|
April 2003
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageThis month, I describe two "topic clusters" in the April JOE and then explain why it sometimes takes a bit of time for JOE authors to hear from me about their new submissions or revisions. April 2003 JOETwo topic clusters distinguish this issue of JOE (as do the other great articles, of course). Three articles deal in one way or another with pesticides and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). See:
And see them even if you are not involved in what we at Purdue call "Agriculture and Natural Resources." Those involved in other Extension program areas can learn a thing or two, as well. Even more notably, six articles deal explicitly or implicitly with forming partnerships, either within Extension or between Extension and outside organizations. See:
And the issue of partnership and collaboration, of course, crosses all Extension program areas. Hearing About JOE Submissions & RevisionsThe first thing JOE authors might like to know is that, essentially, I'm "it" on the editorial side. That is, aside from some inestimably valuable help I get from a colleague who maintains our submission tracking database, I perform all of the editorial tasks associated with JOE. This means, among other things, that six times a year my attention and energy are pretty well consumed by "putting together" each issue and copy editing and formatting all of the articles so that they go to Robyn Ness, JOE Web developer, in decent shape for posting. Thus, if you've sent me a new submission or a revision around "issue time," you may not hear from me about its suitability for blind review or publication for several weeks. Don't worry, though, I date submissions and revisions according to when they were sent, not when I have the opportunity to review them. In other words, you won't "lose any time" thereby. The longest lag time between submission and hearing from me about it occurs from mid-December through mid-January, because the December issue is followed by the holidays. However, at other times in the year I might be traveling for professional reasons associated with JOE or with my Purdue position and so be unable to respond as quickly as you or I would like. Please do not let my schedule influence when you send submissions or revisions. The progress of a submission through the review system is pretty much driven by the date it was submitted. But please understand if you do not hear from me within the week (my "ideal" time). That having been said, let me also say that, if you have not heard from me within, say, 4 weeks of having sent a new submission or a revision, please contact me. What you sent may have "gone astray in the ether," or I may have simply but regrettably lost sight of it in the welter of e-mail I receive. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Transformative Learning in Extension Staff Partnerships: Facilitating Personal, Joint, and Organizational ChangeNancy K. Franz Partnerships can enhance individual and organizational success through more effective problem solving and improved adaptation to change. Working in partnership is difficult and often requires learning for successful collaboration. This learning sometimes transforms or changes the partners in a collaboration. This change may stem from transformative learning--a type of learning resulting in a different frame of reference rather than technical, skill-based, or practical learning (Kreber & Cranton, 2000). Therefore, it is important to understand how successful Extension staff partnerships use learning in ways that transform the individual, the partnership, and organizations. Researchers and practitioners increasingly express interest in understanding the role of partnerships in adapting to or embracing change (Bennis & Biederman, 1997). It has been shown that people working together often deal with change more successfully than when they work alone. By taking on tasks and learning together, individuals gain more integrated and balanced views of themselves and their work (Anderson, 1992). What is the role of transformative learning in successful Extension staff partnerships between campus academics and county practitioners? The answers to this question are important because Extension leaders need to know how partnerships can facilitate adaptation to internal and external forces. This includes how to align individual transformation with larger organizational change. Without this information, change is slow, thwarted, or never fully realized. The study discussed here explored change in individuals by observing and analyzing successful partnerships between Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) campus faculty and county Extension educators to determine the role of transformative learning in these cross-profession partnerships. Review of the LiteratureAlthough a great deal of literature focuses on successful partnerships, few researchers have studied cross-profession partnerships, intraorganization partnerships, or learning in partnerships. Cross-profession partnerships made up of researchers and practitioners strengthen research (Amabile, Patterson, Mueller, & Wojcik, 2001) but require the breaking down of ideological and political boundaries between professions (Tourse & Mooney, 1999). Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1994) claims that successful partnerships are learning oriented and result in partners who are open to new ideas and see across boundaries (Hesselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard, 1996). One field of research in education focuses on transformative learning theory. Jack Mezirow (1991), the founding father of this theory, suggests individual transformation includes a change in a frame of reference or way of seeing the world. Mezirow and others in the field less often explore this theory in groups or organizations and rarely look at its presence in a partnership context. For transformative learning to take place in educational settings, the educator needs to provide a safe environment for the learner to nurture critical reflection (Mezirow, 2000). With these thoughts in mind, this article explores the role of transformative learning in successful Extension partnerships between campus researchers and county practitioners. MethodologyThe study was exploratory in nature; therefore, a constructivist approach including grounded theory (to build theory from emerging patterns and themes) and case studies (to deeply explore the phenomenon of transformative learning) informed the research. The study included 10 successful Extension staff partnerships made up of one campus researcher and one county educator. Campus and county Extension administrators and peers nominated successful partnerships for the study through e-mail and face-to-face inquiries from the researcher. An advisory committee of campus and county Extension staff selected the final slate of partnerships for the research. This group through consensus identified a series of preferred characteristics for the partnerships to be studied and then selected nominees who fit the characteristics (e.g., program area, geographic location, gender). This advisory committee also helped shape the study and provided feedback on the research findings. Each partner in the study participated in a semi-structured interview about their history with Extension, the work of their partnership, and learning and success in their partnership. The interviews were transcribed and coded for common themes. Partner profiles were also created from the interviews with each partner. The profiles describe the individual's views of success and learning within their partnership. In addition, partners interacted multiple times with the researcher while editing and preparing their profiles for public use and in reacting to the findings from the study. Additional data on successful CCE campus-county staff partnerships was collected through document review, observations of partners at work, feedback about the partnerships from the partners and their peers, and feedback on the findings from the partners and other Extension staff. These data were analyzed using Eisenhardt's (1989) comparative case study method. This method analyzes emerging patterns and themes within each case and then across each case to build theory. Adhering to this process revealed variation and commonalties of success and learning across the partnerships. ResultsSuccessful PartnershipsAll 10 partnerships studied had reputations for being successful. Several common factors contributing to that success surfaced across cases. First, the partners made a commitment to a bigger picture or fit with the environment outside the partnership. This commitment was illustrated by:
Second, the partners identified specific drivers of learning. These included:
Third, partners indicated that challenges in partnership work existed but that they found that education of themselves and others, as well as persistence, helped overcome these barriers. Challenges did not prevent these partnerships from working towards their goals. Finally, personal attributes of the partners promoted success in the partnership. Partners often had similar motivations for entering into and staying in a partnership. One commonly valued attribute of partners included providing personal support that resulted in raised or affirmed self-esteem. Partners indicated this support was a key to the success of personal and partnership success. Learning and Transformation in PartnershipsThree types of learning surfaced in successful campus-county Extension staff partnerships: instrumental, communicative, and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). Instrumental learning focuses on improving performance through task-oriented problem solving and leads to learning how to control people and the environment. This type of learning includes empirical testing in search of the truth. In the study, all of the partnerships experienced instrumental learning, e.g., learning how to improve group facilitation skills and how to navigate campus and local environments, and increasing knowledge about the theory and practice of Extension work. Communicative learning emphasizes learning for interpersonal understanding. A key part of this learning includes reflective discourse with others about the meanings that people communicate. In the research, communicative learning had a strong presence in all but one partnership. Partners learned how to work effectively with each other across differing work, communication, and learning styles; personalities; and worldviews. By better understanding each other's professions, they learned how to give more appropriate feedback and advice. Partners mentioned that over time they came to see the partnership from the other person's perspective. Transformative learning results in a major change in thinking or perspective where individuals become more responsible for their actions and more autonomous, and use clearer thinking when making decisions. In the study, transformative learning existed in 6 of the 10 partnerships and included 9 of the 12 partners. The research revealed eight types of transformative learning based on the partner's awareness of their transformation, whether or not the transformed partners took personal action based on their change, and to what degree the partners attempted to initiate change in others related to their own transformation. Partners who were transformed from their partnership experience indicated:
