Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol12.Issue1.1998:
Moving towards a quality climate at the University of
Cyprus
Petros Pashiardis
Asso c iate Pro fe sso r o f Educ atio nal Administratio n, De partme nt o f Educ atio n,
Unive rsity o f Cyprus, Nic o sia, Cyprus
College climate has been
defi ned as the collective
personality of a college. The
University of Cyprus, being a
new institution, wanted to
fi nd out the kind of climate
which exists four years after
it was established. The personal assessment of the
university climate survey was
used. The purpose of the
survey was to obtain the
perceptions of employees
concerning the university
climate and examine this
climate in conjunction with
Likert’s systems theory of
management. The following
areas were found in most
need of improvement: wider
dissemination of information
across the institution; more
effective interaction of the
leadership with personnel;
more use of group problemsolving methods across and
within departments and
administrative services; and
more need for feedback on
their work from both faculty
and administrative staff.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [ 1998] 1 4 –2 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 14 ]
Introduction
Colle ge clim a te h a s been defin ed a s th e collective per son a lity of a u n iver sity, colle ge or
oth er or ga n iza tion . It h a s a lso been descr ibed
a s th e a tm osph er e wh ich is cr ea ted by th e
socia l a n d pr ofession a l in ter a ction s of th e
in dividu a ls of th e colle ge. As sta ted by
Sa r gea n t (1967), “Clim a te m ay be pictu r ed a s
a per son a lity sk etch of a sch ool. As per son a lity descr ibes a n in dividu a l so clim a te defi n es
th e essen ce of a n in stitu tion …” (p. 3). Th e
colle ge clim a te ser ves a cr u cia l r ole in deter m in in g “wh a t th e in stitu tion is a n d wh a t it
m igh t becom e” (N or ton , 1984, p. 43). In gen er a l, “clim a te” is to a n or ga n iza tion wh a t
“per son a lity” is to a n in dividu a l (Rou ech e
a n d Ba k er, 1986). Mor eover, th e clim a te of a
u n iver sity a ffects th e over a ll a tm osph er e of a
pa r ticu la r in stitu tion to su ch a n exten t th a t
on e ca n sen se th e clim a te pr esen t in th e u n iver sity or colle ge a lm ost im m edia tely on
en ter in g th e bu ildin gs (Rou ech e a n d Ba k er,
1986).
Sever a l im plica tion s ser ve to u n der lin e th e
pa r a m ou n t im por ta n ce of colle ge clim a te in
th e u n iver sity settin g. Th ese im plica tion s
in clu de th e follow in g: th e k in d of clim a te th a t
exists sets th e ton e for th e u n iver sity’s
a ppr oa ch in m eetin g sta ted goa ls a n d r esolvin g pr oblem s; effective com m u n ica tion n ecessita tes a clim a te of tr u st, m u tu a l r espect, a n d
cla r ity of fu n ction ; clim a te ser ves a s a n
im por ta n t deter m in a n t of a ttitu des tow a r ds
con tin u ou s per son a l gr ow th a n d developm en t; clim a te con dition s th e settin g for cr ea tivity a n d th e gen er a tion of n ew idea s a n d
pr ogr a m im pr ovem en ts. F in a lly, th e clim a te
wh ich exists in a n or ga n iza tion is in tr ica tely
tied w ith th e qu a lity of in ter n a l pr ocesses
w ith in th e or ga n iza tion .
Th e a bove defi n ition s a n d sta tem en ts
u n der lin e th e gr ea t im por ta n ce of clim a te to
a n in stitu tion . Th er efor e, on e cou ld list
n u m er ou s r ea son s for stu dyin g colle ge clim a te. F ir st, th er e is eviden ce of a r ela tion sh ip
between clim a te a n d oth er or ga n iza tion a l
va r ia bles, su ch a s: job sa tisfa ction ; job per for m a n ce; gr ou p com m u n ica tion ; lea der sh ip
str u ctu r e; a n d or ga n iza tion a l com m itm en t a s
well a s or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce (An sa r i,
1980; J oyce a n d Slocu m , 1982). Secon d,
k n ow in g th e colle ge’s clim a te is con sider ed
u sefu l for developm en t effor ts w ith in a u n iver sity. Th ir d, colle ge clim a te h a s been fou n d
to in fl u en ce th e m otiva tion a n d beh avior s of
in dividu a ls a n d, th er efor e, th e qu a lity of
th eir a ction s w ith in th e in stitu tion (Lik er t,
1967; Rou ech e a n d Ba k er, 1986; Sch n eider a n d
Sn yder, 1975).
F u r th er m or e, th e lea der sh ip style u sed by
va r iou s levels of m a n a gem en t w ill in flu en ce
th e clim a te wh ich exists w ith in a n or ga n iza tion . Th e im por ta n ce of th ese styles a s deter m in er s of pr odu ctivity a n d a s deter m in er s of
th e de gr ee of sa tisfa ction th a t em ployees
r eceive fr om th e per for m a n ce in th eir jobs
h a s been well r ecogn ized in th e r esea r ch
liter a tu r e. However, in spite of th e fa ct th a t
lea der sh ip h a s been stu died for m a n y yea r s
in a va r iety of wor k settin gs, th er e is n o on e
th eor y of lea der sh ip th a t is u n iver sa lly
a ccepted.
Usin g a scien tific m a n a gem en t developm en t a ppr oa ch , Lik er t (1967) iden tified fou r
m a n a gem en t system s r a n gin g fr om
“E xploita tive a u th or ita tive” or System 1, to
“Ben evolen t a u th or ita tive” or System 2, to
“Con su lta tive” or System 3 a n d, fin a lly, to
“P a r ticipa tive gr ou p” or System 4 m a n a gem en t style. System 1 r epr esen ts a str u ctu r ed,
ta sk -or ien ted, a n d h igh ly a u th or ita tive lea der sh ip m a n a gem en t style ba sed on th e n otion
th a t follower s or wor k er s a r e in h er en tly la zy
a n d th a t, to m a k e th em pr odu ctive, th e m a n a ger m u st “k eep a fter th em ” con sta n tly (see
a lso McGr e gor ’s Th eor y X a n d Y). In gen er a l,
lea der s h ave n o con fi den ce a n d tr u st in th eir
em ployees a n d th e em ployees do n ot feel a t a ll
fr ee to discu ss th in gs a bou t th eir job w ith
th eir su per visor s or collea gu es. System 2
r epr esen ts a wor k en vir on m en t wh er e
em ployees do n ot feel ver y fr ee to discu ss
wor k -r ela ted m a tter s bu t, som etim es, th eir
idea s a n d opin ion s a r e ta k en in to con sider a tion wh en solvin g pr oblem s. Th er e is a lso
little in ter a ction a n d com m u n ica tion a n d, in
gen er a l, em ployees feel r ela tively little
r espon sibility for a ch ievin g th e or ga n iza tion ’s goa ls. System 3 is a m a n a gem en t style
wh er e th er e is su bsta n tia l bu t n ot com plete
con fiden ce a n d tr u st. Th e lea der is still in
con tr ol of decision m a k in g; h owever,
em ployees feel qu ite fr ee to discu ss th in gs
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
a bou t th eir job w ith collea gu es a n d lea der s.
Th er e is a feelin g of r espon sibility wh ich
r u n s th r ou gh ou t th e or ga n iza tion a n d idea s
for pr oblem solvin g a r e sou gh t. In con tr a st,
System 4 is ch a r a cter ized by a lea der sh ip
style wh ich is r ela tion sh ip- or per son or ien ted, m u tu a lly tr u stin g, a n d on e in wh ich
th e lea der h a s com plete con fiden ce in th e
follower s. Th is style is ba sed on th e a ssu m ption th a t wor k is a sou r ce of sa tisfa ction a n d
w ill be per for m ed volu n ta r ily w ith self-dir ection a n d self-con tr ol sin ce people h ave a ba sic
n eed to a ch ieve a n d be pr odu ctive. Th is la st
m a n a gem en t style (System 4) is pa r ticu la r ly
descr iptive of th ose wh o wor k in a u n iver sity
en vir on m en t wh er e th e or ga n iza tion is m or e
of a pr ofession a l bu r ea u cr a cy a n d em ployees
h ave con sider a ble fr eedom in th e da ily m a n a gem en t of th eir wor k envir on m en t.
In h is book T h e Hu m a n Orga n iz a tion : Its
M a n a gem en t a n d Va lu e, Lik er t (1967) a n d h is
a ssocia tes pr esen t n u m er ou s exa m ples of
com pa n ies a n d or ga n iza tion s th a t h a d a System 4 m a n a gem en t style, i.e. a su ppor tive a n d
pa r ticipa tive a ppr oa ch . Gen er a lly, th ese or ga n iza tion s pr odu ced better r esu lts in ter m s of
pr odu ctivity, costs, a bsen teeism , a n d
tu r n over. Th e or ga n iza tion s a lso pr odu ced a
better clim a te ch a r a cter ized by excellen t
com m u n ica tion , h igh er peer -gr ou p loya lty,
h igh con fiden ce a n d tr u st, a n d favor a ble
a ttitu des tow a r ds su per visor s. Resea r ch fin din gs a lso su ppor ted th e per ception s of m a n a ger s th a t m a n a gem en t system s wh ich
r esem ble a System 4 style a r e m or e pr odu ctive a n d h ave lower costs a n d m or e favor a ble
a ttitu des th a n do th ose system s fa llin g m or e
tow a r ds System 1. F u r th er m or e, sh ifts
tow a r ds System 4 wer e a ccom pa n ied by lon gr a n ge im pr ovem en t in pr odu ctivity, la bor
r ela tion s, costs a n d ea r n in gs.
Purpose of the study
Ba sed on th e a bove, th e pu r pose of th is su r vey w a s to obta in th e per ception s of em ployees con cer n in g th e clim a te a t th e Un iver sity
of Cypr u s in a n effor t to pr om ote m or e open
a n d con str u ctive com m u n ica tion a m on g
fa cu lty, a dm in istr a tive sta ff, a n d u n iver sity
a dm in istr a tion a n d, in gen er a l, in a n effor t to
im pr ove th e over a ll clim a te a t th e u n iver sity.
Th er e w a s a lso a deliber a te a ttem pt to lin k
th e r a tin g sca le wh ich w a s u sed w ith th e
su r vey in str u m en t (descr ibed in th e n ext
section ), w ith Lik er t’s system s th eor y. Th e
w ay th e sca le a n d th e wor din g of th e in str u m en t item s wer e u sed followed Lik er t’s
a ppr oa ch . Th er efor e, a r espon se of 1 in dica ted
a System 1 situ a tion in th e u n iver sity a n d a
r espon se of 5 in dica ted a System 4 situ a tion .
In doin g so, th e colle ge clim a te wou ld be
exa m in ed in ter m s of wh er e it fits a ccor din g
to Lik er t’s th eor y a ssu m in g th a t a System 4
m a n a gem en t style is th e on e m ost con du cive
a n d su ita ble to a u n iver sity en vir on m en t. At
th is poin t, it sh ou ld be m en tion ed th a t even
th ou gh pr odu ctivity m ea su r es in or ga n iza tion s su ch a s colle ges a n d u n iver sities a r e
differ en t th a n th e on es u sed in oth er or ga n iza tion s, it is sa fe to a ssu m e th a t a System 4
situ a tion is m or e desir a ble sin ce a ca dem ic
em ployees w ill h ave m or e fr eedom to a ct a n d
be pr odu ctive a n d, th u s, a positive clim a te
wou ld be con du cive to h igh er wor k pr odu ctivity (i.e., m or e pa per s pu blish ed, m or e gr a n t
m on ies br ou gh t in to th e u n iver sity, m or e
pr estige, m or e stu den ts, better tea ch in g, etc.).
Research methodology
The survey instrument
Th e per son a l a ssessm en t of th e u n iver sity
clim a te su r vey (PAUCS) w a s u sed (ba sed on
Lik er t’s in str u m en ts a n d on th e a u th or ’s
pr eviou s wor k w ith Geor ge Ba k er of th e Un iver sity of N or th Ca r olin a a t Ch a pel Hill), a s
m odified a n d a da pted to su it th e specific situ a tion cu r r en tly existin g a t th e Un iver sity of
Cypr u s[1] (UCy). F u r th er m or e, r espon den ts
wer e in vited to su bm it w r itten com m en ts so
a s to elicit m or e com pr eh en sive in for m a tion .
Two for m s of th e su r vey wer e u sed, on e for
th e fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d th e oth er for a dm in istr a tive sta ff. Th e qu estion s on th e two for m s
wer e iden tica l in ter m s of th e con ten t a r ea s
m ea su r ed bu t wer e wor ded differ en tly in
a r ea s wh ich differ ed pr im a r ily beca u se of th e
n a tu r e of th e job per for m ed or of th e ta sk s
in volved.
Th e PAUCS w a s divided in to six section s or
ca te gor ies. Th ese ca te gor ies wer e:
1 for m a l in fl u en ce;
2 com m u n ica tion ;
3 colla bor a tion ;
4 or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e;
5 job sa tisfa ction ;
6 a n d stu den t focu s.
