The Associations between Organizational Communication and Organizational Climate
in Universities
Baris Uslu
The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, [email protected]
Hasan Arslan
The American University, Washington DC, USA, [email protected]
1. Introduction
Recent changes such as mass education, globalization, commercialization, managerialism and
internationalization in higher education area have resulted in universities becoming
entrepreneurial organizations. In modern universities, the major human resource is academics
who contribute to entrepreneurial structures by different activities within teaching, research
and service in their institutions. Therefore, academics are expected to fulfil many duties and
responsibilities such as generating innovative teaching methods, bringing external grants and
funds, joining international scholarly networks, leading collaboration with industrial and
governmental institutions, contributing to the social well-being by using their expertise, etc
(Welch, 2005). For actualization of these duties and responsibilities which affect the success
of universities directly, the most critical determinant is the work environment of academics
within their universities (Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure & Meek, 2013).
The prior factor influencing academics’ opinions related to the efficacy of their
working environment is their general perceptions about their organizations, which is called
‘organizational climate’ (Özdede, 2010). The organizational climate in universities is
composed of factors related to autonomy, cohesion, trust, pressure, support, recognition,
fairness, innovation and collegiality (McMurray & Scott, 2013; Schulz, 2013). The
perceptions of academics about these variables are influenced by the quality of organizational
communication in terms of the opportunities to share ideas, emotions, requests and desires
among people in universities throughout open and sincere communication channels in
multiway (Arabacı, 2011). Therefore, the effective communication systems in universities can
motivate academics to accomplish their duties and responsibilities with a higher performance
by contributing the formation of more collegial and positive climate in universities.
Although these associations between organizational communication and
organizational climate have been emphasized in many studies (Martin & Uddin, 2006), there
are limited studies about the relations between communication and climate within universities
in the literature. Hence, to understand the impact of mutual relationship between
communication and climate on academic productivity in universities, it is important to trace
these relations in the literature on higher education. In this regard, the detection of the studies
which have provided empirical evidence related to the associations between communication
and climate in universities is the subject of this research. Before examining these studies, to
elaborate the potential relations, brief information about organizational communication and
organizational climate in universities is presented below.
2. Organizational Communication
Human beings as a part of community have a special skill to create a better personal
understanding of themselves and their environment, to establish harmonious relations with
others and to benefit from the knowledge which is mankind’s heritage. This skill is called
Human’s Communication Power and communication is described as sharing emotions, ideas
and information between at least two people using different tools and methods (Keskin-Vural,
2012; Yüksel, 2013). According to this definition, communication has some core elements,
and these are Sender, Message, Coding, Channel, Receiver and Feedback (Harris & Nelson,
2008).
Figure 1. Interaction between sender and receiver in communication
On the other hand, organizations such as institutions, companies, foundations, clubs,
parties, hospitals and schools are established by people to reach their common goals, so they
have to communicate with others in organizations, sometimes as a sender or a receiver. This
mutual interplay is called Organizational Communication and defined as; sharing information,
emotions, savviness and approaches within messages among units and employees in
organizations by using all kind of tools and equipment as channels (Aydın, 2005). Some
organizations, especially universities as the largest educational institutions, cover so many
interactions between people that they must have powerful communication structures to
continue to accomplish their missions effectively (Beytekin & Arslan, 2013; Nordin, 2013).
Organizations can survive much longer if their structures support three ways of
communications which are top-down, bottom-up and horizontal communications. Besides,
communication channels have to cover both formal and informal communication
opportunities to access all types of information from inside and outside of the organizations
(Baron, 2006; Çetinkanat & Sağnak, 2010). All of these ways and channels are used to
achieve the main purpose of organizational communications, that is to contribute to the
coordination of works, problem solving, information sharing and conflict management (Polat
& Arslan, 2004). For this purpose, organizational communication comprises functions like
generating goals and standards, transferring facts and information, making decisions,
influencing and leading others, and evaluating the results (Hoy & Miskel, 2010).
