71^2034 BIRCH, Edward Lynn, 1932A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFFS OF SELECTED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, special University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by EDWARD LYNN BIRCH 1971 R eproduced w «h permission o „ P e oopynpn, ow nen F u d h e r reproduC ion p r o h M e d w «hou. permission. A STUDY OP THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFFS OF SELECTED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN By Edward Lynn Birch A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1970 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT A STUDY OP THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFFS OP SELECTED INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN By Edward Lynn Birch The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between perceived and desired organiza­ tional climate in Intermediate school district special education staffs in Michigan, Specifically, it sought to discover whether there were differences between the perceptions of organizational climate and preferences for organizational climate among categories of personnel, between directors of special education and their staffs, and among individual districts. The population for this study consisted of the directors and staffs of 29 intermediate school districts special education departments in Michigan, There were 520 participants comprising eight categories of personnel, namely, directors, supervisors, school diagnosticians, school social workers, speech therapists, type C consult­ ants, teacher counselors for the physically handicapped, and teachers of the homebound and hospitalized. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Edward Lynn Birch The Instrument used to collect data was the Organiza­ tional Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) developed by Halpin and Croft in 1962 for use in elementary schools. The OCDQ contains 64 items and assesses eight dimensions of organizational climate. Pour of these dimensions (Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit and Intimacy) describe behavior of the group and four (Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Consideration) describe behavior of the leader. In order to make the items appropriate for use in an intermediate school district, the items were revised, factor analyzed, and the resulting factors com­ pared with the original OCDQ factors. This procedure found the original and revised OCDQ factors to be statistically similar. Data were collected by asking the participants to respond to the questionnaire items with respect to their perceptions of the present climate and also with respect to their preferences for climate. Twelve hypotheses were formulated and tested by analysis of variance procedures leading to the following findings and conclusions. Findings 1. There were no significant differences between the type of climate that directors as a group and staffs as a group desires 2. Directors as a group and staffs as a group perceived the same type of organizational climate to presently exist. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Edward Lynn Birch 3. For all categories of p e r s o n n e l e x c e p t super­ visors, there were significant differences between their perceptions of organizational climate and their preferences for organizational climate. 4. There were differences among categories of personnel with respect to their perceptions of organiza­ tional climate. 5. There were no differences among categories of personnel as to their preferences for an organizational climate. 6. The degree of Disengagement and Hindrance was greater in special education departments of intermediate school districts than the staffs preferred. 7. The degree of Thrust and Production Emphasis demonstrated by directors of special education departments was less than desired by their staffs. 8. Special education staffs preferred to have higher Esprit than existed. 9. A majority of district directors preferred less Hindrance and greater Esprit and Consideration than they perceived, « Conclusions 1. There were no meaningful differences between categories of personnel with respect to the organizational climate they perceived. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Edward Lynn Birch 2. There was close agreement between staffs as a group and directors as a group In their perceptions of organizational climate, 3. The differences between staff perception of organizational climate and the director's perception of organizational climate was a function of the Individual district and not of the group to which they belong. 4. The categories of personnel within departments of special education desired essentially the same type of climate. 5. The directors as a group and staffs as a group desired the same type of organizational climate. 6. There were differences In Individual districts between the staff's and the director's desire for organiza­ tional climate. 7. Supervisors were most satisfied with the existing organizational climate and school social workers and speech therapists were least satisfied. 8. The factors of Esprit and Hindrance contributed most to the overall dissatisfaction among groups for organizational climate. 9. The behavior characterized by Intimacy and Aloofness In special education departments was acceptable to all categories of personnel. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A study of this nature requires the assistance and cooperation of many individuals. The author wishes to express appreciation to the following who contributed their time and efforts toward the completion of this study. Dr. Charles Henley, chairman of the guidance committee, for his wise counsel and helpful suggestions throughout this endeavor. Dr. Charles Mange, Dr. David Smith, Dr. George Johnson, and Dr. James McKee, members of the guidance committee, who gave willingly of their time and offered many useful suggestions. Dr. Andrew Porter and the staff from the office of research consultation for their assistance in research design and statistical analyses. Sr. Anne Clark and Harrold Spicknall, fellow doctoral students, who collaborated with the author in the inital phase of this research. # A special thanks to the directors and staffs of the departments of special education who participated in the study. Without their cooperation it could not have been completed. ii R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OP CONTENTS Page A C KNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... il LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................... LIST OF FIGURES.......................................... vil LIST OF APPENDICES................................... xi INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 The P r o b l e m ............................. Nee d ....................... Purpose of Study.......................... Definition of Ter ms ....................... Overview of Study ....................... 1 v Chapter I. II. REVIEW OP LITERATURE ....................... 6 6 8 9 Introduction ............................. 9 The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire.............................. 10 Validation and Replication Studies. . . 17 Adaptation of OCDQ for Nursing Organiza­ tions .................................... 21 Relationship Among the Perceptions and Expectations for Organizational Climate. . . . . . . . . . . 23 Personality Factors and Organizational Climate ....................... 26 School Size and T y p e ....................... 20 Age and Tenure of T e a c h e r s ................. 29 Socioeconomic Setting .................... 30 j/Tob Satisfaction and Effectiveness. . . 31 Perception of Organizational Climate . . 32 Summary........................................ 32 III. M E T H O D O L O G Y .................................... 35 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................. 35 Population.................................... 35 ill Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Page Chapter Pilot Study Collection of Data Instrumentation . Factor Analysis . Hypotheses. Analysis Procedures IV. ANALYSIS OP RESULTS Introduction .......................... Analysis of Results.................... Descriptive Results.................... Disengagement....................... Hindrance .......................... Esprit ............................. Intimacy .......................... Aloofness .......................... Production Emphasis................ Thrust .......................... . Consideration....................... Differences Between Groups Differences Between Directors and Staffs Three Factor Results ............. Individual Districts ............. Summary................................. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND­ ATIONS .................................... Summary................................. Findings .......................... Findings From Statistical Analysis of D a t a .......................... Findings from Descriptive Data . Conclusions Perception of Organizational Climate Preferences For Organizational Climate.......................... Climate Satisfaction ............. Recommendations for Further Research . 36 41 42 43 46 48 50 50 51 76 78 80 80 83 83 86 88 88 91 102 102 107 109 111 111 113 113 114 115 116 119 121 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 APPENDICES 132 iv R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Michigan Intermediate school districts with approved directors of special education. . 37 2. Biographical information on staff members. . 39 3. Factor match on original and revised OCDQ, . 45 4. Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for d i r e c t o r s ....................... 52 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for directors.................................... 53 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for supervisors . . . . . . . 54 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for s u p e r v i s o r s ................................. 56 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for diagnosticians ................ 57 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for diagnosticians ............................. 58 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ faptor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for school social workers . . . . 60 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for school social workers....................... 61 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for speech therapists ............. 63 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13. 14. 1Î3. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for speech therapists .......................... 64 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for type C c o n s u l t a n t s ............. 65 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for type C consultants.......................... 67 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for teacher counselors ............. 68 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for teacher counselors, , 70 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for teachers of the homebound. . . 71 Comparison of means between perceived and desired organizational climate factors for teachers of the h o m e b o u n d ................ 73 Analysis of variance between the mean per­ ceived OCDQ factor scores for all groups ' . 74 Analysis of variance between the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for all groups. . . . 75 Analysis of variance of mean perceived OCDQ factor scores and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for directors and staff . . 77 Rank order of Individual groups* mean per­ ceived and desired OCDQ factor scores . . 93 Factors that have differences between mean perceived and mean desired OCDQ scores for various groups ............................. Individual district staffs and directors preferences for OCDQ climate factors. vl R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 103 . IO8 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure . Graphic distribution of population. 38 Perceived and desired disengagement scores by groups 79 Perceived and desired hindrance scores by groups 81 Perceived and desired esprit scores by groups 82 5 Perceived and desired intimacy scores by groups 84 6 Perceived and desired aloofness scores by groups 85 Perceived and desired production emphasis scores by groups ....................... 87 Perceived and desired thrust scores by groups ................................. 89 Perceived and desired consideration scores by groups . .......................... 90 Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for directors 94 Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for supervisors............................. 95 Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for diagnosticians.......................... 96 Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for school social workers ................ 97 Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for speech therapists....................... 98 1 ?. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 vii R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ]''lf'ure 15. Page Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for type C consultants.......................... 99 16. Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for teacher counselors............................. 100 17. Perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for teacher of the homebound....................... 101 18. Perceived OCDQ factor scores for directors and s t a f f s .................................... 104 19. Desired OCDQ factor scores for directors and staffs.......................................... 105 20. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 0 1 ) ................................. 169 21. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 0 5 ) ...................... 170 22. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 07) ................................. 171 23. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 1 1 ) .................................172 2^1. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 1 8 ) ................................. 173 25. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 1 9 ) .................................174 26. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 2 3 ) ................................. 175 27. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 2 9 ) ................... 176 28. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 3 0 ) .................................177 29. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 3 4 ) .................................178 30. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 39) ................... vlll R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 Page Figure 31. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 4 2 ) . 180 32. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 53 ) . 181 33. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 56) . 182 34. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 60) . 183 35. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 6 2 ) . 184 36. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 63) . 185 37. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 65) . 186 38. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 67) . 187 39. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 68) . 188 4o. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 70 ) . 189 Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 7 3 ) . 190 Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 75) . 191 43. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 77 ) . 192 44. Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (Eflstrict 79 ) . 193 Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 80) . 194 Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factors (District 85) . 195 41. 42 . 45. 46. ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4748. Page Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factor (District 8 8 ) .............................. 196 Profile of perceived and desired OCDQ factor (District 9 3 ) .............................. 197 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix Random Numbers Assigned to Intermediate School Districts Participating in Study, 133 Letter to Superintendent of Participating Intermediate School Districts . 135 C. Supplementary Instructions 137 D. Organizational Climate Description Question­ naire .................................... 139 E. Intermediate School District Special Educa­ tion Questionnaire....................... 148 F. Intercorrelation Matrix for 64 Items or Revised O C D Q .......................... 158 G. Estimates of Internal Consistency and of Equivalence for the Eight OCDQ Subtests. 161 H. Standard Scoï*es by District for Director and Staff on Perceived and Desired Organiza­ tional Climate .......................... 163 Standard Scores by Categories of Personnel on Perceived and Desired Organizational Climate ................................. 166 Graphs 168 A. B. I. J, xl R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem During the past two decades the concept of organiza­ tional climate has gained Increasing attention among social scientists. The conceptualization of organizational cli­ mate has resulted from three separate areas of social science research: Individual leadership behavior, group behavior, and organizational behavior. The first studies of leadership focused primarily upon traits or characteristics of Individual leaders. It was thought that successful leaders had certain physical, emotional, and Intellectual attributes that. If Identi­ fied, would be useful In selecting leaders or training personnel for various leadership roles. While this type of Investigation has Identified certain traits that may be associated with successful leadership (Stogdlll, 19^7), It has failed to consider other conditions of the leadership situation that may have substantial Influence on the suc­ cess or lack of success of the leader. It Is for this reason that more recent researchers have begun to consider dimensions other than those associated only with the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. leader. Rubenstein (I966, p. 171) provides the rationale for this change In emphasis : Leadership Is a term that applies not to an Individual alone, but to a relationship be­ tween an Individual In a group and the other Individuals In the group. In other words, leadership Is not looked upon as a universal set of attributes, but rather as a group of variables describing Interaction among group members. At the time that studies were being made of Indi­ vidual leadership behavior, studies were also being con­ ducted Into the nature of group behavior. Of particular relevance were the works of Sherlf and Wilson (1953), Sherlf (1962), and Zaleznlk and Moment (1964). Such studies contributed substantially to an understanding of the effects group members had on one another In the organ­ izational setting. It became readily apparent, as the leadership studies were finding, that the dynamics of Interpersonal behavior of group members contribute In large measure to the eventual success or failure of the organizational task. Early management theories dealing with organizational behavior (Payol, 1930; Gullck, 1937; and Taylor, 1947), focused primarily on the structure of the organization. The essential concern was with division of work and the establishment of lines of authority and responsibility. Little Interest was displayed In the contribution of the employees to the function of the organization. March and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Simon (1958, p. 2 9 ) noted this in stating: There is a general tendency to view the employee as an inert instrument performing the task assigned. Although there are some exceptions in the literature, the grand theories of organiza­ tional structure have largely ignored factors associated with individual behavior and par­ ticularly its motivational bases. More recently, studies in the area of business and industrial management (Argyris, 1958; Christie, 1958; Fielder, 1962; Likert, 196I; Litwin, I9 68; and Taguiri, 1968), have recognized the importance of the organiza­ tional milieu with particular respect to its impact on the organizations' members. Bakke (195^* P» 4) states the general concensus in this manner: The first problem in all organizational life is how to take an aggregate of varied individual people, with varied capacities and predisposi­ tions and get them Involved in cooperative activity which adds up to success for the organ­ ization and satisfaction for the individual con­ cerned. In short, the problem is to integrate the individual participants with the organization. This attention to the study of leadership, group b e­ havior, and organizational behavior by disparate disci­ plines has led to the development of the concept of organ­ izational climate. This concept has been variously defined— the definition almost wholly dependent upon the nature of the organization being considered. Taguiri (1968, p. 2 7 ) defines organizational climate as, "a rela­ tively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experienced by its memb e rs , R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the value of a particular set of attributes of the organization," Evan (Taguiri, 1968, p. 110) says, "organizational climate is a multi-dimenslonal perception of the essential attributes or character of an organiza­ tional system." Halpin (1962, p. 5) describes the dif­ ferent "feel" one has when visiting various schools. "It is the ’personality' that we describe here as the 'organi­ zational climate' of the school. Analogously, personality is to the individual what organizational climate is to the organization." It is Halpin's and Croft's concept of the organiza­ tional climate of schools that undergirds this study. The writer believes it has relevance to the study and practice of school administration. It is within this context that we now consider the need for the present study. Need for Study The intermediate school district in Michigan is a rapidly growing educational organization. It has developed greatly in the past fifteen years, due primarily to its expanding services in the area of special education. The special education staff of the intermediate school district in Michigan has significant influence and increasing re­ sponsibility for developing educational programs for the handicapped. