FVI53I_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from 1-”— your record. ‘FINES will - be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. hmifimg .. (”of 9““ U ” , MO 4 - 102 A 133’? .f 1'??? met-’S‘a-v: ' 36 K158 JUNQ 1w. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE. JOB SATISFACTION. AND EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT SIZE. AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PERCEPTION BY MALE ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA By Ahmed A11 A. Ghonaim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fuifiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educationai Administration 1986 em /0 “.5 ~ (f Copyright by AHMED ALI A. GHONAIM I986 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE. JOB SATISFACTION. mo EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT SIZE. AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PERCEPTION BY MALE ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA By Ahmed Ali A. Ghonaim The purpose of this study was twofold: to examine the rela- tionship between organizational climate. Job satisfaction. school size. educational district size. and educational experience; and to discover the differences and similarities in perceptions of organizational climate and Job satisfaction by male administrators and teachers in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. according to position level. school level. type of school building. school size. educational district size. educational experience. and educational level. The population included administrators and teachers from elementary and secondary schools in eight cities. The sample was selected by using cluster sampling. A total of 527 potential respond- ents from a population of 5.435 were selected from 4l schools. A total of 448 (85%) completed and returned the questionnaires. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. and the Principal Job Ahmed Ali A. Ghonaim Satisfaction Questionnaire were used to measure school climate and Job satisfaction. Correlation analysis. analysis of variance. and Tukey's test were used in the analysis of data. The results indicated that educational level and experience of administrators and teachers did not affect the perception of organizational climate. Educational district size was positively related to Job satisfaction and organizational climate for administrators. and school size showed a negative relationship for teachers. Job satisfaction was positively related to thrust for administrators and teachers. negatively related to hindrance for administrators. and positively related to overall climate and esprit for teachers. Administrators perceived both Job satisfaction and organizational climate as more positive than did teachers. Elementary administrators rated thrust higher than did secondary administrators. whereas elementary teachers rated Job satisfaction and climate higher than did secondary teachers. Further analysis indicated that bachelor's degree holders were less satisfied and teachers who had been teaching for more than l5 year5*were more satisfied in their jobs. ‘Teachers in prefabricated school buildings rated job satisfaction and climate as more negative than those in either rented or nonrented schools. Based on the findings. the researcher made recommendations for program implementation. for instrument construction. and for further research. 0""! Hj‘gd‘é‘ 4“! Jn t5»: name of $1221}; t5: most ”taut/Jana! t5: most gene/icknt This dissertation is dedicated to my mother. Fatemah; my brothers. Mohammed and Anwar; my wife. Fawziah; and my children. Basim. Mohammed. and Hatheel. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Praise and thanks be to God. first and last. Lord and Cherisher of all the world. who taught humankind everything they knew not. Sincere appreciation is extended to my mother. brothers. and sisters. who have offered a great deal of concern. support. and encour- agement during my several years of study in the United States. I wish to express my greatest appreciation and gratitude to my wife. Fawziah Shazly Al-Haddad. for much help. encouragement. and patience throughout my graduate study. and to my children. Basim. Mohammed. and Hatheel. who understand this work in their own way. My gratitude also extends to many relatives who have encouraged me while I was studying in the United States. I particularly thank my uncle. Abdulwahab M. Al-Ageel. Sincere appreciation is expressed to my major advisor. Dr..John H. Suehr. and to my doctoral guidance committee members. Drs. Howard M. Hickey. Kenneth L. Neff. and Ruth Hill Useem. for their professional assistance and continuous support. Appreciation is also extended to the Saudi Arabian government and to the College of Education at King Abdul Aziz University in Madinah Munnawwarah for their support of my studies abroad. Iniaddi— tion. I wish to express my gratitude to all the administrators and teachers who participated in this study. Finally. sincere thanks are due to the educational directors and superintendents of the eight educational districts included in this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TmLES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF Chapter I. II. FIGURES O O I O O O O O O O O 0 WE WWLEM O O O O O I O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . A Brief Look at Education in Sa Purpose of the Study . . . . . Importance of the Study . . Research Questions . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . Limitation and Delimitation . Generalizability of the Finding Definitions of Terms . . . . . Organization of the Study . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . Job Satisfaction and Motivation Organizational Climate . . . . Organizational Climate and Job System-Level Variables . . . . Pbsition Level . . . . . . School Level . . . . . . . Type of School Building . School Size . . . . . . . Educational District Size Personal Variables . . . . . Experience . . . . . . . . Educational Level . . . . . The Organizational Climate Description Questin The Job Satisfaction Questionna udi Arabia 5 Satisfaction ires . . . . g...........0 Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire . . . The Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00%....00000... 000.30.000.00000000 000.300.......... Page vii xiii III. IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction . . . . . Survey Design . . . . The Population . . . . Sampling Procedures . Cluster Sampling . . Selection of the Sample . Research Instruments . . . . The Organizational Climate DATA MALYS Is 0 O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . Results of Hypothesis Tests Organizational Climate and (Administrators) . . . . Organizational Climate and (Teachers) . . . . . . . Organizational Climate and Description Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. The Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire Translation of the Instruments Into Arabic . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subgrouping Respondents According to System- Level and Position-Level Variables . . . . Scoring of Responses to the OCDQ . . . . . . Scoring of Responses to the Job Satisfaction Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job Job Satisfaction Satisfaction Educational Experience Job Satisfaction and Educational Experience Organizational Climate and School Size . . . . . . Job Satisfaction and School Size . . . . . . . . . Organizational Climate and Educational District Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job Satisfaction and Educational District Size . . Organizational Climate. Position Level. and School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job Satisfaction and Position Level and School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Climate and Educational Level . . . Job Satisfaction and Educational Level . . . . . . Organizational Climate and Educational Experience Job Satisfaction and Educational Experience Page 70 70 70 72 73 73 74 75 75 77 78 79 79 81 84 87 88 88 89 95 95 98 99 101 102 103 105 106 110 116 116 121 122 Page Organizational Climate and Type of School Building . 129 Job Satisfaction and Type of School Building . . . . l34 Organizational Climate and School Size . . . . . . . l4l Job Satisfaction and School Size . . . . . . . . . . l47 Organizational Climate and Educational District Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Job Satisfaction and Educational District Size . . . 154 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Tests . . . . . . . . l63 Responses to the Open-Ended Items . . . . . . . . . . l69 Factors That Help Create a Positive Climate . . . . T70 Factors That Help Create a Negative Climate . . . . l72 Factors That Would Influence Respondents to Remain in Their Present Position . . . . . . . . . . . . l74 Factors That Would Lead Respondents to Prefer Other Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l76 Factors That Would Make Respondents Dissatisfied with Their Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Respondents' Opinions About the Questionnaires . . . . l79 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l85 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 186 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l86 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l90 Research Question l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l91 Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l94 Research Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l98 Research Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2l0 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Specific Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Recommendations for Program Implementation . . . . . 225 Recommendations for Instrument Construction . . . . 229 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . 229 WENDI C65 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 233 A. ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE COVER LETTER ANDTHEQUESTIONNAIRES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231* B. OFFICIN- LETTERS 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 280 BIBLIOGRAWY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 29“ vi Table 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 LIST OF TABLES Total Number of Schools. Students. and Teaching Staff by Educational District. 1984-85 Total Number of Classes. Schools. Full-Time Saudi and Non-Saudi Students. by Stage and Type of Education. 1984-85 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Number of Schools and Students Under the Ministry of Education and the Presidency of Girls' Education. by Level/Type of Education. 1982-83 . . . . . . . . . Annual Budget of the Ministry of Education. 1981-82 “rough 1984-85 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Distribution of the Sample According to City. Position Level. School Level. and Response Rate Number of Questionnaires Distributed. Usable Returned Questionnaires. and Response Rate. by Position Level and School Level Proportions of the Sample Selected From All Educational Districts Included in This Study Demographic Data of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Schools in the Sample According to School Size Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction (Administrators) . . . . Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Years of Experience in Education vii Page 11 13 14 82 91 94 97 99 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.11 Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Years of Experience in Education Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Organizational C11mate and SChOO] Size 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and SChOO‘ Size 0 O O O O O O O O O O I I I O O O O 0 Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Educational District Size . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Levels of Signifi- cance for the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Educational District Size . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of ANONA of the Perception of Organizational Climate According to Position Level and School Level Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Disengagement Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Consideration Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Production Emphasis Results of ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satisfaction According to Position Level and School Level Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Advancement viii Page 100 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 109 110 110 111 112 113 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Supervision Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Work Load Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Work Itself Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of ANOVA of the Perception of Organizational Climate According to Educational Level Results of ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satisfaction According to Educational Level Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Advancement Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Work Load Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Organizational Climate According to Educational Experience . . . . . . Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satisfaction According to Educational Experience . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Advancement Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Payment Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 113 114 115 115 116 117 118 119 120 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Organiza- tional Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Climate According to Type of School Building Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Overall Organizational Climate . . . . . Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Th rUSt O O O O I O O O O O O O I I O O 0 Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Consideration Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Aloofness Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satis- faction According to Type of School Building Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Organizational Climate According to School Size Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Subgroup Levels Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Advancement Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Supervision Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Work Load Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Overall Organizational Climate . . . . . Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Int‘ “lacy O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Th rUSt O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance for Esprit 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page 130 130 131 132 133 135 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 144 145 146 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 4.59 4.60 4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.66 4.67 4.68 Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satis- faction According to School Size Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Advancement Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Organizational Climate According to Educational District Size Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Lave] s for Int1macy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Hindrance Results of the ANOVA of the Perception of Job Satisfac- tion According to Educational District Size . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Recognition Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Work Itself Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance LevelsforReward................... Subgroup Means. Standard Deviations. and Significance Levels for Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number and Percentage of Respondents Indicating Factors That Help to Create a Positive Climate . . . . Number and Percentage of Respondents Indicating Factors That Help to Create a Negative Climate . . . . xi Page 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 155 155 157 158 159 160 162 171 173 Page 4.69 Number and Percentage of Respondents Indicating Factors That Would Influence Them to Remain in Their Present Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 4.70 Number and Percentage of Respondents Indicating Factors That Would Influence Them to Prefer Other POSTtT ons O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O I 0 O O 177 4.71 Number and Percentage of Respondents Indicating Factors That Would Make Them Dissatisfied With The‘ r work 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 178 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Ministry of Education Educational District organTZatT 0,131 P] an O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 xiii CHAPTER I THE PRGBLEM Introduction The number of schools in Saudi Arabia has been increasing rapidly during the last decade. The number stood at 6.536 in the 1975- 76 school year and almost doubled to 11.071 by 1979-80. with a total of 78.335 teachers and 20.957 administrators. This increase in the number of schools followed a corresponding increase in student enrollments and the need for different types of schools. Unfortunately. like many growing institutions. schools in Saudi Arabia have begun to experience the problems that are a part of the phenomenon of rapid growth. A number of well-qualified and experienced administrators and teachers have begun quitting their jobs for better prospects elsewhere. In this regard. Assaf (1982) pointed out that "the profession of teaching is one of those which today appears to be less desirable among Saudi professionals to the extent that soon after they become teachers. many begin efforts to leave teaching seeking other Jobs" q» 1). He added that "during 1975-76 the number of male Saudi teachers in high schools was 239. of whom nearly 31% voluntarily left the profession" (University of Riyadh. 1977. p. 9). This loss becomes more striking when it is recognized that the percentage of administrators who left their positions in 1976 was only 1.9% (University of Riyadh. 1977A. This large exodus of teachers from the profession is not pecu- liar to Saudi Arabia. Assaf (1982) found that Economic. social and professional factors had the strongest influ- ence on the teacher's decision to leave teaching. The differences between these factors were not notable. Specifically. those fac- tors that appear to be of the greatest influence were: (a) little advancement opportunity. (b) income. (c) low social status and prestige. (d) heavy work load. (e) lack of involvement in program and policy making. and (f) the appreciation of the teacher's Job by educational authorities. parents. students. and the public as a whole was not consistent with what they feel they deserve. q» 134) Some of the symptoms of teacher' and administrators' dissatis- faction are: Teachers and administrators do not feel satisfied with treatment received at the hands of administrators; they expect to leave for home'early in the day; they do not wish tolstay with other teachers or administrators during break times; some feel that routine duties interfere with their teaching and their administration; and some»fee1 that they are denied participation in decision making. Some schools in Saudi Arabia do not provide an opportunity for interaction. coopera- tion. communication. and so on. between administrators and teachers. or among the teachers themsel ves. Some administrators identify formal organization as the reason for communication with teachers. Hammad (1973) pointed out that The most difficult problems facing the Saudi educational develop- Inent include (1) excessively centralized administrative organiza- tion and the difficulty in adopting the traditional ways of learn- ing to modern educational theories and techniques. an emphasis on quantitative expansion. which is unmatched by qualitative improve- ment that led to the growth of several educational authorities without enough coordination and cooperation among them. (pp. 89-90) In addition. Abu-Baker (1982) identified many problems in the field of education in Saudi Arabia. One of them. as he pointed out. is centralization to the extent that principal decisions are made by the Ministry of Education. Further. Abu-Baker asserted. "In reviewing the literature most of the studies support labeling most of the Saudi schools with rigidity. centralization. custodialism. closedness and authoritarianism. and a formal relationship between principals and teachers" (p. 120). Manuie (1976) drew attention to the fact that The relationship between principals and teachers can be described as reasonably satisfactory. but relatively formal in character. and the interaction among teachers in the schools located in low socio- economic areas was limited when compared with the relationship among teachers in the schools located in higher socioeconomic areas.(p. 214) The organizational climate affects the accomplishments of teachers and the achievements of students. Abu-Baker (1983) found that there was a small correlation between high school open climate and student alienation. but that the correlation was not statistically significant. There was no significant relationship between high open climate and student alienation. Although alienation and its five dimensions showed no significant relationship to the openness of the school climate. three dimensions tended to be related to the school openness. but their correlations were small: isolation u~==.19. n.s.). powerlessness (r = -.16. n.s.). and meaninglessness (r = 016' ".50). (p. 150) This problem has also been experienced by many countries throughout the world. Anderson and Mark (1976) commented that "it is conventional wisdom that the profession of teaching is characterized by large numbers of people who teach for a few years and then quit" (p. 4). Most observers agree that this phenomenon is largely a result of dissatisfaction resulting from the organizational climate of schools. Chernay (1977) stated in this regard: "Dissatisfaction which is directed toward education may be frustration with social ills" (p. l). Administrators and teachers occasionally change Jobs because they are not satisfied with the organizational climate in the school. which varies from school to school. The importance of organizational climate has been explored by many writers. Halpin (1966) suggested that "anyone who visits more than a few schools notes quickly how schools differ from one another in their feel" fix 1). Theodore and others (1978) and Halpin and Croft (1962) equated internal climate with an organizational "personality." Vutilaosunthorn (1975) stated that Argyris used the term "organizational climate" in a case study of a bank and defined the term as a "homeostatic state' of the formal. informal. and personality variables in an organization" (p. 17). Anderson (1982) reviewed research on school climate and stated that Moos defined climate as a "composite of variables from four dimen- sions--ecology. social system. milieu. and culture)‘ She also quoted Tagiuri's definition Of organizational climate as "the total environ- ment quality within an organizationJ"Tagiuri included the three dimensions of social system. milieu. and culture. but said ecology is a narrow conception for organizational climate. Anderson (1982) suggested that "climate probably serves as a mediating variable between the collective dimensions of the environment and individual student background and student outcomes. It must be treated both as dependent and independents variables" (p. 384). How- ever. administrators and teachers tend to have different opinions about the organizational climate of the school. Monk (1980) found that teachers differed significantly on the disengagement. esprit. and thrust subtests of the Organizational Climate Description Question- naire. and administrators had significant differences on the production emphasis subtest. Administrators play a major role in determining a school's emotional climate. Sline (1981) pointed out that a significant relationship exists between the behaviors of the principal and the climate of the school under actual and ideal conditions. The principal's behavior of aloofness and considera- tion influences the climate most significantly. The difference between schools in accomplishing educational goals depends on the school climate. which is influenced by the admin- istrators' relationship with teachers. Morton (1977) stated that Principal leadership behavior focuses on the relationship between the teachers and the principal within the work environment. Teacher group behavior involves the interaction between teachers in both professional and social relationships and the individual teacher's perceptions of these situations. (pp. l-2) In addition. Likert (1976) asserted. To establish cooperative relationships among the parties rather than to continue hostilities. the principle of supportive relation- ship is fundamenta1--trust and support lead to more»comp1ete and more accurate reception of problem-rel evant communications. (p. 123) Fox and others (1973) described school climate in terms of (a) goals for the school's learning program. (b) factors that comprise climate and determine its quality. (c) elements of the school's opera- tion that contribute to a positive climate. and (d) basic human needs. They stated that no school organization can possess a wholesome climate without providing for the essential needs of its students and educa- tors. such as physiological needs for involvement in learning. safety needs. achievement and recognition needs. and the need to maximize one's potential. Job satisfaction is the level at which teachers and administra- tors feel their wants and needs are being fulfilled in their work in the school. Halpin (1966) defined satisfaction as "group members' attainment of conjoint satisfaction in respect to task accomplishment and social needs" (p. 192). However. the administrator's leadership and teacher group behavior influence a teacher's attitude toward pro- fessional and social-interpersonal relationships to achieve the goals of the school and to create a good climate in the schoofl. The climate. or the atmosphere. affects the satisfaction of both administrators and teachers. Finally. many researchers have found a statistically signifi- cant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. Other researchers have found no such relationship. The present study is the first to deal with organizational climate. job satisfaction. experience. educational level. position level. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. One purpose of the research is to determine whether statistically significant relationships exist between organizational climate. job satisfaction. size of school. size of educational district. and years of experience in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. Another purpose is to determine if statistically sig- nificant differences exist between administrators' and teachers' per- ceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction according to the aforementioned variables. WWW As shown by the Educational Statistics Book of Saudi Arabia (1983). Islam dictates that learning is an obligation on every Muslim. man or woman. This obligation which gives education the status of a religious duty is the cornerstone of education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is the foundation upon which the state builds its educational responsibilities. and in the light of which the citizen performs his duties towards himself. his community. and his rel i- gion. (p. 5) Saudi Arabia pays great attention to education. General funds are spent and every possible effort it made to educate every citizen. whether old or young. male or female. whether residing in the cities. villages. or Bedouin settlements. The General Directorate for Educa- tion. established in 1924. was replaced by the Ministry of Education in 1953. The Ministry of Education is an official government agency. which controls and manages every aspect of education. providing boys' schools from kindergarten through high school; teacher training; spe- cial education for the blind. deaf. and mentally retarded; and adult literacy and continuing education. The Ministry of Education is the official organization supervising the educational affairs of boys throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was established in the year 1953 for the purpose of planning an? supervising a project aimed at the spread of general education" (Al-Zaid. 1982. p. 28). The Ministry has recently been reorganized to fulfill more effectively the tasks of educational development in the Kingdom (Educational Sta- tistics Book. 1983L The Ministry of Education. which includes many specialized departmemts. is located in the capital city of Riyadh. The Kingdom is divided into educational districts. whose major objectives are to supervise education and to act as a liaison between the Ministry and the schools. The 1983 Educational Statistics Book stated that the Ministry had established 39 educational districts throughout the King- dom to act as miniature ministries of education. administering and supervising education in each district. Table'LJ shows the number of students. teaching staff. and schools in each district. The educational district superintendent. appointed by the .E12133:1,3:.5233331221.15 assisted by a number of coordinators (see Figure 15”. School principals are responsible for administering their own schools and have no contact with the Ministry of Education except through the educational district. The line of responsibility for education in Saudi Arabia is as follows: Minister of Education. Deputy Minister of Education. general directors. school district superintend- ents. directors of educational offices. school principals. and teach- ers. Table 1.2 shows summary statistics regarding the number of 11!) Saudi Arabia. general education includes the elementary. intermediate. and secondary stages of education. Table l.1.--Tota1 number of schools. students. and teaching staff by educational district. 1984-85.a No. of No. of No. of Educational District Schools Students Teachers Riyadh 449 130.777 7.750 Dammam 284 80.129 4.488 Ahsa 201 51.345 3.064 Jeddah 279 101.478 4.862 Tayef 374 64.112 4.373 Makkah 217 64.970 3.548 Aflaj 47 3.857 374 Baha 231 22.313 2.056 Bisha 208 18.737 1.694 Tabak 144 21.034 1.346 Jouf 106 16.827 1.112 Jizan 280 33.166 2.680 Hail 299 26.176 2.200 Hafral-Baten 60 9.686 575 Houta and Hariq 40 3.475 328 Kharj 79 14.940 1.010 Adwadmi 107 8.234 824 Dawassir 60 5.460 415 Russ 119 10.311 901 Az-Zilfi 31 3.194 295 Sudiar 82 6.343 595 Surat Obaida 159 10.953 1.060 Sabia 266 26.308 2.215 Surat Obaida 95 4.980 597 Arar 79 12.451 758 Afif 69 5.982 442 01a 64 4.250 411 Onaiza 76 9.873 766 Buraidah 235 29.622 2.306 Qufoza 187 15.771 1.599 Laith 90 6.322 671 Mahayel A556? 195 14 .008 1.391 Mekhhwah 104 7.641 788 Medina 288 53.308 3.454 Najran 120 19.473 1.257 Mamas 98 7.611 883 Washm 67 5.641 539 Yanbu 97 11.046 808 GRAND TOTAL 6.304 984.103 67.670 Source: Summary statistics on education provided in Ministry of Educa- tion Schools, 198h-85, Ministry of Education, Center for Sta- tistical Data and Educational Documentation (statistics section), 1985. 8This table includes elementary, middle, secondary, teacher training, and special education schools. .cm—a —mcoquN_cmeO uu_Lummv —mco_umu:uo co_umuzvm LO >Lum_c_z "—.— 0L:m_u _ _‘ Begum 69.. w —quCzua.2== ..o mEinEoU _ Steam 3.8: .525“; E7_>-o€:< a {5:55. . a...” 5:535 :35 0.8.93 52; r _ V L :52 _...._.=.8.F .c .6525 E... wartimcm .2... 372......— =ocu0m 26:32:5E0U :o:8m 85:25.": 1_ fl ectvom 830:2..3 . n. o>:m:w_=_=.u< _ . =o__uom cocuom conga:— BEO Datum 2235.521". \— —‘ 3:253:55. ectuow actuuw Seam .882»... _ _ :52 32.2... :52 252% h _’ 828m 9.2.02.5 éhmsuwmoofim. _ fl . condom 3:85. 6 25.7.. o>:£§:_Eu< . be .2025 .522 03:: EEEU< I 55.2.9...— _e 3.09.:— .mmm. .xem>_¢ .Aco_uuom .mu_o -m_umumv co_umu:OE:ooo .mco_umo:um ucm mama .mo_um_umum Lo» Laucou .co_umo:um mo >Lum.c_z .mm-:mm. .m_oo;um co_umu:um mo >Lumwc_z c_ con—>oLa co_umoaco co mu_um_umum >Lmesam "00.30m mmm.ms om~.~ “mm.m ~_o._m so~.om os~.mm_ umm.oom .muou uence _m~.m mm:._ in u- in .m_.~_ amm.mm co_umu:uo u_:v< sem.ms mem.m wa.m ~_o._m so~.om mso.ms_ wem._:m .muo.s=m can mu mmN mg: m_: Nms Nuo.~ co.emu=eo _m_uoam mmm mm NmN mmm mmm on. nmm.m mc_c.m.u Lacuna» __~ mm in in in 0mm m-.m mc_co>u > mmm.~ mmm mm“ mam.m :mN._ mn:.m_ umo.oo >0: Emu:0uom cm: NN. -- -- -- Hmo._ m_m.~_ mc_co>u a... .8; fog .85 9.} BEN «3.5 a. 32858... Nom.:m n.s.s gem 5mm... m_m.m~ mm_._o_ Nam.mmm >Lmucasu_m mm _ __ 5 mm s. :_m comcmmcouc_x ”co—umuaum .mcocoo macaw.» memmm_u m_oo:um -m_c_Eu< mcnmmncoz _n:mm _c:mmncoz _c:mm co_umu:um mo oa>h\ommum .u.mm< mcosomoh mucocaum .mm-:wm_ .co_umu:uo mo oa>u ucm ommum >3 .mucouaum .v:mmnc0c vcm _c:mm cam .ummum _c:mm-c0c new ~n=mm oe_u-__:m .m_oo;um .mOmmm_u $0 .0283: _mu0hun.~._ o_nmh 12 Saudi and non-Saudi students. staff. and facilities according to stage and type of education. Table'LB shows the number of students and schools at all levels of education in 1982-83. The General Presidency of Girls' Education is the official government agency that governs and manages education for females. The * General Presidency was established in 1960. Just as the Ministry of Education supervises the education of boys and attends to its responsibilities towards them. so does the Presidency of Girls Education in respect to girls. It is in charge of their education at all levels. (Al-Zaid. 1982. p. 31). The objective of the development plan for gi rls' education is to provide female students with a sound education that will prepare them to participate in the social and cultural growth of Saudi Arabia. Al-Zaid (1982) stated. The purpose of educating girls is to bring them up in a proper Islamic way so as to perform their duty in life. be an ideal and successful housewife and a good mother with readiness to do things which suit their nature like teaching. nursing. and medical treat- ment. (p. S6) Saudi Arabian general schools have six elementary-school levels or grades. beginning at age six; three intermediate-school levels; and three secondary-school levels. Boys and girls are taught in separate schools. according to the dictates of the Islamic religion. Table 1.3 shows the number of schools and students under the.jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and the Presidency of Girls Education in 1982-83. In Saudi Arabia. schooling and textbooks are provided free to all citizens. The government's policy is to provide for all its citi- zens. as well as for the children of expatriate workers. In addition. the Ministry of Education pays a monthly allowance to students at 13 .0 >.um.c_z .5em>.¢v mm-~wm_ .m_nm.< .esmm .0 .mwm_ .Lo»cou mama co_umu:um sovmc_x ecu :— co_umu:vm co mu_um_umum .00.:Om oom.ssm s_w.s Kmo.mwm mas.~ .meop mNo.m __ -- -- co..mu=eu .o:m.= mm... N. -- -- moa>e Lasso om~.mm mom._ oN~.on mm... co_umu=em ._=e< .. I- _:m.~ nu co_umu:vo _m_uoam Nam.— .. Nem.s :— .ugm.= :m:.m om ~m~.m N: >cmvcouom -- -- .mo._ om oum_eoe.u.c_ "mc_c.mch Locumoh emm.mo_ omm o~m.~m_ am... >Lmecouom “mm.mo_ owm oum.~m_ am... o.m_eoeLOec. .mm.m_s mes.~ mmm.mom m~_.s >.mecuem_m "com umuatm —m._0c0u om~.m mm an... N coucmmcoccmx mucocaum m_oozum muconzum m_oo£um co_umu:uu .m_._u mo >ocon_mocm co_umo:vu we >Lum_c_z comumuauu mo _o>oa\oa>h .mmuuwm_ .co_umu:vo mo oa>u\_o>o_ >3 .co_umu:cm..m_c_c no >ocov_mo.m us. new co_umu:uu mo >Lum_c_z ago Love: mucovaum tam m_oo;um mo consazuu.m._ m_nmh 14 certain stages of study and also pays for teacher training. Table lu4 shows the annual budget of the Ministry of Education from 1981-82 through 1984-85. which illustrates the increased expenditures for edu- cation throughout the Kingdom from 1981-82 through 1984-85. Table 1.4.--Annua1 budget of the Ministry of Education. 1981-82 through 1984-85 (in million riyals). Chapter 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1 5.865 7.608 7.676 7.827 2 1.474 1.571 1.441 1.460 3 71 94 100 100 4 2.508 4.036 2.151 2.205 Total 9.918 13.309 11.368 11.592 Source: Summary statistics on education provided in Ministry of Education Schools. 1984-85. Ministry of Education. Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation (statistics section). 1985. aAt the time of this study. 3.65 riyals = $1.00. According to the 1982-83 Educational Statistics Book for Saudi Arabia. various types of education are provided under other educational authorities. such as religious institutes. the Ministry of Defense. and the Ministry of Higher Education. The Ministry of Higher Education is the official government agency in charge of all matters pertaining to higher education in the country. In addition. there are private schools. According by Abu-Baker (1982). Quantitative expansion and academic diversification are the most important features of Saudi educational development. There are 15 huge increases in educational facilities in the form of school buildings. classrooms. equipment. and services. These increases have led to a tremendous growth in the number of students at all levels of education. Also. the number of students who are studying abroad is growing. There are more than 20.000 students in foreign universities with 11.022 of them in the United States (8.552 maJes and 4.70 females). These students are under the supervision of the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission to the United States. which has a budget for 1980 of approximately 500.000.000 riyals or $200.000.000).(p. 17) W The researcher had two purposes for conducting this study. The first was to determine whether there is a relationship between organi- zational climate. job satisfaction. system level (school size and educational district size). and a personal variable (total years of educational experienceh The second purpose was to discover whether there was any difference in the perceptions of organizational climate. job satisfaction. system level (position level. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size). and personal variables (total years of educational experience and educa- tional level) held by male administrators and male teachers in the city public schools in Saudi Arabia. In this study. organizational climate was defined as a combination of administrator leadership behavior. teacher group behavior. and the two groups! feelings of job satisfac- tion. mm The research might be influential if relationships are found between organizational climate. job satisfaction. system-level vari- ables. and experience. and if differences are found between 16 organizational climate and.job satisfaction according to the system- level and personal variables. If the relationships and differences are found to be positive. a favorable organizational climate can be fos- tered in schools to make teaching more satisfying. In turn. satisfied teachers will remain in the teaching profession and continue to con- tribute to children's education. Removing the hurdles that create job dissatisfaction. creating a good organizational climate in the school. helping administrators and teachers become more satisfied with their work. improving the human organization in schools. and developing better city public schools might become long-term goals of the Saudi educational system as a result of this research. Finally. it is hoped that this study will provide information that teachers. administrators. and supervisors can use to improve the climate in their schools and thus become more satisfied with their work. In summary. it is apparent that an investigation of the rela- tionships between organizational climate and job satisfaction. accord- ing to system-level and personal variables. can make a valuable contribution to the Saudi Arabian educational system. We The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relation- ship exists between job satisfaction. organizational climate..and system-level and personal variables. as perceived by school personnel (teachers and administrators) in the city public schools of Saudi Arabia. Another purpose was to determine whether any differences exist 17 between organizational climate and job satisfaction. according to system-level and personal variables. The following general questions were posed to guide the collection of data in this study: 1. 5. In Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers? Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational expe- rience. school size. and educational district size? Does a statistically significant relationship exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size? 00 any statistically significant differences exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respond- ent's position level. school level. educational level. educational experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? Do any statistically significant differences exist between job satisfaction. as perceived - u. - city public school administrators and teachers. “respondent's position level. school level. educationa evel. educa- tional experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? 819.91% general. the hypotheses relate to elementary and secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. It was hypothesized that: The more posi- tively school personnel (administrators and teachers) perceive the organizational climate of their schools. the more satisfied they are with their jobs. Also. the more experience these school personnel have. the more satisfied they will be with their jobs. and the more they will perceive an open school climate. School personnel in small 18 schools. small educational districts. and nonrented schools will be more satisfied with their jobs and will perceive an open school cli- mate. Also. the more education they have. the more satisfied they will be with their jobs and the more they will perceive an open school climate. To answer the research questions stated above. the following general hypotheses were tested: WES—13 There is a statistically significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. : There is a statistically significant relation- ship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators. Will): There is a statistically significant relation- ship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male teachers. W: There is a statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size. film: There is a statistically significant rel ation- ship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational experience. W: There is a statistically significant relation- ship between organizational climate. as perceived by male adninistrators and teachers. and school size. W: There is a statistically significant rel ation- ship between organizational climate. as perceived by male adninistrators and teachers. and educational district size. Wham: There is a statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school adninistrators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size. : There is a statistically significant relation- ship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. and educational experience. 19 : There is a statistically significant relation- ship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. and school size. : There is a statistically significant relation- ship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. and educational district size. .flypgth§515_4: There are statistically significant differences with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respondent's posi- tion level. school level. educational level. educational experi- ence. type of school building. school size. and educational dis- trict size. Hypothe51§_fia: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to position level and school level. ‘flypgthe§1§_4b: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational level. .flypgthe515_fig: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational experi- ence. .fiypgtne51§_4g: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to type of school build- ing. .Hypgthe§1§_ge: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to school size. .flupgthesjs_41: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational district size. .flypgthesjsgfi: There are statistically significant differences with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respondent's posi- tion level. school level. educational level. educational experi- ence. type of school building. school size. and educational dis- trict size. study: 20 .flypgthe§1§_5a: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to.job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to position level and school level. 'fiypgjh351§_5b: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to.job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to educational level. W: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to educational experience. Hypothe§1§_5g: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to.job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to type of school building. .flypgth§§1§_§e: There is a statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to school size. : There is a statistically significant difference with respect to‘job satisfaction. as perceived by male adminis- trators and teachers. according to educational district size. .ASEHMEIIQQS The researcher made the following assumptions in conducting the 1. It was assumed that satisfaction in the teaching profession is usually influenced by one or more of the organizational-climate variables. 2. It was assumed that the two scales used in this study to measure job satisfaction and organizational climate would yield descriptions of job satisfaction and organizational climate. 3. It was assumed that the respondents would answer the ques- tions in a manner congruent with their beliefs. 21 W A possible methodological limitation of this study was the degree of confidence that could be placed in the respondents' answers. It was assumed. however. that respondents answered the questionnaire items honestly. The study sample was delimited to male administrators and teachers in city elementary and secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. W The findings of this study may be generalized to all Saudi public schools in cities with populations of 30.000 or more. Since the principals and teachers in the sample were employed in elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. it is conceivable that the study findings will hold true for all teach- ers and principals hired by the Ministry as they are all subject to the same regulations. The findings may also be generalizable to male teachers and principals in religious schools. institutions of physical education. vocational and technical schools. educational institutes. and special education schools. The study findings might also be generalizable to female principals and teachers in city public schools because they are subject to the same regulations as their male counter- parts. D.ef.i.n.1.t.i.cns_9.f_Iai:ms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study. 