A tota l of 48 clim a te item s wer e in clu ded in
th e 53-qu estion su r vey in str u m en t (th e oth er
five item s r efer r ed to th e r espon den t’s gen der,
a ge, len gth of ser vice a n d position h eld a t th e
u n iver sity). Respon den ts wer e a sk ed to r a te
th ese item s on a five-poin t sca le fr om a low of
“1” to a h igh of “5.” For ea ch item th er e wer e
two sca les. On e for wh a t “is” a n d on e for wh a t
“sh ou ld be.” Th e “is” ca te gor y r epr esen ted
th e situ a tion wh ich cu r r en tly exists a t th e
UCy, a s per ceived by th e r espon den ts (i.e. th e
w ay th in gs a r e). Th e “sh ou ld be” ca te gor y
r epr esen ted th e r espon den ts’ w ish es a bou t
wh a t th ey wou ld lik e th e situ a tion to be (i.e.
th e w ay th in gs sh ou ld be). Th e ga p between
th e wh a t “is” a n d th e “sh ou ld” in dica ted th e
m a gn itu de of th e n eed in a pa r ticu la r a r ea . In
[ 15 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
th is w ay, th e a r ea s in n eed of im pr ovem en t
cou ld be r a n k ed in or der of pr ior ity, th er eby
a ssistin g in th e clim a te im pr ovem en t pr ocess.
Th e in str u m en t itself h a s a h igh r elia bility
coefficien t (Cr on ba ch ’s a = 0.92). Th e PAUCS
w a s a dm in ister ed a n d com pleted by 150
em ployees a t th e UCy in J a n u a r y 1996. Seven ty-eigh t of 131 fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d 72 of 110
a dm in istr a tive per son n el su r veys wer e collected for a n a lysis.
in dica te em ployee per ception s a bou t r ea lity
a t th e u n iver sity. Th u s, th e r ea l situ a tion m ay
n ot r efl ect wh a t is per ceived by em ployees (it
cou ld be better or wor se). However, in a n y
or ga n iza tion , wh en a situ a tion is per ceived in
a pa r ticu la r w ay by a n y gr ou p of em ployees,
th en , in th eir eyes, th is is r ea lity a n d, th er efor e, it sh ou ld be tr ea ted a s su ch . Th is is th e
a ppr oa ch th e a u th or h a s ta k en in tr ea tin g
a n d in ter pr etin g da ta in th is r epor t.
Data analysis
Su r vey r espon ses wer e en ter ed in to a Ma cin tosh com pu ter, u sin g th e “SP SS for th e Ma cin tosh ” softw a r e. An a lyses wer e con du cted
pr im a r ily u sin g m ea n s, sta n da r d devia tion s,
t-tests, a n d fr equ en cies. Th e m eth od of “ga p
a n a lysis” w a s u sed to fin d th e a r ea s w ith
m ost n eed for im pr ovem en t a s follow s: th e
two m ea n s for ea ch on e of th e sta tem en ts of
th e qu estion n a ir e wer e su btr a cted fr om ea ch
oth er ; th e gr ea ter th e differ en ce (i.e. th e
la r ger th e ga p) th e m or e n eed for im pr ovem en t th er e w a s. Th e follow in g fi ve r esea r ch
qu estion s wer e explor ed u sin g th e da ta gen er a ted fr om th e clim a te in str u m en t:
1 How r epr esen ta tive w a s th e su r vey sa m ple
wh en com pa r ed to th e possible r espon se
r a te of th ose em ployed a t th e UCy?
2 How do per son n el em ployed a t th e UCy
per ceive th e over a ll u n iver sity clim a te?
3 Ar e th er e differ en ces in per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te a m on g th e two gr ou ps
of per son n el (i.e. fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d
a dm in istr a tive sta ff)?
4 Ar e th er e differ en ces in per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te in r ela tion sh ip to th e
len gth of ser vice a t th e UCy?
5 Wh a t r ecom m en da tion s for ch a n ge a n d
im pr ovem en t ca n be m a de ba sed on th e
r esu lts of th e clim a te su r vey?
Question 1
How represen ta tiv e w a s th e su r v ey sa m ple
w h en com pa red to th e possible respon se ra te of
th ose em ployed a t th e UCy?
A tota l of 150 ou t of 242 or 62 per cen t of u n iver sity per son n el (exclu sive of pa r t-tim e
fa cu lty a n d oth er a u xilia r y tea ch in g sta ff)
com pleted th e per son a l a ssessm en t of th e
u n iver sity clim a te su r vey. Th is r etu r n r a te
in dica ted u n iver sity-w ide in ter est in th e
pr oject. F igu r e 1 sh ow s r espon den ts br ok en
dow n by per son n el cla ssifica tion , wh er ea s
Ta ble I com pa r es th e pr opor tion of r espon den ts to th e u n iver sity em ployee popu la tion s
th ey r epr esen t.
Question 2
How d o person n el em ployed a t th e UCy per ceiv e th e ov era ll u n iv ersity clim a te?
Th e r esu lts fr om th e PAUCS in dica ted th a t
u n iver sity per son n el per ceive th e com posite
clim a te a t th e UCy to lie between a System 2
Figure 1
Pro po rtio n o f to tal re spo nse s by pe rso nne l
c lassific atio n
Pro fe ssio nal
Staff 2 3 %
Results and discussion
E a ch of th e r esea r ch qu estion s is a n swer ed
below in th e or der in wh ich it w a s listed in
th e pr eviou s section . Deta iled gr a ph ic r epr esen ta tion s of th e r esu lts h ave been pr epa r ed
to pr ovide th e r ea der w ith th e gr ea test possible a m ou n t of in for m a tion . Th is w a s pu r posely don e in a n effor t to pr ovide a gr a ph ic
da ta pr esen ta tion sch em e wh ich cou ld ser ve
a s a n exa m ple wh en in stitu tion a l r esea r ch er s
n eed to pr esen t da ta for bu sy boa r d or tr u stee
m em ber s wh o u su a lly avoid r ea din g too
m u ch text. Th u s, th e r ea der m ay n eed on ly to
r efer to th e gr a ph ics in or der to get a n in depth pictu r e of th e r esu lts. Th e n a r r a tive
follow in g ea ch qu estion ser ves sim ply to
descr ibe a n d ela bor a te on th e in for m a tion
con veyed by ea ch gr a ph ic.
F u r th er m or e, befor e a n y discu ssion be gin s,
it sh ou ld be str essed th a t th e su r vey r esu lts
[ 16 ]
Fac ulty
53%
Suppo rt
Staff 2 4 %
Table I
Re pre se ntative ne ss o f sample – pe rso nne l
c lassific atio n
Employed at
university
Respondents
No.
No.
Percentage
Full-time faculty
132
Administrative staff
(professional and support
staff)
110
Total
242
78
60
72
150
66
62
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
(ben evolen t a u th or ita tive) a n d a System 3
(con su lta tive) m a n a gem en t style (Lik er t,
1967). As discu ssed ea r lier, th e sca le r a n ge (1
to 5) in clu ded th e fou r system s of m a n a gem en t a s defin ed by Lik er t a n d u sed by Ba k er
a n d P a sh ia r dis in th eir pr eviou s in -depth
ca se stu dies of oth er colle ges in th e USA fr om
1989 to 1992.
As in dica ted in F igu r e 2, th e job sa tisfa ction clim a te ca te gor y r eceived th e h igh est
com posite r a tin g (3.48), wh ich r epr esen ted a
solid System 3 or con su lta tive m a n a gem en t
style. However, it sh ou ld be n oted th a t item 37
(oppor tu n ity for a dva n cem en t in th is or ga n iza tion ), wh ich belon gs in th e job sa tisfa ction
Figure 2
Unive rsity c limate as rate d by bo th e mplo ye e gro ups c o mbine d using
c o mpo sitive ave rage s
5
All
Partic ipative Gro up
4
Co nsultative
3
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
Fo rmal
Influe nc e
Gro up
2 .5 2
Ave rage
Co mmunic at Co llabo rat
2 .5 5
2 .4 5
Org.Strc t.
Jo b.Satsf
Stdt.fo c
Ove rall
Climate
3 .0 9
3 .4 8
3 .2 7
2 .8 9
Figure 3
Ave rage c limate pro file sc o re s as rate d by two gro ups o f e mplo ye e s
5
Partic ipative Gro up
4
3
2
Co nsultative
Key
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
Administrative Staff
Fac ulty
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
Fo rmal
Influe nc e
Administrative
Staff
2 .6 5
Fac ulty 2 .4 0
Communic at Co llabo rat
2 .5 5
2 .5 6
2 .5 7
2 .3 3
Org.Strc t.
Jo b.Satsf
Stdt.fo c
Ove rall
Climate
3 .2 0
2 .9 8
3 .4 4
3 .5 2
3 .4 1
3 .1 4
2 .9 7
2 .8 2
ca te gor y, r eceived on e of th e lowest r a tin gs
a m on g fu ll-tim e fa cu lty. Th e sa m e item
r eceived th e lowest r a tin g a m on g a dm in istr a tive per son n el. Th e colla bor a tion clim a te
ca te gor y r eceived th e lowest com posite r a tin g
(2.45) a r ou n d th e m iddle of th e System 2 or
ben evolen t a u th or ita tive m a n a gem en t style.
All six com posite aver a ges, com pu ted by
com bin in g th e r a tin gs of both per son n el
gr ou ps, r a ted th e m a n a gem en t style between
System 2 (ben evolen t a u th or ita tive) a n d System 3 (con su lta tive).
Question 3
A re th ere d ifferen ces in perception of th e u n iv ersity clim a te b etw een th e tw o grou ps of per son n el (i.e. b etw een fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d
a d m in istra tiv e sta ff)?
F igu r e 3 r epor ts com posite r esu lts a ccor din g
to th e six clim a te ca te gor ies on a ll 48 item s
for th e two em ployee gr ou ps. In gen er a l, fa cu lty r a ted on ly th e job sa tisfa ction ca te gor y
h igh er (3.52) wh en com pa r ed w ith th e r a tin g
given by th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff (th e differ en ce w a s n ot sta tistica lly sign ifica n t h ow ever ). Com m u n ica tion w a s r a ted exa ctly th e
sa m e by both gr ou ps of em ployees. All oth er
ca te gor ies (for m a l in fl u en ce, colla bor a tion ,
or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e, a n d stu den t focu s)
wer e r a ted h igh er by th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff.
Mor eover, th e differ en ces in th e a r ea s of for m a l in flu en ce, colla bor a tion , a n d stu den t
focu s wer e sta tistica lly sign ifica n t a t th e 0.05
level. Th is r esu lt is in a ccor da n ce w ith oth er
r esea r ch fin din gs wh ich in dica te th a t a dm in istr a tive sta ff h a d a sligh t bu t con sisten tly
h igh er per ception of th e or ga n iza tion a l clim a te w ith in th e colle ge/ u n iver sity th a n fa cu lty did (Ha r tn ett a n d Cen tr a , 1974; Ster n ,
1966). F u r th er m or e, F igu r e 3 r epor ts th e
over a ll clim a te r a tin g for ea ch of th e two
em ployee gr ou ps. As a gr ou p, fu ll-tim e fa cu lty pr ovided th e lowest r a tin gs on a lm ost a ll
of th e six clim a te ca te gor ies.
Ta ble II r epor ts th e m ea n r espon se of a ll
em ployees for ea ch of th e 48 item s con ta in ed
in th e su r vey in str u m en t. It sh ow s wh a t th e
em ployees of th e UCy per ceive th e pr esen t
clim a te to be (IS) a n d wh a t th e differ en ce is
(DF ) fr om wh a t th e clim a te sh ou ld be (SB). In
r eview in g ea ch of th e item s sepa r a tely, we
fin d th a t a bou t h a lf (26 item s) of th e 48 com posite r a tin gs fell between a System 2 m a n a gem en t style (e.g. a r a tin g of 2.0 or m or e) a n d
th e System 3 m a n a gem en t style. Th e fou r
lowest r a ted item s (w ith in System 1, exploita tive a u th or ita tive) wer e: (7) th e qu a lity of
lea der a n d follower in ter a ction (1.96); (12) th e
exten t to wh ich in for m a tion is sh a r ed (1.95);
(22) th e u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g a cr oss
th e u n iver sity (1.92); (37) a n d th e oppor tu n ity
for a dva n cem en t in th is or ga n iza tion (2.02).