Transformed partnerships experienced:
These partnerships indicated that the organization transformed because they provided models for others in the organization to emulate, their success created additional success, and organizational learning was heightened. Conditions for Transformative Learning in PartnershipsTransformative learning is considered important for more integrated and inclusive thinking and decision making in individuals. This study found five common conditions that promote this type of learning in Extension staff campus-county partnerships. The first included strong partner facilitation. Partners in partnerships where transformative learning took place were strong facilitators of reflective discourse. They also used a variety of methods to facilitate learning. The second condition, critical reflection in transforming partnerships, included the practice of thinking critically about individual, work, or process assumptions. Partners articulated the original assumptions they used in their work and the new assumptions they constructed from the change process that occurred. The new assumptions they arrived at through critical reflection often resulted in broader views of their work. The third condition for transformative learning in partnerships included the presence of critical events that set the foundation for change or enhanced transformation. The events sometimes served as disorienting dilemmas resulting in partner reflection about the associated discomfort. The fourth condition focused on a fundamental difference between partners bridged by a common purpose. In transforming partnerships, partners differed in personality, work styles, and/or worldviews. Finally, transformative learning was enhanced by a condition some partners called "independence with interdependence." This included the process of retaining personal autonomy yet depending on the other partner to enhance the success of the work at hand. Through this process, campus and county Extension staff sought out each other to alleviate professional isolation and to better meet the needs of local residents. Partners indicated that the partnership mission and their leadership roles in statewide Extension program work teams guided interdependence. ConclusionsSeveral main themes arise from the study discussed here. The first includes the significance of a fundamental difference between partners that promotes transformative learning. This suggests that diversity management encompasses more than creating a physically diverse workforce. Diversity efforts must bring together people with diverse perspectives to enhance each other's learning under a common purpose that bridges this difference. According to the results of this study, transformed individuals can contribute to more quickly adapting to environmental change. Personal change may happen without organizational change and vice versa, but joint transformation can result in individuals and organizations more quickly adapting to environmental change. A fragmented approach to change may impede or slow the transformation process. Individual and organizational change strategically aligned can produce a hastened response to change. Leadership in partnerships greatly affects the transformative learning process. Joint leadership that facilitates reflective discourse around personal and shared assumptions promotes transformative learning. A deep developmental view of facilitation rather than a simple process approach results in deep change in one or both partners. Transformative learning has many faces. Frequently, people don't realize or acknowledge how they have changed through their work together. Some of them, in this unknowing stance affect change in others. Other people who are aware of their own transformation consciously choose to change themselves and/or work towards change in others and/or the organization. It cannot be assumed that the transformation process occurs in the same way for everyone and every partnership. Recommendations for the Cooperative Extension SystemIf the Cooperative Extension System truly promotes organizational learning and serves as a catalyst for individual and community change through education, it must also change to better encourage and sustain transformative learning in its staff. This requires:
State and county Extension administrators need to create and support environments that facilitate cross-profession relationship building and partnership formation. This includes opportunities for staff to meet each other, engage in discourse, to solve problems together, and share their work with others. One specific approach includes an accessible database of staff interests so people with similar interests can quickly locate each other. A statewide Extension e-newsletter could also support the location of potential partners and the sharing of partnership work and processes. Models of successful staff partnerships should be identified and lauded across the organization. This could be enhanced by creating an innovative grant program or orchestrating organizational events that foster, explore, and recognize campus-county staff partnerships. Administrators should also attempt to align organizational transformation that parallels and/or enhances transformative learning in partnerships. Finally, leaders