Organizational climate and job satisfaction among child care teachers

Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Among Child Care Teachers

Sandra Pope Andrew J. Stremmel

Virg in ia Polytechnic Ins t i tu te a n d State Univers i ty

A B S T R A C T : The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between measures of organizational climate and job satisfaction. Ninety-four child care teachers from 27 licensed child care centers were surveyed. The results suggested that organizational climate, when operationalized as aggregate center climate, and job satisfaction may be dynamically related, yet provide distinct sources of information about the work environment.

Organizational climate, the unique personality of each work setting (Jorde-Bloom, 1986, 1988a), is believed to influence the behavior and attitudes of organization members (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964). Pre- vious research on climate has established its multidimensional and enduring nature (see Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Jorde-Bloom, 1988a, 1989, 1990; Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). Few empirical investigations in child care settings have examined organizational climate; it has been demonstrated that perceptions of climate in child care settings differ with the employee's role in the center (i.e., teacher vs. administrator) and the structural context of the program (e.g., size and legal structure; Jorde-Bloom, 1988b, 1989, 1990).

In business and industry, research has begun to operationalize climate in terms of aggregate climate, which may be a more objective reflection of the climate of an organization. Because climate has only recently come under investigation in child care centers, analysis has not yet centered on aggregate climate and its applications. This study is an attempt to apply organizational research to that done in child

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Andrew J. Stremmel, Family and Child Development, Wallace Hall, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061. The research was con- ducted by the first author as part of a master's thesis under the direction of the second author; an earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago, April 1991.

Child & Youth Care Forum, 21(1), F e b r u a r y 1992 �9 1992 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 39

40 Child & Youth Care F o r u m

care settings. The primary aims of this study were to explore the relationship between aggregate climate and job satisfaction among child care teachers and to provide further validation for the only child care climate scale currently available.

Organizational research has described climate in several ways. Psychological climate refers to an individual's perception of organizational practices and procedures, whereas organizational climate refers to an objective description of the environment (James & Jones, 1974; Jones & James, 1979; Joyce & Slocum, ]982). Psychological climates of employees within an organization can be averaged to reflect the organizational climate. When this is done, the result is labeled aggregate climate. Thus, the construct aggregate climate is one way to operationalize organizational climate.

Joyce and Slocum (1984) maintained that aggregation is justifiable when: a) group consensus between psychological climate scores of individuals in the work group is demonstrated, b) it is possible to differ- entiate different organizations by climate, and c) predictable relationships between climate and related constructs (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover) are found. Joyce and Slocum advocated that all three criteria be met before utilizing aggregate scores, but reported that neither group consensus nor testing for predictable relationships has consis- tently been used as criteria.

Job satisfaction, the positive emotional state which results from evaluating one's job experiences (Locke, 1976), has been found to be related to organizational climate (Davidson, 1979; Downey, Hell- riegel, Phelps, & Slocum, 1974; Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; La- follette & Sims, 1975; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). Most organizational researchers agree that job satisfaction and organizational climate are conceptually different constructs (Field & Abelson, 1982; Lafollette & Sims, 1975; Payne, Fineman, & Wall, 1976; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Johannesson (1973), however, stated that participant perceptions of climate may be indistinguishable from their evalua- tions of their satisfaction.

Investigating the relationship between climate and satisfaction, Schneider and Snyder (1975) found that the respondents agreed more on the climate of their organization than on their satisfaction and that those who described climate more positively were not always more satisfied, providing support for their assumption that climate scales measure different aspects of the work environment than do satisfaction scales. Payne et al. (1976) pointed out that while organizational climate and job satisfaction do have similar factors, they are not the same construct, nor is climate merely a variant of job satisfaction. Payne and his associates, after examining Johannesson's (1973) and Schneider and Snyder's (1975) studies, stated, "the concepts of

Sandra Pope and Andrew J. Stremmel 41

organizational climate and job satisfaction are different and no amount of empirical similarity makes them conceptually the same" (p. 46). The problem seems to be one of measurement. As Payne et al. (1976) pointed out, it is not always possible to determine whether an item measures climate or satisfaction just by looking at the item.

