An Overview

This chapter attempts to explicate the various concepts related to both the independent and dependent variables of the present study. The independent variables are comprised of the various dimensions of school organizational climate, namely empowerment, student support, affiliation, professional interest, mission and goals consensus, resource adequacy and the work pressure. The dependent variables include facet specific job satisfaction and facet free job satisfaction. Facet specific job satisfaction is further classified into intrinsic, extrinsic and social satisfaction.

Conceptualization of school organizational climate was first reviewed from the wider perspective of organizational climate in general since schools are regarded as formal organizations characterized by its goals, rules, roles, a hierarchy of authority, reward systems, forms of compliance and co-ordination activities. The historical development of climate, the definitions and dimensions of climate were reviewed. The review on school organizational climate was then narrowed down to school level environment and its various dimensions. Different conceptualizations and operationalization of job satisfaction were discussed. Review on the empirical studies of the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction follows next.

The Development of Organizational Climate

Climate has a long history in the fields of industrial and organizational psychology and organizational behaviour. According to Schneider et al. (1990: 14), the earliest explicit reference to the concept of climate occurred in Lewin, Lippitt and White’s (1939) article on experimentally created "social climate" in boys’ group. These authors offered neither definition nor a measure of climate. Fleishman (1953, cited in Schneider et al. 1990:18) discussed leadership climate but left the concept of climate undefined. Argyris (1958, cited in Schneider et al. 1990:18) wrote a paper on climate in a bank but still used the term climate in quotation marks. McGregor (1960, cited in Schneider et al. 1990:18) conceptualized managerial climate as "the day to day behaviour of the immediate superior and other significant people in the managerial organization". McGregor’s designed no quantitative measures of his climate conceptualization. It was not until about thirty years later that Litwin and Stringer (1966, cited in Schneider et al. 1990:18) first comprehensively conceptualized and operationalized climate as it is studied now. They presented a paper at a climate conference. Their paper presented a set of six climate dimensions including structure, reward and warm or support as reported by organization member’s perceptions,. Two years later, Tagiuri and Litwin published a book of collected papers. This book explored the nature of the climate construct, its definition and empirical findings. Thus, even though the word climate appeared in 1939, the concept of climate as we know now was not fully explicated until 1968 by Litwin, Stringer and Taguiri.

Conceptualization of Organizational Climate

Most of the researchers from the field of organizational behaviour have defined climate as the cognitive environment as perceived by members of the organization. James et al. (1990), for example, concurred that individuals have values that influence their cognition of their organization. This cognition of organization yields climate perceptions. Schneider et al. (1990) defined climate as a shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices and procedures, both formal and informal. According to Schneider et al. (1990), climate is a concept that is indicative of the organization’s goals and appropriate means to goal attainment. Thus, review of literature showed that organizational climate researchers are interested in organizational members’ perceptions of certain properties of their work environment and organization.

Literature showed that definition of organizational climate varies. Litwin and Stringer (1968, cited in Pincus, 1989) defined organizational climate as a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behaviour. However, Pritchard and Karasick (1993, cited in Razali, 1997) viewed climate differently, seeing it as a result of behaviour of organizational members:

Asforth (1994) cited in Razali (1997) argued that climate is a joint property of both the organization and the individual. This means that climate is the result of interaction between organizational characteristics and its members’ behaviour. Fink et al. (1995) defined organizational climate as a set of attitudes and beliefs relating to the organization that is shared and collectively held by organizational members as a whole. William et al. (1996) defined organizational climate as "the favourableness or unfavourableness of the environment for people in the organization" (p.601). James et al. (1990) defined climate for individuals in the organization as the extent to which the organization provides for the well being of its members.

Most researchers adopted the classic and more widely referenced definition of organizational climate provided by Taguiri (1968) cited in Fink et al. (1995). Taguiri’s definition of organizational climate posits that:

Organizational Climate Dimensions

Organizational climate is a multidimensional system of the properties of the internal environment of an organization. The dimensions generally relates to two categories of perceptions: (1) behaviours in the organization and (2) feelings of members toward the organization, for example the amount of perceived warmth (Albrecht,1979).

Investigators have identified numerous dimensions of climate which they have used as operational referents for the construct. Kopelman et al. (1990) concurred with other researchers that climate is a multidimensional construct with a central core of dimensions. They considered the following five dimensions: goal emphasis, means emphasis, reward orientation, task support and socioemotional support to be common elements of climate. Goal emphasis is the extent to which management makes known the types of outcomes and standards that employees are expected to accomplish. Means emphasis is the extent to which management makes known the methods and procedures that employees are expected to use in performing their jobs, Reward orientation is the extent to which various organizational rewards are perceived to be allocated on the basis of job performance. Task support is the extent to which employees perceived that they are being supplied materials, equipment and resources necessary to perform their jobs. Socio-emotional support is the extent to which employees perceived that their personal welfare is protected by a kind, considerate and generally humane management.

