AN ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF SELECT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS AT SCHOOLS OPERATED BY THE THAILAND ADVENTIST MISSION

AN ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF SELECT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS AT SCHOOLS OPERATED BY THE THAILAND ADVENTIST MISSION By GAVIN KEITH HIBBERT An Independent Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Business Administration, (Management Emphasis) Faculty of Business Administration Asia-Pacific International University Year 2019

i Research Project Title: An Assessment of Employee Perceptions of Select Organizational Climate Factors at Schools Operated by the Thailand Adventist Mission Author: Gavin Keith Hibbert Research Advisor: Dr. Damrong Satayawaksakoon Program: Master of Business Administration Academic Year: 2019

ii ABSTRACT Organizational climate is viewed as an overview of perceptions about an organizational culture at a given time. Peterson and Spencer (1990) illustrate the contrast between culture and climate as “organizational value” (culture) and “organizational atmosphere”, or “style” (climate). Organizational climate (sometimes known as corporate climate) can change as new board members, administrators or employees come and go. It can also change in response to an internal or external crisis. It is essential for administrators to seek to understand the organizational climate indicators that may impact the perceptions of employees. Unevaluated or disregarded perceptions over time may have catastrophic consequences on the philosophy, mission, and effectiveness of an organization. This study was undertaken to better understand employee (administrators, teachers, and staff) perceptions of select organizational climate factors at schools under the jurisdiction of the Thailand Adventist Mission. The purpose was to assess employee perceptual positivity of current and expected school climate factors. The study included the construction and distribution of a survey adapted and modified from the Charles F. Kettering Ltd. School Climate Profile. The survey consists of eleven climate factors and 55 positive statements followed by an open-ended comment section. A total of 250 employees across four different schools filled out the survey questionnaire; however, only 215 were found valid for analysis. A One-Way ANOVA and a T-test were used to determine employee perceptions of select organizational climate factors, namely: Cohesiveness, Morale, Growth, Trust, Respect, Caring, Spirituality, Resources, Conflicts, Communication, and Problems. The study results indicate that the overall employee perceptual expectations of organizational

iii climate factors were very high in every climate factor with a mean of 3.79 while the overall perceptions of current climate factors were high and moderate with a mean of 3.08. The highest overall perceptions of the current organizational climate factors were Respect (3.26) and Communication (3.26) while the lowest factors were Trust (2.85) and Morale (2.90).

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge and deeply appreciate the invaluable support given to me by my advisor, Mr. Damrong Sattayawaksakoon, Ph.D. His tireless efforts on my behalf have significantly contributed to the success of this independent study research project. My appreciation is also extended to the Faculty of Business for allowing me to pursue my Master of Business Administration at AsiaPacific International University. I would like to thank the Thailand Adventist Mission (TAM) Board and the Executive Secretary, Pastor Luesak Yangkullawat, in particular, for giving me permission to conduct this research on TAM schools. I am very grateful to all the TAM school principals and officers who coordinated with me on this project. A special thanks to Ms. Ganokrat Namta and Ms. Wipawan Kradattong for their immense help in translating documents. Of course, I want to fondly thank my parents for their love and patient support of my project. Last, but in no way least, I thank God for the wisdom and strength he provided me as I undertook this research project.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................VIII LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................IX CHAPTER 1.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background of the Study ...........................................................................................................1 1.3 Objectives of Research ..............................................................................................................4 1.4 Motivation for Research ............................................................................................................5 1.5 Research Questions....................................................................................................................8 1.6 Working Hypothesis and Major Premise ...................................................................................8 1.6.1 Working Hypotheses:.........................................................................................................8 1.6.2 Major Premise:...................................................................................................................9 1.7 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................10 1.8 Significance of the Research ...................................................................................................10 1.9 Purpose of Study......................................................................................................................12 1.10 Definition of Key Concepts..................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2........................................................................................................................15 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................15 2.2 Concepts and Related Theories................................................................................................15 2.2.1 Culture and Climate .........................................................................................................15 2.2.1.1 Definitions of School Culture and Climate ...............................................................16 2.3 Climate Dimensions )Factors(................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 3........................................................................................................................25 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................25 3.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................25 3.3 Determining Population and Sample Size ...............................................................................26 3.3.1 Population ........................................................................................................................26 3.3.2 Sample Size ......................................................................................................................27 3.4 Instrumentation........................................................................................................................27 3.5 Degree of Perceptual Positivity ...............................................................................................29 3.6 Likert Scale Cut-Off Points.....................................................................................................29 3.7 Organizational Climate Factors...............................................................................................31

vi 3.8 Data Gathering.........................................................................................................................31 3.9 Statistical Treatment ................................................................................................................32 CHAPTER 4........................................................................................................................34 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................34 4.2 Descriptive Analysis – Demographic Information ..................................................................34 4.3 Hypothesis Testing :Level of Overall Organizational Climate) H1( .......................................36 4.4 Hypothesis Testing: Level of Organizational Climate Within Each School )H2( ...................37 4.4.1 Data Analysis Findings for School One ..........................................................................39 4.4.2 Data Analysis Findings for School Two ..........................................................................39 4.4.3 Data Analysis Findings for School Three ........................................................................40 4.4.4 Data Analysis Findings for School Four ..........................................................................40 4.5. Organizational Climate Compared by School ........................................................................41 4.6 Hypothesis Testing :Analysis by Demographic Factors )H3(..................................................44 4.6.1 Organizational Climate Compared by Gender .................................................................44 4.6.2 Organizational Climate Factors Compared by Role .........................................................46 4.6.3 Organizational Climate Compared by Years of Service..................................................48 4.6.4 Organizational Climate Factors Compared by Religion...................................................49 4.7 Hypothesis Testing :Current Situation and the Expectation of what should be( H4)..........52 4.8 Open Ended Response Findings..............................................................................................53 4.8.1 School Number One .........................................................................................................54 4.8.1.1 Employee Open-Ended Comments Findings of School One ....................................55 4.8.1.2 Strongest Aspects......................................................................................................55 4.8.1.3 Weakest Aspects.......................................................................................................56 4.8.2 School Number Two ........................................................................................................57 4.8.2.1 Employee Open-Ended Comments Findings of School Two....................................58 4.8.2.2 Strongest Aspects......................................................................................................58 4.8.2.3 Weakest Aspects.......................................................................................................60 4.8.3 School Number Three ......................................................................................................62 4.8.3.1 Employee Open-Ended Comments Findings of School Three..................................63 4.8.3.2 Strongest Aspects......................................................................................................63 4.8.3.2 Weakest Aspects.......................................................................................................65 4.8.4 School Number Four ........................................................................................................66 4.8.4.1 Employee Open-Ended Comments Findings of School Four ...................................67 4.8.4.2 Strongest Aspects......................................................................................................67 4.8.4.3 Weakest Aspects.......................................................................................................68 4.9 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing .......................................................................................69 CHAPTER 5........................................................................................................................73 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................73 5.2 Hypotheses Findings and Discussion ......................................................................................73 5.2.1 Hypothesis One ................................................................................................................73 5.2.2 Hypothesis Two................................................................................................................74