22 mm: An appointed leader in the elementary or sec- ondary school organization. who is a ful l-time employee of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education; i.e.. a principal or an assistant prin- cipal. finches: For the purposes of this study. the professional staff member assigned to elementary and secondary school teaching duties. School: The unit of analysis for this study; includes the principal. assistant principal. and teachers in the elementary and secondary school buildings within a school district. Wm: For the purpose of this study. the period of education planned especially for boys approximately 13 to 18 years of age (grades 7 through 12). Secondary education in Saudi Arabia is sponsored and administered by the Ministry of Education (Assaf. 1982). mm: For the purpose of this study. the period of education provided especially for boys approximately 7 through 12 years of age (grades 1 through 6). In Saudi Arabia. elementary educa- tion is also sponsored and administered by the Ministry of Education. 9113: A town with a population of 30.000 or more. as described in the W of Saudi Arabia. W: A summary description of the general environment of the school system. which administrators and teachers can use to identify their feelings relative to the organization of the school. In this study. two subscales of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire were used to measure organizational climate. 23 These subscales were: (a) administrator leadership behavior and (b) teacher group behavior. 1. WWW focuses on "the rel a- tionship between the teacher and the administrator within the work environment" (Hal pin 8. Croft. 1962. p. 1). Leadership behavior includes the following four subsets: a. mm. which refers to administrator behavior char- acterized as formal and impersonal. guided by rules and policies rather than by informal. face-to-face dealings with teachers. Such behavior is universal rather than particular. nomothetic rather than indiosyn- cratic. To maintain this style. the administrator keeps himself at a distance from his staff. at least emotionally. b. WW. which refers to administrator behavior characterized by close supervision of the staff. Such an administrator is highly directive and plays the role of a "straw boss." His communi- cation tends to be unidirectional. and he is not sensitive to feedback from the staff. c. Inuit. which refers to admini strator behavior character- ized by an evident effort to "move the organization." Such behavior is marked not so much by close supervision as by the administrator's attempt to motivate teachers by setting an example; he does not ask teachers to give any more of themselves than he willingly gives of himself. Teachers view his behavior favorably. even though it is strictly task oriented. 24 d. Consideration. which refers to administrator behavior char- acterized by an inclination to treat teachers humanely. trying to do a little something extra for them in human terms. 2. W: An action that "involves the interaction between teachers in both professional and social rel ation- ships and the individual teacher's perceptions of these situations" (Morton. 1977). This also incl udes four subsets: a. mm. which refers to the teacher's tendency not to be "with it." Disengagement describes one who is going through the motions. but who is not in gear with respect to the task at hand. This subset focuses on the teacher's behavior in a task-oriented situation. b. Hindrance. which refers to the teacher's feeling that the administrator burdens him with routine duties. committee demands. and other requirements the teacher construes as unnecessary "busy work." The teacher perceives that the administrator is hindering rather than facilitating his work. c. Esprit. which refers to the teacher's feeling that his social needs are being satisfied and that he is enjoying a sense of accomplishment in the job. d. Inflmacx. which refers to the teacher's enjoyment of friendly social relations with the other teachers. This dimension describes a social need for satisfaction. which is not necessarily associated with accomplishment. W: This measure was divided into two instruments. the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. developed by 25 Lester (1983). and the Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. adapted by this researcher. Each questionnaire includes 71 items and 11 subscales. a. Satistactmn refers to an individual's positive appraisal of the elements of his work situation examined in this study. as well as the individual's attainment of conjoint satisfaction with respect to task accomplishment and social needs. b. Dissatisfaction refers to an individual's negative appraisal of his work. as well as his conjoint dissatisfaction with respect to task accomplishment and social needs. Lester (1983) defined the factors of job satisfaction as fol- 1ows: Supervision The task-oriented behavior of the immediate supervisor. Colleagues The work group. as well as social interac- tion among fellow workers. Working conditions The work environment and aspects of the physical environment. Pay Annual income. Responsibility The opportunity to be accountable for one's own work and to take part in policy or deci si on-maki ng activities. Work itself The tasks related to the job. Includes the freedom to institute innovative materials and to use one's skills and abilities in designing one's work. as well as the free- dom to experiment and to influence or con- trol what happens in the job. Advancement The opportunity for promotion. 26 Security The school's policies regarding tenure. seniority. layoffs. pension. retirement. and dismissal. Recognition Some act of notice. blame. praise. or criticism. Reward In the present study. reward denotes an intrinsic and/or extrinsic reward to praise a worker or to motivate him to work hard. Workload In the present study. workload refers to hours of teaching and other duties and activities. such as preparation for class. W: Open climate is marked by functional flexibil- ity; actions of group members emerge freely and without constraint. It is marked by high levels of esprit and thrust. as well as low disen- gagement. W: Closed climate is characterized by functional rigidity. It is marked by low levels of esprit and thrust. as well as by high disengagement. In a closed climate. group members obtain low satisfaction in terms of accomplishment and social needs. Expanianae: One of the variables used in this study. which has two aspects: (a) years of experience in education and (b) years of experience at a particular school. W: One of the variables used in this study. which refers to the number of students in the respondent's school. EducationaLdistLicLsiza. One of the variables used in this study. which refers to the territorial size of the respondent's school district. as well as the number of teachers employed by the district. Wining: One of the variables used in this study. which refers to whether the respondent's school is rented or 27 nonrented. A nonrented school is one that has been built by the Minis- try of Education. whereas a rented school is housing that has been rented for use as a school building. Prefabricated school is another category of school-building type. WW Chapter II contains a review of pertinent literature. Included is a discussion of job satisfaction and motivation. characteristics Of job satisfaction. organizational climate. and the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. System-level and personal variables. the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire are also considered. The research design and procedures are explained in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis undertaken in this study. A summary of the investigation. findings. conclusions. and recommendations are included in Chapter V. GMHERII REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE mm The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relation- ship exists between organizational climate. job satisfaction. system- level variables (school size and educational district size) and per- sonal variables (total years of educational experience and educational level). as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers in Saudi Arabia. A further purpose was to discover whether any differences exist between administrators' and teachers' perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction. as related to system- level variables (position level. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size) and personal variables (total years of experience in education and educational levelL Several articles and research investigations have dealt with -the topic under investigation. This chapter contains a review of related research in the following areas. which comprise the subsections of the chapter: (l).job satisfaction and motivation. including defini- tions of and theories related to job satisfaction; (2) organizational climate. including definitions of climate. theories related to climate. and factors that affect organizational climate; (3) organizational climate and job satisfaction; (4) system-level variables (position. 28 29 school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size); (5) personal variables (experience and educational level); (6) the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire; and (7) the Job Satisfaction Questionnaires. mm The earliest study of attitude as a determinant of why workers behave in various ways (rather than most mechanistic explanations) was done by Taylon. FHs findings were confirmed in a Hawthorne study. which determined that workers have minds and that ”the appraisals they make of their work situation affect their reactions to it” (Locke. 1956. p. 1299L Locke defined job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the approval of one's job or job experiences" (p. 1300). Lawler (1973) defined satisfaction as people's affective reactions to particular aspects of their job. and described overall job satisfaction as "a person's affective reaction to his work role" (p. 64). Argyris (1972) observed that "facets such as supervisory style may be so dissatisfying that they can cause an intrinsically satisfied employee to leave an organization" (in Friesen. 1983. p.137L But Proters (1968) defined satisfaction as "the difference between what a person thinks he should receive and what he feels he actually does receiveJ' This is similar to what Locke saw as job satisfaction and dissatisfaction: a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one's job and what one perceives it is offering" (in Friesen et a1.. 1983. p. 37). 30 Theodore (1975) listed various definitions of job satisfac- tion. as defined by other authors. For example. Vroom equated job satisfaction with how attractive the job is to an employee. Dalton and Lawrence indicated that job satisfaction is a reward obtained when an individual can exert self-control over the major elements of his work. Likewise. Converse suggested that "each individual is involved in an attempt to gain control over the major elements in his work environmentJ' Schaffer found that "job satisfaction will vary directly with the extent that those needs of an individual which can be satisfied are actually satisfied" (p. 2991. Hoppock (1935) defined job satisfaction as "any combination of psychological. physiological. and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully so say"I am happy with my job"'(p.*47). Lester (1983) cited a number of definitions of job satisfaction that have been given by other authors. For example. Beer (1964) defined job satisfaction as the attitude of the employee toward the company. the.job. fellow workers. and other aspects of the work situation. Hage (1965) stated that job satisfaction is the extent to whichlnembers.of an organization are satisfied with their working conditions. He defined teachers' job satisfaction as the extent to ” which their perceived needs are met in the educational environment. Smith. Kendall. and Hulin (1969) viewed job satisfaction as the affective responses or the feelings of a person about his/her job. In addition. Lester (1983) stated that 31 definitions of job satisfaction generally fall into four cate- gories: (a) satisfaction with specific aspects of the job. (b) the achievement of goals. (c) the needs of the employee. and (d) the attitudes or feelings of the employee. (p. 26) The definitions of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the present study were derived partially from Locke (1970).*with their duality attributable to Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfac- tion. The definition of job satisfaction was derived partially from Hal pin (1966): "Satisfaction: the group member's attainment of con- joint satisfaction in respect to task accomplishment and social needs" (p. 192). Herzberg. Mausner. and Synderman (1959) conducted a study with 203 engineers and accountants by using the critical-incidents procedure. which included asking every person interviewed to describe events experienced at his/her work. Their findings indicated that such job- content components as work. promotion. recognition. and responsibility were sources of satisfaction or motivators. Conversely. such job- context components as supervision. company policies. interpersonal dimensions. and salary were sources of job dissatisfaction. But in an analysis of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in four New York institutions of higher education. Avakian (1971) found that significantly more faculty members emphasized job-content factors relative to satisfaction and job-context factors relative to dissatisfaction than those who did not. Onouha (1980) studied job satisfaction of university faculty in physical and occupational therapy programs in 11 Canadian universi- ties. using Herzberg's theory. He concluded that such motivators as 32 recognition. achievement. and work content were sources of job satis- faction. while such hygiene factors as context of work policies and administration and interpersonal relationships with peers were sources of dissatisfaction. Pugh (1971) defined hygiene factors as follows: The dissatisfier factors essentially describe the environment and serve primarily to prevent job dissatisfaction. While having little effect on positive job attitudes. they have been named the hygiene factors. (p. 327) Sergiovanni (1967) found that Many factors which accounted for high job feelings of teachers and many of the factors which accounted for low job feelings of teachers were mutually excl usive--the first-level factors which appeared significantly as highs were recognition. achievement and responsibility. The first-level factors which appeared signifi- cantly as lows were interpersonal relations. supervision. school policy. and administration and personal life. Achievement and recognition were the second-level factors which appeared signifi- cantly as highs. Feelings of unfairness and low status were the only second-level factors which appeared significantly as lows. (pp. 74-75) Hassan (1984) conducted a similar study of personal and job facets as determinants of job satisfaction for public senior high school teachers in Pennsylvania using the Perceived Equity Scale. He found that the most important predictors of teachers' feelings of job satisfaction were salary. the amount of help received from superiors. and the amount of input teachers had in decision making. The least important predictors of job satisfaction were the opportunity for promotion and the degree of fairness of work load. School location was found to have no relationship to job satisfaction. In his study of job satisfaction among the staff at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah. Saudi Arabia. Ageel's (1982) results conflicted 33 with those of Herzberg. That is. he found content factors were pri- marily related to dissatisfaction and context factors to satisfaction. whereas Herzberg found that motivators were mostly job content factors and that hygiene factors were mainly related to job context. Specifi- cally. Ageel's findings showed that highly significant differences existed between the relative importance and level of job satisfaction. His respondents were most satisfied with their supervisors and col- leagues. followed by the work itself. promotion. and pay. Statisti- cally significant differences were found between university employees from Saudi Arabia and those from other countries. No statistically significant differences were found between Saudis who had received their highest degree within or outside Saudi Arabia. In addition. significant differences were found between Saudi faculty and adminis- trators regarding job satisfaction. Faculty were significantly more satisfied with promotion than were administrators. Those who held Pthfls were more satisfied with their salary than those who held ALAJs. Significant differences were also found between background and promotion as perceived by Saudi professors. whereas no significant differences existed with regard to other aspects of job satisfaction. Professors who held doctorates were more satisfied than those with master's degrees. Ageel found that the primary factors attracting staff members to their current position were salary and fringe benefits (housing). contract conditions. and the religious factor Uhnm AJ-Qura University is located in the holy city of Makkah). 34 Of special interest to Ageel was the finding that factors causing employees to seek other employment were content rather than context factors--lack of appreciation. depression. ineffectiveness. subordinates. and lack of possibility to build a reputation--as well as two classified as hygiene factors (centralization and lack of resources). He also found that aspects of the job that provided satis- faction were facilities. academic resources. rewards. decentralization. and supervisor (context factors). as well as possibility to build a reputation. appreciation. and professional responsibilities (content factors). Maslow developed the Need Hierarchy Model in 1954. Miskel (1982) reported that Maslow's theory of an internal hierarchy proposes five levels of needs. Physiological needs are the basic biological functions of the human organism. Safety and security needs. the second level. relate to a desire for a peaceful. smoothly run. stable society. Belonging. love. and social needs comprise the third level. The fourth level. esteem needs. contains the desire for high regard by others. Achievement. competence. status. and recognition satisfy this need level. Finally. self-actualization is the highest level. (p. 70) McClelland and Atkinson (1968) found “three intrinsic motives important in determining work-related behavior: (1) affiliation (belongingness. acceptance. social interactions). (2) power (control. authority. influences). and (3) achievement (accomplishment. success. in competitionr'(in Ronald. 1983. p. 136). In addition. Miskel (1982) stated that "in education extrinsic outcomes may include recognition. money. promotion. harassment. high-ability students. and well-behaved 35 students while intrinsic outcomes may be feelings of accomplishment and achievement" (p. 68). Lester (1983) reviewed several theories related to job satis- faction and attempted to provide a context for understanding job satis- faction. She described these theories as follows: Fulfillment theory views job satisfaction as the degree to which a job provides the employee with outcomes that are valued by the employee (Schaffer. 1953). Another approach. based upon discrep- ancy theory. views job satisfaction as the difference between actual rewards and expected rewards (Locke. 1969). A third approach. based upon equity theory. views job satisfaction as a ratio between what the employee puts into the job and what he/she receives from it (Adams 1963). (p. 9) Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory maintains that it is central to an individual's belief that one will reach a given level of perform- ance in attaining a goal. However. the theory builds on this assump- tion with the concepts of valence. expectancy. and instrumentality. As Miskel (1982) pointed out. Valence refers to the perceived positive or negative worth or attractiveness of potential outcomes. rewards or incentives for working in an organization. Expectancy refers to the subjective probability that a given effort will yield a specified performance level. Instrumentality refers to the perceived probability that an incentive with a valence will be forthcoming after a given level of performance or achievenent. (p. 73) A recent theory of work motivation is the job characteristics model described by Hackman and 01 dham in 1976. This model is based on three concepts: (1) experienced meaningful ness of the work. (2) experienced responsibility. and (3) knowledge of results. Miskel (1982) stated that Experienced meaningful ness of the work is the degree to which the individual experiences the job as being valuable and worthwhile. The concept is experienced responsibility for work outcomes or the 36 degree to which the individual feels personally accountable for the results of the work he or she performs. And the third concept. knowledge of results. or feedback. is the degree to which the individual knows and understands on a continuous basis how effec- tively he or she is performing the job. (p. 73) The Existence. Relatedness. and Growth Theory (ERG) was con- ceived by Alderfer (1972). This theory assumes the empirical validity of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory and depends on three concepts: "Existence needs can be satisfied by objects; in the work setting. existence needs can be met by pay. fringe benefits. and pleasant envi- ronment" (Hoy 8. Miskel. 1982. p. 143). "Relatedness needs are satis- fied by the mutual sharing of thoughts and feeling with significant others. such as family members. superiors. co-workers. subordinates. friends and enemies; the satisfaction of relatedness need is a coopera- tive process" (Roy S Miskel. 1982. p. 144). Alderfer stated that "the exchange or expression of anger and hostility is a very important part of meaningful interpersonal relationships" (Hoy & Miskel. 1982. p. 144). Growth needs are satisfied when the individual uses his capaci- ties in problem solving. In a study of teacher job satisfaction in Kuwait. Askar (1981) found that feelings of inadequacy and unfairly determined economic returns exist among teachers. The school environment is not conducive to the teacher's professional growth: society's perception of teaching is below teachers' expectations. In a study she conducted on the job satisfaction of elementary school principals. Surhidda (1983) found that there was no statistically significant relationship between principal 5' ages and their ratings and overall job satisfaction. 37 Likewise. no significant relationship existed between the number of years served as principal and the ratings of subjects and their overall job satisfaction. The principals identifying themselves as satisfied showed no association between their salaries and their levels of job satisfaction. Overall. principals responded that they were satisfied with their jobs and their salaries. The group of principals identi- fying themselves as dissatisfied was too small a sample on which to conduct a meaningful analysis with respect to the salary variable. Sonpon (1983) analyzed perceived sources of job satisfaction among teachers in the Monrovia consolidated school system. a public school district in Liberia. He found that Teachers are more satisfied than dissatisfied with teaching. Elementary teachers are more satisfied than any other teacher group. Teachers are satisfied with student-teacher relations [and] parent-teacher relations. They are dissatisfied with salary. pay time. pay process. instructional materials. physical facilities. professional growth. large classes. work load. demands and other responsibilities. Birmingham (1984) studied job satisfaction and burnout among teachers in Minnesota. using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. She found that The general level of job satisfaction among Minnesota teachers was rather low. Fifty-eight percent of all teachers were dissatisfied with teaching. 33% were satisfied. and 9% were highly satisfied. Teachers were most satisfied with social service. creativity. variety. and ability utilization. They were dissatisfied with advancement. compensation. company policies and practices. and recognition. Teachers over 55 years of age and under 25 were the most satisfied. The highest level of emotional emaustion was experienced by 35-44 year olds. Females were more satisfied than males. Men experienced more frequent feelings of depersonalization and lack of personal accomplishment. Elementary teachers were more satisfied than their secondary colleagues. Eighty-one percent of middle or junior high school teachers were dissatisfied. 38 In 1981. Philips analyzed the relationship between job satis- faction of assistant principals in the Gwinnett (Georgia) County Public School System with their perceptions of the principal 5' leadership behavior. His findings were as follows: (1) The job satisfaction of assistant principals . . . is related to the perceived leadership behavior of the principals; (2) the job satisfaction of . . . assistant principals is related to the per- ceived leadership behavior of the principal when the effects of the assistantfls race. experience in education. level of education. size of school. and years of experience as assistant principals are controlled; and (3) the job satisfaction of [the] assistant princi- pal is related to the perceived leadership behavior of the prin- cipal when the effects of the assistant principal's race is partialled out of his perceived leadership behavior. A study of elementary school secretari es' job satisfaction was carried out by Chirco (1981) using the Job Description Index (JDIL He found that Overall satisfaction with work and supervision was moderate to high while satisfaction with pay and promotion was low. Little rela- tionship existed between work and inservice; pay and age. and importance of salary; promotion and inservice as well as education. Lester (1983) developed the Instrument to Measure Teacher Job Satisfaction. using the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQL Nine factors she examined were supervision. colleagues. work condi- tions. pay. responsibility. work itself. advancement. security. and recognition. She classified job satisfaction by sampling procedure into location. school district size. county. and so on. Lester's major analysis concerned the similarities and differences among elementary. junior high school. and senior high school teachers on all nine fac- tors. 39 Lester found significant differences between groups on the following dimensions: 1. Based on location (urban. suburban. and rural). Her results indicated significant differences (at the .05 level) among groups on supervision. working conditions. pay. work itself. and advancement. Teachers from suburban districts were more satisfied than were those from urban districts. except on the lack-of-supervision factor. 2. Based on the size of school. Significant differences existed between teachers from small and large districts only on the pay factor; teachers from small districts were more satisfied on this factor than were those from large districts. 3. Based on the county variable. Teachers from different counties differed significantly on the factors of working conditions. pay. and work itself. 4. Based on school level (elementary. junior high. and senior high school). Significant differences between groups existed on the factors of working condition. pay. work itself. supervision. responsi- bility. and colleagues. Elementary teachers were significantly more satisfied than senior high school teachers on all of the factors except supervision. Overall. Lester found that statistically significant differ- ences existed among teachers from eight school districts regarding the factors of supervision. work itself. pay. and working conditions. 40 Tice (1981) investigated teacher job satisfaction and personal need for control by principals and teachers. According to his find- ings. teachers with low control scores had higher job satisfaCtion scores than did teachers with high control scores when both groups of teachers had a principal with a high control score. Friesen and others (1983) studied job satisfaction among a stratified random of school principals. using a questionnaire based on Herzberg's theory. They found that: 1. Principals with 20 or more years of experience chose hygiene factors considerably more frequently as contributing to job satisfaction than did their counterparts with less experience. 2. Male principals chose hygiene factors more frequently as sources of dissatisfaction than did the female principals. 3. Principals in city schools chose hygiene factors less fre- quently as sources of dissatisfaction than did principals from town and rural schools. Similarly. principals of large schools (40 or more teachers) chose hygiene factors less frequently as sources of dissatisfaction than did principals of smaller schools.(p. 47) These researchers also found that principals identified student atti- tudes and performance and the attitudes of society as dissatisfiers. but these findings were not apparent in Herzberg's study. However. the major difference between this study and Herzberg's is that the latter found that work itself was a major source of satisfaction. whereas Friesen et al. found that work was a source of dissatisfaction. However. several researchers have criticized Herzberg's theory. According to Vroom (1964). one major criticism of Herzberg's theory is that it is method-bound. King (in Miskel. 1983) stated that lack of clarity in the formulation of the theory itself leads to varying interpretations. In addition. Yebuda and Krausz (1983) stated. 41 "Herzberg's theory does not cl early differentiate motivation from sat- isfaction. and that may be the major source of varying interpreta- ti ons and different empirical findings relative to the two-factor theory" (p. 222). Miskel (1982) argued that motivation theories need the hier- archy model. two-factor theory expectancy. goals. and so on. Those theories have an effect on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The goal is what an individual is consciously trying to achieve in terms of the environment. which helps the individual to reach and to achieve. "It becomes necessary to judge elements in the environment to deter- mine which actions will enhance the individual's well-being" (p.77). With regard to the relationship between job satisfaction and work load. Stinnett (1970) pointed out that "nearly all investigations of subjective reactions of teachers who have left the profession reveal excessive work load as one of the most important reasons for the deci- sion" (p. 7). Hassan (1984) investigated work load as one factor of job satisfaction. He found that the least important predictors for job satisfaction were the opportunity for promotion and the degree of fairness of work load. whereas the most important predictors for teach- ers' feelings of job satisfaction were the amount of pay offered by the job. Vroom (1964) studied six characteristics of job satisfaction and found that hours of work was a factor that affected job satisfaction. Coughl an (1971) developed a questionnaire to measure teacher attitude. One of the 13 factors he identified as affecting teacher attitude was work load. Andrisani (1978) discussed intrinsic and 42 extrinsic aspects of job satisfaction. He found that one of the extrinsic aspects is hours of work. In other studies of job satis- faction. Dillon (1978) and Knight (1978) identified the factors that influence the decision to leave a job as long hours and preparation for teaching. Several researchers have dealt with the reward factor and its relationship to job satisfaction. Specter and others (1975) used reward as one factor in their Perceived Equity Scale (PES) to measure whether an individual feels equitably compensated in his job. Ageel (1982) found reward to be one aspect of the job that gave satisfac- tion. He stated. Amcng the first eight factors named. five are context factors. namely facilities. academic resources. rewards. decentralization. and supervisor. while three. namely possibility to build a reputa- tion. appreciation and professional responsibilities. are content factors. (p. 86) Miskel (1982) stated that "extrinsic rewards are those provided by the organization or other people" (p. 68). Doll (1983) pointed out that motivation is seen as a function of the individual's perceiving that if he or she improves in performance. rewards will be forthcoming. The rewards have to be individualized to accord with the individual's personal goals. which should also accord with goals of institutions. (p. 239) For Pugh (1971). rewards do not generally tend to relate to achievement. However. Porter and Lawler (1968) discussed the relation- ship between job satisfaction and performance. which leads to job satisfaction. They stated. "Good performance may lead to rewards. which in turn lead to satisfaction" (p. 23). Charles (1979) asserted 43 that "Rewards are more powerful than punishments; therefore. managers should emphasize 'reinforcers' rather than demotivators" (p. 111). Deci et al. (1980) noted that "several recent studies have revealed that rewarding people for doing an interesting activity tends to undermine their intrinsic motivation for the activity and impair their performance of it" (p. 430). In addition. they added that "token economies. monetary rewards. the avoidance of punishment. desired prizes. close supervision. and time deadlines have all led to decreases in intrinsic motivation" (p. 431). W Numerous writers haveoffered definitions of organizational climate and have attempted to describe its variables and characteri s- tics. Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) defined organizational climate as "a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organiza- tion that is experienced by its members. infl uences their behavior. and is described in terms of the values of particular sets of charac- teristics of the organization" (p. 27). Argyris (1958) defined organi- zational climate as a "homeostatic state" of the formal. informal and personality variables in an organization. In 1955. Cornell used the term in discussing socially perceptive administration. He defined organizational climate as a delicate blending of interpretations (or perceptions) by persons in the organization of their jobs or roles in relationship to others. and their interpretations of the roles of others in the organization (in Laosunthorn. 1975). 44 Lawrence and Allen (1974) described seven variables of organi- zational climate as task structure. reward. relationship. decision centralization. achievement emphasis. training. and development empha- sis. Similarly. Campbell (in James 8 Jones. 1974) identified the dimensions of organizational climate as individual autonomy. the degree of structure. reward orientation. consideration. warmth. and support. In addition. House and Riszo (1972) included such factors of organiza- tional climate as initiating. consideration. tolerance. freedom. pro- duction emphasis. and productivity. Likert (1976) related Theories X and Y. stated by McGregor in 1%6. to the concept of organizational climate. According to Theory X. people are basically slothful and bad. Most people hate work and its related responsibilities. and they must be highly controlled and threatened because leaders lack confidence and trust in others. They believe that people under them are lazy. unreliable. and so on. How- ever. under Theory Y. it is assumed that leaders have a high level of confidence in their subordinates' abilities and judgment; trust. faith. and so on. characterize Theory Y. as does the concept that people are fundamentally and inherently decent and trustworthy. Adams (1965) suggested that "job satisfaction is determined directly by an employee's perceived input-outcome ratio. It may be reasonably argued that the determinants of the perceived organization climate may be equated with the outcome" (in Schwartz et al.. 1975. p. 299). 45 Schools differ in terms of achievement goals that lead to the satisfaction of teachers and principals. Several studies have dealt with organizational climate in schools. including one by Hal pin and Croft (1%2). They described the organizational climate of the school as the school's "feel" or "personality." These researchers designated six types of organizational climate: open climate. autonomous climate. controlled climate. familiar climate. paternal climate. and closed climate. They defined an open climate as one that is marked by high scores on esprit and thrust and low scores on disengagement and hin- drance. In an open climate principals and teachers are genuine in their behavior and work well together; both emerge freely. their behav- ior is authentic. and they have friendly relationships. The principal helps the teachers; he is flexible and does not do all the work by himself because he is able to let appropriate leadership acts emerge from the teachers (Halpin. 1966). However. the main characteristic that describes open climate is the "authenticity" of the behavior of all group members. The autonomous climate leads to a high degree of esprit. and intimate and low disengagement. The leader exerts little control over the group members. Teachers' morale is high. but not as high as in the open climate (Halpin. 1966). The controlled climate is described as having high esprit; everyone works hard. and there is some time for friendly relationships with other members. Hal pin and Croft (1962) classified controlled climate as more open than closed because it is described by high 46 morale. Also. this climate evidences high hindrance. which includes routine duties. busy work. and so on. Little flexibility exists within the organization that has a controlled climate; everything is done the principal's way. and there is low consideration. The principal does not try to satisfy the group's social needs. Some responsibility is given to each of the members. and they work hard (Halpin. 1966). In the familiar climate. friendly relationships exist between principal and teachers; thus social-needs satisfaction is extremely high. The familiar climate is characterized by high disengagement and low hindrance because the principal does not bother teachers with routine duties; he makes everything easy for them. High intimacy. high consideration. average esprit. low aloofness. and low production are also qualities of the familiar climate. The paternal climate is characterized by high disengagement and low hindrance; the principal works by himself and does not have the ability to control teachers. He personally oversees schedules and class changes. In the paternal climate there is low intimacy. low esprit. and an average degree of thrust. The principal's consideration seems to be seductive rather than genuine. This climate tends to be a closed one (Halpin. 1966). The closed climate is marked by low scores in esprit and thrust and high scores in disengagement and hindrance. In the closed climate there are many routine duties. little satisfaction. unnecessary busy work. closed supervision. fonmality. lack of consideration for teach- ers. and an unwillingness to provide a dynamic personality. Such a 47 climate produces teacher frustration. Both principals and teachers lack genuineness and authenticity (Halpin. 1966). Several researchers have used the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) developed by Halpin and Croft. The relationship of the principal's role as instructional leader and the organizational climate of schools was investigated by Kinzer (1983). Using the OCDQ and the Instructional Leadership Role Questionnaire with 15 elementary school principals and 150 teachers. Kinzer found signifi- cant differences between two sets of schools on three dimensions: aloofness. consideration. and disengagement. Schools exhibiting low role conflict had significantly higher aloofness and consideration scores than did schools exhibiting high role conflict. Conversely. schools with high conflict had significantly higher disengagement scores than schools with low role conflict. However. no statistically significant difference (at the .05 level) was revealed between low- and high-conflict schools in terms of production emphasis. thrust. hindrance. esprit. or intimacy. Chinatangul (1979) administered the OCDQ to a sample of 20 secondary school principals and 200 teachers in Bangkok. Thailand. He found that no significant difference existed between principals and teachers in terms of their perceptions of hindrance. intimacy. and aloofness. Neither were teachers in large and small secondary schools found to differ in their perceptions of disengagement. hindrance. esprit. intimacy. aloofness. production emphasis. or consideration. 48 Likewise. principals of large and small schools did not differ in their perceptions of any of the eight subsets. Sline (1981) administered the OCDQ in nine elementary schools located in two suburban towns. She found that a significant relation- ship existed between the principal s' behaviors and the climate of the school under actual and ideal conditions. The princinavs aloofness and consideration influenced the climate most significantly. Sline also found a significant difference between teachers' perceptions of the behaviors of the principal with regard to aloofness and considera- tion. Using the same instrument with elementary school principals and teachers. Monk (1980) noted "a significant difference in the disen- gagement. esprit. and thrust subtests of the OCDQ; principals had significant differences on the production emphasisJ' He also dis- covered a relationship between openness and consideration. A study of the relationship between high school open climate and student alienation in the Western Province of Saudi Arabia was carried out by Abu-Baker (1983). He used the OCDQ and the Pupil Attitude Questionnaire (PAQ)‘with a sample of 717 students and 290 teachers and administrators in 12 schools. The researcher found no significant relationship between the high school open climate and student alienation. but there was a small correlation regarding school openness. Abu-Baker was the first to investigate the complex subject of organizational climate in Saudi Arabian schools. Unknown factors and some research problems. including a small school sample. may have influenced his findings. 49 According to Abu-Baker. Clark (1977) identified eight general climatic factors that largely determine the quality of the school climate. where quality of the climate results from the interactions of the school's program. process. and physical conditions. Positive schools have strong evidence of respect. trust. high morale. opportunities for input. continuous academic and social growth. cohesiveness. school renewal. and caring. (in Abu-Baker. 1982. pp. 117-18) Dachanuluknukul (1976) used the OCDQ in an attempt to determine the extent to which elementary schools in Sukkothai Province in Thai- land reflected an open or closed organizational climate. He found that the schools in this province tended to be more closed than open. The principals perceived the school climate to be more open than did the teachers. Teachers in schools with enrollments of 300 or fewer per- ceived the school climate to be more open than did teachers in schools with enrollments of more than 300 students. When the school size increased. the climate was more likely to be closed. Wiggins (1972) investigated the behavioral characteristics of elementary school principals as they relate to school climate. He collected data on 31 randomly selected elementary schools and the behavioral characteristics of their principals. Wiggins found a significant relationship between the princi pal's interpersonal orienta- tion and the school climate. which remained stable over a period of eight months. As the length of the principal's incumbency increased. the level of significance of the relationship between his behavioral characteristics and school climate increased. The relationship between princi pal 5' communication behavior and organizational climate was investigated by Dugan in 1967. He 50 discovered a statistically significant relationship between organiza- tional climate and principal 5' communication behavior. He also found that teachers in open school climates tended to rate their administra- tors as more satisfactory communicators. Cooperation is an important factor that affects the organiza- tional climate. On this subject. Likert (1976) noted that Cooperation achieves better results than does competition-- cooperation is a more socially evolved and effective way to harness the desire to achieve and maintain a sense of personal worth and importance than is competition. Cooperation usually involves more complex forms of interaction than does competition. and requires more learning and more skill on the part of those who seek to use it. (p. 281) Likewise. Perrrow (1979) stated that "cooperati on is the essence of ~4- organizations." Another important aspect of organizational climate is loyalty. Covato (1979) investigated teacher loyalty as measured by the Loyalty Questionnaire in relation to the OCDQ. He administered the instruments to 52 principals and 1.051 teachers in 76 public elementary schools in southwestern Pennsylvania. Covato found that teachers' loyalty to the principal is positively related to (l) the openness of the school climate and (2) the satisfaction teachers feel with regard to their task achievement and social needs (high espritL A number of aspects of discipline have been found to be related to the organizational climate of schools. Nwankwo (1979) administered the OCDQ to 400 teachers in 40 secondary schools in Nigeria. He found that school discipline was associated with climate type: good disci- pline was associated with open climates. whereas poor discipline was 51 associated with closed climates. Similarly. Wynne (1980) found that climate is correlated with discipline/rules. student attitudes. activi- ties. and staff attitudes (in Anderson. 1982). Manuie (1976) investigated teachers' and principals' percep- tions of the organizational climate in selected schools in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. He administered the OCDQ to 422 teachers and 55 princi- pals from 55 elementary and intermediate schools for boys and girls. Manuie's findings indicated that: 1. Teachers and principals tended to perceive school climates similarly. The differences that were found indicated that principals tended to perceive the climate as being more open than the teachers did. 2. Staff members in boys' schools tended to view climates as more open than did staff members in gi rls' schools. 