3. Organizational Climate
Although there are many different definitions for organization in the literature which are
based on several aspects like common interests, distribution of power, coordination of
people’s efforts or sharing information among people, the generally accepted definition is a
hierarchical structure in which people interact with each other around common purposes and
resources, and authorization and communication occur between people depending on their
official positions within the organization’s unique culture and climate (Barnard, 1994; Etzoni,
1964; Schein, 1970 cited by Karadağ, Baloğlu, Korkmaz & Çalışkan, 2008). According to this
definition, one of the primary characteristics giving dissimilar identities to organizations is the
general atmosphere in the organization, termed Organizational Climate. Litwin & Stringer
(1968 cited by Aydın, 2005) described the organizational climate as the subjective effects of
the formal structure of an organization, which is a social system composed of people,
managers’ official or unofficial behavior styles and environmental factors, on associates’
attitudes, beliefs, values and motives.
In another recent definition, “Organizational climate is the meanings and evaluations
that individuals give to the various processes and structures in their work environment, such
as the meanings attached to jobs, co-workers, leaders, pay, performance expectations,
promotion opportunities and equity of treatment” (Schulz, 2013, p. 466). According to
Mullins (2007), organizational climate as the general atmosphere surrounding an organization
consists of the power of employees’ belonging, interest, feelings of goodwill and morale
level. Such perceptions of employees are influenced by factors like organizational structure,
management support, rewards, taking risks, participation in decision-making,
communications, conflicts, a sense of belonging, acceptance team work and organizational
image (Arabacı, 2011).
All these organizational or personal factors behind the climate affect organizational
performance besides employees’ individual efforts. In higher education institutions, for
instance, “organisational climate may either facilitate staff participation and effectiveness in
teaching, research and scholarly activities or create barriers to this participation” (McMurray
& Scott, 2013, p. 962). Similarly, in all organizations, climate can be supportive or
prohibitive, open or closed, healthy or unhealthy, positive or negative. Thus, the types of the
climate in organizations should be known, in order to increase the contributions of
organizational conditions in employees’ perceptions related to their satisfaction with
organizational performance as well as their individual performance.
4. Organizational Communication and Organizational Climate in Universities
Organizational climate is mostly defined as the general atmosphere surrounding organizations
based on employees’ perceptions, and its types are named dually like two ends of a straight
line as Negative-Positive, Closed-Open, Restrictive-Supportive or Unhealthy-Healthy
(Memduhoğlu & Şeker, 2010; Stringer, 2002). A supportive climate comprises multi-ways
communication channels for open and sincere interactions among administrators and
employees, and a healthy climate emphasizes the existence of effective communication
networks in organizations (Korkmaz, 2011; Mullins, 2007). Especially in organizations with
intensive human relations like educational institutions, organizational climate reflects the
internal and external relationship processes, work methods and physical structure, the web of
communication channels, staff’s identities and authority usage styles (Karadağ et al., 2008;
Martin & Uddin, 2006). Leaders, thus, should create a democratic climate in schools to
support the participation of stakeholders in decision making, collaboration between units,
easy access to information, quick delivery of demands and needs, sharing ideas, concerns and
emotions between administrators and teachers by powerful formal communication frames
besides informal communication practices (Hoy & Miskel, 2010; Karadağ & Öner, 2012). As
a result, school leaders, by means of open communication and positive climate, can increase
teachers’ commitment, trust and feelings of collegiality besides job satisfaction, so they can
contribute directly and indirectly to students’ happiness and success in schools (Aypay, Taş &
Boyacı, 2012; Shockley-Zalabak & Ellis, 2000).
Likewise, organizational communication is the reflection of organizational climate and
also the moulder of it, and even a dimension of climate in higher education institutions
(McMurray & Scott, 2013; Şimşek, 2011). In universities as the most complex educational
organization, effective formal and informal communication initiatives can provide sharing
organizational vision and common goals among units, informing stakeholders about ongoing
processes and different operations, exchanging opinions between senior and junior members,
establishing collegial discussion platforms and forming interdisciplinary cooperation
(Alipour, 2011; Balcı-Bucak, 2002). Therefore, well-functioning organizational
communication networks in universities contribute to the creation of a positive climate as
more open, sincere, collegial, supportive, participative, democratic, reassuring and transparent
(Gülnar, 2007; Kezar & Sam, 2013). Moreover, alternative communication channels not only
facilitate collegial sharing but also expedite the interactions between academics and students,
so that academics can help their students’ more efficient development as well as their
colleagues’ advancement in academia by their role model behaviors, mentoring and
stewardship activities (Austin & McDaniels, 2006b; Kezar, Lester, Carducci, Bertram-Gallant
& Contreras-Mcgavin, 2007; Seçkin, Aypay & Apaydın, 2014). As a result, a positive climate
with effectual communication in universities influences favorably academics’ intention to
stay, commitment to their institutions, participation in decision-making processes, taking
responsibilities in organizational practices, collaborative and interdisciplinary studies, work
performance and job satisfaction (Akman, Kelecioğlu & Bilge, 2006; Campbell & O’Meara,
2014; Kezar, 2013; 2014; O’Meara, Lounder & Campbell, 2014).