need to communicate the value of cross-profession partnerships in legitimizing county staff as full partners with campus faculty in Extension research and programming. These strategies would promote partnership formation and sustainability but not force staff interaction. To help partnerships flourish, barriers preventing partnership success should be dealt with. Specifically, barriers related to university departments and county Extension units, such as the reward system for staff, should be reviewed. Incentives should recognize partnership work that creates change rather than furthers the status quo. Administrators and staff supervisors on campus and in counties must also articulate the local and system-wide value of partnerships. In addition, professional associations can provide resources, support, and recognition to help partnerships overcome institutional barriers and support innovations that go beyond the usual institutional expectations. Organizational systems need to be "partnership friendly." This includes creating more convenient mechanisms for transferring resources between Extension partners and their units. Staff may also find it difficult to form partnerships with each other due to multiple program responsibilities and generic titles that do not accurately reflect their work. Administrators should therefore combat this fragmentation of staff duties and implement consistent, descriptive job titles. Extension must find a way to promote critical reflection as a medium for promoting transformative learning in staff. In the active world of Extension work, this remains a challenge. Administrators, supervisors, and influential staff must model deep reflection about their assumptions on an ongoing basis through their work. This comes from generating thought-provoking questions, raising and testing propositions, showing curiosity, and being conscious about the ethics of their work (Brookfield, 2000). Professional development opportunities, staff meetings, committee meetings, work teams, and other staff gatherings should consistently include critical thinking and reflection activities such as action learning, scenario building, and the use of metaphors (Deshler & Kiely, 1995). Technology should also be used to help staff record their reflections and to promote critical dialogue with others throughout the organization. Supporting transformative learning in Extension staff requires that they become competent facilitators of learning for each other. The presence of a strong facilitator often helps Extension staff survive the stress of transformation. Therefore, staff should be hired who exhibit successful educational facilitation skills or have the potential to do so. Regional and campus-based workshops should also focus on developing facilitation for learning in staff. To ensure that facilitators do in fact support a transformative learning environment, training, practice, and support for leading reflective discourse is critical. A mentoring system could also match experienced facilitators with those new to the process to share facilitation skills that help guide others on their learning path, such as creating a learning environment, asking probing questions, making connections, and synthesizing information. Developmental facilitators must also be learner more than content centered, create transforming learning environments, use a variety of facilitation methods, be flexible, and able to critically reflect on their own learning. A professional development certificate program based on acquiring these skills could enhance strong facilitation of learning in Extension staff. Finally, diversity should be promoted more broadly within Cooperative Extension. Traditionally, diversity efforts have honored physical differences in employees. To encourage transformative learning in staff, diversity management should expand to consciously ensure that staff work together with others who have differing personalities, work styles, and worldviews. The organization also needs to create, support, and recognize safe environments that promote change and value diversity to help transforming partnerships flourish. This includes fostering dialogue that defines diversity, listening for and recognizing wisdom in each other, connecting with individuals as a whole person not just their interests and skills, and seeing difference as critical to reaching a common purpose and addressing complex problems. ReferencesAmabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., & Wojcik, T. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research : A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-431. Anderson, T. (1992). Transforming leadership: new skills for an extraordinary future. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press, Inc. Bennis, W. & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. New York: Addison-Westley. Brookfield, S. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A.L. Wilson & H. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deshler, D., & Kiely, E. (1995). Facilitating adult learning: Sourcebook and leaders guide. Ithaca: Cornell University. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (1996). The leader of the future: New visions, strategies, and practices for the next era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476-495. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformational dimensions of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco-Jossey Bass. Tourse, R., & Mooney, J. (Eds.). (1999). Collaborative practice: School and human service partnerships. London: Praeger.