3. The type of education. the type of school building. and school location were found to be factors that contributed to the open- ness of schools in Riyadh. Boys' schools were relatively more open than girl 5' schools. Nonrented schools were more open than rented schools. Schools that were located in high socioeconomic areas were more open than those located in low socioeconomic areas. Further. Manuie described the relationship between principals and teachers as being reasonably satisfactory but relatively formal. Interactions among teachers in schools located in low socioeconomic areas were limited when compared with the relationships among teachers in schools located in higher socioeconomic areas. 52 Mursi (1977) emphasized the importance of providing a positive climate within the school. He said that teachers will like their work better and be more active if a positive school climate is provided. This climate can be provided by treating the teachers with friendliness and respect and by appreciating their work. Roy and Miskel (1982) criticized Halpin and Croft's designation of six climate categories. They noted that Brown used the OCDQ with a sample from 81 elementary schools in Minnesota and identified eight. not six. distinct climates along the open-closed continuum. Also. Watkins found general weakness in the middle climate types. Andrews concluded that eight dimensions of the OCDQ possess good construct validity. but the designation of discrete climate categories adds nothing to the meaning (Hoy 8 Miskel. 1982). " Halpin and Croft (1962) used the prototypic profile method with their sample of 71 elementary schools in the original study. They administered the OCDQ to this population to measure the climate in the schools. 'The OCDQ includes eight dimensions and is divided into two subscales: (1) leadership behavior. which includes aloofness. produc- tion. thrust. and consideration; and (2) teacher group behavior sub- scales. such as disengagement. hindrance. esprit. and intimacy. The present study used this same instrument to measure the climate in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. Other researchers have used different instruments to measure climate. Halpin and Croft chose therODCQ to determine the important characteristics of each climate. to emphasize 53 whether the six discrete climates were recognizable. and to assess the dimensions of leadership behavior and teacher group behavior. Likert (1976) developed a theory related to the organization of public schools. His organizational types are divided into four cate- gories: .System 1--exploitive—authoritative. System 2-benevolent- authoritative. System 3--consu1tive. and System 4--participative. His measure includes eight characteristics based on leadership process. communication. interaction. influence process. motivational forces. decision-making process. goal setting. control process. and performance goals. These eight characteristics can be used to map a profile of the organization of the public school and to place it on a continuum from System 1 to System 4 (exploitive—authoritative to participative). Sys- tem l is described by a little confidence and trust on the part of the principal and teachers. a little supportive behavior; teachers can be motivated by threats. Hostility and dissatisfaction pervade the organ- ization. and there is one—way communication. Decisions are made by the administrator. and interaction between administrator and teachers is limited. Control is concentrated at the top. and performance of the goals is low. However. management is guided by the Theory X assump- tion. In contrast. System 4 is the opposite of System 1. It is described by two-way communication; interpersonal relationships are friendly and cOOperative. There is group loyalty. responsibility. and extremely high performance goals. as well as high trust and confidence. Management is guided by Theory Y. Likert called this measure Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC). 54 Hal pin and Croft's study and Likert's research were similar. Hall (1972) compared Likert's measure of climatewith that of Hal pin and Croft His results indicated that the two instruments are similar. with a positive correlation of(L59. indicating the more open the .climate the more participative the system. All of the schools classi- fied as open using the ODCQ were either System 3 or System 4 schools. but closed climates were not necessarily System 1 or System 2. Both were associated with the social-standards component of climate. In 1967. Willower and Hay developed another organizational- climate measure. which is called the Pupil-Control Ideology'(PCI) instrument. 'This scale is based on the custodial and humanistic types of climate. Custodial schools are traditional ones. which are rigid and highly controlled. A custodial orientation leads to an autocratic atmosphere with one-way communication; students must accept the deci- sions of their teachers without question. 'Teachers do not attempt to understand student behavior. In contrast. in the humanistic schools students learn through cooperative interaction and experience. A humanistic orientation leads to a democratic atmosphere with open channels of two-way communication between pupils and teachers. Using the Teacher Authenticity Scale (TAS). the OCDQ. and the PCI. Hoy (1983) measured the organizational climate of 42 elementary schools. He found that leader authenticity of principals was signifi- cantly related to openness in organizational climate and to humanism in pupil-control ideology. His results supported his assumption that 55 leader authenticity is important in developing the organizational climate of elementary schools. Stern (1970) developed another scale. the Organizational Cli- mate Index (OCI). to measure organizational climate. He divided organ- izational climate into two categories: (1) development press. which includes five factors-intellectual climate. achievement standard. practicalness. supportiveness. and orderliness; and (2) control press. Stern found that the more open the organizational climate. the more low control press and high development press; conversely. the more closed the climate. the more high control press and low development press. Fox et a1. (1973) developed the School Climate Profile (SCP) to measure organizational climate. Their purpose was to provide a convenient means of assessing the school's climate factors and deter- minants so that initial decisions could be made to improve school projects. The SCP included eight factors. which comprise the school's climate and determine its quality; these factors are respect. trust. high morale. opportunity for input. continuous academic and social growth. cohesiveness. school renewal. and caring. The instrument has a continuum scale that is divided into two parts: what is and what should be. The profile is used to find the mean on each climate factor. to find which factor determinants are lowest on the scale and which are highest. and where the discrepancy between what is and what should be is the largest. Litwin and Stringer (1968) developed the Climate Questionnaire (CQ) to measure school climate. This questionnaire includes nine 56 subscales: structure. responsibility. reward. risk. warmth. support. standards. conflict. and identity. Anderson (1982) reviewed several instruments designed to measure organizational climate. The High School Characteristics Index was developed by Stern (1961). It formed the basis for student and teacher questionnaires developed by McDill and Rigsby (1970). This instrument includes two dimensions: (1) the social system dimension. which includes strong environmental control; and (2) the cultural dimension. which includes strong intellectual orientation. school activities. and negative attitude toward environment. Sinclair (1970) developed the Elementary School Environment Survey. which uses student perceptions of teacher and peer values and attitudes. to develop pro- files of schools. This instrument includes only the cultural dimen- sion. such as practicality. community awareness. propriety. and scholarship. By using this instrument with a sample of students in 30 elementary schools in one district. Morocco (1978) found that small schools were higher than large schools on dimensions of community and awareness but did not differ on other factors. The SchOol Survey was developed by Coughlan (1970) to measure teachers' satisfaction with the working environment. This instrument includes (1) the ecology dimension. which consists of such variables as building and facilities. equipment. financial incentives. and special services; and (2) the social system dimension. which consists of admin- istrative practices. work load. school-community relations. supervisory 57 relations. performance and development. and voice in educational pro- grams. My School Inventory was developed by Elliott and Walberg in 1979. This instrument includes three dimensions: (1) the milieu dimension. which is composed of satisfaction; (2) the social dimension. which includes friction. competitiveness. and cohesiveness; and (3) the aculture dimension. which includes the difficulty variable. This instrument was developed for use with elementary school students and has been used in many studies of school climate. Epstein and McPartland (1976) developed the Quality of School Lifet(QSL) instrument. which has been applied to elementary. middle. and high school students. The QSL includes three dimensions: (1) milieu. which includes a satisfaction variable; (2) social system. which includes a reaction to teachers variable. and (3) culture. which includes a commitment to cl asswork variable (Anderson. 1982). Despite the availability of a vast number of instruments to measure organizational climate. the present researcher decided the OCDQ.is most appropriate for this study because of the centralized nature of the Saudi Arabian school system. Another reason for using the OCDQ in the present study is that a number of researchers have used this instrument in Saudi schools. as well as in the school systems of other countries. WW Several authors have written about the relationship of organi- zational climate to job satisfaction. Baklien (1980) studied job 58 performance and satisfaction as a function of job characteristics and organizational climate in eight Tanzanian organizations: three higher education institutions and five production firms. He found that the satisfaction/performance relationship did not increase with increasing amounts of job characteristics in the organizational climate. but it did increase with increasing educational and position levels. Employ- ees in higher education institutions had a tendency to experience higher job satisfaction than did employees in production firms. There were no interaction effects of job characteristics and the organiza- tional climate on job satisfaction or job performance. Baklien found that the higher the job characteristics and the organizational climate. the higher level of employee satisfaction. He also found the strongest causal direction was from job performance to job satisfaction. rather than from satisfaction to performance. In another study of the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. Theodore and others (1975) discovered "the apparent desire of managers to have more pressure from their immediate superiors than they actually perceived in their own organiza- ti ons" (p. 304). A study of the leadership styles of school principals as predictors of organizational climate and teacher job satisfaction was conducted by Burk (1982). No statistically significant relationship was found between leadership style and climate. or between leadership and satisfaction. Teachers perceived the school climates to be more closed than open. The teachers were satisfied with their work. 59 supervisors. and co-workers but were less satisfied with their pay; the openness of the building climate was correlated with higher satis- faction scores. Moore (1982) studied the relationships between gender. organi- zational climate. and completion of a comprehensive adult continuing education course to the job satisfaction of the individual. His results indicated that workers in more democratic environments were more satisfied than workers in autocratic surroundings. In the "people” category. attenders were more satisfied than nonattenders; males were more satisfied than females in autocratic environments. In terms of pay. nonattender males were more satisfied than nonattender females; in autocratic environments. nonattenders were more satisfied than attenders. Concerning supervision. males were more satisfied than females; male attenders were more satisfied than male nonattenders in democratic environments. In terms of promotion. females were more satisfied than males in autocratic environments. Madonia (1983) analyzed the relationship between superintend- ents' satisfaction with principals' leadership behavior and organi- zational climate. He used the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire to measure the princi pal s' and superintendents' leader- ship behavior and the OCDQ to measure the organizational climate in the schools. Madonia found that A superintendent of a given district and a randomly selected principal will have the same leadership style. The superin- tendent's level of satisfaction with the principal is positively related to the congruency of the leadership styles of the superin- tendent and principal. There is a positive relationship between 60 the organizational climate and the superintendent's level of satisfaction with his/her principal. There is a positive relation- ship between the climate in a school building and the principal's leadership style. and finally there is a positive relationship among the organizational climate. the leadership style of the principal and superintendent. and the superintendent's satisfaction with the principal's administrative style. Sargeant (1967) administered the OCDQ to 33 principals and 1.024 teachers in secondary schools in an urban area of Minnesota. He found that staff position. teacher satisfaction. and perceived school effectiveness are associated with differences in climate type. but school department. size. and community are not. The principal's personality was related to some climate dimensions but not to climate type. W W Several studies have dealt with the relationship between posi- tion level and organizational climate. Chinatangul (1979) found that no significant difference existed between the perceptions of principals and teachers on hindrance. intimacy. and aloofness. Sline (1981) administered the OCDQ in nine elementary schools in two suburban towns. She found that there was a significant difference in teachers' percep- tions of the behaviors of the principal with regard to aloofness and consideration. Also using the OCDQ with elementary school teachers and principals. Monk (1980) found that significant differences existed in perceptions of disengagement. esprit. and thrust. In his study. Manuie (1976) investigated teachers' and princi- pals' perceptions of the organizational climate in selected schools in 61 Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. His findings indicated that teachers and princi- pals tended to perceive school climate similarly. The differences that were found indicated that principals tended to perceive theiclimate as being more open than did teachers. Since position has been found to be an important factor in relation to organizational climate. it was included in the present study of differences between job satisfaction and organizational climate as related to system-level variables. including position. W Several investigators have found school level to be a factor related to organizational climate. Birmingham (1984) found that elementary teachers were more satisfied than their secondary school counterparts. In a study of job satisfaction in a public school dis- trict in Liberia. Sonpon (1983) found that elementary teachers were Inore satisfied than any other teacher group. Also. Lester (1983) found that significant differences existed between elementary. junior high. and senior high school teachers on the factors of working conditions. pay. work itself. supervision. responsibility. and colleagues. Elemen- tary school teachers were more satisfied than senior high teachers on all the factors except supervision. Also. Lester stated that the National Education Association in 1982 found that elementary school teachers were the most satisfied and that senior high school teachers were the most dissatisfied. 62 Since school level has been found to relate significantly to organizational climate. this factor. too. was examined in the present study to determine if there were differences in job satisfaction and organizational climate as related to school level in the sampled schools. lyne_o£_§chool_8u11d1ns Very few studies have dealt with this factor. Manuie (1976) found that type of education. type of school building. and location of the school contributed to the openness of schools in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. Specifically. he found that nonrented schools were more open than rented schools. ‘This factor was also measured in the present study. in terms of its effect on organizational climate. Three types of school buildings were examined: rented. nonrented. and prefabri- cated. W19 Several researchers have studied school size and its relation- ship to organizational climate. Using the 0000. Flagg (1964) found that larger schools tended to be more closed than smaller ones. Simi- larly. Morocco (1978) found that students perceived smaller elementary schools as being friendlier and more cohesive. Dachanuluknukul (1976). too. found that teachers in elementary schools with smaller enrollments perceived the school climate to be more open than did teachers in 63 elementary schools with larger enrollments. Based on interviews with 41 teachers and 90 students. Duke and Perry (1978) found that good school discipline is correlated with small school size. The present researcher also examined the relationship between school size. job satisfaction. and organizational climate. .Educational_flisttict_51ze Streshly (1972) studied the relationship between school dis- trict size and administrative staff morale. using the OCDQ. 1115' find- ings showed that. in terms of quality of perceived organizational climate. small school districts' administrative staffs had signifi- cantly (alpha = .05) more open organizational climates than did the staffs of large districts. which had more closed climates. In terms of professional aspirations. Streshly found that administrative staff members in small educational districts had higher professional aspira- tions than those in large districts. Lester (1983) found that a significant difference existed between teachers in small and large school districts only on the pay factor. Teachers in small districts were more satisfied with their pay than were teachers in large districts. She also cited a National Education Education study that found teachers in small districts to be more satisfied. overall. than those in large districts. Al-Sallom (1974) investigated the relationship between school district size (defined in terms of number of schools. teachers. and students) and administrative practices in Saudi Arabian schools. His findings indicated that the smaller the school district. the more 64 administrative power and accountability were evidenced. The smaller the educational district. the more qualified the superintendents and supervisory officers. and vice versa. Al-Sallom also detected a rela- tionship between the sizes of Saudi school districts and the adminis- trative and supervisory services provided to the schools in the district. The smaller the school district. the greater the scope of administrative and supervisory services provided by the school district superintendent's office to the schools. Because educational district size has been found to be signifi- cantly related to job satisfaction. the researcher included this factor in the present study. in an attempt to determine the effect of school district size (measured in terms of teachers in the district) on job satisfaction in Saudi Arabia. We: masses Minor (1983) found no significant relationship between the number of years served as principal and subjects' ratings of their overall job satisfaction. Philips (1981) found that job satisfaction of assistant principals was related to the perceived leadership behavior of the principal when the effects of the assistant's race. experience in education. level of education. size of school. and years of experience as assistant principal were controlled. Friesen et a1. (1983) found that principals with 20 or more years of experience chose 65 hygiene factors as contributing to job satisfaction considerably more than did their counterparts with less experience. In another study. Kalis (1980) found that experience was negatively related to organizational climate. He wrote. "The results of the study appear to show a steady increase in negative feelings and perceptions of the school climate with increase of teaching experience" (p. 96). In a survey of 1.134 teachers in 20 secondary schools in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Kimpston and Sonnabend (in Anderson. 1982) found that climate was related to staff characteristics with women. principals. older staff. more experienced staff. and more edu- cated staff. Since experience is an important characteristic of organiza- tional climate. that factor was included in the present study. in terms of total years of experience in education. EducationaLLexel In a study of job satisfaction among staff members at Umm Al- Qura University in Makkah. Saudi Arabia. Ageel (1982) found that professors who held a Ph.D. were more satisfied with their salaries than were those who held a master's degree. Philips (1981) discovered that the job satisfaction of assistant principals in Gwinnett County. Georgi a. was related to the perceived leadership behavior of the prin- cipal when the assistant's race. experience in education. and educa- tional level were controlled. 66 W The 0000. a 64-item instrument developed by Halpin and Croft in 1962. contains eight dimensions divided into two subscales: leadership behavior and teacher group behavior. Thomas and Slater (1972) said that the OCDQ has proven to be one of the most popular instruments in research in educational administration. Borich and Madden (in Abu- Baker. 1983) pointed out that although the OCDQ was designed to assess the organizational climate of elementary schools. its content appears appropriate for use in secondary schools. as well. Carver and Sergio- vanni (1969) stated. "our use of the OCDQ in secondary schools was based on work by Andrews. who concluded that it was as valid for secondary as for elementary schools. However. they added that "the complex nature of secondary schools mitigates against valid perceptions of climate when the school exceeds 25 to 30 teachers" (pp. 78-79). Hay (1972). however. asserted that the OCDQ does not reasonably measure the climate in large secondary schoolsJ‘ In assessing the OCDQ as a research tool. Martins (in Abu- Baker. 1983). he enumerated the following points of concern: (1) the degree of staff participation necessary for reliable results. (2) the apparent weaknesses in the middle classifications on the climate con- tinuum previously recognized by Halpin. (3) the questionable validity of the instrument for use with large secondary schools. and (4) the question of proper correlation procedures for establishing relation- ships between global climate ratings and other variables. He added that the apparent sensitivity of the OCDQ. as indicated by its 67 reflection of differences in perceptions of staff members within a given school situation. indicated to him that the OCDQ was a most promising research tool and has opened new directions in the study of school organizations. Hoy (1972) said that one of the limitations of the Halpin and Croft conceptualizations of school climate is that it neglects the student and is restricted to the social interactions that take place between teachers and principals. Hal pin and Croft themselves reported that they had been concerned primarily with the internal climate of an organization. its "personality.".and had neglected the external dimen- sions of organizational climate. Finally. Hay and Miskel (1982) asserted that the OCDQ seems to be a useful device for charting school climate in terms of teacher-teacher and teacher-principal relationships. The eight subtests constitute what appear to be valid and reliable measures of school climate.(p. 192) In terms of the 0000's reliability. Hal pin and Croft stated that the split-half coefficient of reliability. corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. for the eight OCDU subscales is as follows: Disengagement. .73; Hindrance. .68; Esprit. .75; Intimacy. .60; Aloof- ness. .26; Production Emphasis. .55; Thrust. .84; and Consideration. .59. W W In the present study. teacher job satisfaction was measured by means of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQh. developed 68 by Lester (1983). The questionnaire contains 66 items measuring teacher job satisfaction on nine factors: Supervision. Colleagues. Work Conditions. Pay. Responsibility. Work Itself. Advancement. Secu- rity. and Recognition. The TJSQ has been found to be a reliable research instrument. According to Lester (1983). The internal consistency of the TJ SQ was determined through computation of an alpha coefficient (Cronbach. 1951). The relia- bility coefficient was calculated for the total score as well as for each scale. Data were cross-validated using a split-sample technique. (p. 51) Upon completion of the final factor solution. tests of reliability were run for each factor. The total scale alpha coefficient for the sample . . . was .93. The alpha coefficient for each factor was: Supervision .92. Colleagues .82. Working Condition .83. Pay .80. Responsibility .73. Work Itself .82. Advancement .81. Security .71. and Recognition .74. (pp. 80-81) Concerning the validity of the TJSQ. Lester noted. To ensure validity. a representative sample of items was gen- erated from the literature on job satisfaction. The content of the instrument was examined by several experts. and a plan and procedure for the construction of the instrument were evaluated in terms of (a) instructions. (b) ordering of items. and (c) selection of items. . . . (p. 53) Content validation was accomplished through a Q-sort. . . . Statements with less than 80% agreement were either rewritten or rejected. Some items were eliminated on the basis of length. intelligibility. and redundancy. Thus a representative sample of items was developed. generating an initial item pool of 120 items. (p. 48) Waldo Questionnaice In the present study. principal job satisfaction was measured by means of the Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (PJSQ). which the researcher adapted for this study. The PJSQ contains 71 items measuring principal satisfaction on 11 factors: Supervision. 69 Colleagues. Working Condition. Pay. Responsibility. Work Itself. Advancement. Security. Recognition. Work Load. and Reward. The total alpha coefficient for the pilot test sample (N = 8) was .8493. For a more detailed discussion of the PJSQ. see the Research Instruments section of Chapter III. Chaptenjumarx Several instruments have been developed to measure organiza- tional climate and job satisfaction and to determine the factors that relate to school climate and job satisfaction. In general. researchers using these instruments have done so in an attempt to create a good organizational climate and/or to improve the existing one and to help administrators and teachers become’more satisfied with their work. Several investigators have found the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire to be a useful tool in measuring organizational climate. The researchers whose studies were reviewed in this chapter found significant correlations and differences between job satisfaction and organizational climate. as related to the type of job. school level. experience. type of school building. school size. and educa- tional district size. These factors have been considered important in contributing to the organizational climate and job satisfaction. The information included in the literature review had a bearing on school climate and administrators' and teachers' satisfaction in general. and on the Saudi situation in particular. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction Presented in this chapter are the survey design. a description of the population and the sampling procedures. a discussion of the research instruments used in the research. an explanation of the data- collection techniques employed in the investigation. and a discussion of the procedures used in analyzing the data. Sunny—Design Survey research was chosen as the appropriate method for this study. This method is used to describe characteristics and subpopula- tions numerically by using large samples to describe organizational climate and job satisfaction as perceived by administrators and teach- ers in city schools. Organizational climate was further broken down into two subscales. The writer examined four dependent variables of administrators' leadership behavior: aloofness. production emphasis. thrust. and consideration. Also. teachers' group behavior was broken down into four dependent variables: disengagement. hindrance. esprit. and intimacy. However. both administrators and teachers responded to items concerning eight variables for both subscales. Eleven dependent variables of job satisfaction*were considered for 70 71 administrators and 11 for teachers: supervision. colleagues. working conditions. pay. responsibility. work itself. advancement. security. recognition. work load. and reward. The survey research method was used to determine whether any statistically significant differences existed between organizational climate and job satisfaction as related to the system-level variables and the personal variables. These variables were measured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (Halpin 8 Craft. 1966). the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Lester. 1983). and the Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. which was adapted by the researcher. Specifically. the survey design employed in this study was the cross-sectional survey design because the data were collected at only one time. According to Babbie (1973). "in a cross-sectional survey. data are collected at one point in time from a sample selected to describe some larger population throughout time" (p. 62). "In the cross-sectional survey. standardized information is collected from a sample drawn from a predetermined population" (Borg. 1979. p. 285). Because of time constraints. the researcher could not collect data at different ti mes. Therefore. the cross-sectional design was more appropriate for this investigation than a longitudinal survey would have been. The research questions posed in this study were related to causal hypotheses. The general question concerned the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Experience. 72 educational level. position level. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size were also examined as variables that might affect job satisfaction and organizational climate. Teachers and administrators were grouped according to school level (elementary or secondary school) to investigate whether certain relationships differ according to the level of school. Babbie’(l973) stated. "Cross-sectional survey can be used not only for purposes of description but also for the determination of relationships between variables at the time of study" (p. 62). The present study was designed to explore the factors contributing to job satisfaction and affecting the organizational climate. The cross-sectional method was useful for exploring relationships between the variables examined in this study. W "Population is the theoretically specified aggregation of survey elements. and survey population is that aggregation of elements from which the survey sample is actually selected" (Babbie. 1973. p. 79). The population for this study comprised only male Saudi admin- istrators and teachers in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. There were no non-Saudi administrators in elementary or secondary schools. and there were more Saudi (60.5%) than non-Saudi teachers (39.4%) in elementary schools. As for secondary schools. the number of non-Saudi teachers (69.1%) was more than twice that of Saudi teachers (30.9%). Specifically. the study population and subpopulations were as follows: 73 1. Population: a. City public school administrators b. City public school teachers 2. Subpopulations: a. City public secondary school principals and assistants b. City public elementary school principals and assistants c. City public secondary school teachers d. City public elementary school teachers WW 91mm "The objective of a sample survey is to make an inference about the population of interest based on information in a sample" (Scheaf- fer. Mendenhall. 8 Ott. 1979. p. 31). The objective of this study was to draw inferences about organizational climate and job satisfaction as perceived by administrators and teachers in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. Cluster sampling was employed to obtain a representative sample of city school administrators and teachers from both elementary and secondary schools. Scheaffer et a1. defined cluster sampling as "a simple random sample in which each sampling unit is a collection or cluster of elements" (p. 141). Cluster sampling was appropriate for this study for the following reasons: 1. It was difficult to compile a complete list of teachers and administrators in the eight cities included in the study. It was more convenient to make a list of the schools in those cities. Therefore. 74 cluster sampling was more appropriate than stratified or random sampling. 2. The schools examined in this study were quite far from each other. Cluster sampling saved travel time and expense because the researcher was able to select eight cities at random from which to draw the sample. thereby necessitating visits to fewer schools than with the stratified or random sampling method. 3. Since all of the administrators in the sample schools were to be selected. cluster sampling was appropriate for this selection. Wm Saudi Arabia has 16 cities (Saudi Arabia. 1980). The researcher selected eight cities as study sites. by using a table of random numbers. The cities selected through this procedure were Jeddah. Medina. Dammam. Tabbuk. Buraidah. Najran. Hail. and Abha. Two lists of schools in these cities were prepared: one of elementary schools and one of secondary schools (middle and high schools). Twenty schools were sel ected at random from the list of secondary schools. and 21 elementary schools were selected at random from the list of e1 emen- tary schools. The number of schools selected depended on the number of Saudi teachers in each educational district (city). Saudi respondents were then selected from each of the schools included in the study. Eighty-four male administrators were selected (40 from elementary schools and 44 from secondary schools). In addi- tion. 188 male secondary school teachers and 255 male e1 ementary school teachers were selected for the sample. 75 W This study was undertaken to measure organizational climate and job satisfaction and the effect on them of such variables as respondent's experience. position. school level. educational level. type of building. school size. and educational district size. Iheflcganizanonalflimate WW Organizational climate was measured by the Organizational Cli- mate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ). which was developed by Haplin and Croft in 1966. The original questionnaire contained 64 items for both administrators and teachers and included eight variables: aloof- ness (9 items). production emphasis (7 items). thrust (9 items). con- sideration (6 items). disengagement (10 items). hindrance (6 items). esprit (10 items). and intimacy (7 items). Respondents answer OCDQ items according to a five-point scal e. ranging from Never Occurs to Very Frequently Occurs. The OCDQ has been found to be reliable and valid. as discussed in Chapter II of this dissertation. The researcher adopted the OCDQ for use in this study after pilot testing it with eight elementary and secondary principals and assistant principals. These individuals were not included in the study sample. The pilot test participants offered comments and suggestions on the test items. and the researcher revised some items accordingly. Next. the researcher submitted the OCDQ to a research con- sultant from the Office of Research Consultation in the College of 76 Education at Michigan State University. Next. the researcher's disser- tation committee chairman and other members of the committee critically evaluated the revised OCDQ and finally approved it for administration to the study participants. The researcher deleted six items from the original question- naire because they were not clear or did not pertain to circumstances in Saudi Arabia. which has a centralized system of education. In addition. the researcher reconstructed eight items pertaining to intimacy into 16 questions that would be relevant to Saudi and non- Saudi teachers. Thus he was able to measure intimacy in terms of the strength of the social relationship among Saudi teachers and among non- Saudi teachers. as well as between Saudi and non-Saudi teachers. Responses of teachers from schools with more than 25% Saudi teachers as compared to non-Saudi teachers. and vice versa. were used in this analysis of the intimacy factor. -’ The final version of the OCDQ used in this study comprised 67 items for both administrators and teachers and included eight vari- ables: aloofness (8 items). production emphasis (7 items). thrust (7 items). consideration (6 items). disengagement (13 items). hindrance (5 items). esprit (9 items). and intimacy (12 items). Administrators and teachers were asked to give their feelings about the climate in the school relating to their job satisfaction. based on a five-point instead of a four-point scale as in the original instrument. “he response choices were: NON = Never Occurs. R0 = Rarely Occurs. 77 $0 = Sometimes Occurs. 00 = Often Occurs. and VFO = Very Frequently Occurs. Ten days after administering the OCDQ to the eight pilot test participants. the researcher asked the same eight respondents to take the revised OCDQ. to obtain a correlation coefficient between the two sets of responses. After the final revision. the reliability coeffi- cient for the OCDQ was .8934; the researcher believed that this indi- cated good reliability for measuring organizational climate in city public schools in Saudi Arabia. WW Questionnatce The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). developed by Lester in 1983. was used to measure the job satisfaction of teachers in this study. Her original instrument comprised 66 items concerning nine variables: supervision (14 items). colleagues (10 items). working conditions (7 items). pay (7 items). responsibility (8 items). work itself (9 items). advancement (5 items). security (3 items). and recog- nition (3 items). Respondents answered each question in terms of their level of satisfaction with that item. using the following five-point Likert-type scale: Strongly Agree. Agree. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree). Disagree. and Strongly Disagree. The reliability and valid- ity of the TJSQ were discussed in Chapter II of this dissertation. In adapting the TJSQ for the present study. the researcher deleted three items. Item 26 (concerning working conditions) and Items 57 and 65 (concerning the pay factor). which were not relevant to 78 the Saudi Arabian educational system. The researcher developed and added two additional variables. comprising eight items (workload--5 items and reward--3 items). because these two factors are very impor- tant to teacher job satisfaction in Saudi schools. Thus the revised TJSQ used in this study contained 71 items. MW Questionnaine The third instrument used in this study was the Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (PJSQ). which the researcher adapted from the TJSQ to pertain specifically to principals and assistant princi- pals. In a pilot test. the researcher administered the first version of the PJSQ to eight male principals and assistant principals from elementary and secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. These respondents were not part of the study sample. As a result of their comments and suggestions. the researcher corrected defects in the questionnaire. The revised PJSQ was submitted to a research consultant from theIOffice of Research Consultation in the College of Education at Michigan State University. After being approved by the research consultant. the final version of the PJSQ was approved by the researcher's advisory commit- tee. The final version of the PJSQ contained 71 items similar to those contained in the TJSQ but adapted to administrators (principals and assistant principals). The 11 variables addressed in the PJSQ are as follows: supervision (14 items). colleagues (10 items). working conditions (6 items). pay (5 items). responsibility (8 items). work 79 itself (9 items). advancement (5 items). security (3 items). recog- nition (3 items). work load (5 items). and reward (3 items). Administrators rated their level of satisfaction with each item using the following five-point Likert-type scale: Strongly Agree. Agree. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree). Disagree. and Strongly Disagree. Ten days after taking the first version of the PJSQ. the same eight pilot-test participants were asked to respond to the revised PJSQ so that a correlation coefficient between the two sets of responses could be obtained. The total alpha coefficient for the PJSQ was .8493. This procedure was followed with both the OCDQ and the PJSQ to ensure that the items were clear and comprehensive and that they would elicit the data required for the study. Wm 11112.83ch Because the respondents for this study were living in Saudi Arabia and spoke Arabic. the researcher translated the three instru- ments used in this study (the OCDQ. the TJSQ. and the PJSQ) and their corresponding cover letters from English into Arabic. To determine the accuracy of the translation. both the English and the Arabic ques- tionnaires were submitted for review to the instructor of Arabic at Michigan State University. He certified the researcher's Arabic trans- lation of the questionnaire to be accurate. (See Appendix A.) Win A letter signed by ihe chairman of the Department of Educa- tional Administration and Planning in the College Of Education of King Abdul Aziz University at Medina Munnawwra was sent to the dean of the College of Education at Medina Munnawwra to explain the purpose of the study and the importance placed on study participants. Based on this letter. the dean of the College of Education sent a letter to the Assistant Minister of Education to obtain permission to conduct the study. Together with the questionnaire. letters signed by the Assist- ant Minister of Education were sent to the directors of each educa- tional district; a copy of this letter was sent to the principal of each school included in the study. A second letter. signed by the dean of the College of Education at Medina Munnawwra. explained the importance given to participants of the study (see Appendix B). A third letter. signed by the researcher. assured respondents that the information they provided would be kept confidential. The researcher himself collected the data for the study. He personally delivered the questionnaires to the respondents and col- lected them three days later. ‘Through this personal contact. he was able to clarify any doubts regarding the objectives of the question- naire. and such contact also helped him achieve a high rate of return of completed questionnaires. Each member of the sample was given a questionnaire with a cover letter explaining the purposes of the study and assuring them that individual responses would be kept confidential. Participants were assured that the researcher would destroy the returned questionnaires after the responses were tabulated. to ensure confidentiality. 81 Most of the principals and assistant principals in the schools included in the study. as well as the educational directors in each educational district. cooperated fully with the researcher throughout the project. This cooperation was made possible through the assistance of the Ministry of Education. (See Appendix B.) Data were collected during fall term. from September through December 1985. because this amount of time allowed administrators and teachers to provide accurate information. The researcher scored the questionnaires upon returning to the United States. Demographic data and rating scores were recorded on separate sheets before individual questionnaires were destroyed. The researcher administered the questionnaires to a total of 527 sample members. Of that number. 448 (85%) individuals returned completed questionnaires. Forty-five (9%) individuals refused to par- tici pate in the study. 5 (1%) indicated they would have participated but personal problems prevented their taking part. and 30 (5%) of the returned questionnaires were unusable. The breakdown of respondents who returned completed questionnaires was as follows: 43 (97.7%) secondary school administrators. 39 (97.5%) elementary school adminis- trators. 143 (76.1%) secondary school teachers. and 223 (87.4%) second- ary school teachers. (See Tables 3.1 and 3.2.) W: After the data had been collected. the researcher coded the data on forms and punched them onto computer cards at the Scoring 82 .Nm» 3 can. omccnwoc _.oco>o ~:.Nm MNN mmN neon...“ _oc:um >cnucoE._m _.on m:— wm. acocuoog .00gum >caveoOom m.Nm mm o: ace...um_c_6om _oo:un >cnueoeo.u u~.~m m: a: acouacum_c_6om .oocum >Lecc0uum mucmoceo_umoao voccsuox cou:n_..m_o ARV can: omcceacx 0—DCm: to Logan: moc_ccco_umu:o to .0953: qaoco acovcoemoc ._o>o. .oo;um cc. _o>o. co_a_moa >n .vumc oncoamuc new .wuc_mcco_umoac cuccnuu. u_nmm: .vou:n_cum_c nuc_mc:o.umo:o uo coceazan.N.m 0.3.» "mm M: Q... mmm mm. 3 .3 _~ 2 .38 m m w: mN m. a a N N acn< m m m: m. MN N a _ N __oz : -- .N N o a a m N cocmmz m m. N: _m N. m a N N cav_oc:n m _ m. a N a a N N xanmh m :— «N a. N. a a N N season 2 2 2 R 3 o o m m 2:8: Nam NN cu. m.