate the overall importance of the eight job satisfaction factors? Research Question 2 a) W hat is the relationship between each type of job and satisfaction with each organizational climate factor? b) What is the relationship between each type of job and perception of each organizational climate factor? c) What is the relationship between each type of job and the importance of each job satisfaction factor? Research Question 3 What are the relationships among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and importance of job satisfaction factors?

PAGE 18

18 Limitations This study was limited to the analysis of the results of seven studies conducted on community college personnel from 1989 2005 about the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. Further, this study was based on the perceptions of persons responding to the surveys and the findings were limited to the viability of that information. Third, the response rate varied from 35% to 75% among the seven studies. An adequate response rate for mailed surveys is 50%, so it should be noted that bias may be a factor, especially in those studies that reported less than a 50% response rate. Fourth, the raw data for each study was not available which made it impossible to conduct an indepth exploration of each study. Fifth, the survey instrument may not have been sensitive to negativ e responses and the studies do not indicate that respondents were probed for further information in order to clarify responses. Sixth, reliability and validity were not separately established for each study. Five of the studies based their validity on the validity that was already established for the same instrument used in Chappells 1995 study. Reliability was based on fieldtesting that was also performed on the instrument used in Chappells study. Validity and reliability for the instrument used in Levy s (1989) study was established using a two part process involving a jury of five expert administrators in higher education from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a mock test by three middle level administrators using the reviewed and revised in strument. Seventh, a Pearson product moment correlation was used in each studys data analysis. However, Pearsons assumes normality and is used when each variable is measured to produce a raw score. In these studies, Spearmans r ho would be preferred sinc e it does not assume normality and the variables are measured in such a way as to produce ranks. Eighth large numbers of

PAGE 19

19 tests could result in experiment wise error ( which means that an increased actual level of significance could occur ). Finally, five of the seven studies were conducted using a national sample, while two of the studies used state wide samples. Significance of the Study This study is significant for sev eral reasons. First, it advances the body of knowledge by serving as a further research tool to describe a range of effects regarding job satisfaction and organizational climate in community coll eges. Second, the study analyzes the similarities and differences in the relationship between specific aspects of organizational climate and job satisfaction in relation to community college personnel Third, as community colleges look ahead, strong leadership is needed to create a climate that enhances excellence and promotes learning. The relati onship between various levels of community college personnel and job satisfaction is central to creating a positive and supportive organizational climat e. Summary The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction has been well documented for decades in industrial and manufacturing settings. Over the last twenty years, a growing body of literature has emerged describing these constructs in community college settings. These studies targeted specific populations of community college personnel This study analyzed the results of seven studies that represented a crosssection of community college personnel and that addressed a set of common research questions It reported the similarities and differences in the relationship between specific constructs in relation to the different levels of community college personnel Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive literature review of works related to job satisfac tion and organizational climate.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study was to look at the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate across seven previous studies. The research addressed the following question: What was the relationship between the eight job satisfaction factors and seven organizational climate factors across these studies? This chapter presents a review of the relevant literature on job satisfaction, organizational climate, and the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate. The earliest studies on job satisfaction demonst rated that there was a connection between work environment and worker production, absenteeism, turnover, and the general health of employees (Hersi, 1993; McBride, Munday & Tunnell, 1992 and Spector, 1997). The Hawthorne studies conducted by Elton Mayo (1933) at the Western Electric plant studied the effects of various conditions (most notable lighting) on workers productivity. These studies (19241933) ultimately demonstrated that changes in the work environment temporarily increased productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). However, further investigation revealed that this increase resulted not from the change in condition, but rather from the knowledge that the workers were observed. The social environment, now known as organizational climate, signific antly influenced productivity and morale (Davis & Newstrom, 1985; Lunnenburg & Ornstein, 2008). The Hawthorne studies prompted widespread discussion and ushered in an era of systematic study between the two constructs of job satisfaction and organizational climate. The systematic investigation of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate began in the late 1960s. These early studies include d Friedlander

PAGE 21

21 and Margulies (1969), Downey, Hellriegel, and Slocum (1975), Schneider and Snyder (1975), and Payne, Fineman, and Wall (1976). Organizational climate appeared to be a significant factor in evaluating job satisfaction in many of these st udies. Recent research supports these findings (Anderson, GuidoDiBrito & Morrell, 2000; Duggan, 2008; & Iiacqua, Schumacher, & Li 1995) Branham (2005) found that research from dozens of studi es revealed that actually 8090% of employees leave for reasons not related to money, but to the job, the manager, the culture, or the work environment. These internal reasons (also known as push factors, as opposed to pull factors, such as better paying outside opportunities) were issues within the power of the organization and with the manager to control and change. Job Sati sfaction Job satisfaction has been one the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior research because of its perceived association with absenteeism, productivity, turnover, and the general mental health of employees (Chappell, 1995; Grat to, 2001; Spector, 1997). The assessment of job satisfaction, its causes, consequences and nature were important variables that drew the attention of researchers for almost seventy years. The earliest studies focused on productivity and turnover while later students focused on need fulfillment (Gratto, 2001). Job satisfaction is a subjective term defined in a number of ways. Pincus (1986) used the word interchangeably with morale in the workplace. Vroom (1982) defined job satisfaction as the affective ori entation of individuals toward work roles they are presently occupying (p. 99). Other researchers emphasized the affective nature of job satisfaction in the workplace (Beck, 1990; Bretz & Judge, 1994 & Satterlee, 1988; Spector, 1997). Levin (1995) stated that job satisfaction could be viewed from the

PAGE 22

22 perspective of the employee as well as from the perspective of the employer. He asserted that for employees, job satisfaction came from having work that mattered and from a sense of job security. For the employer, job satisfaction came from involving employees in decisions that affected them and from providing people with the skills, motivation, and freedom to do their jobs better (Gratto, 2001). Although definitions vary, there appears to be a general consensus that job satisfaction is related to the emotional feeling that one has towards his or her job during the course of employment (Satterlee, 1988). For the purpose of this study, job satisfaction is defined as a persons attitude, or emotional response (eit her positive or negative) toward his or her job (Bailey, 2002; Chappell, 1995; Evans, 1996; Levy, 1989; Peek, 2003; Sofianos, 2005 & Zabetakis, 1999). Job Satisfaction Theories Job satisfaction theories fall into two broad categories: content and process t heories. Content theories are based on the assumption that motivation comes from within the individual instead of from an external source (Hanson, 1996). Content theories explain what motivates people while process theories explain how people are motivated (Higgins, 1991). Content theories assume that n eeds or drives initiate, channel and sustain goal directed behavior n eeds or drives are activated when an equilibrium imbalance is felt n eeds or dri ves are prioritized into levels w hen a need is fulfilled it no longer generates motivation a ll individuals share basically the same prioritization of needs and drives (Hanson, 1996; Higgins, 1991; Luthans, 1981) Process theories, on the other hand, focus on explaining how specific variables interact to influence c hoice, effort, and persistence (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). These theories rejected the assumption that human behavior is generated by a

PAGE 23

23 common set of needs or drives, and that all humans shared the same priorities in satisfying those needs (Chappell, 1995). Process theories assume that w orkers exert effort as long as there is an expectancy of success w orkers are independent and seek solutions through the most effective routes available w orkers maintain effort as long as they perceive their actions as successfu l e ffort stops when the goal is achieved or when workers believe the goals will not be achieved (Hanson, 1996) In sum mary, content theories explain the source of worker motivation w hile process theories identify processes within the workplace whi ch effect motivation. Examples of two content theories and two process theories are explained below. Content Theories Maslows hierarchy of needs Abraham Maslow (1954) believed that human aspirations had to be considered in order to fully understand human behavior. However, these aspirations could not be met until more basic needs were met. His premise was that as more basic needs were met, they became less of a concern and were replaced by higher level needs. Maslows theory assumed that the least satisfied needs are the best motivators. Maslows five levels of needs formed a pyramid with the most basic needs at the bottom. They are listed from most basic to most complex needs: P HYSIOLOGICAL: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep S AFETY: security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of health, of property S OCIAL: love, friendship, belonging and acceptance

PAGE 24

24 E STEEM: self esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of/by others S ELF-ACT UALIZATION: fulfilling ones potential, including self development and a drive to become all that one is capable of becoming (Galpin, 1996) Criticisms of this theory were that it could not be empirically tested and that the higher level needs did not operate in an orderly progression (Hersey et al ., 1996). Herzbergs motivationhygiene (two factor) theory Fredrick Herzbergs theory of motivation extended Maslows concept of motivation to the workplace and rejected the idea of one continuum of satisfaction/motivation. His two factor theory suggested that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were not diametrically opposed, but instead were separate and distinct from one another (Herzberg, 1976; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). After completing a study involving 200 accountants and engineers, Herzberg and his colleagues developed a model with two continua instead of one, with the opposite of satisfaction being no satisfaction, and the opposite of dissatisfaction being no dissatisfaction. One important conclusion that resulted from this research was t hat factors intrinsic to the job itself (motivators) produced satisfaction, while factors extrinsic to the job (hygiene factors) produced dissatisfaction. Motivators were those elements of a job that enhanced satisfaction when present, while hygiene factor included those factors of a job that were noticeable only in their absence. Motivators included: a chievement r ecognition t he work itself r esponsibility g rowth or advancement (Beck, 1990; Herzberg, 1976; Herzberg, et al., 1959) Hygiene factors included: company policy and administration

PAGE 25

25 supervision i nterpersonal relationships w orking conditions salary status security (Beck, 1990; Herzberg, 1976; Herzberg, et al., 1959) Criticisms of Herzbergs theory can be grouped into two categories. First, some researchers said that the theory was fundamentally flawed because of ambiguity and subjectivity in the experiment, resulting in poor methodological applications (Vroom, 1982; Gruneberg, 1979; Mondy, Hol mes, & Flippo, 1983). Second, the study considered onl y two populations engineers and accountants so the results may not be generalized to the entire workforce (Pallaone, Hurley & Rickard, 1971; Mondy et al., 1983). Process Theories Equity theory Developed by J. Stacy Adams (1965), equity theory stated that worker s compared how hard they were working with the compensation they received for that work, and developed either satisfaction or dissatisfaction for their work. The important aspect of this theory was that if inequity was percei ved, the worker became dissatisfied which resulted in minimal productivity, tension in the workplace, and a decrease in morale (Beck, 1990). Expectancy (V.I.E.) theory Developed by Victor Vroom in 1964, this theory attempted to examine how people were moti vated in their work. Based on the work of Lewin (1935) who posited that human behavior was a function of both personality and the perceived environment,

PAGE 26

26 Vroom developed the first complete version of expectancy theory. Expectancy theory focused on three constructs: VALENCE: the perception of the value of the reward (Ow ens, 1991) INSTRUMENTALITY: the extent that an individual believed that hard work w ould reap rewards (Vroom, 1982) EXPECTANCY: the individual perceived that they will be able to achieve the tas k (Davis & Newstrom, 1985) The basis of Expectancy Theory was that workers had information regarding the probabilities (P) and values (V) of success at various jobs, and they used this information to choose what had the greatest expected value (EV) when they made decisions (Beck, 1990). The formula looked like this: EV = P x V (Beck, 1990). Process theories were criticized for reasons similar to those of content theories. First, there was limited empirical data to support the conclusions of the researchers. Frequently research rendered inconclusive evidence that job satisfaction and performance were directly related at all, much less that there was a causal relationship (Chappell, 1995; Peek, 2003). Second, other critics claimed that it was difficult to create and define appropriate measures for producing the data called for in process theories (Hanson, 1996). For example, Pinder (1984) reported flaws in research conducted on equity theory, which resulted in questions about the validity of the testing itself. In summary, job satisfaction theories were divided into two main categories: content theories and process theories. Content theories focused on what motivated people and assumed that job satisfaction caused quality performance. On the other hand, process theories explained how people were motivated by focusing on how specific variables interacted to influence choice, effort, and persistence. Content theories assumed that job satisfaction caused quality performance, while process

PAGE 27

27 theories relied on the strength of the employees performance to lead to job satisfaction (Bailey, 2002). Job Satisfaction Factors under Consideration Eight job satisfaction factors were developed to observe the relationship between the organizational climate factors and job satisfaction. Participation in DecisionMaking (1) Participation in decisionmaking was defined as the colleges process for decision making and opportunities for involvement by the employee to participate in that process. Daft (1983) described the decisionmakin g process as being the brain and the nervous system of the organization, while Fryer and Lovas (1990) referred to decisionmaking as the power of the organization. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2008) determined that decisionmaking involved four steps: (1) defining the problem, (2) identifying possible alternatives, (3) deducing the predicted consequence of each alternative, and (4) deciding and acting upon an alternative. Participation in decisionmaking resulted in an environment that encouraged its leaders to use their expertise rather than their positional authority to get employees involved (Lawler, 1992). Employee participation in decisionmaking was important because it was perceived as linked to the acceptance and implementation of change within the organization (Conway, 1984). Generally, institutions that engaged their employees in decisionmaking improved their effectiveness and increased job satisfaction and productivity (Chieffo, 1991; Witt & Myers, 1992). Autonomy, Power and Control (2) Autonomy, pow er, and control were defined as the amount or degree of jurisdiction or discretion that employees were able to exercise while they performed the tasks of