Multi-Tiered, Multi-Disciplinary Work Teams--The CSU CAFO Work Group Tackles Controversial Public IssuesAndrew Seidl IntroductionLivestock operations have a long tradition in rural Colorado's agricultural economy. Beef and dairy cattle, sheep, and the crops to feed them are an essential part of the Colorado landscape. Recent poor corn, wheat, and beef prices have created a tense atmosphere in many rural Colorado towns. The number of agricultural operations is in decline statewide. However, overall livestock inventories are stable or increasing. Colorado livestock operations (and agricultural operations in general) are getting larger, more specialized, and more integrated, and small, diversified farms are becoming increasingly scarce. Growth in the Colorado livestock industry can be attributed to a close to 100%-increase in hog numbers since 1993 to about 800,000 (United States Department of Agriculture, 1999). This growth is almost exclusively spread among 17 large integrated and, largely, corporately owned farrowing and nursery operations. Rural Colorado communities are struggling to understand and evaluate the social, natural resource, environmental, and economic challenges and opportunities that hog operations create as a potential engine of community economic development. Colorado is also among the fastest growing states in the country (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Agricultural land is being converted to residential development at a rapid rate (Obermann, Carlson, & Batchelder, 2000). Rural demographics are changing as retiring urbanites and telecommuters choose to homestead in traditionally agriculturally driven communities (McGranahan, 1999). Three-fourths of Coloradoans now live in urban or suburban communities in the North-South corridor within about 30 miles of the Rocky Mountains (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). New urbanites are attracted to Colorado for its abundant outdoor recreational opportunities and natural amenities among other things (McGranahan, 1999). It can be expected that state legislative action will increasingly represent and respond to this progressively more urban majority, which may or may not coincide with traditional Colorado priorities and values. Increasingly, rural residents feel left out of state-level politics and recognize that the "I-25 Corridor" is where state-level policy is made (Carlson, personal communication, 1999). JustificationIn the spring of 1998, several rural counties contacted Colorado State University Cooperative Extension (CSUCE) requesting information and assistance in strategic planning and in evaluating economic development alternatives through livestock operations, particularly dairy and hogs. At the same time, Colorado Counties Incorporated (CCI), a nongovernmental organization comprised of 61 of the 63 Colorado county commissions, requested CSUCE's assistance in evaluating the policy environment, community economics, natural resources, and odor issues surrounding livestock operations, hog operations particularly. By early summer, two state level ballot initiatives (Amendments 13 and 14) and their advertising campaigns aiming to regulate livestock operations, but particularly hog farms, were initiated, and the popular press began running "pro" and "con" corporate hog operation columns, articles and op-ed pieces. A detailed comparison of the Colorado livestock policy environment with the provisions of Amendments 13 and 14 is provided in Seidl and Grannis, 1998. Dozens of requests were made of Extension agents and specialists for the "facts" from many different perspectives on the issue. Responding to these immediate concerns, in anticipation of greater public demands for information, and the opportunity to be "proactive" on an important public policy issue drove the CSU Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Work Group to form. A "teachable moment" on a public issue of statewide importance was at hand. The CSU CAFO Work GroupAt the urging of a small number of state and regional specialists and county agents, the administration of CSUCE decided to form a multi-disciplinary and multi-level working group to address the present and upcoming debate over large confined animal feeding operations, particularly hogs. The work group structure included campus-based Extension personnel, regional specialists, and at least one county agent from each of Colorado's five Extension regions (names, titles and affiliations acknowledged below). Individuals were invited to join the work group based upon professional interest, responsibility, and expertise. The group created a listserve in order to keep one another apprised of breaking issues in the state and around the nation, to share questions and responses to queries, and to attend to requests for presentations, interviews and written information. Limited and unspecified regular operating funds leveraged with a $13,000 contract from CCI and a $4,500 contract from a county economic development authority were allocated toward these activities. ObjectivesAs a result of the CAFO Work Group's formation, a public policy education Web site was created, and a mission statement was drafted and posted there. "Cooperative Extension's role in public policy education is to: 1) raise the important questions that should be addressed; 2) provide the best possible information based on current science; and 3) facilitate discussions so that policy makers and citizens can make wise decisions. Cooperative Extension does not advocate for a particular strategy or point of view, but rather assists the public in understanding the implications of potential courses of action." The CAFO Work Group took these as its guiding principles in providing current, objective, and salient information to both rural and urban voters regarding the multiple aspects of CAFOs in a variety of educational formats. Programmatic Response
EvaluationAn evaluation was conducted of the CSUCE CAFO Work Group in July 1999, approximately 1 year after its formation. The return rate for the e-mail administered evaluation was 60% (12/20). Respondents were evenly distributed between on and off campus personnel and were considered "core" Work Group members. Respondents provided their opinions on aspects of the structure, activities, content, and impact of the Work Group. Group members were asked to rank their relative agreement with statements about these aspects of the Work Group on a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). A summary of the responses of campus and off-campus personnel is found in Table 1. Overall responses were supportive of the structure, content, and activities of the group. No overall mean responses were neutral or negative. The impact of the Work Group was considered fair to good, meeting some expectations but requiring improvement in areas. All respondents who gave an opinion thought that the Work Group was a useful model for public policy and public issues education, although many indicated there were weak points to the Work Group as a model. Both positive and critical comments are highlighted below.