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There Is now ample evidence to suggest that organi­ zational climate has a definite impact on any organiza­ tion's 'ability to meet its responsibilities and obtain its organizational goals. Further knowledge about the organi­ zational climate of special education staffs, and what constitutes a desirable working climate, will enable special educators to increase the effectiveness of their organization— which should correspondingly improve the quality of programs for handicapped children. A second, but no less important aspect of this study, is the contribution it makes to the general knowledge of organizational behavior. Pew studies concerning organi­ zational climate have attempted to determine if there is a consistency among organizational members concerning the type of climate they desire. The defining of a definite constellation of climate dimensions that are desired by organizational members is a necessary first step toward operationalizing the concept of organizational climate. Finally, the adaptation of the Organizational Cli­ mate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) to the directorstaff relationship, along with the necessary factor analy­ sis, expands the usefulness of this instrument in the study of school organizational structure. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study Is to determine If dif­ ferences exist between perceived organizational climate and desired organizational climate of special education staffs and directors in selected Intermediate school dis­ tricts In Michigan. Broadly stated, the study Is directed toward these questions : 1. Is there a difference between the perceived organizational climate and the desired organi­ zational climate of special education staffs and directors of Intermediate school districts In Michigan? 2. What are the climate dimensions where differ­ ences exist between perceived and desired organizational climate? 3. Are there differences between the perceived organizational climate and desired organiza­ tional climate by categories of personnel. I.e., director, supervisor, diagnostician, school social worker, speech therapist, type C con­ sultant, teacher-counselor for the physically Ijandlcapped, and teachers of the homebound and hospitalized? Definition of Terms For the purposes of this study the following opera­ tional definitions of terms are used. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Orf^anlzatlonal Climate Those dimensions as measured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire developed by Halpin and Croft (1962). Perceived Organizational Climate The climate which the respondents perceive to exist presently within the organization. Desired Organizational Climate The climate which the respondents feel they would prefer to have within the organization. Intermediate School District An educational agency operating at a regional level, providing services to constituent local districts, and serving as an administrative link between local districts and the State Department of Education. For the purposes of this study it should be considered with regard to its specific responsibilities for special education. Director of Special Education The person assigned as director of special education in an intermediate school district and meeting the require­ ments for State of Michigan special education reimburse­ ment . • Special Education Staff Non-classroom personnel, exclusive of the director, who are eligible for State of Michigan special education reimbursement and who perform duties under the direction Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 of the director of special education. These Include super­ visors, diagnosticians, school social workers, speech therapists, type C consultants, teacher counselors for the physically handicapped, teachers of the homebound and hos­ pitalized, and others (physical therapists, occupational therapists, etc.). Overview of Study The remainder of this study Is organized In the following manner. Is reviewed. In Chapter II the pertinent literature This review has four parts. The first Is a comprehensive review of the Halpin and Croft original study In developing the Organizational Climate Description Ques­ tionnaire. The second part of the review deals specifi­ cally with those studies that have replicated or validated Halpin’s and Croft's original work with the OCDQ. The third part contains the review of Bolsen's study of the congruence between principals’ and teachers' expectation for climate. The fourth and final part of Chapter II con­ tains reviews of studies that have been conducted using the OCDQ with respect to other variables. In Chapter III the methodology In conducting this study Is pi^esented. In Chapter IV the analyses of data are presented, and Chapter V contains the research find­ ings, recommendations, and summary. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP LITERATURE Introduction This review of the literature Is presented In several parts for clarity of presentation. The original research on organizational climate In schools was done by Halpin and Croft (1962) and appears first In this review. The Halpin and Croft research Is reviewed extensively be­ cause the Instrument (OCDQ) resulting from It provides the foundation for the present study. The second focus of this review Is on those studies that have been primarily concerned with validating the OCDQ or replicating the original study. A third source of literature reviewed Is the study of Mulalk (1966). The consideration of this study has Importance because It Is the only study reported that has adapted the OCDQ to be used In an organizational structure other than elementary schools. The factor analytic procedures are similar to those foun^ In Chapter III of this study. Two studies have been reported that are concerned with differences between perceived and Ideal or expected organizational climate. One of these studies (Bolsen, 1966) has some elements of similarity to the present 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 study; therefore, it is reviewed relative to the method­ ology, analysis procedures, and findings. Finally, the last part of the review presents a global picture of the many studies conducted with the OCDQ. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire The original research on Organizational Climate in schools was done by Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft. Halpin (1966) describes the focus of their interest: Anyone who visits more than a few schools notes quickly how schools differ from each other in their ’feel.’ In one school the teachers and the principal are zestful and exude confidence in what they are doing. They find pleasure in working with each other; this pleasure is transmitted to the students, who thus are given at least a fight­ ing chance to discover that school can be a happy experience. In a second school the brooding dis­ content of the teachers is palpable; the principal tries to hide his incompetence and his lack of sense of direction behind a cloak of authority, and yet he wears this cloak poorly because the attitude he displays to others vacillates randomly between the obsequious and the officious. And the psychological sickness of such a faculty spills over on the students who, in their own frustration, feed back to the teachers a mood of dispair. A third school is marked by neither Joy nor dispair, but by hollow ritual. Here one gets the feeling of watching an elaborate charade in which teachers, principal, and students alike are acting out parts. The acting is smooth, even glib, but it appears to have little meaning for the participants; in a strange way the show doe sn ’t seem to be ’for real.' And so* too, as one moves to other schools, one finds that each appears to have a ’personality’ of its own. It is this ’personality’ that we describe here as ’Organizational Climate’ of the school. Analogously, personality is to the individual what Organizational Climate is to the organization. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 Halpin continues his description of how the research originated : This observation of how schools differ in their Organizational Climate provided the major impetus for the present research. We knew from direct ex­ perience that schools differed markedly in their feel. This was no new discovery. But we wanted to go beyond this. We sought to map the domain of organizational climate, to identify and describe its dimensions, and to measure them in a depend­ able way which would minimize those limitations that necessarily inhere in every instrument which must, in the final instance, rely upon some form of subjective judgment (pp. 131-132). The following procedures were employed by Halpin and Croft in developing the OCDQ. Approximately 1000 items were generated using three different approaches. First, 100 graduate students in education were asked to describe come of the interpersonal events and experiences that impressed them in their teaching careers. Secondly, the literature was searched for pertinent items; the Leader­ ship Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and the Group Dimensions Description Questionnaire provided many items. Third, indepth interviews with teachers produced many useful items. Four hundred of the 1000 items were discarded be­ cause they were inappropriate. The remaining 600 items were then divided on a common-sense basis into four cate­ gories . The four categories were based on a theory or organization model that had four corresponding organiza­ tional types. These were: (1) The Task Oriented R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 Organization, (2) The Effective Organization, Ineffective Organization, zation. (3) The (4) The Social Needs Organi­ Recognizing that a 600 item questionnaire would not be acceptable for administration, Halpin and Croft devised four separate questionnaires of 150 items each. From each of the four categories, an equal number of items were extracted to comprise the four questionnaires. These four versions of the OCDQ were then administered to 284 respondents in 17 elementary schools selected for their heterogeneity. An item analysis of the responses to each of the four versions was conducted to determine which items differentiated between schools. The responses to each item were counted and were listed by school to spot those items that showed maximum variance between schools while at the same time yielding low variance within each school. On the basis of this procedure, approximately 100 items were eliminated from each of the four forms. A separate inter-item correlation matrix for each of the four forms of the OCDQ was then computed. Next a cluster analysis was made by inspecting each of the four correlatior^ matrices. This allowed Halpin and Croft to identify those items within each form which seemed to align themselves in a discernable dimension. Similar item-clusters from each of the four forms were combined; this procedure yielded 16 clusters with a total of 160 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 items. Form II was made up from these 160 Items and was used in the next administration. Form II was administered to five heterogeneous schools with 91 respondents. The responses were inspected to determine which ones differentiated between schools, and a correlational matrix was used to Identify itemclustering, which produced eight clusters with a total of 80 items. Following the same procedure as discussed above. Forms III and IV were developed. Form IV was the final version of the OCDQ, containing 64 items and eight factors. The factors of the OCDQ are referred to as subtests, four of which refer to behavior of the leader and four that refer to behavior of the group. The subtests were labeled according to the kinds of behavior they described about the leader or the group. The eight subtests are; Behavior of the group : 1. Disengagement 2. Hindrance 3. Esprit 4. Intimacy Behavior of the leader: 5. Aloofness 6. Production Emphasis 7. Thrust 8. Consideration R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Halpin and Croft describe the kinds of behaviors measured by each subtest as follows: 1. Disengagement describes a group that is simply 'going through the motions' with respect to the task at hand. This subtest focuses upon the teachers' behavior in task-oriented situa­ tions . 2. Hindrance refers to the teachers* feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary 'busywork.' The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. 3. Esprit refers to morale. The teachers' feel that their needs are being satisfied, and at the same time, are enjoying a sense of accom­ plishment in their Job. 4. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. This dimension describes a social needs satis­ faction which is not necessarily associated with task-accomplishment. 5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and Impersonal. He 'goes by the b o o k ' and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situa­ tion, His behavior, in brief, is universalistlc rather than particularistic, nomothetic rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style he keeps 'emotionally' at a distance from his staff. 6. Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close super­ vision of his staff. He is highly directive and plays the role of 'straw boss,' His communica­ tions tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to feedback from his staff, 7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal which characterizes his evident effort in trying to move the organization. Thrust behavior is marked not by close supervision, but rather by the principal’s attempt to motivate the teachers R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 through the example which he personally sets. Apparently, because he does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than he Is willing to give of himself, his behavior, though taskoriented, Is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. 8. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which Is characterized by an Inclination to treat teachers 'humanly,' to try to do a little extra for them (pp. 150-151). After Halpin and Croft had Identified eight sub­ tests, they moved from the unit of Item analyses to the subtest unit of analyses. Accordingly, they computed the mean and the standard deviation for each subtest and con­ verted the raw scores Into standard scores, with an arbi­ trary mean of 50 and a standard deviation of ten. Intercorrelation between subtests was determined by computing a correlation matrix using the eight sub­ tests. Halpin and Croft then factored the Intercorrela­ tions among the eight subtests using a principal component method of analysis. This analysis suggested that the best factorial solution would be found In either a two or a three-factor rotational solution. Both of these rota­ tional solutions were accomplished with the three-factor solution appearing to identify more accurately the major components of a school's organizational climate. k The three factors which emerged were (1) Factor I, Social Needs ; (2) Factor II, Esprit ; and (3) Factor III, Social Control. (The reader Is referred to Halpin, 1966, or Halpin and Croft, 1962 for a complete analysis and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 discussion of the two and three-factor rotational solu­ tions . ) The last major analysis was now at the school level. For each school, Halpin and Croft constructed a profile whose eight points were defined by the scores on the eight subtests, To determine if the profiles themselves con­ stellated into differentiable clusters, they applied the Q technique of factor analysis to the 71 profiles. It was found that they did cluster into six major areas, each of which could be used to depict a different type of organ­ izational climate. These six climates are characterized by the combination of subtests in each. Halpin and Croft named and ranked the six climates in order from "open" to "closed." The conceptualization of the open and closed climate is similar to Le w i n ’s hypothesis about the struc­ ture of "mind." Halpin, using Lew in ’s terms, describes the Open Climate as marked by "functional flexibility," and the Closed Climate as distinguished by "functional rigidity." The six climates are described as follows by Halpin (1966): 1. The Open Climate depicts a situation in which the members enjoy high Esprit. low Disengagement, low Hindrance. The principals’ behavior is an example of high Thrust, high Consideration, low Aloofness and low Production Emphasis. 2. The Autonomous Climate has relatively high scores on Esprit and Intimacy and low Disengage­ ment , There is low Hindrance accompanied with R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 high Aloofness, low Production Emphasis and average Consideration on the part of the principal. 3. The Controlled Climate Is marked by high Esprit, low Disengagement, high Hindrance and Production Emphasis with low Intimacy, low Consideration and average T h r u s t . 4. The Familiar Climate has high Disengagement, Intimacy ^ and Consideration, with low Hindrance, Aloofness and Production Emphasis. 5. The Paternal Climate Is characterized by high Disengagement. low Hindrance and Intimacy. 