Researchers must carefully consider the nature and format of both climate and satisfaction scales. While it is clear that organizational climate and job satisfaction are conceptually different, those investigating these constructs have not fully solved the problem of opera- tional redundancy. In order to keep the constructs operationally distinct, the unit of analysis for climate must be the organization (Downey et al., 1974; Guion, 1973; Howe, 1977; Lafollette & Sims, 1975; Payne et al. (1976); Schneider & Snyder, 1975). In addition, the instructions on perceptual climate scales should stress to respondents the importance of describing rather than evaluating the environment (Guion, 1973; Lafollette & Sims, 1975; Payne et al.; Schnake, 1983; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). Finally, use of aggregate, rather than perceptual, climate scores may reduce the likelihood of opera- tional redundancy as well.

Although early childhood researchers have only recently begun examining organizational climate in child care settings (Jorde-Bloom, 1988c; Kontos & Stremmel, 1988; Stremmel, 1991), evidence suggests that a relationship between climate and satisfaction exists in the child care setting (Jorde-Bloom, 1988a, 1988b, 1989). The purpose of this study was to further explore child care organizational climate, and its relationship to job satisfaction, using Joyce and Slocum's (1984) criteria.

Method

Subject Selection and Sample Characteristics

One-half of the child care centers in Virginia licensed for 100 or more children (n = 108) were invited to participate in this study. Directors from 35 centers (32%) indicated interest, generating a nonrandom sample. A total of 495 questionnaires were sent, with instructions for respondents to send completed forms directly to the principal investigator. One hundred forty questionnaires from 27 centers were completed and returned. Of these, 94 contained useable data.

The survey included questions about demographic characteristics, turnover rates, number of children enrolled and center type as well as questions pertaining to job satisfaction and organizational climate. The demographic information gathered included the teacher's sex,

42 Chi ld & Youth Care F o r u m

age, tenure, salary level, benefits and educational level. All of the respondents who reported their sex were female. Table 1 shows other descriptive statistics about the sample. The nonrandom sampling method produced a somewhat biased sample. About two-thirds of the sample were teachers, with the rest being assistant teachers; possible limitations of this bias will be discussed in a later section.

Measures

Job facet satisfaction was measured using the five subscales of Jorde-Bloom's (1988d) Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey (ECJSS), which measures satisfaction with co-worker relations, supervisor relations, the nature of the work itself, opportunities for pay and promotion, and working conditions. Although Jorde-Bloom suggested using a yes/no format with this survey, the format was changed to a six point Likert scale to allow respondents to show more degrees of affect (Davidson, 1979; Kerlinger, 1973). Respondents rated each statement according to the strength of their agreement (6 = strongly agree) or disagreement (1 = strongly disagree) with it. The 10 items for each facet subscale were summed and averaged to create mean facet scores for each respondent. These mean facet scores were used in the analyses; the possible range for subscale means was 1 to 6. A low score (1-3) represents dissatisfaction with a particular facet, whereas a high score (4~6) represents satisfaction with it. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for each facet ranged from .74 (the work itselD to .87 (co-worker relations).

Organizational climate was measured using Jorde-Bloom's (1988e) Early Childhood Work Environments Survey (ECWES), which as- sesses climate along ten dimensions: collegiality, professional growth, supervisor support, clarity, reward system, decision-making, goal consensus, task orientation, physical setting and innovativeness. The ECWES consists of ten descriptive statements (both positive and negative) for each dimension. Respondents check all the statements that describe that aspect of their work environment. While variation in job satisfaction is desired, an objective picture of the organizational climate is preferred; therefore, the suggested dichotomous format was used, resulting in a possible range of 0-10. Low scores (0-5) represent negative perceptions of climate, while high scores (6-10) represent positive perceptions of climate. Internal consistency reliability (Cron- bach's alpha) for each dimension ranged from .65 (reward system) to .78 (professional growth).