Generally speaking, off-campus personnel were more positive about the CSU CAFO Work Group than were on-campus personnel. The range of mean responses to questions for off-campus respondents was 5.00-6.17, whereas on-campus personnel mean responses were 3.83-5.50. On- and off-campus responses differed statistically on four questions, with off campus providing higher ratings in each case:
On- and off-campus personnel also differed with regard to their ranking of questions. Table 2 illustrates the range and rank of mean responses from on- and off-campus personnel. Potentially most notable is that off-campus personnel ranked the inclusiveness of the structure and activities of the Work Group lowest, whereas the inclusive structure gained the highest ranking of campus-based personnel. Structural aspects (efficiency, effectiveness, and inclusiveness) of the Work Group garnered three of the four lowest rankings among off-campus personnel, while content features gained their three highest rankings. Effectiveness and efficiency in communication, structure, and activities were of greatest concern to campus-based personnel. In spite of the relatively low ranking of the efficiency of the work group, all evaluators providing a response indicated that the CSUCE CAFO Work Group provided a useful model for public issues and public policy education.
Concluding and Retrospective RemarksThe Colorado State University CAFO Working Group was formed as an interdisciplinary group to address an important and timely issue of public policy. While activities can be listed easily, it is less simple to evaluate the Working Group's effectiveness due to its role in education rather than advocacy. The CAFO Working Group may not have effectively overridden the expensive onslaught of emotion-driven advertising and lobbying efforts surrounding the Initiatives with its low-budget, objective information. Yet the Working Group generally thought that it was the Group's responsibility to address these important public issues to its best abilities despite limitations in having the message heard. Moreover, the Group may have benefited from the inclusion of producers, environmental activists, and expertise from other public agencies (e.g., NRCS, FSA) in the group. Overall, based upon experiences with the CSUCE CAFO Working Group, issues teams designed in this manner can provide an effective means of providing timely, appropriate, and accurate cross-disciplinary information to Extension audiences on complex issues of public concern and interest. Acknowledgements The comments of the anonymous reviewers improved this article and are appreciated. The CSUCE CAFO Working Group members, whose time, effort, and expertise were illustrated in this article are also appreciated and acknowledged. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Station provided financial support for this work. All errors are unintentional and the responsibility of the author. ReferencesMcGranahan, D. A. (1999). Natural amenities drive population change. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economics Report No. 781. 24 pp. Obermann, W., Carlson, D., & Batchelder, J., eds. (2000). Tracking agricultural land conversion in Colorado: An interagency summary by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service. September 2000. Seidl, A., & Davis, J. (1999). Report on animal feeding operations and rural Colorado communities. Agricultural and Resource Policy Report, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. APR99-02. February 1999. 32pp. Available at: http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/extension/feeding.pdf Seidl, A., & Grannis, J. (1998). Common components of swine policies. Agricultural and Resource Policy Report, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. APR 98-02, October 1998. 6 pp. Available at: http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/extension/apr98-02.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS). (1999). 1997 census of agriculture, Volume 1: National, state, and county tables. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. (2002). United States Census Bureau: state and county quickfacts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html
An Organizational Culture Assessment Using the Competing Values Framework: A Profile of Ohio State University ExtensionAngel A. Berrio IntroductionThe contemporary definition of organizational culture (OC) includes what is valued, the dominant leadership style, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the definitions of success that characterizes an organization. OC represents the values, underlying assumptions, expectations, collective memories, and definitions present in an organization (Schein, 1992; Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Cameron and Quinn (1999) have developed an organizational culture framework built upon a theoretical model called the "Competing Values Framework." This framework refers to whether an organization has a predominant internal or external focus and whether it strives for flexibility and individuality or stability and