[ 17 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Table II
Co mparative me an re spo nse s to 4 8 -ite m surve y fo r all pe rso nne l
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
[ 18 ]
IS
SB
DF
Formal influence
1 The information on the university mission
2 Confidence in my work as expressed by my leaders
3 The quality of guidance received regarding my work
4 Opportunities to be creative in my work
5 The extent to which my leaders emphasize my personal and professional development
6 The vision for the future provided by leaders
7 The quality of leader and follower interaction
8 M y motivation to perform work in the college
9 The emphasis on high task accomplishment at the university
3.09
3.34
2.29
2.62
2.23
2.41
1.96
2.15
2.65
4.66
4.71
4.02
4.75
4.55
4.47
4.57
4.67
4.77
1.57
1.37
1.73
2.13
2.32
2.06
2.61
2.52
2.12
Communication
10 The quantity of information I receive in my work
11 The extent to which information is useful in my work
12 The extent to which information is shared
13 The extent to which positive expectations are communicated
14 The clarity of outcomes to be achieved
15 The clarity of written guidelines used in my work
16 The quality of verbal communication with leaders
17 The quality of written communication with leaders
2.77
2.52
1.95
2.42
2.48
2.37
3.10
2.83
4.58
4.66
4.60
4.52
4.58
4.43
4.71
4.43
1.81
2.14
2.65
2.10
2.10
2.06
1.61
1.60
Collaboration
18 The opportunity to work jointly with others
19 The spirit of co-operation within my unit
20 The spirit of co-operation across different units of the university
21 The use of group problem solving employed in my unit
22 The use of group problem solving across the university
23 The extent to which various university personnel interact with the community
24 The extent to which my ideas are utilized
25 The extent to which I feel rewarded for my efforts
2.58
2.85
2.22
2.47
1.92
2.69
2.59
2.27
4.50
4.90
4.72
4.59
4.47
4.33
4.32
4.59
1.92
2.05
2.50
2.12
2.55
1.64
1.73
2.32
Organizational structure
26 The extent to which policies and procedures guide my work
27 The quality of feedback that I receive in my work
28 The number of different tasks that I do
29 The ability to set my own work schedule
30 The appreciation for my work as shown by colleagues
31 The degree of accuracy demanded in my work
32 The extent to which decisions are made at the appropriate level of the organization
2.76
2.20
3.74
3.06
3.20
4.09
2.62
3.98
4.45
2.87
4.67
4.44
4.72
4.35
1.22
2.25
–0.87
1.61
1.24
0.63
1.73
Job satisfaction
33 The extent to which accuracy is expected in my job
34 The extent to which special skills are required in my job
35 The overall importance of my job to the mission of the university
36 The extent to which I am responsible for important work
37 The opportunity for advancement in this organization
38 The quality of my relationship with colleagues in this organization
39 The extent to which I find my overall job motivating
3.62
3.98
3.99
4.04
2.02
3.08
3.63
4.52
4.41
4.89
4.39
4.66
4.73
4.88
0.90
0.43
0.90
0.35
2.64
1.65
1.25
Student focus
40 The extent to which students’ needs are central to what we do
41 The quality of education received by students
42 The effectiveness and efficiency of teaching staff
43 The quality of administrative services
44 The quality of student services
45 The quality of career development of students
46 The quality of student personal development
47 The extent to which students feel comfortable in the university environment
48 M y perception of students’ satisfaction with their total education experience
3.47
3.35
3.53
3.32
3.47
3.15
3.18
3.31
3.04
4.48
4.79
4.62
4.83
4.70
4.68
4.62
4.66
4.60
1.01
1.44
1.09
1.51
1.23
1.53
1.44
1.35
1.56
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
Th e pr epon der a n ce of System 2 scor es in dica tes th a t per son n el h a s a low to m ediu m
level of sa tisfa ction w ith th e clim a te a t th e
u n iver sity. Over a ll r esu lts of th e su r vey
yielded a n ot so h ea lth y u n iver sity clim a te
(2.89). F igu r es 4-6 sh ow th e r a tin gs of ea ch
em ployee gr ou p for ea ch of th e 48 clim a te
item s a s well a s th e gen er a l r a tin gs for a ll.
Specifica lly, F igu r e 4 por tr ays th e da ta fr om
Ta ble II in gr a ph ic for m for a ll 48 qu estion n a ir e item s. Ta bles III-V in dica te th e top
twelve pr ior ities for ch a n ge a s exh ibited in
th e pr eviou s figu r es. It is in ter estin g to n ote
th a t u n iver sity-w ide (a n d fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff sepa r a tely) a r ea s n eedin g to
ch a n ge lie pr im a r ily w ith in th e fir st th r ee
a r ea s of th e in str u m en t, i.e. for m a l in flu en ce,
com m u n ica tion a n d colla bor a tion . Th is
r esu lt is in a ccor da n ce w ith m ost of th e clim a te stu dies con du cted by Ba k er a n d
Figure 4
All pe rso nne l’ s me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
Partic ipative Gro up
5
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
P a sh ia r dis in th e USA between 1989 a n d 1992.
Th er e is a lot of eviden ce in dica tin g th a t som e
of th e biggest or ga n iza tion a l pr oblem s for
colle ges a n d u n iver sities a r e com m u n ica tion
(in ter m s of m isin for m a tion or n o tim ely
in for m a tion a t a ll) a n d colla bor a tion pr oblem s (in ter m s of sh a r in g r esou r ces or cooper a tin g a n d co-or din a tin g between differ en t depa r tm en ts a n d fa cu lties). Th is is a clea r
in dica tion for ter tia r y in stitu tion s a s to
wh ich dir ection th ey sh ou ld m ove in or der to
im pr ove th eir clim a te. It is a lso in ter estin g to
n ote th a t item 28 (“Th e n u m ber of differ en t
ta sk s th a t I do”) got a n e ga tive r a tin g wh ich
in dica tes th a t th er e is a lot of differ en tia tion
r e ga r din g th e ta sk s a n in dividu a l is expected
to per for m w ith in th e in stitu tion a n d th a t
su ch differ en tia tion is n ot desir a ble, a t lea st
to th e exten t th a t is cu r r en tly eviden t a t th e
Un iver sity of Cypr u s. Th is is pr oba bly tr u e
for th e UCy beca u se, bein g a n ew in stitu tion ,
th er e is a lot th a t n eeds to be don e (n ew r u les,
r e gu la tion s, com m ittee wor k , in tr odu ction of
n ew pr ogr a m s) a n d, th er efor e, a ll sta ff (both
fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff) a r e in volved
in sever a l differ en t type of ta sk s a t on e poin t
in tim e. On e cou ld a r gu e th a t com m ittee wor k
is pr esen t in a ll in stitu tion s of h igh er edu ca tion sin ce th is is th e m od u s opera n d i; h ow ever, wh en on e is tr yin g to bu ild a n ew in stitu tion on e cou ld a ssu m e th a t th er e is a lot
m or e to be don e th a n th er e is in a n or ga n iza tion wh ich h a s been in existen ce for som e
tim e.
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Figure 5
Fac ulty’ s me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
Partic ipative Gro up
5
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Question 4
A re th ere d ifferen ces in perception of th e
u n iv ersity clim a te in rela tion to th e len gth
of ser vice a t th e UCy?
Th e da ta gen er a ted fr om th is qu estion a r e
pr esen ted in Ta bles VI a n d VII. Wh en th e
com posite clim a te aver a ges of ea ch of th e
in str u m en t’s six ca te gor ies wer e com pa r ed to
len gth of ser vice on th e (IS) som e in ter estin g
com pa r ison s a r ise. For exa m ple, a s ca n be
seen in Ta ble VI, th e m or e yea r s of ser vice
fa cu lty m em ber s h ave, th e m or e im pr ovem en t
th er e is in ter m s of th e u n iver sity clim a te a s
per ceived by th em in fou r ou t of th e six ca tegor ies: for m a l in fl u en ce; com m u n ica tion ; job
sa tisfa ction ; a n d stu den t focu s. Con ver sely,
th e per ception of colla bor a tion a n d or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e get sligh tly wor se a s fa cu lty
h ave m or e yea r s of ser vice a t th e u n iver sity.
Alm ost th e con tr a r y is h a ppen in g w ith th e
a dm in istr a tive sta ff (see Ta ble VII). Th e clim a te per ception is a lm ost a r ou n d 3.00 on th e
5-poin t sca le on five of th e six qu estion n a ir e
ca te gor ies wh en a dm in istr a tive sta ff en ter
th e u n iver sity, a n d th in gs get wor se a s a dm in istr a tive sta ff spen d m or e yea r s a t th e in stitu tion . Th e on ly section th a t seem s to be gettin g
[ 19 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
better a s th e yea r s of ser vice in cr ea se is colla bor a tion a m on g sta ff, som eth in g wh ich is
ver y en cou r a gin g. Appa r en tly, sta ff get to
k n ow ea ch oth er on th e job a n d colla bor a te a s
th ey wor k togeth er or a s th ey a r e u n ited by
com m on a n xieties a n d dissa tisfa ction . Wh a t
is a la r m in g is th a t a dm in istr a tive sta ff feel
th a t th in gs get wor se in th e a r ea s of for m a l
in flu en ce, com m u n ica tion , or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r e, a n d job sa tisfa ction .
In gen er a l, th e fa cu lty’s per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te gets sligh tly better th e
lon ger th ey stay a t th e u n iver sity (a lth ou gh
still in th e a r ea of 3.00) wh er ea s th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff ’s per ception gets sligh tly wor se
(in th e a r ea of 2.80) a s th ey stay lon ger a t th e
Figure 6
Administrative staff c o mpile d me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
5
Partic ipative Gro up
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Table III
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : unive rsity-wide prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
Item no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
37
7
22
8
20
25
5
9
10
11
12
27
11
4
21
Area to change
Information sharing ac ross the university
Opportunities for advanc ement
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Use of group problem solving ac ross c ollege
Motivation to do my job
Co-operation among university departments
Feeling rewarded for my efforts
Extent that my supervisor gives emphasis to my personal and
professional growth
Quality of feedbac k
Extent of information available and its usefulness
Opportunities to be c reative
Use of group problem solving in my unit
Note:
Five of the items listed in this table (7, 8, 12, 22 and 27) are the ones identified as
priorities for c hange from both employee groups
[ 20 ]
u n iver sity. However, th is differ en ce in th e
m ea n s between fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive
sta ff w a s n ot sta tistica lly sign ifica n t.
Question 5
W h a t recom m en d a tion s for ch a n ge a n d
im prov em en t ca n b e m a d e b a sed on th e resu lts
of th e clim a te su r v ey?
On e of th e pr im a r y pu r poses of th e per son a l
a ssessm en t of th e u n iver sity clim a te su r vey
w a s to pr ovide r ecom m en da tion s for ch a n ge
in a n effor t to im pr ove th e u n iver sity clim a te.
To a ccom plish th is goa l, a “pr ior ity in dex
scor e” w a s com pu ted for ea ch of th e 48 clim a te item s. Th is scor e en ta iled ca lcu la tin g
th e differ en ce between th e aver a ge r a tin g for
ea ch item on th e “IS” sca le a n d th e aver a ge
“idea l” r a tin g for ea ch item “SB.” In th is w ay,
im por ta n t a r ea s n eedin g im pr ovem en t cou ld
be iden tifi ed a n d pr ior itized. On e w ay to
th in k a bou t th ese scor es is to see th e “pr ior ity in dex scor es” a s m ea su r es of th e exten t to
wh ich in dividu a ls a n d gr ou ps ca n be m otiva ted to im pr ove per for m a n ce w ith in th e
u n iver sity. Th u s, in a sen se, th e ga p between
th e scor es on “wh a t is” a n d “wh a t sh ou ld be”
of ea ch item is th e zon e of a ccepta ble ch a n ge
w ith in th e u n iver sity. Th ese pr ior ity in dices
wer e pr esen ted in Ta bles III-V pr eviou sly.
F r om th e a n a lysis of th ese da ta , it ca n be seen
th a t th e two em ployee gr ou ps iden tified five
item s th a t wer e com m on to both em ployee
ca te gor ies a s n eedin g m ost a n d, th er efor e,
u r gen t im pr ovem en t. Th ese item s a r e a s
follow s: 12, in for m a tion sh a r in g a cr oss u n iver sity; 7, qu a lity of lea der / follower in ter a ction ; 22, u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g a cr oss
u n iver sity; 8, m otiva tion to do m y job; a n d 27,
qu a lity of feedba ck for m y wor k .
Mor eover, fou r of th e a bove-m en tion ed
item s (12, 7, 22 a n d 37) r eceived ver y low r a tin gs a n d fa ll w ith in th e exploita tive a u th or ita tive m a n a gem en t system . It is, th er efor e, of
pa r ticu la r im por ta n ce th a t th e UCy fi n ds
w ays to a ddr ess th ese per ceived n eeds in a n
u r gen t fa sh ion . Th u s, th e follow in g a r ea s ca n
be seen a s in n eed of ch a n ge:
• Th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip n eeds to fi n d
w ays to dissem in a te in for m a tion a cr oss th e
in stitu tion effectively a n d efficien tly so th a t
per son n el get th e feelin g th a t th ey a r e
in for m ed of wh a t is h a ppen in g w ith in th e
in stitu tion , especia lly in m a tter s of gen er a l
con cer n . Of cou r se, in a n ew in stitu tion ,
su ch a s th e UCy, th is n eed is even m or e
u r gen t sin ce th in gs ch a n ge fa st a n d n ew
r u les a n d r e gu la tion s a r e in tr odu ced con sta n tly a s th e u n iver sity gr ow s du r in g th e
fir st yea r s of its existen ce. Th is situ a tion
h a s been descr ibed by som e fa cu lty m em ber s w ith su ch expr ession s a s “m ovin g
sa n d” a n d “th e situ a tion is so flu id th a t it
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
becom es too slipper y.” Th er efor e, m or e
efficien t distr ibu tion of in for m a tion w ill
im pr ove th e ca m pu s clim a te a n d h elp a llevia te som e of th e fr u str a tion th a t cu r r en tly
seem s to exist.