PAGE 28

28 their respective positions. Autonomy was defined by Davis (1981) as the freedom to do ones job as one sees fit, noting that most employees in educational institutions consider high autonomy to be an important requirement for job satisfaction and success. Kanter (1985) posited that autonomy was an environment st ructured to enable people to work creatively within established boundaries, while others have asserted that autonomy was the direct opposite of a structured environment (Twombley & Amey, 1994). Power was defined by Harlacher & Gollattscheck (1994) as the ability to command a favorable share of resources, opportunities and rewards for followers. However, researchers have noted that power was defined differently by men and women. Women were generally more likely to use power to empower others, and to stress c ollaboration and cooperation, while their male counterparts were generally inclined to view these traits as signs of weakness (Shakeshaft, 1987). An organization that granted its employees control over their own work created a higher level of job satisfaction (Lawler, 1986). In other words, the organization that did not empower its employees limited their employees contributions to the organization (Johnson & Indvik, 1990). Relat ionships with Colleagues (3 5) Relationships with colleagues were defined as the quality of the affiliation that an employee maintained with his or her supervisor, peers, and subordinates (Chappell, 1995; Sofianos, 2005; Zabetakis, 1999). Interpersonal rel ationships have consistently been reported as an important aspect of job satisfaction (Carbone, 1981; Fisher, 1984). Hutton & Jobe (1985) reported that positive interpersonal relationships were conducive to job satisfaction among community college faculty. Milosheff (1990) reported similar

PAGE 29

29 findings in her study of a national cross section of community college faculty. However, further research has demonstrated that the largest effect on job satisfaction was a positive relationship with a supervisor. Although important, relationships with peers or subordinates were not as significant to job satisfaction as having maintained a positive relationship with a supervisor (SousaPoza, 2000). Salary and Benefits (6 7) Salary and benefits were defined as the perceiv ed equity and adequacy of the salary and benefits package received by the employee. Herzberg (1976) posited that salary and benefits were a hygiene or extrinsic factor, and as such only contributed to dissatisfaction. He stated that the content of each hy giene concern was different, but the dynamics of all hygiene concerns were the same. The underlying dynamic of any hygiene concern was the avoidance of pain from the environment. In this case, it was job dissatisfaction or no job dissatisfaction within an organization. While most researchers thought that job satisfaction and pay had relatively little correlation (Herzberg et al., 1959; Levy, 1989; SousaPoza, 2000, Spector, 1997), some researchers stated that salary and benefits must be fairly allocated, w hich points towards the equity theory of job satisfaction (Adams, 1965; Beck, 1990; Lawler, 1992; Spector, 1997). Researchers indicated that the perceived policies and procedures that were utilized in salary administration as a process had a larger impact on job satisfaction than the actual pay (Spector, 1997). Professional Effectiveness (8) Professional effectiveness was defined as the perceived overall effectiveness of the employee in his or her position. Herzberg ( 1959, 1976) believed the work itself, ac hievement, and professional growth would be enough to motivate employees.

PAGE 30

30 Employees were motivated to achieve on their own simply because they wanted to do a good job. Kunda (1992) asserted that professional effectiveness had to empirically address measures of productivity, profitability, survivability, and innovation to show a relationship with worker satisfaction. He concluded that workers who were content showed increased productivity. Other researchers posited that employees who were driven to achieve and who demonstrated a high need for achievement were constantly seeking to improve themselves and their organizations these individuals were known to become administrators and managers (Glick, 1992; Lawler, 1986). Individual aspiration for achievement and growth were the two factors that affected job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1976). Organizational Climate The Hawthorne studies conducted by Mayo were among the first to address the social environment as an important element in employee satisfaction and productivity (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger, 1939). Since that time, numerous studies have expanded the ideas from the Hawthorne studies and developed several definitions of what is now referred to as organizational climate. Payne, Roy, Pugh and Derek (1975) asser ted that the intent of organizational climate research was to discover how the organization is a psychologically meaningful environment for the employees. Forehand (1968) posited that organizational climate was an interaction between environment and personal variables. Schein (2000) determined that the intent of organizational climate research was to investigate organizational policies, practices, and procedures. Organizational climate could be influenced by leadership styles which were inclusive and which practiced broad patterns of interpersonal/group relations. On the other hand, institutional

PAGE 31

31 governance created the conditions for establishing the climate in which all decisions were made. Those decisions, the manner in which they were communicated and how they affected daily life established the basis on which the people decided how they were valued by the organization (Fryer & Lovas, 1990). Lunnenberg and Ornstein (1991) described organizational climate using various terms: open, warm, easy going, inform al, cold, hostile, rigid, or closed. Although there were many different ways to classify organizational climate, each organization possessed its own distinct organizational climate (Croft & Halpin, 1963; Duggan, 2008; Smith, 1989). For the purposes of this p aper, organizational climate is defined as the collective personality of an organization; it is an accumulation of intangible perceptions or attitudes that individuals have towards various aspects of the environment of an organization (Bailey, 2002; Chappell, 1995; Levy, 1989; Peek, 2003; Sofianos, 2005; Evans, 1996; Zabetakis, 1999). Organizational Climate Theories The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) Don Croft and Andrew Halpins (1963) research conducted in an elementary school s etting provided a basis for understanding organizational climate in higher education settings. They mapped organizational climate for seventy one elementary schools in their original sample, and identified six specific types of organizational climate (Croft & Halpin 1963; Hoy & Miskel, 1982). They created the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) which enabled them to measure and to type the institution as follows: OPEN CLIMATE: The open climate was characterized by teachers who worked well together and exhibited high morale. While group members were generally friendly, there was little intimacy. The principal encouraged leadership among the faculty. Halpin and Cross concluded that this was the most effective type of climate.

PAGE 32

32 AUTONOMOUS CL IMATE: The autonomous climate was marked by almost complete freedom given to the faculty by the principal. The faculty worked well together to accomplish the goals of the organization. Morale was high, but not as high as in the open climate. The principal remained aloof, but consistently set a good example through hard work. CONTROLLED CLIMATE: The controlled climate was characterized by a heavy focus on task achievement, often to the detriment of the social needs and satisfaction of the employees. Nevertheless, morale was generally high because the faculty focused heavily on getting their jobs done. Teachers expected to be told exactly how to do their jobs and consequently, there was a lot of paperwork. The principals administrative behavior was more rest ricted and could be described as domineering and directive, with little flexibility for having things done any other way than the prescribed way. Because the principal was primarily concerned with completing tasks, there was little caring for others feeli ngs. FAMILIAR CLIMATE: This climate was characterized by an overtly friendly atmosphere, which indicated high attention to the social needs of the employees. The principal exerted minimal control and conducted minimal evaluation because there was a greater interest in maintaining a feeling of one big, happy family. Production and task fulfillment were not generally emphasized, consequently, few work ed to capacity. PATERNAL CLIMATE: In the paternal climate, the principal attempted to ineffectively control the faculty and to satisfy their social needs. The principals behavior was generally characterized as nongenuine and not motivating. CLOSED CLIMATE: The closed climate was characterized by neither the satisfaction of social needs nor high task achievement. Teachers did not work together and there was a great deal of apathy. The principal was ineffective and unconcerned with the welfare of the employees. The Organizational Climate Index (OCI) Similar to Croft and Halpin (1963) George Stern (1970) posited that excellent schools were characterized by a certain kind of organizational climate that took the form of a personality which affected worker behavior through the tension that existed between the individual workers needs (Needs) and the organizations pri orities (Press). He focused on creating a climate tool to measure the effectiveness of higher education institutions. The resulting instrument, the Organizational Climate Index (OCI), measured six climate factors:

PAGE 33

33 INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE: characterized by worker support for intellectual activities ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS: characterized by the degree to which personal achievement was valued by the organization PERSONAL DIGNITY: characterized by the degree to which the individual worker felt respected and supported by the organization ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECT IVENESS: characterized by the degree to which the work environment encouraged effective performance of tasks ORDERLINESS: characterized by an organization which valued conformity and a set or der for accomplishing tasks IMPULSE CONTROL: characterized by the extent to which personal expression is allo wed or restrained (Owens, 1995) In summary, the two basic dimensions used to describe organizational climate through the OCI are need press and control press. Taken together, they can be analyzed to provide a description of an institutions climate. The basis of the needpress theory was a strong theoretical concept of organizational climate that has endured repeated empirical testing (Owens, 1991). Its value and effectiveness regarding educational institutions has been noted by many researchers (Owens, 1995). PersonEnvironment Fit Theory Realizing the important relationship between the individual and the organization, Argyris (1957) argued that conflict oft en developed when the needs of the organization differed from the needs of the individual. Argyris noted that the formal principles of the organization usually caused subordinates at all levels to encounter competition, rivalry, and sometimes hostility that resulted in a focus on the parts rather than the whole. This incompatibility continued to grow because the formal principles were inconsistent with the mature adult personality. Strategies which workers used to work out their feelings of alienation included:

PAGE 34

34 w ithdrawal from the organization thr ough absenteeism or resignation r esistanc e through deception or sabotage i ndifference and apathy on the job seeking another, presumably higher, job in the organizati on g aining power through strength in numbers by joining unions communicating negative attitudes about work to the next generation (Bolm an & Deal, 2003 ) In general, proponents of personenvironment fit theory asserted that in an ideal situation, the values of the employee would be congruent with the mission and goals of the organization. Researchers have documented the importance of careful selection and deliberate socialization of employees into the work environment (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Caplan & Harrison, 1993). In other words, one of the key conditions under which positive, purposeful peer interaction occurs is when the larger values of the organization mesh with those of individuals and groups within the organization (Fullan, 2008). Similarly, Cohen and Brawer (2003) asserted that linking institutional purposes and workers expectations is at the heart of employee satisfaction. Total Quality Management (TQM) Rooted in the corporate sector, TQM became adapted in the education workplace in the 1990 s as a way to initiate much needed reform (Acebo, 1994; Cohen & Brawer, 1994, Wattenbarger, 1994; Peterson, Dill, Mets & Associates, 1997). Through continuous improvement, measurement, and accountability, the TQM process followed six steps: 1. The inclusion of continuous improvement in the organizational environment 2. Customer or client centeredness 3. Logical and rational decision making using data and measurement 4. A focus on process design

PAGE 35

35 5. Teamwork 6. Empowerment of the individual (Peterson et al., 1997) Most important to the constructs of job satisfact ion and organizational climate was the TQM process that shifted the focus of the organization away from an administrative hierarchy and toward each employees intrins ic motivation to perform well on behalf the customers who needed to be served (Cohen & Brawer, 1994). Despite the reported successes of many community colleges that have adapted the concepts of TQM, many faculty remained skeptical (Schauerman & Peachy, 1993; Staas, 1994). Organizational Climate Factors under Investigation A set of seven organizational climate fac tors (independent variables) were investigated in order to determine their relationship to the set of eight identified job satisfaction variables (dependent variables) Internal Communication (1) Internal communication was defined as the colleges formal and informal communication processes and style. Leslie & Fretwell (1996) asserted that good communication was at the heart of any successful organization and was the first requirement in developing and maintaining vision; the second requirement was participation. Deas (1994) posited that communication was a key contributor to climate. The process of communicating a decision at the senior level often could be more important than the decision itself (Deas, 1994, p. 48). Researchers showed that communication served as a motivating influence by giving employees recognition and encouragement (Herzberg, 1959, 1976; Maslow, 1954; Skinner, 1974). In addition, researchers found that positive communication was more of an inspiration to empl oyees than hygiene factors (Haldane, 1974).

PAGE 36

36 Organizational Structure (2) Organizational structure was defined as the colleges administrative operation, or its hierarchical lines of authority and requirements for operating within that hierarchy. In community colleges, organizational structures ranged from those grounded in the public school system (Deegan & Tillery, 1985) to independent districts governed by local boards and trustees (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). As c ommunity college leaders enter the 21st century, they must envision more than hierarchical structures bound by a set of procedures (Twombley & Amey, 1994). Although hierarchical systems are powerful, and potentially effective in some organizations such as the military, they were not appropriate for education (Bing & Dye, 1992). One alternative was a process based structure developed by Rieley (1992) that was circular in design with the nucleus/leadership directly connected to each facet of the organization. Another alternative was the network model of organization proposed by Katz and West (1992) that eliminated layers of hierarchy through decentralization, greater use of lateral relationships, and reliance on emergent information technology. Political Climate (3) Political climate was defined as the nature and complexity of the colleges internal politics, and the degree to which an employee must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish their tasks. Orpen (1994) asserted that organizations varied according to the extent to which organizational climate was dominated by power struggles; therefore political climate affected work attitudes as well as organizational climate in general. Higher education leaders functioned within a political arena that encompassed public relations, formal and informal coalitions, inter institutional collaboration, and image in the process of decisionmaking (Cohen & Brawer, 1994).