6. The Closed Climate marks a situation In which the group members obtain little satisfaction with respect to either task-achlevement or social needs. This climate Is the most closed and least genuine climate to be Identified. It has high Disengagement, high Hindrance, low Esprit and average Intimacy. This climate Is further characterized by high Aloofness. high Production Emphasis and low Consideration (pp. 174-iDy) . The latter part of Halpin*s and Croft’s work, namely, describing the various climates, has received some criti­ cism. However, the research procedure and methodology throughout the study are sound. Perhaps the labels chosen for the climates tend to connote a value Judgment which Is unacceptable to some reviewers. Validation and Replication Studies Smltji (1966) has provided the only study to date that was designed specifically to validate the OCDQ with selected external variables associated with elementary schools. This study was conducted In the suburban Chicago, Illinois area using the principals and teachers from 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 elementary schools. Smith Identified 31 variables asso­ ciated with the elementary schools. These 31 variables were arbitrarily placed in three seemingly appropriate categories. Eleven variables were thought to be asso­ ciated with the situation. The situation factor contained those variables over which neither the leader nor the group had direct control. with a group factor. Eleven variables were associated The group factor was assigned those variables which identified characteristics of the group. The remaining nine variables were identified as being associated with the leader. The 31 variables, as assigned, were factor analyzed, and then subjected to a principal component factor analysis procedure. This analysis produced eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. These eight factors were then subjected to a varimax rotational solution. Five of the eight factors were retained as empirically identified characteristics of schools as they related to the OCDQ. Eight of the 31 original variables that did not load high on the five factors were discarded. As a result of this factorial procedure. Smith now had five factors rather than three ^and was using 23 variables rather than the original 31. The factors were then renamed and described as follows : Factor 1; The Situation— Real and Perceived. Factor One was a general factor which seemed to relate to variables obviously characteristic R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 to the situation or to how the situation is perceived by the group. Factor 2: Size. Factor Two was assigned those variables which were primarily related to the size of the school. Factor 3 : Principal— Professional Stability. Factor Three was concerned primarily with the leader and focused around those variables that identified the "career principal" rather than the principal who saw his position as a stepping stone to another professional position. Factor 4 : Principal— Perceived Behavior. This factor was related to how the principal was perceived by the group. Factor 5 : Principal— Attributes. This factor was clearly associated with the principal and focused on measurable attributes rather than how he was perceived by the group. The variables included in the above factors were then correlated among themselves and with the OCDQ sub­ tests. The organizational climates identified in the 17 schools were related to the variables through analysis of variance procedures. Smith reports these findings as a result of his study: 1. The sub-tests of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire were statistically significantly correlated with selected vari­ ables. Forty-five of a possible 184 correla­ tions were statistically significant at or beyond the .05 level. In other words, fortyfive relationships between the OCDQ and extremal variables were identified. 2, Six variables did distinguish between schools with autonomous and closed climates. The same six variables were significantly different between familiar and closed climate schools at or beyond the 5 percent level of confidence. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 3. The five factors identified through the factor analysis of the original thirty-one variables proved useful in relating external variables to the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. The five factors identified were: Situation— Real and Perceived, Size, Principal— Professional Stability, Principal— Perceived Behavior, Principal— Attitudes. 4. The variables which constituted the Situation— Real and Perceived were especially powerful when related to the OCDQ. Twenty-nine of the fifty-four intercorrelations were statistically significant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence (pp. 115-116). In summary. Smith found the OCDQ to be empirically sound; it is related to the "real world" of the elementary schools, and is a viable instrument to assess the organi­ zational climate of elementary schools. One researcher has replicated the Halpin and Croft study using the OCDQ. Brown (1964) administered the OCDQ to 1772 professional staff members from 8l elementary schools, drawn randomly from the membership of the Twin Cities Educational Research and Development Council of Minnesota. The results of the factor analysis and a varimax rotational solution produced eight factors similar to those in the Halpin and Croft OCDQ analysis. The pattern of subtest ^intereorrelations and the reliability coeffi­ cient were comparable to those found in the Halpin and Croft study. Brown concluded that the OCDQ was a well constructed instrument and merited continued use. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Adaptation of OCDQ for Nursing Organizations Mulaik (1966) is the only study reported in the literature that has adapted the OCDQ for use with an organization other than schools. According to Mulaik, "The present study represents an attempt to see if the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire could be adapted for describing organizations in which nurses are employed" (p. 18 9 ). Mulaik developed his questionnaire by taking the original sixty-four items in Halpin's and Croft's OCDQ and making necessary modifications. Where Halpin and Croft referred to teachers and principals in the OCDQ, Mulaik referred to nurses and supervisors. He added some items which were thought to be particularly germane to the organizational structure of the nursing situation; the resulting Organizational Climate Questionnaire for nursing organizations had 72 items. Mulaik, in devising alternate responses added the response, never happens. which was not a response choice of the OCDQ. Mulaik selected as a sample for refactoring the Questionnaire, 400 nursing leaders participating in a continuing ^education program sponsored by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education in eight re­ gions of the Western states. He then computed the inter- correlations between the 72 items of the Organizational R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Climate Questionnaire. The resulting intercorrelation matrix was then subjected to a principal component factor analysis and 19 factors with corresponding eigenvalues greater than 1.00 were retained. These 19 factors were then rotated to a simple structure configuration using Kaiser's Varimax method. Seven of the eight factors reported by Halpin and Croft for the OCDQ were clearly identifiable among the 19 factors found In Mulaik's questionnaire. The seven fac­ tors identified by Halpin and Croft were Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, Intimacy, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration. They corresponded respectively to the following factors found in Mulaik's study: Disengagement ^ Administrative Burden, Esprit, Intimacy of Staff, Super­ visor's Production Emphasis, and Consideration of Super­ visor. The factor of Aloofness, pertaining to behavior of the Principal was not clearly identifiable among the factors of Mulaik's study. In addition to the seven factors matching seven factors from the OCDQ, 12 other factors were found in Mulaik's study. follows: He named these as Indécisiveness at Top Levels, Consideration of Patients, Availability of Supplies, Democratic Leadership, Independent Report Writing, Closeness of Supervision, Consideration by Top Leadership, Socialability of Staff, Tough-Mindedness at Top Levels, Formality in Meetings, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 and Intolerance of Non-Conformity, One factor was not Interpretable and thus not named. It should be noted that two of the additional fac­ tors found by Mulaik had very small factor loading. Factors labeled (1) Availability of Supplies and (2) Inde­ pendent Report Writing had only four Items load on each. The viability of the Instrument would be enhanced If a greater number of Items could be generated that would load on these factors. The results of this study Indicate that the factors of the OCDQ remained relatively stable when adapted for use In a nursing organization. It provides support for the adaptation of the OCDQ for use In the present study of Intermediate school district special education staffs. Relationship Among the Perceptions and Expectations for Organizational Climate Bolsen (1966) administered the OCDQ to the principals and teachers of 71 elementary schools In Montgomery County, Maryland. Seventy-one principals and 1215 teachers partic­ ipated In the study. Each teacher and principal was re­ quested to respond to the OCDQ two times; once to Indicate their perceptions of the climate as It exists and a second # time to Indicate what should be the Ideal climate. The purpose of the study was to answer these ques­ tions : To what extent are teachers * perceptions of climate congruent with principals’ perception of climate? R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To what 24 extent are teachers' expectations for climate congruent with principals' expectation for climate? To what extent are principals' perception of climate congruent with their expectation for climate? To what extent are teachers' perceptions of climate congruent with their expectation for climate? Scores were obtained on each of the OCDQ subtests for each teachers* and principals' perception and expec­ tation of the climate of their school. Prom the teachers' scores, school mean scores were computed and used in the analysis. The principals' scores and the mean scores for his school were subjected to a correlation and chi-square analysis to determine the congruence that existed between those scores. The results of Boisen's study may be summarized as follows : 1. Teachers' and Principals' Perception. Teachers, more frequently than principals, perceived behavior as being "closed." Examination of the correlations of the climate in schools that tended toward both ex­ tremes (open and closed) indicates that principals and teachers perceived behavior in the Open Climate differently, while there was some congruency in their perception of behavior in the Closed Climate. 2. Teachers* and Principals* Expectation. Teachers in 100 per cent of the schools preferred an Open Climate R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 for their schools, while the profile of principals’ expectations were ambiguous and led to no definite or significant type of climate. 3. Principals’ Perception and Expectations. Significant positive relationships were found between perception and expectation of the principals for each of the climates and for each of the eight behavioral dimen­ sions, The social interaction that principals’ be­ lieved should be occurring in a school did exist according to their perception of the situation, ^1. Teachers’ Perception and Expectation. There were no significant relationships found between teachers* expectations and their perceptions for Open, Autono­ mous , and Paternal Climates, The ideal expectations of teachers indicated they preferred an open climate, and as their perceptions revealed that climates were less than open, this finding is understandable for the Open and Autonomous Climates. Significant positive relationships were found between their perceptions and expectation for Controlled, Familiar and Closed Cli­ mates . AlthQUgh the study of Boisen has similar features of the present study, they differ in several important aspects. In collecting data for the study, Boisen asked the teachers and principals to respond to the items with respect to what the ideal climates should be. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However, 26 when analyzing her data she used the ideal climate as a measure of the expectation that teachers and principals held for the climate. It would have been more appropriate to ask a precise question about expectation rather than assuming that what one sees as ideal is also what he ex­ pects. The present study is not seeking answers about expectations for climate or the ideal climate, but rather the relationship between perceived and desired climate. The present study differs from Boisen's in regard to the population that is being examined. Boisen's study dealt with elementary schools using teachers and principals as respondents. The study reported herein deals with an intermediate school district and uses directors of special education and their staffs as respondents. Personality Factors and Organizational Climate Oargent (1966) has made one of the most ambitious at­ tempts to discern the effects of personality and climate. Working in the Minneapolis, Minnesota metropolitan area, he administered The Sixteen PF Questionnaire and Study of Values to 33 high school principals and the OCDQ to these principals^and 103^ of their teachers. Sargent found that he was unable to predict the degree of openness of high school climate from principals' personality, although Mur­ phy (1966) using the I6 PFQ with teachers reported that the personality pattern of the teachers may contribute to their R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 I’erceptlon of a school’s organizational climate. Anderson (1966) using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule with teachers from 71 "open schools" and 55 "closed schools" reports no significant differences in mean EPPS scores for teachers in open or closed schools. Further evidence suggesting that personality factors may not contribute to organizational climate was furnished by La Guttuta (I966). Using the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale with 271 teachers in l4 different elementary schools, he could find no significant differences with respect to the open or closed school due to dogmatism ; Kirk (1965) reports no relationship between dogmatism and organizational climate. Two studies have focused on psychological variables of principals. Ernst (1965) administering Craig’s Test for Empathy and McLean’s Index of Adjustment and Values to 156 elementary school principals reports no relationship between the principals' empathy, acceptance of self and others, and organizational climate. Ford (1966), however, using the Personal Orientation Inventory reports that principals serving open climate schools possess a higher measured level of psychological health than principals serving closed climate schools. Although some evidence points toward personality factors as influencing school climate, a larger portion of the research suggests that specific personality variables of either principals or teachers have not been Identified R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 with open or closed climate schools. This rather incon­ clusive finding is not to be considered unusual because the rationale for the development of the OCDQ suggests that the climate of a school Is not Just a matter of per­ sonality characteristics of group members. School Size and Type It is often thought that the larger an organization becomes, the more impersonal and institutionally oriented it becomes, thus suggesting that perhaps the size and type of school would have some relationship to its organiza­ tional climate. Several researchers have directed their efforts toward this problem with conflicting results. How­ ever, the overall evidence suggests that smaller schools (fewer number of teachers) tend to be associated with open climates and that elementary schools are more inclined to be open than high schools. Tanner (1966) studying nine senior high schools, nine Junior high schools, and seventeen elementary schools in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area found that : (1) elementary school teachers perceived themselves and principals to be associated with an open type climate; (2) Junior “high school teachers perceived themselves and principals as associated with a familiar type climate; (3) the senior high teachers perceived their schools to be closed. Cole (1965), Flanders (1966), and Cook (1965) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 support the position that smaller schools are more in­ clined to be open and as the school becomes larger It tends toward the closed climate. McWilliams (1965) foiind no relationship between closed high schools and size; how­ ever, previously cited research has suggested that high schools tend to be closed and perhaps McWilliams’ study only indicates that size bears no relationship to the fact that high schools are closed. Age and Tenure of Teachers Several studies reflect Information regarding the variables of age and teacher tenure as a factor in organi­ zational climate. Although this was not the major concern of most studies, sufficient information came to light thar it should at least be mentioned. Hightower (1965) reports that factors of age, experience, and percentage of teachers new to the building appeared to be closely related to cli­ mate. The more experienced, mature, and stable faculties were associated with open climates. Faculties composed of the highest percentage of young inexperienced, or new teachers appeared to suffer from high hindrance and low esprit. Flanders (1966), while studying socioeconomic setting found that among white teachers, the tendency toward openness was directly related to increasing tenure in the schools. Cook (1965) reports that of 303 teachers studied, those in open climate schools were significantly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 older than those In closed climate schools. Although re­ search indicates that age and length of service of the teacher relates to openness of the schools, Ernst (1965) found no significant relationship between the number of years of experience of a principal and organizational cli­ mate of schools. Socioeconomic Setting In a comprehensive study of 3913 teachers in 214 schools, Flanders (1966) found that urban white faculties most frequently perceived their school as having an open climate, followed by paternal and controlled climate. Rural white faculties perceived their schools as having the familiar climate most frequently followed by the open and autonomous climates. Rural Negro and urban Negro faculties perceived their schools as having either the paternal or closed climate with greatest frequency. Over­ all, white faculty schools were perceived as having an open climate with greater frequency than Negro faculty schools. Henson (I965) in a similar study reported that schools with Negro faculties were evaluated more negatively than were schools with white faculties. Hightower (1965) in comparing Negro teachers with white teachers found that Negro teachers experienced more disengagement, less hindrance, equal degree of esprit, and much more intimacy. In general, however, they were identified with the closed R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 end of the continuum, raising questions regarding the effects of a segregated school on Its organlzatlonl cli­ mate . Job Satisfaction and Effectiveness Several studies, Blair (1966), Sargent (1966), and Koplyoy (1966) have found a relationship between Job satisfaction and openness of the school. This may be re­ lated to other factors, however, as Hamlin (1966) found greater job satisfaction among the older teachers with a major finding of his being the relationship between older teachers and openness. This raises the question whether the Job satisfaction was because of the age of the teacher or because of the openness of the school— or perhaps both. Sargent (1966) found that the more open a school climate, the greater the proportion of teachers favorably viewing the school. He also reports that comparing the eleven most open schools with the eleven most closed schools, 40 per cent of the teachers In open climate schools rated their schools’ effectiveness as outstanding; five per cent rated them below average. Comparable figures for faculties In closed schools were 16 per cent and 19 per cent. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Perception of Organizational Climate By the nature of the OCDQ as a measure of school climate, the organizational climate depends on the sub­ jective perception of teachers and principals. It appears that teachers perceive the various aspects of climate some­ what differently than do principals. Bolsen (I966) and Henson (1965) found that principals perceived their schools as more open than did their teachers. Anderson (1964) re­ ports that principals perceived their schools’ climate to be considerably more open than their staffs perceived them. Sargent <1966) concluded that, "since teachers and princi­ pals disagreed on their perceptions of three of four cli­ mate dimensions derived from the principals’ behavior, they apparently differ In their Interpretation of the principals’ action." Summary The review of the literature contained In this chapter Indicates that the OCDQ Is a valid and viable Instrument for use In research studies. used by Halpin and Croft The procedures (1962) In developing the Instru­ ment are acceptable and appropriate. Studies by Brown (1964) and *Smlth (1966) Indicate that the OCDQ has the stability to stand the rigors of a replication study and has validity with respect to some of the external vari­ ables found In the "real world" of the elementary school. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 Mulaik (1966) adapted the OCDQ for use with a nurs­ ing organization, factor analyzed it, and found the Instru­ ment to remain stable in this situation. His findings supported the plan to revise the OCDQ for the present study. The study of Boisen (I966) while similar to the , present study, differs with respect to the type of school organization and study population. In addition, Bolsen makes the assumption that questions relating to the "Ideal climate" measures "expectation" for climate. Research with the OCDQ, related to variables in the school setting, have been conducted by several Investiga­ tors. The research suggests that schools do have dis­ cernable and definite climates within their organizational structure. The climate varies with such factors as school size, socioeconomic setting, age and tenure of teachers. The climate appears to Influence Job satisfaction, teacher attitudes, and teacher perception of the school's effec­ tiveness . This review of the literature reveals dimensions of organizational climate needing further exploration, which has led to^the present study. All of the studies dealing with schools used teachers and principals as respondents. There was a need to determine If the same dimensions of organizational climate found In K-12 schools would also be found In Intermediate school districts where a R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 director-staff relationship exists. Researchers of organi­ zational climate have made the assumption that a group of teachers or a staff's perception of climate was relatively homogeneous. There was a need to know if various types of teachers or staff members perceive climate differently. Also lacking in the literature were any studies that pur­ port to determine what is a desirable climate for an organization based upon what its members prefer. Nor was there any literature investigating the differences that might exist between types of climate desired by various staff members. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter Is to provide a descrip­ tion of the population, to describe the procedures used to collect data, to explain the procedures used In develop­ ing the instrument and In analyzing the data. Considerable preliminary work was done to determine the appropriateness of the OCDQ for this study as well as those of Clark (1970) and Splcknall (1970). The three Investigators collaborated in collecting data for the pre­ liminary analysis and In determining the viability of the OCDQ for use with Intermediate school districts. Population The population for this study Is defined as the director and staff of all intermediate school districts In Michigan that are levying a special education mlllage^ and whose directors are approved for state reimbursement. With Provisions of Public Act 18 of 1954, as amended, have been Incorporated within Public Act 190 of 1962. These provisions allow m l liage to be levied for support of special education programs and services within Intermediate school districts, as provided In Sections 340.291-330u of the Compiled School Laws of the State of Michigan. 35 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 these criteria there were 30 Intermediate school districts that comprised the study population. The entire population was used In the study with the exception of one Inter­ mediate school district that was eliminated because of the Illness of the director. There was a total of 528 sub­ jects that participated In the study; eight answer sheets were not useable because of Incomplete data. The partici­ pating districts and number of staff from each district are presented In Table 1. Figure 1 Indicates the geo­ graphic location of the participating districts. Code numbers, from the Table of Random Numbers (Walker and Lev, 1958, pp. 280-281) were assigned to the Intermediate districts for Identification purposes. Indi­ vidual districts are referred to by code number rather than the district name In the remainder of this study. The code numbers are presented In Appendix A. Biographical data, namely, the age, sex, number of years on present staff, number of years of experience In education and special education, highest degree held and year attained, for the entire population Is presented In Table 2. ’ Pilot Study Revising the OCDQ necessitated a pilot study In order to determine the need for additional changes In the Instrument or In the procedures for administration. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. An 37 TABLE 1 MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH APPROVED DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Name of District No. of Staff Members Participating in the Study Bay-Arenac Berrien County Branch Calhoun Charlevoix-Emmet Delta-Schoolcraft Dickinson-Iron Eaton Genesee Hillsdale Huron Ingham Ionia Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kent Lenawee Livingston Marquette-Alger Monroe Montcalm Oakland Ottawa Saginaw Shiawassee St. Joseph Tuscola Washtenaw TOTAL 13 15 12 10 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 11 6 13 15 10 11 33 8 3 29 14 74 22 18 19 3 7 50 14 20 21 16 15 23 520 38 ssssn SHtmAS- [ Figure 1,--Graphic Distribution of Population. Note: Unshaded areas represent 29 Intermediate School Districts participating In this study. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D I s Q. ■CDD C/) o' 3 CD 8 TABLE 2 ■o BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON STAFF MEMBERS (53 CD Positions Total No. Responding Açes 2J-29 "CDO 3 o. C a o 3 ■D O Directors 29 Supervisors 25 Diagnosticians 74 School Social Workers 88 128 Speech Correctionists Type C Consultants 33 Teacher Consultants (Type 4) 46 Teachers of Homebound and/ or Hospitalized 43 Other 54 TOTAL 520 14 12 36 22 23 13 22 12 6 15 30 14 4 11 0 3 7 24 3 6 0 11 20 ÎÏÏ5 8 17 157 3 14 8 2 53 Sex* ■CDD C/) o' 3 % H Directors Supervisors Diagnosticians School Social Workers Speech Correctionists ' C Consultants Type 4 Consultants Teachers of Homebound and/ or Hospitalized Other TOTAL 29 25 74 88 128 33 46 26 16 50 36 26 13 6 9C 64 6r 41 26 55 13 42 54 519 10 20 207 24 37 0-3 Directors Supervisors Diagnosticians School Social Workers Speech Correctionists Type C Consultants l^pe 4 Consultants Teachers of Homebound and/ 50-59 1 4 13 11 86 7 12 CD Û. Mean 40-49 30-39 "W m 60 or over ' Ages 2 0 3 1 2 .3 1 40.7 38 38.3 42.9 30.3 40.2 ■35.4 8 1 21 43 35 37 Ho. Years :n Present Staff 20 or over 10-19 0-5 4-9 Mean No. of Years y i 24 52 103 4C 10 36 32 59 80 45 87 10 13 35 48 84 26 13 13 7 29 32 29 6 23 6 5 10 8 14 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6.4 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.2 2.8 5.4 32 34 311 76 63 "5ÏÏ 24 34 292 14 18 5 1 55 0 1 2 4.8 3.8 4.6 P. ITT Ho . Years Experience In Education 10-19 4-9 20-29 y Mean 30 or over 29 25 74 88 128 33 46 1 2 16 20 59 2 4 5 21 30 4? 11 17 15 13 32 30 23 15 24 5 4 4 6 4 3 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 14.4 14.1 10.2 9.9 6.2 12.9 10.8 ii? a 11 7 14 3 14.4 11 ? U) VO CD ■D O Q. C g Q. 0-1 ■CDD C/) C/) CD ■8D ci' Director Supervisors Diagnosticians School Social Workers Speech Correctionists lÿpe C Consultants Type 4 Consultants « Teachers of Homebound and/ or Hospitalised* Other TOTALS 29 25 74 88 128 33 46 3. CD ■CDD O Q. C a O 3 "O O Directors Supervisors Diagnosticians School Social Workers Speech Correctionists** '^pe C Consultants Type 4 Consultants Teachers of Homebound and/ or Hospitalised** Other TOTALS 2 1 14 15 29 6 7 4 5 8 19 13 12 7 19 16 27 14 26 11 23 9 6 10 11 ÏÔF 4 12 ■gif 4 10 15 15 166 15 0 0 0 0 3a 0 0 41 54 5ÏF 0 ■CDD (/i o" 3 Directors Supervisors Diagnosticians School Social Workers Speech Correctionists# Type C Consultants Type 4 Consultants Teachers of Homebound and/ or Hospitalized Other TOTALS T 2.4 “TÎ 20 17 Highest Degree Held Bachelors Masters Mb'. ■■ J Ho. J 0 0 5 15 82 9 14 5.7 17.0 65 27.3 30.4 19 18 “TF2 46.3 33.3 31.4 S I Specialist No. % 24 22 53 62 40 23 30 82.8 88 71.7 70.4 31.8 69.7 65.2 2 1 13 11 0 1 .1 22 27 53.7 50 0 4 53 3ÔI SSTT 16 6.9 4.0 17.6 12.6 3 2.2 Id or 1968-69 No. % Year Highest Degree Was Attained 1962-63 1966-67 1964-65 No. i No. J w .— y 29 25 74 88 126 32 46 0 2 17 13 46 3 10 8 23.0 14.8 36.5 9.4 21.7 4 4 12 23 29 9 7 13.8 16 16.2 26.0 23.0 28.1 15.3 8 5 13 21 21 6 12 27.6 20 17.6 23.9 16.7 18.8 26.1 4 6 10 10 8 4 2 13.8 24 13.5 11.4 6.3 12,5 4.3 41 54 515 9 16 ÏÏF 22 29.6 22.5 3 15 ÎÔF 7.3 27.8 6 5 14.6 9.3 4 4 52 9.8 7.4 1Ô.1 CD Q. 8 or over % 3 2 13 26 28 b 8 42 54 5Î9 29 25 74 88 126 33 46 No. Years Experience In Special Education 2-3 % 4-5 % i 6-7 1 1 12 14 32 0 1 Associate No. % 3" S “9T r o 32 Doctorate No. ; 3 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 5 IF 10.3 8.0 4 .8 O 2.2 9.3 3 61 or before No. % 13 44.8 32 29.7 23.9 17.5 31.2 32.6 19 14 46.3 25.9 28 8 22 21 22 10 15 ÎW One person did not respond to this Item* «I Two Individuals did not respond to this item. Two speech correctionists, one Type C Consultant, and two teachers of the homebound and/or hospitalized did not respond to this item. ^These Speech Correctionists are employed in an experimental program. Jr m Intermediate school district not Included In the population was selected for these purposes. This Intermediate school district was similar In all respects to the population dis­ tricts, except that the director was not state approved for special education reimbursement and he was assigned some duties other than director of special education. The results of the pilot study Indicated that one Item re­ quired a slight modification and that additional specific Instructions needed to be given. Collection of Data Several steps were taken to secure the cooperation of the intermediate school districts Involved In the study. A brief resume of the proposed studies was presented at a meeting of the Michigan Association of Intermediate Spe­ cial Education Administrators. This organization endorsed the studies as did the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators. Each Intermediate district was contacted first by letter (Appendix B), and later by tele­ phone to make an appointment for one of the three re­ searchers to meet with the director and staff. The staff and director met as a group and were told briefly about the studies. Each respondent was given a questionnaire, mark-sense answer sheet, and special mark­ ing pencil. The initial Instructions on the questionnaire were read by each participant and then more specific R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 Instructions (Appendix C) were given to the entire group. The respondents were then requested to complete the ques­ tionnaire; If any questions arose they were answered Indi­ vidually. The time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 35 minutes. To Insure confidentiality each respondent placed his own completed answer sheet In a large manlla envelope provided for that purpose. A questionnaire, answer sheet. Instruction sheet and return addressed envelope was left with the director for each person who was absent. The completed questionnaire was to be returned In the sealed envelope to the director for mailing, or the respondents could mall It themselves. In all but four of the 29 districts, one of the three Investigators personally administered the question­ naire. A staff diagnostician collected data In two of the districts and In two other districts the directors were responsible for collecting the data. Collection of data was begun on December 12, 1969 and was completed on February 6 , 1970. Instrumentation The principal Instrument used In this study was the OrganizatTonal Climate Description Questionnaire developed by Halpln and Croft (1962) (Appendix D). This instrument was originally developed for use In measuring organiza­ tional climate of elementary schools. Since its Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 development, the OCDQ has proved useful in assessing organizational climate In secondary schools as well; In one Instance (Mulalk, 1966) It was adapted for use In a nursIng organlzat1o n . Revision of the OCDQ (Appendix E) was necessary with respect to the wording of certain Items because It was used In a staff-director rather than teacher-principal re­ lationship and because the nature of the duties In an Intermediate district Is mentary school. different from those of an ele­ Permission to use the revised OCDQ was granted by Mrs. Agnes Moran of the Macmillan Company. To preclude the possibility that the revised OCDQ might mea­ sure substantially different organizational behavior, the data from the present study were factor analyzed to deter­ mine If the factors were essentially the same as those measured In the original study. It was Intended that. If the factors of the present study closely matched those of the original study, those of the original study would be used. Factor Analysis Through the Michigan State University evaluation services, ‘computer cards were prepared from the mark-sense answer sheets of the 520 respondents, The data were then factor analyzed by using a principal component solution and then rotated to simple structure with R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 Kaisers' Varimax Rotational Solution, The results of the factor analysis Indicated that 21 factors were present with eigenvalues of 1.00 or greater. The first eight factors were then matched with the eight factors of the original study. The program employed for this procedure relates the factors by determining the cosines of the angles between the factor vectors of the two studies. These cosines are measured In a space where cosines of angles means correlations, therefore, they are Interpreted descriptively as correlation coefficient. 2 The correla­ tions are presented In Table 3» and Indicate a high corre­ lation among the factors. Comparing the correlation matrix of the original (Halpen & Croft, 1962) and the revised OCDQ varia­ bles (Appendix P) Indicates that the factors are very simi­ lar. Based upon the close statistical relationship be­ tween the original eight factors and the eight factors produced In the present preliminary analysis. It was de­ cided to analyze the data for the present study using Halpln's and Croft's (I962) scoring procedures, and accept­ ing their labels and description of the subtests. Reli­ ability coefficients from the original study are reported John Blanchlnl and Henry P. Kaiser, "Portran Pro­ gram for Relating Factors between Studies Based upon Dif­ ferent Individuals, Bureau of Educational Reserach," University of Illinois, 1964 (mimeographed paper). R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C g Q. TABLE 3 FACTOR MATCH OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED OCDQ ■CDD 5 Revised OCDQ Factors z 1 CD - - ■ - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 # "8O (O ' 1 .97 .02 .06 .10 .08 .07 .11 .16 I ; s s 2 .04 .92 .11 .08 .04 .11 .14 .32 ? s 3 ,04 .11 .96 .04 .01 .13 .19 .12 ; a 4 .02 .23 .07 .80 .01 .44 .22 .23 I R 8 o i g "H I Q- O Zr 5 .08 .03 .02 .03 .99 .10 .08 .02 6 .22 .24 .10 .56 .01 .41 .33 .55 7 .03 .01 .15 .03 .11 .38 .87 .24 8. .02 .18 .18 .17 .08 .66 .09 .67 ■CDD C/) o' 3 Note: All negative correlation signs have been omitted. U1 46 in Halpln and Croft (1962) and are reproduced In Appendix G. The major focus of the present study was to determine differences between perceived and desired organizational climate among the directors and staff of special education departments of intermediate school districts in Michigan. Therefore, the questionnaire and answer sheets were de­ veloped in such a manner as to allow the participants to respond to each item twice; first they indicated how they perceived the situation presently to be and then responded with respect to how they would desire the situation to be. Using the instrument in this manner provides l6 factor variables rather than eight ; there are eight factor vari­ ables of perceived organizational climate and eight of desired organizational climate. The questionnaire also contained questions relative to biographical data of the respondent. Hypotheses In order to answer the question to which this study was directed, the following specific hypotheses were tested. Hypothesis “1 ; There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for directors. Hypothesis 2 ; There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for supervisors. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 Hypothesis 3 : There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for school diagnosticians. Hypothesis 4 : There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for school social workers. Hypothesis 5 : There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for speech therapists. Hypothesis 6 : There are differences between perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for Type C con­ sultants . Hypothesis 7 : There are differences between the perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for teachercounselors for the physically handicapped. Hypothesis 8 : There are differences between the percleved and desired OCDQ factor scores for teachers of the homebound and hospitalized. Hypothesis 9: There are differences between the perceived OCDQ factor scores for directors, super­ visors, diagnosticians, school social workers, speech therapists, type C consult­ ants, teacher-counselors for the physically handicapped, and teachers of the homebound and hospitalized. Hypothesis 1 0: There are differences between the desired OCDQ factor scores for directors, super­ visors, diagnosticians, school social workers, speech therapists, type C consult­ ants, teacher-counselors for the physically handicapped, and teachers of the homebound and hospitalized. Hypothesis 11: There are differences between the perceived OCDQ factor scores of directors and the perceived OCDQ factor scores for their staff. Hypothesis 12; There are differences between the desired OCDQ factor scores of directors and the desired OCDQ factor scores for their staff. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Analysis Procedures The data from the total population were prepared for analysis by transforming the raw scores Into standard scores, assigning an arbitrary mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Next, standard scores were obtained by district (Appendix H ) , and by categories of personnel (Appendix I) so that It could be determined If these Indi­ vidual groups differed from the total population. The unit of analysis for this study was the person or mean of persons within a group. The dependent vari­ ables were scores on the 16 subtests of the revised OCDQ. All hypotheses were tested by using analysis of vari­ ance procedures with significance of the P ratio set at the .05 level. Greenhouse's and Gelsser's (1959) recom­ mendation for using the conservative P test of the P value was determined appropriate for this study. It Is used when the assumption cannot be made that the variables have equal variance or are equally correlated. The con­ servative P value employs reduced degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom used in the present study are J-1, N-1, J representing the number of variables and N representing the number of subjects. The reduced degrees of freedom, when testing an Interaction effect, result In a larger P value, thereby requiring a larger P ratio for significance. Therefore, the test Is conservative as the chance of obtain­ ing significance Is reduced. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 When the overall F ratio was significant, post hoc comparisons were made to determine among which variables the differences existed. The method used for the post hoc comparisons is that due to Scheffe (1959). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OP RESULTS Introduction In Chapter IV the results of the study are reported. Each of the hypotheses are restated in null form and tested by analysis of variance procedures. To determine the significance of the P ratio from the analysis of vari­ ance for this study, the conservative test of the P value suggested by Greenhouse and Gelsser (1959) is used. This conservative test is recommended when it cannot be assumed that the variables have equal variance and are mutually independent or, at best, have equal correlations. To adjust for this, the conservative test of the P value em­ ploys reduced degrees of freedom. In the present study, the degrees of freedom used to test the P value are ^(j-1)(n-1)• A significant P ratio only indicates that there are differences among the means that are significant at the .05 level ôf confidence. In order to determine which means differed significantly, it was necessary to conduct post hoc comparisons of means. The method used in the following analysis is that provided by Scheffe (1959). 