vii 5.2.3 Hypothesis Three..............................................................................................................75 5.2.3.1 Hypothesis H3.1:.......................................................................................................75 5.2.3.2 Hypothesis H3.2:.......................................................................................................76 5.2.3.3 Hypothesis H3.3:.......................................................................................................76 5.2.3.4 Hypothesis H3.4:.......................................................................................................76 5.2.4 Hypothesis Four ...............................................................................................................78 5.3 School One Data Analysis Discussion.....................................................................................78 5.3.1 School One Lowest and Highest Perceptions of Climate Factors ....................................79 5.3.2 School One Comparison between Satistical Analysis Findings and Open-Ended Analysis Findings.....................................................................................................................................81 5.4 School Two Data Analysis Discussion....................................................................................81 5.4.1 School Two Lowest and Highest Perceptions of Climate Factors....................................82 5.4.2 School Two Comparison between Satistical Analysis Findings and Open-Ended Analysis Findings.....................................................................................................................................84 5.5 School Three Data Analysis Discussion ..................................................................................85 5.5.1 School Three Lowest and Highest Perceptions of Climate Factors..................................85 5.5.2 School Three Comparison between Satistical Analysis Findings and Open-Ended Analysis Findings......................................................................................................................86 5.6 School Four Data Analysis Discussion....................................................................................87 5.6.1 School Four Lowest and Highest Perceptions of Climate Factors ...................................87 5.6.2 School Four Comparison between Satistical Analysis Findings and Open-Ended Analysis Findings.....................................................................................................................................90 5.7 Summary and Discussion of Open-ended Comment Findings: ...............................................90 5.8 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study.............................................................92 5.9 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................93 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................95 APPENDIX A......................................................................................................................99 Cover Letter to Heads of Schools................................................................................................100 Climate Profile Questionnaire-Survey.........................................................................................101 APPENDIX B................................................................................................................... 107 Organizational Climate Factors )Categories(...............................................................................108

viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Information..............................................................................35 Table 2. Level of Organizational Climate....................................................................36 Table 3. Differences between Current Situation and the Expectation of Organizational Climate.........................................................................................................................38 Table 4. Organizational Climate Compared by School ...............................................41 Table 5. Scheffe’s Test of Organizational Climate Related to Schools.......................43 Table 6. Current Situation of Organizational Climate Factors Compared by Gender.45 Table 7. Expected Organizational Climate Compared by Gender...............................46 Table 8. Organizational Climate Compared by Role...................................................47 Table 9. Scheffe’s Test of Organizational Climate Related to Role............................48 Table 10. Organizational Climate Compared by Year of Service ...............................49 Table 11. Organizational Climate Compared by Religion...........................................50 Table 12. Scheffe’s Test of Organizational Climate Related to School ......................51 Table 13. Differences Between Current Situation and the Expectation of Organizational Climate ...............................................................................................52 Table 14. Overall School Perceptions by Climate Category .......................................53 Table 15. Summary of Open-Ended Statements at School One ..................................55 Table 16. Summary of Open-Ended Statements at School Two .................................58 Table 17. Summary of Open-Ended Statements at School Three ...............................63 Table 18. Summary of Open-Ended Statements at School Four .................................67

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Strongest Aspect Perception )School One(..................................................56 Figure 2. Weakest Aspect Perception )School One(...................................................57 Figure 3. Strongest Aspect Perception )School Two(.................................................60 Figure 4. Weakest Aspect Perception )School Two( ..................................................62 Figure 5. Strongest Aspect Perception )School Three(...............................................65 Figure 6. Weakest Aspect Perception )School Three( ................................................66 Figure 7. Strongest Aspect Perception )School Four(.................................................68 Figure 8. Weakest Aspect Perception )School Four(..................................................69

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction This chapter is divided into nine sections including the background of the study, research objectives, the motivation for research, research questions, significance of the research, working hypotheses and major premise, definition of key concepts, and finally the purpose of the study. 1.2 Background of the Study Educational organizations generally come into existence for some greater good. In order to accomplish their unique missions, these service-oriented institutions must invest significantly in needed infrastructure, resources, and training. Ideally, institutional employees respond with positive attitudes and commitment to an organizations shared goals and vision. It is this employee response that will largely determine whether the unique institutional mission is being properly accomplished. It is assumed that strong employee commitments include a positive attitudinal component; therefore, employee perceptions of select organizational climate factors will indicate the extent to which there is a common vision and a shared commitment to organizational goals and purposes (Taylor & Masih, 2002). The climate of an organization is comprised of “the sense people make of the patterns of experiences and behaviors they have, or other parties to the situation have (Schneider, Bowen, Erhart, & Holcombe, 2000, p. 22) .” If, as the ancient Greek

2 truism goes, ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’, then one might also say that, ‘the unexamined organization is not worth its existence’. Organizational self-evaluation and assessment is a function of management and, “if management is interested in the degree to which employees are behaving consistent with a given formulated strategy, then it is useful to examine that strategy in terms of climate (Schneider, et al., 2000, p.23) .” In the context of this study, organizational climate is viewed as an overview of perceptions about an organizational culture at a given time. Peterson and Spencer (1990, p.8) illustrate the contrast between culture and climate as “organizational value”(culture) and “organizational atmosphere”, or “style”(climate). They elaborate further using a weather analogy to distinguish between culture and climate, suggesting that culture is the meteorological zone in which one lives (tropical, temperate, or arctic); whereas, climate is the daily weather patterns. Stringer (2002, p.8) also introduces the concept of organizational climate as a description of the “internal weather” of an organization. He points out that the analogy between the weather and organizational climate is quite strong, because both allow for variations and cycles while at the same time emphasizing underlying consistencies and patterns. At the risk of redundancy and oversimplification, we may extend the aforementioned weather analogy a little further to better understand the concept of ‘organizational climate”. Climate in nature is normally associated with the impact of weatherrelated factors on an environment. Such factors, interpreted by qualified weather

3 forecasters, may include air pressure, temperature, precipitation or lack thereof, wind velocity, etc. Disregarding or ignoring the interpretations of such experts may have catastrophic results on our personal wellbeing. Likewise, disregarding or ignoring organizational climate factors may catastrophically impact the preparedness and longterm wellbeing of an institution. Our perceptions of weather are generally governed by our sensory response to such weather factors, and because weather impacts us all similarly at any given time in a particular environment, we are able to determine common responses, such as feelings of cold or warmth and comfort. These common sensory responses toward the impact of weather shape our general perceptions of the climate. Such perceptions, in turn, influence how we act and shape our moods and attitudes. Similarly, participants in an organization have common sensory responses to the day-to-day climate of the organization that shape their moods and attitudes toward it. To extend the climate analogy just a little further, we note that while weather conditions change day-by-day, there are consistent weather patterns that persist over the long term. In a similar way, we seek to identify the persistent long-term patterns of perceptions within an organizational climate. Certainly, it is to be understood that changing physical weather patterns would be a difficult, even miraculous, feat; nevertheless, Stringer (2002, p.8) points out that an organizational climate is much more changeable. While, of course, we should not strain the weather analogy, it is a useful one for organizational leaders who are concerned about the longterm wellbeing of their organizations and how they have been, or are being shaped by