PAGE 37

37 However, researchers do not agree on the role and importance of political climate. Some stressed that political climate was key t o advancement and success in an organization while others ignored its existence (Stevens, 1990). Professional Development Opportunities (4) Professional development opportunities were defined as the opportunities for employees to pursue and participate in activities to enhance job performance. These opportunities included opportunities to improve skills, learn new trends, and improve job satisfaction and morale. Herzberg (1976) asserted that growth was a motivator for job satisfaction and was related to pr ofessional development. Professional development opportunities gave employees the ability to become more proficient in addition to a providing a better chance to seek a future promotion (Wattenbarger, 1994). Evaluation (5) Evaluation was define d as the colleges procedures for evaluating employees through positive feedback intended to provide professional growth for the employee (Halpin, 1966). The systematic gathering of data and regular evaluations served many purposes. They provided feedback to the employee, and data for salary, promotions and tenure (Cohen & Brawer, 1994). Bolman & Deal (2003) stressed that it was very important that the evaluation process be perceived as a positive experience. If it was perceived as a negative experience, it would have a negative effect on performance and professional growth. Promotion (6) Promo tion was defined as the colleges commitment to internal promotion and advancement within the organization. Promotion was generally the result of hard work

PAGE 38

38 and dedication to the organization. Herzberg et al. (1959) posited that the growth factor, which was considered a motivator, can be directly tied to promotion. Promotion usually had a positive effect on organizational climate and was perceived as contributing to job satisfactio n (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Regard for Personal Concern (7) Regard for personal concern was defined as the colleges sensitivity to and regard for the personal matters and well being of employees. Hersey et al. (1996) considered regard for personal concerns as a high relationship leadership style. The needs and desires of employees were critical issues. Regard for personal concern was a major component for job satisfaction and improved organizational culture (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1991). Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in Higher Education It is important for higher education leaders to develop and improve the organizational climate of their respective institution s in order to provide greater job satisfaction for their employees (An derson et al. 2000; Duggan, 2008; & Iiacqua et al., 1995). Wattenbarger (1994) asserted that developing an organizational spirit, or climate, was an important way for higher education leaders to demonstrate support for the faculty and staff. Many important factors, such as leader style, the nature of the job, structure of the organization, the nature of relationships among peers and reward systems were identified as enhancing climate in an organization (Vroom, 1982). Although organizational climate and job satisfaction have separate and distinct indicators, they still maintain a cooperative relationship. Many researchers observed that because public and private organizations have unique characteristics, it was important to distinguish how the dynamics of

PAGE 39

39 o rganizational climate and job satisfaction interrelated and affected one another in the different settings (Argyris, 1957; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Hersey et al., 1996; Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson & Capwell, 1957; Herzberg, 1959 & 1966; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2 008; Spector, 1997). Educational institutions, as loosely coupled (Weick, 1991), open systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), posed a unique set of circumstances that deserved special attention within the context of organizational climate and job satisfaction theori es. Effective community college leaders were measured by their ability to create a climate that promoted learning and enhance d excellence (Gleazer, 1998; OBannion, 1997). In addition, effective leaders needed effective staff members since a leader was onl y as good as the team he or she assembled (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Gratton, 1993; Senge, 1991). Summary This study was conducted to analyze the relationship between various aspects of organizational climate and job satisfaction as related to a variety of co mmunity college personnel Interest in these two constructs began in the 1900s with the Hawthorne studies and continues today as a prominent topic in organizational behavior literature. As the largest and fastest growing segment of higher education in America community colleges provide access to postsecondary education for millions of people who might otherwise not have pursued advanced education (Parnell, 1990). Increasingly, community colleges are expected to ensure quality by using new and more precise measures of institutional effectiveness (Alfred & Kreider, 1991). Inter est in organizational climate and job satisfaction remains high as pressure for institu tional effectiveness intensifies (Alfred & Kreider, 1991) and as employee expectations and values change (Flynn, 1994; Katzell & Thompson, 1990). It is imperative that higher

PAGE 40

40 education leaders strive to fashion a positive organizational climate in order to attract and retain valuable human resources The findings of this study related to job satisfaction and organizational climate are important in serving as a furt her research tool that describes the range of effects regarding these two constructs in the community college. The focus of Chapter 3 is to describe the design of the study, the methodology, the procedures for data collection, statistical analysis, and reporting procedures.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY With every research project in the social sciences, there should be an inquiry into previous, related investigations. Without this step, an integrated, comprehensive picture cannot be built. Researchers working in isolation tend to repeat past mistakes and rarely achieve much direction in their work (Glass, 1976). Moreover, progress in the social sciences comes from building on the efforts of those who have worked before. This is true with regard to specific hypotheses and theories and also with regard to r esearch methodologies (Cooper, 1989). Specifically, through an integrative research review, it is possible to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate studies that are believed to address related or identical hypotheses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate across seven studies. These seven studies were chosen because they represented a cross section of community col lege personnel and because they a ddressed a set of common research questions. This study addressed the following question: What was the relationship between the eight job satisfaction factors and seven organizational climate factors across the seven studies? This chapter is divided into t hree sections. Section one outlines a brief historical overview of meta analysis m ethodology. Section two provides an overview of meta analysis as a research method and the steps involved in conducting a metaanalysis. Section three describes detailed metaanalytic methodology used in this study. Hist orical Overview of MetaAnalytic Methodology Accumulation is the hallmark of science (Kuhn, 1996) and without synthesis, the application of research is limited (Dewey, 1974; Lipsey & Wilson, 1993). As the body of

PAGE 42

42 published research in any domain expands, there becomes a need for synthetic analysis of work completed. Metaanalysis is a quantitative review method that has been widely used as a strong alternative to traditional, nonquantitative review methods of t he literature. It is a systematic method of incorporating statistical analyses for extracting, comparing, and combining results from independent studies that are generalizable (Cooper, 1998). The purpose of meta analysis is to resolve conflicting findings of multiple studies on the same topic by combining their results in a systematic fashion. The statistical basis of metaanalysis reaches back to the 17th century when, in astronomy, intuition and experience suggested that data might be better understood if it was combined rather than trying to select from among it (Plackett, 1958). In the 20th century, secondary analysis of cumulative primary research was introduced by the distinguished statistician Karl Pearson (1904) when he averaged estimates from five i ndependent samples of the association between typhoid fever vaccination and mortality of soldiers in the British Army. However, such techniques were not widely used in medicine for many years Dubin and Taveggia (1968) may have been the first to publish a secondary analysis of educational research. Gene Glass (1976) was credited with coining the term metaanalysis in a paper entitled Primary, Secondary and Meta Analysis of Research. Meta analysis was developed by Glass as a quantitative review method to i ntegrate and summarize findings from multiple st udies. As defined by Glass (1976): Meta analysis refers to the analysis of analysesthe statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. (Glass, 1976, p. 3). Compared to independent r esearch, metaanalysis in creases power and precision, provides an overall estimate and range of effect, and identifies variability among study

PAGE 43

43 results, which may have facilitated the discovery of important effect moderators. Even though the use of metaanalysis for research synthesis has been advocated for several centuries, the complexities of its statistical procedures have often discouraged researchers from using it in their studies (Bangert Drowns & Rudner, 1991). Metaanalysis has helped to determine if outcome differences wer e attributable to chance, to methodological inadequacies, or to systematic differences in study characteristics (Glass, Mc Graw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Rosenthal, 1984). Meta Analysis as a Research Method The quantitative pr ocedures of metaanalysis help to address some of the challenges introduced by the existence of dichotomous answers to a given research question. M etaanalytic statistics provide a single set of numbers that describes effect sizes across independent studies by di scovering moderators in bodies of research findings as well as by testing the statistical significance of combined results (Rosenthal 1984; Rosenthal and DiMatteo 2001). Eventually, metaanalysis assisted in understanding the structure of phenomena (e.g., negative vs. political advertising, job satisfaction vs. job performance) so that it clarified the areas in which subsequent research was most b eneficial. Meta analysis allows researchers to arrive at conclusions that are more accurate and more credible th an can be presented in any one study, or in a nonquantitative, narrative review A cumulative view of social science provides the opportunity to view the whole picture in a research enterprise. Meta analysis helps researchers to see the similarities and differences among methodologies and the results of many studies.

PAGE 44

44 Independent Variables The independent variables for this study were the set of seven organizational climate factors. These were internal communication; organizational structure; political cult ure; professional development; evaluation; promotion; and regard for personal concerns. Dependent Variables The set of eight job satisfaction factors were the dependent variables in this study. These were participation in decision making; autonomy, power and control; relationship with peers; relationship with subordinates; relationship with supervisor; salary; benefits; and professional effectiveness. Steps Involved in a MetaAnalytical Study Although there are numerous metaanalysis techniques, the most appropriate methods for a particular study are determined by the characteristics of the included studies and the purposes of the research (Bangert Drowns, 1986). It is appropriate to use a meta analysis (a) whenever there are multiple studies that test the s ame or similar hypotheses and the joint results of the studies do not clearly indicate the results of the test; (b) whenever there are numerous contradictory studies; and (c) whenever there is the need to review complex literature. While there is no single correct way to perform a meta analysis, there are three interrelated basic principles to consider: accuracy, simplicity and clarity (Hall and Rosenthal, 1995). The simpler the metaanalysis, the more likely it is to be accurate; it is not possible to present one that is too simple. Meta analysis provides a procedure for combining relevant information taken from studies designed to answer essentially the same research question for the purpose of

PAGE 45

45 enlarging the base of the synthesis compared to the base of a single study (Glass et al 1981; Hedges, 1982; Rosenthal, 1984, 1991). Four basic steps of a metaanalytical quantitative procedure are (a) problem formulation (b) data collection, (c) data analysis, and (d) presentation of results. The following is a brief description of each step. Problem Formul ation In this first step it is important to define the independent and dependent variables. During this stage of the process, questions are formulated and consequently only those studies that consider the hypothesis of interest are selected to carry out the subsequent steps. At this stage it is also important to agree on the specification of an acceptable degree of variation between studies. Data Collection At this stage, a systematic method for choosing relevant studies is required. The data is gathered from these studies. During this stage, each studys methods and results are reviewed to assess how the independent and the dependent variables are operationa lized and measured. Data Analysis After the data collection stage, it is necessary to decide which studies should be included in the data analysis Once the studies are selected, data analysis involves using statistical procedures to combine and contrast study results. Presentation of Results This final step is a summary of the analyses of data. R esults may be presented separately for the various sources of information (Rosenthal, 1991). The use of tables and figures is encouraged.

PAGE 46

46 Detailed Methodology M ethod to Retrieve Sample of Studies According to Glass et al. (1981) l ocating studies is a stage at which the most serious form of bias enters a metaanalysis, since it is difficult to assess the impact of a potential bias. The best protection against this source of bias is a thorough description of the procedures used to locate the studies that are found so that the reader can make an intelligent assessment of the representativeness and completeness of the data base for a meta analysis. (p. 57). The li terature on job satisfaction and organizational change, including sources specifically related to community college administrators, provided the relevant data for this study. To ensure that a satisfactory level of data was collected, a systematic investigation of computer based information searches was conducted to locate appropriate studies. Computer data bases included EBSCO Academic Search Complete, UMIProQuest Digital Dissertations, and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Documents were ret rieved if the title and abstract indicated that the investigators might have assessed the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate among specific groups of community college personnel Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria In this metaa nalysis, studies were first eligible for inclusion if they assessed the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate factors among community college per sonnel Second, relevant studies had to report quantitative data on measures of dependent variables of interest to be included in the metaanalysis. Third, studies were chosen for inclusion only if the data was sufficient to calculate at least one effect size relevant to the metaanalysis. After careful evaluation, studies were

PAGE 47

47 excluded f rom this research if (a) no measure of job satisfaction or organizational climate factors were measured and, (b) the subjects were not community college personnel Statistical Methods Research Question 1: a) As a group, what is the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the seven organizational climate factors at their respective institutions? b) Using the same seven climate factors as an index, what is the groups overall perception of the existence of these factors at their respective i nstitutions? c) As a group, how did the community college personnel rate the overall importance of the eight job satisfaction factors? Research Question 2: a) What is the relationship between each type of job and satisfaction with each organizational c limate factor? b) What is the relationship between each type of job and perception of each organizational climate factor? c) What is the relationship between each type of job and the importance of each job satisfaction factor? Research Question 3: What are the relationships among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and importance of job satisfaction factors? For Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 chi square tests were used to examine differences by job type with reference to satisfaction and perception of the seven organizational climate factors of internal communication, organizational structure, political culture, professional development, evaluation, promotion, and regard for personal concern. SAS software, (version 9.2; Cary, N.C.) was used for all analyses. Levels of significance of 0.05 and twosided tests were used. For R esearch Q uestion 3, the numbers were taken directly from the seven studies.