An aggregate climate score for each center was derived by averag- ing the scores of respondents for each center. The aggregate climate score was then assigned to each individual in that center. Since all


Table 1 Characterist ics of the Sample (n = 94)

Position (%) Teacher 67 Assistant Teacher 33

Coursework in Early Childhood Education/Child Development (%) High School level 60 Child Development Associate Credential 7 Associate Degree 10 Bachelor's Degree 16 Master's Degree 3 Other 4

Length of time in child care work (%) Less than one year 9 One to three years 24 Four to six years 31 Seven to ten years 17 Eleven or more years 19

Mean length of time in present job (months) 41.3 Mean age (years) 33.8 Salary Ranges (%)

under $5,000 9 $5,000 to 7,999 34 $8,000 to 10,999 32 $11,000 to 13,999 11 $14,000 and over 14

Benefits Received (%) Paid Sick Days 86 Paid Holidays 85 Paid Vacation 81 Breakfast or Lunch 58 Partial or Fully Paid Health Insurance 50 Reduced Tuition for your Child 43 Life Insurance 37 Partial or Fully Paid Dental Insurance 36 Retirement or Pension Plan 27 Paid Maternity or Paternity Leave 10

Legal structure (%) For-profit 40 Not-for-profit 60

NAEYC accreditation status (%) Accredited 26 Not accredited 74

44 Child & Youth Care Forum

the respondents in a given center had the same aggregate climate score (N = 27), variation on this factor was restricted.

Additionally, turnover was measured in order to investigate its relationship with organizational climate. Turnover was assessed by asking directors to report the number of teachers and assistant teachers who had left the center in the past year and to specify whether the teacher had been dismissed, laid off, or had left volun- tarily. Each center's turnover score (the number of teachers/assistant teachers who had left) was assigned to each respondent from that center. Correlations were then performed to examine the relationship between a center's climate and its turnover. Because both turnover and aggregate climate are characteristics of centers, ra ther than individuals, the sample size for these correlations was 27.

Results

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations and range of scores for job satisfaction facets and organizational climate dimensions. Re- spondents in this sample were slightly to moderately satisfied with their jobs. In fact, the only facet in which respondents reported they were slightly dissatisfied was Pay~Promotion. The highest source of satisfaction was The Work Itself. Aggregate climate scores reflected a variety of perceptions about the workplace. Although the theoretical range was 0-100, the lowest aggregate score was 40. Similarly, the actual range for dimension scores was narrower than the theoretical range. Supervisor Support was rated highest (M = 7.8, SD = 1.1), while Professional Growth was rated lowest (M = 5.9, SD = 2.0) among child care teachers in this sample.

Validity of aggregate climate scores was evaluated according to the three guidelines discussed earlier (Joyce & Slocum, 1984). First, climate and satisfaction were examined to determine whether they were operationally distinct constructs. It was expected that these variables would be positively yet only modestly related. The Pearson product- moment correlation between aggregate center climate and overall satisfaction scores was .47 (p < .001). Intercorrelations among the variables making up both measures are reported in Table 3.

A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation generating two factors was performed combining items from both the climate and job satisfaction instruments, to further test the discrimi- nant validity of the two measures. The first factor generated was largely composed of items from the climate measure, while the second factor was primarily composed of items from the satisfaction measure, confirming acceptance of the first hypothesis.


Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Range of Scores for Job

Satisfaction and Aggregate Climate Measures

Variable Possible Actual (average mean scores) M SD Range Range

Job Satisfaction (sum score)* 21.3 3.6 5-30 5-29 Coworkers 4.34 1.4 1-6 1-6 Pay/Promotion 3.20 1.30 1-6 1-6 Supervisor Support 4.47 1.25 1-6 1-6 The Work Itself 4.51 1.05 1-6 1-6 Working Conditions 4.22 0.96 1-6 1-6

Aggregate Climate (sum score) 65.0 10.7 0-100 40-84 Staff Relations 6.8 1.3 0-10 3-10 Professional Growth 5.9 2.0 0-10 3-10 Supervisor Support 7.7 1.1 0-10 3-10 Reward System 6.2 1.2 0-10 3-8 Decision-making 6.3 1.6 0-10 3-9 Goal Consensus 6.3 1.4 0-10 3-9 Task Orientation 6.8 1.5 0-10 2-9 Physical Setting 7.5 1.1 0-10 3-10 Clarity 6.1 1.4 0-10 4-9 Innovativeness 6.7 1.3 0-10 4-10

*Means derived from a 6 point scale (1 = s t rongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = sl ightly disagree, 4 = sl ight ly agree, 5 = moderately agree, 6 = s t rongly agree). n = 94

As a further means of testing Joyce and Slocum's (1984) criterion that predictable relationships between climate and other constructs would be found--the relationship between climate and turnover was examined. It was expected that there would be a negative correlation between climate and turnover. Although turnover scores ranged from 0 to 13 for each of the 27 centers, no significant correlation between climate and turnover was found using the Pearson product-moment correlation procedure.

Group consensus was tested using a one-way analysis of variance, following Howe (1977), who inferred group consensus when there was greater variance between than within centers. For this analysis, only centers which had four or more respondents (nine centers) were used. The independent variable was the center; the dependent variable was individual climate scores. No significant difference in the amount of variance attributable to differences between centers, as opposed to differences within centers, was found.

c~

c~

~o

~o ~o q~

c~

i

q ~

~s

o~ oo

Tm~

r ~

w~ f~ ~l~ o 0

~ ct~ EI~

v

II

v

v

II


As a final means of examining the validity of the climate measure, the data were examined for differences in climate between different types of centers. A 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed to assess contrasts in the climates of for-profit and not-for-profit centers and between centers accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and those not accredited. For the ANOVA, the dimension scores were the dependent variables while legal structure and accreditation status were the independent variables. Post- hoc Scheffe comparisons of the mean scores were applied following the ANOVA. Not-for-profit centers scored significantly higher than for-profit centers for the overall climate and for the following dimension scores: Professional Growth, Reward System, Goal Consensus and Task Orientation. Centers accredited by NAEYC rated significantly higher than those not accredited for the following dimensions: Deci- sion-making, Goal Consensus, Physical Setting and Clarity. No significant interactions were found for either over dimension scores. Table 4 reports means and F scores for the main effects.

Discuss ion

This study adds to a growing knowledge base of child care climate research by applying Joyce and Slocum's (1984) guidelines to test the validity of using aggregate climate as a measure of organizational climate in child care centers. Further, it examined contrasts in the climates of centers accredited by NAEYC and those not accredited and between for-profit centers and not-for-profit centers.

Results of both correlational and factor analyses indicated that organizational climate and satisfaction represent operationally distinct yet related constructs. Consistent with earlier correlational research (Jorde-Bloom, 1989), this suggests that the constructs of organizational climate and job satisfaction provide different sources of information about the work environment. It seems that aggregate climate provides information about center attributes, while job satisfaction provides data regarding individuals. Thus, climate measures should be used when information regarding the center as a whole is needed. Satisfaction measures will be more appropriate for examining individual at t i tudes about centers and specific aspects of the job. A director who wishes to bolster the climate of his/her center may solicit information about the current climate from the employees. Aggregat- ing their responses will provide the director with information on which aspects of the environment hinder the climate and should be altered. Improving the climate may have the additional result of in- creasing job satisfaction.

o

0

<

N

r~

o

H ~ �9 I I

~ ~ 6 ~ 6 ~ ev

~ II

~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~-~ . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ v


Investigation of organizational climate according to Joyce and Slocum's (1984) guidelines provided partial support for the use of aggregate climate scores. Analysis of the relationship of climate to other constructs was inconclusive. Although the expected positive correlation with job satisfaction was found, the expected negative correlation with turnover was not found. The small sample size may have con- tributed to the absence of significant results. It should be noted that Jorde-Bloom (1990) did find a negative climate-turnover correlation.