4 employee sensory responses, perceptions, moods, and attitudes. This study endeavors to understand the perceptions of employees regarding select organizational climate factors. Just as atmospheric climate is dynamic; so too is organizational climate. Organizational climate can change as new board members, administrators and employees come and go. It can also change in response to an internal or external crisis. It is essential for administrators to seek and understand the organizational indicators that may impact the perceptions of employees. Unevaluated or disregarded perceptions over the long-term may have catastrophic consequences on the philosophy, mission, and effectiveness of an organization. Responsible administrators will, therefore, put forward concerted effort to assess the perceptions of their employees. They will desire to know whether climate perceptions of current organizational culture are positive or negative, constructive or destructive, which will then enable them to determine and implement needed strategies for change. 1.3 Objectives of Research This study is an attempt to help educational administrators understand their organizational climate by providing valuable information on employee perceptions within the context of the greater organizational culture. Many studies of organizational climate have focused on the relationship between organizational climate and leadership styles; however, that is not the focus of this study. This research study is entitled “An Assessment of Employee Perceptions of Select Organizational Climate Factors at Schools Operated by the Thailand Adventist Mission”. It examines the

5 perceptions of three groups of employees, namely: administrators, teachers, and staff regarding select organizational climate factors in an effort to assess how they align with organizational culture. The select climate factors will be discussed further in the literature review section. This study also examines any significant difference between employee perceptions of the current climate factors (“what is”) and their perceptions of what these factors should be like (“what ought to be”). 1.4 Motivation for Research The motivation for this particular study arose during my graduate Business Research Methods course at an international university in Thailand. A primary research study was required in order to fulfill the course requirements. As a recent arrival on campus, my interest in conducting organizational research was piqued while serving as a graduate student intern in the university’s finance and advancement offices respectively. I became curious about current employee perceptions of the university’s culture. My work environment and course provided me a suitable setting within which to conduct a research assignment on the organizational climate at my university. The success of this research study spurred me on to use it as a pilot project and conduct a similar study on a larger population for my Independent Study course; hence, my interest in this particular study conducted on select schools that also function as ‘feeder schools’ for my university. According to the Office of Archives Statistics and Research of the Seventh-day Adventist church “adventistyearbook.org” these schools are part of an educational system operated by the Thailand Adventist Mission (TAM). Data gathered

6 from the online yearbook shows that the Mission was organized in 1919 and as of June 30, 2017 consists of 53 churches and has 13,594 members (Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook 2018). The Thailand Adventist Mission is part of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church educational system which, according to the Church’s Education Department (Mission and Scope, 2019), it includes over 8,500 schools, colleges and universities, with over 108,500 teachers and 1,954,920 students worldwide. The Adventist school system is one of the largest Christian educational systems in the world (adventisteducation.org, 2019.). The December 31, 2017 statistics, also taken from the church Education Department (Education Statistics, 2017), show that the Seventh-day Adventist educational system consists of 2,429 secondary schools with 36,592 teachers and 595,848 students. The Adventist educational philosophy generally promotes the harmonious development of the whole person--spiritually, intellectually, physically and socially. It strives for academic excellence and the development of faith, noble Christian character, selfless service, and respect for all human beings and the environment. Background, historical information and data on surveyed schools in this research is sourced from the Office of Archives, Statistics, and Research of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and from a Centennial Book published by TAM Press and the Seventh-day Adventist Church Foundation of Thailand Publishing House entitled“A Century of Unity” (Insom et.al., 2006, p. 110). The schools surveyd are as follows:

7 Adventist International Mission School Korat (AIMS Korat) identified in this research study as “School One” (1) is a Seventh-day Adventist private school registered under The Seventh-day Adventist Foundation and operated by the Adventist International Mission School Board of Directors under the auspices of Southeast Asia Union Mission. The school is located in Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Thailand. The address is 1577 Mittraparp Rd., Naimeung, Meung, Nakhonratchasima 30000 Thailand. Ekamai International School (EIS) Identified in this research study as “School Two” (2) is a private, non-profit, co-educational Christian school (from PreKindergarten to Grade 12) founded and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Mission in Thailand. It was first established in 1946 as a church school at Phyathai Road and moved to its present location in 1957. The addrews is 57 Ekamai 12 (Soi Charoenjai), Sukhumvit 63 Klongton Nua, Vadhana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand. Chiangmai Adventist Academy (CAA) Identified in this research study as “School Three” (3) with roots back to May 22, 1974 received permission to open as a secondary school in 1982. Address: Chiang Mai Adventist Academy. 127 Moo 4; Soppoeng, Maetaeng; Chiang Mai 50330; Thailand. Adventist Ekamai School (AES) Identfied in this research study as “School Four” (4) with roots back to February 22, 1935 received government accreditation in 1966 and became a high school in 1968. Address: Adventist Ekamai School. 57 Pridi Banomyong 31; Sukhumvit 71; Klongton Nua; Watana; Bangkok 10110; Thailand.

8 1.5 Research Questions This research study seeks answers to the following questions: i. To what extent across schools are current (what is) and/or expected (what should be) school climate factors perceived to be positive? ii. To what extent within schools are current (what is) and/or expected (what should be) school climate factors perceived to be positive? iii. Do employees, regardless of role, gender, years of service, and religion, have the same current (what is) and expected (what should be) perceptions of school climate or not? iv. Which climate factor perceptions indicate the largest difference in terms of positivity between “what is” and/or “what should be” at the school?” The data collected in this study and the answers to the aforementioned questions will help administrators better understand their institutions. 1.6 Working Hypothesis and Major Premise The following are the working hypotheses and major premise for this research study. 1.6.1 Working Hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Employees across all four Thailand Adventist Mission schools have a high-positive )H1.1( current (what is) and/or )H1.2( expected (what should be) perception of select school climate factors.

9 Hypothesis 2. Employees within each of the four Thailand Adventist Mission schools have a high-positive )H2.1( current (what is) and/or )H2.2( expected (what should be) perception of select school climate factors.Hypothesis 3 Employees across all four Thailand Adventist Mission schools that differ according to their )H.3.1( role, )H3.2( gender, )H3.3( length of service, and/or )H3.4( religion exhibit differences in their current (what is) and expected (what should be) perceptions of school climate factors. Hypothesis 4. Employees across all four Thailand Adventist Mission schools exhibit differences in their current (what is) and expected (what should be) perception of school climate factors. 1.6.2 Major Premise: The above working hypothesis H1 and H2 will be supported if it can be established that school employees have a high-positive perception of the select climate factors in this study. Hypothesis H3 and H4 will be supported if it can be established that emplyees exhibit differences in organizational climate factor perceptions of ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’.