PAGE 48

48 Summary This chapter presented and explained the various dimensions of this speci fic research study by discussing the metaanalytic methodology design used to address the hypothesis and the datagathering procedures. A metaanalytic review was conducted to determine the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate a cross seven primary studies. The focus on only c ommunity college personnel helped generalization of study results to this population. Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the data.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to investigate the overall satisfaction with organizational climate factors across seven studies involving various levels of community college personnel. A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a significant relationship among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and the importance of job satisfaction factors across the studies. Specifically, t he research addressed the following questions: Research Question 1: a) As a group, what is the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the seven organizational climate factors at their respective institutions? b) Using the same seven climate factors as an index, what is the groups overall perception of the existence of these factors at their respect ive institutions? c) As a group, how did the community college personnel rate the overall importance of the eight job satisfaction factors? Research Question 2: a) What is the relationship between each type of job and satisfaction with each organizational climate factor? b) What is the relationship between each type of job and perception of each organizational climate factor? c) What is the relationship between each type of job and the importance of each job satisfaction factor? Research Question 3: What are the relationships among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and importance of job satisfaction factors? Response Rate During the course of conducting seven distinct but related studies on organizational climate and job satis faction, a total of 3,370 surveys were mailed to a

PAGE 50

50 cross section of personnel at community colleges across the nation who were members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and/or listed in the Higher Education Directory (HED). A total o f 1,539 useable surveys were returned, rendering a 46% rate of return. A small portion of the surveys were returned with some responses missing; however, all recorded responses were used in the analysis of data. Description of the Seven Studies Gender and Ethnicity Table 41 provides gender and ethnic distributions for community college personnel. A total of 1,473 participants completed the survey question on gender. Of these, 912 (62%) were male and 558 (38%) were female. One thousand three hundred eight employees, representing 89% of the respondents, were White. Blacks and Hispanics represented 5% and 4% of the total respondents respectively. The remaining 1.9% included all other ethnic groups. Only two studies (Chappell, 1995 and Evans, 1996) reported a combined distribution of personnel by gender and ethnic origin. Five hundred thirty eight of these employees, representing 67% of the respondents, were White males. One hundred eighty six employees, representing 23%, were White females. Twenty three empl oyees, representing 3% of the respondents, were Hispanic males, thirteen employees representing 2% of the respondents, were Black females, and nine employees, representing 1% of the respondents were Black males. Classification of Community Colleges The maj ority of respondents (n = 1080 or 83%) used one of the first three college classifications listed in Table 41. These classifications generally referred to geographic location, thereby inferring the size of the community college. The classifications

PAGE 51

51 includ ed (a) rural, (b) suburban, (c) urban/inner city, (d) metropolitan area district, (e) community college adjacent to a residential university, or (f) any mix of the first five classifications. Of these six classifications, 553 (42%) of the total respondents identified themselves as working in rural community colleges, 325 (25%) of the total respondents identified themselves as working in suburban community colleges, and 202 (16%) identified themselves as working in urban/inner city community colleges. Number of Years Served Within the Community College System Table 41 shows the distribution of community college personnel according to the number of years served within the community college system. A total of 1,469 respondents answered this survey question. Of these, 652 (44%) reported having served within the community college system for 15 or more years, and 36 (3%) reported having served within the community college system for less than one year. Seven hundred eighty (53%) reported having served within the c ommunity college system 114 years. Overall Ratings for Each Factor Table 42 indicated the overall satisfaction and perceived level of each organizational climate factor across the seven studies, and the overall percentage of each job satisfaction factor as related to the factors importance in job satisfaction. Overall, the responses ranged from 76% of respondents being satisfied with the political climate (PC2) at their respective institutions to 100% of respondents regarding professional effectiveness ( PE4) and relationship with supervisor (RWSup4) as important to job satisfaction. With reference to satisfaction with organizational climate factors, 76% of respondents were satisfied with the political climate (PC2 ) at their respective institutions while 93% of respondents were satisfied with regard for personal

PAGE 52

52 concern (RPC2) With reference to the perception of organizational climate factors, 79% of respondents reported a high level of perceived existence of political climate (PC3 ) while 96% of respondents perceived a high level of the existence of regard for personal concern (RPC3). Finally, with reference to job satisfaction factors, 94% of respondents regarded autonomy, power, and control (APC4) as important to job satisfaction at their respecti ve institutions, while 100% of respondents regarded professional effectiveness (PE4 ) and relationship with supervisor (RWSup 4 ) as im portant to job satisfaction. Satisfaction Ratings The percentage of respondents that were satisfied with these factors ranged from 76% to 93%. Seventy six percent of respondents were satisfied with political climate (PC2), and 85% were satisfied with organizational structure (OS2), evaluation (EVAL2), and promotion (PROMO2). Eighty six percent were satisfied with internal commu nication (IC2) and 88% were satisfied with professional development opportunities (PDO2) Ninety three percent of respondents were satisfied with regard for personal concern (RPC2). Perception Ratings The percentage of respondents that perceived a high level of the existence of these factors at their respective institutions ranged from 79% to 96%. Seventy nine percent reported that they perceived a high level of the existence of political climate (PC3), and 89% perceived a high level of existence of opportunities for promotion (PROMO3) at their respective institutions. Ninety percent reported that they perceived a high level of the existence of organizational structure and positive evaluation procedures at their institutions. Ninety one percent perceived a high level of professional development opportunities and 95% perceived a high level of the existence

PAGE 53

53 of internal communication. Finally, 96% of the respondents indicated that they perceived a high level of the existence of regard for personal concern (RPC3) at their respective institutions. Importance of Job Satisfaction Ratings The percentage of respondents that regarded these factors as important to job satisfaction ranged from 94% to 100%. Ninety four percent of respondents reported autonomy, power, and control (APC4) as important to job satisfaction, 95% of respondents reported salary (SAL4) as important, and 97% reported benefits (BENE4) as important at their respective institutions. Ninety eight per cent reported relationship with peers (RWP4) as important, while 99% reported relationship with subordinates (RWSub4) and participation in the decisionmaking process (DM4) as important to job satisfaction. Finally, 100% reported relationship with supervis or (RWSup 4) and professional effectiveness (PE4) as important to job satisfaction at their respective institutions. Satisfaction with Organizational Climate Factors Satisfaction with Internal Communication (IC2) Internal communication was defined as the c olleges formal and informal communication processes and style such as articulation of mission, purpose, values, policies, and procedures. Generally, community college personnel reported that they were satisfied with internal communication at their respect ive institutions. Overall the responses ranged from 69% to 95% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 43 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and internal communication (pvalue <.0001, chi square test).

PAGE 54

54 Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with internal communication was consistently reported as high among community college personnel the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries. Satisfaction with internal communication ranged from 93% for presidents to 69% for mid level managers Executive secretaries reported 95% satisfaction with this factor. S atisfaction with Organizational Structure (OS2) Organizational structure was defined as the colleges administrative operation, or its hierarchical lines of authority and requirements for operating within that hierarchy. Generally, community college personnel reported that they were satisfied with organizational structure at their respective institutions. Overall the responses ranged from 79% to 97% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 44 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and organizational structure (p value <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with organizational structure was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy, with the exception of executive secretaries and institutional research staff Satisfaction with organizational structure ranged from 89% for presidents to 79% for branch campus executive officers Executive secretaries reported 97% satisfaction and institutional research staff reported 90% satisfaction with this factor

PAGE 55

55 Satisfaction with Political Climate (PC2) Political climate was defined as the nature and complexity of the colleges internal politics, and the degree to which an employee must operate within a political framework in order to accomplish their tasks. Generally, community college personnel reported lower satisfaction with political climate than with any other aspect of organizational climate. Overall the responses ranged from 64% to 96% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 45 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and political climate (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with political climate was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved up the institutional hierarchy, with the exception of midlevel managers. Satisfaction with political climate ranged from 96% for executive secretaries to 70% for presidents Mid level managers repor ted 64% satisfaction with this factor. Satisfaction with Professional Development Opportunities (PDO2) Professional development opportunities were defined as the opportunities for employees to pursue and participate in activities to enhance job performance These opportunities included improving skills, learning new trends, and improving job satisfaction and morale. Generally, community college personnel reported that they were satisfied with professional development opportunities at their institutions. Overall the responses ranged from 76% to 100% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 46 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and professional development opportunities (pvalue <.0001, chi square test).

PAGE 56

56 It was clear from this analysis that while satisfaction with professional development opportunities was consistently rated as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries and institutional research staff Satisfaction with professional development opportunities ranged from 91% for presidents to 76% for midlevel managers. Executive secretaries reported 91% satisfaction and institutional research staff reported 100% satisfaction with this factor. Satisfaction with Evaluation (EVAL2) Evaluation was defined as the colleges procedures for evaluating employees through positive feedback intended to provide professional growth for the employee. Generally, community college personnel reported that they were satisfied with the evaluation procedures at their respective institutions. Overall the responses ranged from 71% to 98% of em ployees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 47 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and evaluation (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with evaluation was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries and ins titutional research staff Satisfaction with evaluation ranged from 89% for presidents to 71% for mid level managers. Ninety eight percent of executive secretaries and 90% of institutional research staff were satis fied with evaluation procedures.

PAGE 57

57 Satisfaction with Promotion (PROMO2) Promotion was defined as the colleges commitment to internal promotion and advancement from within the organization. Promotion was typically the result of hard work and dedication to the organization. Generally, community coll ege personnel reported that they were satisfied with internal communication at their respective institutions. Overall the responses ranged from 62% to 95% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 48 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and promotion (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with promotional procedures was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries and institutional research staff. Satisfaction with promotional procedures ranged from 95% for presidents to 71% for midlevel managers. Executive secretaries reported 87% satisfaction and institutional research staff reported 62% satisfaction with this factor. Satisfaction with Regard for Personal Concern (RPC2) Regard for personal concern was defined as the colleges sensitivity to and regard for the personal matters and well being of employees. Generally, community college personnel reported that they were satisfied with their institutions regard for personal concern. Overall the responses ranged from 80% to 100% of employees indicating satisfaction with this variable. Table 49 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and regard for personal concern (pvalue <.0001, chi square test).

PAGE 58

58 Based on this analysis, it would appear that while satisfaction with regard for personal concern was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents satisfied with this factor appeared to diminish as positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries Satisfaction with regard for personal concern ranged from 99% for presidents to 80% for midlevel managers. One hundred percent of executive secretaries were satisfied with regard for personal concern at their institutions. Perception of Existence of Organizational Climate Factors Perception of Internal Communication (IC3) Respondents reported that they perceived a high level of internal communication at their respective institutions. The responses ranged from 93% to 98% of employees reporting a high perception of this factor at their institutions. Table 410 indicated that 93% of branch campus executive officers and chief business officers and 98% of presidents indicated a high percept ion of this factor at their respective institutions. Perception of Organizational Structure (OS3) Respondents reported that they perceived a high level of organizational structure at their respective institutions. The responses ranged from 87% to 97% of employees reporting a high perception of this factor at their institutions. Table 411 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and perception of organizational structure (p value = .0440, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while perception of organizational structure was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents perceiving a high level of this factor appeared to increase as positions moved down the ins titutional hierarchy. Respondents perceiving a high level of

PAGE 59

59 this factor at their respective institutions ranged from 87% for presidents to 97% for executive secretaries. Perception of Political Climate (PC3) Respondents reported that they perceived a hi gh level of political climate at their respective institutions. The responses ranged from 70% to 98% of employees indicating a high perception of this factor. Table 412 showed a statistically significant relationship between job type and perception of pol itical climate (p value <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while the perception of political climate was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents that perceived a high degree of this factor increased as positions moved down the institutional hierarchy Respondents perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions ranged from 70% for presidents to 98% for executive secretaries. Perception of Professional Development Opportunities (PDO3) Respondents reported that they perceived a high level of professional development opportunities at their respective institutions. Table 413 indicated that responses ranged from 88% of branch campus executive officers to 100% of institutional research staff reporting that they perceived a high level of this factor at their respective institutions. Perception of Evaluation (EVAL3) Respondents reported that they perceived a high level of supportive evaluation at their respective institutions. The responses ranged from 87% to 96% of employees indicating a high perception of this factor. Table 414 showed a statistically significant