• It is a lso u r gen t th a t th e lea der sh ip fin ds
w ays to m or e effectively in ter a ct w ith fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive per son n el, th u s,
in cr ea sin g th e qu a lity of th is r ela tion sh ip.
Th er e is n eed for m or e per son a l com m u n ica tion a n d a better h u m a n -r ela tion s
a ppr oa ch on th e pa r t of th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip (pr im a r ily fr om th e r ector a n d vicer ector, a s in dica ted by th e w r itten
Table IV
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : fac ulty prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Item no.
Area to change
20
7
22
12
19
6
27
9
14
8
4
13
Co-operation among university departments
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Use of group problem solving ac ross the university
Information sharing ac ross university
Co-operation within my department
Vision as presented by university leadership
Quality of feedbac k for my work
Emphasis on top-level work at university
Clarity of outc omes to be ac hieved
Motivation to do my job
Opportunities to be c reative
Expec tations of the department leadership are known
Table V
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : administrative staff prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
Item no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
37
12
8
7
25
22
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
11
21
27
29
Area to change
Opportunities for c areer advanc ement
Information sharing ac ross the university
Motivation to do my job
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Feeling rewarded for my efforts
Use of group problem solving ac ross university
Extent that my supervisor gives emphasis to my personal and
professional growth
Clarity of written guidelines used in my work
Extent of information available and its usefulness
Use of group problem solving within my unit
Quality of feedbac k for my work
Freedom to arrange own work program
Table VI
Pro file o f pre se nt unive rsity c limate (IS): le ngth o f se rvic e (ye ars) at the
UCy-fac ulty
Service
0-1
2-4
4+
M ean
Inf
Com
Col
Org
Job
Stu
M ean
2.44
2.30
2.53 *
2.42
2.37
2.49
2.65 *
2.50
2.46 *
2.16
2.37
2.33
3.00 *
2.96
2.94
2.96
3.00
3.58
3.77 *
3.45
2.71
3.09
3.57 *
3.12
2.66
2.76
2.97 *
2.79
Note: * Highest group sc ore
com m en ts of th e r espon den ts). Becom in g
m or e visible a r ou n d th e ca m pu s a n d/ or
h oldin g gen er a l a ssem blies w ith th e sta ff
(fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive) in or der to
cr ea te a sen se of m ission a n d a com m on
vision is on e w ay of doin g th a t. An oth er
w ay is th e pu blica tion of a bi-week ly
n ew sletter fr om th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip
wh er e a ll im por ta n t u n iver sity a ctivities
a n d fa cts a r e pr esen ted.
• A th ir d a r ea n eedin g a tten tion is th e on e
dea lin g w ith th e u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g m eth ods a n d tech n iqu es a cr oss a n d
w ith in depa r tm en ts a n d a dm in istr a tive
ser vices. Appa r en tly, th er e is a n eed for
m or e gr ou p wor k a n d colla bor a tion wh en
tr yin g to solve pr oblem s th a t in volve differ en t depa r tm en ts a n d a dm in istr a tive ser vices. Th r ou gh th eir w r itten com m en ts, it
ca n be seen th a t per son n el w a n t to get
in volved in wh a t a ffects th em a n d th eir
division . If th er e is gr ea ter in volvem en t,
people a r e bou n d to becom e m or e coh esive
a s a gr ou p a n d im pr ove th eir feelin gs of
ow n er sh ip a n d a ccepta n ce.
• Th er e is a lso a per ceived n eed for feedba ck
on th eir wor k fr om both fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff. Th ou gh th is fa ct m ay seem to
be su r pr isin g, a t fi r st, especia lly com in g
fr om th e fa cu lty, we sh ou ld n ot be so su r pr ised. Th e UCy, bein g a n ew in stitu tion ,
still does n ot h ave clea r dir ection s for fa cu lty a s to h ow th ey w ill ga in ten u r e or h ow
th eir wor k is goin g to be eva lu a ted. It is,
th er efor e, qu ite n or m a l to be in n eed of
feedba ck a bou t th e qu a lity of th eir wor k
wh eth er it is positive or n e ga tive feedba ck .
Th e sa m e (even to a gr ea ter exten t) h olds
tr u e for th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff, wh o in dica ted th a t th e gr ea test a r ea in n eed of
ch a n ge for th em is item 37 (oppor tu n ities
for ca r eer a dva n cem en t in th is in stitu tion ).
It is tr u e th a t m ost a dm in istr a tive position s
a t th e UCy a r e dea d-en d position s in ter m s
of pr om otion . Th er efor e, som e job r edesign
n eeds to ta k e pla ce a t th e UCy so th a t
a dm in istr a tive sta ff feel th a t th eir effor ts
w ill be r ew a r ded w ith pr om otion . Item 8
(m otiva tion to do m y job), wh ich is th ir d on
th eir list of u r gen t n eeds for ch a n ge, is
defin itely con n ected w ith th e feelin g of
goin g n owh er e in ter m s of th eir ca r eer,
especia lly if th e w r itten com m en ts given by
a dm in istr a tive sta ff a r e ta k en in to con sider a tion .
In sh or t, th e a bove a r ea s n eedin g u r gen t
ch a n ge in dica te wh er e th e UCy sh ou ld con cen tr a te its effor ts in th e n ext few yea r s, if th e
in stitu tion w ish es to im pr ove its over a ll clim a te a n d, pr esu m a bly, its effectiven ess. Th e
u n iver sity lea der sh ip n eeds to m ove fa st
sin ce em pir ica l fin din gs dem on str a te th a t
clim a te exer ts a sign ifica n t effect on
[ 21 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce (Rou ech e a n d
Ba k er, 1986).
In con clu sion , con sider a ble a tten tion h a s
been devoted in th e pa st deca des to th e
defin ition a n d in vestiga tion of th e n otion of a
colle ge’s clim a te, cu ltu r e, a tm osph er e, per son a lity or eth os (An der son , 1982). Wh a tever
th e ter m u tilized, a colle ge’s clim a te a ppea r s
to be on e of th e k ey fa ctor s in deter m in in g its
su ccess or fa ilu r e a s a pla ce of lea r n in g a n d
it, th er efor e, m er its ou r a tten tion . It is h oped
th a t th is ca se stu dy cou ld ser ve a s a n exa m ple
of a n in stitu tion ’s a ttem pt to “m ea su r e its
per son a lity” in a n effor t to im pr ove its over a ll clim a te.
Table VII
Pro file o f pre se nt unive rsity c limate (IS): le ngth o f se rvic e (ye ars) at the
UCy-administrative staff
Service
0-1
2-4
4+
M ean
Inf
Com
2.72 *
2.96 *
2.66
2.58
2.65
2.56
2.28
2.60
Col
Org
Job
Stu
M ean
2.18
2.57
2.73 *
2.49
3.39 *
3.39
3.46 *
3.18
3.34
3.30
3.43 *
3.19
3.30
2.99 *
2.97
2.84
2.93
3.19
3.10
3.22
Note: * Highest group sc ore
Note
1 Th e Un iver sity of Cypr u s is a fa ir ly n ew in stitu tion . It w a s cr ea ted by Law 144/ 89, en a cted
by th e Cypr u s Hou se of Repr esen ta tives in
1989, a n d a ccepted its fi r st stu den ts in 1992. It
n ow h a s a tota l of a bou t 2,100 stu den ts, 131
fa cu lty m em ber s a n d 110 a dm in istr a tive sta ff.
References
An der son , C.S. (1982), “Th e sea r ch for sch ool
clim a te: a r eview of th e r esea r ch ”, R eview of
Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch , Vol. 52 N o. 3, pp. 368420.
An sa r i, M. (1980), “Or ga n iza tion a l clim a te: h om ogen eity w ith in a n d h eter ogen eity between
or ga n iza tion s”, S ocia l a n d Econ om ic S tu d ies,
Vol. 111 N o. 1, pp. 89-96.
Ba ssey, M. a n d Yeom a n s, B. (1989), “Sch ool clim a te-m on itor in g sta ff opin ion in a pr im a r y
sch ool”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 9 N o. 2, pp.
219-31.
Bor ich , G. (1990), Ob ser va tion S k ills For Effectiv e
T ea ch in g, Mer r ill P u blish in g Com pa n y,
Colu m bu s, OH.
Ca m po, C. (1993), “ Colla bor a tive sch ool cu ltu r es:
h ow pr in cipa ls m a k e a differ en ce”, S ch ool
Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 13 N o. 2, pp. 119-25.
Cawelti, G. (1984), “Beh avior pa tter n s of effective
pr in cipa ls”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 41
N o. 5, p. 3.
Davis, G.A. a n d Th om a s, M.A. (1989), Effectiv e
S ch ools A n d Effectiv e T ea ch ers, Allyn a n d
Ba con , Boston , MA.
Glick m a n , C. (1990), “P u sh in g sch ool r efor m to a
n ew edge: th e seven ir on ies of sch ool
[ 22 ]
em power m en t”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 72 N o.
1, pp. 68-75.
Ha m pton , D.R., Su m m er, C.E . a n d Webber, R.A.
(1987), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior a n d th e Pra ctice of M a n a gem en t, Scott, For esm a n a n d Co,
Glen view, IL.
Ha r tn ett, R.T. a n d Cen tr a , J . (1974), “F a cu lty
view s of th e a ca dem ic en vir on m en t: situ a tion a l vs. in stitu tion a l per spectives”, S ociolog y of Ed u ca tion , Vol. 47, pp. 159-69.
Hoy, W.K. a n d Misk el, C.G. (1991), Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion : T h eor y, R esea rch a n d
Pra ctice, Ra n dom Hou se, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Im a n ts, J ., Blom , K., Bor st, A. a n d Va n Zoelen , A.
(1995), “Absen teeism du e to illn ess a m on g
tea ch er s in pr im a r y sch ools, sch ool clim a te
a n d tea ch er s’ sen se of effica cy”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 15 N o. 1, pp. 77-86.
J oyce, W.F. a n d Slocu m , J . (1982), “Clim a te discr epa n cy: r efi n in g th e con cepts of psych ologica l a n d or ga n iza tion a l clim a te”, Hu m a n
R ela tion s, Vol. 35 N o. 11, pp. 951-72.
Kim br ou gh , R. a n d Bu r k ett, C. (1990), T h e Pr in cipa lsh ip: Con cepts a n d Pra ctices, P r en tice-Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Kow a lsk i, T. a n d Reitzu g, U. (1993), Con tem pora r y
S ch ool A d m in istra tion , Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Levin e, D. (1991), “Cr ea tin g effective sch ool: fin din gs a n d im plica tion s fr om r esea r ch a n d
pr a ctice”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 72 N o. 5, pp.
389-93.
Lik er t, R. (1967), T h e Hu m a n Orga n iz a tion : Its
M a n a gem en t a n d Va lu e, McGr aw -Hill, N ew
Yor k , N Y.
N or ton , M.S. (1984), “Wh a t’s so im por ta n t a bou t
sch ool clim a te?”, Con tem pora r y Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 56 N o. 1, pp. 43-5.
Owen s, G. (1991), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior in
Ed u ca tion , P r en tice-Ha ll, In c, N ew Yor k , N Y.
P a sh ia r dis, P. (1993), “Gr ou p decision -m a k in g: th e
r ole of th e pr in cipa l”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 7 N o. 2, pp. 8-11.
Rou ech e, J .E . a n d Ba k er, G.A. (1986), Profi lin g
Ex cellen ce in A m er ica ’s S ch ools, Th e Am er ica n Associa tion of Sch ool Adm in istr a tor s,
Vir gin ia .
Sa r gea n t, J .C. (1976), Orga n iz a tion a l Clim a te of
High S ch ools, Th e In ter sta te P r in ter s a n d
P u blish er s, In c, Da n ville, IL.
Sch n eider, B. a n d Sn yder, R.A. (1975), “Som e
r ela tion sh ips between job sa tisfa ction a n d
or ga n iza tion a l clim a te”, J ou r n a l of A pplied
Psych olog y, Vol. 60 N o. 3, pp. 318-28.
Ser giova n n i, T. J . (1990), Va lu e-A d d ed L ea d ersh ip:
How to Get Ex tra ord in a r y Per for m a n ce in
S ch ools, Ha r cou r t Br a ce J ova n ovich , F lor ida .
Ser giova n n i, T. a n d Sta r r a tt, R. (1993), S u per vision
a R ed efi n ition , 5th ed., McGr aw -Hill, Sin ga por e.
Ster n , G. (1966), “Myth a n d r ea lity in th e Am er ica n colle ge”, A AUP B u lletin , Win ter.