— Nm m. a. o m gotten omcoemuz nupwwwwwca .umoao >cmucoEo_u >cmccooom >couc080_u >cmceouom >cmueoEo.u >cocc000m .mHOP \o_a.m:c: coccqaox mcocumo» to .02 mccam..m_c_sc< to .02 m_co:um to .c: >u_u .0 N to .02 .0 0: .oumL omcoomoc cc. ..o>u_ .oocum ._o>o_ cc_._moe .>u_u cu uc_ucouu. o_anm 0:0 to co.u:c_cum_Oua._.m o_nmh 83 Center at Michigan State University. The punched cards were then sent to Michigan State's Computer Center for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al.. 1976). The data analysis comprised four stages. The first stage was to describe the data. There were eight subscales for organizational climate and 11 subscales for job satisfaction. In addition. there were four groups of respondents: elementary school administrators. second- ary school administrators. elementary school teachers. and secondary school teachers. The second stage of data analysis included testing the hypotheses regarding relationships and differences between respondents' perceptions. The researcher sought to determine which subscale(s) of organizational climate was(were) related to which subscale(s) Of job satisfaction for each hypothesized situation. Also. a correlation matrix was used for experience. school size. and educational district size. to determine whether these variables were related to organiza- tional\climate and job satisfaction. A significance level of alpha = .05 was established for all tests. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was Used to determine whether statistically significant differences existed between subgroup means in terms of type of job. school level. educational level. years of experience. type of building. school size. and educational district size. as related to organizational climate and job satisfaction. Thkey post hoc analyses were performed to detect pairwise differences between subgroup means when previous comparisons showed significant differences for particular variables. 84 For each group of respondents. a table of means was calculated for each of the subscales of organizational climate and job satisfac- tion. together with their standard deviations. 'The measures of job satisfaction and organizational climate were the averages across all subscales of job satisfaction and organizational climate. respectively. In the third part of the data analysis. the researcher analyzed respondents' answers to the open-ended questions regarding their opin- ions about factors that affect organizational climate and job satisfac- tion. as well as their assessment of the quality of the questionnaires. The researcher made brief observations concerning teachers' and admin- istrators behavior with respect to organizational climate and job satisfaction in the school. as the fourth part of the data analysis. W W: To carry out the analyses concerning the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction according to selected system- and position-level variables. the following categories were used: Eosition was a discrete variable. Sample members were classi- fied into two position levels: teacher and administrator. Wool was also a discrete variable. Sample members were from two school levels: elementary and secondary. W19 was a continuous variable. It was measured in terms of the number of teachers in the school district. Respondents were categorized into four subgroups for analysis purposes: 85 small districts (1.999 or fewer teachers). median districts (2.000-299 teachers). large districts (3.000-3.999 teachers). and larger districts (4.000 or more teachers). .Sghaal_siza was a continuous variable. School size indicated the number of students in the schooL. Teachers were divided into the following four subgroups. according to the enrollment of the schools in which they taught: small schools (399 or fewer students). median schools (400-699 students). large schools (700-999 students). and larger schools (1.000 or more students). For administrators. the larger school category was not used as a subgroup because there were only six administrators from that category. 523223.903 was a discrete variable and was measured by the number of years in education. Administrators and teachers were divided into five subgroups. based on educational experience: 1-5 years. 6-10 years. 11-15 years. 16-20 years. and 21 or more years. .Educationa1_1axa1 was treated as a discrete variable. Respond- ents were divided into four subgroups. based on their educational level: upgrading center. secondary teacher training institute. junior college. and bachelor's diploma. W was a discrete variable. Respondents were divided into the following three subgroups. depending on the type of school in which they worked: nonrented school. rented school. and prefabricated school. 86 W00 Participants responded to each item on the OCDQ using a five- point Likert-type scale. Responses to "favorable" items had the following values: Very Frequently Occurs Often Occurs Sometimes Occurs Rarely Occurs Never Occurs .JNW#U'1 11 Ii 11 II N Scores for items stated negatively in the instrument were reversed. For each subscale. the average score over the number of items in the subscale was computed; this score was then treated as a continuous variable. Average scores could vary from 1.0 to 5.0. W Wines Participants responded to the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire items using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Points were assigned to responses to "positive" or favorable items as follows: Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree de4hUl ll 11 ii For negative (unfavorable) items. the scoring system was reversed. Thus a low score indicates low job satisfaction. and a high score denoted high satisfaction. Again. the outcome for each subscale was the distribution of the scores over the number of items in the sub- scale. Average scores could vary from 1.0 to 5.0. It was assumed that 87 the average score was continuous since it reflected the degree of job satisfaction as perceived by school personnel. and that the average would tend to become more continuous than the individual response for each item. COW The research design and procedures followed in conducting the study were explained in this chapten. Included were a discussion of the sample-selection process.ia description of the research instru- ments and how they were adapted for use in this study. and an explana- tion of the data-collection and data-analysis techniques. Chapter V contains the results of the data analysis and a discussion of the results of the study. The researcher also explains the statistical procedures used to test the hypotheses. GMHERIV DATA ANALYSIS Muslim This study was conducted to answer the following key research questions. as presented in Chapter I. 1. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers? 2. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational expe- rience. school size. and educational district size? 3. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size? 4. Do any statistically significant differences exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respond- ent's position level. school level. educational level. educational experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? 5. Do any statistically significant differences exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respondent's position level. school level. educational level. educa- tional experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? In this chapter. results are presented in three sections. The first section contains a discussion of the respondents' demographic characteristics. The second section contains the results of the 88 89 statistical testing of hypotheses based on the research questions. An analysis of responses to the open-ended questions and respondents' opinions of the questionnaires are presented in the third section. Finally. a brief observation of teachers and administrators in the sample. in terms of their behavior with respect to organizational climate and job satisfaction. is presented in the fourth section. W The first part of the questionnaire contained several items designed to determine the demographic characteristics of the respond- ents. These characteristics included respondent's position. school level. years of experience in educational services. educational level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size. The sample for this study comprised male elementary and secondary school administrators and teachers selected from 41 schools in eight educational districts in Saudi Arabia. The total of 448 respondents included 39 elementary school administrators. 43 secondary school administrators. 223 elementary school teachers. and 143 secondary school teachers. The proportions of the sample selected from each educational district as compared to the total number of Saudi teachers in the district are shown in Table 4.1. The average percentage of sample was 9%. 90 Table 4.1.-Proportions of the sample selected from all educational districts included in this study. No. of District Saudi Teachers Sample Size Percent Jeddah 2.287 176 8% Medina 1.280 77 6 Dammam 308 25 8 Tabuk 94 18 T9 Buraidah 745 42 6 Najran 34 21 62 Hail 483 43 9 Abha 224 46 20 Total 5.435 448 9 Table 4.2 shows the distributions of respondents according to educational district. educational experience. educational level. Saudi and non-Saudi teachers. and type of school building. Of the 448 total respondents. 176 (39.3%) were selected from Jeddah District. Only 18 (4%) respondents were selected from Tabbuk District. The number of respondents from other educational districts ranged from 21 to 77. As for educational experience. administrators had more years of service hneans for elementary- and secondary school administrators were 1744 and 15.1 years. respectively) than did the teachers (means for elementary and secondary school teachers were 11.2 and 7.0 years. respectively). Table 4.2 also indicates that most of the secondary school teachers had fewer service years as compared to other subgroups 9i ANo.oo_V mm: ANo.oo_V mm. ANo.oo_V s_N ANo.oo_V ms ANo.oo_V mm .meoe AN_.__ V we AN... V N ANm.o_ V NN ANM.NN V o. ANm.mm V s. .c... NN-ON ANN... V .m ANm.m V w AN_.N_ V NN ANm.ON V m ANs.m_ V m Acmes oN-o_ ANm.mN V ___ ANN.N_ V 0N ANe.NN V mm ANm.NN V N. ANm.mm V s. .L..> m_-__ AN..:N V No. ANm.SN V em ANo.mN V cm ANm.oN V m ANm.o_ V 4 AL... opno AN_.NN V w_. ANe.ms V as ANo._N V m: ANo.N V m AN..N V _ ac... m -— muzm_¢m.xm scmccouom >cmucoeo_m >meccuom >Lmucoeo_m .mucoccoamo. ozu to wane chamcmoeooin.N.: o_amh 92 .No.oo.V was .No.oo.V ms. .No.oo.V NNN .No.oo.V ms .No.oo.V mm .msop .N..o. V m. .NO... V oN .N..N V N. .N.... V m .NN.N V N u...u..am.o.. .NN.NN V N:. .No.oN V mm .Nm.mm V mm .NO... V o .Nm.mm V m. eo.:e¢ .N..Nm V mmN .Ns.mm V mm .Nm.Nm V m.. .N..sN V Nm .Nm.mm V .N a..c..coz uz.o._=m .oozum .o m.>p .No.oo.V as: .No.oo.V Ne. .No.oo.V o.N ANo.oo.V ms .No.oo.V mm .meoh .No.Ns V mm. ANN.mm V .N. .N..N V o. .No.mm V o: .Nm.ON V m .<.m .N.... V .N .No.N. V N. .Ns.m. V N. .Nm.N V . .NN.NN V .. am...ou .o_cas .N...m V mm. .NN.N V s .No..m V .N. .NN.: V N ANN.wN V .. .umc. >.mecou.m Awm.o_ V o: in AN_.N_ V mm s. AN..MN V m mc_tmcmuo: .m>m. .meccuom >Lmucoeo_m >cmcccuom >cmucoeo_u .e.sc..cou--.N.s a...» 93 of respondents. As a whole. most of the respondents (77%) had served fewer than 15 years in educational services. As shown in Table 4.2. the educational levels of elementary school administrators were evenly distributed among the four levels of academic or professional qualifications: the up-grading. secondary institute. junior college. and BA. degree. As for secondary school administrators. a majority of them (93%) held college degrees. The distribution of elementary school teachers by qualifications indicated that their qualifications ranged from up-grading to college diplomas; 56% held secondary institute diplomas. A majority of the secondary school teachers (85.2%) were college graduates. The types of schools were classified into nonrented. rented. and prefabricated schools. Of the 41 schools included in this study. 27 were nonrented schools (12 elementary. 15 secondary). 10 were rented schools (7 elementary. 3 secondary). and 4 were prefabricated schools (2 elementary. 2 secondary). The distribution of respondents according to the type of building in which they were working shows that more than one-half of them (57.1%) were in nonrented schools. 32.8% of them were in rented schools. and 10.1% of them were in prefabricated school buildings (Table 4.2). The distribution of schools as presented in Table 4.3 shows that almost one-half of the schools (48.8%) included in the sample were of medium size. There were only 7.3% larger schools in the sample. 94 Table 4.3.--Distribution of schools in the sample according to school size (measured in number of students). No. of Students Elementary Secondary Tetal Below 399 (small) 6 ( 28.6%) 5 ( 25%) 11 ( 26.8%) 400-699 (medium) 12 ( 57.1%) 8 ( 40%) 20 ( 48.8%) 700-999 (large) 1 ( 4.8%) 6 ( 30%) 7 ( 17.1%) Over 1.000 (larger) 2 ( 9.5%) 1 ( 5%) 3 ( 7.3%) Total 21 (100.0%) 20 (100%) 41 (100.0%) The demographic data on respondents' ages and marital status indicated that a majority of them (85%) were married. Their ages ranged from 19 to 58 years. with a mean of 32.6 years and a median of 31.8 years. Wales: This section contains the results of the null hypothesis tests. which were carried out to determine whether there‘were significant relationships between organizational climate and job satisfaction and between organizational climate. job satisfaction. and educational expe- rience. school size. and educational district size. An attempt was also made to determine if statistically significant differences existed between organizational climate and job satisfaction. according to respondents' position level. school level. educational level. educa- tional experience. type of school building. school size. and educa- tional district size. In the following pages. the hypotheses are 95 restated in null form. followed by the results of testing each hypothesis. W W 11941;: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators. Table 4.4 presents the results of the correlation analysis between organizational climate and job satisfaction for administrators. The results showed that a significant relationship existed between overall organizational climate and work itself; between thrust. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. and responsibility; and between disengagement. work itself. and colleagues. The results also indicated that a significant relationship existed between esprit and responsibil- ity and between hindrance. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervi- sion. and colleagues. W W 1:19.112: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male teachers. Table 4.5 presents the results of the correlation analysis between organizational climate and job satisfaction for teachers. The ..o>o. .oo. us. an .cau...cm.m... ..o>o. .o. on. .a “can...co.m.. ..o>o. mg. on. .. .cou...co.m. .~m~.. mso. ..m... moo. ._m... wmo. .m~s.. oNo. .oo~.. ~mo.- >o..=uum ..o... N:.. .m.:.. Koo. .N.... moo. .N.... mm.. .m.m.. one. .co...ucou ac...on .4m... mmo.- .owo.. .NM. .Om... m... .m:... m...- .mmo.. m... eta)»: .....oo.. cmm.- .mm~.. «mo. ...moo.. Kem.- .ooo.. m... .mmo.. 34.. mo=m~o_.ou .o~:.. .~o. .omo.. “mm. ...moo.. men. .m~_.. o~.. ...soo.. cm~.- ..o... xtox .Nm~.. «.0. .:.m.. one. .:.~.. mac. .~s... m... .Nmo.. mm.. woo. 4.0: .omo.. ~m_. ...._oo.. «an. omo.. 5...- .....oo.. mmm. ..mo.. om.. >53.38:... ..om.. 04°. .N.... oo.. ..o... .s.. .om... MN.. ..m... 4.... co...caouo¢ .m.m.. mmo.- .mm:.. .oo. .om... o... .~m~.. mso. ..m~.. Noe. .coe>aa «.mNo.. o.~.- .mmo.. #4.. .Nmo.. o... ..m~o.. m.~. .~m~.. «mo. co...>.oa=m «.MNo.. ~.~.- .Noo.. ~.o. .Nwo.. ~m..- ...moo.. mmN. .amo.. u:.. .coeouca>u< ...moo.. ow~.- .m.a.. "No. .m.~.. mmo.- ..~.o.. om~. .mo... oa.. co..uo....a. ..~.o>o o c o c a c a c a . o.auma:m oucocuc.z u.cumu .coeumomcom_a “maczh came..u ._o.o>o .Amcouocum.c.eoav co_uuo.m.uam new uco ouoE__o .mco.um~_cmm.o cuozuoa n.smco.um_oc use .0. uucmu.u.cm_m .o m.o>o_ one muco_u.m.ooU co_uo.oLLOu cOmceomau.a.a o.nm» 97 ..o>o_ .co. ozu um acmu_$.cu_maac ..o>o. .0. oz. .0 .000...00.0.. ._0>o_ mo. ozu an acau_&.cm.w« .Nm4.. 000. .00m.. 4.0.- .00m.. 4.0.- .00... 040.- .504.. ~00.. >0..:oom .000.. ~.0.- ..«..00.. m.~. .Nm... “m0.- .....00.. 0MN. .....00.. 000. “co...0cou 0:...0: ...000.. ~m..- ...400.. mm.. .....00.. .00.- .Nm0.. m00.- .....00.. m4~.- 0.0:»0 .~0~.. mmo. ...~00.. .m.. .000.. ..0.- ...000.. m... .000.. 0.0. .o0000..o0 ...m00.. 04.. .004.. 0.0.- .....00.. 00.. .0.... 000.- ...000.. on..- ..o... 4.0: .~.4.. ..0. ..«..0o.. 4o~. .mmo.. mso.- ..mmo.. omo. «....oo.. mo.. coo. 4.0: .044.. K00. «....oo.. m.m. .Nmm.. 4.0.- ..«..0o.. .mm. .«4..oo.. om.. >0...a.0coomo¢ ....0.. 0...- .000.. N00. .....00.. 40..- .....00.. m0.. .....00.. 4MN. co...0uouo¢ .404.. 000. ..0~.. 400. ..0~.. 400. .000.. n.0. .NM... .00. .002».. ..~n.. 400. ...._00.. 4.0. .0m~.. 0N0.- .....00.. 04m. .....00.. 00.. 00.....o000 .m0~.. mmo.- «4.~oo.. 54.. .o-.. mmo.- «...o.. 0~.. .«.~oo.. ~4.. «coeouca>u< ..00.. 0.0.- .....00.. .0N. ..0m0.. n00.- .....00.. 0-. ...m00.. 40.. co.ouo....o. ..~.o>0 a t a t a c a t a . o..u.4=m oucococ.: 0.0omu “coEoooocum.o .macgh oyee..u _.oco>o .Ancozoaou. co.uuo.n.uon 000 new oumE._u _oco.ua~.cooco cooluon o_cmco.uu_oc ecu co. oucoo.m_cm.m uo n_o>o_ uca muc0_u.uuooU co.um_u050u cancooann.m.a u_ao» 98 results showed that a statistically significant relationship existed between overall climate. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervi- sion. recognition. responsibility. work load. work itself. reward. and working conditions. The results also indicated that a significant relationship existed between thrust. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. recognition. responsibility. work load. colleagues. and working conditions; between disengagement. overall satisfaction. recog- nition. work itself. and reward; between esprit. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. responsibility. work load. colleagues. reward. and working conditions; and between hindrance. work itself. recognition. and reward. In general. these results revealed that. for teachers. the more positive the school climate. the more their satis- faction. .QrganjzatjonaLQJJmaiLand WW Ma: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational experience. Table 4.6 presents the results of the correlation analysis between overall organizational climate and its subscales. and years of experience in education. The relationships between intimacy and esprit and years of experience in education were found to be significant for administrators. whereas the relationship between esprit and years of experience in education was found to be significant for teachers. The results revealed that. for administrators. the more experience the higher the intimacy and esprit; and for teachers. the more experience 99 the more esprit; Both administrators and teachers who had more experience in education tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than did administrators and teachers who had less experience in education. Table 4xL--Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of significance for the relationship between organizational climate and years of experience in education. Administrators Teachers Organizational Climate N r p N r p Overall climate 82 .162 (.073) 353 .498 (.175) Intimacy 82 .251 (.011)* 353 -.000 (.498) Thrust 82 .052 (.322) 353 .000 (.497) Disengagement 82 -.022 (.421) 353 -.O60 (.130) Consideration 82 -.052 (.322) 353 .034 (.260) Esprit 82 .208 (.030)* 353 .138 (.005)** Aloofness 82 .101 (.184) 353 .065 (.110) Hindrance 82 -.O38 (.368) 353 -.007 (.445) Production 82 -.077 (.245) 353 .038 (.241) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. 12W WEEDS-Le 1191.3: There is no statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational experience. Table 457 presents the results of the correlation analysis between overall job satisfaction and its subscales and years of experience in education. The relationships between years of experience 100 in education and overall job satisfaction. reward. and working condi- tions were found to be significant for administrators. whereas the relationships between years of experience in education and payment and working conditions were found to be significant for teachers. 'The results revealed that. for administrators. the more experience the higher the overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with working conditions. and dissatisfaction with reward. Also. for teachers. the more the experience the higher the satisfaction with payment and working conditions. Table 45Lr_Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of significance for the relationship between job satisfaction and years of experience in education. Administrators Teachers Job Satisfaction N r p N r p Job satisfaction 82 .224 (.021)* 353 .069 (.099) Advancement 82 .042 (.353) 353 .070 (.093) Supervision 82 .109 (.165) 353 .051 (.159) Payment 82 .138 (.107) 353 .160 (.001)*** Recognition 82 .116 (.150) 353 .001 (.498) Responsibility 82 .126 (.130) 353 .042 (.216) Work load 82 .148 (.092) 353 .044 (.204) Work itself 82 .167 (.067) 353 -.061 (.126) Colleagues 82 .011 (.160) 353 -.081 (.064) Reward 82 -.220 (.024)* 353 .027 (.306) Working conditions 82 .303 (.003)** 353 .137 (.005)** Security 82 .079 (.241) 353 -.023 (.332) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 101 .QmanizationaLEJJmatund We 1:19.212: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and school size. Table 4.8 presents the results of the correlation analysis between overall organizational climate and its subscales and school size. The relationships between school size and overall organizational climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit were found to be significant for teachers. However. the relationships between school size and overall organizational climate and its subscales were not significant for administrators. The results also revealed that. for teachers. the smaller the school the higher the positive climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit. These results indicated that the smaller schools tended to be more open than the larger schools. as perceived by teachers. For administrators. the smaller schools tended to have a more positive climate than did larger schools. but the relationship was not statisti- cal 1y significant. 102 Table 4JL—-Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of significance for the relationship between organizational climate and school size. Administrators Teachers Organizational Climate N r p N r p Organiz. climate 82 -.036 (.373) 366 -.227 (.001)*** Intimacy 82 -.016 (.443) 366 -.126 (.008)** Thrust 82 -.023 (.418) 366 -.155 (.001)*** Disengagement 82 .016 (.445) 366 .051 (.164) Consideration 82 -.037 (.370) 366 -.053 (.158) Esprit 82 .028 (.401) 366 -.205 (.001)*** Aloofness 82 .031 (.391) 366 -.001 (.499) Hindrance 82 .026 (.407) 366 .044 (.201) Production emphasis 82 -.090 (.212) 366 -.025 (.314) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. WW5 .flggah: There is no statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and school size. Table 4.9 presents the results of the correlation analysis between school size and overall job satisfaction and its subscales. The relationship between school size and reward was found to be significant for administrators. while the relationships between school size and recognition. responsibility. and working conditions were found to be significant for teachers. The results revealed that. for administrators. the smafller the school the higher the satisfaction with reward. For teachers. however. the smaller the school the higher 103 the satisfaction with recognition. responsibility. and working conditions. For administrators and teachers. the smaller the school the more the overall job satisfaction. but this relationship was not statistically significant. Table 4£L--Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of significance for the relationship between job satisfaction and school size. Administrators Teachers Job Satisfaction N r p N r p Job satisfaction 82 -.016 (.443) 366 -.O45 (.193) Advancement 82 -.016 (.443) 366 -.007 (.448) Supervision 82 .008 (.470) 366 -.018 (.369) Payment 82 -.058 (.302) 366 .001 (.495) Recognition 82 -.088 (.216) 366 -.086 (.049)* Responsibility 82 -.051 (.325) 366 -.141 (.004)** Work load 82 .075 (.252) 366 -.033 (.267) Work itself 82 .117 (.148) 366 .023 (.329) Colleagues 82 -.O84 (.226) 366 -.017 (.375) Reward 82 -.208 (.030)* 366 -.058 (.135) Working conditions 82 .042 (.325) 366 -.112 (.016)* Security 82 .077 (.245) 366 .083 (.057) *Significant at the .05 level. i(“Significant at the .01 level. .Qmanlzatlonalfidmatund W fl9_2_c: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational district size. Table 4.10 presents the results of the correlation analysis between educational district size and organizational climate and its 104 Table 4JHL--Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of signifi- cance for the relationship between organizational climate and educational district size. Administrators Teachers Organizational Climate N r p N r p Organiz. climate 82 .092 (.206) 366 -.O34 (.257) Intimacy 82 .310 (.002)** 366 .029 (.290) Thrust 82 .012 (.459) 366 -.O75 (.077) Disengagement 82 .098 (.194) 366 .012 (.409) Consideration 82 .303 (.003)** 366 .040 (.223) Esprit 82 -.030 (.394) 366 -.016 (.378) Aloofness 82 .038 (.366) 366 .025 (.315) Hindrance 82 .142 (.102) 366 .080 (.065) Production emphasis 82 -.O97 (.194) 366 -.023 (.331) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. subscales. The relationships between educational district size and intimacy and consideration were found to be significant for administra- tors. However. the relationships between educational district size and the overall organizational climate and its subscales were found not to be significant for teachers. The results also revealed that. for administrators. the larger the educational district. the higher the intimacy and consideration. Similarly. for hindrance. although the relationship was not significant. the results showed a positive rela- tionship with educational district size. which indicates that the larger the educational district. the higher the hindrance. Also. the results revealed that the smaller the educational district therhigher the positive climate. although that relationship was not significant. 105 For teachers. the small educational districts tended to have more open climates than the larger districts. but the relationship was not sig- nificant. W31 Momma tkLfigg There is no statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational district size. Table 4.11 presents the results of the correlation analysis between educational district size and job satisfaction and its sub- scales. ‘The relationships between educational district size and over- all job satisfaction. supervision. recognition. and work itself were found to be significant for administrators. However. the relationships between educational district size and overall job satisfaction and its subscales were not statistically significant for teachers. The results also revealed that. for administrators. the larger the educa- tional district the higher the overall job satisfaction and the satisfaction with supervision. recognition. and work itself. For teachers. the smaller the educational district thermore the overall job satisfaction. although this relationship was not statistically sig- nificant. 106 Table 4.ll.--Pearson correlation coefficients and levels of signifi- cance for the relationship between job satisfaction and educational district size. Administrators Teachers Job Satisfaction N r p N r p Job satisfaction 82 .216 (.026)* 366 -.004 (.472) Advancement 82 -.055 (.310) 366 .013 (.406) Supervision 82 .258 (.010)** 366 .033 (.266) Payment 82 .033 (.383) 366 .081 (.060) Recognition 82 .224 (.021)* 366 .030 (.282) Responsibility 82 -.079 (.241) 366 -.082 (.059) Work load 82 .020 (.428) 366 -.028 (.297) Work itself 82 .238 (.016)* 366 -.066 (.102) Colleagues 82 .176 (.157) 366 -.021 (.342) Reward 82 -.l49 (.091) 366 .029 (.290) Working conditions 82 .116 (.149) 366 -.015 (.384) Security 82 .078 (.241) 366 .053 (.155) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. W W 11.9.4.3: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to position level and school level. Table 4.12 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of organizational climate and its subscales according to the respondents' position and school levels. The results indicated that overall organizational climate. thrust. consideration. and production emphasis were related to respondents' position. Thrust was found to be related to administrators' school level. whereas overall organizational 107 climate. and disengagement were related to teachers' school level. Table 4.12.--Results of ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to position level and school level. Position Level School Level School Level (Admin./Teacher) (Admin.) (Teachers) Subscale F p F p F p Overall organiza- tional climate 7.796 (.006)** 1.224 (.268) 5.834 (.016)* Intimacy 1.630 (.202) .011 (.918) .014 (.904) Thrust 12.777 (.004)** 4.299 (.041)* .315 (.575) Disengagement 2.060 (.152) .176 (.676) 16.893 (.001)*** Consideration 17.650 (.001)*** 1.533 (.219) 2.867 (.091) Esprit 2.127 (.172) .886 (.349) 3.345 (.068) Aloofness .484 (.487) .038 (.846) .995 (.319) Hindrance .032 (.858) .973 (.3237) .332 (.565) Production 4.874 (.028)* .133 (.717) 3.347 (.068) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The figures in Table 4.13 indicate that statis- tically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and among teachers in their perceptions of overall organiza- tional climate. The subgroup means shown in Table 4.13 indicate that. in general. administrators perceived the overall organizational climate as more positive than did teachers. As for school level. elementary 108 teachers perceived the overall organizational climate as more positive than did secondary teachers. The results revealed that administrators tended to perceive the school climate as more open than did teachers. Similarly. elementary teachers tended to perceive the school climate as more open than did secondary teachers. Table 4.13.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for organizational climate. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Adni ni strators 82 3 .245 .207 Teachers 366 3.171 .219 7°795 -°°5 ** Elementary teachers 223 3.193 .210 Secondary teachers 143 3.136 .229 5'834 '016 * The results shown in Table 4.14 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and between elementary and secondary administrators on their percep- tions of thrust. As shown in the table. the subgroup means for thrust indicated that administrators' rating of thrust was significantly higher than that of teachers and that elementary administrators rated thrust significantly higher than did secondary administrators. As shown in Table 4.15. statistically significant differences were found between elementary and secondary teachers in their percep- tions of disengagement. The subgroup means for disengagement indicated 109 that secondary teachers rated disengagement significantly higher than did elementary teachers. Table 4.14.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for thrust. Comparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Adni ni strators 82 4 .157 .532 Teachers 366 3.845 .749 ‘2-777 ~004 ** Elementary administrators 39 4.282 .515 * Secondary administrators 43 4.043 .527 4'299 -041 Table 4.15.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for disengagement. Canpari son N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Elementary teachers 223 2.077 .521 Secondary teachers 143 2.301 .493 15°893 '001 *** Table 4.16 shows that statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers in their perceptions of consideration. The subgroup means of consideration indicated that administrators rated consideration significantly higher than did teach- ers. As shown in Table 4.17. statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers in their perceptions of 110 production emphasis. The subgroup means indicated that administrators rated production emphasis significantly higher than did teachers. Table 4.16.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for consideration. Comparison N Mean S.0. F p Sig. Administrators 82 3.701 .714 Teachers 366 3.262 .884 17'65° '00] *** Table 4.17.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for production emphasis. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Adni ni strators 82 3 .721 .509 Teachers 366 3.557 .631 4-374 ~028 * W W .flQJia There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to position level and school level. Table 4.18 contains the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of job satisfaction and its subscales according to respondents' position and school levels. The findings indicated that advancement. work load. work itself. and reward were significantly related to the respondent's position. Overall job satisfaction. advancement. supervi- sion. work load. work itself. and reward were significantly related to 111 teachers' school level; no statistically significant differences were found concerning administrators' school level. more satisfied with their jobs than were teachers. Administrators were Table 4.18.--Results of ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to position level and school level. Position Level School Level School Level (Admin./Teacher) (Admin.) (Teachers) Subscale F p F p F p Overall job satisfaction .006 (.939) .829 (.365) 7.082 (.008)** Advancement 11.459 (.001)*** 1.375 (.244) 5.288 (.022)* Supervision 2.897 (.089) .029 (.865) 9.877 (.002)** Payment 1.570 (.211) .642 (.425) 2.980 (.088) Recognition .053 (.818) 2.260 (.137) .820 (.774) Responsibility 3.531 (.061) .072 (.789) 2.136 (.145) Work load 40.184 (.000)*** .937 (.336) 33.364 (.000)*** Work itself 9.639 (.002)** .105 (.747) 11.016 (.001)*** Colleagues .055 (.815) .083 (.774) 1.878 (.171) Reward 23.908 (.000)*** .101 (.752) 6.626 (.010)** Working cond. .197 (.657) 1.244 (.268) 2.243 (.135) Security 3.431 (.077) .005 (.944) 1.494 (.022) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The figures in Table 4.19 indicate that a statis- tically significant difference was found between elementary and second- ary teachers in their perceptions of overall job satisfaction. The 112 subgroup means indicated that elementary teachers perceived overall job satisfaction as being more positive than did secondary teachers and hence were more satisfied than secondary teachers. Table 4.19.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for overall job satisfaction. Comparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Elementary teachers 223 3 .130 .170 Secondary teachers 143 3 .080 .183 7'082 “008 ** As shown in Table 4.20. statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and between elementary and secondary teachers in their ratings of advancement. The subgroup means for advancement indicated that administrators ranked advancement significantly higher than did teachers; likewise. elementary teachers rated advancement significantly higher than did secondary teachers. The results revealed that administrators were more satisfied than teachers in their ratings of advancement; also. elementary teachers were more satisfied than secondary teachers in their perceptions of advancement. The results shown in Table 4.21 indicated that a statistically significant difference was found between elementary and secondary teachers in their ratings of supervision. The subgroup means for supervision indicated that elementary teachers rated supervision significantly higher than did secondary teachers. Hence elementary 113 teachers were more satisfied with supervision than were secondary teachers. Table 4.20.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for advancement. Canpari son N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Adni ni strators 82 3 .249 . 472 "1* Teachers 366 3.041 .509 "-459 ~001 E1 enentary teachers 223 3.090 .538 Secondary teachers 143 2.970 .452 5'2” -°22 * Table 4.21.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for supervision. Comparison N Mean S. D. F p Sig. El enentary teachers 223 3 . 111 .273 Secondary teachers 143 3.019 .276 9'877 '002 ** As shown in Table 4.22. statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and between elementary and secondary teachers in their ratings of work load. The subgroup means for work load indicated that administrators' rating of work load was significantly higher than that of teachers. In addition. elemen- tary teachers rated‘work load significantly higher than did secondary teachers. The results reveal ed that administrators were more 114 satisfied with work load than teachers were. and elementary teachers were more satisfied with work load than were secondary teachers. Table 4.22.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for work load. Canparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Adni ni strators 82 3 .537 . 473 “* Teachers 366 3.142 .517 40-184 -000 E1 enentary teachers 223 3 .262 .450 Secondary teachers 143 2.956 .560 33-364 .000 *** The figures shown in Table 4.23 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and between elementary and secondary teachers concerning their ratings of work itself. The subgroup means for work itself indicated that teachers' ratings of work itself were significantly higher than those of administrators; likewise. secondary teachers rated work itself significantly higher than elementary teachers did. The results revealed that teachers were significantly more satisfied than adminis- trators with work itself. Also. secondary teachers were significantly more satisfied than e1 enentary teachers with respect to work itself. As shown in Table 4.24. significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and between elementary and second- ary teachers in their ratings of reward. The subgroup means for reward indicated that teachers' ratings of reward were significantly higher 115 than those of administrators. Secondary teachers rated reward signifi- cantly higher than did elementary teachers. According to these results. teachers were significantly more satisfied with reward than were administrators. In addition. secondary teachers were signifi- cantly more satisfied with reward than were elementary teachers. Table 4.23.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for work itself. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators 82 2.675 .367 ** Teachers 366 2.816 .374 9-639 -002 Elementary teachers 223 2.765 .360 *** Secondary teachers 143 2.896 .381 11-016 .001 Table 4.24.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for reward. Canpari son N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Adninistrators 82 2.911 .569 *** Teachers 366 3.285 .639 23-908 -°°° Elementary teachers 223 3.217 .623 Secondary teachers 143 3.392 .652 6'226 '010 ** 116 W anLEdusaIicnaLLexel M: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational level. Table 4.25 contains the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall organizational climate and its subscales according to educational level. as perceived by the respondents (administrators and teachers). The results indicated that overall organizational cli- mate and its subscales were not significantly related to educational level. as perceived by administrators and teachers in this study. Table 4.25.--Results of ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to educational level. Subscale N Respondents Overall organizational climate 440 1.108 (.345) Intimacy 440 1.317 (.268) Thrust 440 .813 (.487) Disengagement 440 2.476 (.061) Consideration 440 2.255 (.081) Esprit 440 2.198 (.088) Aloofness 440 1.791 (.148) Hindrance 440 .760 (.517) Production emphasis 440 1.638 (.180) Mai-1911284851 .Edncatlcna1_Lexel .flg_§h: ‘There is no statistically significant difference with respect to‘job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational level. 117 Table 4.26 contains the results of the analysis of variance (ANONA) of overall job satisfaction and its subscales. according to educational level. The results indicated that overall satisfaction. advancement. and work load. as perceived by respondents. were signifi— cantly related to educational level. Table 4.26.--Results of ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to educational level. Subscale N Respondents Overall job satisfaction 440 4.715 (.003)** Advancement 440 2.494 (.050)* Supervision 440 2.198 (.088) Payment 440 .776 (.508) Recognition 440 2.456 (.061) Responsibility 440 1.917 (.126) Work load 440 10.391 (.001)*** Work itself 440 2.275 (.079) Colleagues 440 1.726 (.161) Reward 440 1.974 (.117) Working conditions 440 1.510 (.211) Security 440 1.272 (.283) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. The results shown in Table 4.27 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between educational-level groups in their ratings of overall job satisfaction. The subgroup means for overall job satisfaction with respect to educational level indicated that respondents at the upgrading-center level rated their overall job 118 satisfaction higher than did respondents who had completed secondary teacher training institutes. junior college. or bachelor's degree pro- grams. Table 4.27.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for overall job satisfaction. Comparison N Mean 3.0. F p Sig. Upgrading center 46 3.187 .197 Secondary institute 138 3.126 .177 Junior college 71 3.080 .167 4'715 '003 ** Bachelor's degree 185 3.091 .174 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between respondents with upgrading center diplomas and those who held junior college diplomas. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas rated overall job satisfaction higher than did those who held junior college diplomas. Statistically significant differences were also found between respondents who held upgrading center diplomas and those who held bachelor's degrees. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas rated overall job satis- factioni higher than did those with bachelor's degrees. These results revealed that respondents who held upgrading center diplomas had higher overall job satisfaction than did respondents who held junior college diplomas and bachelor's degrees. No statistically significant differ» ences were found between other subgroups. The findings might be 119 explained by the fact that respondents holding upgrading center diplo- mas had more years of educational experience than did respondents in the other educational-level subgroups. As shown in Table 4.28. statistically significant differences were found between educational-level groups in their ratings of advancement. The subgroup means for advancement indicated that respondents who held upgrading center diplomas rated advancement higher than did respondents who held secondary teacher training institute and junior college diplomas or bachelor's degrees. Table 4.28.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for advancement. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Upgrading center 46 3.265 .656 Secondary institute 138 3.061 .497 Junior college 71 3.093 .531 L494 -°5° * Bachelor's degree 185 3.042 .455 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found only between respondents who held upgrading center diplomas and those who had bachelor's degrees. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas rated advancement significantly higher than did those who held bachelor's degrees. This result indicated that individuals who»held upgrading center diplomas were more satisfied with advancement than were respondents who held bachelor's degrees. The reason could be that the respondents who held 120 upgrading center diplomas had more opportunity for training to improve their educational qualifications than did respondents who possessed a higher degree. The results shown in Table 4.29 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between educational-level groups in their ratings of work load. The subgroup means for work load indicated that respondents who held upgrading center diploma rated work load higher than respondents who held other. higher diplomas. Table 4.29.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for work load. Conparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Upgrading center 46 3.457 .475 Secondary institute 138 3.338 .451 Junior college 71 3.281 .550 10°39‘ ~°°1 *** Bachelor's degree 185 3.121 .556 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found among respondents who-held upgrading center diplomas and those who held bachelor's degrees. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas were significantly more satisfied with work load than were respondents who held a bachelor's degree. Statistically significant differences were also found between respondents who held 121 secondary teacher training institute diplomas and those who held bachelor's degrees. Respondents with degrees from secondary institutes were significantly more satisfied with work load than were respondents who held bachelor's degrees. The results reveal ed that respondents who held diplomas from upgrading centers and secondary institutes were significantly more satisfied with work load than were respondents with bachelor's degrees. The reason could be that respondents with lower- level diplomas taught in elementary schools. and perhaps they spent less time preparing for class. making assignments. and correcting homework than respondents with bachelor's degrees. who taught at the secondary level. QmanizaflonaLOJJmate 30W 11949: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational experience. Table 4.30 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall climate and its subscal es according to years of experience in education. The results indicated that no statistically significant differences were found between any educational-experience subgroups. for either administrators or teachers. 122 Table 4.30.--Results of the ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to educational experience. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall climate .899 (.469) .336 (.854) Intimacy 2.248 (.072) .284 (.888) Thrust .078 (.989) .361 (.837) Disengagement .907 (.464) .385 (.819) Consideration .680 (.608) .311 (.871) Esprit 1.035 (.395) 2.162 (.073) Aloofness 1.332 (.266) 1.537 (.191) Hindrance .442 (.777) .268 (.898) Production .253 (.907) 1.188 (.316) W051 W509: tkLfigg There is no statistically significant difference with respect to‘job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational experience. Table 4.31 shows the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall job satisfaction and its subscales according to educational experience. The results indicated that colleagues and working conditions were found to be significantly related to educa- tional experience. as perceived by administrators. As perceived by teachers. overall job satisfaction. advancement. payment. and col- leagues were significantly related to educational experience. 