10 1.7 Conceptual Framework 1.8 Significance of the Research When discussing the question of why organizational culture and climate should be studied, Ashkanasy et. al. (2000, p. 8) believe it should be undertaken for the “insights such study can offer for practice, organizational research, and social science at large.” This research is significant because organizations are dynamic by nature and ever changing and organizational climate should, therefore, be assessed regularly DEMOGRAPHICS Role as an Employee Gender Years of Service Religious Affiliation OGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS Cohesiveness Morale Growth Trust Respect Caring Spirituality Resources Conflict Communication Problems EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS Current (“What is”) Expected (“What should be”)

11 (Rojeweski et al., 1990). Good governance demands that the climate of an organization be regularly assessed to determine whether the school is effectively meeting its goals and creating an enriching environment for its employees and students. Climate assessments are able to provide administrators with concrete data. The degree of perceptual positivity will be determined by the responses on the survey. Furthermore, “A positive school climate is important in maintaining an effective educational environment characterized by excellence, productivity, and cooperation. Because of its impact on successful educational experiences, administrators should attempt to assess climate rather than rely on feelings or intuition to estimate it (Rojewski et. al., 1990).” The schools under study are dynamic institutions that undergo change. Research of this nature is valuable given the importance of ‘feeder schools’ to my university. This study will provide useful information to help administrators ensure that organizational climate perceptions remain consistent with the schools’ philosophy, mission, academic excellence, and employee expectations. Howard, Howell, and Brainard (1987, p. 25) suggest that data should ideally be collected from teachers, students, administrators, support staff, parents, and board members. For the purposes of this study, however, data is collected on employees (teachers, staff, and administrators). Baird states three questions that could be asked when identifying the research purpose. (1) What decisions need to be made? (2) What problems need to be solved? (3) What questions need to be answered? In reference to the third question, he continues, “Sometimes the purpose of a study is to gather information as a preliminary to later action (1990, p. 40).” The research findings on

12 employee perceptions in this study will provide such a preliminary basis for further inquiry. Baird continues by stating that, “Tailoring the questions to the characteristics of the respondents also makes sense (1990, p. 43).” In attempting to measure employee perceptions of select dimensions of organizational climate, this study has tried to tailor the survey to be sensitive to the local characteristics of the schools. 1.9 Purpose of Study This study will provide administrators of the aforementioned schools a clearer understanding of select, current organizational climate factors as an aid to school administration. Robert Stringer points out that, “by changing how the organization is managed we can change the climate, and this will change the direction and persistence of people’s energy and have a profound impact on the organization’s performance (2002, p. 14).” Administrators will be helped as they attempt to gauge the overall health of their school in relation to their organization’s guiding philosophy and principles. Again, research of this nature is a valuable indicator of whether an optimum organizational environment is being maintained for the purpose of accomplishing institutional goals. Rojeweski et al. (1990) point out that a healthy environment enhances student outcomes, promotes good morale, and ensures positive learning and working conditions. Similarly, Leonard Baird states that “to evaluate an institution’s climate and administrative decisions thoroughly, the policy maker needs to have systematic information, whether obtained through an available survey instrument, or through an instrument of one’s own making (1990, p. 39).” This study will provide

13 school administrators with “systematic information” necessary for informed decision making using a proven, though slightly modified, instrument. Finally, Baird further emphasizes the importance of having such systematic information where “decision makers can understand and assess (1) the characteristics of the people in their colleges or universities, (2) the workings of the institution’s programs, policies, and processes, they can consider options and make decisions that will create better intellectual and social climates on their campuses (1990, p. 40).” It is intended that this research study will provide such valuable information to the user. 1.10 Definition of Key Concepts There are four key concepts or terms that are central to this paper: Organizational Culture: The enduring and historically transmitted philosophy and mission ascribed to by an organization that includes the institutions norms, values, beliefs, traditions. Organizational Climate: Employees current shared perceptions of their experience working in the organization at any given time that includes impressions, attitudes, feelings, and expectations of the wider organizational culture. Climate Factors: Individual aspects or categories of organizational culture identified and presented in such a way as to accurately elicit employee perceptions; thereby, providing an overview of the current organizational climate. Such factors may be perceived positively or negatively.

14 Degree of Perceptual Positivity: The degree of perceptual positivity (low-positive perception, slightly-low positive perception, slightly-high positive perception, highpositive perception) is determined by the cut-off point ranges on the four point Likert Scale (almost never, occasionally, frequently, almost always) in the organizational climate survey. Thailand Adventist Mission )TAM(: Thailand Adventist Mission represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Thailand and as such oversees the schools under its jurisdiction. These schools are part of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist School system which is one of the largest parochial educational systems in the world.

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews literature regarding the relationship between culture and climate and their impact on organizations and institutions. First, it looks at past literature that defines the culture and climate of an organization and its historical origins. Secondly, it seeks to define ‘climate’ in the broader context of organizational culture and how it differentiates from ‘culture’. Next, it examines aspects of climate broken down into categories which delineate its conceptual content. Then, it discusses dimensions of organizational climate and the key role it plays in studying human perceptions of the overall climate. Finally, it discusses various types of climate factors. 2.2 Concepts and Related Theories 2.2.1 Culture and Climate A survey of the terms school culture and climate reveals that they entered the vocabulary of educators from the corporate world. In the field of business and management many studies have been conducted in an effort to understand the culture and climate of an organization. Researchers have defined culture and climate in many different ways. One common theme prevalent in studies has been the underlying notion that climate is an apparent function or expression of organizational culture at any given moment.