Tich y, N.M. a n d Deva n n a , M.A. (1986), T h e T ra n sfor m a tion a l L ea d er, J oh n Wiley a n d Son s,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Cyprus
Petros Pashiardis
Asso c iate Pro fe sso r o f Educ atio nal Administratio n, De partme nt o f Educ atio n,
Unive rsity o f Cyprus, Nic o sia, Cyprus
College climate has been
defi ned as the collective
personality of a college. The
University of Cyprus, being a
new institution, wanted to
fi nd out the kind of climate
which exists four years after
it was established. The personal assessment of the
university climate survey was
used. The purpose of the
survey was to obtain the
perceptions of employees
concerning the university
climate and examine this
climate in conjunction with
Likert’s systems theory of
management. The following
areas were found in most
need of improvement: wider
dissemination of information
across the institution; more
effective interaction of the
leadership with personnel;
more use of group problemsolving methods across and
within departments and
administrative services; and
more need for feedback on
their work from both faculty
and administrative staff.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [ 1998] 1 4 –2 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 14 ]
Introduction
Colle ge clim a te h a s been defin ed a s th e collective per son a lity of a u n iver sity, colle ge or
oth er or ga n iza tion . It h a s a lso been descr ibed
a s th e a tm osph er e wh ich is cr ea ted by th e
socia l a n d pr ofession a l in ter a ction s of th e
in dividu a ls of th e colle ge. As sta ted by
Sa r gea n t (1967), “Clim a te m ay be pictu r ed a s
a per son a lity sk etch of a sch ool. As per son a lity descr ibes a n in dividu a l so clim a te defi n es
th e essen ce of a n in stitu tion …” (p. 3). Th e
colle ge clim a te ser ves a cr u cia l r ole in deter m in in g “wh a t th e in stitu tion is a n d wh a t it
m igh t becom e” (N or ton , 1984, p. 43). In gen er a l, “clim a te” is to a n or ga n iza tion wh a t
“per son a lity” is to a n in dividu a l (Rou ech e
a n d Ba k er, 1986). Mor eover, th e clim a te of a
u n iver sity a ffects th e over a ll a tm osph er e of a
pa r ticu la r in stitu tion to su ch a n exten t th a t
on e ca n sen se th e clim a te pr esen t in th e u n iver sity or colle ge a lm ost im m edia tely on
en ter in g th e bu ildin gs (Rou ech e a n d Ba k er,
1986).
Sever a l im plica tion s ser ve to u n der lin e th e
pa r a m ou n t im por ta n ce of colle ge clim a te in
th e u n iver sity settin g. Th ese im plica tion s
in clu de th e follow in g: th e k in d of clim a te th a t
exists sets th e ton e for th e u n iver sity’s
a ppr oa ch in m eetin g sta ted goa ls a n d r esolvin g pr oblem s; effective com m u n ica tion n ecessita tes a clim a te of tr u st, m u tu a l r espect, a n d
cla r ity of fu n ction ; clim a te ser ves a s a n
im por ta n t deter m in a n t of a ttitu des tow a r ds
con tin u ou s per son a l gr ow th a n d developm en t; clim a te con dition s th e settin g for cr ea tivity a n d th e gen er a tion of n ew idea s a n d
pr ogr a m im pr ovem en ts. F in a lly, th e clim a te
wh ich exists in a n or ga n iza tion is in tr ica tely
tied w ith th e qu a lity of in ter n a l pr ocesses
w ith in th e or ga n iza tion .
Th e a bove defi n ition s a n d sta tem en ts
u n der lin e th e gr ea t im por ta n ce of clim a te to
a n in stitu tion . Th er efor e, on e cou ld list
n u m er ou s r ea son s for stu dyin g colle ge clim a te. F ir st, th er e is eviden ce of a r ela tion sh ip
between clim a te a n d oth er or ga n iza tion a l
va r ia bles, su ch a s: job sa tisfa ction ; job per for m a n ce; gr ou p com m u n ica tion ; lea der sh ip
str u ctu r e; a n d or ga n iza tion a l com m itm en t a s
well a s or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce (An sa r i,
1980; J oyce a n d Slocu m , 1982). Secon d,
k n ow in g th e colle ge’s clim a te is con sider ed
u sefu l for developm en t effor ts w ith in a u n iver sity. Th ir d, colle ge clim a te h a s been fou n d
to in fl u en ce th e m otiva tion a n d beh avior s of
in dividu a ls a n d, th er efor e, th e qu a lity of
th eir a ction s w ith in th e in stitu tion (Lik er t,
1967; Rou ech e a n d Ba k er, 1986; Sch n eider a n d
Sn yder, 1975).
F u r th er m or e, th e lea der sh ip style u sed by
va r iou s levels of m a n a gem en t w ill in flu en ce
th e clim a te wh ich exists w ith in a n or ga n iza tion . Th e im por ta n ce of th ese styles a s deter m in er s of pr odu ctivity a n d a s deter m in er s of
th e de gr ee of sa tisfa ction th a t em ployees
r eceive fr om th e per for m a n ce in th eir jobs
h a s been well r ecogn ized in th e r esea r ch
liter a tu r e. However, in spite of th e fa ct th a t
lea der sh ip h a s been stu died for m a n y yea r s
in a va r iety of wor k settin gs, th er e is n o on e
th eor y of lea der sh ip th a t is u n iver sa lly
a ccepted.
Usin g a scien tific m a n a gem en t developm en t a ppr oa ch , Lik er t (1967) iden tified fou r
m a n a gem en t system s r a n gin g fr om
“E xploita tive a u th or ita tive” or System 1, to
“Ben evolen t a u th or ita tive” or System 2, to
“Con su lta tive” or System 3 a n d, fin a lly, to
“P a r ticipa tive gr ou p” or System 4 m a n a gem en t style. System 1 r epr esen ts a str u ctu r ed,
ta sk -or ien ted, a n d h igh ly a u th or ita tive lea der sh ip m a n a gem en t style ba sed on th e n otion
th a t follower s or wor k er s a r e in h er en tly la zy
a n d th a t, to m a k e th em pr odu ctive, th e m a n a ger m u st “k eep a fter th em ” con sta n tly (see
a lso McGr e gor ’s Th eor y X a n d Y). In gen er a l,
lea der s h ave n o con fi den ce a n d tr u st in th eir
em ployees a n d th e em ployees do n ot feel a t a ll
fr ee to discu ss th in gs a bou t th eir job w ith
th eir su per visor s or collea gu es. System 2
r epr esen ts a wor k en vir on m en t wh er e
em ployees do n ot feel ver y fr ee to discu ss
wor k -r ela ted m a tter s bu t, som etim es, th eir
idea s a n d opin ion s a r e ta k en in to con sider a tion wh en solvin g pr oblem s. Th er e is a lso
little in ter a ction a n d com m u n ica tion a n d, in
gen er a l, em ployees feel r ela tively little
r espon sibility for a ch ievin g th e or ga n iza tion ’s goa ls. System 3 is a m a n a gem en t style
wh er e th er e is su bsta n tia l bu t n ot com plete
con fiden ce a n d tr u st. Th e lea der is still in
con tr ol of decision m a k in g; h owever,
em ployees feel qu ite fr ee to discu ss th in gs
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
a bou t th eir job w ith collea gu es a n d lea der s.
Th er e is a feelin g of r espon sibility wh ich
r u n s th r ou gh ou t th e or ga n iza tion a n d idea s
for pr oblem solvin g a r e sou gh t. In con tr a st,
System 4 is ch a r a cter ized by a lea der sh ip
style wh ich is r ela tion sh ip- or per son or ien ted, m u tu a lly tr u stin g, a n d on e in wh ich
th e lea der h a s com plete con fiden ce in th e
follower s. Th is style is ba sed on th e a ssu m ption th a t wor k is a sou r ce of sa tisfa ction a n d
w ill be per for m ed volu n ta r ily w ith self-dir ection a n d self-con tr ol sin ce people h ave a ba sic
n eed to a ch ieve a n d be pr odu ctive. Th is la st
m a n a gem en t style (System 4) is pa r ticu la r ly
descr iptive of th ose wh o wor k in a u n iver sity
en vir on m en t wh er e th e or ga n iza tion is m or e
of a pr ofession a l bu r ea u cr a cy a n d em ployees
h ave con sider a ble fr eedom in th e da ily m a n a gem en t of th eir wor k envir on m en t.
In h is book T h e Hu m a n Orga n iz a tion : Its
M a n a gem en t a n d Va lu e, Lik er t (1967) a n d h is
a ssocia tes pr esen t n u m er ou s exa m ples of
com pa n ies a n d or ga n iza tion s th a t h a d a System 4 m a n a gem en t style, i.e. a su ppor tive a n d
pa r ticipa tive a ppr oa ch . Gen er a lly, th ese or ga n iza tion s pr odu ced better r esu lts in ter m s of
pr odu ctivity, costs, a bsen teeism , a n d
tu r n over. Th e or ga n iza tion s a lso pr odu ced a
better clim a te ch a r a cter ized by excellen t
com m u n ica tion , h igh er peer -gr ou p loya lty,
h igh con fiden ce a n d tr u st, a n d favor a ble
a ttitu des tow a r ds su per visor s. Resea r ch fin din gs a lso su ppor ted th e per ception s of m a n a ger s th a t m a n a gem en t system s wh ich
r esem ble a System 4 style a r e m or e pr odu ctive a n d h ave lower costs a n d m or e favor a ble
a ttitu des th a n do th ose system s fa llin g m or e
tow a r ds System 1. F u r th er m or e, sh ifts
tow a r ds System 4 wer e a ccom pa n ied by lon gr a n ge im pr ovem en t in pr odu ctivity, la bor
r ela tion s, costs a n d ea r n in gs.
Purpose of the study
Ba sed on th e a bove, th e pu r pose of th is su r vey w a s to obta in th e per ception s of em ployees con cer n in g th e clim a te a t th e Un iver sity
of Cypr u s in a n effor t to pr om ote m or e open
a n d con str u ctive com m u n ica tion a m on g
fa cu lty, a dm in istr a tive sta ff, a n d u n iver sity
a dm in istr a tion a n d, in gen er a l, in a n effor t to
im pr ove th e over a ll clim a te a t th e u n iver sity.
Th er e w a s a lso a deliber a te a ttem pt to lin k
th e r a tin g sca le wh ich w a s u sed w ith th e
su r vey in str u m en t (descr ibed in th e n ext
section ), w ith Lik er t’s system s th eor y. Th e
w ay th e sca le a n d th e wor din g of th e in str u m en t item s wer e u sed followed Lik er t’s
a ppr oa ch . Th er efor e, a r espon se of 1 in dica ted
a System 1 situ a tion in th e u n iver sity a n d a
r espon se of 5 in dica ted a System 4 situ a tion .
In doin g so, th e colle ge clim a te wou ld be
exa m in ed in ter m s of wh er e it fits a ccor din g
to Lik er t’s th eor y a ssu m in g th a t a System 4
m a n a gem en t style is th e on e m ost con du cive
a n d su ita ble to a u n iver sity en vir on m en t. At
th is poin t, it sh ou ld be m en tion ed th a t even
th ou gh pr odu ctivity m ea su r es in or ga n iza tion s su ch a s colle ges a n d u n iver sities a r e
differ en t th a n th e on es u sed in oth er or ga n iza tion s, it is sa fe to a ssu m e th a t a System 4
situ a tion is m or e desir a ble sin ce a ca dem ic
em ployees w ill h ave m or e fr eedom to a ct a n d
be pr odu ctive a n d, th u s, a positive clim a te
wou ld be con du cive to h igh er wor k pr odu ctivity (i.e., m or e pa per s pu blish ed, m or e gr a n t
m on ies br ou gh t in to th e u n iver sity, m or e
pr estige, m or e stu den ts, better tea ch in g, etc.).
Research methodology
The survey instrument
Th e per son a l a ssessm en t of th e u n iver sity
clim a te su r vey (PAUCS) w a s u sed (ba sed on
Lik er t’s in str u m en ts a n d on th e a u th or ’s
pr eviou s wor k w ith Geor ge Ba k er of th e Un iver sity of N or th Ca r olin a a t Ch a pel Hill), a s
m odified a n d a da pted to su it th e specific situ a tion cu r r en tly existin g a t th e Un iver sity of
Cypr u s[1] (UCy). F u r th er m or e, r espon den ts
wer e in vited to su bm it w r itten com m en ts so
a s to elicit m or e com pr eh en sive in for m a tion .
Two for m s of th e su r vey wer e u sed, on e for
th e fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d th e oth er for a dm in istr a tive sta ff. Th e qu estion s on th e two for m s
wer e iden tica l in ter m s of th e con ten t a r ea s
m ea su r ed bu t wer e wor ded differ en tly in
a r ea s wh ich differ ed pr im a r ily beca u se of th e
n a tu r e of th e job per for m ed or of th e ta sk s
in volved.
Th e PAUCS w a s divided in to six section s or
ca te gor ies. Th ese ca te gor ies wer e:
1 for m a l in fl u en ce;
2 com m u n ica tion ;
3 colla bor a tion ;
4 or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e;
5 job sa tisfa ction ;
6 a n d stu den t focu s.