Other frequently cited dimensions of organizational climate are organizational structure (Litwin, 1968; Schnake, 1983; Poon, 1989), individual responsibility (Schnake, 1983; Poon, 1986,1989), warmth or support (Litwin, 1968; Schnake, 1983; Poon, 1989), rewards and punishment (Litwin, 1968; Poon, 1989), conflict resolution (Poon, 1989), performance standard (Schnake, 1983; Poon, 1986), organizational identity (Poon, 1986) and innovation ( Rentoul & Fraser, 1992; Oswald, 1996).

The above literature reviews showed that although different researchers seem to have identified different climate dimensions in their respective climate studies, it is clear that some of these "different dimensions" differ only in terminology. There are overlapping descriptions, for instance, the climate description for Kopelman et al.’s (1990) "socio-emotional support", Ismael Abu-Saad’s (1995) "nature of relationship between teachers", Dorman’s (1996) "affiliation" and Litwin’s (1968) and Poon’s (1989) "warmth or support" have some similarities in meaning.

The subsection that follows presents some review on climate dimensions specifically for the field of educational administration research. Doug et al. (1979), in examining the relationship between school organizational climate and perceived school effectiveness, had identified staff synergy as a dimension of school climate. This is the dimension of the school organizational climate that focuses upon aspects of the principal’s leadership behaviour. A close relationship was found to exist between the staff synergy climate and the perceived school effectiveness. Ismael Abu-Saad (1995) in assessing the school organizational climate in Bedouin Arab Schools in Israel, established that whilst the principal’s leadership was the dominant factor in determining organizational climate within the schools, other significant factors identified were considerations of teaching loads, levels of autonomy, the quality of school resources and the nature of relationships between teachers. In validating the development of a new instrument for school climate measure, the School Level Environment Questionnaire, Rentoul and Fraser (1983) studied eight scales of the school environment: affiliation, student supportiveness, professional interest, achievement orientation, formalization, centralization, innovativeness and resource adequacy. In using teachers’ perceptions in a school environment (climate) research, Dorman (1996) studied seven dimensions of school climate. The seven dimensions were mission consensus, empowerment, student support, affiliation, professional interest, resource adequacy and work pressure. A more recent review showed that these seven dimensions were popularly studied in the school level environment research (Dorman, Fraser and McRobbie, 1997). Due to its more recent popularity, Dorman’s seven dimensions of school organizational climate are of particular interest in this study.

Conceptualization of School Organizational Climate

The organizational climate of schools has been viewed as part of the theory and practice of educational administration. According to this theoretical perspective, educational administration literature has typically treated school climate as a specific type of organizational climate. Schools are viewed as formal organizations. Hence, they are similar to most other organizations in that they have goals, rules, roles, a hierarchy of authority, reward systems, forms of compliance and co-ordination activities. One particular useful conceptualization of school organizational climate or environment is in terms of its psychology and social characteristics (Moos 1974, cited in Dorman, 1996). Schools are understood solely in terms of the perceptions of their members in a frame work of person-milieu interaction (Rentoul & Fraser, 1983). The perceptions of their members are the raw materials in the measurement of the school environment or climate. If we assume that teachers act on perceptions, then these perceptions assume great importance. Defined in this way, it means that school organizational climate is a set of factors which give each school a personality, a spirit and culture (Tye, 1974, cited in Dorman, 1996).

Review of older literature of school organizational climate showed that Taguiri (1968, cited in KP’ BPPP,1988; also cited in Dorman,1988) had argued that climate is a summary concept concerned with the total environmental quality within an organization. He proposed that climate is comprised of four dimensions of ecology, milieu, social system and culture as summarised in Table 1.

Haplin and Croft (1963, cited in KP’ BPPP, 1988; David, 1979; Norman, 1988) developed what is probably the most widely known conceptualization and measurement of school organizational climate. Haplin and Croft viewed school climate as organizational climate which is consist of eight dimensions with four facets each for teachers and principals. The four facets of teacher behaviour as perceived by teachers are disengagement, hindrance, esprit and intimacy. The four facets of principal’s behaviour are aloofness, production emphasis, thrust and consideration. The emphasis of this model is placed on the teacher and principal. Haplin and Croft’s Model of School Climate is summarised in Table 2.

Halpin and Croft found that six types of climate characterized the school environment. The school climates fall on a continuum ranging from open to close: open, autonomous, controlled, familiar, paternal and closed. An open climate is characterized by high degree of esprit, consideration and thrust; an average degree of intimacy; and low degrees of hindrance, disengagement, production emphasis and aloofness. Close climate is the atmosphere which is "suffocating". Everybody’s responsibility is just confined to rules and regulation.