16 2.2.1.1 Definitions of School Culture and Climate The use of the concept organizational culture has become more prevalent over the past thirty years and is frequently confused as being identical to organizational climate. (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014) They are similar in so far as both are concerned with the general work-place atmosphere, social interactions, and employee behavior within an organization. According to Griffin and Moorhead (2014, p. 516) organizational culture "usually refers to the historical context within which a situation occurs and the impact of this context on the behaviors of employees." It is the vehicle whereby “people in the organization learn and communicate what is acceptable and unacceptable in an organization—its values and norms." Organizational climate does not, however, include concerns about 'values and norms' but is rather concerned with the “current atmosphere” in an organization. Organizational climate has a perceptual reseach base that focuses on personal perceptions and can be defined as "recurring patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feelings that characterize life in the organization; and refers to current situations in an organization and the linkages among work groups, employees, and work performance (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014, p.516) ." Another difference between organizational climate and culture is that the study of organizational climate is founded on psychology, while organizational culture is founded on anthropology and sociology. Administrators can, therefore, more readily influence organizational climate and employee behavior (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014). Furthermore, Griffin and Moorhead (2014) state that it is more difficult to change the culture of an organization because it has been gradually constructed over

17 the duration of the organizations existence and is grounded on an organization's philosophy, beliefs, and traditions. Organizational climate is a term that is often confused with organizational culture; however, it is very different. “Culture emphasizes the unspoken assumptions that underlie an organization, whereas climate focuses on the more accessible perceptions of the organization, especially how they arouse motivation and, thus, impact performance (Stringer, 2002, p. 14) .” When trying to distinguish between the concepts of organizational culture and organizational climate, Payne states that they are very different from each other. He agrees, however, that many definitions “are easily substitutable for each other” because “they share the common ground of trying to describe and explain the relationships that exist among groups of people who share some sort of common situation/experience (Payne, 2000, p. 166) .” Stolp and Smith briefly define school culture as “historically transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliefs, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community (1995, p.22) .” Likewise, Stringer has divided culture into five components, namely, values, beliefs, myths, traditions, and norms. (Stringer, 2002, p. 16) Organizational climate, on the other hand, should be understood within the greater context of an organizational culture. While these terms are not mutually exclusive, some writers often fail to differentiate clearly between them. Climate has been used to define the “subtle spirit” of a school (Stolp & Smith, 1995, p.21). The difference between organizational climate and culture may be defined as follows:

18 “Climate is the term typically used to describe people’s shared perceptions of an organization or work unit, whereas culture, as we have seen, embraces not only how people feel about their organization, but the assumptions, values, and beliefs that give the organization its identity and specify its standards of behavior. When discussing climate, the focus is on impressions, feelings, and expectations held by members of the school, the school organization’s structure and setting, as well as by the social interactions among those who work and learn there (Stolp & Smith, 1995, p.25) .” Roy L. Payne describes the differences between research in organizational culture and organizational climate as follows: “Cultural research is more accurate and more specific than climate research, but it is much harder to generalize from, other than in the application of the concept itself. Climate research is (probably) more generalizable, but it is less accurate and less specific, although it may still provide a useful description of a single organization and an even more useful comparison with other organizations. Thus, although it is difficult to distinguish definitions of culture from those of climate, it is possible to claim that climate is a way of measuring culture.” (2000, p. 166) It is the goal of this research study to provide, as mentioned above, a useful description of the climate of individual organizations while also being able to make a useful comparison between them. Stringer says that, “Organizational climate exists objectively in the organization, but it can only be described and measured indirectly through the perceptions of the members of the organization (Stringer, 2002, p. 10) .” Organizational

19 climate, therefore, may be understood as people’s perceptions of current organizational culture. Furthermore, “Culture is a product of the history of relationships in a school, whereas climate is defined by how people perceive those relationships in the present. (This is not to suggest people’s perceptions readily change from day to day; in fact, school climate, like culture, is relatively stable) (Stolp & Smith, 1995, p. 27) .” Peterson and Spencer, in Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures (1990, p.12), divide climate into three broad categories in order to delineate the conceptual content of research on climate. These categories are ‘objective climate’, ‘perceived climate’, and ‘psychological or felt climate’. “Objective climate focuses on patterns of behavior or formal activity in an institution that can be observed directly and objectively (Peterson & Spencer 1990, p.12).” On the other hand, what Peterson and Spencer call “psychological or felt climate focuses on the ‘motivational’ dimension on how participants feel about their organization and their work (1990, p. 13).” According to Peterson and Spencer, perceived climate is described as follows: “Focuses on the cognitive images that participants have of how organizational life actually does function and how it should function. These perceptions may be accurate or inaccurate, but they represent reality from the perspective of participants. They shape norms that guide behavior and expectations that may underscore motivation. Generally, research on perceived climate focuses on how participants view various institutional patterns and behaviors (1990 p.12).” Peterson and Spencer provide further clarity on the difference between culture and climate as follows: “Climate can be defined as the current common patterns

20 of important dimensions of organizational life or its members’ perceptions and attitudes towards those dimensions (1990, p. 7).” Furthermore, “Climate is more concerned with current perceptions and attitudes, whereas, culture is more concerned with deeply held meanings, beliefs, and values (Peterson & Spencer, 1990, p. 12).” Organizational climate emanates from the organizations physical appearance, employees, clientel and many other experienced ‘cultural artifacts’ (Schein, 2000). Schein’s solution to the culture-climate debate is to “define climate as a cultural artifact resulting from espoused values and shared tacit assumptions.” Furthermore, he elaborates that, “To understand climate fully, one must dig deeper and examine values and assumptions. In other words, to understand what goes on in an organization and why it happens in the way it does, one needs several concepts. Climate and culture, if each is carefully defined, then become two critical building blocks for organizational description and analysis.” (Schein, 2000, p. xxiv) In the fairly recent past, there has developed a “sibling rivalry” between researchers of organizational climate and organizational culture with each group trying to exalt and protect its domain. After providing commentary on the history and background of this rivalry, Schneider concludes that, “It is time for the kids to come home, make up, and create a more complete understanding of the psychological life of organizations.” Furthermore, he sees a “reciprocal relationship between experiences and attributions: Climate causes culture, but the reverse is also true.” Climate and culture are “two complimentary ideas that reveal overlapping yet distinguishable nuances in the psychological life of organizations.” (Schneider, 2000, p. xxi)

21 Finally, organizational climate according to Robbins and Judge (2013, p. 516) denotes “the shared perceptions organizational members have about their organization and work environment.” This climate is generally experienced individually or collectively at an emotional level and includes such things as team spirit and feelings about priorities and success. It has also been related to work place habits, “job satisfaction, involvement, commitment, and motivation”, as well as to “higher customer satisfaction and financial performance (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 516).” Furthermore, they elaborate that there are many interacting dimensions of climate that can lead to positive or negative experiences and behavior. (2002, p. 517) This study, as will be elaborated upon in the next section, is an attempt to understand employee perceptions of these “interacting dimensions of climate”. 2.3 Climate Dimensions )Factors( While it is a challenge to determine the essential factors or dimensions that impact employee’s motivation and performance, common sense determines that these factors would include most aspects of the work environment (Stringer, 2002). Stringer identifies specific measurable and manageable behaviors that “can best be described and measured in terms of six distinct dimensions: structure, standards, responsibility, recognition, support, and commitment (2002, p. 10).” Peterson and Spencer (1990, p. 8) further elaborates on the commonly examined aspects of climate as follows: “Common categories are institutional goals and functioning, governance and decision patterns, teaching and learning processes, participant behaviors, effort, and interaction patterns, and work patterns or workplace dynamics. Unlike culture, the