A tota l of 48 clim a te item s wer e in clu ded in
th e 53-qu estion su r vey in str u m en t (th e oth er
five item s r efer r ed to th e r espon den t’s gen der,
a ge, len gth of ser vice a n d position h eld a t th e
u n iver sity). Respon den ts wer e a sk ed to r a te
th ese item s on a five-poin t sca le fr om a low of
“1” to a h igh of “5.” For ea ch item th er e wer e
two sca les. On e for wh a t “is” a n d on e for wh a t
“sh ou ld be.” Th e “is” ca te gor y r epr esen ted
th e situ a tion wh ich cu r r en tly exists a t th e
UCy, a s per ceived by th e r espon den ts (i.e. th e
w ay th in gs a r e). Th e “sh ou ld be” ca te gor y
r epr esen ted th e r espon den ts’ w ish es a bou t
wh a t th ey wou ld lik e th e situ a tion to be (i.e.
th e w ay th in gs sh ou ld be). Th e ga p between
th e wh a t “is” a n d th e “sh ou ld” in dica ted th e
m a gn itu de of th e n eed in a pa r ticu la r a r ea . In
[ 15 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
th is w ay, th e a r ea s in n eed of im pr ovem en t
cou ld be r a n k ed in or der of pr ior ity, th er eby
a ssistin g in th e clim a te im pr ovem en t pr ocess.
Th e in str u m en t itself h a s a h igh r elia bility
coefficien t (Cr on ba ch ’s a = 0.92). Th e PAUCS
w a s a dm in ister ed a n d com pleted by 150
em ployees a t th e UCy in J a n u a r y 1996. Seven ty-eigh t of 131 fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d 72 of 110
a dm in istr a tive per son n el su r veys wer e collected for a n a lysis.
in dica te em ployee per ception s a bou t r ea lity
a t th e u n iver sity. Th u s, th e r ea l situ a tion m ay
n ot r efl ect wh a t is per ceived by em ployees (it
cou ld be better or wor se). However, in a n y
or ga n iza tion , wh en a situ a tion is per ceived in
a pa r ticu la r w ay by a n y gr ou p of em ployees,
th en , in th eir eyes, th is is r ea lity a n d, th er efor e, it sh ou ld be tr ea ted a s su ch . Th is is th e
a ppr oa ch th e a u th or h a s ta k en in tr ea tin g
a n d in ter pr etin g da ta in th is r epor t.
Data analysis
Su r vey r espon ses wer e en ter ed in to a Ma cin tosh com pu ter, u sin g th e “SP SS for th e Ma cin tosh ” softw a r e. An a lyses wer e con du cted
pr im a r ily u sin g m ea n s, sta n da r d devia tion s,
t-tests, a n d fr equ en cies. Th e m eth od of “ga p
a n a lysis” w a s u sed to fin d th e a r ea s w ith
m ost n eed for im pr ovem en t a s follow s: th e
two m ea n s for ea ch on e of th e sta tem en ts of
th e qu estion n a ir e wer e su btr a cted fr om ea ch
oth er ; th e gr ea ter th e differ en ce (i.e. th e
la r ger th e ga p) th e m or e n eed for im pr ovem en t th er e w a s. Th e follow in g fi ve r esea r ch
qu estion s wer e explor ed u sin g th e da ta gen er a ted fr om th e clim a te in str u m en t:
1 How r epr esen ta tive w a s th e su r vey sa m ple
wh en com pa r ed to th e possible r espon se
r a te of th ose em ployed a t th e UCy?
2 How do per son n el em ployed a t th e UCy
per ceive th e over a ll u n iver sity clim a te?
3 Ar e th er e differ en ces in per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te a m on g th e two gr ou ps
of per son n el (i.e. fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d
a dm in istr a tive sta ff)?
4 Ar e th er e differ en ces in per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te in r ela tion sh ip to th e
len gth of ser vice a t th e UCy?
5 Wh a t r ecom m en da tion s for ch a n ge a n d
im pr ovem en t ca n be m a de ba sed on th e
r esu lts of th e clim a te su r vey?
Question 1
How represen ta tiv e w a s th e su r v ey sa m ple
w h en com pa red to th e possible respon se ra te of
th ose em ployed a t th e UCy?
A tota l of 150 ou t of 242 or 62 per cen t of u n iver sity per son n el (exclu sive of pa r t-tim e
fa cu lty a n d oth er a u xilia r y tea ch in g sta ff)
com pleted th e per son a l a ssessm en t of th e
u n iver sity clim a te su r vey. Th is r etu r n r a te
in dica ted u n iver sity-w ide in ter est in th e
pr oject. F igu r e 1 sh ow s r espon den ts br ok en
dow n by per son n el cla ssifica tion , wh er ea s
Ta ble I com pa r es th e pr opor tion of r espon den ts to th e u n iver sity em ployee popu la tion s
th ey r epr esen t.
Question 2
How d o person n el em ployed a t th e UCy per ceiv e th e ov era ll u n iv ersity clim a te?
Th e r esu lts fr om th e PAUCS in dica ted th a t
u n iver sity per son n el per ceive th e com posite
clim a te a t th e UCy to lie between a System 2
Figure 1
Pro po rtio n o f to tal re spo nse s by pe rso nne l
c lassific atio n
Pro fe ssio nal
Staff 2 3 %
Results and discussion
E a ch of th e r esea r ch qu estion s is a n swer ed
below in th e or der in wh ich it w a s listed in
th e pr eviou s section . Deta iled gr a ph ic r epr esen ta tion s of th e r esu lts h ave been pr epa r ed
to pr ovide th e r ea der w ith th e gr ea test possible a m ou n t of in for m a tion . Th is w a s pu r posely don e in a n effor t to pr ovide a gr a ph ic
da ta pr esen ta tion sch em e wh ich cou ld ser ve
a s a n exa m ple wh en in stitu tion a l r esea r ch er s
n eed to pr esen t da ta for bu sy boa r d or tr u stee
m em ber s wh o u su a lly avoid r ea din g too
m u ch text. Th u s, th e r ea der m ay n eed on ly to
r efer to th e gr a ph ics in or der to get a n in depth pictu r e of th e r esu lts. Th e n a r r a tive
follow in g ea ch qu estion ser ves sim ply to
descr ibe a n d ela bor a te on th e in for m a tion
con veyed by ea ch gr a ph ic.
F u r th er m or e, befor e a n y discu ssion be gin s,
it sh ou ld be str essed th a t th e su r vey r esu lts
[ 16 ]
Fac ulty
53%
Suppo rt
Staff 2 4 %
Table I
Re pre se ntative ne ss o f sample – pe rso nne l
c lassific atio n
Employed at
university
Respondents
No.
No.
Percentage
Full-time faculty
132
Administrative staff
(professional and support
staff)
110
Total
242
78
60
72
150
66
62
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
(ben evolen t a u th or ita tive) a n d a System 3
(con su lta tive) m a n a gem en t style (Lik er t,
1967). As discu ssed ea r lier, th e sca le r a n ge (1
to 5) in clu ded th e fou r system s of m a n a gem en t a s defin ed by Lik er t a n d u sed by Ba k er
a n d P a sh ia r dis in th eir pr eviou s in -depth
ca se stu dies of oth er colle ges in th e USA fr om
1989 to 1992.
As in dica ted in F igu r e 2, th e job sa tisfa ction clim a te ca te gor y r eceived th e h igh est
com posite r a tin g (3.48), wh ich r epr esen ted a
solid System 3 or con su lta tive m a n a gem en t
style. However, it sh ou ld be n oted th a t item 37
(oppor tu n ity for a dva n cem en t in th is or ga n iza tion ), wh ich belon gs in th e job sa tisfa ction
Figure 2
Unive rsity c limate as rate d by bo th e mplo ye e gro ups c o mbine d using
c o mpo sitive ave rage s
5
All
Partic ipative Gro up
4
Co nsultative
3
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
Fo rmal
Influe nc e
Gro up
2 .5 2
Ave rage
Co mmunic at Co llabo rat
2 .5 5
2 .4 5
Org.Strc t.
Jo b.Satsf
Stdt.fo c
Ove rall
Climate
3 .0 9
3 .4 8
3 .2 7
2 .8 9
Figure 3
Ave rage c limate pro file sc o re s as rate d by two gro ups o f e mplo ye e s
5
Partic ipative Gro up
4
3
2
Co nsultative
Key
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
Administrative Staff
Fac ulty
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
Fo rmal
Influe nc e
Administrative
Staff
2 .6 5
Fac ulty 2 .4 0
Communic at Co llabo rat
2 .5 5
2 .5 6
2 .5 7
2 .3 3
Org.Strc t.
Jo b.Satsf
Stdt.fo c
Ove rall
Climate
3 .2 0
2 .9 8
3 .4 4
3 .5 2
3 .4 1
3 .1 4
2 .9 7
2 .8 2
ca te gor y, r eceived on e of th e lowest r a tin gs
a m on g fu ll-tim e fa cu lty. Th e sa m e item
r eceived th e lowest r a tin g a m on g a dm in istr a tive per son n el. Th e colla bor a tion clim a te
ca te gor y r eceived th e lowest com posite r a tin g
(2.45) a r ou n d th e m iddle of th e System 2 or
ben evolen t a u th or ita tive m a n a gem en t style.
All six com posite aver a ges, com pu ted by
com bin in g th e r a tin gs of both per son n el
gr ou ps, r a ted th e m a n a gem en t style between
System 2 (ben evolen t a u th or ita tive) a n d System 3 (con su lta tive).
Question 3
A re th ere d ifferen ces in perception of th e u n iv ersity clim a te b etw een th e tw o grou ps of per son n el (i.e. b etw een fu ll-tim e fa cu lty a n d
a d m in istra tiv e sta ff)?
F igu r e 3 r epor ts com posite r esu lts a ccor din g
to th e six clim a te ca te gor ies on a ll 48 item s
for th e two em ployee gr ou ps. In gen er a l, fa cu lty r a ted on ly th e job sa tisfa ction ca te gor y
h igh er (3.52) wh en com pa r ed w ith th e r a tin g
given by th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff (th e differ en ce w a s n ot sta tistica lly sign ifica n t h ow ever ). Com m u n ica tion w a s r a ted exa ctly th e
sa m e by both gr ou ps of em ployees. All oth er
ca te gor ies (for m a l in fl u en ce, colla bor a tion ,
or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e, a n d stu den t focu s)
wer e r a ted h igh er by th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff.
Mor eover, th e differ en ces in th e a r ea s of for m a l in flu en ce, colla bor a tion , a n d stu den t
focu s wer e sta tistica lly sign ifica n t a t th e 0.05
level. Th is r esu lt is in a ccor da n ce w ith oth er
r esea r ch fin din gs wh ich in dica te th a t a dm in istr a tive sta ff h a d a sligh t bu t con sisten tly
h igh er per ception of th e or ga n iza tion a l clim a te w ith in th e colle ge/ u n iver sity th a n fa cu lty did (Ha r tn ett a n d Cen tr a , 1974; Ster n ,
1966). F u r th er m or e, F igu r e 3 r epor ts th e
over a ll clim a te r a tin g for ea ch of th e two
em ployee gr ou ps. As a gr ou p, fu ll-tim e fa cu lty pr ovided th e lowest r a tin gs on a lm ost a ll
of th e six clim a te ca te gor ies.
Ta ble II r epor ts th e m ea n r espon se of a ll
em ployees for ea ch of th e 48 item s con ta in ed
in th e su r vey in str u m en t. It sh ow s wh a t th e
em ployees of th e UCy per ceive th e pr esen t
clim a te to be (IS) a n d wh a t th e differ en ce is
(DF ) fr om wh a t th e clim a te sh ou ld be (SB). In
r eview in g ea ch of th e item s sepa r a tely, we
fin d th a t a bou t h a lf (26 item s) of th e 48 com posite r a tin gs fell between a System 2 m a n a gem en t style (e.g. a r a tin g of 2.0 or m or e) a n d
th e System 3 m a n a gem en t style. Th e fou r
lowest r a ted item s (w ith in System 1, exploita tive a u th or ita tive) wer e: (7) th e qu a lity of
lea der a n d follower in ter a ction (1.96); (12) th e
exten t to wh ich in for m a tion is sh a r ed (1.95);
(22) th e u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g a cr oss
th e u n iver sity (1.92); (37) a n d th e oppor tu n ity
for a dva n cem en t in th is or ga n iza tion (2.02).