123 Table 4.31.--Resu1ts of the ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to educational experience. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F 9 Overall job satisfaction 1.437 (.230) 2.524 (.041)* Advancement .278 (.891) 3.500 (.008)** Supervision .733 (.572) .554 (.697) Payment .465 (.761) 3.237 (.013)* Recognition .712 (.587) .646 (.630) Responsibility .732 (.573) .600 (.663) Work load 1.250 (.297) .362 (.836) Work itself 1.002 (.412) 2.282 (.060) Colleagues 2.416 (.050)* 3.289 (.012)* Reward 1.017 (.404) .409 (.802) Working conditions 2.554 (.046)* 2.048 (.087) Security 1.156 (.337) .945 (.438) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are-shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.32 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between educational- experience subgroups of teachers in their ratings of overall job satis- faction. The results indicated that teachers with 16 to 20 years of educational experience rated overall satisfaction higher than did teachers in the other educational-experience subgroups. 124 Table 4.32.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for overall job satisfaction. Cemparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Teachers with: l- 5 years educ. exp. 114 3.118 .177 6-10 years educ. exp. 94 3.087 .187 11-15 years educ. exp. 85 3.093 .147 2.524 .041 * 16-20 years educ. exp. 36 3.185 .183 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.144 .201 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found only between teachers with 6 to 10 years of experience and those with 16 to 20 years of experience. Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience rated overall satisfaction significantly higher than did teachers with 6 to 10 years of experience. These results revealed that teachers with between 16 and 20 years of expe- rience had significantly higher overall job satisfaction than those with 6 to 10 years of educational experience. The other subgroups did not differ significantly on this comparison. The results shown in Table 4.33 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between educational-experience subgroups of teachers in their ratings of advancement. The subgroup means for advancement indicated that teachers with 16 to 20 years of educational experience rated advancement higher than any of the other educational-experience subgroups. 125 Table 4.33.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for advancement. Conparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Teachers with: 1- 5 years educ. exp. 114 3.044 .419 6-10 years educ. exp. 94 2.970 .519 11-15 years educ. exp. 85 2.979 .516 3.500 .008 ** 16-20 years educ. exp. 36 3.317 .596 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.050 .596 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between teachers with 6 to 10 years of experi- ence and those with 16 to 20 years of educational experience. Statis- tically significant differences were also found between teachers with 11 to 15 years of educational experience and those with 16 to:20 years of experience. Teachers with from 16 to 20 years of educational expe- rience were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were teachers who had from 6 to 15 years of such experience. As shown in Table 4.34. statistically significant differences were found between educational-experience groups of teachers in their ratings of payment. The subgroup means for payment indicated that teachers who»had between 16 and 20 years of educational experience rated payment higher than did those with 1 to 15 years and more than 21 years of experience. 126 Table 4.34.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for payment. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers with: 1- 5 years educ. exp. 114 3.041 .457 6-10 years educ. exp. 94 3.040 .463 11-15 years educ. exp. 85 3.188 .409 3.237 .013 * 16-20 years educ. exp. 36 3.283 .381 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.208 .481 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences existed between teachers with l to 5 years of educa- tional experience and those with 16 to 20 years of experience. and also between teachers with 6'to 10 years of educational experience and those with 16-20 years of experience. The results revealed that teachers with 16 to 20 years of educational experience were significantly more satisfied with payment than were teachers with l to 10 years of expe- rience. As shown in Table 4.35. statistically significant differences were flound between educational-experience subgroups of administrators and educational-experience subgroups of teachers in their ratings of colleagues. The subgroup means for colleagues indicated that adminis- trators with 6 to 10 years of educational experience rated colleagues higher than did any other educational-experience subgroup of adminis- trators. 127 Table 4.35.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for colleagues. Conparison N Mean S.D. F p Sig. Adninistrators with: l- 5 years educ. exp. 4 2.776 .300 6-10 years educ. exp. 13 3.200 .220 11-15 years educ. exp. 26 3.146 .253 2.416 .050 * 16-20 years educ. exp. 15 3.067 .335 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.171 .233 Teachers with: 1-5 years educ. exp. 114 3.167 .302 6-10 years educ. exp. 94 3.144 .261 11-15 years educ. exp. 85 3.027 .304 3.289 .012 * 16-20 years educ. exp. 36 3.156 .255 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.133 .284 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that a statistically sig- nificant difference was found between only two groups. Administrators with 6 to 10 years of educational experience were significantly more satisfied with colleagues than were those with l to 5 years of experi- ence. No statistically significant differences were found between the other educational-experience subgroups of administrators. Teachers with between 1 and 5 years of educational experience rated colleagues higher than did those with 11 to 15 years of expe- rience. Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that a statistically sig- nificant difference was found between teachers with l to 5 years of educational experience and those with 11 to 15 years of experience. That is. teachers with l to 5 years of experience were significantly 128 more satisfied with colleagues than were those with 11 to 15 years of experience in education. No statistically significant differences were found between the other educational-experience subgroups of teachers. The results shown in Table 4.36 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between educational-experience subgroups of administrators in their ratings of working conditions. The subgroup means for working conditions indicated that administrators with 21 or more years of educational experience rated working condi- tions higher than those with 6 to 10 years of experience. Table 4.36.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for working conditions. Conparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Aoni ni strators with: l- 5 years educ. exp. 4 3.305 .285 6-10 years educ. exp. 13 3.256 .316 11-15 years educ. exp. 26 3.308 .297 2.554 .046 * 16-20 years educ. exp. 15 3.467 .290 21+ years educ. exp. 24 3.535 .340 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between administrators with 21 or more years of educational experience and those with 6 to 10 years of experience. That is. administrators with 21 or more years of experi- ence in education were significantly more satisfied with their working conditions than were administrators with 6 to 10 years of experience. 129 No statistically significant differences were found between other edu- cational-experience subgroups of administrators. WW W09 .flg_4d: 'There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to type of school building. Table 4.37 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of organizational climate and its subscales according to the type of school building (nonrented. rented. or prefabricated schoolL The results indicated that overall organizational climate. thrust. consideration. and aloofness were significantly related to the type of school building. as perceived by teachers. Type of school building was not significantly related to organizational climate or its subscales for administrators. In terms of hindrance. although the results were not significant. administrators of rented schools rated hindrance higher than did those in nonrented and prefabricated schools; administrators in nonrented schools rated hindrance lower than did those in the other school-building subgroups. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.38 show that statisti- cally significant differences were found between teachers from differ- ent types of school buildings. in regard to overall climate. The subgroup means for overall climate indicated that teachers in nonrented schools rated overall climate higher than did those in rented or pre- fabricated schools. 130 Table 4.37-«Results of the ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to type of school building. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall climate .891 (.414) 5.282 (.006)** Intimacy 1.226 (.299) .342 (.711) Thrust 1.547 (.219) 12.677 (.001)*** Disengagement 1.744 (.182) 1.874 (.155) Consideration 1.451 (.241) 4.551 (.011)** Esprit .255 (.776) 1.471 (.231) Aloofness 1.830 (.167) 4.702 (.010)** Hindrance 2.800 (.067) 1.573 (.209) Production 2.161 (.122) .191 (.826) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. Table 4.38.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for overall organizational climate. Comparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.175 .211 Rented schools 126 3.171 .217 5.282 .006 ** Prefabricated schools 37 3.064 .244 TUkey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented schools rated overall climate significantly higher than did teachers in prefabricated schools. 131 Statistically significant differences were also found between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in rented schools rated overall climate significantly higher than those in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools in terms of their perceptions of overall climate. The results revealed that teachers in nonrented and rented schools tended to perceive school climate as being more open than did teachers in prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented and rented schools tended to perceive the school climate similarly. As shown in Table 4.39. statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings. in their ratings of thrust. The subgroup means for thrust indicated that teachers in nonrented schools rated thrust higher than those in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented and rented schools rated thrust similarly. Table 4.39.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for thrust. Comparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.883 .696 Rented schools 126 3.849 .699 12.677 .001 *** Prefabricated schools 37 3.282 .965 132 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in prefabricated schools rated thrust significantly lower than those in nonrented schools. Statistically significant dif- ferences were also found between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in prefabricated schools rated thrust significantly lower than did those in rented schools. No statistically significant difference was found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools. The results shown in Table 4.40 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of consideration. The subgroup means for consideration indicated that teachers in rented schools rated consideration higher than those in nonrented and pre- fabricated schools. Table 4.40.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for consideration. Cmmparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.276 .865 Rented schools 126 3.356 .853 4.551 .011 ** Prefabricated schools 37 2.865 .998 Tukey post-hoe analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabri- cated schools. Teachers in nonrented schools rated consideration 133 significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. In addition. statistically significant differences were found between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in rented schools rated consideration significantly higher than did teachers in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools. The results shown in Table 4.41 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different different types of school buildings. in their ratings of aloofness. The subgroup means for aloofness indicated that teachers in prefabri- cated schools rated aloofness higher than did teachers in nonrented and rented schools. Also. teachers in rented schools rated aloofness higher than did those in nonrented schools. Table 4.4l.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for aloofness. Comparison N Mean 5.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.147 .595 Rented schools 126 3.177 .584 4.702 .010 ** Prefabricated schools 37 3.838 .748 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefab- ricated schools. Teachers in prefabricated schools rated aloofness 134 significantly higher than did teachers in nonrented schools. Also. statistically significant differences were found between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in prefabricated schools rated aloofness significantly higher than did teachers in rented schools. No significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools. in terms of aloofness. WM WW 1:19.512: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to type of school building. Table 4.42 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of job satisfaction and its subscales according to the type of school building (nonrented. rented. and prefabricated school) as per- ceived by administrators and teachers. The results indicated that overall job satisfaction. advancement. supervision. work load. and working conditions were significantly related to the type of school building as perceived by teachers. No statistically significant dif- ferences with respect to job satisfaction were perceived by admini s- trators according to type of school building. In general. the table indicates that administrators were more satisfied than teachers with regard to the types of school buildings in which they worked. The subgroup means for statistically significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.43 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of 135 Table 4.42--Results of the ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to type of school building. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall job satisfaction 1.013 (.368) 4.711 (.010)** Advancement .702 (.497) 6.160 (.002)** Supervision .809 (.449) 3.29 (.038)* Payment 1.353 (.264) 4.582 (.213) Recognition .224 (.800) 1.582 (.213) Responsibility .245 (.782) 1.157 (.316) Work load .334 (.717) 5.166 (.006)** Work itself 1.293 (.280) 1.152 (.317) Colleagues 1.688 (.192) .579 (.561) Reward .080 (.923) .296 (.744) Working conditions 2.182 (.120) 7.564 (.001)*** Security .021 (.980) .271 (.763) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. Table 4.43.-Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for overall job satisfaction. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.123 .170 Rented schools 126 3.115 .170 4.711 .010 ** Prefabricated schools 37 3.027 .214 136 overall job satisfaction. The subgroup means for overall job satis— faction indicated that teachers in nonrented schools rated overall job satisfaction higher than did those in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in prefabricated schools rated overall job satisfaction lower than did teachers in other types of school buildings. The results showed that teachers who taught at nonrented schools were more satis- fied than teachers in rented and prefabricated schools; teachers who taught at prefabricated schools tended to be less satisfied than teachers in nonrented and rented schools. The reason could be that nonrented schools are built as schools. whereas rented schools are built as housing and do not allow teachers to carry out their extra- curricular activities very well. Likewise. fabricated schools are narrow and noisy buildings and are not as conducive to teaching. Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and ° prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented schools rated overall job satisfaction significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. Also. statistically significant differences were found between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in rented schools rated overall job satisfaction significantly higher than did teachers in prefabricated schools. However. teachers in nonrented and rented schools concurred in their perceptions of overall satisfaction. 137 The results in Table 4.44 indicate that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of advancement. The subgroup means for advancement indicated that teachers in nonrented schools were more satisfied with advancement than were those in rented and prefabri- cated schools. Table 4.44.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for advancement. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.103 .482 Rented schools 126 3.014 .525 6.160 .002 ** Prefabricated schools 37 2.795 .528 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabricated schools. 'Teachers in nonrented schools were significantly more satis- fied with advancement than were those in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences in ratings of advancement were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools or between those in rented and prefabricated schools. The results shown in Table 4.45 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of supervision. The 138 subgroup means for supervision indicated that teachers in rented schools rated supervision higher than did those in nonrented and pre- fabricated schools. Table 4.45.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for supervision. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.070 .274 Rented schools 126 3.110 .264 3.298 .038 * Prefabricated schools 37 2.979 .320 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in rented and prefabri- cated schools. ‘Teachers in rented schools were significantly more satisfied with supervision than were teachers in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabricated schools or among those in nonrented and rented schools. The results shown in Table 4.46 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of work load. The subgroup means for work load indicated that teachers in nonrented schools were more satisfied with work load than were those in rented and prefabri- cated schools. 139 Table 4.46.—-Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for work load. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.200 .515 Rented schools 126 3.116 .486 5.166 .006 ** Prefabricated schools 37 2.914 .575 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefab- ricated schools. ‘Teachers in nonrented schools were significantly more satisfied with work load than were teachers in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools or between those in rented and prefabri- cated schools in their ratings of work load. The explanation of these findings might be that the nonrented schools are more spacious and less noisy than prefabricated schools; psychologically. this might make the teachers in nonrented schools feel more relaxed than those in prefabri- cated schools. It might also be that nonrented schools included more classrooms with smaller numbers of students in each class than did the prefabricated schools. which would also lead to greater teacher satis- faction with work load. The results shown in Table 4.47 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different types of school buildings in their ratings of working conditions. The 140 subgroup means for working conditions indicated that teachers in rented schools were more satisfied with working conditions than were those in nonrented and prefabricated schools. In addition. teachers in pre- fabricated schools were less satisfied with working conditions than were those in nonrented and rented schools. Table 4.47.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for working conditions. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Nonrented schools 203 3.360 .403 Rented schools 126 3.464 .414 7.564 .001 *** Prefabricated schools 37 3.167 .513 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabri- cated schools. 'Teachers in nonrented schools were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were those in prefabricated schools. Statistically significant differences were also found between teachers in rented schools and those in prefabricated schools. Teach- ers in rented schools were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were those in prefabricated schools. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools in their ratings of working conditions. The results revealed that teachers in nonrented and rented schools were more 141 satisfied with working conditions than were those in prefabricated schools. WW anificbmJJ-Jze flue: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to school size. Table 4.48 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall climate and its subscales according to school size. The results indicated that overall climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit were found to be significantly related to school size as perceived by teachers. size as perceived by administrators. Intimacy was significantly related to school Table 4.48-~Results of the ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to school size. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F 9 Overall climate .865 (.425) 7.009 (.OOOl)*** Intimacy 4.224 (.018)* 5.762 (.001)*** Thrust .078 (.952) 5.677 (.OOl)*** Disengagement .962 (.387) .460 (.711) Consideration .537 (.587) 1.788 (.149) Esprit .093 (.911) 5.291 (.001)*** Aloofness 2.127 (.127) .138 (.937) Hindrance .599 (.552) 1.787 (.149) Production .209 (.812) 1.737 (.159) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 142 The subgroup means for statistically significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.49 show that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of schools in their ratings of overall organizational climate. The subgroup means for overall organizational climate indicated that teachers in small schools rated overall organizational climate higher than did teachers in medium. large. and larger schools. Table 4.49.--8ubgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for overall organizational climate. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 3.223 .196 Medium schools 138 3.180 .213 Large schools 72 2.150 .237 7-009 -°°°' *** Larger schools 48 2.057 .219 Tukey postrhoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in small schools and those in larger schools. Teachers in small schools rated overall organiza- tional climate significantly higher than did teachers in larger schools. Statistically significant differences were also found between teachers in medium and larger schools. Teachers in medium schools rated overall organizational climate significantly higher than did those in larger schools. 1 43 The results revealed that teachers in smaller (399 and fewer students) and medium schools (400-699 students) tended to perceive school climate as being more open than did teachers in larger schools (1.000 or more students). The results also revealed that the smaller the school. the more positive the climate. In general. teachers in schools with enrollments of 399 or fewer. and teachers in medium-size schools (400-699 students). perceived the school climate to be more open than did teachers in larger schools (1.000 or more students). As school size increased. the school climate tended to be more closed. The results in Table 4.50 show that statistically significant differences were found between administrators and teachers from different sizes of schools in their ratings of intimacy. The subgroup means for intimacy indicated that administrators and teachers in small schools rated intimacy higher than did their counterparts in large schools. Administrators in small schools rated intimacy higher than did those in medium and large schools. Likewise. teachers in small schools tended to perceive higher intimacy than those inlnedium. large. and larger schools. Teachers in small schools rated intimacy signifi- cantly higher than did their counterparts in school of other sizes. When school size increased. intimacy tended to be lower. Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in small and those in medium and large schools. Teachers in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did those in medium and large schools. 144 Table 4.50.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for intimacy. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small schools 20 2.807 .346 Medium schools 37 2.515 .520 4.224 .018 * Large schools 19 2.449 .530 Teachers in: Small schools 108 2.823 .471 Medium schools 138 2.591 .541 Large schools 72 2.545 .525 5'762 '001 *** Larger schools 48 2.681 .470 Tukey postrhoc analyses also indicated that statistically sig- nificant differences were found between administrators in small schools and those in large schools. -Administrators in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did those in large schools. The results also revealed that. for both adminiStrators and teachers. the smaller the schools. the higher the intimacy. The results shown in Table 4.51 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from schools of different sizes in their ratings of thrust. The subgroup means for thrust indicated that teachers in small schools rated thrust higher than did teachers in medium. large. and larger schools. The ratings of thrust were directly related to school size; as school size increased. thrust decreased. 145 Table 4.51.-—Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for thrust. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 3.888 .700 Medium schools 138 3.845 .668 *** Large schools 72 3.843 .782 5-577 -°°‘ Larger schools 48 3.446 .906 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in small schools and their counterparts in large schools. Teachers in small schools rated thrust significantly higher than teachers in large schools. Statistically significant differences were also found between teachers in medium schools and those in large schools. Teachers in medium schools rated thrust significantly higher than those in large schools. Finally. statistically significant differences were found between teachers in large schools and those in larger schools. Teachers in large schools rated thrust significantly higher than did teachers in larger schools. Thus the results revealed that. for teachers. the smaller the school the higher the thrust. The results shown in Table 4.52 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of schools in their ratings of esprit. No statistically significant differences were found between school-size subgroups of administrators in their ratings of esprtt. The subgroup means for 146 esprit indicated that teachers in small schools rated esprit higher than did teachers in medium. large. and larger schools. ‘The results indicated that as school size increased. teachers! ratings of esprit decreased. Table 4.52.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for esprit. Cemparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 3.460 .516 Medium schools 138 3.342 .584 Large schools 72 3.215 .669 5’29] '001 *** Larger schools 48 3.088 .653 Tukey postvhoc analysis indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in small schools and those in large and larger schools. Teachers in small schools rated esprit significantly higher than did their counterparts in large and larger schools. The results revealed that. for teachers. the smaller the school the higher their ratings of esprit. In general. teachers in small schools rated esprit and thrust higher than did teachers in the other sizes of schools. Thus esprit and thrust were related to school size. Small schools (399 or fewer students) tended to be more open than schools of other sizes. When the school size increased. the school climate was more likely to be closed. 147 WW9 flg_5_e: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to.job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to school size. Table 4.53 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall job satisfaction and its subscales. according to school size. The results indicated that advancement. responsibility. and working conditions were found to be significantly related to school size as perceived by teachers. No statistically significant differ- ences were found between school-size subgroups of administrators with respect to job satisfaction. Table 4.53.--Results of the ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to school size. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall job satisfaction 1.501 (.228) 1.892 (.131) Advancement .429 (.653) 3.834 (.010)** Supervision .408 (.667) 1.276 (.283) Payment 1.353 (.265) .165 (.920) Recognition .183 (.833) 1.018 (.385) Responsibility .271 (.763) 2.851 (.037)* Work load .315 (.731) 2.314 (.076) Work itself 2.421 (.096) 1.044 (.373) Colleagues 1.017 (.367) .119 (.949) Reward 1.624 (.204) 1.022 (.383) Working conditions 1.471 (.236) 3.777 (.011)* Security .711 (.495) .900 (.441) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. 148 The subgroup means for significant comparisons are-shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.54 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of school in their perceptions of advancement. The subgroup means for advancement indicated that teachers in medium schools rated advancement higher than those in small. large.-and larger schools. Table 4.54.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for advancement. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 2.991 .501 Medium schools 138 3.139 .490 Large schools 72 2.908 .506 3~834 ~010 * Larger schools 48 3.071 .540 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers inlnedium schools and those in large schools. ‘Teachers in medium schools were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were those in large schools. This result revealed that teachers in medium schools perceived that they had more chance for advancement than did those in large schools. The results shown in Table 4.55 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of schools in their perceptions of responsibility. The subgroup means 149 for responsibility indicated that teachers in small schools rated responsibility higher than did teachers in medium. large. and larger schools. No statistically significant differences were found between administrators in different school-size subgroups. Table 4.55.--8ubgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for responsibility. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 3.656 .262 Medium schools 138 3.598 .292 Large schools 72 3.596 .276 2-851 '037 * Larger schools 48 3.508 .402 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in only two school-size subgroups. Teachers in small schools were significantly more satisfied with responsibility than those in larger schools. The results revealed that teachers in small schools had more responsibility than those in larger schools. 'The smaller the school. the more responsibility teach- ers were given. The results shown in Table 4.56 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of schools in their perceptions of working conditions. The subgroup means for working conditions indicated that teachers in medium schools rated*working conditions higher than did their counterparts in 150 small. large. and larger schools. No statistically significant dif- ferences were found between administrators in different school-size subgroups in terms of working conditions. Table 4.56.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for working conditions. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small schools 108 3.375 .383 Medium schools 138 3.448 .409 Large schools 72 3.347 .459 3'777 '011 ** Larger schools 48 3.215 .483 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between teachers in only two school-size subgroups. Teachers in medium schools were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were teachers in larger schools. No statistically significant differences were found between other school-size subgroups of teachers in regard to working conditions. W W 119.41: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational district size. Table 4.57 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall climate and its subscales. according to educational district size. The results showed that overall climate was not found 151 to be related to educational district size as perceived by administra- tors or teachers. However. as perceived by administrators. intimacy was significantly related to educational district size. Intimacy and hindrance were found to be significantly related to educational dis- trict size as perceived by teachers. Table 4.57rm-Results of the ANOVA of the perception of organizational climate according to educational district size. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall climate .421 (.738) .789 (.501) Intimacy 6.150 (.001)*** 4.520 (.004)** Thrust .904 (.443) 1.382 (.248) Disengagement 1.375 (.257) 1.688 (.169) Consideration 2.669 (.053) .472 (.702) Esprit .457 (.713) 1.673 (.172) Aloofness .825 (.484) .220 (.888) Hindrance .644 (.589) 5.300 (.001)*** Production .922 (.434) 2.224 (.085) *Significant at the .01 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. The results shown in Table 4.58 indicate that sta- tistically significant differences were found between adminiStrators and between teachers from difference sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of intimacy. The subgroup means for intimacy 152 indicated that administrators and teachers in medium-sized educational districts rated intimacy higher than did their counterparts in small. large. and larger districts. Table 4.58.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for intimacy. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.150 .539 Medium educ. districts 13 2.810 .418 Large educ. districts 19 2.555 .505 5-‘50 -°°‘ *** Larger educ. districts 34 2.713 .460 Teachers in: Small educ. districts 23 2.360 .633 Medium educ. districts 72 2.797 .449 Large educ. districts 104 2.627 .471 4-520 ~°°4 ** Larger educ. districts 167 2.668 .541 Tukey post-hoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between administrators in medium and small educational districts. .Administrators in medium educational districts expressed significantly higher intimacy than those in small educational districts. In addition. statistically significant differences were found between administrators in small and larger educational districts. Administrators in larger educational districts perceived significantly higher intimacy than their counterparts in small districts. Statis- tically significant differences were found between teachers in small and medium educational districts and between those in small and larger 153 districts. in regard to intimacy. Teachers in medium districts perceived significantly higher intimacy than those in small districts. Teachers in larger districts perceived significantly more intimacy than those in small districts. The results shown in Table 4.59 show that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of hindrance. The subgroup means for hindrance indicated that teachers in large educational districts rated hindrance higher than did their counterparts in small. medium. and larger districts. Table 4.59.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for hindrance. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Teachers in: Small educ. districts 23 2.957 .536 Medium educ. districts 72 3.031 .566 Large educ. districts 104 3.342 .538 5.300 '00] *** Larger educ. districts 167 3.150 .643 Tukey postrhoc analyses indicated that statistically signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in small and large educa- tional districts. Teachers in small educational districts rated hindrance significantly lower than teachers in large educational districts. Statistically significant differences were also found between teachers in medium and large educational districts. Teachers 154 in medium educational districts rated hindrance significantly lower than did their counterparts in large districts. In addition. statis- tically significant differences were found between teachers in large and larger educational districts. Teachers in large districts rated hindrance significantly lower than did their counterparts in larger districts. must-191120.409 EducationaLDisILictJJze £19.51: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational district size. Table 4.60 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of overall job satisfaction and its subscal es. according to educational district size. The results indicated that overall job satisfaction. recognition. work itself. colleagues. reward. and working conditions. as perceived by administrators. were found to be signifi- cantly related to educational district size. Only reward. as perceived by teachers. was found to be significantly related to educational district size. The subgroup means for significant comparisons are shown in the following tables. According to the results shown in Table 4.61. statistically significant differences were found between administrators from different sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of overall job satisfaction. The subgroup means of overall job satisfac- tion indicated that administrators in medium educational districts 155 rated overall job satisfaction higher than did administrators in small. large. and larger educational districts. Table 4.60.--Resu1ts of the ANOVA of the perception of job satisfaction according to educational district size. Administrators Teachers Subscale F p F p Overall job satisfaction 3.770 (.014)* .802 (.493) Advancement .888 (.451) 1.576 (.195) Supervision 1.881 (.140) .318 (.813) Payment .119 (.949) 2.122 (.097) Recognition 3.841 (.013)* 1.291 (.277) Responsibility 1.902 (.136) 1.403 (.242) Work load 1.502 (.221) 2.272 (.080) Work itself 2.748 (.048)* .80 (.478) Colleagues 3.097 (.032)* .543 (.653) Reward 4.980 (.004)** 6.796 (.0002)*** Working conditions 5.624 (.002)** .123 (.947) Security 1.812 (.152) .114 (.342) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. Table 4.6l.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for overall job satisfaction. Cbmparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.992 .202 Medium educ. districts 13 3.192 .218 Large educ. districts 19 3.113 .165 3-770 -°‘4 * Larger educ. districts 34 3.138 .142 156 Tukey postrhoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between-administrators ininedium and small educational districts. Administrators in medium educational districts rated overall job satisfaction significantly higher than those in small districts. Statistically significant differences were also found between administrators in small and larger educational districts. Administrators in larger districts rated overall job satis- faction significantly higher than did their counterparts in small districts. The results revealed that administrators in small educa- tional districts were less satisfied than those ininedium and larger districts. Thus. for administrators. the larger the educational dis- trict. the greater the satisfaction. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of educa- tional districts in their perceptions of overall job satisfaction. The reason for this could be that only administrators have direct contact with the educational district office; teachers have no such contact except through administrators. The results shown in Table 4.62 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of recognition. The subgroup means for recognition indicated that administrators in large educational districts rated recognition higher than did those in small. medium. and larger districts. 157 Table 4.62.--8ubgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for recognition. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Aoninistrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.396 .370 Medium educ. districts 13 2.718 .756 Large educ. districts 19 2.983 .527 3:84] ~013 * Larger educ. districts 34 2.745 .442 Tukey postrhoc analyses indicated that statistically significant differences were found between administrators in only two sizes of educational districts: small and large. Administrators in small educational districts rated recognition significantly lower than did administrators in large districts. The results revealed that administrators in small educational districts were less satisfied with recognition than were their counterparts in large districts. Adminis- trators in different sizes of educational districts perceived the same amounts of recognition. No statistically significant differences were found between teachers from different sizes of educational districts in regard to their perceptions of recognition. Perhaps the explanation of this finding is that these teachers had no direct contact with the educational district; only principals had contact with the school district and his immediate supervisor--the district superintendent. The figures shown in Table 4.63 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between-administrators from different sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of the 158 work itself. The subgroup means for work itself indicated that administrators in larger educational districts rated work itself higher than did their counterparts in small. medium. and large districts. Table 4.63.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for work itself. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.479 .249 Medium educ. districts 13 2.761 .521 Large educ. districts 19 2.620 .317 2-743 :043 * Larger educ. districts 34 2.765 .341 Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between administrators in only two sizes of educational districts: small and larger. Administrators in small districts rated work itself lower than did administrators in larger districts. This result revealed that administrators in larger educational districts were significantly more satisfied with the work itself than were their counterparts in small districts. Administrators in other sizes of educational districts had similar perceptions of the work itselfl. No statistically significant differences were found for teachers in districts of different sizes in their perceptions of work itself. The results shown in Table 4.64 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators from 159 educational districts of different sizes in their perceptions of col- leagues. The subgroup means for colleagues indicated that administra- tors ininedium educational districts rated colleagues higher than did their counterparts in small. large. and larger districts. Table 4.64.--8ubgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for colleagues. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.969 .275 Medium educ. districts 13 3.254 .273 Large educ. districts 19 3.126 .256 3.097 .032 * Larger educ. districts 34 3.159 .285 Tukey postvhoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between administrators in only two sizes of educational districts: small and mediunt Administrators in small districts rated colleagues lower than did administrators in medium districts. The results revealed that administrators in medium educa- tional districts were significantly more satisfied with colleagues than were administrators in small districts. .Administrators in other sizes of educational districts rated colleagues similarly. No statis- tically significant differences were found between teachers in dif- ferent sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of colleagues. 160 The results shown in Table 4.65 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators and between teachers in different sizes of educational districts in their percep- tions of reward. The subgroup means for reward showed that adminis- trators in large educational districts rated reward higher than did their counterparts in small. medium. and larger districts. In addi- tion. teachers in large educational districts rated reward higher than did teachers in small. medium. and larger districts. Table 4.65.--Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance levels for reward. Comparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 2.638 .623 Medium educ. districts 13 2.897 .498 ** Large educ. districts 19 3.281 .389 4-930 ~004 Larger educ. districts 34 2.996 .565 Teachers in: Small educ. districts 23 3.087 .740 Medium educ. districts 72 3.171 .600 Large educ. districts 104 3.513 .642 5°795 -°°°2 *** Larger educ. districts 167 3.320 .607 Tukey postrhoc analyses showed that statistically significant differences were found between administrators in only two sizes of educational districts: small and large. Administrators in large educational districts rated reward significantly higher than did those in small educational districts. The results revealed that 161 administrators in large educational districts were significantly more satisfied with their nonprofessional reward than were administrators in small districts. The administrators in the remaining sizes of school districts had similar ratings of reward. Tukey postrhoc analyses also showed that statistically sig- nificant differences were found between teachers in small and large educational districts. Teachers in large districts rated reward sig- nificantly higher than those in small districts; in other words. teach- ers in large districts were more satisfied with reward than were those in small districts. In addition. statistically significant differences were found between teachers in medium and large educational districts. Teachers in medium districts rated reward lower than did their counter- parts in large educational districts. The results revealed that teach- ers in large school districts were more satisfied with reward than were those in medium districts. ‘This could be nonprofessional reward or encouragement (internal reward) instead of external reward because the Ministry of Education confers identical external rewards on all educational districts. The results shown in Table 4.66 indicate that statistically significant differences were found between administrators from different sizes of educational districts with respect to working conditions. The subgroup means for working condition showed that administrators in medium educational districts rated working conditions higher than did their counterparts in small. large. and larger dis- tricts. 