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 For the present study It was of interest only to determine differences between mean perceived and the mean desired scores for like OCDQ factors. In most cases where the overall P test was significant, post hoc comparisons between like factors were carried out using the Scheffe method. Analysis of Results Hypothesis 1 ; There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for directors, The results of the analysis of variance are pre­ sented In Table 4. The differences In means were analyzed through a climate-factor Interaction. for 1,28 degrees of freedom is 4.20. The critical P value Because the P ratio of 21.18 Is larger than the P value of 4.20, the null hypo­ thesis of no difference was rejected. It was concluded that there are differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for directors. Table 5 presents the results of the comparison of means between like factors. Using the Scheffe method, the 95 per cent confidence Interval for each comparison difference Is 7.37. Inspection of Table 5 shows that directors' mean scores for perceived and desired OCDQ fac­ tors differ on the factors of Hindrance, Esprit, and Thrust. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES FOR DIRECTORS Source of Variation Climates (perceived and desired) Sums of Squares d .f. Mean Square 150.21 1 150.21 Error 1311.42 28 46.84 Factors 2434 .86 7 347.84 19949.26 196 101.78 Error 568.26 Climates X Factors 3977.83 Error 6009.97 224 37896.45 491 Total ^ l , 28o c .05 “ < .05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.21 3.42 21.18* CD ■D O Q. C g Q. TABLE 5 ■CDD COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR DIRECTORS C/) o" 3 O Perceived ■8D Desired Means Disen­ gagement 46.28 ■D O Q. Hind­ rance 45.28 a O ■D O Esprit 55.83 Inti­ macy 52.83 Aloof­ ness 46.07 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 54.86 Thrust 54.28 Consid­ eration 53.97 3. 3" CD CD C 3 Disengagement Hindranee Reprit ^ macy Aloofness 48.21 54.86 47.65 54,59 48.52 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 50.55 Thrust Consid­ eration 46.07 50.83 1.93 9.58* VJ1 U) 8 .18* 1.76 CD Q. ■CDD C/) C/) '<.05 2.45 4.31 9 .21* 3.14 54 Hypothesis 2 : There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for supervisors. A summary of the analysis Is presented In Table 6. The analysis of the climate-factor Interaction provides the test for this hypothesis. An P ratio of 4.26 Is neces­ sary for 1,24 degrees of freedom before significant dif­ ferences at the .05 level are present. The P ratio result­ ing from the climate-factor Interaction Is 11.99. Since this ratio Is larger than the 4.26 value needed for sig­ nificance, the null hypothesis was rejected. TABLE 6 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES FOR SUPERVISORS Source of Variation Climates (perceived and desired Sums of Squares d .f. Mean Square 20.70 1 20.70 Error 1916.99 24 79.87 Factors 1327.88 7 189.70 24050.44 168 143.16 2650.32 7 378.62 6062 .48 192 31.57 46627.96 423 Error Climates X Factors # Error Total ^1.24- .05 " *< .05 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P .26 1.32 1 1 .99* 55 Table 7 reveals the post hoc comparisons of means for supervisors. A difference between means of 8.66 or greater is necessary to conclude that there is signifi­ cance at the .05 level of confidence. It can be noted in Table 7 that the mean scores for perceived and desired OCDQ factors for supervisors are not significantly dif­ ferent . Hypothesis 3 : There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factors for diagnosticians. The summary of the analysis of variance is presented in Table 8. The climate-factor interaction provides the P ratio upon which the decision was made to reject the null hypothesis. The P ratio for the climate-factor inter­ action, as indicated in Table 8, is 57.08. The F value for 1,73 degrees of freedom is 4.00, which allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis and leads to the conclu­ sion that there are differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for diagnosticians. Table 9 provides the comparison of factor means of perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores for diagnosti­ cians. A difference of 5.47 or greater between means is necessary for significance at the .05 level of confidence. k Inspection of Table 9 reveals that the differences between means for perceived and desired OCDQ factors for diagnos­ ticians are found with the factors of Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit and Production Emphasis. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q. C g Q. TABLE 7 ■CDD COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR SUPERVISORS C/) o" 3 O Perceived ■8D 3. 3 " CD ■CDD O Q. C a O ■D O Desired Means Disen­ gagement 46.92 Hind­ rance 43.32 Esprit 56.16 Inti­ macy 53.40 Aloof­ ness 49.36 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 52.84 Thrust 54.04 Consid­ eration 53.84 _ gagement Hindranee ^ Intimacy Aloofness tlon Emphasls Thrust Consid­ eration 53.08 51.48 50.68 53.32 51.72 47.92 48.44 49.60 6.16 8.16 o> 3 CD Q. ■CDD C/) C/) 5.48 .08 2.36 4.92 5.60 4.24 57 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES POR DIAGNOSTICIANS Source o f Variation Climates (perceived and desired) Sums of Squares d .f. Mean Square 490.41 1 490.41 Error 3452.72 73 47.30 Pactors 5118.96 7 731.28 Error 75526.92 511 147.80 Climates X Pactors 15838.96 7 2262.71 Error 23151.64 584 39.64 146250.80 1256 Total ^1,73« .05 " *<.05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P 10.37* 4 .95* 5 7 .08» CD ■D O Q. C g Q. TABLE 9 ■CDD COMPARISON OP MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR DIAGNOSTICIANS C/) C/) Perceived #- ■8D Desired Means (O ' 3. 3" CD ■CDD O Q. C a O 3 "O Disen­ gagement 47.28 Hind­ rance 46.41 Esprit 53.38 Inti­ macy 52.18 Aloof­ ness 52.45 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 50.23 Thrust 52.32 Consid­ eration 52.97 Disen­ gagement Hind­ rance 56.72 55.82 Esprit Intimacy Aloofness 40.35 50.39 54.28 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 44.51 Thrust Consid­ eration 47.16 47.67 9.44* VJI CO 9.41* 13.03* o CD Q. ■CDD (/) o' 3 <.05 1.79 1.83 5.72* 5:.16 5.30 59 Hypothesis 4 : There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for school social workers. This hypothesis was tested by computing the F ratio from the climate-factor Interaction of the analysis of variance. A summary of this analysis Is presented In Table 10. It will be noted that the P ratio yielded by the cllmate-factor Interaction Is 56.70. The conservative P value for 1,8? degrees of freedom Is 4.00. The fact that the P ratio Is larger than the P value allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis and the conclusion that there are significant differences between the means of perceived and the means of desired OCDQ factor scores for school social workers. To determine among which means of Interest the dif­ ferences would be found, post hoc comparisons of means were computed. Table 11 presents the comparisons of means on each of the eight factors. A difference between means of 5.59 or greater Is necessary for significance at the .05 level of confidence. It will be noted that there are significant differences on the factors of Disengage­ ment, Hindrance, Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration. Hypothesis 5 : There are no differences between the per­ ceived and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for speech therapists. A cllmate-factor Interaction was tested to produce the P ratio used In determining significance or R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 TABLE 10 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES POR SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKERS Source of Variation Climates (perceived and desired) Sums of Squares d.f. 414.56 Error 4918.82 Factors 1753.10 Mean Square 414.56 87 7.34* 56.54 250.44 Error 86732.53 609 142.42 Climates X Factors 19519.68 7 2788.53 Error 34228.76 696 49.18 173059.59 1494 Total F ^1,87“ .05 “ .05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.76 5 6 .70* CD ■D O Q. C g Q. TABLE 11 ■CDD COMPARISON OP MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKERS C/) o' 3 O Perceived "8O Desired Means Disengagement Hindranee Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Produc­ tion Emphasis Thrust Consid­ eration 53.16 55.88 43.92 46.19 52.03 44.56 44.75 45.27 CD 3. 3 " CD ■CDD O Q. C a O ■D O 3 CD Q. ■CDD C/) C/) Disen­ gagement 46.26 Hind­ rance 43.90 Esprit 54.10 Inti­ macy 46.84 Aloof­ ness 48.18 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 51.48 Thrust 52.56 Consid­ eration 51.13 *<.05 6.90* o\ H 11.98* 10 .18» .65 3.85 6.92* 7.81* 5 .8 6 » 62 non-significance of the hypothesis. Table 12 contains a summary of the analysis of variance computations. The climate-factor Interaction yielded an P ratio of 89*56; the P value required for significance, based upon 1,127 degrees of freedom, was 3.84. Because this computed P ratio was larger than the required P value, the null hypo­ thesis was rejected. The conclusion was made that differ­ ences, significant at the .05 level of confidence, did exist between the mean perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores. In order to determine among which means of Interest there were significant differences, post hoc comparisons using the Scheffe technique were made. a summary of these comparisons. Table 13 contains Each comparison Is significant If the difference between means Is 3 *83 or greater. An Inspection of Table 13 reveals that the means of perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores differ signifi­ cantly with respect to the factors of Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Con­ sideration. Hypothesis 6 ; ^ There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for type C consultants. A climate-factor Interaction was the test computed to determine the P ratio. Table 1 4 , showing a summary of the analysis of variance. Indicates that the resulting P ratio Is 24.73. The critical F value necessary for R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 TABLE 12 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES POR SPEECH THERAPISTS Source of Variation Climates (perceived and desired) Sums of Squares 4583.95 Factors 1462.95 Mean Square 276.86 276.86 Error Error d.f. 127 7.67* 36.09 208.99 119015.99 889 13 3 .38 Climates X Factors 21984.11 7 3140.59 Error 35624.54 1016 35.06 214566.20 2174 Total P ^1 ,127“ .05 “ 3'84 *< .05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.56 8 9 .56» CD ■D O Û. C g Q. TABLE 13 ■CDD COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR SPEECH THERAPISTS C/) C/) CD Perceived ■8D (O ' Desired Means 33" Disengagement Hindranee 53.89 55.20 Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Produc­ tion Emphasis Thrust Consid­ eration 46.63 51.04 49.13 49.28 47.24 47.66 CD ■CDD O Q. C a O 3 "O o CD Q. ■CDD ( (/ /) ) Disen­ gagement 46.27 CTi Hind­ rance 44.66 Esprit 55.91 Inti­ macy 50.81 Aloof­ ness 47.96 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 53.31 Thrust 54.15 Consid­ eration 52.88 '<.05 7 .62» XT 10.54» 9.28» .23 1.17 4.03* 6.91* 5 .22» 65 TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES FOR TYPE C CONSULTANTS Source of Variation Climates (perceived and desired) Error Factors Error Climates X Factors Error Total Sums of Squares d.f. Mean Square 43.18 1 43.18 1231.38 32 38.48 422.18 7 60.31 34502,76 224 154.03 9680.83 7 1382.98 14317.49 256 55.93 69407.88 559 ^1,32« .05 “ *< .05 R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F 1.12 .39 24.73* 66 significance at the .05 level of confidence is 4.17 based on 1,23 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected and the alternate hypothesis stating that there are differences between the mean perceived and desired OCDQ factor scores was accepted. In order to determine among which means the differ­ ences were significant it was necessary to carry out post hoc comparisons. The value resulting from the Scheffe procedure was 9.95. Therefore, only those means with differences of 9.95 or greater are significant at the .05 level of confidence. An inspection of Table 15 shows that there is a difference between mean perceived and mean de­ sired OCDQ factor scores for type C consultants on the factors of Disengagement, Hindrance and Esprit. Hypothesis 7 : There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for teacher counselors for the physically handicapped. The analysis used to test this hypothesis is the interaction between the effects of climate and those of factors. Table 16 reveals that the F ratio for a climate- factor interaction is 25.20. The F value for 1,45 de­ grees of freedom at the .05 level of significance is 4.06. Because the F ratio of 25.20 is larger than the critical F value necessary for significance, the null hypothesis is rejected. This led to the conclusion that there are dif­ ferences between the mean perceived and the mean desired R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 "CDO 3 Q . C g Q . TAELE 15 ■CDD COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AMD DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR TYPE C CONSULTANTS (fi o" 3 O CD "8O Perceived (O ' Desired Means Disen­ gagement Hind­ rance 55.76 57.64 Esprit Intimacy Aloofness 43.42 49.67 51.94 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis Thrust Consid­ eration 46.09 47.61 3. 3" CD "CDO O Û. Disen­ gagement O ■D O Hind­ rance 45.24 Esprit 56.46 Inti­ macy 52.79 Aloof­ ness 46.46 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 54.70 Thrust 52.97 Consid­ eration 52.36 3 44.67 48.94 11.09* o\ 12.40* 13.04* CD Q. ■CDD ( (/ /) ) ^.05 3.12 5.48 5.76 6.88 4.75 68 TABLE 16 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ FACTOR SCORES POR TEACHER COUNSELORS Source of Variation Sums of Squares Climates (perceived and desired) Error Factors Error Climates X Factors Error Tobal .05 “ d.f. Mean Square 121.417 1 121 .47 3644.59 45 8 0 .99 559.29 7 79.90 52765.65 315 167.51 7686.74 7 1098.11 15987.29 360 43.58 89545.99 780 08 .05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P 1.50 .48 2 5 .20* 69 Of:i)Q factor acores for teacher counselors for the physi­ cally handicapped. Scheffé post hoc computations reveal that there must be a difference of 7.33 or greater between means In order for the differences to be significant at the .05 level of confidence. Table 17 Indicates that three of the eight factors have differences of 7.33 or greater. These dif­ ferences are on the factors of Hindrance, Esprit and Thrust. Hypothesis 8 : There are no differences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for teachers of the homebound and hospitalized. A summary of the analysis of variance Is presented In Table l8. The analysis of Interest Is the cllmate- factor Interaction which yields an F ratio of 23*30. The critical F value for 1,42 degrees of freedom Is 4.08. The F ratio was larger than the F value necessary for significance at the .05 level of confidence, providing evidence for concluding that there are differences of significance between mean perceived and mean desired OCDQ factor scores for this category of personnel. 'I'he analysis of variance does not reveal which dif­ ferences of means are significant. This was accomplished through a post hoc comparison using the Scheffe technique. Computations by this method yielded a value of 7.09 which Is the minimum value by which means may differ and be R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■D O Q . C g Q . TABLE 17 ■CDD COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS FOR TEACHER COUNSELORS (fi o" 3 O CD ■8D Perceived (O ' Desired Means 3. 3" CD ■CDD O Q. C a O ■D O 3 Disen­ gagement 45.74 Hind­ rance 45.07 Esprit 55.71 Inti­ macy 50.13 Aloof­ ness 49.13 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 51.76 Thrust 54.37 Consid­ eration 50.65 Disengagement Hindranee Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Produc­ tion Emphasis Thrust Consid­ eration 52.72 54.91 46.76 50.35 51.89 45.94 46.94 46.57 6.98 9.84» 8.95* CD Q. ■CDD ( (/ /) ) '<.05 . 22 2.76 5.82 7.43* 4.08 71 TABLE 18 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ F A C T O R S C O R E S AND M E A N D E S I R E D O C D Q P A C T O R S C O R E S POR T E A C H E R S OP T H E H O M E B O U N D S o u r c e of Variation C l i m a t e s ( p e rceived and d e s i r e d ) Sums of Squa res d.f. Mean Square 487.27 1 487.27 Er ror 2509.17 42 59.74 Facto rs 1465.99 7 209.43 35177.58 294 119.65 6193.42 7 884.77 12759.81 336 37.98 74276.77 729 Jirror Climates X Factors Er r o r Total .05 “ *< .05 R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P 8.16* 1.75 23.30* 72 r.li'iniricant at the .05 level. Table 19 shows that two factors have differences of this magnitude or greater. These factors are Hindrance and Esprit. Hypothesis 9 : There are no differences between the mean p e r c e i v e d O C D Q f a c t o r s c o r e s for d i r e c t o r s , supervisors, diagnosticians, school social workers, speech therapists, type C c o n ­ s u l t a n t s , t e a c h e r c o u n s e l o r s for t he p h y ­ s i c a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d , and t e a c h e r s of the h o m e b o u n d and h o s p i t a l i z e d . The analysis of variance used to test this hypo­ thesis is summarized in Table 20. It should be noted that the P ratio resulting from the main effects for groups is l.R^I. The F value for 7,^58 degrees of freedom, necessary for significance at the .05 level of confidence, is 2.01. The F ratio of 1.84 does not reach the magnitude of the F value, therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected on the basis of the main effects for groups. The analysis for group-factor interaction leads to an P ratio of 2.19 with a corresponding F value of 2.01 needed to establish significance. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are differences between mean scores for groups among the eight factors. The null hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis^10 : There are no differences between the mean desired O C D Q factor scores for directors, supervisors, diagnosticians, school social w o r k e r s , speech therapists, type C con­ s u l t a n t s , t e a c h e r c o u n s e l o r s for t h e p h y ­ s i c a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d , a n d t e a c h e r s of t h e homebound and hospitalized. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD ■D O Q . C S Q . ■CDD TABLE 19 C O C/) COMPARISON OF MEANS BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS POR TEACHERS OF THE HOMEBOUND CD ■8D Perceived (O ' Desired Means Disengagement Hindranee Esprit Intimacy Aloofness 51.33 51.02 44.63 44.86 51.95 Produc­ tion Emphasis Thrust Consid­ eration 47.49 46.70 47.65 3. 3" CD "CDO O Q. Disen­ gagement 44.40 a O 3 "O Hind­ rance 43.37 Esprit 53.05 Inti­ macy 49.02 Aloof­ ness 49.47 Produc­ tion Em­ phasis 54.19 Thrust 53.21 Consid­ eration 52.40 C o 6.93 U) 7.65* 8.42» CD Q. ■CDD CO C/) ^<.05 4.14 2.48 6.70 6.51 4.75 74 TABLE 20 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE BETWEEN THE MEAN PER­ CEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES FOR ALL GROUPS Source of Variation Sums of Squares d.f. Mean Square 2491.15 7 355.88 Within Groups 88465.76 458 193.16 Factors 41476.68 7 5925.24 Group X Factors 12790.98 49 261.04 Within (groups and factors) 436177.48 3664 119.04 Total 581402.05 4185 Groups .05 " < .05 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P 1.84 2 .19* 75 llypothenis 10 was tested by computing an analysis of variance among groups, factors, and interaction of groups and factors. Table 21 shows a summary of the results of this analysis. It can be noted that the main effects for groups is not significant. The P ratio of 1.55 is less than the P value for 7,^58 degrees of freedom. It should be noted that the P ratio for groups-factor interaction is 1.20 and the P value (P^^g 366^* nificance is 1 .3 9 . 0 5 ^ required for sig­ It was concluded that the null hypo­ thesis can not be rejected. TABLE 21 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE BETWEEN THE MEAN DESIRED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES POR ALL GROUPS Source of Variation Groups Sums of Squares d.f. Mean Square 1505.99 7 215.14 Within (groups) 63523.11 458 138.70 Factors ^2523.99 7 6074.86 5285.44 49 107.87 287804.43 3664 78.55 400642.97 4185 Groups X Factors Within (groups and factors)k Total R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P 1.55 1.20 76 Hypothesis 11: T h e r e are no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the m e a n p e r c e i v e d O C D Q f a c t o r sc o r e s of d i r e c t o r s and the m e a n p e r c e i v e d O C D Q fa c t o r score s for staffs. Hy p o t h e s i s 12: T h e r e are no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the m e a n d e s i r e d O C D Q fa c t o r s c o r e s of d i r e c t o r s and the m e a n d e s i r e d O C D Q fa c t o r sc ores for staffs. These hypotheses r e f e r to d i r e c t o r s as a g r o u p and staffs as the c o m b i n e d staff s t h r o u g h o u t the p o p u l a t i o n . B o t h h y p o t h e s e s w e r e t e s t e d by u s e of a n a l y s i s of v a r i ­ ance procedures u s i n g c l l m a t e - f a c t o r , d i r e c t o r and sta f f I n t e r a c t i o n as t he c r i t i c a l m e a s u r e . ing from this I n t e r a c t i o n Is Tfie P val u e for tJie F v a l u e The P ratio result­ 3-12 as n o t e d 1,28 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m Is In T a b l e 4.20. 