22 content of which cannot be easily specified, the options with climate are extensive, so it is important to identify the content of the climate one is examining (Peterson & Spencer, 1990).” The categories identified in this study will be explained further in chapter 3. A wide variety of aspects pertaining to organizational life can be addressed in climate studies because, as Stringer states, “Although climate is a largely subjective phenomenon, we know how to measure it accurately. We also know how climates are created. Of all the factors that determine climate, the most important are the practices of the leaders of the organization (2002, p. 14).” This research study, therefore, includes a survey of leadership practices and perceptions. Furthermore, organizational climates are unique because, according to Stringer, “different climates arouse different kinds of motivation and stimulate different kinds of behavior (2002, p.14).” The instrument used in this study to elicit the perceptions of employees stives be sensitive to such organizational differences. Research suggests that there is almost no limit to the number of climate aspects that can be studied. Peterson and Spencer (1990) have pointed out that such studies, depending on the purpose of the research, can be either comprehensive or focused on specific organizational dimensions. The focus of this research is on specific organizational factors. Robert Stringer (2002, p. 10) describes six essential dimensions to be measured in organizational climate assessment, as follows: “1. Structure reflects employees’ sense of being well organized and having a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities. 2. Standards measure the

23 feeling of pressure to improve performance and the degree of pride employees have in doing a good job. 3. Responsibility reflects employees’ feelings of “being their own boss” and not having to double-check decisions with others. 4. Recognition indicates employees’ feelings of being rewarded for a job well done. This is a measure of the emphasis placed on rewards versus criticism and punishment. 5. Support reflects the feeling of trust and mutual support that prevails within a work group. 6. Commitment reflects employees’ sense of pride in belonging to the organization and their degree of commitment to the organization’s goals.” Organizational climate instruments have been developed to indicate levels of shared employee commitment for the purpose of assisting administrators to better understand prevailing employee attitudinal perceptions. According to Ashkanasy, et al., the term organizational climate “is used to describe configurations of attitudes and perceptions by organization members that, in combination, reflect a substantial part of the context of which they are a part and within which they work. It is usually conceived of as being structurally realist, deductive, and based on survey methods (2000, p. 8).” Furthermore he states that “following from the dimensions of climate surveys, climate can be broken down into various aspects corresponding to organizational behavior topics such as leadership, group dynamics, job characteristics, and satisfaction (2000, p. 8) .” It must be remembered that while the “results of the survey can provide a broad characterization of school climate. No one model or instrument will accurately

24 characterize all elements of a school's culture or climate (Stolp & Smith, 1995, p. 48).” It is important that any administrator endeavor to analyze an organization from as many perspectives as possible in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the organization.

25 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This chapter will consider the research methodology, the type and number of respondants surveyed, the research instrument used in the study, data collection, and the statistical analysis of the data. 3.2 Methodology This study is descriptive in nature in so far as it only describes, for the benefit of administrators, what perceptions exist and not why they exist. In order to achieve the research objectives, a School Climate Profile Survey provides data on the perceptions of eleven climate factors that, upon analyses, will provide valuable information on the research questions in this study. Attitudinal perceptions arise from subjective individual employee (administrators, staff, and teachers) experiences within the organizational environment. It is assumed that the survey of select climate factors in this survey will provide the following valuable information to school administrators. i. Descriptive information on how current employee climate perceptions (“what is” responses) align with organizational culture across and within employee role groups. This information is valuable because it may reveal potential inconsistencies of alignment. ii. Descriptive information on how current climate perceptions align with expected perceptions (“what ought to be” responses) across

26 and within employee role groups. This information is valuable because it may reveal potential misunderstanding of alignment. The conceptual framework for this study was derived from “The Charles Kettering Ltd. School Climate Profile” (Johnson & Johnson, 1992), and the instrument used has been adapted to the unique educational context of the institutions under study. Another important aspect of the instrument used in this study is underscored in the following statement. “The critical issue in conducting perceived climate studies is to select from among the many aspects of organizational life that could be addressed and then to determine what to do with data that often presents mixed results. The comparison of actual and ideal views reflecting the differences between perceived reality and expectation is often the most informative contrast.” (Peterson & Spencer, 1990) This study attempts to compare perceptions of ‘what is’ (actual view) and ‘what should be’ (ideal or expected view); thereby, providing a descriptive “informative contrast” for ongoing assessment by administrators. Finally, a successfully conducted pilot study using an almost identical instrument was undertaken on a single similarly unique educational institution. 3.3 Determining Population and Sample Size 3.3.1 Population The survey population in this study refers to current actively serving administrators, teachers, and staff at four Seventh-day Adventist schools in Thailand. A total of 400 individuals were working in the year 2019.

27 3.3.2 Sample Size The sample size for respondents was calculatedbased on Yamane’s formula (Yamane, 1967). where, n = the sample size N = the size of population e = the error of 5 percentage points By using Yamane’s formula of sample size with an error 5% and with a confidence coefficient of 95% (Yamane, 1967), the calculation from a population of 400 (previous population approximation) resulted in 200 employees from all four TAM schools. Thus, the sample size of 200 participants will be selected from the total population. The questionnnaires were randomly distributed to 250 participants. However, there were 35 incomplete sets of questionnaires returned by respondents. As a result, there were 215 usable questionnaire respondents for the study. 3.4 Instrumentation Within the rubric of organizational climate, “ interview approaches, fixed-response instruments, and survey techniques are well-understood and commonly used methodologies (Peterson & Spencer, 1990).” One such instrument is “The Charles Kettering Ltd. School Climate Profile (Johnson & Johnson 1992).” Many of the particular climate factors chosen for this study are found in this Climate Profile; however, individual statements within each factor have been changed or modified to

28 reflect the unique conditions of the schools under study. “The Charles F. Kettering Ltd. School Climate Profile has been used by many schools during the past twenty-five years (Stolp & Smith, 1995, p. 48).” In summary, the researcher’s selection of the particular climate factors was based on climate factors from the aforementioned climate profile, on the uniqueness of the institutions under study, personal interest, and factors most applicable to the schools being surveyed. One of the climate factors unique to the institutiions under study is ‘Spirituality’. Historical forces and the external environment (Stinger, 2002, p. 13) are potential climate dimensions that are not addressed in this research study. For the purposes of this study the following questionnaire (see Appendix A) is used as the research instrument. The questionnaire is comprised of 3 parts. The first part of the questionnaire consists of the demographic information of the respondents. The second part of the questionnaire consists of statements pertaining to the organizational climate of the school. Respondents are asked to select from a scale number that best describes their perception of the statements regarding “what the current situation at the respondents school is like” and “what the situation at the respondents school should be”. The respondents are asked to rate their perceptions of the questions based on a four-point Likert scale (Lozano, García-Cueto, Muñiz, 2008). In the third part of the questionnaire, respondents are asked to provide open-ended comments about the strongest and weakness aspects of the organizational climate at their institution. The content of the instrument was validated judgmentally by giving it to local experts in order to ascertain its suitability to the local situation. Back translation (translation both ways) was done to ensure the accuracy of the statements in the instrument.