162 Table 4.66.-4Subgroup means. standard deviations. and significance level for working conditions. Conparison N Mean 8.0. F p Sig. Administrators in: Small educ. districts 16 3.240 .258 Medium educ. districts 13 3.641 .396 Large educ. districts 19 3.281 .294 5-524 ~°°2 ** Larger educ. districts 34 3.446 .277 Tukey postrhoc analyses indicated that a highly significant difference was found between administrators in small andinedium dis- tricts. .Administrators in medium educational districts rated working conditions significantly higher than administrators in small districts. In addition. statistically significant differences were found between administrators in small and larger educational districts. Administra- tors in small districts rated working conditions lower than did those in larger districts. The results revealed that administrators in small districts were less satisfied with working conditions than were their counterparts in both medium and larger districts. Administrators in other sizes of districts rated working conditions similarly. No sta- tistically significant differences were found between teachers in dif- ferent sizes of educational districts in their perceptions of working conditions. 163 WWW Twenty null hypotheses were tested in this study. The hypothe— sis tests yielded the following results. 1:12.13: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators. The results shown in Table 444 indicated that administrators perceived overall job satisfaction. advancement. and supervision as positively related to thrust and negatively related to hindrance. Responsibility was positively related to thrust and esprit. whereas work itself was negatively related to overall climate and positively related to disengagement. Colleagues was negatively related to disengagement and hindrance. .flg_1n: ‘There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male teachers. The results shown in Table 4.5 indicated that teachers perceived overall job satisfaction. advancement. supervision. responsibility. work load. and working conditions as positively related to overall climate. thrust. and esprit. Work itself was positively related to disengagement and hindrance and negatively related to overall climate. Overall job satisfaction. recognition. and reward were negatively related to disengagement. Colleagues was positively related to thrust and also to esprit. Finally. reward was positively related to overall climate and esprit and negatively related to hindrance. 164 1:19.231: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational experience. As the results shown in Table 4.6 indicated. for administrators the relationship between educational experience and intimacy and esprit was found to be positive. For teachers. the relationship between educational experience and esprit was positive. whereas overall climate and its other subscales were not significantly related to educational experience. 11133 There is no statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational experience. As the results in Table 4.7 indicated. for administrators the relationship between educational experience and overall job satisfac- ti on and working conditions was positive; reward was negatively related to educational experience. For teachers. payment and working condi- tions were positively related to educational experience. 11910: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and school size. The results in Table 4.8 showed that for teachers the rel ati on- ship between school size and overall organizational climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit was found to be negative. For administrators. the relationship between school size and overall organizational climate and its subscales was not significant. flojh: There is no statistically significant rel ationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and school size. 165 The results in Table 4.9 indicated that for administrators the relationship between school size and reward was found to be negative. For teachers. the relationship between school size and recognition. responsibility. and working conditions was also found to be negative. 11915;: There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational climate. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational district size. As shown in Table 4.10. the results indicated that for adminis- trators the relationship between educational district size and intimacy and consideration was found to be positive. For teachers. the rel a- tionship between educational district size and overall organizational climate and its subscales was found not to be significant. 151115: There is no statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. and educational district size. As shown in Table 4.11. for administrators the relationship between educational district size and overall job satisfaction. super- vision. recognition. and work itself was found to be positive. For teachers. the relationship between educational district size and over- all job satisfaction and its subscales was found not to be significant. 1:19.41: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to position level and school level. The results shown in Tables 4.13 and 4.15 indicated that sig- nificant differences were found between elementary and secondary teach- ers with respect to overall climate and disengagement; Table 4.14 showed that a significant difference was found between elementary and secondary administrators on thrust. Significant differences were found 166 between administrators and teachers with respect to overall climate. thrust. consideration. and production emphasis (Tables 4.13. 4.14. 4.16. and 4.17). M: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to position level and school level. As shown in Tables 4.20. 4.22. 4.23. and 4.24. significant differences were found between administrators and teachers with respect to advancement. work load. work itself. and reward. The results also indicated that significant differences existed between elementary and secondary teachers with respect to overall job satisfaction. advance- ment. supervision. work load. work itself. and reward (Tables 4.19- 4.24). No significant differences were found between elementary and secondary administrators with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. 119.412: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational level. The results shown in Table 4.25 indicated that no significant differences were found between administrators and teachers in different educational-1 evel groups with respect to organizational climate and its subscales. 1:19.111: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational level. The results shown in Tables 4.27 through 4.29 indicated that significant differences were found between respondents in different 167 educational-level groups with respect to overall job satisfaction. advancement. and work Toad. 1194;: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational experience. As shown in Table 4.30. the results indicated that no significant differences were found between teachers and administrators in different educational-experience groups with respect to their per- ceptions of organizational climate and its subscales. M: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to educational experience. The results indicated that significant differences were found between teachers in different educational-experience groups with regard to their perceptions of overall job satisfaction. advancement. payment. and colleagues (Tables 432-435). The results shown in Tables 4.35 and 4.36 showed that significant differences were found between administrators in different educational-experience groups with respect to their perceptions of colleagues and working conditions. 111451: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors. according to type of school building. The results indicated that significant differences were found between teachers in different types of school buildings with regard to overall climate. thrust. consideration. and aloofness (Tables 4.38- 4.41). No significant differences were found between administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to overall organiza- tional climate and its subscales. 168 fl9_5_d: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to type of school building. Significant differences were found between teachers in di f- ferent types of school buildings with respect to overall job satisfac- tion. advancement. supervision. work load. and working conditions (Tables 4.43-4.47). No significant differences were found between administrators in different types of school buildings with regard to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. 11943: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to school size. The results indicated that significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of schools with respect to overall climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit (Tables 4.49-4.52). As shown in Table 4.48. significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools only with respect to intimacy. flg_5_e: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to job satisfaction. as perceived by male administrators and teachers. according to school size. Significant differences were found between teachers in differ- ent sizes of schools with respect to advancement. responsibility. and working conditions (Tables 4.54-4.56). No significant differences existed between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. fl9_4_f: There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational district size. 169 The results shown in Tables 4.58 and 4.59 indicated that significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educational districts with respect to intimacy and hindrance. Significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of educational districts only with respect to intimacy (Table 4.58). ‘flgdij: ‘There is no statistically significant difference with respect to organizational climate. as perceived by male administra- tors and teachers. according to educational district size. Significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of educational districts with respect to overall job satisfaction. recognition. work itself. colleagues. reward. and working conditions (Tables 4.61-4.66). Significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educational districts only with respect to reward. W The respondents were provided with a list of factors that might create positive or negative climate. Respondents were asked to i ndi- cate which factors would lead to a positive climate and those that would lead to a negative climate. Respondents were also asked to choose those factors that would influence them to remain in their present position. those that might influence them to prefer other positions. and those that might cause dissatisfaction in their work. Two hundred twenty-five respondents indicated 26 factors that create a positive climate; 65 respondents indicated 18 factors that create a negative climate. Three hundred ten respondents indicated 30 factors 170 that would influence them to remain in their present position. 27 factors that would lead them to prefer other positions. and 32 factors that would make them dissatisfied with their work. W W Table 4.67 shows the importance of various soci al-system fac- tors that help to create'a positive climate. as perceived by all respondents. The results indicated that cooperation. low control (non— formal relationships between administrators and teachers. two—way com- munication. etc.). social relationships. and technical competence were among the more important factors. Among the less important factors were supervisory relations. participation. supervisory treatment. and respect. The least important factors were nonconstructive criticisms. no routine. participation of parents. and mannerisms. Table 4.67 also shows the importance of various cultural dimen- sions that help to create a positive climate. as perceived by all respondents. The results indicated that loyalty and trust in working were among the more important factors. Among the less important fac- tors were educational interest. equality in working. and specific duties. The least important factors were orientation and consideration (personal circumstances). 171 Table 4.67.-Number and percentage of respondents indicating factors that help to create a positive climate. Factor Number Percent SOCIAL-SYSTEM DIMENSION ImmuanLEacI-suzs Cooperation 110 49% Low control 86 38 Social relationships 75 33 Technical competence 74 33 W Supervisor relations 32 14 Participation 25 ll Supervisory treatment 15 7 Respected 13 6 No constructive criticism 5 2 No routine 5 2 Participation of parents 4 2 Mannerisms 2 l CULTURAL DIMENSION Loyalty in working 29 13 Trust 17 8 Educationally interesting 13 6 Equality in working 11 5 Specific duties 10 4 Orientation 6 3 a—l Consideration (personal circumstances) 3 172 Table 4.67.--Continued. Factor Number Percent MIL I EU DI MENS ION Responsibility 26 12 Appreciation 17 8 Work load 3 l ECQmY DIMENSION Enough facilities 33 15 Enough assistants 25 ll According to all respondents. the milieu-system factors that help to create a positive climate were responsibility. appreciation. and reducing work load (Table 4.67). The ecology-system factors that create a positive climate were enough facilities and enough assistants (Table 4.67). W Mega-1W Table 4.68 shows the social-system factors that help to create a negative climate. as perceived by all respondents. High control (rigidity. formality. one-way communication. custodialism. authori- tarianism). crowded classrooms in school. and routine activities were among the more important factors. Among the less important factors were nontechnical competence. no social relationships. and no consid- erati on circumstance. The least important factors were inconsistent 173 Table 4.68.--Number and percentage of respondents indicating factors that help to create a negative climate. Factor Number Percent SOCIAL-SYSTEM DIMENSION High control 28 43 Crowded school 25 30 Routine activities 17 26 Nontechnical competence 7 10 No social relationships 6 9 No consideration of circumstances 4 6 W Inconsistent opinions 2 3 No parental participation 2 3 No cooperation 2 3 Insistence on one's own opinion 1 2 CULTURAL DIMENSION Nonspecific duties 3 5 Nonloyalty in working 2 3 Nonequality in working 1 2 Noneducationally interesting 1 2 MILIEU DIMENSION Heavy work load 34 52 No appreciation 8 12 ECO..OGY DIMENSION Not enough facilities 37 57 Not enough assistants 12 19 174 opinions. no parental participation. no cooperation. and insistence on one's own opinion. This table also shows that the cultural system factors that help to create a negative climate were nonspecific duties. disloyalty. inequality. and no educational interest. The milieu-system factors that created a negative climate were heavy work load and no appreciation. The ecology system factors that create a negative climate were not enough facilities and lack of assistants. EastmlbameJnfluence WWI meg-5.11.120 Table 4.69 shows the importance of various factors that respondents said would influence them to remain in their present posi- tions. Appreciation. reward. facilities. fringe benefits. reducing work load. training. educational interest. respect of society and prestige. and responsibility were among the more important factors. The less important factors were cooperation. reducing number of stu- dents in school. promotion. respected. good evaluation. loyalty. income. immediate supervisory treatment. social relationships. and participation of parents. Supervisory relationship. stimulating stu- dents. trust. taking consideration of personal circumstances. non- routine. low control. enough assistants. orientation. equality. creativity. and consideration of years of experience in education were the least important factors. 175 Table 4.69.--Number and percentage of respondents indicating factors that would influence them to remain in their present positions. Factor Number Percent Appreciation 201 65 Reward 121 39 Facilities 78 25 Fringe benefits 73 24 Reducing work load 71 23 More training 68 22 Educationally interesting 61 20 Respect of society and prestige 50 16 More responsibility 47 15 Cooperation in position 43 14 Reducing number of students in school 39 13 A chance for promotion 34 ll Respected in work 33 11 Evaluation (fairness of written reports) 30 10 Loyalty in position 30 10 Income 29 9 Immediate supervisory treatment 27 9 Social relationship 20 7 Participation of parents 20 7 LEW Supervisory relationships 19 6 Stimulating students 15 5 Trust 15 5 Consideration of personal circumstances l3 4 No routine activities 12 4 Low control 11 4 Enough assistants ll 4 Orientation ll 4 Equality in work 10 3 Creativity 3 1 Consideration of experience 3 l 176 WWW WW5 Table 4.70 shows the importance of various factors that respondents said would lead them to prefer other positions (leaving teachingh. Lack of appreciation. heavy work load. low respect of society and prestige. no reward. fringe benefits. little training. no chance for promotion. and not enough facilities were among the more important factors. The less important factors were no cooperation. not enough income. no educational interest. responsibility. no respect. no loyalty. no participation of parents. job is routine. no stimulating students. and evaluation. ‘The least important factors were not enough assistants. crowded classrooms in school. no creativity. no orienta- tion. no equality. no supervisory treatment. no supervisory relation- ship. no social relationship. and nonconstructive criticisms. WW W215 Table 4:71 shows the importance of various factors that respondents said would make them feel dissatisfied with their work. The results indicated that lack of appreciation. heavy work load. no reward. not enough facilities. no respect of society and prestige. evaluation. little responsibility. crowded classrooms. and lack of training weere considered important factors. The less important fac- tors were no respect. no cooperation. routine activities. no equality. no parental participation. no loyalty. no fringe benefits. no stimu- lating students. and high control. ‘The least important factors were not educationally interesting. no consideration of personal 177 Table 4.70.--Number and percentage of respondents indicating factors that would influence them to prefer other positions. Factor Number Percent Lack of appreciation 121 40 Heavy work load 101 33 No respect of society and prestige 79 26 No reward 76 25 Fringe benefits 65 21 Little training opportunity 49 16 No chance for promotion 42 14 Not enough facilities (school supplies. 40 13 instructional materials. school building) No cooperation in job 31 10 Not enough income 30 10 Not educationally interesting 26 8 Little responsibility 25 8 Not respected in job 18 6 No loyalty in work 17 6 No parent participation 13 4 Job is routine 12 4 No stimulating students 12 4 Evaluation (unfairness of written reports) 12 4 Not enough assistants lO 3 Overcrowding in school 8 3 No creativity 8 3 No orientation 3 1 No equality in work 3 1 No supervisory treatment 3 1 No supervisory relationships 3 1 No social relationships 3 1 Nonconstructive criticism 2 l 178 Table 4.7l.--Number and percentage of respondents indicating factors that would make them dissatisfied with their work. Factor Number Percent ImperianLEamLs Lack of appreciation 100 32 Heavy work load 75 24 No reward 57 18 Not enough facilities 53 17 No respect of society and prestige 50 16 Evaluation (unfairness of written reports) 47 16 Little responsibility 35 ll Crowded conditions in school 35 11 Few training opportunities 35 11 W Not respected in work 33 10 No cooperation 31 10 Routine activities 29 9 No equality in work 28 9 No parental participation 28 9 No loyalty in work 27 9 Fringe benefits 27 9 No stimulating students 26 8 High control 24 8 Not educationally interesting No consideration of personal circumstances Nonconstructive criticism No»immediate supervisory treatment Student discipline No chance for promotion Not enough income Not enough assistants No orientation Hypocrisy Lack of trust Differences in viewpoint No social relationships No consideration of experience d—Id—i—J—I—I—a hoomqmowwwchooo dNNNNWUh-bhmalaioi 179 circumstances. nonconstructive criticisms. no immediate supervisory treatment. discipline of students. no chance for promotion. not enough income. not enough assistants. no orientation. hypocrisy. lack of trust. differences in viewpoints. no social relationships. and no consideration of experience. WWW Respondents were asked to share their opinions regarding the questionnaires used in the study. Several of them mentioned drawbacks with the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDO). Sev- eral respondents said that the 0000 neglects the relationship between students and teachers and just focuses on the relationship between teachers and principal. although students are a very important factor that could affect the school climate. Hoy and Appleberry (1970) stated that if interactions among teachers and between teachers and principals are authentic in humanistic schools. then it seems reasonable to hypothesize that authenticity will also tend to pervade teacher-pupil interactions. The questionnaire also ignores student discipline and the relationship between the school and students' parents. The 0000 also fails to consider educational guidance (teacher evaluation) and the facilities available in schools that create a positive climate. In general. respondents noted that items in the 0000 are unclear and that they should be stated in longer phrases to add clarity. Previous researchers have also noted the fact that the OCDQ neglects to consider student and facility dimensions. Hoy (1972) stated that one of the limitations of the OCDO's conceptualization of 180 school climate is that it neglects interactions with students and is concerned only with the social interaction between teachers and principals. Concerning the Job Satisfaction Questionnaires (J80) admin- istered in this study. respondents thought these questionnaires ignored fringe benefits and extracurricular activities. which affect job satis- faction. Respondents noted that the JSOs were confusing because they contained about 50% undirected items. .Qbseuamzns As part of this study. the researcher observed teachers'-and administrators' behavior with respect to organizational climate and job satisfaction in the schools. The researcher observed that school climate was heavily dependent on the technical competence of princi- pals. If the principal had more experience and a higher educational level. the school was perceived to have a positive climate. Principals who had technical competence were able to«create a pleasant relation- ship among teachers. Teachers worked well together. with more coop- eration and intimacy. Positive climate also depended on other factors. such as two~ way communication between teachers and the principal. Teachers in small schools had two-way communication; that is. administrators commu- nicated freely with teachers. and ihe teachers communicated among themselves. A pleasant relationship with high intimacy and esprit was also observed. Teachers worked together and accomplished their work 181 with greater enthusiasm and pleasure. They drank their tea together during break time. and both Saudis and non-Saudis enjoyed socializing with each other. They had small numbers of students in their classes. which allowed them to interact more with students in the classroom. and they seemed to enjoy being together in the classroom setting. Teachers who had more experience in education enjoyed more pleasant relationships and were friendlier than teachers who had less experience. ‘They also cooperated more with administrators. However. no behavioral differences were observed between teachers who had higher and lower qualifications. Administrators who had more than 30 years of experience in education and lower academic degrees tended to be formal and authori- tarian in their relationships. ‘They made unilateral decisions and were aloof and impersonal in controlling and directing the teachers' activi- ties. ‘They emphasized production and did not attempt to motivate the teachers. Likewise. they did not give teachers the necessary freedom to act and to be creative. They tended to perceive school climate as closed. The researcher observed that school size was an important factor affecting school climate. Teachers in larger schools had less intimacy and socialized less with other teachers. They sat in di ffer- ent rooms and did not work well together. They were less friendly with each other and tended to perceive school climate as negative. In general. it was observed that the larger the school. the more crowded the classes. the heavier the work load of both administrators and 182 teachers. and the fewer relationships between and among administrators and teachers. Another factor that was observed to affect school climate was type of school building. Teachers in nonrented schools had more facilities than those in rented or prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented schools enjoyed working together and tended to perceive the school climate as more open. They had larger working areas. were more motivated. and enjoyed their work more. On the other hand. teachers in rented and prefabricated schools felt uncomfortable with their build- ings. Concerning school level. elementary teachers had friendlier relationships with each other than did secondary teachers. who confined their relationships to small groups. In general. certain schools were perceived as having a more positive climate than others. These schools had administrators with high technical competence. informal relationships. flexibility in treatment. more facilities. and good supervision. In addition. the teachers model ed themselves after the administrators. who set a good example by working hard both during and after school hours. In these schools. the administrator gave teachers an opportunity to make decisions. which motivated them to work harder and to be active. effective teachers whose work was respected. In terms of formal and informal administration styles. two schools were observed. The first school had an administrator with an informal style of administration. In this school. administrators made 183 an extra effort to be aware of what was occurring in their school with respect to the curricula and students' learning and extracurricular activities. The principal visited other schools to see if improve- ments could be made in the organizational climate. Teachers had direct communication with the administrators. This school also had better instructional facilities. and its climate tended to be positive. In the second school. the administrators tended to manage the school in a very formal. businesslike manner. The administrators usually worked in their offices the entire day. In this school. teach- ers expressed less satisfaction with their relationship with the admin- istrators. Concerning job satisfaction. administrators and teachers in small schools were more satisfied with their,jobs because they had a small number of students in the-classroom. They were more satisfied with their colleagues and had more opportunities to hold responsible positions within the school system. In general. they were satisfied with their jobs. Conversely. administrators and teachers in larger schools were less satisfied with their colleagues and with the amount of responsibility they were given. Administrators in larger schools were less satisfied with their work load because they had many duties and not enough assistants. Administrators who had more opportunity for training and those who had informal relationships with teachers were more satisfied with their work and in their relationships with teachers. ‘They were less satisfied with recognition than teachers. Teachers expressed 184 satisfaction with administrators who were flexible. gave teachers responsibilities. participated in school activities. showed respect and appreciation for teachers. and worked diligently. In general. teachers and administrators were more satisfied in the schools with a positive climate. Elementary school teachers were more satisfied with training than were secondary school teachers. They had more opportunity to complete their study at community colleges. Also. elementary school teachers were more satisfied than secondary teachers with the number of teaching hours per week but were less satisfied with the work itself. Most of the elementary school teachers had diplomas from secondary teacher training institutes or junior colleges; a few of them had upgrading center diplomas. and very few had bachelor's degrees. Teachers who had upgrading center and secondary institute diplomas were more satisfied with their training than were those who had bachelor's degrees. In conclusion. it was observed that teachers were more satisfied in schools that had administrators who-engaged in informal relation- ships; were participative. flexible. capable. and skilled; gave them responsibility and the freedom to act and create; could influence. motivate. and trust them; who worked hard and considered teachers' personal circumstances. appreciated them. and wrote fair evaluative reports. In addition. teachers in small and nonrented schools expressed greater satisfaction than teachers in other types of schools. 185 011W This study was undertaken to determine whether statistically significant differences existed between administrators and teachers concerning their perceptions of organizational climate and job satis- faction with respect to system-level and personal variables. The results of data analyses performed in this investigation were presented in this chapter. These results pertained to demographic characteris- tics of respondents. the results of correlational analyses. analyses of variance. responses to the open-ended items. the subjects' assessment of the research instruments. and the researcher's observation of organizational climate and job satisfaction in selected schools. A summary of the study. the findings. general and specific conclusions. and recommendations for program implementation. instrument construction. and further research are provided in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary In Saudi Arabia there is a need to create a good organizational climate and high job satisfaction to improve city public schools. This study was undertaken to offer information that superintendents. super- visors. administrators. and teachers in those schools can use to improve school climate and job satisfaction. The purpose of the study was twofold. First. the researcher sought to determine the relationship between organizational climate. job satisfaction. system-level variables (school size and educational district size). and personal variables (total years of educational experience)-as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers in Saudi Arabia. The second purpose was to determine if differences existed between administrators'-and teachers' perceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction. according to selected system-level variables (position. school level. type of school build- ing. school size. and educational district size) and personal variables (total years of educational experience and educational levelL The following five key research questions were posed to guide the collection of data in this study: 186 187 1. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers? 2. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational expe- rience. school size. and educational district size? 3. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size? 4. Do any statistically significant differences exist between organizational climate. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respond- ent's position level. school level. educational level. educational experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? 5. Do any statistically significant differences exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers. according to respondentfis position level. school level. educational level. educa- tional experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? Cluster sampling was used in this study. The population from which the sample was drawn included administrators and teachers in eight cities (Jeddah. Medina. Dammam. Tabbuk. Buraidah. Najran. Hail. and Abha). which were randomly selected. using a table of random num- bers. from the total number of 16 cities in Saudi Arabia. Two lists of schools were prepared. one of elementary schools and one of secondary schools in the eight cities. Twenty secondary schoolsand 21 elemen- tary schools were randomly selected from these lists. Then administra- tors and teachers were selected from each school. Eighty-four male administrators were selected (40 elementary administrators and 44 sec- ondary administrators). Two hundred fifty-five male elementary school 188 teachers and 188 male secondary school teachers were also selected. A total of 527 potential respondents or 10% of the population of 5.435 administrators and teachers. were selected for the sample. The researcher personally delivered all questionnaires to the respondents. A total of 448 individuals or 85% of the sample returned completed instruments. Forty-five (9%) of those sampled refused to participate. 30 (5%) returned instruments that were not usable. and 5 (1%) said they were willing to participate but had personal problems that precluded their taking part in the study. The length of service in education differed among the four subgroups of respondents. On the average. elementary administrators had the longest service. with a mean of TLA years. followed by secondary administrators. with a mean of 15.1 years. Similarly. elementary teachers (mean of 11.2 years) had longer service than did secondary teachers (mean of 7.0 years). As for educational level. 93% of the secondary administrators had college diplomas. whereas only 20.5% of the elementary administra- tors had college diplomas. A majority (85.2%) of the secondary teach- ers had college diplomas. and a majority (56%) of the elementary teachers held diplomas from secondary institutes. Most of the respondents were married. and their ages ranged from 19 to 58 years. with a mean of 32.6 years. Of the 41 schools included in the study. 27 were nonrented. 10 were rented. and 4 were prefabricated. Most of the schools were either medium or small in size (699 or fewer students). 189 The researcher adapted the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) (Halpin 8. Croft. 1966) to measure organizational climate in the schools included in this study. The instrument con- tained 67 items for both administrators and teachers. The eight sub- scales for organizational climate were aloofness. production emphasis. thrust. consideration. disengagement. hindrance. esprit. and intimacy. The reliability coefficient for the OCDQ was .8934. Lester (1983) developed the Teacher Job Satisfaction Question- naire (TJSQ) to measure teacher job satisfaction. The researcher adapted that instrument in developing the Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (PJSQ) to measure principal job satisfaction. These questionnaires contained 71 items and 11 subscales: supervision. col- leagues. working conditions. pay. responsibility. work itself. advance- ment. security. recognition. work load. and reward. The reliability coefficient of the TJSQ was .93. and that of the PJSQ was .8493. Educational experience denoted the total years of experience in education; it was divided into five subgroups. School size referred to student enrollment and was divided into four subgroups (small. medium. large. and larger). Educational district size denoted the number of teachers in the school district and was divided into four subgroups for administrators and teachers. Types of school buildings were classified as nonrented. rented. and prefabricated. School levels were classified as elementary and secondary levels. and positions were classified as administrator and teacher. Educational levels were 190 classified as upgrading center. secondary institute. junior college. and bachelor's degree. Null hypotheses were formulated to analyze the data collected in the study. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the statistical analyses. Correlation matrices were used to analyze the relationship between organizational climate. job satis- faction. educational experience. school size. and educational district size. The .05 significance level was used for all tests. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differ- ences between subgroups in their perceptions of job satisfaction and organizational climate. according to the system-level variables (posi- tion level. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size) and personal variables (educational experi- ence and educational level). The .05 significance level was used for these tests. as welL. Thkey post-hoc analyses were performed to deter- mine pairwise differences between subgroups when the ANOVA tests indi- cated the existence of statistically significant differences. findings This section contains the findings for each research question posed in the study. The respondents were classified into four subgroups: elementary administrators. secondary administrators. elementary teachers. and secondary teachers. The dependent variables were organizational climate and job satisfaction. Organizational climate was measured by overall climate and eight subscales: intimacy. thrust. disengagement. consideration. esprit. aloofness. hindrance. and 191 production. Job satisfaction was measured by overall satisfaction and 11 subscales: advancement. supervision. payment. recognition. respon- sibility. work load. work itself. colleagues. reward. working condi- tions. and security. The independent variables for the correlation analyses were system-level variables (school size and educational dis- trict size) and personal variables (educational experience). The inde- pendent variables for ANOVA were system-level variables (position. school level. type of school building. school size. and educational district size) and personal variables (educational experience and edu- cational level). In the pages that follow. each research question is restated. followed by the findings for that question. WW Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organi- zational climate and job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administrators and teachers? W Only one subscale of job satisfaction was significantly related to overall climate for administrators--the work itself. Work itself was negatively related to overall openness of climate. For teachers. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. recognition. responsibility. work load. reward. and working conditions were positively related to overall climate. whereas work itself was negatively related to overall openness of climate. 1111.11.51. Overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. and responsibility were positively related to thrust for administrators. 192 For teachers. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. recogni- tion. responsibility. work load. colleagues. and working conditions were positively related to thrust. mm For administrators. work itself was positively related to disengagement. whereas colleagues was negatively related to disengagement. For teachers. work itself was positively related to disengagement. while overall satisfaction. recognition. and reward were negatively related to disengagement. £50131. Responsibility was positively related to esprit for administrators. For teachers. overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. responsibility. work load. colleagues. reward. and working conditions were positively related to esprit. 1111151131193. For administrators. the relationships between overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. and colleagues with hindrance for all negative. For teachers. work itself was positively related to hindrance. whereas reward was negatively related to hin- drance. W Does a statistically significant relationship exist between organi- zational climate. as perceived by male city public school adminis- trators and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size? ‘Qxeza11_g11mate. Overall climate was not significantly related to educational experience. as perceived by administrators and teach- ers. 193 Overall climate was negatively related to school size. as perceived by teachers. Teachers in small schools tended to perceive more open climate than those in larger schools. For administrators. overall climate was not significantly related to school size. Further. overall climate was not significantly related to educational district size. as perceived by administrators and teachers. .lntimagy. Intimacy was positively related to educational experience. as perceived by administrators. The more educational experience the administrator had. the more intimacy he perceived. For teachers. intimacy was not significantly related to educational experi- ence. Intimacy was negatively related to school size. as perceived by teachers. The smaller the school. the more intimacy. For administra- tors. intimacy was not significantly related to school size. Intimacy was positively related to educational district size. as perceived by administrators. The larger the educational district. the more the intimacy. For teachers. intimacy was not significantly related to educational district size. .Ihrnsj. Thrust was negatively related to school size. as perceived by teachers. The smaller the school. the more thrust teachers perceived. Thrust was not significantly related to school size as perceived by administrators. Thrust was not significantly related to educational experience or educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. 194 .leengagemenx. Disengagement was not significantly related to educational experience. school size. or educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. Consideration. Consideration was positively related only to educational district size as perceived by administrators. The larger the educational district. the more the consideration. For teachers. consideration was not significantly related to educational district size. Consideration was not related to educational experience or school size as perceived by administrators and teachers. ,Esprit. Esprit was positively related to educational experience as perceived by administrators and teachers. Esprit was negatively related to school size as perceived by teachers. For teachers. the smaller the school the more the esprit. Esprit was not significantly related to school size as perceived by administrators. Esprit was not significantly related to educational district size or educational experience as perceived by administrators and teachers. WWW. These three variables were not significantly related to educational experience. school size. or educational district size as perceived by administra- tors and teachers. WM Does a statistically significant relationship exist between job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administra- tors and teachers. and educational experience. school size. and educational district size? 195 ‘deLa11_1gb_satjsjagt1on. Overall job satisfaction was positively related to educational experience as perceived by administrators. ‘The more educational experience. the more the satisfaction administrators perceived. Overall job satisfaction was not significantly related to educational experience as perceived by teachers. Overall job satisfaction was positively related to educational district size as perceived by administrators. The larger the educa- tional district. the more satisfaction administrators perceived. How- ever. overall job satisfaction was not related to educational district size as perceived by teachers. Overall job satisfaction was not significantly related to school size as perceived by administrators and teachers. .Supenxision. Supervision was positively related to educational district size as perceived by administrators. The larger the educational district. the more satisfied administrators were with the supervision. For teachers. supervision was not significantly related to educational district size. Likewise. supervision was not significantly related to educational experience or school size as perceived by administrators and teachers. .EflanEU; Payment was positively related to educational experience as perceived by teachers. The more experience teachers had. the more their satisfaction with payment. For administrators. payment was not significantly related to educational experience. Neither was 196 payment significantly related to school size or educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. .Begognltion. Recognition was negatively related to school size for teachers. ‘The smaller the school. the more satisfied teachers were with recognition. For administrators. recognition was not signifi- cantly related to school size. Recognition was positively related to educational district size as perceived by administrators. Administrators in larger educational districts were more satisfied with recognition than were those in small educational districts. For teachers. recognition was not significantly related to educational district size. In addition. recognition was not significantly related to educational experience as perceived by administrators and teachers. WM Responsibility was negatively related to school size as perceived by teachers. The smaller the school. the more satisfied teachers were with responsibility. For administrators. responsibility was not significantly related to school size. Neither was responsibility significantly related to educational experience or educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. W Work itself was positively related to educational district size as perceived by administrators. The larger the educa- tional district. the more satisfied administrators were with the work itself. For teachers. work itself was not significantly related to educational district size. Moreover. work itself was not significantly 197 related to educational experience or school size as perceived by admin- istrators and teachers. ‘Bewaxfi. Reward was negatively related to educational experience as perceived by administrators. The more educational experience they had. the less satisfied administrators were with reward. For teachers. reward was not significantly related to educational experience. Reward was negatively related to school size as perceived by administrators. The smaller the school. the more satisfied administra- tors were with reward. For teachers. reward was not significantly related to school size. In addition. reward was not significantly related to educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. .Wgnking_ggnditions. Working conditions were positively related to educational experience as perceived by administrators and teachers. The more experience administrators and teachers had. thermore satisfied they were with working conditions. Working conditions were negatively related to school size as perceived by teachers. The smaller the school. the more satisfied teachers were with working conditions. For administrators. working conditions was not significantly related to school size. Neither was working conditions significantly related to educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. Wm- These four variables were not significantly related to educational experience. 