PAGE 60

60 relationship between job type and perception of evaluation procedures (pvalue = .0327, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while perception of evaluation procedures was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents perceiving a high level of this factor appeared to increase as positions moved up the institutional hierarchy with the exception of executive secretaries. Respondents perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions ranged from 87% for branch campus executive officers to 93% for presidents. Ninety six percent of executive secretaries reported perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions Perception of Promotion (PROMO3) The respondents reported that they perceived a high level of promotional opportuni ties at their respective institutions. The responses ranged from 76% of institutional research staff to 97% of presidents reporting a high level of perception for this fa ctor at their institutions. Table 415 indicated a statistically significant relations hip between job type and perception of promotional opportunities (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while the perception of promotional opportunities was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents that perceived a high degree of this factor appeared to increase as positions moved up the institutional hierarchy, with the exception of executive secretaries. Respondents perceiving a high level of this factor at t heir respective institutions ranged from 76% for institutional research staff to 97% for

PAGE 61

61 presidents. Ninety six percent of executive secretaries reported perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions Perception of Regard for Personal Concern (RPC3) Respondents reported that they perceived a high level of regard for personal concern at their respective institutions. Responses ranged from 90% of institutional research staff to 100% of presidents reporting a high perception of this f actor at their institutions. Table 416 indicated a statistically significant relationship between job type and perception of regard for personal concern (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while the perception of regard for personal concern was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents that perceived a high degree of this factor appeared to increase as positions moved up the institutional hierarchy, with the exception of executive secretaries. Respondents perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions ranged from 90% for institutional research staff to 100% for presidents. Ninety nine percent of executive secretaries reported perceiving a high level of this factor at their respective institutions. Importance of Job Satisfaction Factors Importance of Decisionmaking (DM4) Participation in decisionmaking was defined as the colleges process for decision making and opportunities for invol vement by the employee to participate in that process. Generally, the respondents reported that their involvement in the decisionmaking process was an important part of job satisfaction at their respective institutions. Table 417 indicated that the responses ranged from 95% of institutional research staff to 100%

PAGE 62

62 of presidents reporting high importance for being involved in decisionmaking at their institutions. Importance of Autonomy, Power, and Control (APC4) Autonomy, power, and control were defined as the amount or degree of jurisdiction or discretion that employees were able to exercise while they performed the tasks of their position. Most employees in educational institutions consider high autonomy to be an important requirement for job satisfaction and success. Generally, the respondents reported a high degree of the importance of autonomy, power, and control at their respective institutions. Responses ranged from 88% to 100% of employees indicating the importance of this factor at their respective institutions. Table 418 indicated a statistically significant relationship between job type and the importance of autonomy, power, and control (pvalue <.0001, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while the importance of autonomy, power, and control was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents that attached a high degree of importance to this factor increased as positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Eighty eight p ercent of presidents and 100% of i nstit utional research staff reported a high degree of importance for this factor with regard to job satisfaction. Importance of Relationship with Peers (RWP4) Relationship with peers was defined as the quality of the affiliation that an employee maintained with his or her peers. Generally, the respondents reported a high degree of the importance of relationship with peers at their respective institutions. Table 4 19 indicated that responses ranged from 98% of chief ins tructional officers and

PAGE 63

63 presidents to 100% of midlevel managers and institutional research staff reporting this factor as important to job satisfaction at their institutions. Importance of Relationship with Subordinates (RWSub4) Relationship with subordinates was defined as the quality of the affiliation that an employee maintained with his or her subordinates. Generally, respondents reported a high degree of the importance of relationship with subordinates at their respective institutions. Table 420 in dicated that responses ranged from 99% of branch campus executive officers, chief business officers, and chief instructional officers to 100% of institutional research staff, midlev el managers, and presidents, reporting this factor as important to job sat isfaction at their respective institutions. Importance of Relationship with Supervisor (RWSup4) Relationship with supervisor was defined as the quality of the affiliation that an employee maintained with his or her supervisor. Generally, respondents report ed a high degree of the importance of relationship with supervisors at their respective institutions. Table 421 indicated that the responses ranged from 95% of institutional research staff to 100% of presidents reporting this factor as important to job satisfaction at their respective institutions Importance of Salary (SAL4) Salary was defined as the equity and adequacy of the salary received by the employees. Generally, the respondents reported a high degree of the importance of salary at their respectiv e institutions. Table 422 indicated that responses ranged from 94% of presidents to 100% of institutional research staff reporting this factor as important to job satisfaction at their respective institutions.

PAGE 64

64 Importance of Benefits (BENE4) Benefits were defined as the equity and adequacy of the benefits package received by the employees. Most employees in educational institutions consider benefits to be an important requirement for job satisfaction and success. Generally, the respondents reported a high degree of the importance of benefits at their respective institutions. Responses ranged from 94% to 100% of employees indicating the importance of this factor at their respective institutions. Table 423 indicated a statistically significant relationship between job type and the importance of benefits (p value = 0450, chi square test). Based on this analysis, it would appear that while the importance of benefits was consistently reported as high among community college personnel, the percentage of respondents that attached a high degree of importance to this factor increased as positions moved down the institutional hierarchy with the exception of mid level managers Ninety four percent of presidents and 100% of institutional research staff reported this f actor as important to job satisfaction at their respective institutions. Ninety seven percent of midlevel managers reported this factor as important to job satisfaction. Importance of Professional Effectiveness (PE4) Professional effectiveness was defined as the perceived overall effectiveness of the employee in their position. Generally, the respondents reported a high degree of the importance of professional effectiveness at their respective institutions. Table 424 indicated that the responses ranged from 99% of chief business officers to 100% of all other college personnel reporting a high deg ree of importance for this factor as important to job satisfaction at their respective institutions.

PAGE 65

65 Statistical Significance (pvalues) Table 425 indicated the overall pvalue for each of the 22 factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used. The factors were divided into three groups: satisfaction with the seven organizational climate factors, perception of the same seven factors, and the importance of eight job satisfaction factors. A statistically significant relationship between job type and satisfaction with each of the seven organizational climate factors was reported. With regard to perception of the existence of a high level of the organizational climate factors, a statistically s ignificant relationship was reported between job type and five organizational climate factors: organizational structure (OS2), political climate (PC3), evaluation (EVAL2), promotion (PROMO3), and regard for personal concern (RPC3) Finally, a statistically significant relationship between job type and the importance of autonomy, power, and control (APC4) and the importance of benefits (BENE4) was reported. Correlations and Significance between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Factors Table 426 r eported the correlations between the seven organizational climate factors and the eight job satisfaction factors across the five studies that reported this data. Correlations were both positive and negative. Significant correlations at the p 0.05 level w ere indicated with an asterisk (*). Overall, 43/280 or 15.4% of the responses were significant. The results were mixed. The number of significant correlations ranged from 0 to 25 among the five studies. Peeks (2003) study of institutional research s taff reported two significant correlat ions, Baileys (2002) study of branch campus executive officers reported seven significant correlations, Zabetakis (1999) study of chief business o fficers reported nine significant

PAGE 66

66 correlations, and Evans (1996) study of c ommunity college presidents reported 25 significant correlations. Chappells (1995) study of chief instructional officers reported an absence of strong correlations in the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfac tion. Levys (1989) study of midlevel managers and Sofianos (2005) study of executive secretaries did not report these correlations. Peeks study of institutional research staff reported a significant negative correlation between organizational structure and participation in decision making ( r = .45). As satisfaction with organizational structure decreased, the importance of participation in decision making increased. A second significant correlation existed between evaluation and benefits. As s atisfaction with supportive evaluation procedures increased, the importance of benefits also increased ( r = .57). Baileys study of branch campus executive officers reported seven significant positive correlations. As satisfaction with professional development opportunities increased, the importance of relationship with peers also increased ( r = .17). As satisfaction with supportive evaluation procedures increased, the importance of salary increased ( r = .19) As satisfaction with supportive evaluation proc edures increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .17) As satisfaction with the colleges commitment to promotion increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .16). As satisfaction with regard for personal concern increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .29). As satisfaction with regard for personal concern increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .23). As satisfaction with regard for personal concern increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .25)

PAGE 67

67 Zabetakis study of chief business officers reported nine significant positive correlations. As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .18). As satis faction with internal communication increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .18 ). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance of relationship with peers increased ( r = .17). As satisfaction with or ganizational structure increased, the importance of benefits increased (r = .19) As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased (r = .18 ). As satisfaction with professional development increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .19). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of participation in decision making increased ( r = .17). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of relationsh ip with peers increased ( r = .17). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .17). Evans study of community college presidents reported 25 significant positive correlations. As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of participation in decision making increased ( r = .12). As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of relationship w ith subordinates increased (r = .15). As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .16) As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of salary increased ( r = .17 ). As satisfaction with internal communication increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .17). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance of autonomy,

PAGE 68

68 power and control increased ( r = .18 ). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance relations hip with subordinates increased ( r = 13). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .17). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance of salary increased ( r = 21). As satisfaction with organizational structure increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .13 ). As satisfaction with political culture increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .17 ). As satisfaction with pr ofessional development increased, the importance of autonomy, power and control increased ( r = .13 ). As satisfaction with professional development increased, the importance of relationship with subordinates increased ( r = .13 ). As satisfaction with profess ional development increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor also increased ( r = .16). As satisfaction with professional development increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = 18). As satisfaction with evaluation increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = 18). As satisfaction with promotion increased, the importance of relationship with peers also increased ( r = .16 ). As satisfaction with promotion increased, the importance of relationship with subordinates increased ( r = .22). As satisfaction with promotion increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .13). As satisfaction with promotion increased, the importance of salary increased ( r = .15). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of relationship with peers increased ( r = .17). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of relationship with supervisor increased ( r = .12). As regard for personal concern increased, the importanc e of salary increased ( r = .16). As regard for personal

PAGE 69

69 concern increased, the importance of benefits increased ( r = .15). As regard for personal concern increased, the importance of professional effectiveness increased ( r = .16). Chappells study of chief instructional officers reported an absence of strong associations in the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction. Summary This study analyzed the results of seven studies that represented a cross section of community college personnel and that addressed a set of common research questions It reported the similarities and differences in the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction among the seven studies. The seven studies mailed a total of 3,370 questionnaires to a cross section of administrators and personnel at community colleges across the nation who were members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and/or lis ted in the Higher Education Directory (HED). A total of 1,539 useable surveys were returned, rendering a 46% rate of return. A small portion of the surveys were returned with some responses missing; however, all recorded responses were used in the analysis of data. The data provided a profile of the community college personnel and composites of their satisfaction with organizational climate, their perception of organizational climate, and how important they found eight job satisfaction factors to be in the performance of their jobs. In addition, a composite correlation table was developed to determine what significant relationships existed among the studies with regard to organizational climate and the importance of job satisfaction factors.

PAGE 70

70 A description of the seven studies reported in Table 41 included gender, ethnic origin, classification of community colleges, and number of years experience as a community college administrator or executive secretary. Community college personnel are likely to be White/ C aucasian with 1115 years experience at a rural community college. The administrator is likely to be male (62%) although females were represented at 38%. Overall ratings for each factor addressed Research Question 1. Across the seven studies, the three cl imate factors receiving the highest satisfaction ratings were regard for personal concern (93%), professional development opportunities (88%), and internal communication (86%). The two climate factors receiving the lowest satisfaction ratings were politica l climate and promotional opportunities. The three climate factors receiving the highest perception ratings were regard for personal concern (96%), internal communication (95%), and professional development opportunities (91%). The two receiving the lowest perception ratings were political climate (79%) and promotion (89%). The three job satisfaction factors receiving the highest importance ratings were professional effectiveness (100%), relationship with supervisor (100%), and participation in decisionmak ing (99%). The two receiving the lowest importance ratings were autonomy, power, and control (94%) and salary (95%) ( Table 42). The relationship between each type of job and satisfaction with, perception of, and importance of the 22 factors addressed R e s earch Q uestion 2. First, there were si gnificant relationships between job type and satisfaction with each of the seven organizational climate factors. It was reported that the percentage of respondents satisfied with the seven factors generally appeared to diminish as positions moved

PAGE 71

71 down the institutional hierarchy. Second, there was a significant correlation between job type and a high degree of perception of the existence of five of the organizational climate factors. The results showed that the perception of three of the se factors increased as positions moved up the institutional hier archy, while the perception of two of the factors increased as positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Third, there was a statistically si gnificant correlation between job type and the importance of autonomy, power and c ontrol across the seven studies A statistically significant relationship between job type and benefits was also reported (Tables 43 through 425). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction factors was addressed by examining signi ficant correlations across the seven studies ( Research Question 3). There were 43 signi ficant correlations across the seven studies. Community college presidents had 25 si gnificant correlations, chief business officers had 9, branch campus executive officers had 7, and institutional research staff had 2. There were no strong associations present with chief instructional officers. Mid level managers and executive secretaries were not studied. Correlations were both positive and negative. The results were mixed (Tables 426 and 427). Chapter five draws conclusions from this research and proposes suggestions for further research.