5. Method
The purpose of the research is to detect the studies propounding empirical evidence about the
association between organizational communication and organizational climate in universities.
For this purpose, the research was designed as literature review study which helps readers “to
be able to see that research question has been investigated by others over a period of years and
may be convinced that it is a problem worthy of further investigation” (Ary, Cheser-Jacobs,
Razavieh & Sorensen, 2006, p. 572). In this research, the literature review about
communication and climate in universities is limited to articles written between 2000 and
2014 in SSCI, ERIC, EBSCOhost and ULAKBİM indexes.
As a first step, the researchers searched articles in these indexes by using some
keywords: organizational communication and organizational climate in universities,
organizational communication and climate in universities, communication and organizational
climate in universities, communication and climate in universities. In next step, the literature
review was expanded by other keywords: organizational communication and organizational
climate, organizational communication and climate, communication and organizational
climate, communication and climate. The researchers then decided to broaden the review of
literature in the third step by shorter keywords: organizational communication, organizational
climate, communication, climate. During this review, the researchers accessed over a hundred
studies. At this point, the first elimination of the studies was made based on their
methodology and only quantitative studies were included in the sample of the research. In the
second elimination of the studies about organizational communication and organizational
climate, the samples in these studies were used as a criterion, and the researchers took into
account the studies which have samples composed of people in universities. After these
elimination steps, a limited number of studies about communication and climate in
universities were accessed, which are explicated in the next part of the research.
6. Findings
During the literature review, the researchers could not access any study which
investigates directly the relationship between organizational communication and
organizational climate in universities. However, there is only one study in the reviewed
literature which examines the relation between communication skills of managers and
organizational climate in physical higher education institutions. In addition, the researchers
found several studies about climate of a faculty or university in Turkey which cover some
connections with communication in higher education institutions. All of these studies are
presented below with brief information related to their results about associations between
communication and climate in tertiary education organizations.
Alipour (2011) carried out the study about communication skills of managers and
organizational climate in physical higher education organizations (PHEOs). In this study, he
explored the relations between three main communication skills (verbal, listening and
feedback) of managers and organizational climate. The study was performed as quantitative
research, and two different instruments, developed by Deep & Sussman (1989) for
organizational climate and Burton (1993) for communication skills, were applied to all the
staff, executive managers and deputies of the PHEOs across Iran (as cited in Alipour, 2011, p.
423). The questionnaire of the study consists of 20 items with 5 Point Rank related to
organizational climate and 18 items with 5 Point Rank about communication skills, and high
scores indicated desirable conditions in organizations. He made data analysis with 77
questionnaires and calculated low level perception of organizational climate
( =2.39=[47,80/20]) and medium level perception of communication skills
( =3.18=[57,23/18]) in Iranian PHEOs. A significant and positive correlation was found
between communication skills of managers and organizational climate (r=.49; p≤.01); there
was no significant differences between perceptions of staff related to communication skills
and organizational climate according to their gender, position, educational level and work
experiences (Alipour, 2011). These results indicated that there is a strong relationship,
according to all staff who have different demographic specifications and educational
backgrounds, between the communication skills of managers and organizational climate, thus,
administrators’ communication skills are important to establish well-functioning
communication channels which contribute to forming a desirable climate in educational
organizations.