198 school size. or educational district size as perceived by administra- tors and teachers. WM Do any statistically significant differences exist between organi- zational climate. as perceived by male city public school adminis- trators and teachers. according to respondent's position level. school level. educational level. educational experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? W The results indicated that administrators rated overall climate as more positive than did teachers and that elementary teachers rated overall climate as more positive than did secondary teachers. This result revealed that administrators tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than teachers. and similarly. among teachers. elementary teachers tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than did secondary teachers. No differences existed in ratings of overall climate for elementary and secondary administrators. Overall organizational climate and its subscales were not significantly related to educational level as perceived by adminis- trators and teachers. No significant differences were found between educational-level subgroups with respect to overall organizational climate and its subscales. Overall organizational climate and its subscales were not sig- nificantly related to total years of educational experience as per- ceived by administrators and teachers. No significant differences were found between educational-experience subgroups with respect to organi- zational climate and its subscales. 199 Overall organizational climate was related to the type of school building as perceived by teachers. Significant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and prefabricated schools and between teachers in rented and prefabricated schools. Teachers in nonrented schools rated overall climate higher than did those in pre- fabricated schools; also. teachers in rented schools rated overall climate higher than did those in prefabricated schools. The results revealed that teachers in nonrented and rented schools tended to per- ceive school climate as being more open than did teachers in prefabri- cated schools. whereas there were no differences in the ratings of overall climate as perceived by administrators in different types of school buildings. Significant differences were found between teachers in small and larger schools and between teachers in medium and larger schools in their ratings of overall climate. Teachers in small and medium schools rated overall climate significantly higher than did those in larger schools. Teachers in small schools (399 and fewer students) and those in medium schools (400-699 students) perceived the school climate to be more open than did teachers in larger schools (l.OOO+ students). As school size increased. school climate tended to be more closed. How- ever. the smaller the school. the more positive the climate. No sig- nificant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools. in their ratings of overall climate. 200 No significant differences were found between educational district size with respect to overall climate as perceived by administrators and teachers. .Intimacy. Administrators in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did those in large schools. Similarly. teachers in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did teachers in medium schools. Also. teachers in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did those in large schools. For administrators and teachers. the smaller the school the higher the intimacy. Administrators ininedium educational districts expressed higher intimacy than did those in small districts. Also. administrators in larger districts expressed higher intimacy than those in small dis- tricts. Similarly. teachers in medium educational districts rated intimacy significantly higher than did those in small educational districts. and teachers in larger districts perceived intimacy as being significantly higher than did their counterparts in small districts. Inuit. Administrators' rating of thrust was significantly higher than that of teachers. Among administrators. elementary school administrators rated thrust significantly higher than did secondary school administrators. No significant difference was found between elementary and secondary teachers with respect to thrust. Teachers in nonrented schools rated thrust significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. In addition. teachers in rented schools rated thrust significantly higher than those in 201 prefabricated schools. There was no significant difference between administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to thrust. Concerning school size. teachers in small schools rated thrust significantly higher than those in large schools; also. teachers in medium schools rated thrust significantly higher than did those in large schools. Finally. teachers in large schools rated thrust significantly higher than did those in larger schools. The results indicated that. for teachers. the smaller the school the higher the thrust. No significant difference was found between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to thrust. W. Disengagement was related only to school level; secondary school teachers rated disengagement higher than did elemen- tary school teachers. No differences were found between administrators and teachers or among administrators in their ratings of disengagement. .ansldenatlgn. Consideration was significantly related to position level. Administrators' ratings of consideration were signifi- cantly higher than those of teachers. Teachers in nonrented schools rated consideration higher than did teachers in prefabricated schools. Similarly. teachers in rented schools rated consideration higher than did their counterparts in prefabricated schools. No differences were found in the ratings of consideration between administrators from different types of school buildings. 202 .Esprit. Esprit was related to school level. Elementary teachers rated esprit higher than did secondary teachers. No differ- ences in the rating of esprit were found between administrators and teachers or among administrators. Teachers in small schools rated esprit higher than did those in large schools; teachers in small schools rated esprit higher than did those in larger schools. No significant differences were found in the ratings of esprit by administrators in different sizes of schools. .Alooiness. Aloofness related only to type of school building. Teachers in nonrented schools rated aloofness lower than did teachers in prefabricated schools. Also. teachers in rented schools rated aloofness lower than did those in prefabricated schools. No signifi- cant differences were found between teachers in nonrented and rented schools with respect to aloofness. Likewise. no significant difference was found in ratings of aloofness by administrators in different types of school buildings. ‘Hjndzange. This subscale was related only to educational district size. Teachers in large districts rated hindrance signifi- cantly higher than did those in small districts; teachers in large districts rated hindrance significantly higher than did those in medium districts; and teachers in larger districts rated hindrance signifi- cantly higher than did their counterparts in large districts. No significant differences were found in the ratings of hindrance as perceived by administrators in educational districts of different sizes. 203 MW. Production emphasis was related only to position level. Administrators rated production emphasis significantly higher than did teachers. No significant differences were found in ratings of production emphasis among administrators or among teachers from different school levels. W 00 any statistically significant differences exist between‘job satisfaction. as perceived by male city public school administra- tors and teachers. according to respondent's position level. school level. educational level. educational experience. type of school building. school size. and educational district size? No significant difference was found in overall satisfaction as perceived by administrators and teachers or by elementary and secondary administrators. However. elementary teachers were significantly more satisfied than secondary teachers. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas had higher over- all satisfaction than those with junior college diplomas; respondents with upgrading center diplomas had higher overall satisfaction than did those who held bachelor's degrees. No significant differences were found between respondents with other types of diplomas. in their rat- ings of overall job satisfaction. Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience had higher overall .job satisfaction than those with 6 to 10 years of experience. Other educational-experience subgroups were similar in their ratings of overall job satisfaction. For administrators. no significant differences were found between educational-experience groups with respect to job satisfaction. 204 Type of school building affected overall job satisfaction. Teachers in nonrented schools rated overall job satisfaction signifi- cantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools; likewise. teachers in rented schools rated overall job satisfaction significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. But teachers in non- rented and rented schools rated overall satisfaction the same. No significant differences were found among administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to overall job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was not significantly related to school size as perceived by administrators and teachers. No signifi- cant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. Significant differences existed between teachers in different sizes of schools with respect to overall job satisfaction. Although not sig- nificant. the results showed that administrators and teachers in small schools (399 or fewer students) tended to have higher job satisfaction than their counterparts in other sizes of schools. Administrators in medium educational districts were more satisfied in their jobs than were those in small districtS. Also. administrators in larger districts were more satisfied overall than were those in small districts. No significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of districts with regard to overall job satisfaction. Went. No significant differences were found between elementary and secondary administrators in their perceptions of 205 advancement. However. administrators were significantly more satis- fied with advancement than were teachers. Similarly. elementary teach- ers were significantly more satisfied than secondary teachers with advancement. Significant differences were found between only two educational-level subgroups with respect to advancement. Respondents who held upgrading center diplomas were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were those who held bachelor's degrees. Teachers with 16 to 20 years of educational experience were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were teachers with 6 to 10 years or 11 to 15 years of experience. No significant differ- ences were found between administrators in difference educational- experience subgroups with respect to advancement. Teachers in nonrented schools were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were those in prefabricated schools. No sig- nificant differences were found between administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to advancement. Teachers from medium schools were significantly more satisfied with advancement than were those in large schools. Teachers in other sizes of schools perceived advancement the same. No significant differences existed between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to advancement. .§fl2§£¥1§19n. Supervision was related only to school level and type of school building. Elementary teachers were significantly more satisfied than secondary teachers with supervision. No significant 206 differences were found between administrators and teachers or between elementary and secondary administrators with respect to supervision. Teachers in rented schools rated supervision significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. No significant differences were found between administrators from different types of school buildings in their ratings of supervision. ,Eeynunu; Payment was related only to educational experience for teachers. ‘Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience were sig- nificantly more satisfied with payment than were those with l‘to 5 years or 6 to 10 years of experience. No significant differences were found between administrators in different educational-experience subgroups with respect to payment. .Beeegn1119n. Recognition was related only to educational district size for administrators. Administrators in large districts were significantly more satisfied with recognition than were those in small districts. Administrators in other sizes of districts perceived recognition the same. No significant differences were noted between teachers in different sizes of educational districts with respect to recognition. .Bespensjbjlity. Responsibility was related only to school size for teachers. Significant differences were found between teachers in two sizes of schools: Teachers in small schools rated responsibil- ity higher than did those in large schools. No significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to responsibility. 207 Weed. Work load was related to four independent variables: position. school level. educational level. and type of school building. Administrators were significantly more satisfied with work load than were teachers. Also. elementary teachers were significantly more satisfied than secondary teachers with work load. No significant difference was found between elementary and secondary administrators with respect to work load. Respondents who held diplomas from upgrading centers and from secondary teacher training institutes were significantly more satis- fied with work load than were those who held bachelor's degrees. No significant differences were found between other educational-level subgroups with respect to work load. Significant differences with respect to work load were found between teachers in two types of school buildings: Teachers in nonrented schools rated work load significantly higher than did those in prefabricated schools. No significant differences were found between administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to work load. .Wenk_1tee11. Work itself was related to only three independent variables: position. school level. and educational district size. Significant differences were found between administrators and teachers and among teachers with respect to work itself. 'Teachers were more satisfied with work itself than were administrators. and secondary teachers were more satisfied than elementary teachers with work 208 itself. No significant differences were found between elementary and secondary administrators with respect to work itself. A significant difference was found between administrators in two sizes of educational districts with respect to work itself. Admin- istrators in larger districts were significantly more satisfied with work itself than were those in smaller districts. No significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educa- tional districts with respect to work itself. .Celleegnes. Colleagues was related to only two variables: educational experience and educational district size. A significant difference was found between administrators in two educational- experience subgroups. .Administrators with 6 to 10 years of experience were significantly more satisfied with colleagues than were administra- tors with l to 5 years of experience. Also. teachers with l to.5 years of educational experience were significantly more satisfied with col- leagues than were those with 11 to 15 years of experience. A significant difference was found between administrators in two sizes of educational districts. Administrators ininedium districts were significantly more satisfied with colleagues than were adminis- trators in small districts. No significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of districts with regard to col- leagues. ,Beuenfi. Reward was related to three variables: position. school level. and educational district size. In terms of position and school level. teachers were significantly more satisfied with reward 209 than were administrators; and secondary school teachers were signifi- cantly more satisfied than elementary teachers with reward. No sig- nificant differences were found between elementary and secondary administrators with regard to reward. According to district size. significant differences were found between administrators in only two sizes of districts. Administrators in large educational districts were significantly more satisfied with reward than were those in small districts. Also. teachers in large districts were significantly more-satisfied with reward than were their counterparts in small and medium districts. fleckjngJenejjjens. Working conditions was related to four variables: educational experience. type of building. school size. and educational district size. A significant difference was found between administrators in only two educational-experience subgroups: Adminis- trators with 21 years or more of experience were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were those with 6 to 10 years of experience. No significant differences existed between teachers in different educational-experience subgroups with respect to working con- ditions. Teachers in nonrented schools were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were those in prefabricated schools; similarly. teachers in rented schools were significantly more satis- fied with working conditions than were those in prefabricated schools. No significant differences were found between administrators in dif- ferent types of schools with regard to working conditions. 210 A significant difference was found between teachers in only two sizes of schools: Teachers in medium schools were significantly more satisfied with working conditions than were those in larger schools. No significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to working conditions. A significant difference was found between administrators in different sizes of educational districts with respect to working conditions. -Administrators in medium districts were more satisfied with working conditions than were those in small districts. In addition. significant differences were found between administrators in small and larger educational districts; those in larger districts were more satisfied with working conditions than their counterparts in small districts. No significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educational districts with respect to working conditions. Security. ANOVA was used to test whether the means of the groups differed significantly from each other. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in the perception of security between subgroups according to any of the system-level or personal variables. as perceived by administrators and teachers. 5.009.115.1005 Was The following general conclusions were revealed in this study. 1. A significant correlation was found between overall open- ness of climate and overall job satisfaction and some aspects of 211 occupational climate and some aspects of job satisfaction as perceived by administrators and teachers. 2. Overall climate and some aspects of occupational climate and some aspects of job satisfaction were negatively related to school size as perceived by teachers. Teachers in smaller schools tended to per- ceive a more open climate than did teachers in larger schools. For administrators. overall climate and its subscales and overall job satisfaction and its subscales were not significantly related to school size. except for reward. which was negatively related to school size. Overall job satisfaction and some aspects of the PJSQ and some aspects of the OCDQ were positively correlated to educational district size. For teachers. overall climate and its subscales and overall job satis- faction and its subscales were not significantly related to educational district size. 3. Overall job satisfaction was positively related to educa- tional experience as perceived by administrators. while overall job satisfaction was not significantly related to educational experience for teachers. However. payment and working conditions were positively related to educational experience. Overall climate and its subscales were not significantly related to educational experience.-as perceived by administrators and teachers. An exception was esprit. which was positively related to educational experience for both administrators and teachers and to intimacy for administrators. 4. In general. aloofness. hindrance. and production emphasis (seme'aspects of the OCDQ) and advancement. work load. colleagues. and 212 security (some aspects of job satisfaction) were not significantly related to educational experience. school size. and educational district size as perceived by administrators and teachers. 5. Administrators tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than did teachers. Similarly. elementary teachers tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than did secondary teachers. Significant differences were found between administrators and teachers with respect to intimacy. consideration. and production emphasis. Significant differences were found between elementary and secondary teachers with respect to disengagement. whereas no signifi- cant differences were found between elementary and secondary adminis- trators with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. and overall climate and its subscales. except for thrust. On that dimension. elementary administrators were significantly more satisfied than were secondary administrators. No significant differences were found between administrators and teachers with respect to overall job satisfaction. whereas significant differences were found between administrators and teachers with respect to some'aspects of job satis- faction. such as advancement. work load. work itself. and reward. 6. Overall climate and its subscales. as perceived by both administrators and teachers. were not significantly related to educa- tional level or total years of educational experience. However. sig- nificant differences were found between educational-level groups with regard to overall job satisfaction. advancement. and work load. Sig- nificant differences were found between teachers in different 213 educational-experience groups with regard to overall job satisfaction. advancement. payment. and colleagues. For administrators. significant differences were found between educational-experience subgroups only with respect to colleagues and working conditions. 7. Significant differences were found between teachers in different types of school buildings with regard to overall climate and some of its aspects. such as thrust. consideration. and aloofness. and with regard to overall job satisfaction and some of its aspects. such as advancement. supervision. work load. and working conditions. No significant differences were found between administrators in different types of school buildings with respect to overall climate and its subscales or overall job satisfaction and its subscales. 8. Significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of schools with respect to overall climate. Teachers in small schools (399 or fewer students) and those in medium schools (500-699 students) tended to perceive school climate as being more open than did teachers in larger schools-(l.000+ students). As school size increased. climate became more closed. In addition. significant dif- ferences were found between teachers in different sizes of schools with respect to some-aspects of the organizational climate. such as inti- macy. thrust. and esprit. and also with respect to someraspects of the job satisfaction. such as advancement. recognition. and working condi- tions. No significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools with respect to overall climate and its subscales or with overall satisfaction and its subscales. except on 214 subscales or with overall satisfaction and its subscales. except on intimacy. 9. No significant differences were found between teachers in different sizes of educational districts with respect to overall climate and its subscales. except for intimacy and hindrance. Like- wise. no significant difference5*were found between teachers in dif- ferent sizes of educational districts with resspect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. except for reward. For administrators significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of educational districts with regard to overall job satisfac- tion and some of its subscales. such as recognition. work itself. colleagues. reward. and working conditions. Significant differences were not found between administrators in different sizes of educa- tional districts with respect to overall climate and its subscales. except for intimacy. 10. No significant differences were found between subgroups in the perceptions of security according to all system-level and personal variables. as perceived by administrators and teachers. 11. In general. there were more similarities than differences among administrators. except when they were compared according to educational district size. On the other hand. more differences than similarities were found among teachers when they were compared according to school level. type of school building. and school size. 215 W The researcher drew the following specific conclusions from the findings that emerged from this study. 1. For administrators. overall job satisfaction. advancement. and supervision were positively related to thrust and negatively related to hindrance. Responsibility was positively related to thrust and esprit. Work itself was negatively related to overall climate and positively related to disengagement. Colleagues was nega- tively related to both hindrance and disengagement. Burek (1982) conducted a similar study on leadership styles of school principals as predictors of organizational climate and teacher job satisfaction. using the Organizational Climate Description Ques- tionnaire (0000). the Job Descriptive Index (.101). and the Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPCh. He found that a statistically significant relationship existed between some subscales of the OCDQ and five sub- scales of the .101. 2. For teachers. overall job satisfaction. advancement. supervision. responsibility. work load. and working conditions were positively related to overall climate. thrust. and esprit. Work itself was positively related to disengagement and hindrance and negatively related to overall climate. Overall satisfaction. recognition. and reward were negatively related to disengagement. Colleagues was positively related to thrust and also to esprit. Finally. reward was positively related to overall climate and esprit and negatively related to hindrance. 216 MacTaggert (1967) had similar results in his study. using the OCDQ and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire with Florida elemen- tary school teachers. He found that a high correlation existed between open climate and teacher job satisfaction. Similarly. Baklien (1980) found that the more positive the organizational climate. the higher the level of employee satisfaction. Morton (1974) found a statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate. He also found esprit and thrust to be positively correlated to job satisfaction. and disengagement to be negatively correlated to job satisfaction. By using the OCDQ. Andrews (1965) found that overall climate was related to teacher satisfaction. 3. Organizational climate was positively related to length of experience and educational district size for administrators; it was negatively related to school size for teachers. These results differ from those of Kalis (1980). who found that climate was negatively related to the amount of experience. For administrators. intimacy was positively related to length of experience and school district size. consideration was positively related to educational district size.-and esprit was positively related to length of experience. For teachers. esprit was positively related to length of experience. whereas overall climate. intimacy. thrust. and esprit were all negatively related to school size. 4. For administrators. overall satisfaction and working condi- tions were positively related to length of experience. whereas reward was negatively related to length of experience. These results differed 217 from Minor's (1983). He found no statistically significant relation- ship between the number of years served as principals and overall job satisfaction. For teachers. payment and working conditions were posi- tively related to length of experience. Job satisfaction was nega- tively related to school size for both teachers and administrators. For administrators. reward was negatively related to school size; for teachers. recognition. responsibility. and working conditions were all negatively related to school size. With respect to educational dis- trict size. only administrators' perception of job satisfaction was affected by this variable. For administrators. overall satisfaction. supervision. recognition. and work itself were positively related to educational district size. 5. In terms of position. administrators tended to perceive the school climate as being more open than did teachers. Similar results were found in Dachanuluknukul's (1977) study using the OCDQ with elementary school principals and teachers. He found that principals perceived the climate of schools to be more open than did teachers. Manuie (1976) carried out a similar study in Saudi Arabia. also using the OCDQ. He found that teachers and principals tended to perceive school climate similarly. but he discovered statistically significant differences between administrators and teachers in their perceptions of thrust. consideration. and production emphasis. In the present study. administrators rated thrust. consideration. and production more positively than did teachers. 218 Using the OCDQ with elementary school principals and teachers. Monk (1980) noted significant differences in disengagement. esprit. thrust. and production emphasis. Chinatangul (1979) also found that no significant differences existed between princi pal s' and teachers' per- ceptions of hindrance. intimacy. and aloofness. Among administrators. elementary administrators rated thrust more positively than elementary administrators. Among teachers. elementary teachers tended to perceive school climate as more open than did secondary teachers. Secondary school teachers rated disengagement higher than elementary teachers did. Sline (1981). using the 0000. found statistically significant differences between teachers on aloofness and consideration. 6. According to position. administrators were more satisfied with respect to advancement and work load than teachers. and teachers were more satisfied with respect to work itself and reward than were administrators. Among teachers. elementary teachers were more sati s- fied than secondary teachers with respect to overall satisfaction. advancement. supervision. and work load. Conversely. secondary teach- ers were more satisfied with respect to work itself and reward than were e1 ementary teachers. Similar results were found by Sonpon (1983) in his study of job satisfaction in public school districts in Liberia. He found that elementary teachers were more satisfied than any other teacher group. Birmingham (1984) found that elementary teachers were more satisfied than their secondary colleagues. Likewise. the National Education Association (1982) found that elementary school teachers were the most 219 satisfied and that senior high school teachers were the most dissatis- fied (in Lester. 1983). Lester (1983) noted conflicting results. She found significant differences between groups on the factors of working conditions. payment. work itself. supervision. responsibility. and colleagues; elementary school teachers were more satisfied than senior high school teachers on all of the factors except supervision. In the present study. no differences were found between administrators in the perceptions of overall job satisfaction and its subscales. 7. With respect to organizational climate. no significant differences were found between educational-level groups with respect to overall organizational climate and its subscales. 8. In terms of educational level. respondents who held upgrad- ing center diplomas were more satisfied with overall job satisfaction than were those who held junior college diplomas or bachelor's degrees. Respondents who-had upgrading center diplomas were more satisfied with advancement and work load than those who held bachelor's degrees. Respondents who held diplomas from secondary teacher training insti- tutes were more satisfied with work load than were respondents who held bachelor's degrees. 9. With respect to organizational climate. no significant differences were found between educational-experience subgroups with respect to overall organizational climate and its subscales as per- ceived by administrators and teachers. But Kalis (1980) found that climate was negatively related to the amount of experience. 220 10. Based on educational experience. administrators with between 6 and 10 years of experience were more satisfied with col- leagues than were those with between 1 and 5 years of experience. Also. administrators with 21 years or more of experience were more satisfied‘with working conditions than were those with 6 to 10 years of experience. This finding was supported by Friesen et a1. (1983). who found that principals with 20 or more years of experience chose hygiene factors considerably more frequently as contributing to job satisfac- tion than did their counterparts with less experience. ‘Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience were more satisfied with overall job satisfaction than were those with 6 to 10 years of experience. were inore satisfied with advancement than were those with 6 to 15 years of experience. and were more satisfied with payment than were those with l to 10 years of experience. Teachers with l to 5 years of experience were more satisfied with colleagues than were those with 11 to 15 years of experience. 11. Based on the types of school buildings. no significant differences were found between administrators in different types of schools with respect to overall organizational climate and its subscales. However. teachers in nonrented and rented schools tended to perceive school climate as being more open than did those in prefabricated schools. Manuie (1976). in a study in Saudi Arabia. found that nonrented schools were more open than rented ones. Findings of the present study also revealed that teachers in nonrented and rented schools rated thrust and consideration higher than did those in 221 prefabricated schools. On the other hand. teachers in prefabricated schools rated aloofness higher than did those in nonrented and rented schools. 12. Based on types of schools. no significant differences were found between administrators in different types of schools. with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. However. teachers in nonrented schools were more satisfied with overall job satisfaction. advancement. work load. and working conditions than those in prefabricated schools. Teachers in rented schools were more satis- fied with overall job satisfaction. supervision. and working conditions than those in prefabricated schools. 13. Concerning school size. significant differences were found only on intimacy for administrators; the smaller the school. the more the intimacy. In addition. teachers in small schools and those in medium schools perceived the school climate to be more open than did those in larger schools. Similarly. Dachanuluknukul (1977) found that teachers in elementary schools with enrollments of 300 or fewer perceived the school climate to be more open than did teachers in elementary schools with enrollments of more than 300 students. When school size increased. the climate was more likely to be closed. In the present study it was also found that teachers in small schools rated intimacy significantly higher than did teachers in medium and large schools; that is. the smaller the school. the more the intimacy. Also. teachers in small schools rated thrust higher than did teachers in large schools. teachers in medium schools rated thrust 222 significantly higher than those in large schools. and teachers in large schools rated thrust significantly higher than those in larger schools. Finally. teachers in small schools rated esprit significantly higher than those in large or larger schools. In general. then. the smaller the school the higher the intimacy. thrust. and esprit. 14. Based on school size. no significant differences were found between administrators in different sizes of schools. with respect to overall job satisfaction and its subscales. Concerning teachers. those in medium schools (400-699 students) were more satisfied with advancement and working conditions than were teachers in large (TOO-999 students) and larger schools FhOOO+ studentsL Teachers in small schools (399 or fewer students) were more satisfied with responsibility than were those in larger schools. 15. Based on educational district size and with regard to organizational climate. administrators in medium and large districts rated only intimacy higher than did administrators in small districts. Likewise. teachers in medium and large educational districts expressed higher intimacy than those in smaller educational districts. Also. teachers in large educational districts rated hindrance significantly higher than their counterparts in small and medium districts. Teachers in larger educational districts rated hindrance significantly higher than those in large districts. Generally. for teachers. the larger the educational district the higher the hindrance. Using the OCDQ. Streshly (1972) found that administrative staff in small school districts rated organizational climate more open;-conversely. 223 administrative staff in larger school districts rated organizational climate more closed. 16. Based on educational district size with respect to job satisfaction. administrators in medium and larger educational districts had greater overall satisfaction than did administrators in small educational districts. Administrators in large educational districts were more satisfied with recognition. work itself. and reward than were administrators in small educational districts. Administrators in medium educational districts were more satisfied with colleagues than were administrators in small educational districts. Administrators in medium and larger educational districts were more satisfied'with work- ing conditions than were administrators in small educational districts. Concerning teachers. significant differences were found only in reward. Teachers in large educational districts were more satisfied with reward than were teachers in small and medium educational districts. The National Education Association (1982) found different results; the larger the school system. the greater the dissatisfaction. Also. in Lester's (1983) study. teachers in small districts were more satisfied than those in large districts. In her study. conducted in the United States. Lester found that there were significant differences between eight school districts on the factors of supervision. work itself. pay. and working conditions. She also found that significant differences existed between small and large districts with respect to pay; that is. teachers in small districts were more satisfied than teachers in larger districts with respect to pay. 224 17. With regard to the open-ended items. the important social factors that contributed to open climate were cooperation. low control. social relationships and technical competence. The important cultural factors were loyalty and trust. Milieu factors were responsibility. appreciation. and workload; ecology factors were enough facilities and enough assistants. Social factors that contributed to a negative climate were high control. overcrowded classrooms. and routine activi- ties. Cultural factors were nonspecific duties. no loyalty. no equal- ity. and no educational interest. Milieu factors were heavy work load and no appreciation; ecology factors were not enough facilities or assistants. The important factors that influenced respondents to remain in their present position were appreciation. reward. facilities. fringe benefits. reducing work load. more training. educational inter- est. respect of society and prestige. and more responsibility. The opposites of these factors were what respondents said would influence them to prefer other positions and cause them to be dissatisfied in their present positions. In addition. job evaluation and unfairness in written reports caused respondents dissatisfaction in their present positions. 18. Concerning the quality of the OCDQ. respondents commented that it fails to consider student. facility. supervisory evaluation. and parental inputs. In this regard. Anderson (1982) classified the Organizational Climate-Questionnaire items into four dimensions: (1) ecology. which refers to physical/material variables in the school that are external to participants; (2) milieu. which refers to 225 variables that represent characteristics of individuals in the school; (3) social system. which refers to variables that concern formal or informal patterns or rules of operating and interacting in the school; and (4) culture. which refers to variables that reflect norms. belief systems. values. cognitive structures. and meaning of persons within the school. He stated that the 0000 focuses on the social-system and culture categories and neglects the ecology and milieu dimensions. Participants in this study said the 0000 contains some unclear items and that it should be redesigned with more items. Respondents also said that the JSQ ignores fringe benefits and extracurricular issues and that it was confusing because it had about 50% undirected items. 19. Based on the researcher's observations. the following are characteristics of better schools in terms of climate and job satisfac- tion: (a) The administrators were technically competent. They encour- aged two—way communication with teachers and tended to administer their schools in an informal manner. (b) The schools were small in size. which enabled teachers to work cooperatively. to socialize among them- selves. and to have high intimacy. (c) The schools were nonrented buildings and had ample facilities. (d) The administrators were hard working themselves and showed their respect and appreciation for their teachers. Teachers were given responsibility and also received respect and cooperation from parents. 226 32258110901111.1205 WW0 11012130001311.1520 Based on the findings of this research and a review of related literature. the following recommendations for program implementation are suggested. 1. The findings indicated that school size is an important factor that affects school climate. The Ministry of Education should consider school size and reduce the number of students in each school to about 700. 2. The findings indicated that type of school building affects school climate and teachers' job satisfaction. Hence the Ministry of Education should consider the types of school buildings in future school development. Concrete buildings are preferred over prefabri- cated ones. 3. The findings indicated that work load is an important factor that affects school climate and job satisfaction. Therefore. the Ministry of Education should reduce the number of teaching hours per week as teachers' experience in education increases. particularly for secondary school teachers. 4. The findings showed that overall climate. overall job satisfaction. and some aspects of job satisfaction are related. Principals should conduct informal discussions with staff. ‘They should also encourage teachers to communicate with other teachers and give them more opportunity to participate. particularly secondary school teachers. 227 5., The findings indicated that responsibility helps create a positive climate. Therefore. teachers should be given necessary freedom to act responsibly. 6. Advancement was found to affect school climate and job satisfaction. Therefore. seminars. conferences. work experience. school visitations. workshops. professional and educational courses. methods courses in teaching. externship programs in educational administration. educational psychology courses. and field trips should be organized to improve administrators' and teachers' knowledge and skill in performing their jobs. In particular. training should be organized for secondary teachers and those who hold bachelor's degrees. Staff-development programs should be designed and organized by the Ministry of Education with cooperation from the universities. 7. As for reward and recognition. administrators and teachers should be shown appreciation for their achievement. particularly those who have served for many years. 8. ‘The Ministry of Education should consider the importance of specific factors of job satisfaction and organizational climate. rather than just overall climate or job satisfaction. for both teachers and administrators. 