PAGE 72

72 Table 41. Description of t he seven studies A B C D E F G Overall N Number of Respondents/Total Number of Questionnaires, (Rate of Return %) Executive secretaries/associates, 2005 149/342 (43.5%) Institutional research staff, 2003 21/28 (75%) Branch campus executive officers, 2002 199/429 (46%) Chief business officers, 1999 142/277 (51%) Presidents, 1996 284/801 (35%) Chief instructional officers, 1995 539/1060 (51%) PACC Mid level managers, 1989 205/433 (47.3%) TOTAL 1539/3370 46% Gender Male 3 (2.2%) 12 (57.1%) 86 (55.1%) 107 (75.4%) 242 (85.5%) 353 (66.6%) 109 (53.4%) 912 62% Female 134 (97.8%) 9 (42.9%) 70 (44.9%) 32 (22.5%) 41 (14.5%) 177 (33.4%) 95 (46.6%) 558 38% No entry na na na 3 (2.1%) na na na 3 .2% TOTAL 1473 100%* Ethnic Origin Black/African American 11 (8%) 0 19 (12.3%) 3 (2.1%) 9 (3.2%) 20 (3.8%) 16 (7.8%) 78 5% Hispanic 6 (4.3%) 1 (4.8%) 8 (5.2%) 5 (3.5%) 14 (5.0%) 18 (3.4%) na 52 4% White/Caucasian 119 (87%) 18 (85.7%) 127 (81.9%) 133 (93.7%) 251 (89.6%) 476 (89.6%) 184 (90.2%) 1308 89% Asian American 0 1 (4.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (0.7%) na 2 (1.0%) 7 .5% Native American 1 (0.7%) na 0 na 3 (1.1%) na 2(1.0%) 6 .4% Other na 1 (4.8%) 0 na 1 (0.4%) 17 (3.2%) na 19 1% TOTAL 1470 100%*

PAGE 73

73 Table 41. Continued A B C D E F G Overall N Gender and Ethnic Origin White male na na na na 215 (77.06%) 323 (60.95%) na 538 67% White female na na na na 35 (12.54%) 151 (28.49%) na 186 23% Black male na na na na 9 (3.23%) na na 9 1% Black female na na na na 0 13 (2.45%) na 13 2% Hispanic male na na na na 10(3.58%) 13 (2.45%) na 23 3% All other na na na na 10(3.59%) 30 (5.66%) na 40 5% TOTAL 809 100%* A B C D E F G Overall N Classification of community colleges Rural 64 (46.7%) 5 (23.8%) 69 (44.8%) 56 (39.4%) 134 (50.8%) 219 (41.9%) 6 (42.9%) 553 42% Suburban 35 (25.6%) 13 (61.9%) 51 (33.1%) 49 (34.5%) 65 (24.6%) 109 (20.8%) 3 (21.4%) 325 25% Urban/Inner city 38 (27.7%) 2 (9.5%) 34 (22.1%) 31 (21.8%) 65 (24.6%) 27 (5.2%) 5 (35.7%) 202 16% Metropolitan na na na na na 56 (10.7%) na 56 CC adjacent to residential na na na na na 12 (2.3%) na 12 Any mix of the above five na na na na na 47 (9.0%) na 47 Multiple campuses 105 (76.6%) na na 3 (2.1%) na na na 108 No response na 1 (4.8%) na 3 (2.1%) na na na 4 TOTAL 1307

PAGE 74

74 Table 41. Continued A B C D E F G Overall N Hispanic serving institution na na na na na 6 (1.1%) na Historically Black two year na na na na na 3 (0.6%) na Tribally controlled na na na na na 3 (0.6%) na Transfer/Gen. Ed. only na na na na na 1 (0.2%) na Technical Ed. only na na na na na 16 (3.1%) na Private (non profit, sect or non sect.) na na na na na 4 (0.8%) na Two yr located on a 4 yr campus na na na na na 20 (3.8%) na Number of Years Experience as a Community College Administrator or Exec. Secretary Less than one year 2 (1.5%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (1.1%) 16 (3.0%) 12 (6.0%) 36 3% 1 5 years 42 (30.7%) 7 (33.3%) 26 (16.9%) 26 (18.3%) 30 (10.6%) 66 (12.4%) 1 3 yrs 62 (31.0%) 259 18% 6 10 years 40 (29.2%) 4 (19.0%) 29 (18.8%) 21 (14.8%) 21 (7.4%) 108 (20.3%) 4 7 yrs 57 (28.5%) 280 19% 11 14 years 13 (9.4%) 2 (9.5%) 27 (17.5%) 27 (19.0%) 38 (13.4%) 100 (18.8%) 8 11 yrs 34 (17.0%) 241 16% 5 years or more 40 (29.2%) 6 (28.6%) 71 (46.1%) 67 (47.2%) 191 (67.5%) 242 (45.5%) 12 15 yrs 14 (7.0%) 631 43% 16 or more yrs 21 (10.5%) 21 1% No response na 1 (4.8%) na na na na na 1 TOTAL 1469 100%* Due to rounding, percents may not add up to 100%

PAGE 75

75 Table 42. O verall ratings for each factor Organizational Climate Factors % satisfied with this factor Satisfaction Internal Communication (IC2) 86% Organizational Structure (OS2) 85% Political Climate (PC2) 76% Professional Development Opportunities (PDO2) 88% Evaluation (EVAL2) 85% Promotion (PROMO2) 85% Regard for Personal Concern (RPC2) 93% Perception % that perceived a high level of this factor Internal Communication (IC3) 95% Organizational Structure (OS3) 90% Political Climate (PC3) 79% Professional Development Opportunities (PDO3) 91% Evaluation (EVAL3) 90% Promotion (PROMO3) 89% Regard for Personal Concern (RPC3) 96% Job Satisfaction Factors % that regarded this factor as important to job satisfaction Decision making (DM4) 99% Autonomy, Power & Control (APC4) 94% Relationship with Peers (RWP4) 98% Relationship with Subordinates (RWSub4) 99% Relationship with Supervisor (RWSup4) 100% Salary (SAL4) 95% Benefits (BENE4) 97% Professional Effectiveness (PE4) 100%

PAGE 76

76 Table 43. Organizational c limate: satisfaction with internal communication (IC2) by job JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 85% D (Chief Business Officers) 81% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 87% B (Institutional Research Staff) 86% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 69% E (Presidents) 93% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 95% p value: <.0001 Table 44. Organizational climate: satisfaction with organizational structure (OS2) by job JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 79% D (Chief Business Officers) 85% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 83% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 80% E (Presidents) 89% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 97% p value: <.0001 Table 45. Organizational c limate: satisfaction with political climate (PC2) by j ob JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 78% D (Chief Business Officers) 75% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 76% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 64% E (Presidents) 70% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 96% p value: <.0001 Table 46. Organizational c limate: satisfaction with professional development opportunities (PDO2) by j ob JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 86% D (Chief Business Officers) 91% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 88% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 76% E (Presidents) 91% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 91% p value: <.0001 Table 47. Organizational c limate: satisfaction with evaluation (EVAL2) by j ob JOB % satisfied

PAGE 77

77 C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 82% D (Chief Business Officers) 83% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 84% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 71% E (Presidents) 89% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 98% p value: <.0001 Table 48. Organizational climate: satisfaction with promotion (PROMO2) by j ob JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 84% D (Chief Business Officers) 82% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 86% B (Institutional Research Staff) 62% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 71% E (Presidents) 95% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 87% p value: <.0001 Table 49. Organizational c limate: satisfaction with regard for personal concern (RPC2) by j ob JOB % satisfied C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 91% D (Chief Business Officers) 95% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 92% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 80% E (Presidents) 99% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 100% p value: <.0001 Table 410. Organizational c limate: perception of internal communication (IC3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 93% D (Chief Business Officers) 93% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 95% B (Institutional Research Staff) 95% E (Presidents) 98% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 96% p value: = 1277

PAGE 78

78 Table 411. O rganizational climate: perception of organizational structure (OS3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 90% D (Chief Business Officers) 90% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 89% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% E (Presidents) 87% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 97% p value: = 0440 Table 412. O rganizational climate: perception of political climate (PC3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 86% D (Chief Business Officers) 74% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 79% B (Institutional Research Staff) 91% E (Presidents) 70% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 98% p value: <.0001 Table 413. O rganizational climate: perception of professional development opportunities (PDO3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 88% D (Chief Business Officers) 93% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 89% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% E (Presidents) 93% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 91% p value: = 1681 Table 414. Organizational climate: perception of evaluation (EVAL3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 87% D (Chief Business Officers) 92% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 88% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% E (Presidents) 93% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 96% p value: = .0 327

PAGE 79

79 Table 415. O rganizational climate: perception of promotion (PROMO3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 85% D (Chief Business Officers) 85% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 86% B (Institutional Research Staff) 76% E (Presidents) 97% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 96% p value: <.0001 Table 4 16. Organizational climate: perception of regard for personal concern (RPC3) by j ob JOB % high level of perception C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 93% D (Chief Business Officers) 97% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 93% B (Institutional Research Staff) 90% E (Presidents) 100% A (Exec Secretaries/Associates to the President) 99% p value: <.0001 Table 417. Job satisfaction: importance of decisionmaking (DM4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 98% D (Chief Business Officers) 97% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 99% B (Institutional Research Staff) 95% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 99% E (Presidents) 100% p value: = 1476 Table 418. Job satisfaction: importance of autonomy, power, and control (APC4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 97% D (Chief Business Officers) 93% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 96% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 97% E (Presidents) 88% p value: <.0001

PAGE 80

80 Table 419. Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with peers (RWP4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 100% D (Chief Business Officers) 99% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 98% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 100% E (Presidents) 98% p value: = .17 48 Table 420. Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with subordinates (RWSub4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 99% D (Chief Business Officers) 99% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 99% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 100% E (Presidents) 100% p value: = 7073 Table 421. Job satisfaction: importance of relationship with supervisor (RWSup4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 98% D (Chief Business Officers) 97% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 99% B (Institutional Research Staff) 95% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 99% E (Presidents) 100% p value: = 1865 Table 422. Job satisfaction: importance of salary (SAL4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 97% D (Chief Business Officers) 96% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 95% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 97% E (Presidents) 94% p value: = 4580

PAGE 81

81 Table 423. Job satisfaction: importance of benefits (BENE4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 99% D (Chief Business Officers) 97% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 98% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 97% E (Presidents) 94% p value: = .0 450 Table 424. Job satisfaction: importance of professional effectiveness (PE4) by j ob JOB % high degree of importance C (Branch Campus Executive Officers) 100% D (Chief Business Officers) 99% F (Chief Instructional Officers) 100% B (Institutional Research Staff) 100% G (PACC Mid level Managers) 100% E (Presidents) 100% p value: = .0 786 Table 4 25. Overall pvalue for each factor Organizational Climate Factors p value Satisfaction Internal Communication (IC2) < .0001 Organizational Structure (OS2) < .0001 Political Climate (PC2) < .0001 Professional Development Opportunities (PDO2) < .0001 Evaluation (EVAL2) < .0001 Promotion (PROMO2) < .0001 Regard for Personal Concern (RPC2) < .0001 Perception p value Internal Communication (IC3) 0.1277 Organizational Structure (OS3) 0.0440 Political Climate (PC3) < .0001 Professional Development Opportunities (PDO3) 0.1681 Evaluation (EVAL3) 0.0327 Promotion (PROMO3) < .0001 Regard for Personal Concern (RPC3) < .0001 Job Satisfaction Factors p value Decision making (DM4) 0.1476 Autonomy, Power & Control (APC4) < .0001 Relationship with Peers (RWP4) 0.1748 Relationship with Subordinates (RWSub4) 0.7073 Relationship with Supervisor (RWSup4) 0.1865 Salary (SAL4) 0.4580 Benefits (BENE4) 0.0450 Professional Effectiveness (PE4) 0.0786