[ 17 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Table II
Co mparative me an re spo nse s to 4 8 -ite m surve y fo r all pe rso nne l
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
[ 18 ]
IS
SB
DF
Formal influence
1 The information on the university mission
2 Confidence in my work as expressed by my leaders
3 The quality of guidance received regarding my work
4 Opportunities to be creative in my work
5 The extent to which my leaders emphasize my personal and professional development
6 The vision for the future provided by leaders
7 The quality of leader and follower interaction
8 M y motivation to perform work in the college
9 The emphasis on high task accomplishment at the university
3.09
3.34
2.29
2.62
2.23
2.41
1.96
2.15
2.65
4.66
4.71
4.02
4.75
4.55
4.47
4.57
4.67
4.77
1.57
1.37
1.73
2.13
2.32
2.06
2.61
2.52
2.12
Communication
10 The quantity of information I receive in my work
11 The extent to which information is useful in my work
12 The extent to which information is shared
13 The extent to which positive expectations are communicated
14 The clarity of outcomes to be achieved
15 The clarity of written guidelines used in my work
16 The quality of verbal communication with leaders
17 The quality of written communication with leaders
2.77
2.52
1.95
2.42
2.48
2.37
3.10
2.83
4.58
4.66
4.60
4.52
4.58
4.43
4.71
4.43
1.81
2.14
2.65
2.10
2.10
2.06
1.61
1.60
Collaboration
18 The opportunity to work jointly with others
19 The spirit of co-operation within my unit
20 The spirit of co-operation across different units of the university
21 The use of group problem solving employed in my unit
22 The use of group problem solving across the university
23 The extent to which various university personnel interact with the community
24 The extent to which my ideas are utilized
25 The extent to which I feel rewarded for my efforts
2.58
2.85
2.22
2.47
1.92
2.69
2.59
2.27
4.50
4.90
4.72
4.59
4.47
4.33
4.32
4.59
1.92
2.05
2.50
2.12
2.55
1.64
1.73
2.32
Organizational structure
26 The extent to which policies and procedures guide my work
27 The quality of feedback that I receive in my work
28 The number of different tasks that I do
29 The ability to set my own work schedule
30 The appreciation for my work as shown by colleagues
31 The degree of accuracy demanded in my work
32 The extent to which decisions are made at the appropriate level of the organization
2.76
2.20
3.74
3.06
3.20
4.09
2.62
3.98
4.45
2.87
4.67
4.44
4.72
4.35
1.22
2.25
–0.87
1.61
1.24
0.63
1.73
Job satisfaction
33 The extent to which accuracy is expected in my job
34 The extent to which special skills are required in my job
35 The overall importance of my job to the mission of the university
36 The extent to which I am responsible for important work
37 The opportunity for advancement in this organization
38 The quality of my relationship with colleagues in this organization
39 The extent to which I find my overall job motivating
3.62
3.98
3.99
4.04
2.02
3.08
3.63
4.52
4.41
4.89
4.39
4.66
4.73
4.88
0.90
0.43
0.90
0.35
2.64
1.65
1.25
Student focus
40 The extent to which students’ needs are central to what we do
41 The quality of education received by students
42 The effectiveness and efficiency of teaching staff
43 The quality of administrative services
44 The quality of student services
45 The quality of career development of students
46 The quality of student personal development
47 The extent to which students feel comfortable in the university environment
48 M y perception of students’ satisfaction with their total education experience
3.47
3.35
3.53
3.32
3.47
3.15
3.18
3.31
3.04
4.48
4.79
4.62
4.83
4.70
4.68
4.62
4.66
4.60
1.01
1.44
1.09
1.51
1.23
1.53
1.44
1.35
1.56
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
Th e pr epon der a n ce of System 2 scor es in dica tes th a t per son n el h a s a low to m ediu m
level of sa tisfa ction w ith th e clim a te a t th e
u n iver sity. Over a ll r esu lts of th e su r vey
yielded a n ot so h ea lth y u n iver sity clim a te
(2.89). F igu r es 4-6 sh ow th e r a tin gs of ea ch
em ployee gr ou p for ea ch of th e 48 clim a te
item s a s well a s th e gen er a l r a tin gs for a ll.
Specifica lly, F igu r e 4 por tr ays th e da ta fr om
Ta ble II in gr a ph ic for m for a ll 48 qu estion n a ir e item s. Ta bles III-V in dica te th e top
twelve pr ior ities for ch a n ge a s exh ibited in
th e pr eviou s figu r es. It is in ter estin g to n ote
th a t u n iver sity-w ide (a n d fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff sepa r a tely) a r ea s n eedin g to
ch a n ge lie pr im a r ily w ith in th e fir st th r ee
a r ea s of th e in str u m en t, i.e. for m a l in flu en ce,
com m u n ica tion a n d colla bor a tion . Th is
r esu lt is in a ccor da n ce w ith m ost of th e clim a te stu dies con du cted by Ba k er a n d
Figure 4
All pe rso nne l’ s me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
Partic ipative Gro up
5
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
P a sh ia r dis in th e USA between 1989 a n d 1992.
Th er e is a lot of eviden ce in dica tin g th a t som e
of th e biggest or ga n iza tion a l pr oblem s for
colle ges a n d u n iver sities a r e com m u n ica tion
(in ter m s of m isin for m a tion or n o tim ely
in for m a tion a t a ll) a n d colla bor a tion pr oblem s (in ter m s of sh a r in g r esou r ces or cooper a tin g a n d co-or din a tin g between differ en t depa r tm en ts a n d fa cu lties). Th is is a clea r
in dica tion for ter tia r y in stitu tion s a s to
wh ich dir ection th ey sh ou ld m ove in or der to
im pr ove th eir clim a te. It is a lso in ter estin g to
n ote th a t item 28 (“Th e n u m ber of differ en t
ta sk s th a t I do”) got a n e ga tive r a tin g wh ich
in dica tes th a t th er e is a lot of differ en tia tion
r e ga r din g th e ta sk s a n in dividu a l is expected
to per for m w ith in th e in stitu tion a n d th a t
su ch differ en tia tion is n ot desir a ble, a t lea st
to th e exten t th a t is cu r r en tly eviden t a t th e
Un iver sity of Cypr u s. Th is is pr oba bly tr u e
for th e UCy beca u se, bein g a n ew in stitu tion ,
th er e is a lot th a t n eeds to be don e (n ew r u les,
r e gu la tion s, com m ittee wor k , in tr odu ction of
n ew pr ogr a m s) a n d, th er efor e, a ll sta ff (both
fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff) a r e in volved
in sever a l differ en t type of ta sk s a t on e poin t
in tim e. On e cou ld a r gu e th a t com m ittee wor k
is pr esen t in a ll in stitu tion s of h igh er edu ca tion sin ce th is is th e m od u s opera n d i; h ow ever, wh en on e is tr yin g to bu ild a n ew in stitu tion on e cou ld a ssu m e th a t th er e is a lot
m or e to be don e th a n th er e is in a n or ga n iza tion wh ich h a s been in existen ce for som e
tim e.
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Figure 5
Fac ulty’ s me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
Partic ipative Gro up
5
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Question 4
A re th ere d ifferen ces in perception of th e
u n iv ersity clim a te in rela tion to th e len gth
of ser vice a t th e UCy?
Th e da ta gen er a ted fr om th is qu estion a r e
pr esen ted in Ta bles VI a n d VII. Wh en th e
com posite clim a te aver a ges of ea ch of th e
in str u m en t’s six ca te gor ies wer e com pa r ed to
len gth of ser vice on th e (IS) som e in ter estin g
com pa r ison s a r ise. For exa m ple, a s ca n be
seen in Ta ble VI, th e m or e yea r s of ser vice
fa cu lty m em ber s h ave, th e m or e im pr ovem en t
th er e is in ter m s of th e u n iver sity clim a te a s
per ceived by th em in fou r ou t of th e six ca tegor ies: for m a l in fl u en ce; com m u n ica tion ; job
sa tisfa ction ; a n d stu den t focu s. Con ver sely,
th e per ception of colla bor a tion a n d or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r e get sligh tly wor se a s fa cu lty
h ave m or e yea r s of ser vice a t th e u n iver sity.
Alm ost th e con tr a r y is h a ppen in g w ith th e
a dm in istr a tive sta ff (see Ta ble VII). Th e clim a te per ception is a lm ost a r ou n d 3.00 on th e
5-poin t sca le on five of th e six qu estion n a ir e
ca te gor ies wh en a dm in istr a tive sta ff en ter
th e u n iver sity, a n d th in gs get wor se a s a dm in istr a tive sta ff spen d m or e yea r s a t th e in stitu tion . Th e on ly section th a t seem s to be gettin g
[ 19 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
better a s th e yea r s of ser vice in cr ea se is colla bor a tion a m on g sta ff, som eth in g wh ich is
ver y en cou r a gin g. Appa r en tly, sta ff get to
k n ow ea ch oth er on th e job a n d colla bor a te a s
th ey wor k togeth er or a s th ey a r e u n ited by
com m on a n xieties a n d dissa tisfa ction . Wh a t
is a la r m in g is th a t a dm in istr a tive sta ff feel
th a t th in gs get wor se in th e a r ea s of for m a l
in flu en ce, com m u n ica tion , or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r e, a n d job sa tisfa ction .
In gen er a l, th e fa cu lty’s per ception of th e
u n iver sity clim a te gets sligh tly better th e
lon ger th ey stay a t th e u n iver sity (a lth ou gh
still in th e a r ea of 3.00) wh er ea s th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff ’s per ception gets sligh tly wor se
(in th e a r ea of 2.80) a s th ey stay lon ger a t th e
Figure 6
Administrative staff c o mpile d me an re spo nse s – 4 8 ite ms
5
Partic ipative Gro up
4
Co nsultative
Be ne vo le nt
Autho ritative
3
2
Explo itative
Autho ritative
1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Key
IS
SHOULD BE
Table III
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : unive rsity-wide prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
Item no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
37
7
22
8
20
25
5
9
10
11
12
27
11
4
21
Area to change
Information sharing ac ross the university
Opportunities for advanc ement
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Use of group problem solving ac ross c ollege
Motivation to do my job
Co-operation among university departments
Feeling rewarded for my efforts
Extent that my supervisor gives emphasis to my personal and
professional growth
Quality of feedbac k
Extent of information available and its usefulness
Opportunities to be c reative
Use of group problem solving in my unit
Note:
Five of the items listed in this table (7, 8, 12, 22 and 27) are the ones identified as
priorities for c hange from both employee groups
[ 20 ]
u n iver sity. However, th is differ en ce in th e
m ea n s between fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive
sta ff w a s n ot sta tistica lly sign ifica n t.
Question 5
W h a t recom m en d a tion s for ch a n ge a n d
im prov em en t ca n b e m a d e b a sed on th e resu lts
of th e clim a te su r v ey?
On e of th e pr im a r y pu r poses of th e per son a l
a ssessm en t of th e u n iver sity clim a te su r vey
w a s to pr ovide r ecom m en da tion s for ch a n ge
in a n effor t to im pr ove th e u n iver sity clim a te.
To a ccom plish th is goa l, a “pr ior ity in dex
scor e” w a s com pu ted for ea ch of th e 48 clim a te item s. Th is scor e en ta iled ca lcu la tin g
th e differ en ce between th e aver a ge r a tin g for
ea ch item on th e “IS” sca le a n d th e aver a ge
“idea l” r a tin g for ea ch item “SB.” In th is w ay,
im por ta n t a r ea s n eedin g im pr ovem en t cou ld
be iden tifi ed a n d pr ior itized. On e w ay to
th in k a bou t th ese scor es is to see th e “pr ior ity in dex scor es” a s m ea su r es of th e exten t to
wh ich in dividu a ls a n d gr ou ps ca n be m otiva ted to im pr ove per for m a n ce w ith in th e
u n iver sity. Th u s, in a sen se, th e ga p between
th e scor es on “wh a t is” a n d “wh a t sh ou ld be”
of ea ch item is th e zon e of a ccepta ble ch a n ge
w ith in th e u n iver sity. Th ese pr ior ity in dices
wer e pr esen ted in Ta bles III-V pr eviou sly.
F r om th e a n a lysis of th ese da ta , it ca n be seen
th a t th e two em ployee gr ou ps iden tified five
item s th a t wer e com m on to both em ployee
ca te gor ies a s n eedin g m ost a n d, th er efor e,
u r gen t im pr ovem en t. Th ese item s a r e a s
follow s: 12, in for m a tion sh a r in g a cr oss u n iver sity; 7, qu a lity of lea der / follower in ter a ction ; 22, u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g a cr oss
u n iver sity; 8, m otiva tion to do m y job; a n d 27,
qu a lity of feedba ck for m y wor k .
Mor eover, fou r of th e a bove-m en tion ed
item s (12, 7, 22 a n d 37) r eceived ver y low r a tin gs a n d fa ll w ith in th e exploita tive a u th or ita tive m a n a gem en t system . It is, th er efor e, of
pa r ticu la r im por ta n ce th a t th e UCy fi n ds
w ays to a ddr ess th ese per ceived n eeds in a n
u r gen t fa sh ion . Th u s, th e follow in g a r ea s ca n
be seen a s in n eed of ch a n ge:
• Th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip n eeds to fi n d
w ays to dissem in a te in for m a tion a cr oss th e
in stitu tion effectively a n d efficien tly so th a t
per son n el get th e feelin g th a t th ey a r e
in for m ed of wh a t is h a ppen in g w ith in th e
in stitu tion , especia lly in m a tter s of gen er a l
con cer n . Of cou r se, in a n ew in stitu tion ,
su ch a s th e UCy, th is n eed is even m or e
u r gen t sin ce th in gs ch a n ge fa st a n d n ew
r u les a n d r e gu la tion s a r e in tr odu ced con sta n tly a s th e u n iver sity gr ow s du r in g th e
fir st yea r s of its existen ce. Th is situ a tion
h a s been descr ibed by som e fa cu lty m em ber s w ith su ch expr ession s a s “m ovin g
sa n d” a n d “th e situ a tion is so flu id th a t it
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
becom es too slipper y.” Th er efor e, m or e
efficien t distr ibu tion of in for m a tion w ill
im pr ove th e ca m pu s clim a te a n d h elp a llevia te som e of th e fr u str a tion th a t cu r r en tly
seem s to exist.