29 3.5 Degree of Perceptual Positivity A positivity of perception will be determined as follows: All statements reflect positive characteristics of select climate factors, the degree of perceptual positivity will, therefore, be determined by the extent to which the employees rank their Likert Scale responses categories (Almost Never, Occassionally, Frequently, and Almost Always). Lozano et al. (2008) has proven that four alternatives is an optimum number in a comparison type test. The reliability and validity decrease with fewer than four alternatives and the psychometric properties of the scale scarcely increase further with more than seven alternatives. 3.6 Likert Scale Cut-Off Points The scoring of questionnaire will be analyzed by using four – points rating scale or four – Likert Scales. The four – point Likert scales are as follows: Almost Always 4 points Frequently 3 points Occasionally 2 points Almost Never 1 point Cut-off points will determe the range of each response category as follows The cut-off points can be calculated from the Class Interval formula as follows:

30 Class Interval = Highest Value – Lowest Value Number of Classes The highest value is 4, the lowest value is 1, and there are 4 classes; therefore, the class interval is -0.75. The cut-off points and their interpretations are as follows. 1.00-1.75 are the cut-off points on the four-point Likert Scale that represent “Almost never” which indicates a low-positive perception of the five positive statements in a particular climate factor category. 1.76-2.50 are the cut-off points on the four-point Likert Scale that represent “Occasionally” which indicates a slightly lowpositive perception of the five positive statements in a particular climate factor category. 2.51-3.25 are the cut-off points on the four-point Likert Scale that represent “Frequently” which indicates a slightly highpositive perception of the five positive statements in a particular climate factor category. 3.26-4.00 are the cut-off points on the four-point Likert Scale that represent “Almost always” which indicates a high-positive perception of the five positive statements in a particular climate factor category.

31 3.7 Organizational Climate Factors The organizational climate factors selected for this study were the following (See Appendix B for further description of details): A. Cohesiveness B. Morale C. Growth D. Trust E. Respect F. Caring G. Spirituality H. Resources I. Conflicts J. Communication K. Problems 3.8 Data Gathering When gathering data for this study, firstly, the researcher requested permission from the chief administrators of Thailand Adventist Mission (TAM) to collect data from schools directly under its jurisdiction. A request to conduct the survey was initially sent to the Executive Secretary of TAM. Following this request, the survey instrument was taken before the Administrative Committee of TAM for a vote of approval. Secondly, the researcher requested permission from the chief administrator of each individual school under study. Paper copies of the instrument were both hand delivered and mailed to schools and distributed as per instructions and at the

32 convenience of each school administrator. The questionnnaires were distributed to 250 respondents in totality. However, there were 35 incomplete sets of questionnaires. Upon completion the researcher collected the completed instruments for data analysis. 3.9 Statistical Treatment All data collected from the responses in the surveys will be tabulated. This data will then subsequently be uploaded to SPSS software and analysed.The surveys will be grouped according to “role group” (Administrator, Staff Member, and Teachers). The sum of the responses given by each individual respondent for each climate factor (“what the situation is currently at the school”) will be tabulated. The mean score for each climate factor will be tabulated by adding all the scores for each category and dividing them by the number of respondents in the role group (administrator, staff member, and teacher). These mean scores will be plotted on a summary sheet for each role group and graphically connected. The means for each role group will be statistically compared with each other by t-test and One-Way ANOVA. The data from all surveys will be summarized into a single summary sheet by averaging the mean scores of each of the role groups. The average of the mean scores will then be plotted into a single summary sheet. As the data is tabulated and displayed the similarities and differences in perception within and between groups will become more apparent. Also, a combined summary of all group roles will provide statistical information regarding a general perception of overall “organizational climate.” With this information in hand, an interpretation can be made as to how these select climate

33 factors appear to have contributed to the degree of perceptual positivity toward organizational climate factors at the schools. The data obtained will then be compared across and within schools to by t-test and One-Way ANOVA to determine the employee perceptions of organizational climate factors. This information in will allow for an interpretation of how these school climate factors appear to have contributed to the degree of perceptual positivity. Finally a description and discussion of the open-ended comments from the survey participants in schools one through School Four will be done. The discussion of the findings from each school will then be presented individually in numerical order followed by a summary of all the schools. Comments will be categorized by climate factor and frequency to determine the ‘strongest aspect’ and the ‘weakest aspect’ perception percentages. These open-ended comment perceptions will be compared across schools and also to statistical analysis findings.

34 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, the results of the study will be presented. This chapter is divided into two sections. The chapter first discusses the findings in relation to the results of the Likert-scale responses which have been quantitatively analysed via descriptive statistics and its relevance to the hypotheses. The second section of the chapter discusses climate factor percentages from each school and also the findings regarding the perceived ‘strongest aspects’ and ‘weakest aspects’ from the open-ended comments follows. At the end of this chapter, the open-ended findings will be be described and compared to the statistical findings. Finally, a summary hypotheses testing will be provided. 4.2 Descriptive Analysis – Demographic Information The personal information retrieved from the sample is comprised of employees data from four Adventist schools regarding their ‘role as employee at the school’, ‘gender’, ‘years of service at the school’, and their ‘religious affiliation’. This information is shown below as follows:

35 Table 1. Demographic Information Variable School Sample (N) Percentage (%) AIMS Korat 23 10.7 Ekamai International School 118 54.9 Chiang Mai Adventist Academy 44 20.5 Adventist Ekamai School 30 14.0 Role Staff Member 34 15.8 Teacher 171 79.5 Administrator 10 4.7 Gender Male 78 36.3 Female 137 63.7 Year of Service Less than 2 years 61 28.4 3-4 years 43 20.0 5-6 years 20 9.3 7-8 years 14 6.5 9-10 years 12 5.6 10 years or more 65 30.2 Religion SDA (Adventist) 169 78.6 Other Christian 10 4.7 Buddhist 32 14.9 Other 4 1.9 Source: Developed for this research Table 1 shows that a large number of participants were from School Two (54.9%). The majority of them were ‘teachers’ (79.5%) and ‘female’ (63.7%). The largest number of respondents served in the school ‘more than 10 years’ (30.2%), followed by ‘less than 2 years’ (28.4) and a range of ‘3 – 4 years’ (20.0%). Most participants were ‘SDA’ (Adventist) (78.6%). There were 14.9% ‘Buddhist’ participants serving in the Adventist schools.