PAGE 82

82 Table 426. Correlation coefficient and significance: the relationship between measures of job satisfaction and measures of organizational climate Job Satisfaction Factors Organizational Climate Factors Participation in Decision Making Autonomy, Power & Control Relationship with Peers Relationship with Subordinates Relationship with Supervisor Salary Benefits Professional Effectiveness Internal Communication A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .268 C. r = .08 D. r = .367 F. r = .196 E. r = .117* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .150 C. r = .02 D. r = .240 F. r = .161 E. r = .054 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .244 C. r = .04 D. r = .156 F. r = .097 E. r = .106 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .197 C. r = .02 D. r = .071 F. r = .151 E. r = .154* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .149 C. r = .07 D. r = .132 F. r = .221 E. r = .161* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .176 C. r = .05 D. r = .161 F. r = .131 E. r = .168* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .403 C. r =.11 D. r =.184* F. r = .077 E. r =.173* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .037 C. r = .15 D. r = .179* F. r = .103 E. r = .104 Organizational Structure A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .452** C. r = .06 D. r = .002 F. r = .187 E. r = .055 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .290 C. r = .08 D. r = .040 F. r = .152 E. r = .180* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .123 C. r = .02 D. r = .165* F. r = .078 E. r = .078 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .026 C. r = .01 D. r = .065 F. r = .109 E. r = .125* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .302 C. r = .10 D. r = .089 F. r = .259 E. r = .169* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .118 C. r = .03 D. r =.144 F. r =.066 E. r =.213* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .168 C. r = .16 D. r =.188* F. r =.125 E. r =.132* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .000 C. r = .06 D. r = .181* F. r = .054 E. r = .096 Political Climate A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .325 C. r = .06 D. r = .064 F. r = .134 E. r = .075 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .005 C. r = .04 D. r = .098 F. r = .116 E. r = .065 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .024 C. r = .07 D. r = .078 F. r = .045 E. r = .010 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .214 C. r = .04 D. r = .034 F. r = .081 E. r = .005 A. r = n/a G. r = n /a B. r = .205 C. r = .06 D. r = .017 F. r = .118 E. r = .006 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .414 C. r = .06 D. r = .063 F. r = .049 E. r = .070 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .359 C. r = .06 D. r = .081 F. r = .104 E. r = .044 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .205 C. r = .03 D. r = .091 F. r = .072 E. r = .170* Professional Development A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .000 C. r = .15 D. r = .220 F. r = .066 E. r = .059 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .151 C. r = .11 D. r = .043 F. r = .029 E. r = .126* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .050 C. r = .17* D. r = .070 F. r = .064 E. r = .093 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .084 C. r = .04 D. r = .150 F. r = .089 E. r = .134* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .031 C. r = .05 D. r = .267 F. r = .102 E. r = .162* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .145 C. r = .07 D. r = .111 F. r = .048 E. r = .143 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .411 C. r =.10 D. r =.117 F. r = .012 E. r = .090 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .4 31 C. r = .11 D. r = .191* F. r = .054 E. r = .180*

PAGE 83

83 Table 426. Continued Job Satisfaction Factors Organizational Climate Factors Participation in Decision Making Autonomy, Power & Control Relationship with Peers Relationship with Subordinates Relationship with Supervisor Salary Benefits Professional Effectiveness Evaluation A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .104 C. r = .03 D. r = .056 F. r = .059 E. r = .104 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .028 C. r = .06 D. r = .004 F. r = .058 E. r = .019 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .303 C. r = .13 D. r = .091 F. r = .068 E. r = .062 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .171 C. r = .05 D. r = .092 F. r = .050 E. r = .077 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .185 C. r = .11 D. r = .226 F. r = .115 E. r = .154 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .270 C. r = .19* D. r = .043 F. r = .009 E. r = .098 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .571* C. r =.17* D. r =.129 F. r =.032 E. r =.071 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .185 C. r = .09 D. r = .326 F. r = .067 E. r = .182* Promotion A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .026 C. r = .09 D. r = .249 F. r = .146 E. r = .083 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .035 C. r = .11 D. r = .019 F. r = .063 E. r = .067 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .082 C. r = .03 D. r = .056 F. r = .069 E. r = .164* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .034 C. r = .08 D. r = .157 F. r = .101 E. r = .221* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .201 C. r = .10 D. r = .290 F. r = .160 E. r = .132* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .394 C. r =.06 D. r =.072 F. r = .005 E. r =.150* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .373 C. r =.05 D. r =.062 F. r =.021 E. r =.106 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .201 C. r = .16* D. r = .227 F. r = .034 E. r = .091 Regard for Personal Concern A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .238 C. r = .11 D. r = .172* F. r = .148 E. r = .115 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .000 C. r = .14 D. r = .027 F. r = .157 E. r = .060 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .186 C. r = .12 D. r = .172* F. r =.104 E. r =.168* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .077 C. r = .04 D. r = .272 F. r = .092 E. r = .297 A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .228 C. r = .29* D. r = .168* F. r = .160 E. r = .123* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .358 C. r =.16 D. r =.163 F. r =.132 E. r =.164* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .509 C. r =.23* D. r =.159 F. r =.111 E. r =.145* A. r = n/a G. r = n/a B. r = .114 C. r = .25 D. r = .141 F. r = .190 E. r = .163* A: Executive Secretaries, Sofianos, 2005; G: PACC Mid level Managers, Levy, 1989; B: Institutional Research Staff, Peek, 2003 (p.50) ; C: Br. Campus Executive Officers, Bailey, 2002 (p. 89) ; D: Chief Business Officers, Zabetakis, 1999 (p. 119) ; F: Chief Instructional Of ficers, Chappell, 1995 (p. 111) ; E: P residents, Evans, 1996 (p. 114). *Positive correlation is significant at p 0.05 level ; **Negative correlation is significant at p level.

PAGE 84

84 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS FOR FURT HER RESEARCH The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction has been well documented for decades in industrial and manufacturing settings. Interest in these two constructs began in the 1900s with the Hawthorne Studies and continues today as a prom inent topic in organizational behavior literature. Over the last twenty years, a growing body of literature has emerged describing these constructs in community college settings. These studies targeted specific populations of community college personnel. A s the largest and fastest growing segment of higher education in America, community colleges provide access to postsecondary education for millions of people who might otherwise not have pursued advanced education (Parnell, 1990). Increasingly, community colleges are expected to ensure quality by using new and more precise measures of institutional effectiveness (Alfred & Kreider, 1991). Interest in organizational climate and job satisfaction remains high as pressure for institutional effectiveness intensi fies, and as employee expectations and values change (Alfred & Kreider, 1991; Flynn, 1994; Katzell & Thompson, 1990). It is important that higher education leaders strive to fashion a positive organizational climate in order to create and maintain an insti tutional environment that supports all employees. This study analyzed the results of seven studies that addressed a set of common research questions and represented a cross section of community college personnel (Levy 1989, Chappell 1995, Evans 1996, Zabet akis 1999, Bailey 2002, Peek 2003, Sofianos 2005). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction across these seven studies of various levels of community college personnel. A secondary purpose was to

PAGE 85

85 determine if there was a significant relationship among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and the importance of job satisfaction factors across the seven studies. Specifically, the research addressed the following questions: Research Question 1: a) As a group, what is the overall satisfaction of community college personnel with the seven organizational climate factors at their respective institutions? b) Using the same seven climate factors as an index, w hat is the groups overall perception of the existence of these factors at their respective institutions? c) As a group, how did the community college personnel rate the overall importance of the eight job satisfaction factors? Research Question 2: a) What is the relationship between each type of job and satisfaction with each organizational climate factor? b) What is the relationship between each type of job and perception of each organizational climate factor? c) What is the relationship between eac h type of job and the importance of each job satisfaction factor? Research Question 3: What are the relationships among satisfaction with organizational climate factors and importance of job satisfaction factors? This study used a metaanalytic review to i ntegrate the findings from the seven studies. Metaanalysis provides a procedure for combining relevant information taken from studies designed to answer essentially the same research question for the purpose of enlarging the base of the synthesis compared to the base of a single study (Glass et al, 1981; Hedges, 1982; Rosenthal, 1984, 1991). For Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 chi square tests were used to examine differences by job type with reference to satisfaction and perception of the seven organizational climate factors.

PAGE 86

86 Levels of significance of 0.05 and twosided tests were used. For Research Question 3 the data, taken directly from the studies, was used to report the correlations between the seven organizational climate factors and the eight job satisfaction factors across the five studies that reported this data. Correlations were both positive and negative and the results were mixed. Interviews with selected authors of the original studies were conducted in order to explore the quantit ative data in more depth. As community colleges look ahead, strong leadership is needed to create a climate that enhances excellence and promotes learning. The relationship between various levels of community college personnel and job satisf action is cent ral to creating and maintaining a positive organizational climate. Conclusions This study was the first to examine a cross section of community college noninstructional personnel with regard to organizational climate and job satisfaction. It supported the work of the earliest researchers that addressed the social environment as an important element in employee satisfaction and productivity (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger, 1939). More recent researchers also found that the social environment, now known as organizational climate, significantly influenced pr oductivity and morale (Anderson et al., 2000; Davis and Newstrom, 1985; Duggan, 2008; Hersi, 1993; Iiacqua et al., 1995; Lunnenberg and Ornstein, 1991; Munday and Tunnell, 1992; and Spector, 1997). The follow ing three conclusions were developed from this study: First: The percentage of respondents that were satisfied with each factor decreased as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Second: Satisfaction with an organizational climate factor w as not necessarily the same as perceiving a high level of the existence of that factor at the institution.

PAGE 87

87 Third: Some job satisfaction factors can be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Conclusion 1. The first conclusion stated that while satisfaction with all seven organizational climate factors was consistently reported as high among all levels of community college personnel, generally, the percentage of respondents that were satisfied with each factor decreased as the positions moved down the institutional hierarchy. Community college presidents and upper level managers consistently reported more satisfaction with organizational climate factors than midlevel managers. Moreover, the number of significant corr elations between measures of organizational climate and measures of job satisfaction were found to decrease as one moved down the institutional hierarchy. Overall, 43/ 280 or 15.4% of the correlations were significant and t he results were mixed. C ollege president s had the most significant relationships, followed by upper level managers, then midlevel managers This situation implies that alternative ways to align personnel in higher education may be more effective in establishing and maintaining an effective culture and climate in community colleges. Rieley (1992) suggested a process based model with the nucleus/leadership directly connected to each facet of the organization and Katz and West (1992) suggested a network model that eliminated layers of hierarchy through decentralization, greater use of lateral relationships, and reliance on emergent information technology. Satisfaction with political climate was the only organizational climate factor where the percentage of satisfied respondents decreased as the positions moved up the institutional hierarchy. This situation suggests that the higher level positions found it

PAGE 88

88 more difficult to operate effectively within their institutions political framework in order to accomplish their tasks. Conclusion 2. C onclusion two stated that satisfaction with an organizational climate factor was not necessarily the same as perceiving a high level of the existence of that factor at the institution. This suggested that although community college personnel perceived a hi gh level of the existence of organizational climate factors, they also thought there was room for improvement with these factors. This could imply that what the institution offers or exhibits in terms of a certain factor is not what is most helpful or sati sfying to the employees. Duggan (2008) stated that regular assessment of employee job satisfaction, coupled with employee perceptions of and satisfaction with college climate is vital for leaders who want to craft a climate that supports all employees (p. 55). Consistency between satisfaction with and perception of a high degree of the presence of organizational climate factors could be improved. Conclusion 3. The third conclusion stated that some job satisfaction factors can be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic, which is contrary to Herzbergs classification system that categorized a factor as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic to the job were the work itself, responsibility, recognition, and advancement. Extrinsic factors included institution al policy, status, salary, benefits, interpersonal relationships, and overall work conditions (Herzberg, 1976). It is interesting to note that Herzberg identified interpersonal relationships as an extrinsic factor and therefore not central to job satisfact ion. This could be attributed to the fact that only engineers and accountants were considered in Herzbergs study so the results could not be generalizable to the entire workforce (Pallone, Hurley & Rickard, 1971; Mondy et al., 1983). While as a

PAGE 89

89 group com munity college personnel rated all eight job satisfaction factors as important to their jobs, intrinsic factors such as relationships with colleagues and participation in decisionmaking were rated as most important. This conclusion supported the work of o ther researchers who also suggested that some factors could be viewed as both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Iiaqua, Schumacher, and Li, 1995). Positionally, the respondents were inconsistent in rating the importance of the job satis faction factors. W hile nearly every respondent ranked professional effectiveness as most important to job satisfaction, other factors were ranked less consistently. Generally, each position had its own set of motivators that enhanced job satisfaction even though some motiva tors were shared among several different positions. This understanding implies that the positional needs of personnel should be given ample consideration in order to create and maintain a positive and supportive institutional climate. From a broader perspective, developing employee job satisfaction has the potential to attract more qualified professionals with excellent credentials and to positively affect employee retention, thus saving institutions time, money, and other valuable resources in the recruit ing process. As community college leaders look ahead, it is important to consider employees perceptions of and satisfaction with the institutional climate in or der to cultivate and maintain a positive institutional atmos phere. Recommendations for Further Research There has been limited research examining various groupings of community college personnel. Additional research should be performed to explore the relationship between different levels of community college personnel and organizational climate and job satisfaction factors. Several opportunities exist that would contribute to the

PAGE 90

90 development of this body of knowledge. First, conduct metaanalytic studies based on parallel original research among different groupings of community college personnel. For example, how would the correlations among organizational climate and job satisfaction factors for a national sample of midlevel managers compare to several regional studies of the same level of administrators? Other groupings might include community col lege directors, members of the presidents cabinet, fundraisers, and secretaries. Second, given the numerous positive correlations for community college presidents between measures of organizational climate and job satisfaction, it would be advantageous t o study how presidents ranked these relationships. In other words, would the relationship between internal communication and relationship with supervisor be ranked higher than the relationship between internal communication and relationship with subordinat es as suggested by SousaPoza (2000)? It would also be advantageous to study how chief business officers and branch campus executive officers ranked their respective significant relationships. Third, repeat the original studies about every 10 years against the backdrop of a different national economy and then conduct a similar metaanalysis. It is conceivable that during a strong economy, community college leaders would place more importance on certain job satisfaction factors than they would during a weak economy. D uring a weak economy community college leaders might be less altruistic and more c oncerned with their own welfare. Fourth, conduct parallel studies with personnel from private colleges, to see how the correlations compare. Private s ector studies were used

PAGE 91

91 extensively as a basis for the studies included in the metaanalysis as indicated in the literature review (Herzberg, 1976; Herzberg et al., 1959; Mayo, 1933). Fifth, explore the different kinds of motivators that enhance job satisf action among different levels of community college personnel This would yield a wealth of information that could better inform professional development and positively impact employee training and retention. Sixth, investigate the relationship between organizational climate factors, job satisfaction factors and measures of productivity among different levels of community college personnel. Finally, use qualitative methods in addition to quantitative methods to help clarify and verify the findings of this s tudy. For example, interviews could be conducted at focus groups, statewide, regional, and national meetings in order to compile opinions and information that would be instrumental in adding depth to the study. The relationship between various levels of community college personnel and job satisfaction is central to creating and maintaining a positive institutional environment. This study presented both challenges and opportunities for college leaders who are intentional about establishing and maintaining a supportive and positive institutional climate and culture in community colleges of the 21st century.

