[ 14 ] International Journal of Educational Management 12/ 1 [ 1998] 14–22 © MCB University Press [ ISSN 0951-354X] Moving towards a quality climate at the University of Cyprus Petros Pashiardis Associate Professor of Educational Administration, Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nic osia, Cyprus College climate has been defined as the collective personality of a college. The University of Cyprus, being a new institution, wanted to find out the kind of climate which exists four years after it was established. The per- sonal assessment of the university climate survey was used. The purpose of the survey was to obtain the perceptions of employees concerning the university climate and examine this climate in conjunction with Likert’s systems theory of management. The following areas were found in most need of improvement: wider dissemination of information across the institution; more effective interaction of the leadership with personnel; more use of group problem- solving methods across and within departments and administrative services; and more need for feedback on their work from both faculty and administrative staff. Introduction College climate has been defined as the collec- tive personality of a university, college or other organization. It has also been described as the atmosphere which is created by the social and professional interactions of the individuals of the college. As stated by Sargeant (1967), “Climate may be pictured as a personality sketch of a school. As personal- ity describes an individual so climate defines the essence of an institution…” (p. 3). The college climate serves a crucial role in deter- mining “what the institution is and what it might become” (Norton, 1984, p. 43). In gen- eral, “climate” is to an organization what “personality” is to an individual (Roueche and Baker, 1986). Moreover, the climate of a university affects the overall atmosphere of a particular institution to such an extent that one can sense the climate present in the uni- versity or college almost immediately on entering the buildings (Roueche and Baker, 1986). Several implications serve to underline the paramount importance of college climate in the university setting. These implications include the following: the kind of climate that exists sets the tone for the university’s approach in meeting stated goals and resolv- ing problems; effective communication neces- sitates a climate of trust, mutual respect, and clarity of function; climate serves as an important determinant of attitudes towards continuous personal growth and develop- ment; climate conditions the setting for cre- ativity and the generation of new ideas and program improvements. Finally, the climate which exists in an organization is intricately tied with the quality of internal processes within the organization. The above definitions and statements underline the great importance of climate to an institution. Therefore, one could list numerous reasons for studying college cli- mate. First, there is evidence of a relationship between climate and other organizational variables, such as: job satisfaction; job perfor- mance; group communication; leadership structure; and organizational commitment as well as organizational performance (Ansari, 1980; Joyce and Slocum, 1982). Second, knowing the college’s climate is considered useful for development efforts within a uni- versity. Third, college climate has been found to influence the motivation and behaviors of individuals and, therefore, the quality of their actions within the institution (Likert, 1967; Roueche and Baker, 1986; Schneider and Snyder, 1975). Furthermore, the leadership style used by various levels of management will influence the climate which exists within an organiza- tion. The importance of these styles as deter- miners of productivity and as determiners of the degree of satisfaction that employees receive from the performance in their jobs has been well recognized in the research literature. However, in spite of the fact that leadership has been studied for many years in a variety of work settings, there is no one theory of leadership that is universally accepted. Using a scientific management develop- ment approach, Likert (1967) identified four management systems ranging from “Exploitative authoritative” or System 1, to “Benevolent authoritative” or System 2, to “Consultative” or System 3 and, finally, to “Participative group” or System 4 manage- ment style. System 1 represents a structured, task-oriented, and highly authoritative lead- ership management style based on the notion that followers or workers are inherently lazy and that, to make them productive, the man- ager must “keep after them” constantly (see also McGregor’s Theory X and Y). In general, leaders have no confidence and trust in their employees and the employees do not feel at all free to discuss things about their job with their supervisors or colleagues. System 2 represents a work environment where employees do not feel very free to discuss work-related matters but, sometimes, their ideas and opinions are taken into considera- tion when solving problems. There is also little interaction and communication and, in general, employees feel relatively little responsibility for achieving the organiza- tion’s goals. System 3 is a management style where there is substantial but not complete confidence and trust. The leader is still in control of decision making; however, employees feel quite free to discuss things