9. Administrators in small educational districts were less satisfied with recognition. reward. colleagues. and working conditions and had low ratings of intimacy. The following suggestions may solve these problems: (a) Superintendents should show their appreciation for good administrators. They should be encouraged in order to improve 228 their service. (b) Superintendents and supervisors should have smal 1- group discussions among themselves. to develop a colleague relationship and a feeling of intimacy. (c) Superintendents and supervisors should make the necessary adj ustments to insure good working conditions and pleasant relationships and visit the schools several times during the school year. 10. Cooperation is the most important factor that affects positive climate. as perceived by the respondents. Therefore. cooperation should be encouraged between administrators and teachers and among the teachers themselves. The immediate supervisor should interact with and motivate staff members. 11. Technical competence is an important factor that affects positive climate. Therefore. superintendents and directors of technical affairs should organize inservice training in technical competencies for principals and teachers. In addition. principals should be chosen carefully. 12. Fringe benefits were an important factor influencing respondents to like their jobs. Therefore. educational authorities should consider providing such fringe benefits as housing allowances and special medical services for administrators and teachers and their families. 13. Since educational interest is one of the important factors that influenced respondents to like their jobs. educational authorities should encourage administrators and teachers to pursue their interest in education. 229 14. Respect of society and job prestige are important factors that help administrators and teachers like their jobs. The mass media should be encouraged to highlight the teaching profession and the importance of administrators and teachers to the society. They should be respected. not solely as administrators and teachers. but as impor- tant members of the society. 15. Unfair teacher evaluation was an important factor that caused dissatisfaction among teachers in the sample. Therefore. educa- tional authorities should carefully develop criteria for evaluating teachers. Supervisors and administrators should be trained to carry out teacher evaluations. 16. Facilities was an important ecology factor that affected positive climate and influenced respondents to like their jobs. There- fore. the facilities that are being provided in schools should be considered by educational authorities. 17. Through communication agencies. educational authorities should provide orientation of students! parents so that parents will cooperate with the schools in encouraging their children to reach high levels of achievement. 18. The educational director. superintendents. supervisors. administrators. and teachers should consider acting on the organiza- tional climate factors that create positive job satisfaction in schools. These factors are high intimacy. high thrust. high considera- tion. social relationships. low hindrance (routine activities). and low aloofness. 230 19. The findings indicated that administrators ininedium-size educational districts were more satisfied. in general. and rated intimacy higher than did administrators in small and large districts. Teachers in medium-size districts also rated intimacy higher and rated hindrance lower. Educational authorities should consider medium-size educational districts the ideal size in attempting to create a better school climate. Winds-.1591: WW 1. With respect to the quality of the questionnaires used in this study. the OCDQ should be adapted before administering it to a different culture. This adaptation should include items pertaining to students. facilities. the relationship between teachers and super- visors. and parental cooperation. Items should be stated more clearly. 2. The JSQ should include factors related to fringe benefits and extracurricular activities. Items should be written in a directed manner. Becmmendaflenm Wasatch Based on the review of literature and findings of this study. the following recommendations are made for further research. 1. An investigation should be conducted across public schools in villages and in rural. urban. and suburban areas of Saudi Arabia to include female.public schools. private schools. comprehensive secondary 231 schools. and public schools administered by other educational authori- ties. 2. Research should be conducted to include superintendents and supervisory officers in districts of different sizes to determine the effects of district size on superintendents and supervisors with respect to organizational climate and job satisfaction. 3. Research should be undertaken to determine if school facilities affect school climate and job satisfaction of respondents. 4. The effects of extracurricular activities on administrators and teachers with respect to school climate and job satisfaction should be studied. 5. Further research should be conducted to discover the types of physical plants that are most likely to lead to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction among teachers. 6. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the reasons for dissatisfaction among teachers in large schools and among administrators in small educational districts. 7. Further research is necessary to discover the reasons for dissatisfaction among secondary school teachers and among those teachers with bachelor's degrees. 8. Some researchers (Martin. 1968; Sergiovanni. 1969; Watkins. 1968; Waynek & Hoy. 1972) have indicated that the 0000 does not give a reasonable measure of climate in large secondary schools and that the OCDO.has limited validity for use in junior and senior high schools. Other authors (Madden. 1977) have indicated the usefulness of 232 the OCDQ in measuring secondary school climate. (See the discussion of the OCDQ in Chapter ILA Findings of the present study indicated that secondary school teachers perceived a more closed school climate than did elementary school teachers. Hence further research should be conducted using a different organizational climate instrument to determine if these results were actually true for secondary school teachers t APPENDICES 233 APPENDIX A ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE COVER LETTER AND THE QUESTIONNAIRES 234 235 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COULGE Of ARTS AND LETTERS EAST LANSING 0 KICHIGAN 0 68824-1027 DDAITKENT Of UNGl'IS'nCS AND GERMANIC. SLAVIC. ASIAN AND ANCAN LANGL‘AGLS A615 WELLS HALL August 8, 1985 To whom it may concern: I hereby certify that Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghonaim has translated into the Arabic language the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his research for his doctoral dissertation. I have seen photocopies of English and Arabic versions of the questionnaires titled "Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire", "Principal Job Satisfaction Questionnaire", and the”Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire" for his "A Study of the Relationship between the Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Male Administrators and Male Teachers in City Public Schools in Saudi Arabia." The translation is accurate, and reliable. The cover letter as well as the questionnaire was translated inrArabic in the same format, except that it follows the standard writing style for the Arabic language. I do wish him the best of luck. DepaTUnenioiLinotstcs and Khalil Al-Sugha er‘ Gwnmnm.Sme.Asanand - , “ Z d 2’ African Larguagts hi-chiga: “Tate Universit' Instructor of Arabic VstHaP y East Lansing MI 48924-107“ Tdephou- 517’353-0740 Telex: DID-2914737 Cable: ISUINTPIO E50 USU u s- Mm Anion/Equal Opportunity bun-Ido- 236 Dear Principals and Teachers in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Your help is needed! Principals and teachers in the public schools in Saudi Arabia are faced with the problem of the organizational climate in the school. Most schools differ from one another; some of them are high in achievement and some of them are low in achievement. Some people say that this school is good. others say that it is bad. Some people say these principals and teachers are good and flexible. and some say they are the best; Contributing to this problem has been the fact that a number of principals and teachers feel dissatisfied with their Jobs. The purpose of this study is twofold: (l) to determine the relationship between the organizational climate and Job satisfaction as perceived by the city school administrators and teachers. and (2) to see whether or not there are differences between administrators and teachers con- cerning the organizational climate and Job satisfaction. The principals and teachers at different levels can be a tremendous help not only to the profession. but also to make this study a success by completing the enclosed research instrument; Your honest opinion is desired to make teaching a more satisfying experience. to remove the hurdles that create Job dissatisfaction. and to create a good organizational climate in the school that will help you to be more satisfied with your Job. Without doubt. the Ministry of Education has tried and should be trying to improve the schools in this country. and to give the principals and teachers more satisfaction. Your response will be kept completely confidential. and you need not write your name anywhere. It is my request and hope that you will take a few minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire. which is an essential part of my Pth dissertation. and return it to me. If you would be interested in knowing the results of this study. I would be glad to send you that information if you*would enclose your name and address on a separate sheet of paper. I am very grateful for your cooperation. Please remember I will collect the duly completed questionnaire in three days. Sincerely. Ahmed Ali Ghonaim Ph.D. student Michigan State University May l985 237 THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (OCDQ) School: Position: Principal ______ Years of experience Assistant Principal in education: Teacher Years Months Marital Status: Single Married Academic Record: Indicate for high school. undergraduate. and graduate. 1. Degree 2. School 3. City 4. Country Age: Years at this school (how many) Eomnimzinal How many Saudi teachers in your school? How many non-Saudi teachers in your school? How many students in your school? Please indicate to what extent each of these descriptions charac- terizes W. Please do not evaluate the items in terms of "good" or "bad" behavior. but read each item carefully and respond in terms of how well the statement describes your school. Printed below is an example of a typical item found in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire: Teachers call each other by their first names. 1 2 3 4 5 Never occurs Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs 01.5de II II II II n In this example the respondent circled alternative 4 to show that the interpersonal relationship described by this item "often occurs" at his school. Of course. any of the other alternatives could be selected. depending on how often the behavior described by the item does indeed occur in your school. MW. 238 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS m :- > :1 .— W U u m i. U m C L- 3 0 $- 0 D U 3 3 U U in U U" U 0 0 U Q) o s o L >.-- u—m L 0-- U C L 0.) Q) Q) 0 >3 > L. E u Lu (I) f0 0 H- 0U Z a: (I) 0 >0 1. Saudi teachers' closest friends are with l 2 3 4 5 other Saudi faculty members at this school. 2. Saudi teachers' closest friends are with l 2 3 4 5 non-Saudi faculty members at this school. 3. The mannerisms of teachers at this school l 2 3 4 S are annoying. 4. Teachers spend time after school with l 2 3 4 5 students who have individual problems. 5. Saudi teachers invite other Saudi faculty 1 2 3 4 5 members to visit them at home. 6. Saudi teachers invite non-Saudi faculty 1 2 3 4 5 members to visit them at home. 7. There is a minority Group of Saudi teachers 1 2 3 4 5 who always oppose the majority. 8. Extra books are available for classroom use. 1 2 3 4 S 9. Sufficient time is given to prepare adminis- l 2 3 4 S trative reports. 10. Saudi teachers know the family background of l 2 3 4 5 other Saudi faculty members. ll. Saudi teacheres know the family background of l 2 3 4 5 non-Saudi faculty members. 12. Teachers exert group pressure on nonconforming l 2 3 4 5 faculty members. 13. Administrative paperwork is burdensome at this 1 2 3 4 5 school. 239 m I- > 3 '— mu H Vii—Um: LDOLO 3U 33 UUU’iUU’ UOUUU O EOL >o- mm L—UC L 00030): >LEuLu ONOU—QU zocmo>o l4. Saudi teachers talk about their personal life 1 2 3 4 S to other Saudi faculty members. l5. Saudi teachers talk about their personal life l 2 3 4 5 to non-Saudi faculty members. 16. Saudi teachers seek special favors from the l 2 3 4 S principal. l7. Non-Saudi teachers seek special favors from 1 2 3 4 S the principal. 18. School supplies are readily available for use 1 2 3 4 S in class. l9. Student progress reports require too much work. l 2 3 4 5 20. Saudi teachers have fun socializing together l 2 3 4 5 during school time. 21. Non-Saudi teachers have fun socializing l 2 3 4 5 together with Saudi teachers. 22. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who 1 2 3 4 S are talking in staff meetings. 23. Most of the teachers here accept the faults l 2 3 4 5 of their colleagues. 24. Teachers have too many committee requirements. l 2 3 4 S 25. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty 1 2 3 4 5 meetings. 26. Custodial service is available when needed. l 2 3 4 5 27. Routine duties interfere with the Job of l 2 3 4 5 teaching. 240 m 1— > 3 .— Ul U H U) i. U m C L D O L 0) 3 U :5 D U U m U U" U 0 Q) U 0 O E O L. >-- u-m L— U C L. Q) (I) a) 0 >3 > L- E U LU d) f0 0 '4- 0U 2 a: m 0 >0 28. Teachers prepare administrative reports by l 2 3 4 5 themselves. 29. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty 1 2 3 4 5 meetings. 30. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. l 2 3 4 5 31. The principal goes out of his way to help 1 2 3 4 5 teachers. 32. The principal helps teachers solve personal l 2 3 4 5 problems. 33. Saudi teachers at this school stay by them- 1 2 3 4 5 selves. 34. Non-Saudi teachers at this school stay by l 2 3 4 5 themselves. 35. The teachers accomplish their work with great 1 2 3 4 S vim. vigor. and pleasure. 36. The principal sets an example by working hard l 2 3 4 5 himself. 37. The principal does personal favors for teachers. l 2 3 4 5 38. The morale of the Saudi teachers is high. l 2 3 4 S 39. The morale of the non-Saudi teachers is high. l 2 3 4 S 40. The principal uses constructive criticism. 1 2 3 4 5 41. The principal stays after school to help l 2 3 4 5 teachers finish their work. 42. Saudi teachers socialize together in small. l 2 3 4 5 select groups. 241 m l- > 3 .— m U u m L. U m i: L- 3 O L- O 3 U :3 D U U m U U’ U 0 0 U 0 O E O L >~-- u—m L— «H C L d) O Q) 0 >3 > L E u Lu 0 to OH- 00 Z c: U) 0 >0 43. Saudi teachers socialize with non-Saudi l 2 3 4 5 teachers in small. select groups. 44. The principal makes all class-scheduling l 2 3 4 S decisions. 45. Teachers are contacted by the principal each 1 2 3 4 5 day. 46. The principal is well prepared when he speaks l 2 3 4 5 at school functions. 47. The principal helps staff members settle minor l 2 3 4 5 differences. 48. The principal schedules the work for the l 2 3 4 5 teachers. 49. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. l 2 3 4 5 50. Teachers help select which courses will be 1 2 3 4 5 taught. Sl. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 52. The principal talks a great deal. l 2 3 4 S 53. The principal tries to get better salaries l 2 3 4 5 for teachers. 54. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. l 2 3 4 5 55. The rules set by the principal are never l 2 3 4 5 questioned. 56. The principal looks out for the personal welfare l 2 3 4 5 of teachers. 242 U) L > 3 .— U" U u m L U m C L 3 O L d) 3 U 3 D U U m U U’ U 0 Q) U a.) o E o L >-— u-m L— U C L O 0 U 0 >3 > L E «u Lu 0 m 0 H- mu 2 a: m 0 >0 57. School secretarial service is available for 1 2 3 4 5 teachers' use. 58. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a 1 2 3 4 5 business conference. 59. The principal is in the building before teachers 1 2 3 4 5 arrive. 60. Teachers work together preparing administrative l 2 3 4 5 reports. 61. Faculty meetings are organized according to a l 2 3 4 S tight agenda. 62. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report l 2 3 4 5 meetings. 63. The principal tells teachers of new ideas he 1 2 3 4 5 has run across. 64. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 1 2 3 4 5 65. The principal checks the subjectrmatter ability 1 2 3 4 5 of teachers. 66. Teachers are informed of the results of a l 2 3 4 5 supervisor's visit. 67. The principal insures that teachers work to l 2 3 4 5 their full capacity. 249 TEACHER JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE .Dinections: The following statements refer to organizational factors that can influence the way a teacher feels about his Job. These factors are related to administration and to the individual's percep- tion of the Job situation. When answering the following statements. circle the numeral that represents the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Please do not identify yourself on this instrument. Key: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Printed below is an example of a typical item found in the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Teaching provides an opportunity 1 2 3 4 5 to use a variety of skills. In this example. the respondent circled alternative 2 to show that he disagrees with the item. Any of the other alternatives could be selected. WM. Q) 3 01 U I'D U U) L ._ m c: ‘< ‘0 >~ 0 0 > s— Q) 'U s—- 03 L 0- 01 C Cl U U C 0 m U U 0 L m '0 L. L u ._ c m u U) D D < m 1. Teaching provides me with an oppor- l 2 3 4 5 tunity to advance professionally. 2. Teacher income is adequate for normal 1 2 3 4 expenses. 3. Teaching provides an opportunity 1 2 3 4 to use a variety of skills. 4. Insufficient income keeps me from living l 2 3 4 the way I want to live. 5. My immediate supervisor turns one teacher 1 2 3 4 against another. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. I7. 18. 19. 20. 244 No one tells me that I am a good principal. The work of a principal consists of routine activities. I am not getting ahead in my present admin- istrative position. Working conditions in my school can be improved. I receive recognition from my imediate supervisor. I do not have the freedom to make my own decisions. My immediate supervisor offers suggestions to improve my adninistration. Administration provides for a secure future. I receive full recognition for my successful administration. I get along well with my colleagues. The administration of my school does not clearly define its policies. My immediate supervisor gives me assistance when I need help. Working conditions in my school are comfortable. Administration provides me the opportunity to help my teachers teach. I like the people with whom I work. U 33 Cl Q) 9% 8 '- CD G <2 '0 >~ Q) U >~ .— a) 13 .— Ul L 0- U: C CD U U C 0 (U U U 0 L m U L L «H o- C Di u U) D D < m l 2 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 245 Administration provides limited opportunities for advancement. My teachers respect me as a principal. I am afraid of losing my administration Job. My immediate supervisor does not back me up. Administration is very interesting work. Administration discourages originality. The administration in my school communicates its policies well. I never feel secure in my administration job. Administration does not provide me the chance to develop new methods. My immediate supervisor treats everyone equitably. My colleagues stimulate me to do better work. Adninistration provides an opportunity for promotion. I am responsible for planning my daily duties. Physical surroundings in my school are unpleasant. I am well paid in proportion to my ability. My colleagues are highly critical of one another. U 8 Us :1) m a) m L -- m G < '0 >~ 0) U >~ .— a) -o .— cn L .. m c m U cu c 0 m U U 0 x. m ‘o L s. u .— c m u m o D < m 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 252 I do have responsibility for my teaching. My colleagues provide me with suggestions or feedback about my teaching. My immediate supervisor provides assistance for improving instruction. I do not get cooperation from the people I work with. Teaching encourages me to be creative. My immediate supervisor is not willing to listen to suggestions. Teacher income is barely enough to live on. I am indifferent toward my teaching. The work of a teacher is very pleasant. I receive too many meaningless instructions from my immediate supervisor. I dislike the people with whom I work. I receive too little recognition. Teaching provides a good opportunity for advancement. My interests are similar to those of my colleagues. I am not responsible for my actions. 0 8 Ci 0.) m U m L '5 2‘ ‘U > U 0.) > .— a) n .— U‘: L .- a) C Di U U C 0 CD 0 U 0 L m 'o L L 44 0- C U) H U) D D < m l 2 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 52. 53. S4. 55. 56. S7. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 21.7 My immediate supervisor makes available the material I need to do my best. I have made lasting friendships among my colleagues. Working conditions in my school are good. My immediate supervisor makes me feel uncomfortable. I try to be aware of the policies of my school. When I administer good work. my immediate supervisor notices. My immediate supervisor explains what is expected of me. Administration provides me with financial security. My immediate supervisor praises good admin- istration. I am not interested in the policies of my school. I get along well with my teachers. My colleagues seem unreasonable to me. The administration load (number of hours) is appropriate. The number of hours allocated for extra- curricular activities is adequate. U 2.’ 0'1 U m d) m L '5 2” 'D >~ 0) U >~ .— a) 'o .— 01 L 0- Cl C 0‘. u a) c 0 m U U 0 L m 1: L L U - c 01 u m o D < w 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 254 Teachers have to attend too many faculty meetings. Teachers have to attend too many activity meetings. I am required to teach too many subjects. The reward I receive for a Job well done is adequate. Society's perception of the teacher makes me feel uncomfortable. In this Job there is not reward for profes- sional growth. 0 Q) L U" Q) m a) U1 L -- on o < '0 >- m o :> 0'1 L "' 01 C 01 U Q C 0 f0 0) 0 O L U1 U L L u -- c on u m o D < M I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1. 255 OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS What do you think about the organizational climate in your school; is it more flexible or more rigid? If more flexible. please specify why: If more rigid. please specify why: Please list the factors you think might be most important in influencing a principal/teacher to prefer other positions: Please list the factors you think might be most important in influencing a principal/teacher to like his job: Please list the factors that cause you greatest dissatisfaction with your Job: 256 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES General impression of these instruments: Excellent Good Poor 1. After completing thelquestionnaires. were there specific items that you found difficult to answer? If so. why? a. Confusing b. Unclear c. Didn't make sense d. Need reworking: e. Other reasons 2. Is there anything I have not included in the questionnaires that you think is important? 3. Other comments and suggestions: 257 a..._,'__‘._.". . LgiLLB’! WJMLLJI " JVLLgsifJ: all—La; 5,5; LJL g. J-LLYI 0-)...“ kg... ecu; .JLL: 0 ”ELI—1’3) 01.x; JJMJJAL—IIJ ‘IJMI L ”—4.44...“ 4...: JJ‘JI *1.le . u__._..:> J.) LIJJJI a» Q... gig—3’. c: ILL—L. 1...: can...” LCLLJI L...l . ( 04...!1 u-‘ch‘J-‘J: '1 a_‘._..‘...ll u... LJLLJ'. Mn...— . “rabbis—II ’ 'L. 4.19;)! 0'4“; L14... :__._-..c_. LLJJ égwuswid. ”Jaw L__._...‘.' g... L...‘ 1.)! H...‘ W-__(.....c...... ves....aJadJ—u—o Uvjv‘J“ I._,_a_,_5_)__._, O‘Ig-JBMI ‘_~_.::_L__ 0 H( .. ‘Uq'L—ufi.| 'L—I—u. Lac 5 V .1 w 258 LJLJi g. Mi tL-Lu UL, QLv-r-i-I Ly...» era-“I ) J'V'L‘J‘ stfl ) #“I I = 352*” J-r‘( ) """I I =Lr'U-‘J‘ JL?‘ u-‘c'IJ‘u-J‘ “‘4‘ :LJaLii a.» ”.5915.” 4.x; :r—A-fl—II my” ) cab-L4 ) wwwm uw‘ I‘LL-.11 LJAJI 0...)th 1;..qu JILL" :L__i.5 “5,14..." 54...! LJALJI u-i Wefll 0....)th .3.» f5 (1) LJLJT ”JUN-Lil a.» '5 (r) Pris? H...) fibuJLJ‘oJ. 141.411.51.991 and-554.51 uJ1 3:1 14.5 wi_.1quL91_, LuiLsLusiJsi 05);...)1 4...,Li ”Lola-Adi 4,... . wake-JLM 4.3....11‘5L51UJ1 CI 2.1! U“)'” uLfi-‘gi‘ L," OJxHI 4M C4)..— 0"" LL... LJLJJ wig—1.11 oz r v i H-JL‘ emu-MU "Av-“‘4‘ pr” (1) IJJL; cub... -\' 91-931 .j-n-r L‘v-b-r -T L‘s-“J cub... -t JIx-S-Lv L‘v-‘H ""‘O 01»; (r) ,3,” 9.1. 3,513.}... 43%! a‘ 4.353,..." Hugs . 5,.“ 431......" 0.5: Jug-.1 CpLJl—rosw . LguAL..." 1;... '1»lele ”.1. 3.3.3.... Laugh- .Li uifloJa, mxi . «1.1431... ,4. us, .#,.'....Ji use-LL91 m asL-Ln 4 QL—‘r’n Y‘ ”0-D. Sir-”V. i 1' 2 T i T' i 1" i l" i 1' i 1" 2 1' i 1' i l" i 1' 259 .A—‘a‘gl ’Lé“ P‘s-3r...” cJ-Ls.“ ’L—i-Xo‘ WUJJ‘ —-\ L_'....~ maul r“ 53,...” ,JLJI «.3331 .951 -: fJ—I‘JI 'LVLI “(La—3).” flux)“: ”(air—i 0...,le 2:...» 'LJJI ”14,441 0)...le ya. -o ° “arr-n u-i 1.1-5.3994 0.0L.» La... «“1 ”.43...." ”Jag: H... -1 0—...34: 0,33,“: 0...)“: 0.. 1.4.31 ems... -v .1...“ l as riw- .Li ,....- Lam L‘s.- .uu... -A LL... 'La-sI abl—'51.». Lac ”Jul “UL... -n .QMJI )1 WI )4; WJJ—LII JifyL. can... L——-JA U- .343... QL¢>YI UL... 1.2.ng 260 (T) . “J-L‘J‘ thwaJASGJI-IYI M1 ‘11. W1 ML...) Us ”J’s—J1 w-J-LAJI Mgr—If WI Ml." Us ”(4)-A..." ”LU-LA.“ H555. -10 s “Jul-‘1‘ shJ-XAJI J14. 0.. “L5. LLJM 04x). LLJALJI M1 .31)..” —\A . J4...“ J‘s”; rin 9L3): .31.va Way-J1 ”a 9"..le 63..."... -"\ HA») ’L—‘L‘.I (”J’s-J1 ”-9.8...“ c.- W aha-)4..." 0" 0...)“: WJJAJI LL... 'Lasl my“: CLLL -n . WI GULLJLI U) My U'LLII . 94501.9 dual w: ”flag: L‘JJLC, -rs 261 (i) QLLLI g: L.‘_J ”any LLLi ”Jag: JL... 4; . g JLJI 4.2; 0.)»). £3th —\"\ g-rJJ-l-JI U15) 0" WJJJI OL‘aIJJI J54; “’TV . ”Judi L’s-cum?! 5.).) 0‘ 'J-—-‘-"5 “34+“ u-5 OJ‘UI‘L‘J‘ .213-r “I” s “JAQJI .3______.sl...,J LpL-L 14,... 0....le J...» J-‘LH -1'l J—SLLLJI J. u-5 0......)th ”a..." sw-TI 0 WI 0......le .3. Us WJJLJI 0.....le 0.. .JS 'T'l' s “Ly-3% s Caught-5% “J OJI—LJ 51.3...) A...” ”J‘s w-JAAJI J'H' -1'9 Je-r 3.1-91 QI—r 635-2.»... XL- LJLJI ”A... H. —l"l A‘s-Ly UL...) 11mm ,OJ’W. i T i 1' i T i 1' i l" i T i l" i I" i 1" i 1' i 1' i T i T‘ i 1' IJJL___'. can... 262 . L‘LJLs der-I-JI W‘J'L‘JJ LWI CJJ'J' e ‘r—IU . 'L_'...1.L'L'.J...L.JI fax... t,___..1.).LJi f_,_,.,_.l| 'L‘.:...'.I mflwi “5...... .HJLLH '1...“ ”50...)qu .LL...,J Lfan... rs 1...»;on ”(4).-l..." wgJ-LLJI F‘s-if s 6)....» OJLS'AQOUWUi 0H IJL'LLsGst inJJ-I-JI ”J“. J’s—s... “L541 QIJIJILJI JSJg-LAJI 5.5.2.. . JLLJI LL: ”.1. ”UL-.11 Le... 'usl ,4...» LL... - dun—«J! 91—01—311 ' on)"; J.)- u‘d' -i\' _£° -n JIPL. 9.»... 9,le w. 1.234)., .a‘ 263 (l) . (”.le cal—LIE ”.1..." CW -o\ . IJpSfiLJI PIS“- -aT O-———-°I al..—1.)... ”J: Jpn...” ”m1 JJLH -ol" - err-4““ [xv-v J54: )1 0J4: Ctr-44‘“ u-‘Lé‘i' Heb-1‘ ‘M U—JLJI UféIJ-EJIJ JsIJ-LJI ”J; vIJ—"JXJ JLHy -00 flag-LY 9.513;. LJLJJ LstJSLJi “as..." --oY )4...” J...‘ WJ‘I‘U ' .‘v—P‘ {WWI 214*“ Jr‘s "M WJLJI Jy.’ J...) Mi ”5.)...th Sal-LL, -—ci J—VJL'LZJ‘ JIJsI 4.?“ H c.- ”J4..." LII“. E—aL—‘JU Lu. wJ-L'LJI 1.4.91.3“?! 1"“ -‘H s Jab-O J“ a. ._,L__.... LL! WJLJ' 1 a...» oLH-A-o'J -'u 6.4., «LA.» _,L.s..l o‘ WJLJI ,4...“ fl... -'\r s “db-C .WJAAJI .3; AL: WJALJI DJJ-i.‘ ”A...” ”ii-'10 - H—‘v-J-‘v u-U' °er-” («m—H) ”.31 a." 0,4... 0...)..." 01., flu: 351;... -w ”am. 264 J_;:,.-. 01 05.. .......1.... 4.1).. ”.11).... LL11...“ GULAJI ;.-.i..L.:_,w JJ—LJI “Lop, ”1431...“;ng J..i_,.aJi .32... . ijfiwl 4.9-‘- tr“ J), oral.) cg.) Us). oa..JL.'_Ji oiJLpaJl v.1; c.9114.» 4:4 W'di 60).”.— -l_._._,_n . UL...“ £2“qudequ JLL... J: win). 5...}...54J1 Hr“ . 0%..31135 v.1: HLLyI .L.‘ Law’s... rar- LL'ifi'L-t-n-J' 24.2; L“ J-e-J" 1 04:... JJLsI y JJLsi z .541:- A .4...” 64‘). —;._LgL._...’..¥I~:J_13uJ;YLL.JJ.,su_1.LLL. 0. 2 .T.€.i, “HQIJHLJWYUJUIrzaJiJYI rJJJI J). .JLISgLLL.YIchL..gu1MiCLuJLLJ11LgJ .._.-:..- Li,,...g..:._.v v .24: gus mu, .JLLu: QMJJQOLS 1.3! (D tJ‘ng-‘J'; HL>YI if. ASL—"L.“ .9"!!! 4.3—396...”;ng I—h-JJ JU-S—r Q‘ (vb-3.1 o OIL—Ls JJJ—“La ’1 UJJLSI 265 (T) . #13 rwi 1.9).. L’Jr" ‘JI-‘Y' —\ a——-.-->L—-J‘ swag—bi! ”.55. flu: J... -v “PLiJLf. JL..¢..‘1 MULLJI r_...:...: sJIJYI — r ,_;._______.-' g: gurqyusauu LL15 'Js-{ ".WJI vi..." Laval... a—L...‘-.J 91.19;; wfiLJI J‘s 0.35;?" Y ;————-"-e-“ u—-'-'.J 0* f'L“ u-‘L‘ ““4"" -‘° g L. ,IJJ sum LycLLHJ—n r————-.~'=-'—J ob‘x—i‘ .v-‘-L.--3' 0-9:, pm... -n .J-g—L'L—LJI oJIJYI VJLJL—nh; PL; ”flyw-If 6H”. ny J.) USJLLI amusJLsI 266 (T) fJ'—'_“’J" LflJI-LAI 0J4; rJ LIT-“'J‘L. ZJIJI -11 L_...L-.. u.) .LLLJT _,.:L_.._n a...) rain. -1Y - L-eL-‘o‘ . =L..| L-’1___, “ful uJ Cf: sJIJW --l‘1 0 'J-J-Le-J 0.3.1,...le PT“. J A41 U13.“ UL—LJI 54:1 -10 Lbs—L... ”SJ—1.1.1 Uioii L‘s—,2: u-5-J‘ ¢JJJ1-Tl fiL ‘5 oer-J' u—‘J'b‘fi' ”II . 1J1...“ ULLLJ 3.3.51 01 ..'.L>| -1’i' f. ‘4.” L?) '43..” JivL-n-A—II mar-5.) -14 . tho J“ GUI-.1" -Y° oCI-LrYI qu cq-J—ZY 0.21.371 “’1‘ ‘JJ A: L‘s-hind 1......” JILL: sJIJYI -yy l—_———3)'J=i W g4 “31.2.4.1; last 9’14 0.3—“; dJI)... J.) UéJLLI 267 . 04...... .1—44: 45:... J»: 0| ”.1; W'Jsa. 9:31..) u_.k JpLJI ) air—3.1.1 nyJl CL: sJIJYI (“r-5J4“ o‘.._~0,.,_.JI L,_’.L.Q.I_,J WI Us JJJL-a LS-I rLa—‘JYI UJs W'y ”LU—LA..— 4.5.3.)...“ (’51—‘31 L,.._..'.i«,.:..3 C" QJL—LLJLLIA... Wu.) J...:..:_, a? -___J ”44.4 ..:L.i.;..'.Yl JJ__.:S 9.9)..) .____. rJJIL- 2....ij Mfg: Ln - u‘“ 03-33%.) u-b'“ U—Ja Opr-1 Y M J...“ 0.3)..“ U..I...'LJI .aL'JLJI Q. L341 HALL,“ I -1"1 _r. -1'I -I'I' ~rr -I'f -I"I -I'Y -I'A -r: -iI —i1’ (Li—.4...ny J...) .__._._J. U:___.«;. 0' v.3. 31.3.? £4.41 J...) -£T . sJIJYI—g r__".‘.. "5' Ln .4; 'L—esu—fi‘ -n .L————. —z. 0" ’L—JJLJI QIJUJyI Uafifi-SJI UUJI _£“ 'L +4. 4...: 0.34: 0A..“ .Jsi -gy s J‘s-LU- I SJ" Id.) .LgJ—ta” .. II [fl—1.:— -‘ ._iA g 5.3.1.1 04....) “yrzoJlaYI-i‘l u—gy“) OL‘Lfi-‘I ‘———‘p t—L‘ u—lt—JL—fi-s.‘ I -0. WI—LZLI ‘rRJI AI 9....” 9).! fI—“JI ”9.) —°" 9 '31...) (g... “.81.: GUI-LO 94:5 ~97 ex :5 QLJhUJJLAJIJJJB-°£ . . 5 s _. rI——..-LUYI (A: ,JL-I U—n—I—lh— flF-fi-JI W.) 00 ..__...__i....JI .inu L141) 9,5191 JJL>I -ol GLJLJ s———-“y J . ‘l ‘5 I, I) r r r Y r r r r r r i' r r r r r r r Y r r r r r r 269 J___.:.L_,...Ji WLJ 91... 1.3.93.“ #31 L...L'.:. —oY UI H039 ghL‘J-zI—r-A—II w—e—‘vJM‘OA (J14...< U'.“ ALI-kw IQLLLIJJI ) J‘s' Lyn—Lil J! ,4..." Vi UJJJJ; .JISYI —o‘l 04.....Ji 5,1331le WLJ CALL. -1. L....J.-.:.JI “Lug. ELLE... (.31! LN -11 laJ—LAJI u. OLJLJI c.“ {LL-.41 v.1; LL! "'1‘ °(W)O’Jr“fiu4w*~q=LJ-ir WWI caLbL-L—HLLI w...“ cal—sta—JI J: -10 I U 0.. _:_<.JI J34. 0..)le ‘5).4. ”.1: --‘l‘[ ...,..._)_L—_Ji ._‘_.,.‘_Ji gums! 91.5ny U... J—a—t-S—II J)» wJ' 'L‘JI .dfipfhm ‘TV J— “-5 cal->1 .L.... L..Js~' -‘lA Ls... .....u 4“... LLLJ...‘ ”.4: “$5.41 -11 270 J J W W ( V ) ‘5 '5 q fj a) r w 1 ...Lu- (Lg-3J3“ .44.. .44! 271 ”5.5)." MI u...-J 01.4.: r3): 0‘ US.., LHL'L: Jsly 0.11%; LeJLzJI OIUI—p—UI goIJLsJYI .3_,___LJ1,_,.L..>L..-_, oJIJYLséi-m; J...i_,.a.1| 0.1. £4,153); HA..." «Us: ”J; -..a~.b.J' 3.4L. 5L-JI rJJJI Jy sJLIJ (as, U’Jf LLJl—IJI QIJI—p-IJI ”.1; LL?“ 4.2.: “MR—figfiru“ ’bJJI GULF—LJIUHUszJl-AaJI MIyGJagL“! . QLrpL-YI 1.1. ”.15 a—rLLYI Ltd-3.)“ G-vJ‘LJ-e ire.)- L. J's-J" 1' : .y'JL-‘I r : 44,2- 2 : 5.51). o : 'S-v .3-5‘.» “0%Y'wwukiwaJyfiLLg o0.£.\'.®.l “#OIJWJWYuflififiL-afi J). ”—4.0%?! 9......5341 ’54.." fianI 1;.qu LCD... - -~1 Y ,5," gusum, .JL...J| W,JL..UL51..| G H,“ .O-LiJ HwL'-'.I.J>II LfiiJJLdfirf‘a—WO—VLD OIL—p‘_i< ”J: HLaYI U.- JSI—‘LJLM d—J‘y JJ Jot-‘1 63.—LL9JL5'I 272 (T) i__._.-'.‘..r.:..i.:.J| byefiwawl —\ .____.~L._n QLyI—e—ZayI was... 9.14.41 J“ -i’ u ,3“... oiJLL. .ILLAJ “is." Cg... ULULLJI- \' (VJ f“"" YIQ-s-rs u—np—r HIM LBJ-II 114—35 f4”: .LLJJI v.1." mflpééi 0| o'r—u-u-w' 0.4 JSLéAJi ".3... ft..." Wag— o as. I s u ' u—ifiJQMIHLfii (Jul-A .L-rJLLJI HJLUJJMJIJgfiog-a-JUS‘JI 0‘“ _)__.____.:.I_~LJI WJO‘JI’JLUJ‘w-I. u Leaf):- SL541 LycuaiY-H ,___._,:..-_J .3be.“ JaLLJI wag '43.. -H ),—_-.‘-J' UJI fidvx—p-LL-‘Jsh WJALJI -IT 0 WI UJ‘ UL—LabyI—r 6.3L L’J‘J‘ JJJ__—"~o UbJLsI 6.)...” daJLcI .0 273 (T) bf” " J C.- M‘ 0.335 0“" LLI —\o (H)... L‘Jiai J’s; f“ 6...)... 3J1.“ -n s LeL-‘s’I . quLJLQJMIJJfi—M 4__——5L..I OI—r toy-DJ I 9" EH- WJ-I-‘JI "I‘ .rrJa-lequc—JJ» ”a .Lfi 4| 0.3.“ 0.1...." a...“ —:. 0434+:- u-‘J-JJ‘ .r-u-A-J' ‘ Lac-PH u—J. ' ‘ v.2“ ‘ ’11 ,JALSWJL—b ”Ck-Ti g-J‘ AM, .LiJI 01.31.51 -ii' [L t...” u.) .31.? JsLLJi car-*3.) —r2 . C"..- .J.» 0....le -—To L..__.n.nl LL...” 4;... 6...)... u. '91.»): L" l 3311.: ,."‘I" 9‘ Quadbyi... J...“ 1‘" -1'A d—“r JJH .iLngui 271-} (i) 9.....JL..1 ”3.13:4 arid! VJ C—:"-' r-Jg-wé-‘s-J‘ s 0-3144) 5J1. LJLJL-p UL...” .JS J‘L—tg fiL—“JI UJH‘ J_.:.bl JSLdgi oi 95¢.wa U—Js JFLJI)U3J—'L1J¢J.LJICA¢WJ.LZJI («Ax-4' oL'usHI U.—-_’J_LJ WI C." .JJJL...‘ LLI rI....:..,YI wk c4...” “Lye... 6L9..." 0.5L...” u—siJaj (L. QJL-wL-fIA‘é W‘JM {Q W JLJJQVI JJIJLS ‘zij—a.) Cy. 6———.p 15,51“ “JP Mil-3‘ I—‘cI - a“ OJ'FJL.’-'-¢J J—gJLAJ OAsL-LJI JazI—p‘JI W'I'J '45., - WJJ-‘J'I «:5 «VJ-LI) U—u (”JJLAL.‘ 1 r1.“ JasI 013‘" U'I-I‘JI ‘-—-——-‘-‘-.-- a)“ o‘ 1.5"." M awe-‘3‘ (L__.....'...YI vi 042)." L‘s-LUV JsLe-AJI “—.L'J ‘G'vL’IJ—"JI 0. HJI 'mLuJI -n —r. -rr -\'o “YA -\'\ -‘. '11’ 275 3‘ 5 j J j) 13 . o “i ‘3 ‘3 I 3 l o 2 r w l - 9..wa r—H—e .mé '—'v‘ -22 0‘ ’L___3‘,?..JI .31.:qu 0.. ”.541 oil-3‘ -21 O i I" I I ' fL-n-t-JI war-Iv.) o z r i' i ,L .4. J»: 0.3.11ng .Js: -tv 0 z r v 1 ~Jv-’--J"‘o*'-’?J-J-‘-’"u‘-""““ o i i' Y i V 3):...U 04...? ufirLUWJLLJI-Ei o i T Y I U..———.‘.)L-J out—ALI 0—._.‘.1L.:La UJLaL‘JAI -00 L_.‘..>L.:>I UJL." .51)...." JJJ'I! figs—II rad.) —°" 2 r 1' i .9) Jul ,1. ”4.... ”51 as o i 1' 1' \ Vi '. J C‘" $1391.31.»qu —ol' 0 i T T I 0‘ T4} UhJ-LQUJJLAJIJJJB —o{ A———-J.L-.II ”4.34 Lf“) ”.51 UI JJL>I -—o‘ o 2 r r 1 - (HA-‘4‘) 6.3L. WI)‘ 0 d-“r' JJJ__"~I 0.01.51 0.)..." 091.51 276 (l) . cJJL: I»)... (LU-)4.) ~I - - - . ‘ c . 9 We”; tflefinfm‘v 3.71 5.3L._._Ji J! ,.L..." 3| UJ J3). 0...le 3.941 0...)...231 Jug..." WLJ car... WI ”2.94.33.31.91?le g All» <... ,LLLI ”.1. LL! -(v~5¥e)orJrrLflqu4~tr‘-LJ ‘.‘ L.:...- WI a... 0J4...” ULa—V c.__.s.‘..:...)l_Ji oLbuLiJ WI oLcL...Ji 4.x: . Lil—S " . 4L3...“ 0’ {LS JIyWJaLc-LLJS Laud-a...” MW! v.2." 3J1)..." -oY -oA _°q —"o -‘H -‘l\" -'11 -‘lo -11 6.3....“ ny 09le '3 .3 i I 277 (“If rl-‘I ‘rLJ-‘h—a. . _ ‘rJ-LAJI C)‘ BM. I .6 '5’. —Y0 8‘4““ U'Jh-U :5th 15,—” W6“ U'fifiJ _y‘ 278 :w' .1L44;J;£: CCU—51.31 u__.' a...“ J35)” 0:5; .5 1...: 4...... L,.-.J: 4n)...“ J54. O1 30' -: .dJsI 4.9.5., 951,. Jag? USJ U-JLJI/ “JALJIJLA. u-J" val—‘LJI ~,————D O___..A.DI ULSYI UJQSL .‘J L‘.._'.I JCS—Ls... L’UI “I‘M/L...“ “LS—L3 L)‘ {QJ‘ "Y . £4.15; Us... 9.5 Qua...” / LJeLJi fa. VJ: J_.‘t_’.Ji ‘ . \1 .‘° >~ -- - . . 279 ( ) U—o—w I: ‘ .L) ( \ J‘ — ( L_o_)_o ) ébJ 0.3.5.... JDLL'. ch—‘J “LS JA 1 oL.‘.L._...."...Y‘ JL—JS‘ .LA... ..| 9 13m #4“ 9L”! g...‘.L_S 3.)! . LHJ; ~9~1IW\ w ._-.I (: 01))1 «LA‘JJ-J' J. Gal-11).)... 0.,J .—.> APPENDIX 8 OFFICIAL LETTERS 280 28] MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEG£ OF EDUCATION EAST MNSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 AIUO-IOM DEPAITMENT Of EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION EIICKSON HALL June 4, 1985 Dr. Yousef Al-Kady King Abdul Aziz University Advisor Saudi Arabian Educational Mission - Chicago Branch 8700 West Bryn Mawr Suite 900 North Chicago, IL 60631 Dear Dr. Al-Kady: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghonaim, who is at present a graduate student working on his Ph.D. in the Department of Educational Administration (K-12) at Michigan State University under my direction. ' Mr. Ghonaim has proposed: “A Study of the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Male Administrators and Male Teachers in City Public Schools In Saudi Arabia." He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the fall quarter between approximately the first of September and the first of December, 1985. These plans meet with my approval. I request that you provide him with the necessary support for this study to help Mr. Ghonaim to gather information for his Doctoral Dissertation from his country. This topic requires him to travel to different parts of Saudi Arabia. Your prompt attention to this matter is sincerely preciated. If you need further information, please call me at 1 a ( 7) 353-9337. P S I urge you to help Ghonaim financially. Again, thank you for your consideration in this request. Sincerely, ’7 , ,1,‘ /'r,_.-r/ I L ' / ,l/I f . 'I L/ L//. /L.’-/ {‘1' V/VVt’ " 'thn H. Suehr, Professor MSU u - ”Imam Anson/Equal ()pponamly ham-no- 282 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Of EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “824-I054 DEPARTIENT OI EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICXSON HALL June 4, 1985 College of Education, King Abdul Aziz University Ministry of Higher Education Madinah Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia Dear Dean of College of Education: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghonaim, who is at present a graduate student working on his Ph.D. in the Department of Educational Administration (K-12) at Michigan State University under my direction. Mr. Ghonaim has proposed: , "A Study of the Relationship Between .Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Male Administrators and Male Teachers in City Public Schools In Saudi Arabia.“ He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the fall quarter between approximately the first of September and the first of December, 1985. These plans meet with my approval. I request that you provide him with the necessary in country transportation, because his t0pic requires him to travel to different parts of Saudi Arabia to gather information for his Doctoral Dissertation. Your prompt attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to write. I urge you to help Ghonaim financially, with transportation, and necessary expenses needed for this study. Thank you for your consideration in this request. Sincerely, // ’ ’0/ ’5', . %/{; L/ ’15,“ (Z {rt/Ll John H. Suehr, Professor MSU u an III/motive Adm/Equal 09'0".me bun-moo 283 1541 H Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 355-3007 May 30, 1985 Dr. Paula E. Lester 2440 Olinville Ave. Bronx, N.Y. 10467 Dear Dr. Lester: This is a follow-up of our phone conversation on Thursday, May 30, 1985. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University where I am working on my Ph.D. degree in the Department of Educational Administration. I plan to do my research on the topic: “A Study of the Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Male Principals and Male Teachers in City Public Schools in Saudi Arabia." The purpose of the study is to investigate the relationship between the organizational climate's “eight dimensions“: job satisfaction and experience as perceived by the city public school principals and teachers in Saudi Arabia, and further to see whether there exists any differences between principal's and teacher's perceptions toward the organizational climate, and job satisfaction for both secondary and elementary schools. I am interested in using the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). I would like to obtain permission to use your questionnaire. I will be happy to send you a capy of my dissertation in case you need one. Please provide me with any additional information you may have about TJSQ. I already have a copy of your dissertation, which was loaned to me. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours Sincerely, o—“-- . fi‘. . .‘—-——_-—————I‘- ’ V h Ahmed Ali Ghonaim Doctoral Candidate 281+ C. W. '08? CENTER Long Island University Irantwood. New York 11717 C .l‘.' . Po s t Campus Telephone 516-273-5112 Greenvsle, New York 11546 N a a as u or an ch Campu s Suffolk Branch Campus June 6, 1985 Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghonaim 1541 H Spartan Village East Lansing, 31 48823 Dear 1r. Ghonaim: This letter is to authorize you to use the Tescltr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TUSQ) in your doctoral study: ”A Study of the Relationship Between Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Kale Principals and Male Teachers in City Public Schools in Saudi Arabia.” As the author of the TJSQ (copyrighted instrument), you have my written permission to duplicate the TJSQ for research purposes only. Please do not forget the necessary footnote in your dissertation. I wish you the best of luck with your study. If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, me. am Dr. Paula E. Lester Assistant Professor 285 ~ ' . ‘ ’p e a e Mints")- of Higher Educatlon UVIM '1‘» Salad! Arabian Educational Mission -. , -, / Chicago Brunch r» ‘4- / I’ll- / b I ovigytéf” WI V 29 .;._‘.. m ’9' ' {/14 i C- 3,; u 1 U /' l-IA sq} "\ ' ' ‘ I". 'I A 0/ A] fi-n—JI—SYI Q's—JI ees-‘4' raj-Lea valet/494‘ "..-'--.- 2.5.91 2.41;...41 us," ‘5ng PSJLQ—I C-J'J ( 'a_____“.‘,..J:.)3...___La:.J1 1,4121...) .13).:5441 LIL-,1 W1 11.; u,—‘-J(1W°VAI f.5.) '911,___z.,,:.11a:_n_,.;_l.;..,;1.-....e.~ ”xx 24.41 “.11 3.11 ”5.4,, “3.11., .55.." an.» .._.._.'t_. _,_.s.°...n ....u. ”a. is, "av—15¢.“ a”. 9.1.. 4...; twat. - . 4.144,,» 0 “Hui-2;" ELI}; SQJL.’ JJ—L Iv“) 30‘ a 3 C‘) ’5 \- fl .bL.__.'> LLJI .5",le .34...) 286 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA Ministry oi Higher Education IIIIG ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY Collage eI Edutalion MADIIIAII HUNWMRAH €7.19 IL/(o/JIWI autumn jgjfllagcéUIII-‘tob ‘JJ-‘l‘ Lam: lei-II 345- Reg. \ . A eLu/ . 01.3, a); NY .).. r52” Date . )Lh/ \/4)\ Cut.“ care-M; LrLeJI aL-IJJJJ ag—ISJI J95; -. ”SSA-II 34L... a—JLSJ...) LL" In» 95gb fin-J! ,1). 4441.,J1¢L..:.913JL.:..1,W1W ecu—H 51,991 may); Gab—II)” “at..." 4.5., ”354.11 uu.....:.5...1 . a "orig/1e but-Ls m 0—... ”fin-"J 9,44 99,11 4,5,1: Sol /.:.e'.;.,...l.. uLUIé’agJIJ I...I.-J1 .. 9.1.11 .51).. ”US-l '53.“... I__.... 5.2.11, cues-11¢... 1,4,1 o‘ a... .....IJI owl at... “1.591 0).?) 3931...,” ”,3.“ 94-511,... 9.111014 . 1..., .521 Wyluéahfl ~ ~ . gLfiaSI 5...; u) asset-a,» ,JSJI e-J-J' w—‘u (HwIAe-ae o4) 3...; :‘.'~‘AV ”.157 ..S. AYoYTA: (Aiataut' AleYA\11;\YeYYA/\ I‘Itx J‘aaC‘ k \l \IAI) SI I’hODC\' 8252384 8252543 BISISIO 82523“ P. 0. 801;: 344. Madinah Munauvsarah 287 ' .1.\ I 1 Ministry offllgber Education \ 'U) IV. . - I. Saudi Arabian Kducaflonal Mission 0- 1 - I .’ "I ““80 .mm 0 g e " 1 .... oe/ 4. {K/ t, ’11.ng 9"“ N ‘LJZ- __¢'_‘.JLL1 U 4" I' 1‘ fi 1. 3'5; T‘- / 'I / r1“ Q' 5: I: T‘ .’ C / I‘L “JIYI ‘.h:-:-—’I ”as...“ ...;4 ,1; sol/M1 :11 0.2.41 -ZJ-l—e '1 L—JI—‘xJ ‘__°-JI “J: H—Jfi fL—JI Jay-1‘ A-e-auL-U‘ 1‘:ch 3J1." ”4.2.11..— 0.5.1:“ ‘i._..l.a_.JL._. ...uLJ 5.1; 7.2.51...“ {yr—.41 pliAa/h/H ‘__,L;'c KAU/YY/1326 /35 [As H) 0|J3———“-SA-Ilb_,a ,'...I; 499.! can; Lei—II an»... 1.;...L._. L.:..11_, i.e.....“ b..I1 L94...“ z_._...1 h..1. I..'..'_..S.'_’. a: . 3,4,: 2.2.2.... 2.1.) at: 9...; ..LJ... $1.41 Bag... .31 a—ZI: e 2;...» 2.....1: 2:15—qu Lava’uh.’ H—nc zé'e—LL—YI . tugu 59.4.91... 11.5..3 my; 8" r ) . ' \ L _.s‘u'_,..‘_, ,....I..:.I1 ...141 «...». C \\ .bL..." a.IJI.s..ay,_;.-J1.~...a oa /r'¢ 8700 West Bryn Mam. Suilr 900 N. Chkagu. “11110151511031 '1 (I; (3I2lb93-35KXI I clean. 852].“ ELMIAH (‘60 288 o- .. . 3 1 “1111311on Higher Educalmn C53 é’x Ell/‘1 {jfl’flifa' c 9‘ ‘ .L—r’J’ M n if.) KING ABDULAZII UNIVERSITY _ ‘ . . '” .. 1% gfllgfifldimlé 1 II (allege eI [ducalion ‘ .....v ‘ . 41L . . ‘ - MADIIIAH Huuwmu #P'I—ar Uri ..., .eu-J 45:», and-«...; J a 'a, \s‘ A Ref. ,, . Zfis Iz‘AI’IIKQAI’J-f“ Date . D\Z:\"\‘\I .g".\ Cut“ J-IJ‘J‘ @I—gJJI—a MI .Q’ELLJJJLJA—II 3JIJJ Jé.’ / 34L...- eJLSJ...) e_.IJI bJJ 95...]; fol-J g—gy-J' 4.4 éLJ-u" in» 5,5 E-e'J-U' way-.4 oi—r .165-H4- A—L .i_.:.JIe.1..s_,J1,,n you“ ......a 9.1.: ...»1/ ......11 .W1zgmu. 9).—41c...» 6.1....th .311 4.15:... eIJfiSSJI anew—Ia J30.” a._.$..__,d1 VJIHMQJQJIJYI tug-J! " QIH ,e.’ mufl,ww olaL. . Mg.» ._I.JI.-.1.1 wow, 1.2.14.1... w'fsw wear ,4. 1...,” ’l_,___>l u) WW) 6.35%”le #omunfm LEA—i . as... W e._._....LeJI eoLaJI 6‘5") “last... (L3 5.3.” 99.52.11 . uumJWJeQ-Suhwrfleo‘ée‘dqdb . |_'..e.. ..SLJLA: one PsdeC-J 0.3).}.3.’ 0.051.; ace ‘3‘.st O—UI bJJ 9:345 fx-JIJ 9;.“ H.111? 'Jf'IJSl AYoYI’AtIAYOTotA/AtoYA\\/AYOYTAA :4”; a). ..II .‘ ...II-YH :9}; Iclcs 471-121 k\l‘\IAI) SI I'Imnn $25211“ I 82.12541! / 8252816 I 3252)” P. () llm- yu-Madmah Mun-“null :‘>\‘ ..- \ :QU’KLU 289 ‘.‘\;/r °\\ \\Jc‘? r491 gal/Wt) W .../Vigun 4&QD,40 W‘.JJ“J‘J\)J—.r-|‘ stII aI .JII’I = trrw :-—w*- /r .\\\\ - ... . “L“ .. _. _ .. LU: MI... ...—b.4191; fig/ “1...... A—J—U-o- eat—s,” .4.“ ”J3.“ ..LJ1 ‘03) 6)).AOJ‘ §¢.1J4-IL9 L,I;Ja-H OeJ-s ~95 'f‘th-‘D u. 0).,"pr 0.." / ...—...: ul. ....l / His-“91H“ CL...“ .,...u. We“ ‘11-‘1/1/1'1 ”a In- tL___a..JI ' J)... al..—9.1 “As—II eoLo-H W eaI as.“ QWUI WA WI Q‘.U’U'J‘““ “at, u‘QJIJ“ ‘ W J-N'“J ”UH...“ J-v‘ eee WI wI—‘fid PLJ‘, ’ O ‘. ‘1qu WI “F “L~o-II LJIJJJI J»: J sf?” " ...,J—a-JI H‘fi‘ w 4.... / J -o.a-u-‘-" Her-*4 9:» "/""‘h-IIJ.-f’ ......S...‘Bfl.l$l$5 o v” 290 ..r- .I x 4’9 \x, ,5" mflflJ cert/Am "\\ ix..-{!\.‘-\-\. -\--<—.-'. 9492' ...—- 4 9 ‘ v’ ’- ‘ ‘ 6&9)»; ...... \ --.xuU’A—L s—vlyl‘JQ"-0J—OJ| Hf)-‘" ¢--.”J¢.Jl .ILHI t—LH m3 “_ “figs—4| ”h/ ...u. 1“”..- pals’.” wImJJMpl—M M.» 91*“ “wk-“w ‘HJ‘J' ”-5 H“ v“ w M.» r44 at” / ga—o-u 91‘ “.1 / MAS-H «wan-1 etc—H -.-|b W‘ ou-vn/n g: u- CL___._.'.....H ' J». .4...) “.4...“ “L...“ 5,... “A .5“. “*9.“ w . W|guua¢41wt¢qu1dynu Moo-aw.) (pH-n“ Ja‘ ... 905-“ 9“”: v“: I HWHW‘ ”HHLQ|(.\J|J,41HJ , I ‘ ' --_~r. ...... . "‘ 1... :-~"“‘ Jhlfi‘” H‘f‘u ‘JJ‘ oooo/oo-o (Q‘m) .“==88883C83.8¢338 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA Mumsuy 0! flight! Educahon KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY €92}? KQ-f’V-Q' J,LJJ.L—J~L‘ISJ‘/b jgjsllagtélollholg 533—1“ Lit-Ill: 2....” Feb (ullege ol Educalion NADIIAH NUIANIARAN ef , \V &- >-~1\LTQX\Y.V. rJJn ate . Q§l~1hl 39.. Cut“ ,4” “.4de Wohle now .J._.s_,/ bu. has,” us 1»), 9s,» ,1.» u-vvu u) m m yuan ...-Am?“ at.» “......us a bL-‘d h—A’l / .Ig—l W“ oMaHiJJI—p WWJ‘,’ fSSJLn-QJJN Hen-man» ...—u 1.1., (an mun Cuban-raid...» . 4U.) pub WaLSYI “F 11.51:.) “J’s-SJ 39).»! C—IJAJ “)3." any“! A_,..,.L-:JI 0)”!le Hun-ht. hofivh 0L}, G! 95.1.“... *3; a Ib'l/H-O vial—.9." cud! “LU! 1.1—Ia... ...-IS!” 5.“, .311 £1.ng- AJ at.” A__a)JJ| gun—Lad any... flail! 15.1.4 ungua ”8» v4“ Ho‘l/I/to Nun} - L... 9w cow-«J: w a»! c-I—‘Jv w a»; us c-u-u . n )1." 9|”in MASH Jill-I 95.1.“..— 0‘ my!) a L_.‘.n.a fS-‘aJL-A: vb (SEALA- ML: w 65.24.: ‘4" by 952-“ r“: KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA HImSIIy a! Hugher Education KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY (allege ol [ducalion HADIKAH NUIIAVVARAII yéé'IéflWu JLJJéL—fl‘b‘x‘; jgj-tllagréldliala arm nun. 235-H 1:15 erA \\I C- >-m\t~.’,\\§,\‘