PAGE 92

92 REFERENCES Acebo, S. C. (1994). A paradigm shift to team leadership in the community college. In G. A. Baker III, (Ed.), A Handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 580588). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchanges. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (pp. 267299). New Yor k: Academic Press. Alfred, R. L. & Kreider, P. (1991). Creating a culture for institutional effectiveness. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 61(5), 34 39. Anderson, J. E., GuidoDiBrito, F., & Morrell, J. S. (2000, Spring). Factors that influence satisfaction for student affairs administrators, New Directions for Institutional Research, (105), 99110. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between the system and the individual New York: Harper & Row. Bailey, N. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multi campus community college systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Bangert Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in metaanalytic methods. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 388399. Bangert Drowns, R. L. & Rudner, L. M. (1991). Meta analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(8), 9 12. Beck, R. C. (1990). Motivation: theories and principles Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bing, R. & Dye, L. (1992). The danger of hierarchical decisionmaking. Academe, 78(4), 16 18. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs and act before it's too late. New York: AMACOM Books. Bretz, R. D. Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Personorganization fit and the theory of work adjustment; Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32 54.

PAGE 93

93 Campbell, J. P. & Pritchard, R. (1976). Motivational theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Caplan, R. D. & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Personenvironment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 253275. Carbone, R. F. (1981). Presidential passages. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education. Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructional officers Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Chieffo, A. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College Review, 19 (2), 15 2 5. Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (1994). The challenging environment: Context, concepts, and crises. In A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A handbook for effective practice (pp. 521). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Conway, J. A. (1984). The myth, mystery, and mastery of participative decision making in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 1140. Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Croft, D. B. & Halpin, A. W. (1963). The or ganizational climate of schools Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center. Daft, R. L. (1983). Organizational theory and design. St Paul: West Publishing. Davis, K. (1981). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior (6th ed.). Ne w York: McGraw Hill. Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1985). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

PAGE 94

94 Deas, E. (1994, Summer). Board and administration relationships contributing to the community college climate: A case study. Community College Review, 22(1), 44 52. Retrieved February 17, 2009 from Academic Search Complete. Deegan, W. L. & Tillery, D. (1985). Renewing the American community college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dewey, J. (1974). John Dewey on education: Selected writings In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 149155. Retrieved March 3, 2009 from Academic Search Complete. Dubin, R. & Taveggia, T. C. (1968). The teachinglearning paradox: A comparat ive analysis of college teaching methods. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press. Duggan, M. H. (2008, Summer). Noninstructional staff perceptions of the college climate. New Directions for Community Colleges (142), 4756. Evans, G. L., Jr. (1996). The r elationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college presidents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Fincher, M. (2002). Private university and community college strategic alliances: The case for cooperation. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 349361. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from Academic Search Complete. Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the presidency. New York: Macmillan. Florida Department of Education. (2005). His tory of the need for baccalaureates policy paper Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/students/pdf/HistBacc.pdf Flynn, G. (1994). Attracting the right employees and keeping them. Personnel Journal, 73(12), 4449. Forehand, G. A. (1968). On the interaction of persons and organizations. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Exploration of a concept (pp. 6584). Boston: Division of Research, Graduate Sc hool of Business Administration, Harvard University, Friedlander, F., & Margulies, N. (1969). Multiple impact of organizational climate and individual system upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22 171183.

PAGE 95

95 Fryer, T. W. and Lovas, J. C. (1990). Leadership in governance: Creating conditions for successful decision making in the community college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta analysis. Educational Researcher, 5 (10), 3 8. Glass, G. V., Mc Graw, B. & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta analysis in social research. Beverly Hills: Sage. Gleazer, E. J. Jr. (199 8). Values, vision & vitality. Washington D.C.: Community College Press. Glick, N. L. P. (1992). Job satisfaction among academic administrators. Research in Higher Education, 33, 625639. Gratton, M. (1993). Leadership in the learning organization. New D irections for Community Colleges, 84 93101. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: Wiley. Haldane, B. (1974). Career satisfaction and success New York: Amacom. Hall, J. A. & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Interpreting and evaluating meta analysis. Evaluation and Health Professions, 18(4), 393407. Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillian. Hanson, E. M. (1996). Educational administration and organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harlacher, E. L. & Gollattscheck, J. F. (1994). Leadership for a new century: Implications for community college management. In A. M. Hoffman and D. J. Julius (Eds.), Managing community and junior colleges; Perspectives for the next century (p p. 3 16). Washington, D.C.: CUPA. Hedges, L. V. (1982). Statistical methods for metaanalysis Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hersi, D. T. (1993). Factors contributing to job satisfaction for women in higher education administration. CUPA Journal, 44 (2), 29 35.

PAGE 96

96 Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, Inc. Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O. & Capwell D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, R. B. (1959). The motivation to work New York: John Wiley and Sons. Higgins, J. H. (1991). The management challenge. New York: MacMillan. Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Hunter, J., Schmidt, F. & Jackson, G. (1982). Meta analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies Beverly Hills: Sage. Hutton, J. B. & Jobe, M. E. (1985). Job satis faction of community college faculty. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 9, 317324. Iiacqua, J. A., Sch macher, P., Li, H. C. (1995, Fall). Factors contributing to job satisfaction in higher education. Education, 116(1), 51 61. Jarvis, P. (2000). The changing university: Meeting a need to change. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(1), 43 67. Johnson, P. R. & Indvik, J. (1990). The role communication plays in developing and reducing organizational stress and burnout. Bulletin of t he Association for Business Communication, 53(1), 5 9. Kanter, R. M. (1985). The changemasters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Katz, R. N. & West, R. P. (1992). Sustaining excellence in the 21st century: A vision and strategies for college and university administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 355 843). Katzell, R. A. & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144153.

PAGE 97

97 Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a hightech corporation Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lawler, E. E. (1986). High involv ement management: Participation strategies for improving management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lawler, E. E. III (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Leslie, D. W. & Fretwell, E. K., J r. (1996). Wise moves in hard times. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Levin, D. I. (1995). Reinventing the workplace. Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institute. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers (D. K. Adams & K. E. Zener, T rans.). New York: McGraw Hill. Levy, S. G. (1989). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Pennsylvania community college middle level administrators Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, Lehigh, PA. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment: confirmation from metaanalysis. American Psychologist, 12, 11811209. Lombardi, J. V. & Capaldi, E. D. (1996). Accountability and quality education. In D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger, & K. C. Westbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 86106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lunnenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Luthans, F. (1981). Organizational behavior New York: McGraw Hill. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillian. McBride, S. A., Munday, R. G., & Tunnell, J. (1992). Community college faculty, job satisfaction, and propensity to leave. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 16(2), 157 165. Milosheff, E. (1990). Factors contributing to job satisfaction at the community college. Community College Review, 18 (1), 12 22.

PAGE 98

98 Mondy, R. W., Holmes, R. E., & Flippo, E. B. (1983). Management concept and practices (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. OBannion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Oblinger, D., & Verville, A. (1998). What business wants from higher education. Washington, D.C. American Council on Education/Oryx. Orpen, C. (1994). Organizat ional level as a moderator of the relationship between perceived political climate and employees work attitudes. Psychological Reports, 75, 769770. Owens, R. G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Parnell, D. (1990). Dateline 2000: The new higher education agenda. Washington DC: The Community College Press. Pallaone, N. J., Hurley, R. B., & Rickard, F. S. (1971). Emphasis in job satisfaction research: 19681969. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 1128. Payne, R. L., Fineman, S., & Wall, T. D. (1976). Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Hum an Performance, 16, 4562. Payne, R. L., Roy, M. P., Pugh, S. C., & Derek, C. M. (1975). Organizational structure and climate. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 11251175). Chicago: Rand McNally. Pears on, K. (1904). Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. British Medical Journal, 3, 12431246. Peek, R. C. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by institutional research staff at Florida community colleges Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., & Mets, L. A. (Eds.). (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions San Francisco: JosseyBass. Pinder, C. C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 395384.

PAGE 99

99 Plackett, R. L. (1958). Studies in the history and probability of statistics: VII The principle of the arithmetic mean. Biometrika, 45, 130135. Rieley, J. B. (1992). How to optimize organizational effectiveness through leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 951). Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta analytical procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta analytic procedures for social research. (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication. Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1), 5982. Satterlee, B. (1988). A study to determine the job satisfaction of the engineering/industrial faculty at Delgado Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 593). Washington D.C.: Educational Research and Informational Center. Schauerman, S. & Peachy, B. (1993). Strategies for implementation: The El Camino TQM story. Torrence, CA: El Camino Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 593). Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate, In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 2330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schneider, B. & Snyder, R. A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318328. Senge, P. (1991). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in educational administration. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Sisodia, R. S., Wolfe, D. B. & Sheth, J. N. (2007). Firms of endearment: How world class companies profit from passion and purpose. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About b ehaviorism (1st ed.). London: Jonathan Cape.

PAGE 100

100 Smith, S. S. (1989). An investigation of communication satisfaction and organizational climate in state community colleges (Doctoral Dissertation, Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1989). D issertation Abstracts International, 50, 1910A. 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. SousaPoza, A. (2000). Well being at work: A cross national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of SocioEconomics, 29 (6), 517539. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Staas, S. B. (1994). Implementing total quality management at a community college: The adventure and the lessons learned. In F. R. Annunziato and B. H. Johnson (Eds.), Higher education collective bargaining during a period of change. Proceedings of the twenty second annual conference, April, 1994. New York: The National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions -Baruch College, The City University of New York. Stern G. C. (1970). People in contex t: Measuring person environment congruence in education and industry New York: Wiley. Stevens, P. (1990). Handling office politics (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Centre for Worklife Counseling. Twombley, S. B. & Amey, M. J. (1994). Leadership skills for participative governance. In G. A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 269283). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Vroom, F. H. (1982). Work and Motivation. Malabar, FL: R.E. Krieger Publ ishing Co. (Reprint: Originally published New York: Wiley, 1964). Wattenbarger, J. L. (1994). New theories of leadership and human resources management for community colleges. In A. M. Hoffman & D. J. Julius (Eds.), Managing community and junior colleges: Perspectives for a new century (pp. 6978) Washington, DC: CUPA. Weick, K. E. (1991). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 103117). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. Witt, L. A. & Myers, J. G. (1992). Perceived environmental uncertainty and participation in decisionmaking in the prediction of perceptions of the fairness of personnel decisions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12(3), 49 56.

PAGE 101

101 Zabetakis, S. (1999). The relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction for community college chief business officers Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Zytowski, D. G. (1968). Vocational behavior: Readings in t heory and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

PAGE 102

102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Carla San Giacomo has been involved in higher education for more than twenty years. Born in Hartford, Connecticut, she holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in p sychology and a Master of Arts degree in h igher e ducation: student a ffairs from the University of Connecticut. Prior to enrolling in the higher education administration educational doctoral program at the University of Florida, she served as a higher educ ation administrator at Saint Martins College in Washington state, Miami University in Ohio, Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute in Washington state, and Concordia University in Oregon. Most recently she served as Manager of Career Services and currently serves as an adjunct faculty member at the College of Central Florida. In addition to her work as educational leader and student, Ms San Giacomo is a member of The Association of Florida Colleges (AFC) where she was a 2007 Exemplary Practice Finalist for the Curriculum and Institutional Effectiveness Commission. She also served as AFCs Region 3 College of Central Florida Vice President that same year. She has presented at numerous state, regional, and national conferences including the League for Innovation in Community Colleges, the Association of International Educators, and the Florida Career Professionals Association. Ms San Giacomo has also participated in the Community College Futures Assembly which is a national meeting of communit y college leaders that addresses future directions for community college leaders.