No significant difference in the amount of between-centers, as opposed to within-centers variance was found. Since group consensus cannot be inferred when within-centers variance is as great as between centers variance, Joyce and Slocum's criterion that group consensus within centers would be demonstrated was not supported by this study. However, there are several methodological limitations to this study that warrant caution in interpreting the results. First, there were only 94 useable responses from the 27 centers that partici- pated. In many cases, there were less than four respondents in a given center. It is not known whether a center's climate score would have changed significantly with more respondents. Given the self report nature of the study, it is probable that some bias is inherent-- although it is not known what direction this bias might have taken. As discussed previously, this sample had twice as many teachers as assistant teachers. Again, this bias may have had an impact on the results.

Variation in perceived climate among different center types sup- ports acceptance of the validity according to Joyce and Slocum's (1984) second criterion. Directors of for-profit centers in particular should examine the extent to which they foster goal consensus among staff because, as Jorde-Bloom (1986) pointed out, the staffs ability to agree on organizational goals and objectives is a key factor in their ability to carry them out. The value placed on staff development, or professional growth, should be examined also. Staff inservice training and opportunities to attend conferences benefit both the staff and the organization, as they may enhance job satisfaction as well as increase the quality of service provided to the organization. The emphasis placed on task orientation, and on planning and working toward goals (Moos, 1974), should be examined as well. Paid planning time (Krueger, 1986) may be well worth the added expense.

Fair distribution of pay, policies about tenure, promotion and job security are characteristics of the dimension reward system. Directors may feel discouraged about their ability to improve teacher satisfaction with the existing reward system. This research does confirm pre- vious findings on the relationship between low salaries and job satisfaction. Even with low salaries, however, pay should be distributed

50 Child & Youth Care F o r u m

fairly, as should promotions. Directors can also recognize teachers for a job well done.

Within all centers, but especially those not accredited by NAEYC, care should be taken that roles and expectations for staff are explic- itly defined and that all written communication is clear. Directors should examine their supervisory behavior to see if they are being supportive of their staff, that is, they should examine the helpfulness and quantity of feedback given to the teachers (Jorde-Bloom, 1988a; Krueger, 1986). Directors should also examine whether they are fos- tering group decision-making in center-wide decisions as well as giv- ing teachers autonomy regarding their own classroom (Jorde-Bloom, 1989). To the extent possible, directors should make an effort to enhance the physical setting and make efficient use of space, as these variables may affect children's behavior, which then affects the teacher's ability to accomplish program goals (Jorde-Bloom, 1986).

Future research should attempt to replicate this study with a larger sample size, including a greater percentage of responses within centers. In addition, future research should examine the congruence between aggregate climate and objective scales, or expert perceptions, of organizational Climate, as a further means of testing congruent validity of the measure. Further research should also examine the relationship between aggregate climate and program quality. Investi- gation of this relationship may focus on whether climate is a compo- nent of overall program quality or merely a related construct. Cer- tainly when program quality measures are validated, aggregate climate should be measured to examine for convergent/divergent validity. The link between climate and quality is especially of interest in light of climate's relationship with NAEYC accreditation status. The dimensions professional development and physical setting are fully represented in the NAEYC Accreditation Guidelines (NAEYC, 1985). The guidelines also include items relating to the dimensions supervisor support, reward system, decision-making, goal consensus, and clarity, but do not fully reflect the scope of these dimensions. The items pertaining to the dimensions collegiality, task orientation, and innovativeness are not included in the guidelines. Clarification of the relationship between accreditation status and aggregate climate could have implications for expanding the accreditation process.