22. Sin c e Is of g r e a t e r m a g n i t u d e t h a n the r e s u l t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n F rati o, t he null h y p o t h e s i s cannot be re- jected. Descriptive Results T}ie p u r p o s e of this results s e c t i o n Is to e n l a r g e u p o n the as d e t e r m i n e d by the t e s t i n g of s p e c i f i e d h y p o ­ t hese s and to b r i n g Int o focus tive a s p e c t s some of the m o r e d e s c r i p ­ of the study. T h e I n i t i a l ei g h t h y p o t h e s e s I n v o l v e d eac h c a t e g o r y # of p e r s o n n e l postulated that m a d e up the study p o p u l a t i o n . It was that t h e r e w o u l d be d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n h o w organizational c l i m a t e f a c t o r s w e r e p e r c e i v e d and h o w they w o u l d be d e s i r e d for eac h c a t e g o r y of p e r s o n n e l . R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The 77 TABLE 22 ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN PERCEIVED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES AND THE MEAN DESIRED OCDQ PACTOR SCORES POR DIRECTORS AND STAPP Source of Variation Directors and Staffs Sums of Squares d.f. Mean Square 321.25 1 321.25 3644.44 28 130.16 Climates 427.69 1 427.69 Error 870.62 28 31.09 1084.48 7 154.93 13292.96 196 67.82 Climates X Factors 9282.13 7 1326.02 Error 3763.55 196 19.20 21.73 1 21.73 675.46 28 24 .12 1494.20 7 213.45 11365.11 196 57.99 375.17 7 53.60 6730.20 392 17.17 53348.99 1095 Error Factors Error Climates X Directors and Staffs Error Factors X Directors and Staffs Error Climates X Factors X Directors and Staffs Error T ot al • ^1 ,28= .05 “ ^ *< .05 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F 2.47 1 3 .75* 2.28 6 9 .06* .90 1.08 3.12 78 results of the hypotheses testing have been reported pre­ viously. It now seems desirable to call attention to some of the results that have not been a part of the statisti­ cal treatment, but provide some useful descriptive Infor­ mation about the study. This presentation will frequently refer to scores by various groups and districts ; It should be remembered that all scores are reported as standard scores and that the standardization procedures used a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Disengagement The reader may recall that Disengagement refers to the groups lack of Involvement In task-oriented situations; the group simply goes "through the motions" without a gen­ uine commitment to the task. It will be noted from Figure 2 that diagnosticians tend to perceive Disengage­ ment higher (57) than do other categories of personnel. Although there are minimal differences among groups with respect to desired climate, diagnosticians and supervisors tend to desire a higher (47) degree of Disengagement than do other groups. Disengagement is perceived to be lowest (48) by directors and Is desired least (44) by teachers of the homebound. Overall, Disengagement Is seen by all groups as being higher than they would desire. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 ta U 0 +> o 4) U •H Q 65 -r I 1 ta U U m ta S>^ cd u •H *H Q -P 1 ta 0 Fh 0 d> CO ^ k rH 0 0 Is 0 0 cd CO «H ta 44 •H xi 04 0 cd CO EH 1 09 C U 0 0 IQ 44 0 c cd d) 44 PirH P É4 CQ 0 tnfH d) d) Æ to 0 a cd 3 d) 0 E4 u Perceived Desired 60 — 55 -09 <0 S 0 CO T3 50 -1 § 4^ CO dn 0_ « Q u 3 d> 0 x: XI 0 d> as a d> 0 EH Œ D I S E N Q A G E M E N T 45 -- 40 35 Figure 2.— Perceived and Desired Disengagement Scores by Groups. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Hindrance The Hindrance factor refers to the groups' feeling that they are being burdened by routine duties and "busywork" that Interferes with their primary job responsibili­ ties. Inspection of Figure 3 indicates that all groups perceive Hindrance to be higher than they desire. consultants tend to see greater Hindrance Type C (58) than do the other groups ; supervisors and teachers of the homebound perceive the least (44) Hindrance. With respect to the desires of various groups, diagnosticians indicate a greater acceptance (46) for Hindrance while supervisors and teachers of the homebound expressed the least (44) desire for this behavior. Ksprit This factor is very much the same as the common u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m o r a l e . The group fe els achievement and task accomplishment. staffs in the stu d y perceived Esprit a high sense of All 29 districts' as b e i n g l o w e r t h a n they would desire it to be (see Appendix J). Twenty-six of 29 directors also perceived Esprit to be lower than they d e s i r e d . However, directors t e n d e d t o h a v e less dif- # ferences b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d and d e s i r e d Esprit t h a n d id their s t a f f s . Figure 4 shows that supervisors tend to perceive Esprit the highest (51) while diagnosticians perceived it R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 to U 0 ■p 0 1 CO to 0 a c a bO*H (0 0 •H *H Q -P 1 to 0 Fh 0 0) CO rH 0 0 A 0 CO U 0 ^ iH CtJ 1-t to to •H A P. u (d 0) A 0> CD 1 0 0 0 to -p 0 g a (U

O O, to d -H CO > 1 CO m o c C oJbO*H cd o - Q .P 6 5 - 1— 1 o O 03 CO Pi (U ^ i- i o o Æ Ü CO O > U IH Cd *H . to p CO *H f : Q, o cd Æ (0 o p3 cd O d) o EH o O T3 to c Pi 3 o> o XS X3 . o cd 0) EH O Q> CO PJ -H CO > 1' CO CO g c 60-H cet Ü Q -P •H «H 1 CO O A O (U CO M A rH O o O f: rH o (d CO *H CO to •H x: A O CCJ » 3 Eh CO CO A O A rH (U CO 45 — 40 -- 35-^ Figure 5 — Perceived and Desired Intimacy Scores by Groups. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I N T I M A C Y 85 to k 0 -P 0 1 CO CO 0 c G 3 bO*H (0 0 •H t H Q 43 1 to 0 0 CD CO AS h rH 0 0 S3 0 tC« rH p ttJ x: to P CO •H A Ü ecJ CD CD CD A J :; CO EH 1 C 0 0 CO P u c 3 CD P A rH >» 0 E4 to CO U CD Xi u (d CD EH 0 rH CD CO d 3 0 C5 0 T3 d 3 CD 0 xi x> U CD cd G CD 0 EH trj Perceived Desired 60 — CO % o 0 CO •a a 55-- 50 — 1 CO 45 - - 40 35-^ Figure 6.— Perceived and Desired Aloofness Scores by Groups. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A L 0 0 F N E S S 86 regarding perceived and desired Aloofness. It will be noted that all groups, however, perceived a greater de­ gree of Aloofness than they desired, but only by a small m ar gi n. It would appear that among groups there Is gen­ eral satisfaction concerning this dimension of behavior. However, within individual districts there is greater dis­ parity; the staff in district 53 perceives a high degree of Aloofness (60) on the part of the director while the staff In district 62 perceives a low degree of Aloofness (43). Aloofness is seen as being a type of social control Imposed by the director on his staff (Halpln, 1966). In general, it can be interpreted that the various groups do not see directors as employing this method of social con­ trol, or to the extent that It does occur. It appears to be within acceptable limits. Production Emphasis This factor refers to the director’s behavior of closely supervising the staff. His communication tends to be directive and he is insensitive to feedback from the staff. In Figure 7 it is noted that directors per­ ceived this behavior as being greater (51 ) than any other group. Diagnosticians and school social workers perceived this behavior lowest (45) among all groups. Inspection of Figure 7 shows that the pattern for perceived and desired Production Emphasis is almost identical. The fact that R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 ta U o •p o 0> u A 65 ”1” 1 03 u u o o cu to ?» *H CO > 1 03 m ' hO I c O U 03 P “ § 0> P A rH CO §3 Ifg ta ■p ta •H Xi o, O 05 O k rH 0) Xi 03 o q 05 3 o EH W Percelved Desired 60-- n I PR D D Ü C T I 55-- 0 CO 50 — 1 ■p CO 45-- 40-- 35-*- Figure 7,— Perceived and peslred Production Emphasis Scores by Groups. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I F; 88 Production l*’niphasis Is desired higher than it is perceived is interesting and somewhat surprising. Production Empha­ sis may be considered a negative feature of organizational climate and it is unusual that all categories of personnel would consistently desire It to be above the mean. Thrust This dimension refers to behavior by the director which Is characterized by his evident effort to "move the organization." He personally sets the example by working hard himself and he expects no more from others than he is willing to give of himself. As seen In Figure 8, all groups Indicated that lower Thrust existed in the districts than would be desirable. Supervisors tended to see a higher (48) degree of Thrust than did other groups ; directors and school social workers perceived the lowest (45) degree of Thrust of all the groups; the same obtained for desired Thrust which has a high of 54 and a low of 52. There Is evidently general agreement among groups on the degree of Thrust presently existing and the degree of Thrust that they desire. Consideration This behavior of the director is characterized by his willingness to go out of his way to provide for the welfare of his staff. Figure 9 indicates that directors, among all groups, see this behavior highest (51); school R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 xa U a ■p u ■0 ^ 4•r-t Q 65 “T" 1 cQ 1 CO g 4F h 0) 0 A ca 3 -H C O> m 0 C 3 nj b O *H CÜ 0 •H*r4 0 4 Û 1 01 0 ^ 0 0> CO u iH 0 0 0 Jd r-t 0 (0 C O-H CO ■P to •H x: A 0 ccS 0) F h a> 0 AA CO Eh 1 C 0 0 to •p u c a 0 -p AM > »3 Eh to to F h 0 Fi M 0 ) o > x: to 0 Ü CtJ 0 0) 0 EH 0 (p 0 •o to 3 F 43 (U0 XI XI 0 (D cd s 0) 0 E HW P.erceived Desired 6 0 -- CO CO 45 40 -- 35-^ Figure 8 — Perceived and Desired Thrust Scores by Groups. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T H R U S T 90 to U o 4-> Ü (Ü A •H 65-t 1 1 to to o c CO > bO*H n) O •H «H Q 43 to U Ft » 3 E-i to ca Ft O H d> M h 3 O Ft 0) 43 o cd » Ü cd e to to 0) c o o P c M rH < 47 45 44 43 40 55** 53 51 50 50 50 46 45 54 52 52 52 52 52 49 49 7 11 10 46 ÏÏ5 45 44 44 43 43 56 5F 56 56 54 54 53 53 3 3 51 48 W C o iH M p «rH O CO 3 cd ■a jc o a u E a, M p CO 3 C O •H P cd k 0) •d •H CO C o U Xi Eh o 51 ÏÏ9 49 48 47 46 45 45 48 47 47 47 47 46 45 Ü5 51 55 48 48 48 48 47 45 5 6 3 6 53 53 53 52 50 50 49 47 52 49 49 49 48 48 46 46 55 55 54 53 53 52 51 50 54 5? 54 54 53 53 53 52 54 5T 53 53 53 52 51 51 6 6 5 2 3 Director's Score R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 1 a a e > +1 o q co H B 1 «H O o 1—1 -oj 1 o w CO to M 3 'EH 1 a 0 •H •H 03 a Cd 0 Fh 0 (D Perceived Desired 65 60 1 +> O C cd •H >ï 1 - - CO at s 55-a w 50* T3 a ■a 4 5 -: CO / 40* 35-t. Figure 11.— Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factor Scores for Supervisors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 .1 S§ to faO *H (d O bO 65- ^ I 3 +3 O d H cd B 1 <4h 0 to 0 IQ H k o 55ir c w 43 50- I "5- ■P CO 40— 35 J- Figure 12.— Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factor Scores for Diagnosticians. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 d Tj •H to d 0 0 0 "H p cd fn Ü C q cd w Fh I •P •H U 04 to W 1 •H >» o 1 O (0 o to i-l CO bO •H n bO 1 •o c •H 0) o a ro -P •H U m A M 1 •H +3 O C ctf H S 1 o o i-H < to to 0) a 1 o M to •H 3 "O o O 3 •H Æ & -P A — Perceived — Desired 654- 60- - ta 0) k 0 55-ü ca •o 1 45:- V 4^ ca 35JL Figure 14.— Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factor Scores for Speech Therapists, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 4^ c 1 0 c » 4-3 Ü r! cd H 1 B o to C. Ph +3 .A O CO r4 0 < 1 o M to .H 3 73 C ra O o cd 1 U-rt Xi ■p ta I JL G O •H *H ta +a C cd o A O 3 o g G O 03 O GO iH O C CJ 1 o 3 -O o 6 M m ^ *H CJ to o (d *H ÆJ -P Pt P to p B Er* ■ 1 P •a o •H «H to P P Cd o p O 0) -Perceived -Desired 65^ 60 — ~ (O > g* M O I o M co O co •d C ca O o cd o 10 < C rH co d I J Lo •d o •H «H CO -P d cd o Fh o o> Perceived Oeslred 60. co (U u o o 55 co 'd •d g 50 - 45- 40-1 35JL Figure 1 7 .— Perceived and-Desired OCDQ Factor Scores for Teachers of the Homebound, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Hypothesis 10 could not be rejected on the basis of the analysis of variance, and our inspection of Table 24 and Figures 10-17 substantiates this finding. The differ­ ences between groups for desired climates are small, which confirms the earlier analysis that groups do not differ significantly with regard to the kind of climate they prefer. Differences Between Directors and Staffs Hypothesis 11 and 12 dealt with the questions of whether directors as a group differed significantly from staffs as a group. The analysis of variance would not allow for the rejection of either hypothesis and therefore it was concluded that no significant differences did exist, An inspection of Figure 18 indicates what the tendency might be, however. Directors tend to perceive greater Esprit, Intimacy, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Consid­ eration than the staffs perceive. Directors also tend to desire (Figure 19) these dimensions to a greater degree than the staffs desire them. Three Factor Results In Chapter II it was mentioned that a three factor rotational solution of the eight subtests of the OCDQ had identified factors described as Social Needs, Esprit, and Social Control. The subtests of Intimacy and Consideration R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 TABLE 24 FACTORS THAT HAVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN PERCEIVED AND MEAN DESIRED OCDQ SCORES FOR VARI OUS GROUPS ■p c 0> e » a cd e •H C H (0 CO d) C O O 1—1 < (3 o .H CO -P *H o CO EJ Cd -0 jC O p. k e PM W C o •tH •P Cd U 0) -P CO 3 P X Em •tH CO P O o Directors Supervisors Diagnosticians X X X X School X X X X Speech Therapists X X X Type C Consultants X X X Social Workers Teacher Counselors X X Teachers of the Homebound and Hospitalized X X X X X X X I n d i c a t e s that d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t b e t w e e n m e a n p e r c e i v e d an d m e a n d e s i r e d s c o r e s at t he .05 level. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 c 1 0) A £ » .o C g M S 1 O o CO CO r 4 4) <4 C 1 1£ O M CO 3 -H x3 q w o o cd fH -H Æ Ph 43 q, 43 CO q ii C4 Directors ----- Staffs 60. xa 0) o CO •a s XJ 55 50 45 ■p co 40. 35. Figure l8.— Perceived OCDQ Factor Scores for Directors and Staffs. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1q o •H *H 00 43 q Cd O ^4 o o •a 105 1 c 1 (U {=: E (U (U CO bO •H o3 Q hO 1 "O c 0 0 c T4 cd K Py 4^ •H k A CO M 1 tH >» -P Ü c (d M E 1 4-1 0 to 0 CO rH CD < c CO 4J TJ C M p 0cd Ph *H 43 0 Ph 0M 04 +* A to E-I 1 C 0 •H -rH CO -P d cd 0 P4 U CD Directors — — «StElff 8 65 ~r 6 0 _:l CO 0) S 55 o w Ü 50 § "5- ” 40 35 Figure 1 9 .— Desired OCDQ Factor Scores for Directors and Staffs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 loaded high on Factor I (Social Needs), Esprit and Thrust yielded high positive loadings on Factor II (Esprit), whereas Disengagement and Hindrance yielded high negative loadings on this factor. Aloofness and Production Empha­ sis loaded highest on Factor III (Social Control); these subtests represent the leader’s orientation toward direct­ ing and controlling behavior of the group. It can be noted by Inspecting Table 24 that no group had significant differences between perceived and desired scores on the Intimacy subtest and only two groups had significant differences on the Consideration subtest. If we consider these subtests as comprising Factor I (Social Needs) It would appear that. In general, the population felt that their social needs, as measured by this factor, were being met. The second factor, which Involves the subtests of Thrust, Esprit, Disengagement and Hindrance, appear to represent areas where several groups perceive behavior differently than they would desire It. Factor II (Esprit) contributes the most differences between what Is perceived and what Is desired among the various groups. The subtests of Aloofness and Production Emphasis comprise the elements of Factor III (Social Control). the basis of the data presented In Table 24, It would appear that the members of special education staffs, In R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. On 107 general, are satisfied with the amount of social control exerted by the directors. Individual Districts O n e o f the q u e s t i o n s this s t u d y s o u g h t to answer was whether there Is agreement among the personnel In special education departments regarding the type of organizational climate perceived and particularly the type of climate de­ sired. This question has been examined with respect to categories of personnel and with respect to the staffs and directors. The question can be examined additionally among Individual districts staffs and directors. Table 25 pre­ sents, by percentage, the number of staff and directors that desire either more or less of the behavior found In each of the OCDQ factors. It can be noted that among staffs there Is nearly unanimous agreement for six of the eight factors. Ninety-seven per cent of the Individual districts staffs prefer lower Disengagement than they per­ ceive, while all of the staffs prefer less Hindrance than perceived. It should be noted, t o o , that all districts' staffs desired higher Esprit, Production Emphasis and Thrust than they perceived and that 97 per cent desired greater Consideration. Further examination of Table 25 Indicates that directors tend to want less Hindrance and greater Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Consideration. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■CDD O Q . C g Q . ■CDD TABLE 25 C/) C/) INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT STAFFS AND DIRECTORS PREFERENCES FOR OCDQ CLIMATE FACTORS CD ■8D No Differences Between Desired and Perceived Desired Lower Than Perceived (O ' Staff Director Staff Director Desired Higher Than Perceived Staff Director 3. 3 " CD ■CDD O Q . C Disengagement 91% 48% 0% 28% 3% 24% 100% 19% 0% 14% 0% 7% 0% 10% 0% 14% 100% 76% a O 3 -O O Hindrance CD Q . Intimacy 38% 48% 7% 31% 55% 21% Aloofness 52% 45% 14% 38% 34% 17% Production Emphasis 0% 10% 0% 11% 100% 7955 Thrust 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Consideration 3% 17% 0% 24% 97% 5955 00 Esprit TD CD ( (/ /) ) M O 109 With the exception of the factor of Thrust, the directors are not so closely agreed as staffs regarding their preferences. It is interesting to note also that more district directors prefer the status quo than do dis­ trict staffs. Inspection of Table 25 indicates that, for seven of the eight factors, from 11 to 31 per cent of the directors wish to have the climate factors remain as they perceive them. Intimacy and Aloofness were the only two factors on which there were no differences between the staffs' per­ ceived and desired factor scores. As Indicated in the table, the percentages of staffs which were satisfied even with these two factors was very small. Summary In this chapter the 12 hypotheses were presented in null form with the procedure of analysis for each hypo­ thesis. Hypotheses one through eight postulated no dif­ ferences between the mean perceived and the mean desired OCDQ factor scores for each of eight categories of per­ sonnel within the study population. Each of the eight null hypotheses were rejected as the F ratio resulting from each analysis of variance indicated an F ratio of greater magnitude than the required F value. Post hoc comparisons using the Scheffé method of comparison were carried out for each group. Table 24 provides a summary of the differences between mean perceived and mean desired R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 OCDQ factors for each group. It can be noted that all but one group had significant differences with respect to the factor of Hindrance and Espritj there were differences with respect to the factors of Disengagement for four of the eight groups ; five groups had significant differences on the factor of Thrust, three on Production Emphasis, and two on Consideration. There were no differences between mean perceived and mean desired OCDQ factors for any group on the factors of Intimacy and Aloofness. Hypotheses nine and ten sought to determine if there were differences between the mean perceived OCDQ factors for each group and if there were differences between the mean desired OCDQ factors for each group. Hypothesis nine was rejected, but there was no evidence on which to reject hypothesis ten. In hypotheses 11 and 12 it was postulated that there would be no differences between how directors as a group and staffs as a group perceived or desired OCDQ factors. For both hypotheses it was determined that the null hypo­ theses of no differences could not be rejected. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V SUM MA RY , F I N D I N G S , CONCLUSIONS A ND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Summary Organizational climate has been the subject of an increasing amount of research in the area of educational administration. While interest in the concept has been apparent for several years, the impetus for research grew from the development of the Organizational Climate Des­ cription Questionnaire (OCDQ) developed by Halpin and » Croft (1962). The OCDQ was designed to measure organiza­ tional climate in elementary schools, but has been used successfully in research in secondary schools as well. Since its development in 1962, the OCDQ has been the princ* ipal instrument used in over 200 research studies in edu­ cational organizations, and it has been adapted once (Mulaik, 1966) for use in an organization outside of edu­ cation . The OCDQ had not been used in an educational organization similar to that of a Michigan Intermediate School District. It was thought that if the OCDQ could be re­ vised for use in this type of organization, several areas 111 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 of Interest could be investigated with respect to special education departments in Michigan Intermediate School Dis­ tricts. The present study was designed to determine if dif­ ferences existed between perceived and desired organiza­ tional climate in intermediate school districts. The study further sought to determine whether there was homogeniety among categories of personnel with respect to the type of climate perceived and that desired for an inter­ mediate school district special education department. The OCDQ was revised with respect to the wording of items and used as the principal instrument of the study. The population for the study consisted of the direc­ tors and staffs of 29 intermediate school districts special education departments in Michigan. There were 520 partic­ ipants in the study comprising eight categories of person­ nel. The data collected was subjected to a factor analysis and then a factor match with the original OCDQ factors. This analysis found the revised OCDQ factors to be sta­ tistically similar to the original OCDQ factors. All raw data were then transformed to standard scores with an assigned mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Twelve hypotheses were postulated and tested by use of analysis of variance procedures, with the .05 level of confidence used as the criterion for significance. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When 113 differences were found, comparisons of Interest between means were computed using the Scheffé method. The findings reported in the following section were generated not only from the statistical treatment of the hypotheses, but also from the descriptive results reported in Chapter IV. Findings Findings From Statistical Analysis of Data 1. There are no significant differences between the type of organizational climate that directors and staffs desire. They both desire a moderately low degree of Dis­ engagement, high Esprit, above average Intimacy, low Aloof­ ness and high Production Emphasis, Thrust and Considera­ tion. 2. Directors and staffs perceive the same type of Organizational Climate, They perceive moderate Disengage­ ment, high Hindrance, low Esprit, average Intimacy, Aloof­ ness, and Production Emphasis, low Thrust and above average Consideration. 3. For seven of the eight categories of personnel, there are «significant differences between the perceived and desired organizational climate. Directors desire less Hindrance and greater Esprit and Thrust than they presently perceive. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Diagnosticians desire less Disengagement and Hind­ rance, greater Esprit and Production Emphasis than they presently perceive. School social workers desire lower Disengagement and Hindrance, higher Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Consideration than they presently per­ ceive . Speech therapists desire less Disengagement and Hindrance, and greater Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust and Consideration. Type C consultants desire less D1sengagement and Hindrance, and greater Esprit than they presently perceive. Teachers of the homebound and hospitalized desire less Hindrance and greater Esprit than they pre­ sently perceive. Teacher counselors for the physically handicapped desire less Hindrance and greater Esprit and Thrust than they presently perceive. There are no significant differences between super­ visors* perceptions and their desires on any of the eight OCDQ factors. 4. There are differences between categories of per­ sonnel with respect to how they presently perceive organi­ zational climate. 5. There are no differences between categories of personnel as to what they prefer for an organizational cli­ mate . Findings from Des­ criptive Db-ta 1. The degree of Disengagement and Hindrance is greater In special education departments of Intermediate school districts than the staffs prefer. All district R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 staffs perceived higher Hindrance than they prefer while 97 per cent of the district staffs perceived greater Dis­ engagement than they desire. 2. The degree of Thrust and Production Emphasis demonstrated by directors of special education departments is less than desired by the staffs. All district staffs preferred higher Thrust and Production Emphasis than they perceived. 3. Special education department staffs prefer to have higher Esprit than presently exists. All district staffs perceived lower Esprit than they desire. 4. A majority of district directors would prefer less Hindrance and greater Esprit and Consideration than they presently perceive. Conclusions The conclusions from this study are based upon both the findings generated from the statistical treatment of data and those from the descriptive information provided by the investigation. The conclusions can be most clearly presented by re­ lating them to the general questions studied. Briefly, these concern the perceptions, preferences, and satisfac­ tion on the part of both staffs and directors. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Perception of Organizational Climate One of the purposes of this study was to determine how various groups perceived the organizational climate to exist In special education departments of Intermediate school districts. Other studies have used populations that are considered to be quite homogeneous and have simi­ lar perceptions of climate. The training and job responsi­ bilities for elementary school staffs are quite similar. However, the population for the present study was quite heterogeneous; the training of the eight categories of personnel that comprised the population Is quite different as are their Job responsibilities. It seemed reasonable to believe that school social workers, for example, might have greater training and experience In group processes and social Interaction than some other groups. If this were true, they might perceive certain aspects of organi­ zational climate differently. It was thought, also, that groups that spent more time In the office Interacting with the director and other groups members, might have a dif­ ferent perception of climate than groups that spent less time In the Intermediate office. The null hypothesis of no differences between groups on perception of climate was rejected. Evidence was pro­ vided that led to the conclusion that there were differ­ ences between the means of certain groups for perceived Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 climate. It would have been Impractical to have conducted post hoc comparisons on all possible combinations of means In order to determine where the differences were. However, It was decided to Inspect the means by rank ordering them and observing among which means the greatest differences were. It was found that the differences between like factors were not so large as the differences between unlike factor means. This fact provided evidence that whatever differences existed between factor means for various groups was probably not a function of differences between like means. Another question Is whether staffs as a group differ from directors as a group with respect to their perception of organizational climate. Studies In elementary schools tend to Indicate that the principal and teachers perceive climate differently. Is the same true for special educa­ tion directors of Intermediate districts and their staffs? An hypothesis of no differences was formulated to answer this question. The analysis ‘-found no significant differences between directors and staffs. Further, the Inspection of the standard scores for directors and staffs, plotted on graphs, Indicated a very similar cllmate profile between directors and staffs. The evidence suggests that staffs as a group and directors as a group perceive organizational climate similarly. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 If there are no meaningful differences among cate­ gories of personnel or between directors and staffs with respect to their perception of organizational climate, does the same hold true between individual district direc­ tors and their staffs? An Inspection of the individual district profiles contained in the Appendix provides an apparent answer to this question. The profile of district 68, for exsimple, indicates that the staff perceives Dis­ engagement high (64) while the director perceives it to be low (3 8 ). These kinds of differences may be found among many of the individual districts, indicating that, indeed, there are differences between the climate a director perceives and that which his staff perceives. With respect to the questions relating to percep­ tion of organizational climate within special education departments of intermediate school districts, it is con­ cluded : 1, There are no meaningful differences among categories of personnel with respect to the organizational climate they perceive. 2, There is close agreement between staffs as a group and directors as a group in their per­ ceptions of organizational climate. 3, The difference between staff perception of organizational climate and the director’s per­ ception of organizational climate is a function Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 of the individual district and is not a function of the group to which they belong. Preferences For Organizational Climate If it is true that a certain degree of satisfaction influences the effectiveness of an organization, it seems important that the preferences of the organization be studied. The question evolves: are the preferences for climate the same among groups and between the group and the leader. The analysis of this question indicated that there were no differences between groups in regard to their preferences for climate. An analysis was made to determine if staffs as a group desired a climate different from directors as a group. It would appear to be an untenable situation if the director and staff disagreed greatly on their preferences for climate. It was found that staffs and directors, in general, do prefer essentially the same type of climate. With respect to preferences in individual districts, a different situation exists. It is apparent that in some districts 'there are large differences between what the staff prefers and what the director prefers for organiza­ tional climate. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 An interesting and somewhat surprising feature of climate preference emerged from this study. It has been noted earlier that directors and staff preferred the same type of climate, which Includes a high degree of Produc­ tion Emphasis. Every district staff indicated that they desired a higher degree of Production Emphasis than existed. Production Emphasis, it will be recalled, is characterized by close supervision of the staff by the director. It would have been assumed that most personnel would prefer a moderately low amount of supervision. Two explanations for this finding might be con­ sidered. First, it might be possible that Production Emphasis as assessed by the revised OCDQ does not assess the same dimension as the original OCDQ. However, an in­ spection of the items does not support this ; the factor still appears to be characterized by leader behavior that is highly supervisory. Perhaps then, there is something peculiar to the type of organization of intermediate school districts that makes Production Emphasis more de­ sirable than it is in elementary or secondary schools. The fact that the employees of special education depart­ ments of intermediate school districts are, for the most ■ part, itinerant personnel working among several schools and districts, does not allow for close supervision. As a consequence, individual members are held responsible for their own schedules of work and production efforts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 It is possible that the preferences of members of the staff for greater Production Emphasis Is, In effect, an attempt to remove themselves from Individual responsi­ bility, for work performance and production. In regard to the general questions relating to preferences for organizational climate the following Is concluded : 1. The categories of personnel within departments of special education desire essentially the same type of climate. 2. The directors as a group and staffs as a group desire the same type of organizational climate. 3. There are differences In Individual districts between the staff’s and the director's desires for organizational climate. Climate Satisfaction The question of perception of climate and prefer­ ences for climate among groups, between staffs and direc­ tors, and within Individual districts have been considered. From these previous considerations It can now be determined to what degree various groups are satisfied with the organ­ izational &llmate of special education departments of Intermediate school districts. For example. If a group, staff or director Indicates the same preferences for organizational climate as they perceive, regardless of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 2 what that climate Is, it can be assumed that they are satisfied with the climate. The first assessment of satisfaction will relate to the testing of the first eight hypotheses. It was found that school social workers and speech therapists had significant differences between their perception and their preferences on six of eight factors. Diagnosticians and type C consultants had differences with respect to four factors; directors and teacher counselors differed on three factors and teachers of the homebound differed on two factors. There were no factors on which supervisors had significantly different preferences than they per­ ceived. Another way to consider satisfaction is to determine which factors tend to contribute most to dissatisfaction among groups. Seven of the eight groups had significant differences between what they perceived and what they desired on the factors of Hindrance and Esprit; four groups differed on the factors of Disengagement and Thrust; three groups on Production Emphasis and two groups on Consideration. There were no differences among groups between perceived and desired OCDQ factors for Intimacy and Aloofness. With respect to satisfaction for organizational cli­ mate the following is concluded: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 1. Supervisors are most satisfied with the existing organizational climate of special education de­ partments and school social workers and speech therapists are least satisfied. 2. The factors of Esprit and Hindrance contributes most to the overall dissatisfaction among groups for organizational climate in special education departments. 3. The behavior characterized by Intimacy and Aloof­ ness In special education departments Is accept­ able to all groups. Recommendations for Further Research There were several Ideas that emerged during this research that should be the subject of further Investiga­ tion. 1. It Is often assumed that the kind of organiza­ tional climate that exists In an organization Is the responsibility of the leader and that he can by his action create the kind of climate he desires. There were Indica­ tions from the present research that this may not be t r u e . In several Individual districts where the staffs perceived a certain type of behavior, they also desired that be­ havior. For example, the district (3^) that perceived the lowest Esprit also was the district that desired the low­ est Esprit ; the district (23) that perceived the highest R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Intimacy also desired the highest Intimacy. Aloofness was perceived by district 53 as being the highest among all districts; district 53 also desired the highest Aloofness; the lowest perceived Aloofness and the lowest desired Aloofness were by the same district (62), These findings are highly suggestive that the behavior of the leader is dictated by the expectations or preferences of his staff. Research should be initiated that would attempt to determine whether the group or leader contributes most to organizational climate or under what conditions each in­ fluences the climate. 2. Unlike elementary schools, educational organi­ zations such as special education departments of inter­ mediate school districts usually have more than one administrator in the building where the staff is housed. They are, in addition to the director of special educa­ tion, the superintendent, deputy or associate superin­ tendent, and other department heads. This investigator felt that in some instances the organizational climate of a district special education department was not just the function of the director and his staff, but was influenced by other administrators. This appeared to be especially true in smaller districts where the superintendent was in close contact with the special education staff. Further investigation involving intermediate districts would R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 profit from an assessment of the effects of higher echelon administration on subordinate departments. 3. Although the revision of Halpin's and Croft's OCDQ proved useful In this initial study of intermediate school districts, a more appropriate Instrument should be developed If research Is to continue with a similar type of organizational structure. It will be noted In Chapter III that the revised factor of Production Emphasis correlated relatively low with the original factor of Production Emphasis. It Is quite possible that the Items did not measure similar be­ havior . The type of behavior a principal engages In to emphasize production may be quite different from the be­ havior a director of special education would engage In to emphasize production with his staff; the differences In job responsibilities between teachers and special education staff members and the differences between the organiza­ tional structure of elementary schools and special educa­ tion departments make this a strong possibility. It Is recommended that Halpin's and Croft's concept­ ual framework. I.e. a social Interaction basis for climate, be used to develop Items more appropriate and sensitive to educational organizations similar to that of an Inter­ mediate school district. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, D. D. A comparison of Edwards Personal Prefer­ ence Schedule patterns of elementary school teachers in open and closed organizational climates. Un­ published Ph.D. dissertation. Auburn University, 1966. Anderson, D. P. Relationship between organizational cli­ mate of elementary schools and personal variables of principals. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota) Ann Ar bo r, M i c h . : University Microfilms, 1964. No. 65-1 5 ,3 0 6. Argyris, C. Some problems in conceptualizing organiza­ tional climate: A case study of a bank administra­ tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958, 2^, 501-5 2 0. Bakke, E. and Argyris, C. Organizational structures and dynamics. New Haven: Labor and Management Center, Yale University, 1954. Blair, M. S. M. Climate and attitude: A study of the organizational climate of schools and teachers' attitudes toward students. Unpublished Ph.D. dis­ sertation, Rutgers State University, I9 6 6 . Boisen, A. G. Relationship among the perceptions and expectations held by principals and teachers for the organizational climate of elementary schools. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland) Ann Arbor, M i c h . : University Microfilms, I9 6 6 . No. 67-2363. Brown, J. B. Identifying and classifying organizational climates in Twin Cities area elementary schools. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1964. No. 657324. Christie, R. and Merton, R. K. Procedures for sociologi­ cal study of the values and climate of medical schools. Bureau of Applied Social Research. Columbia University, New York. 1958. 