In his study about organizational climate of Fırat University, Turkey, Arabacı (2011)
developed the Organizational Climate Assessment Scale (OCAS) to examine the climate of
the university. He carried out the validity (KMO=.93; Bartlett’s test value=4859.339 at p=.00)
and reliability (α=.93) analysis of OCAS based on the data of 273 staff from different units in
Fırat University; OCAS then became 31 items in 5 Point Interval under 4 dimensions:
Organizational Structure, Organizational Communication and Participating in Decision
Making, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Conflict. He also investigated the
significant differences on organizational climate perceptions of these staff in regard to their
age, gender, marital status, seniority, officer (academician, lecturer, official, technical staff,
servant, nurse), status (manager/employee). He found that the mean of organizational climate
perception of staff in the university was in moderate level ( =2.82), and there were significant
differences in the staff’s perception of the climate at Organizational Conflict dimension in
terms of their age, at Organizational Structure, Organizational Communication and
Participating in Decision Making and Organizational Conflict in terms of their officer roles,
and at Organizational Structure and Organizational Communication and Participating in
Decision Making in terms of their status. Arabacı (2011), hereby, concluded that
communication and participation processes in universities are some of the most important
aspects of organizational climate, and they have a very powerful influence especially on the
climate perception of early career academics and support staff.
Balcı-Bucak (2002), in her study, aimed to examine the organizational climate in one
faculty of a university. For this purpose, she dealt with Organizational Climate in Faculty of
Education, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey in terms of superior-subordinate relations.
This study was carried out in survey method, and a questionnaire, composed of 16 items in 5
Point Likert Type, was applied to 70 academics, and 58 valid questionnaires were analyzed by
using quantitative methods. Reliability analysis (α=.92), descriptive analysis and t test for
measuring differences on organizational climate perceptions of academics according to their
gender and administrative status were performed. She indicated the mean for each item about
the superior-subordinate relationship separately, and found the mean in 10 items at low level
and 6 items at medium level (minimum =2.31 for objectiveness of administrator on
separating additional resources, maximum =2.81 for appreciating the personalities of
subordinates by administrator). Besides, she found that in the Faculty of Education, Abant
İzzet Baysal University, Turkey, there was no significant difference in organizational climate
in terms of superior-subordinate relationship according to academics’ gender (t=-.09; p=.93)
and administrative status (t=.43, p=.67). After these findings, Balcı-Bucak (2002) stated that
insufficient relationship between academics and administrators in the faculty can cause
negative climate perception among academics, which affects their scholarly productivity and
contribution to the institution.
Gizir & Gizir (2005) developed Inventory of Communication Analysis in Academic
Context, and carried out validity and reliability analyses. The purpose of this inventory is to
explore factors which negatively influence communication in universities. Firstly, they
composed 53 items for the inventory in 10 sub-dimensions: Poor Communication,
Individualism, Inadequate Exchange of Scientific Knowledge, Lack of Motivation, Alliances,
Administrative Issues, Lack of Common Goals, Criticism, Introvert Characteristics of the
Department, Departmental Atmosphere. Secondly, the inventory was presented to some
academics from Educational Administration & Planning, Curriculum & Instruction and
Statistics for expert opinions, and then some corrections were made to the inventory in the
form of 5 Points Likert-Type. Finally, the inventory was applied to 1000 faculty from 7
universities in Turkey, and 480 valid questionnaires were received for statistical analysis.
After obtaining quantitative data, they used LISREL for Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the
inventory, and they found good fit indices (
=1.39) for 10 factors structure with 36 items;
reliability coefficients varied between .67 and .88. Finally, Gizir & Gizir (2005) measured the
lowest mean in ( =1.16=[9.31/8]) in Alliances and the highest mean ( =3.22=[9.67/3]) in
Criticism. Taking into account that this inventory contains only factors which affect
communication processes in academic mediums negatively, they found that interactions with
criticism, problems based on administration, the general atmosphere in the department and
negative motivator speeches are the most powerful factors in communication at universities.
7. Discussion and Conclusion
Supportive climate comprises multi-directional communication channels for open and sincere
interactions among administrators and employees; healthy climate emphasizes the existence
of effective communication networks in organizations. Especially in organizations with
intensive human relations like educational institution, organizational climate reflects the
internal and external relationship processes, work methods and physical structure, the web of
communication channels, staff’s identities and authority usage styles (Balci-Bucak, 2002;
Karadağ et al., 2008). In universities as the most complex educational organizations, effective
communication initiatives can provide sharing organizational vision and common goals
among units, informing stakeholders about ongoing processes and different operations,
exchanging opinions between senior and junior members, establishing collegial discussion
platforms and forming interdisciplinary cooperation.