Miles (cited in KP’ BPPP,1988) conceptualized school climate as consist of nine dimensions as summarised in Table 3. According to Miles, school climate is healthy if it has clear and practical objectives; there is shared responsibility among its members; there is effective and efficient use of resources; members are dedicated and have the sense of belonging to their school; morale of teachers and staffs are high; members have innovative ideas; the school is sensitive to its surrounding and is able to solve its problems.

Conceptualization of Job Satisfaction

The study of job satisfaction, or an individual’s affective reaction to a job or its many facets has been of great interest to behavioural science researchers. The construct of job satisfaction has been one of the most widely studied and controversial topics. It is controversial in the sense that it is operationalized and defined differently by different researchers, depending on the objectives of the study. A recent estimate suggests that more than five thousand studies of job satisfaction have been published since 1930s (Thomson,1997). It is studied in a number of disciplines such as organizational communication, organizational behaviour, educational administration, management and industrial psychology.

One of the earliest definition of job satisfaction was any combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person to say, " I am satisfied with my job" (Hoppock, 1935, cited in Miskel 1988). Later attempts to define the concept tended to follow a similar ideas of emotional states and feelings towards the job. For example, Locke (1976), cited in Pincus (1989). defined job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences" It is one’s emotional response to facets of one’s work environment.

Job satisfaction does not appear to be simple or singular concept. A variety of perspectives evident in job satisfaction literature have evolved over time. Richmond and McCroskey (1979) had outlined three conceptualizations of job satisfaction that illustrate the gradual development of current job satisfaction research. These conceptualizations provide some revealing explanations as to what the nature and causes of job satisfaction is. These three conceptualizations are briefly explicated as below.

1. A Global or One Factor Approach of Job Satisfaction: This conceptualization envisions a global reaction in which an employee’s single response was designed on a continuum from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. While this conceptualization does not deny that an employee may like some things in the work environment while disliking others, it views the interface of these competing reactions to represent a general, single dimensional satisfaction response. Such a response does not allow an employee to express reactions to various facets of his or her work environment.
2. Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction: A second conceptualization, grew out of the limitations inherent in the one-factor approach, was Herzberg’s two factor theory of job satisfaction. This two-factor theory suggested a dual continua, one for satisfaction and one for dissatisfaction rather than a single satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum. It posits that an employee potentially can be very satisfied and very dissatisfied at the same time in response to different elements in the employment environment. The satisfaction factors are known as "motivators" and they include achievement, recognition and the work itself. The dissatisfaction factors are known as "hygiene" factors and they include factors like pay, security and physical working conditions.
3. Multiple Factors Approach Of Job Satisfaction: The third conceptualization discussed by Richmond and McCroskey (1979) portrayed job-satisfaction as being comprised of multiple factors where each factor represents a separate satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum. This approach has been the most commonly employed in recent years. The dimensions of the multiple factors vary from one another. For instance, the popular Job Description Index (JDI) isolates five dimensions of satisfaction: supervision, work, pay, promotion and co-workers.

Common to the three different conceptualizations of job satisfaction is that each appears to focus on an individual’s perceptual or emotional response to certain aspects of the work environment. Satisfaction, according to different school of thought, depends on the individual’s expectation, needs and values. Literature indicates that the more important factors conducive to job satisfaction are mentally challenging work, equitable rewards, supportive working conditions and supportive colleagues.

Operationalization of Overall Job Satisfaction

There are several generic types of job satisfaction measures. One basic distinction is between a measure of overall or facet free job satisfaction and a measure of job facet satisfaction. Both types of measures have their usefulness. Policy makers may focus on an overall measure because they may be interested in the overall level of satisfaction. Individuals may employ a general assessment of some kinds to make a summary judgement about their own job satisfaction. On the other hand, a facet measure may be employed when an organization is interested in improving the job satisfaction of its employees. The empirical records suggested that the global measures of job satisfaction and the sum facet measures are by no means equivalent measures (Smith et al. 1969 cited in Scarpello et al. 1983).

Most job satisfaction research focuses on obtaining reactions to specific facets of current job. Locke (1969 cited in Scarpello et al. (1983) stated that "overall job satisfaction is the sum of the evaluations of the discrete elements of which the job is composed". The practice of using sum of facet satisfaction as a measure of overall job satisfaction is appropriate if we assume that the satisfaction questionnaire is content valid. However, if overall job satisfaction includes consideration of variables not measured by a given instrument, the use of facet sum as the overall measure is questionable. Assuming that job satisfaction is a function of the person and environment interaction, an individual’s global judgement of overall job satisfaction may include consideration of variables that are typically not measured by facet specific instruments. Therefore, in this study, job satisfaction is conceptualized as to include both facet free satisfaction and facet specific satisfaction. Facet free satisfaction measures teachers’ overall satisfaction with teaching as a career while facet specific satisfaction measures teachers’ satisfaction towards specific aspect of their job and job environment and are categorised as to include intrinsic, extrinsic and social satisfaction.