127 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 8 Clark, Sr. A. L. A study of the relationships between organizational climate factors and the academic preparation, professional experience, and other re­ lated variables of Intermediate school districts special education directors In Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Cole, B. L. An analysis of the relationship of selected factors of communication and organizational climate as they relate to the size of the elementary school. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri) Ann Arbor, Mich,: University Microfilms, 1955. No. 66-141. Cook, E. V. Leadership behavior of elementary school principals and the organizational climate of the schools which they administer. (Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni­ versity Microfilms, 1965. No. 66- 67 6 9 . Ernst, R. J. An investigation of the relationship between selected characteristics of principals and organi­ zational climate of elementary schools, (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 65-15,460. Fayol, H. General and industrial management. PItman, 19^9. London : Fielder, P. E, Leadership attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1962, 65I 308-318. Flanders, R. E. The relationship of selected variables to the organizational climate of the elementary school. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Georgia) Ann Arbor, M ic h . : University Microfilms, I9 6 6. No. 66-1 3 ,598. Ford, R. W. The relationship of psychological health of elementary school principals to the organizational climate of the schools. (Ph.D. dissertation, Syra­ cuse University) Ann Arbof, M i c h .: University Mlcnofllms, 19 6 6 . No. 67-7110. Greenhouse, 8. W. and Giesser, S. On methods In the analysis of profile data. Psychometrlka. 1959 * 2 4 , 95-112. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 Gullck, L. H. (éd.). Papers on the science of adminis­ tration. Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University. New York, 1937. Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration. York: Macmillan Co., 1966. New Halpin, A. W. and Croft, D. B. The organizational climate of schools. U.S.O.E. Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare. Contract No. SAE 543 («639), 1962. Hamlin, M. M. Relationship between organizational climate of elementary schools and the degree of Job satis­ faction of teachers in the schools. (Ph.D. disser­ tation, University of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, M i c h . : University Microfilms, 1966. No. 67-7730. Hayes, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. New York : Hightower, T. W, The dominate concerns of elementary school faculties and organizational climate. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Alabama) Ann Arbor, M i c h . : University Microfilms, 1965. No. 66-2907. Hinson, J. H. An investigation of the organizational cli­ mate in a large urban school system. (Ph.D. dis­ sertation, University of Georgia) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 66-2478. Kirk, T. B. Behavior of teachers new to a building in relation to the climate of the school and the dog­ matism of the teacher. (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 66-401. Kopiyay, J . B. The relationship between teachers* morale, organizational climate and school salary policies in selected suburban schools. (Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni­ versity Microfilms, 1966, No. 66-14,008, La Gutta, N. P. The relationship of teachers perceptions of organizational climate and dogmatism. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, 1 9 6 6 . Likert, R. New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill, 1961. New York: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 Litwln, G. H. and Stringer, J. Motivation and organiza­ tional climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, I 9 6 8 . March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Wiley & Sons, 1958. Organizations. New York: McWilliams, E. F. The organizational climate and certain personal variables In selected high schools. (Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967* No. 67-14,431. Mulaik, S. A. Measurement and prediction of nursery per­ formance. U. S. Public Health Service. Grant No. 00062, 1966. Rubensteln, A. H. and Haberstroh, C. J. (eds.). Some theories of organization. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin Co., 1966. Sargent, J. C. An analysis of principal and staff per­ ceptions of high school organizational climate. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966, No, 67-8 7 6. Scheffé, H. 1959 . The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley, Sherlf, M . (e d .). Intergroup relations and leadership: Approaches and research In Industrial. ethnic, cultural, and political are as . New York: Wiley and Sons, 1962. Sherlf, M. and Wilson, M. O. Group relations at the cross» r oa ds . Lectures In Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Bros., 1953. Smith, D. C. Relationship between external variables and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, I96 6. No. 66-14,067. Splcknall, H. W. The relationship between Innovativeness, organizational climate factors, and communications variables In Intermediate school district depart­ ment of special education In Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Stogdlll, R. N. Personal factorsassociated with leader­ ship: A survey of the literature.Journal of Psy­ chology . 1948, 25, 35-71. Taglurl, R. and Lltwln, G. H. (eds.). Organizational climate : Explorations of a concept. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, 1968. Tanner, H. G. A study of the organizational climate of schools and the social behavior of selected school administrators. (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966. No. 67-8350. Taylor, F. W. The principals of scientific management. New York: Harper, 1947. Zaleznlk, A. and Moment, D. The dynamics of Interpersonal behavior. New York : Wiley & Sons, 19^4. R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES 132 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A RANDOM NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY 133 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE A1 RANDOM NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY* District District Code Number Code Number 1 01 16 62 2 05 17 63 3 07 18 65 4 11 19 67 5 18 20 68 6 19 21 70 7 23 22 73 8 29 23 75 9 30 24 77 10 34 25 79 11 39 26 80 12 42 27 85 13 53 28 88 14 56 29 93 15 60 *These code numbers will be used to Identify the districts throughout the remainder of this paper. 134 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B L E T T E R TO S U P E R I N T E N D E N T O P P A R T I C I P A T I N G INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS 135 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dear October, 1969 We are asking for your cooperation in obtaining some informa­ tion regarding special education staffs of Intermediate School Districts in Michigan. This information will provide part of the data for three dissertations currently in progress at Michigan State University. Approximately one hour of staff time will be necessary to obtain this information. All three of the studies use the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), which is a measure of per­ ception of group interaction. The OCDQ has been used in innumerable studies of K-12 districts in Michigan as well as in other states and Canada. However, this instrument has never been used in a study of Intermediate School Districts. To use the OCDQ with Intermediate School Districts, we must standardize it with this population. Therefore, it is essential that we obtain information from all Intermediate School Districts in Michigan. This study has been proposed to the Michigan Association of Intermediate Special Education Administrators, and on October 15, 1969, this group gave their endorsement to such a study. We will be contacting you within a few days to request an appointment, and at that time we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely yours. Sister Anne L. Clark karrold W. Spicknall' Ë5war c h •H k 1 ta •H to 0 4->-H a O W ta c a> Ü : G % k a P. ta c •rt 10 0 CO •H la1 X> -H1 u ta1+ï 1 ta 0 0 I I t—1 ‘1 < t ë EH s 1 T3 •H G G O •H 56 43 44 53 39 47 43 60 55 49 71 58 53 49 43 51 49 49 56 50 50 O 0 C •H sc W M 0 0 50 39 60 58 42 54 58 63 46 51 46 52 54 51 52 41 47 42 48 48 52 48 45 61 49 47 53 50 52 54 52 64 60 53 49 41 49 47 42 56 53 50 47 55 5 2 46 58 5 2 44 47 49 42 34 39 65 58 45 47 56 60 47 46 55 49 48 49 50 47 56 54 41 60 55 49 51 48 51 48 56 45 43 52 41 45 61 6 0 40 43 43 59 49 48 54 59 54 41 56 56 68 41 52 47 47 60 45 56 53 47 50 56 54 44 64 56 61 55 65 56 44 49 53 41 45 52 47 43 50 44 44 51 52 62 56 40 51 53 45 56 50 49 56 54 54 56 68 60 59 35 38 55 59 40 35 56 56 54 54 34 46 50 48 47 52 55 42 54 60 56 50 50 55 49 61 54 53 44 60 52 58 35 47 44 53 51 53 57 55 48 51 56 61 47 47 63 55 38 54 51 60 48 42 63 53 48 52 56 59 41 31 51 49 47 53 52 60 49 55 46 37 70 54 41 51 42 42 40 23 32 50 51 42 44 63 58 47 50 43 39 49 50 47 49 46 42 50 51 52 65 42 51 47 47 53 57 40 47 46 53 4 5 42 38 39 45 55 42 51 53 37 43 44 54 50 45 58 53 48 41 56 52 51 52 47 49 49 54 46 49 51 46 51 50 44 50 64 50 48 56 44 59 65 42 49 60 48 40 42 47 47 41 51 50 44 56 44 44 47 47 44 58 52 54 50 50 52 35 72 45 40 44 45 54 54 48 48 47 45 41 5 1 65 62 38 44 47 47 52 51 52 57 53 43 56 50 37 50 50 51 42 55 45 29 56 51 56 53 41 47 45 51 45 51 49 54 46 4 8 52 42 53 42 43 51 46 72 47 57 48 38 51 56 53 45 57 48 38 51 56 53 50 35 52 51 52 58 49 50 46 54 51 49 53 53 52 53 50 52 50 38 43 55 48 42 54 56 50 48 49 53 52 50 49 54 51 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 Desired Perceived c 4-> C 0 (U District § bO cd g, o « •H Q 62 D i r e c t o r Staff 63 D i r e c t o r Staff 65 D i r e c t o r Staff 67 D i r e c t o r Staff 68 D i r e c t o r Staff 70 D i r e c t o r Staff 73 D i r e c t o r Staff 75 D i r e c t o r Staff o c K i 5* § •H u a. to w •H n M •H to s u to -p 3 ta to 3 O o 1 —1 4 II 'è E-f bO to 01 § 0 82 49 63 47 39 45 64 35 41 42 34 22 60 42 45 47 48 36 63 60 49 60 0) T3 •H . 37 45 •H 0) » p •H u e P •H to to c 0 •H to 0) P «H Ü to 5 0 0 p to Î 0> TJ •H R to •H a 1 » 44 44 47 55 58 52 82 67 66 48 47 47 44 53 47 46 41 44 43 63 58 42 54 49 50 45 56 51 46 52 53 55 to [d c M rH 0 a < 1 0 0 47 40 40 49 47 51 47 58 56 6 8 62 56 46 47 55 48 47 44 55 5 8 50 64 35 55 52 47 49 56 60 53 36 44 56 46 37 41 44 47 42 44 49 51 60 60 47 44 59 56 49 51 54 54 38 39 50 64 51 39 38 57 58 59 40 35 53 54 44 48 52 47 42 43 51 51 42 50 46 47 43 50 62 42 40 51 48 48 48 49 53 47 55 43 65 51 50 47 60 46 56 69 31 49 50 35 57 37 38 58 51 43 49 43 53 50 48 51 55 52 40 40 55 52 53 48 47 55 55 38 40 56 40 43 56 48 49 58 57 54 47 53 63 49 48 47 44 48 35 68 62 38 54 56 63 43 54 48 50 54 54 51 47 65 52 61 38 50 50 49 48 48 43 51 47 47 63 65 45 65 53 50 56 54 46 54 56 56 42 4 1 55 49 47 4 2 56 47 52 42 39 40 53 48 60 52 62 38 47 42 53 44 54 48 49 48 50 50 Staff 47 60 45 58 38 78 44 53 63 58 37 46 60 48 39 45 38 50 51 57 48 38 61 44 50 45 55 49 50 58 51 55 Director Staff 47 47 60 53 61 40 51 56 38 53 44 35 65 51 46 67 55 44 85 D i r e c t o r 47 51 45 55 55 41 51 52 51 49 49 38 77 D i r e c t o r Staff 79 D i r e c t o r 80 Staff 88 D i r e c t o r Staff 93 D i r e c t o r Staff 63 58 68 42 58 45 53 47 48 51 61 58 60 45 45 40 56 61 62 63 51 54 52 47 49 56 34 45 47 43 45 48 52 71 58 60 48 50 51 51 49 48 48 51 52 58 42 40 40 47 47 42 47 53 42 38 50 47 55 65 45 44 53 53 47 47 50 46 48 56 49 45 47 68 45 44 56 54 56 54 42 49 55 40 47 63 54 54 53 45 43 57 44 49 47 6 2 7 6 44 59 48 51 48 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 55 APPENDIX I STANDARD SCORES BY CATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL ON PER­ CEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE 166 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■CDD O Q. C g Q. APPENDIX I ■CDD STANDARD SCORES BY CATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL ON PER­ CEIVED AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE C/) C/) Perceived ■8D +> c 0) 6 (U bO at bO CD c 3. (D 3" m •H CD CD ■D O Q. Desired c 43 ■H > O at E •H 4Û C m 0) C s 43 •H O at E •H 43 C to 03 » o cd G •H +> a M g •rt 1 "W 0 CQ 0ta rl d) < a ta II I I 4-3 co 3 A EH 1 G *0 0 •H •H t a 4a C •Perceived 60 - — — - -*Deslred 09 S T A F F 0) ê 55o CQ -O 50■g 45 oS ” 4035-*- 65-%r D I R E C T 0 R ta 6 co ■o 50. 5 T3 § "5w 4035J- Flgure 2 0 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 01). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cd 0 k 0 (t) 170 a 0 4H CO >» 0 il co 40 -35 -L / 60 - \ - ta D I % 55 R E C T 0 R •Jf CO 40 I: 35 Pigure 2 1 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Pactors (District 05). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cd 0 0 o> 171 4-* 1 a 1 6 0) 0) m 60 "H OS A 60 § >» 1 (U o c a •H cd •H P4 (0 654- s 6 ■p A M 1 o 0) O CO iH -Percelved Desired 09 0> ë 8 T a A T3 F F I 1*5-M / 40-35- 654- 60 D 09 I è 55R £ C T 45-0 R co A I 05 40-4- 35-1- Figure 22 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 07). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 0 •H to >» 0 o (U to w •H (0 A bO I (U *Ô CJ c W U cd e U gM •H +3 G M 0 09 1 U 0 CO 0 CO r4 0 < A d as X3 XI 0 Q, k s A M •P CO 3 h Eh 1 a •cJ 0 Ti < H to P C cd 0 k 0 d) Perceived 60 -- Deslred 60:D 2 I ë 551- / ol ^5ir CO Figure 2 3 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Fg.ctors (District 11). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 (3 c 0> c; s (Ü Qi ta bO -H ft* a bO 1 65-60-- 1 » u CO G •H -P g M o 1 4h O CO o to rH 0> < CS 3 o 3 •a O a to eO A A & s P» to a EH 1 *o •H to C O O Percelved — - — — Desired , 4 50:45-4035- 656& ra D o I o R too E r -03 R 1 o CO 55-50-4540:1 35-^ Figure 24,— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Pactors (District 1 8 ) . R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. « O *H ctf A O 174 R 0 >* h 0) '0 0 EÎ (1) e CU tio m W 4^ 1 •o (3 rl 33 Ô54- to R R Æ EH 1 R xJ 0 •H t H CO +) R to 0 fn 0 0 Percelved 60__ _ Desired ta <ü h 554S 8 T M A tJ 50:P P 4^OJ I V co 65-f D S 55__ P 50J, C'a T 3 o | 45-R5 CQ V 35JL Figure 2 5 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 19). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 G 0 >» •H to a u -H 0 DO 3 > èi CO bO a a 1 (D T3 0 G G «ri 3 W A ■P •H Pi A to M o g B •H G H •H CO +» -H O 1 tM 0 to 0 to rH -U G to -p II g co •a I G «O O •H «rH (O-P C tO O Pi O d) Perceived 6 ^ Desired 60:^ ' to Q) 55:: I 4 «J 65^ A. 60:iD S I S E» C ? T S 50:7 - V 0 I R 5 co 3^L Figure 2 7 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 29). R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 a 4a a 1 OJ *3 B 0) d> 1 (U T3 g «H W to b O ■rH aj Q bO O C (0 U 4J ■H A «1 M >s o cd S •H -P C H 1 A-, O W O CO r H 0) O " H CO +> -H O CO zs c d •O Æ O P. E Ch M +a 03 0 A a EH JL ts •H CO A O U 65: r 6o— ta 0) S s IJI co A X3 P ^ P '2 4J CO 3 0 -L 45i Perceived 40:- — — — — Desired 35“*- 65- \ ta D I R E C (U 55s M 50T3 T os O C U R 2 co 4540V 35-J- Figure 28.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 30). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ o t H -p cd fH 0) 178 o a bO cd bO 10 ) G 0 > ro f4 O •H cd +> •H in A co a •H ■p m W H 1 c £3 O •H CO -P -H O CO cd "O xi O p. p a Ph M ■p k Jp EH O •H -irl CO P C Cd O ÎH o a B CO rl S O N) 654- 1 > o cd a g o 1 <*H O CO O CO rH «H O CO G ed 'O A 2 PH È M CO a EH 1 T3 •H to 0 O CL> Percelved Desired 60 - - CO 55-J T ^ 50-A-g F 3 P'S 45-1 ^ 40-:35-Î- 65460- - ?S55. R 8 50-0*0 T i o f 45 R § ■p , CO 40 35-t- Plgure 30.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 39). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c O 18 0 0 0 1 0 (U q) P: G ï c & 1 T) 0) 0 d c •H Oj •H A CO W G •H 1 0 00 0 00 •H 0 0 +> “H 0 00 sê 4a 0 0 tH DO 0 A rH 55-r ü S CO T 50— A P TJ 45:F I 40- Percelved 35*^- Desired 65— 60 - - D 00 I R S 55 ^ Cf50. T 0 45R 4a I CO 1|0 35-^ / \ / V Figure 3 1 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 42). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as U 0 (U 65~ ~ 60 - *H 4a 181 1 Si -P Si fU 6 » o ed 6 •H O M 1 W O OQ o to H 0 ) C3 C O •H CO -P *H O CO 3 ed ■O Æ p p, u M PL, m ■p (Q .è EH 1C T3 O tH *H CO 4-3 Ç OS o u U OJ 654- (0 » o cd B •H P G M 1 O O CO CO r-t à 55-S M T A •O P P 45- I w Percelved 35->- D I R E C T 0 R 10 0) h 0 _____ Desired 55i- •o 5CHr 451 w 40-35-1- Pigure 33.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Pactors (District 56), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -H P cd fn to bO 4-1 cd Q bO 1 o» cd g 44 •P C M 1 4s o ta o ta rH (t> CO bO •H to Q bO 6 5 ^ to 6 0- ■p 1 0) cj C S •H (3 m p4 •H u A (O M G O «H to 4^ -H >> o cd e •H +5 q H 1 4-, O CO o to rH O O G (0 Cd -o A o Qi U G CU w 4-5 1 G TJ O 3 G EH o tu to Percelved ----- Desired (U S T A P P o co %. T * § 4-5 co 5550-15:: 40-3*5J- 65-6 0 -r D I R E C T 0 R 55-L 50-45-40-35-1- Pigure 35.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Pactors (District 62). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. *H *H to 4 a G cd O G 185 G 1 (U a G 0> 0} [Q bO 4-1 (Ü O bO 1 0) T f- O ST G 4-t c3 W G >* Ü SË d 4H •p G M -P 4-1 G A to M 1 (p , o O r-t ■ << to to Q) G G O 4-1 to P 4-t o to ttJ T3 45 o A G B (u ( 3 Perceîved 65m S T A F F Ü) U o 0 03 Desired 60. 55. U 50. 1 CO 45. 4035- 654 V 35 Figure 36.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 63). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. p to 3 G xi E-t 1 G O 44 P tt) G C 1 0) c g 0) 0) to U) •H ttf Q 65 + bO 1 3 o CO S 4-4 p G M £3 o P 44 o to a CtJ T3 Æ O % U g 4H to 1 •in o to o to r-t 4) < Ü P to XI EH Perceived Desired 60 ta S T A P F O) U o 0 55-: CO 50-1 § 4J 45' CO 40-35-^ 65+ to 60 R A O 0 CO 55-- E C T 0 "O 50-- D I R - - 1 -p CO 45-1 40-35-1- Figure 37.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 65). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1C o 44 44 to P £3 CO o u O CD 187 >» Ü 1 (D c G •H P A 09 G •H P. S T A P F î 60 - 55-: U 50- - § +> 45-: 09 CQ O P G A M +Ï P P Eh Perceived ----- - a CO T3 O O pH H 65403 1 P O nH 03 ^H O 09 P (0 XS Æ O A Desired CO 40-35 -L 654- D I R E C T O R 03 60 — I a 55-: I 50 - - CO 1 — 45-1 CO 40-» 35-^ Figure 38,— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 67). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I p o •H •H CO +5 P 03 o P o (U 188 1 a » o 1 » o 0) (U to bO •H CO a bo I 0) T» o a § .fH ■p •H F, 1-t P, to M Ti 6! 10 S T A F F . 4 '0 5( ■P M 1 4-1 o to o to r-4 0) c < to •P *H U CO a cd •O fl o p, ^ 8 04 M P to ----- Desired /\ CO 1 s +» CO 4! 40-- ,4 65-E60-D I R £ C T 0 H ” 1 50-- J 35 ± . ’ Figure 40.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 70), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 TJ •H to P p O H P Cd t o p EH Perceived 60$- o 0 TtJ g O 0) 190 >» c 1 0) a 0) » Ü cd e •H P c H i Ah o to O CO iH » o ■p c 1 0> d B 0 (D m bO v l nJ Q bO 65to 60 1 < c ■P -H u to d cd 0 Q. k 6 CI4 w -p to d Jd Eh — Perceived - Desired - 0) S T A P P U o o CO T) 5 T3 ^ 4J 55504545ir CO 40 35 65 CO D î I 0 R CO E C 1 T 0 -p R CO 1 60 55 50 4540- / 35- Plgure 4 3 .— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Pactors (District 77). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 X3 •H m d 0 0 d 0 «H -P cd d c m 0) < D bO to •H ttf Q bO 65CO 60 1 TI d •H » (U O d (3 u •H k d, to o cd e •H •p d M 1 (W o to O rH CO Q) «d d •iH (0 4->-H O to d cd T) A O A CU wG •p CO d Fh jd EH Perceived Desired «U S T A P F u o o 55- T3 50- § '*5 CO CO 40-- 65 D I R E C T 0 R CO 60 0 55- s T A F F (Ü 50 1 1 o (d G •H P a i- t 1 4-, O CO O CO r— 1 0) < c 65 Perceived 6 Desired U O 0 CO 55 73 50 iH P U 3 T) O to -H 09 cd Æ A U S cu m tG p CO 3 G A E4 N, 1 S 4^ 45 45-r CO 4 35 65 D I R E C T 0 R 60 m 0) & u CO 55 50 I •P "3 O •H *H to P G Cd O Fi O 09 4 CO 40 35 V Figure 45.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 80), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 G >» g § 0) 0) to W •H n] O bO A 0) o 4^ . Pi A ta m Ü ClJ S •H +5 a M — 1 Q-i o ta o ta 1—1 ta •H •H ta g O Pi O 0) G Pi Perceived - Desired M S T A P F g 0 55-- CQ 1 1 454: +» W 40-35-*- A / 60 \ - - « D I R E C T 0 R V--" Î o 55: r CO V 50-t- 45-f4i 35-*— Figure 46.— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 85). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 G 'O O G cd 196 ■!-> c 1 (3 » CJ CCJ 6 •H -P C 1-4 1 «Vh O CO O CO 1— 1 Q> < c A O •H P O 0 to *H CO Cd T3 43 O Q. U 6 P4 M 65^ Perceived 604- Desired 55+ CO TJ 50-t" ” «04- ' P CO 3 U 43 E-c- N 354. 65+ 60-ca D I R E C T 0 R U O o 55-- CO TJ 50- I- V 4035J- Figure 47*— Profile of Perceived and Desired OCDQ Factors (District 68). R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 (3 O •H •H CO P (3 ed O o -o Æ O p. U G Pt M ■P to u Xi E4 1c 3 •H to C O t A 55 50. 45 -p CO 40 35 / 65-t ta > o ct) B ft •p Ü M