Therefore, well-functioning organizational communication networks in universities
contribute to the creation of a positive climate as more open, sincere, collegial, supportive,
participative, democratic, reassuring and transparent (McMurray & Scott, 2013). Moreover,
alternative communication channels not only facilitate collegial sharing but also expedite the
interactions between academics and students, so that academics can assist the development of
their students more efficiently as well as the advancement of their colleagues’ academic
careers. As a result, a positive climate with effectual communication in universities favorably
influences academics’ intention to stay, commitment to their institutions, participation in
decision-making processes, taking responsibility for organizational practices, collaborative
and interdisciplinary studies, and work performance and job satisfaction (Arabacı, 2011;
Schulz, 2013).
Additionally, the authors, in reviewing literature, accessed a limited number of
empirical research which evaluates the relationship between organizational communication
and climate in universities (Alipour, 2011; Arabacı, 2011; Balcı-Bucak, 2002; Gizir & Gizir,
2005) whereas many studies emphasize the association of communication and climate in
organizations. Therefore, the authors readily admit that it requires further empirical study,
using various research methods in different sample groups, to examine the level of the
relationship between organizational communication and organizational climate in higher
education institutions. It is also possible to ask how communication and climate affects each
other mutually. It is the authors’ next task to address these questions.
8. References
Akman, Y., Kelecioğlu, H., & Bilge, F. (2006). Öğretim elemanlarının işdoyumlarını
etkileyen faktörlere ilişkin görüşleri [Academicians’ views on the factors which
influence their job satisfaction]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [H.
U. Journal of Education], 30, 11-20.
Alipour, F. H. (2011). The relationship between organizational climate and communication
skills of managers of the Iranian physical education organization. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 421-428.
Arabacı, İ. B. (2011). Organizational climate of Fırat University. Uluslararası Online Eğitim
Bilimleri Dergisi [International Online Journal of Educational Sciences], 3(1), 161180.
Ary, D., Cheser-Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in
education (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006b). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate
student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education:
Handbook of Theory and Research - Vol. 21 (pp. 397-456). Dordrecht: Springer.
Aydın, M. (2005). Eğitim yönetimi [Educational administration] (5th Ed.). Ankara: Hatipoğlu
Basım ve Yayım.
Aypay, A., Taş, A., & Boyacı, A. (2012). Teacher perceptions of school climate in elementary
schools. The New Educational Review, 29(3), 227-238.
Balcı-Bucak, E. (2002). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesinde örgüt iklimi:
Yönetimde ast-üst ilişkileri [Organizational climate in Abant İzzet Baysal University
Faculty of Education: Junior-senior relations in management]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
Graduate School of Social Sciences Journal], 7.
Baron, A. (2006). Aligning internal employee communication with business strategy. In T. L.
Gillis (Ed.), The IABC handbook of organizational communication: A guide to
internal communication, public relations, marketing, and leadership (pp. 93-107). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
Bentley, P. J., Coates, H., Dobson, I. R., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (Eds) (2013). Job
satisfaction around the academic world. Dordrecht: Springer.
Beytekin, O. F., & Arslan, H. (2013). The function of communication in faculty management.
Social Change Review, 11(2), 137-152.
Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter
in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49-74.
Çetinkanat, C., & Sağnak, M. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında görevli müdürlerin iletişim
stilleri [The primary school principals’ communication styles]. Milli Eğitim [National
Education], 185, 162-174.
Gizir, S., & Gizir, C. A. (2005). Akademik ortamda iletişim analizi envanteri [Analysis
inventory of communication in academic environment]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi [Mersin University Faculty of Education Journal], 1(1), 112-125.
Gülnar, B. (2007). Araştırma görevlilerinin iş tatminini sağlama aracı olarak örgütsel iletişim
ve iletişim doyumu: Kamu ve özel üniversite karşılaştırması [Organizational
communication and communication satisfaction as job satisfaction provider tool for
research assistants: Comparison of public and private universities]. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Selçuk University, Turkey.