36 4.3 Hypothesis Testing: Level of Overall Organizational Climate )H1( The results of the study in Table 2 show the perceptions of organizational climate in Adventist schools from the perspective of the current situation ‘what is’ and the perception of ‘what should be’. Table 2. Level of Organizational Climate Organizational Climate Factor Current Situation What Should Be Mean S.D. Interpretation Mean S.D. Interpretation Cohesiveness 3.17 .57 Slightly highpositive perception 3.81 .39 High-positive perception Morale 2.90 2.94 .61 Slightly highpositive perception 3.75 .42 High-positive perception Growth .67 Slightly highpositive perception 3.77 .46 High-positive perception Trust 2.85 .67 Slightly highpositive perception 3.71 .50 High-positive perception Respect 3.26 .56 High-positive perception 3.82 .41 High-positive perception Caring 3.17 .59 Slightly highpositive perception 3.80 .42 High-positive perception Spirituality 3.19 .58 Slightly highpositive perception 3.82 .42 High-positive perception Resources 3.10 .59 Slightly highpositive perception 3.83 .41 High-positive perception Conflict 3.00 .70 Slightly highpositive perception 3.79 .44 High-positive perception Communication 3.26 .57 High-positive perception 3.82 .45 High-positive perception Problem Solving 3.06 .68 Slightly highpositive perception 3.81 .45 High-positive perception Note: S.D. = Standard Deviation Source: Developed for this research The expectations of “what should be” were very high in every category of organizational climate (from 3.71 to 3.83). An analysis of data across all four schools based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the overall “What the situation at your should be” mean perception of the climate factors is 3.79. This falls

37 within the cut-off Almost Always/High-Positive range (3.26-4.00( and, therefore, partially supports hypothesis H1.2. An analysis of data from all four schools indicates that the overall “What the current situation at your school is like” perception of the climate factors were high and moderate with a mean of 3.08. This falls within the cut-off Frequently/Slightlypositive range (2.51-3.25( and, therefore, does not fully support hypothesis H1.1: The highest ‘what is’ perceptions of the current organizational climate were ‘respect’ (3.26) and ‘communication’ (3.26). The lowest ‘what is’ perception of current situation of organizational climate was ‘trust’ (2.85). 4.4 Hypothesis Testing :Level of Organizational Climate Within Each School )H2( The results of the study in Table 3 show the perceptions of organizational climate within Adventist schools from the perception of the current situation ‘what is’ and the perception of ‘what should be’.

38 Table 3. Level of Organizational Climate Within Schools Organizational Climate Factor / School Current Situation What Should Be AIMS K. N=23 EIS N=118 CAA N=44 AES N=30 AIMS K. N=23 EIS N=118 CAA N=44 AES N=30 Cohesiveness 3.03 3.02 3.62 3.09 3.87 3.82 3.84 3.65 Morale 2.83 2.75 3.37 2.87 3.87 3.77 3.77 3.57 Growth 3.03 2.77 3.35 2.98 3.88 3.77 3.80 3.65 Trust 2.96 2.77 3.12 2.67 3.90 3.71 3.70 3.56 Respect 3.39 3.16 3.52 3.16 3.96 3.83 3.77 3.74 Caring 3.36 3.06 3.41 3.06 3.89 3.81 3.78 3.73 Spirituality 3.30 3.09 3.53 2.95 3.97 3.81 3.87 3.71 Resources 2.99 3.16 3.20 2.77 3.84 3.87 3.81 3.69 Conflict 3.13 2.83 3.46 2.87 3.97 3.79 3.79 3.63 Communication 3.38 3.18 3.54 3.07 3.97 3.81 3.86 3.71 Problems 3.11 2.89 3.43 3.09 3.91 3.79 3.83 3.75 Average 3.14 2.97 3.41 2.96 3.91 3.80 3.80 3.67 Source: Developed For this Research The expectations of ‘what should be’ within each school were very high in every category of organizational climate (from 3.56 to 3.87). An analysis of data within each of the four schools based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the “What the situation at your should be” falls within the cut-off Almost Always/HighPositive range (3.26-4.00( and, therefore, partially supports hypothesis H2.2. The ‘current perceptions’ within each school were high and moderate (from 2.75 to 3.62). An analysis of data within each of the four schools indicates that the “What the current situation at your school is like” falls within the cut-off Frequently/Slightlypositive range (2.51-3.25( and, therefore, does not fully support hypothesis H2.1.

39 The highest perception of the current organizational climate was School 3 (Average of 3.41). The lowest perception of current situation of organizational climate was School 4 (Average of 2.96). 4.4.1 Data Analysis Findings for School One An analysis of School One data based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the “What the current situation at your school is like” perception of climate factors is 3.14. This is within the ‘Frequently/Slightly-positive’ cut-off range (2.51-3.25). An analysis of the data from School One indicates that the “What the situation at your should be” perception of climate factors is 3.91. This is within the Almost Always/High-Positive category cut-off range (3.26-4.00). ‘Morale’ (2.83), ‘Trust’ (2.96), and ‘Resources’ (2.99) were perceived to be the lowest climate factors by employees in School One. Whereas, ‘Respect’ (3.39), ‘Communication’ (3.38), and ‘Caring’ (3.36) were perceived to be the highest climate factors by employees in School One. 4.4.2 Data Analysis Findings for School Two An analysis of School Two data based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the “What the current situation at your school is like” perception of climate factors is 2.97. This is within the ‘Frequently/Slightly-positive’ cut-off range (2.51-3.25). An analysis of the data from School Two indicates that the “What the situation at your should be” perception of climate factors is 3.80. This is within the Almost Always/High-Positive category cut-off range (3.26-4.00). ‘Morale’ (2.75), ‘Trust’ (2.77), and ‘Growth’ (2.77) were perceived to be the lowest climate factors by

40 employees in School One. Whereas, ‘Respect’ (3.16), ‘Communication’ (3.18), and ‘Resources’ (3.16) were perceived to be the highest climate factors by employees in School Two. 4.4.3 Data Analysis Findings for School Three An analysis of School Three data based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the “What the current situation at your school is like” perception of climate factors is 3.41. This is within the ‘Frequently/Slightly-positive’ cut-off range (2.51-3.25). An analysis of the data from School Three indicates that the “What the situation at your should be” perception of climate factors is 3.80. This is within the Almost Always/High-Positive category cut-off range (3.26-4.00). ‘Resources’ (3.20), ‘Trust’ (3.12), and ‘Growth’ (3.35) were perceived to be the lowest climate factors by employees in School Three. Whereas, ‘Cohesiveness’ (3.62), ‘Spirituality’ (3.53), and ‘Communication’ (3.54) were perceived to be the highest climate factors by employees in School Three. 4.4.4 Data Analysis Findings for School Four An analysis of School Four data based on the aforementioned assumptions (3.6) indicates that the “What the current situation at your school is like” perception of climate factors is 2.96. This is within the ‘Frequently/Slightly-positive’ cut-off range (2.51-3.25). An analysis of the data from School Four indicates that the “What the situation at your should be” perception of climate factors is 3.67. This is within the Almost Always/High-Positive category cut-off range (3.26-4.00). ‘Resources’ (2.77),