Regarding the instrument used, the results of this study suggest that some of the dimensions of climate may not be distinct from one another. That is, the intercorrelations among several of the dimensions exceeded .70 (e.g. collegiality and supervisor support; reward system and goal consensus; reward system and innovativeness; and goal consensus and task orientation). Further investigation regarding the distinctness of the dimensions is warranted.


Finally, researchers should also continue to investigate the relationship between climate and turnover. This study did not differenti- ate between voluntary turnover due to pregnancy, health, relocation or career change, for example. Perhaps analysis of the relationship between climate and reasons for turnover would produce different results.

By analyzing child care climate in a way not previously done, this study strengthens our understanding of the climate of child care centers. Although there are some methodological limitations to this study, it raises several interesting research questions and highlights directions for future child care climate research. It is hoped that future researchers will attempt to eliminate the stated limitations and answer the questions raised. Although a complete understanding of child care climate and its relationship with job satisfaction has yet to be reached, analysis of this data yielded a number of suggestions directors of child care centers can implement to increase the climate of their centers. Suggestions focused on the dimensions goal consensus, decision-making, professional growth, task orientation, reward system, and clarity, as these were the dimensions for which differences in climate were found.

R e f e r e n c e s

Davidson, W. L. (1979). How to develop and conduct successful employee attitude sur- veys. Chicago: Dartnell Corporation.

Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps, M., & Slocum, J. W. (1974). Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 2, 233-248.

Field, R. H. G., & Abelson, M. A. (1982). Climate: A reconceptualization and proposed model. Human Relations, 35, 181-201.

Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. H. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382.

Friedlander, F., & Margulies, N. (1969). Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22, 171-183.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 120-125.

Howe, J. G. (1977). Group climate: An exploratory analysis of construct validity. Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 106-120.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112.

Jehannesson, R. E. (1973). Some problems in the measurement of organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 118-144.

Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 201-250.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1986). Improving the quality of work life: A guide for enhancing organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Evanston, IL: Early Childhood Professional Development Project.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988a). A great place to work: Improving conditions for staff in young children's programs. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.

52 Chi ld & Youth Care F o r u m

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988b). Closing the gap: An analysis of teacher and administrator perceptions of organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 111-120.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988c). Factors influencing overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment in early childhood work environments. Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 3(2), 107-122.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988d). Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey. Evanston, IL: Early Childhood Professional Development Project.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988e). Early Childhood Work Environment Survey. Evanston, IL: Early Childhood Professional Development Project.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1989). Measuring work attitudes in the early childhood setting: Tech- nical manual for the Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey and Early Childhood Work Environment Survey. Evanston, IL: Early Childhood Professional Develop- ment Project.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1990). Organizational climate in child care settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Boston, April, 1990.

Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1982). Climate discrepancy: Refining the concepts of psychological and organizational climate. Human Relations, 35, 951-972.

Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721-742.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

Kontos, S., & Stremmel, A. J. (1988). Caregivers' perceptions of working conditions in a child care environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(1), 77-91.

Krueger, M. A. (1986). Job satisfaction for child and youth care workers. Washington: Child Welfare League of America.

Lafollette, W. R., & Sims, H. P. (1975). Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 257-278.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and clarification of human environments: An overview. In R. H. Moos and R. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus. Pale Alto: National Press Books.

NAEYC (1985). Guide to accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Author. Payne, R. L., Fineman, S., & Wall, T. D. (1976). Organizational climate and job satis-

faction: A conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 45-62.

Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affective response in the measurement of organizational climate. Personnel Psychology, 36, 791-807.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 36, 19-39.

Schneider, B., & Snyder, R. A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318-328.

Stremmel, A. J. (1991). Predictors of intention to leave child care work. Early Child- hood Research Quarterly, 6, 285-298.

Documents

Organizational climate and job satisfaction among child care teachers