Literature reviews have shown that there is a relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. Organizational climate was found to be related to performance and individual job satisfaction (Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Lawler, Hall, & Oldham, 1974, cited in Schneider et al., 1990: 11). Satisfaction was found to be a function of congruence between needs and climate (Downey, Hellriegel & Slocum, 1975, cited in Schneider, 1990: 11). Schnake (1983) in an empirical assessment of the effects of affective response in the measurement of organizational climate, established that climate measurement improves when job satisfaction is partialed out.

Considerable evidence indicates that dimensions of climate are associated with job satisfaction (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Princhard & Karasick,1973; Litwin & Stringer, 1968 cited in Kopelman, 1990: 303). Locke (1976) suggested that climate dimensions are likely correlate of job satisfaction. In Malaysia, Poon et al. (1989), in using factor analysis of climate items in a study, had identified ten climate dimensions, namely, organizational vitality, warmth and consideration, structure, social relations, individualism and conflict avoidance and found significant relationships between these derived climate dimensions and measures of job satisfaction. The following section reviewed some of the empirical evidences on the associations between the various climate dimensions of this study and job satisfaction.

Empowerment: According to Rice and Schneider (1994), participation in decision making has been of critical concern to educators. Relationships between participative management and job satisfaction have been explored in various context in organizational studies. Many researchers have related involvement in decision making to the organizational outcomes of job satisfaction (Rice & Schneider, 1994). Researchers have found the relationship between job satisfaction and participation in decision making (Mohrman et al. 1978, cited in Thompson 1997). Greater participation in decision making, especially concerning instructional methods, enhanced teachers’ job satisfaction (Belasco & Alutto, 1972, cited in Miskel et al. 1988). The lack of opportunity to participate in decision making is the greatest source of teachers’ dissatisfaction (Holdaway, 1978, cited in Miskel et al. 1988). In an empirical research on the relationship between school governance regimes and teachers’ job satisfaction, Verdugo et al. (1997), prescribed greater teacher participation or at least the opportunity for participation as a viable option or framework for increasing teachers’ job satisfaction and thus quality school environments. In sum, empirical studies have indicated that teachers’ job satisfaction is related to and affected by participation in decision making process.

Student Support: Empirical studies had shown that student misbehaviour is a factor or stressor that contribute towards teacher stress in the school work environment (Punch et al., 1996). Teacher stress or burnt out can lead to job dissatisfaction. Researchers have investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and burnout (Anderson & Iwanicki, 1984, cited in Thompson, 1997). Therefore student indiscipline or lack of student support leads to teachers’ job dissatisfaction.

Affiliation or Collegial Support: Affiliation or its related terms such as warmth and consideration or social relations dimensions have been found to correlate significantly to job satisfaction (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969, cited in Poon 1989). Punch et al. (1996) in study the effects of support in the work environment in reducing teacher stress, had revealed that the support teachers received from colleagues, including the principal, are potential distressors. Therefore, collegial support reduces potential distressors and contributes towards teachers’ job satisfaction.

Professional Interest: Professional interest in the current context, refers to the extent teachers discuss professional matters, show interest in their work and seek further professional development. Teachers’ discussion in professional matters further improve the collegial relationships and provide collegial support. As discussed above, in many studies, collegial support has been identified as a source of job satisfaction. Opportunity for further professional development served to satisfy teachers’ need for personal and career development satisfaction.

Goals Consensus and Resource Adequacy: These two dimensions are liken to Kopelman’s (1990) goal emphasis and means emphasis. Goal emphasis and means emphasis serve to reduce experienced role conflict and role ambiguity and thereby promote satisfaction (Brief & Schuler, 1981; Jackson &Schuler, 1985, cited in Kopelman, 1990: 303). Ghazali (1979) established that resource adequacy was a source of Malaysian teachers’ job satisfaction. Hence, mission consensus and resource adequacy are positive correlates of teachers’ job satisfaction.

Work Pressure: Work related pressure is of growing concern because it leads to work related stress. Work related stress in turn has significant economic implications for an organization through employee dissatisfaction. A. Menlo et al. (1990) have indicated that teachers with more overall job satisfaction are likely to experience less stress than teachers with less overall job satisfaction. Jagdish (1994) in a study of the relationship between job stressor and job satisfaction in a university, revealed that high job stress were associated with high job dissatisfaction. Templeton and Jensen (1993, cited in Dorman, Fraser and McRobbie, 1997) used the School Level Environment Questionnaire in conjunction with qualitative data collection methods to investigate how exemplary teachers perceived their school environment, found that exemplary teachers desired less work pressure in their work. Therefore, literature showed that work pressure is negatively associated with job satisfaction.