• It is a lso u r gen t th a t th e lea der sh ip fin ds
w ays to m or e effectively in ter a ct w ith fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive per son n el, th u s,
in cr ea sin g th e qu a lity of th is r ela tion sh ip.
Th er e is n eed for m or e per son a l com m u n ica tion a n d a better h u m a n -r ela tion s
a ppr oa ch on th e pa r t of th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip (pr im a r ily fr om th e r ector a n d vicer ector, a s in dica ted by th e w r itten
Table IV
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : fac ulty prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Item no.
Area to change
20
7
22
12
19
6
27
9
14
8
4
13
Co-operation among university departments
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Use of group problem solving ac ross the university
Information sharing ac ross university
Co-operation within my department
Vision as presented by university leadership
Quality of feedbac k for my work
Emphasis on top-level work at university
Clarity of outc omes to be ac hieved
Motivation to do my job
Opportunities to be c reative
Expec tations of the department leadership are known
Table V
Pro file o f the unive rsity c limate : administrative staff prio ritie s fo r c hange
Priority
Item no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
37
12
8
7
25
22
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
11
21
27
29
Area to change
Opportunities for c areer advanc ement
Information sharing ac ross the university
Motivation to do my job
Quality of leader/ follower interac tion
Feeling rewarded for my efforts
Use of group problem solving ac ross university
Extent that my supervisor gives emphasis to my personal and
professional growth
Clarity of written guidelines used in my work
Extent of information available and its usefulness
Use of group problem solving within my unit
Quality of feedbac k for my work
Freedom to arrange own work program
Table VI
Pro file o f pre se nt unive rsity c limate (IS): le ngth o f se rvic e (ye ars) at the
UCy-fac ulty
Service
0-1
2-4
4+
M ean
Inf
Com
Col
Org
Job
Stu
M ean
2.44
2.30
2.53 *
2.42
2.37
2.49
2.65 *
2.50
2.46 *
2.16
2.37
2.33
3.00 *
2.96
2.94
2.96
3.00
3.58
3.77 *
3.45
2.71
3.09
3.57 *
3.12
2.66
2.76
2.97 *
2.79
Note: * Highest group sc ore
com m en ts of th e r espon den ts). Becom in g
m or e visible a r ou n d th e ca m pu s a n d/ or
h oldin g gen er a l a ssem blies w ith th e sta ff
(fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive) in or der to
cr ea te a sen se of m ission a n d a com m on
vision is on e w ay of doin g th a t. An oth er
w ay is th e pu blica tion of a bi-week ly
n ew sletter fr om th e u n iver sity lea der sh ip
wh er e a ll im por ta n t u n iver sity a ctivities
a n d fa cts a r e pr esen ted.
• A th ir d a r ea n eedin g a tten tion is th e on e
dea lin g w ith th e u se of gr ou p pr oblem solvin g m eth ods a n d tech n iqu es a cr oss a n d
w ith in depa r tm en ts a n d a dm in istr a tive
ser vices. Appa r en tly, th er e is a n eed for
m or e gr ou p wor k a n d colla bor a tion wh en
tr yin g to solve pr oblem s th a t in volve differ en t depa r tm en ts a n d a dm in istr a tive ser vices. Th r ou gh th eir w r itten com m en ts, it
ca n be seen th a t per son n el w a n t to get
in volved in wh a t a ffects th em a n d th eir
division . If th er e is gr ea ter in volvem en t,
people a r e bou n d to becom e m or e coh esive
a s a gr ou p a n d im pr ove th eir feelin gs of
ow n er sh ip a n d a ccepta n ce.
• Th er e is a lso a per ceived n eed for feedba ck
on th eir wor k fr om both fa cu lty a n d a dm in istr a tive sta ff. Th ou gh th is fa ct m ay seem to
be su r pr isin g, a t fi r st, especia lly com in g
fr om th e fa cu lty, we sh ou ld n ot be so su r pr ised. Th e UCy, bein g a n ew in stitu tion ,
still does n ot h ave clea r dir ection s for fa cu lty a s to h ow th ey w ill ga in ten u r e or h ow
th eir wor k is goin g to be eva lu a ted. It is,
th er efor e, qu ite n or m a l to be in n eed of
feedba ck a bou t th e qu a lity of th eir wor k
wh eth er it is positive or n e ga tive feedba ck .
Th e sa m e (even to a gr ea ter exten t) h olds
tr u e for th e a dm in istr a tive sta ff, wh o in dica ted th a t th e gr ea test a r ea in n eed of
ch a n ge for th em is item 37 (oppor tu n ities
for ca r eer a dva n cem en t in th is in stitu tion ).
It is tr u e th a t m ost a dm in istr a tive position s
a t th e UCy a r e dea d-en d position s in ter m s
of pr om otion . Th er efor e, som e job r edesign
n eeds to ta k e pla ce a t th e UCy so th a t
a dm in istr a tive sta ff feel th a t th eir effor ts
w ill be r ew a r ded w ith pr om otion . Item 8
(m otiva tion to do m y job), wh ich is th ir d on
th eir list of u r gen t n eeds for ch a n ge, is
defin itely con n ected w ith th e feelin g of
goin g n owh er e in ter m s of th eir ca r eer,
especia lly if th e w r itten com m en ts given by
a dm in istr a tive sta ff a r e ta k en in to con sider a tion .
In sh or t, th e a bove a r ea s n eedin g u r gen t
ch a n ge in dica te wh er e th e UCy sh ou ld con cen tr a te its effor ts in th e n ext few yea r s, if th e
in stitu tion w ish es to im pr ove its over a ll clim a te a n d, pr esu m a bly, its effectiven ess. Th e
u n iver sity lea der sh ip n eeds to m ove fa st
sin ce em pir ica l fin din gs dem on str a te th a t
clim a te exer ts a sign ifica n t effect on
[ 21 ]
Pe tro s Pashiardis
Mo ving to wards a quality
c limate at the Unive rsity o f
Cyprus
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 1 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 4 –2 2
or ga n iza tion a l per for m a n ce (Rou ech e a n d
Ba k er, 1986).
In con clu sion , con sider a ble a tten tion h a s
been devoted in th e pa st deca des to th e
defin ition a n d in vestiga tion of th e n otion of a
colle ge’s clim a te, cu ltu r e, a tm osph er e, per son a lity or eth os (An der son , 1982). Wh a tever
th e ter m u tilized, a colle ge’s clim a te a ppea r s
to be on e of th e k ey fa ctor s in deter m in in g its
su ccess or fa ilu r e a s a pla ce of lea r n in g a n d
it, th er efor e, m er its ou r a tten tion . It is h oped
th a t th is ca se stu dy cou ld ser ve a s a n exa m ple
of a n in stitu tion ’s a ttem pt to “m ea su r e its
per son a lity” in a n effor t to im pr ove its over a ll clim a te.
Table VII
Pro file o f pre se nt unive rsity c limate (IS): le ngth o f se rvic e (ye ars) at the
UCy-administrative staff
Service
0-1
2-4
4+
M ean
Inf
Com
2.72 *
2.96 *
2.66
2.58
2.65
2.56
2.28
2.60
Col
Org
Job
Stu
M ean
2.18
2.57
2.73 *
2.49
3.39 *
3.39
3.46 *
3.18
3.34
3.30
3.43 *
3.19
3.30
2.99 *
2.97
2.84
2.93
3.19
3.10
3.22
Note: * Highest group sc ore
Note
1 Th e Un iver sity of Cypr u s is a fa ir ly n ew in stitu tion . It w a s cr ea ted by Law 144/ 89, en a cted
by th e Cypr u s Hou se of Repr esen ta tives in
1989, a n d a ccepted its fi r st stu den ts in 1992. It
n ow h a s a tota l of a bou t 2,100 stu den ts, 131
fa cu lty m em ber s a n d 110 a dm in istr a tive sta ff.
References
An der son , C.S. (1982), “Th e sea r ch for sch ool
clim a te: a r eview of th e r esea r ch ”, R eview of
Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch , Vol. 52 N o. 3, pp. 368420.
An sa r i, M. (1980), “Or ga n iza tion a l clim a te: h om ogen eity w ith in a n d h eter ogen eity between
or ga n iza tion s”, S ocia l a n d Econ om ic S tu d ies,
Vol. 111 N o. 1, pp. 89-96.
Ba ssey, M. a n d Yeom a n s, B. (1989), “Sch ool clim a te-m on itor in g sta ff opin ion in a pr im a r y
sch ool”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 9 N o. 2, pp.
219-31.
Bor ich , G. (1990), Ob ser va tion S k ills For Effectiv e
T ea ch in g, Mer r ill P u blish in g Com pa n y,
Colu m bu s, OH.
Ca m po, C. (1993), “ Colla bor a tive sch ool cu ltu r es:
h ow pr in cipa ls m a k e a differ en ce”, S ch ool
Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 13 N o. 2, pp. 119-25.
Cawelti, G. (1984), “Beh avior pa tter n s of effective
pr in cipa ls”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 41
N o. 5, p. 3.
Davis, G.A. a n d Th om a s, M.A. (1989), Effectiv e
S ch ools A n d Effectiv e T ea ch ers, Allyn a n d
Ba con , Boston , MA.
Glick m a n , C. (1990), “P u sh in g sch ool r efor m to a
n ew edge: th e seven ir on ies of sch ool
[ 22 ]
em power m en t”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 72 N o.
1, pp. 68-75.
Ha m pton , D.R., Su m m er, C.E . a n d Webber, R.A.
(1987), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior a n d th e Pra ctice of M a n a gem en t, Scott, For esm a n a n d Co,
Glen view, IL.
Ha r tn ett, R.T. a n d Cen tr a , J . (1974), “F a cu lty
view s of th e a ca dem ic en vir on m en t: situ a tion a l vs. in stitu tion a l per spectives”, S ociolog y of Ed u ca tion , Vol. 47, pp. 159-69.
Hoy, W.K. a n d Misk el, C.G. (1991), Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion : T h eor y, R esea rch a n d
Pra ctice, Ra n dom Hou se, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Im a n ts, J ., Blom , K., Bor st, A. a n d Va n Zoelen , A.
(1995), “Absen teeism du e to illn ess a m on g
tea ch er s in pr im a r y sch ools, sch ool clim a te
a n d tea ch er s’ sen se of effica cy”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 15 N o. 1, pp. 77-86.
J oyce, W.F. a n d Slocu m , J . (1982), “Clim a te discr epa n cy: r efi n in g th e con cepts of psych ologica l a n d or ga n iza tion a l clim a te”, Hu m a n
R ela tion s, Vol. 35 N o. 11, pp. 951-72.
Kim br ou gh , R. a n d Bu r k ett, C. (1990), T h e Pr in cipa lsh ip: Con cepts a n d Pra ctices, P r en tice-Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Kow a lsk i, T. a n d Reitzu g, U. (1993), Con tem pora r y
S ch ool A d m in istra tion , Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Levin e, D. (1991), “Cr ea tin g effective sch ool: fin din gs a n d im plica tion s fr om r esea r ch a n d
pr a ctice”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 72 N o. 5, pp.
389-93.
Lik er t, R. (1967), T h e Hu m a n Orga n iz a tion : Its
M a n a gem en t a n d Va lu e, McGr aw -Hill, N ew
Yor k , N Y.
N or ton , M.S. (1984), “Wh a t’s so im por ta n t a bou t
sch ool clim a te?”, Con tem pora r y Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 56 N o. 1, pp. 43-5.
Owen s, G. (1991), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior in
Ed u ca tion , P r en tice-Ha ll, In c, N ew Yor k , N Y.
P a sh ia r dis, P. (1993), “Gr ou p decision -m a k in g: th e
r ole of th e pr in cipa l”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 7 N o. 2, pp. 8-11.
Rou ech e, J .E . a n d Ba k er, G.A. (1986), Profi lin g
Ex cellen ce in A m er ica ’s S ch ools, Th e Am er ica n Associa tion of Sch ool Adm in istr a tor s,
Vir gin ia .
Sa r gea n t, J .C. (1976), Orga n iz a tion a l Clim a te of
High S ch ools, Th e In ter sta te P r in ter s a n d
P u blish er s, In c, Da n ville, IL.
Sch n eider, B. a n d Sn yder, R.A. (1975), “Som e
r ela tion sh ips between job sa tisfa ction a n d
or ga n iza tion a l clim a te”, J ou r n a l of A pplied
Psych olog y, Vol. 60 N o. 3, pp. 318-28.
Ser giova n n i, T. J . (1990), Va lu e-A d d ed L ea d ersh ip:
How to Get Ex tra ord in a r y Per for m a n ce in
S ch ools, Ha r cou r t Br a ce J ova n ovich , F lor ida .
Ser giova n n i, T. a n d Sta r r a tt, R. (1993), S u per vision
a R ed efi n ition , 5th ed., McGr aw -Hill, Sin ga por e.
Ster n , G. (1966), “Myth a n d r ea lity in th e Am er ica n colle ge”, A AUP B u lletin , Win ter.
Tich y, N.M. a n d Deva n n a , M.A. (1986), T h e T ra n sfor m a tion a l L ea d er, J oh n Wiley a n d Son s,
N ew Yor k , N Y.