Harris, T. E. & Nelson, M. D. (2008). Applied organizational communication: Theory and
Practice in Global Environment (3th Ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama
[Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice] (Trans. from 7th Ed.) S.
Turan (Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. (Original work was published in
2005)
Karadağ, E., Baloğlu, N., Korkmaz, T., & Çalışkan, N. (2008). Eğitim kurumlarında örgüt
iklimi ve örgüt etkinlik algısı arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of
the relationship between organizational climate and organizational efficiency
perception in educational institutions]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi [Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty] (KEFAD), 9(3), 63-71.
Karadağ, E., & Öner, S. (2012). The relationship between the levels of participation of high
school teachers in school management and their perception of organization climate.
Journal of Research in International Business Management, 2(1), 10-15.
Keskin-Vural, İ. (2012). İletişim süreci [Communication process], In H. İ. Gürcan (Ed.)
Medya ve iletişim [Media and communication] (pp. 2-15). Eskişehir: Anadolu
Üniversitesi Web-Ofset.
Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity,
and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education,
84(2), 153-188.
Kezar, A., Lester, J., Carducci, R., Bertram-Gallant, T., & Contreras-Mcgavin, M. (2007).
Where are the faculty leaders?. Liberal Education, 93(4), 14-21.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent
faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56-87.
Korkmaz, M. (2011). İlköğretim okullarında örgütsel iklim ve örgüt sağlığının örgütsel
bağlılık üzerindeki etkisi [The effects of organizational climate and organizational
health on organizational commitment in primary schools]. Kuram ve Uygulamada
Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 17(1), 117-139.
Martin, P., & Uddin, D. E. (2006). Influences of communication satisfaction on
organizational climate subscales of humanistic thrust and esprit. Wright State
University-Miami Valley: Midwest Nursing Research Society.
McMurray, A., & Scott, D. (2013). Determinants of organisational climate for academia.
Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 960-974.
Memduhoğlu, H. B., & Şeker, G. (2010). Öğretmenlerin algılarına göre ilköğretim okullarının
örgütsel iklimi [Organizational climate of primary schools in the view of teachers].
İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [İnonu University Journal of the Faculty
of Education], 12(1), 1-26.
Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall.
Nordin, E. J. (2013). Exploring effective communication for organizational change.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, USA.
Polat, S., & Arslan, H. (2004). Yükseköğretim yöneticilerinin çatışma çözüm stratejileri
[Conflict management strategies of administrators in higher education]. Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration in Theory & Practice], 39,
430-457.
O’Meara, K., Lounder, A., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). To heaven or hell: Sensemaking about
why faculty leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 603-632.
Özdede, A. (2010). Bir yükseköğretim kurumunda, ISO 9001:2000 kalite yönetim sistemi
belgesine sahip olan ve olmayan birimler arasındaki örgüt iklimi farklılıkları: Dokuz
Eylül Üniversitesi örneği [The differences in a higher education institution between
organizational climates of departments with and without ISO 9001:2000 certificate of
quality management: A sample of Dokuz Eylül University]. (Unpublished master
thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey.
Schulz, J. (2013). The impact of role conflict, role ambiguity and organizational climate on
the job satisfaction of academic staff in research-intensive universities in the UK.
Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 464-478.
Seçkin, M., Aypay, A., & Apaydın, Ç. (2014). Lisansüstü eğitim alan öğrencilerin akademik
danışmanlık hakkındaki görüşleri [The views of graduate students about academic
mentoring]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi [Journal of Higher Education and
Science], 4(1), 28-35.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived organizational effectiveness, job
satisfaction, culture, and communication: Challenging the traditional view.
Communication Research Reports, 17(4), 375-386.
Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Şimşek, E. (2011). Örgütsel iletişim ve kişilik özelliklerinin yaşam doyumuna etkileri [The
effects of organizational communication and personality specifications on life
satisfaction]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Turkey.
Welch, A. (Ed.) (2005). The professoriate: Profile of a profession. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yüksel, A. H. (2013). İletişimin tanımı ve temel bileşenleri [Definition of communication and
its principle components]. In U. Demiray (Ed.), Etkili iletişim [Effective
communication] (6th Ed.) (pp. 1-43). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.