control. The framework is also based on six organizational culture dimensions and four dominant culture types (i.e., clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy). In addition the framework authors generated an "Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)" which is used to identify the organizational culture profile based on the core values, assumptions, interpretations, and approaches that characterize organizations (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The central issue associated with organizational culture is its linkage with organizational performance. Connections between OC and performance have been established. An increasing body of evidence supports a linkage between an organization's culture and its business performance. In the business arena, evidence has confirmed that companies which put emphasis in key managerial components, such as customers, stakeholders and employees, and leadership, outperform those that do not have these cultural characteristics (Kotter & Heskett,1992; Wagner & Spencer, 1996). The competing values framework can be used in constructing an organizational culture profile. Through the use of the OCAI, an organizational culture profile can be drawn by establishing the organization's dominant culture type characteristics. In this respect the overall culture profile of an organization can be identified as:
The culture of Ohio State University Extension plays an important role in the way Extension personnel plan, implement, and evaluate educational programs. OSU Extension is perceived by its personnel to be an institution devoted to satisfying the needs and wants of its clients through programs that are clearly defined, sensible to public needs, constantly monitored for success, and pro-actively implemented (Berrio & Henderson, 1998). Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of the study discussed here was to describe the dominant culture type of Ohio State University Extension (OSUE). The research study was designed as an evaluation survey with the purpose of exploring and describing Ohio State University Extension's organizational culture. It is also an organizational survey because its results were used as part of a larger change effort to diagnose issues related to leadership, teamwork, and management behavior and to determine the impact of these issues on employee outcomes (Wagner & Spencer, 1996). The researcher was also interested in studying factors that may account for variation among the organizational culture profile. The current and preferred dominant culture types and selected demographic characteristics were analyzed in order to establish a profile of Ohio State University Extension. The study was guided by the following objectives:
MethodologyThe study was classified as descriptive-correlational. The target and accessible populations were Ohio State University Extension personnel distributed in 5 districts and 88 counties (N=965). A sample was drawn from the population (N=434), composed of the following three personnel categories: professionals (n=357), paraprofessionals (n=347), and support staff (n=261). The questionnaire used to gather data from the sample consisted of a modified version of the "Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument" developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). The OCAI instrument was adapted and used to describe the organizational culture profile of Ohio State University Extension. For the purpose of the study, instrument validity and reliability were established. In assessing the reliability of scales used in the questionnaire a coefficient of internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha methodology (Santos, 1999). The results for the statements contained in the OCAI for both current and preferred situations are shown in Table 1. Data were collected by a mail questionnaire using a modification of the procedures recommended by Salant and Dillman (1994). The first mailing and follow-up postcard resulted in a 53% response rate. After the second mailing, an overall response rate of 74% was established, with a 68% usable return rate for the study.
ResultsDominant Culture Type-Current SituationTable 2 illustrates the perceived current dominant culture type of OSU Extension personnel by demographic groups. An analysis of the highest mean scores obtained (Mean= 28.44) shows that the dominant culture type for OSU Extension personnel in the current situation is the Clan culture.
The dominant culture type exhibited by OSU Extension personnel in the group categories labeled as sex, job title, age, and length of employment was the Clan culture. Only the group categories labeled as location and program area had a different dominant culture type for the current situation. For the group category labeled as location, the state personnel had a Hierarchical dominant culture type, different from county and district personnel, who had a dominant Clan culture. For the group category labeled as program area, the Community Development personnel had a Hierarchical dominant culture type, different from the Agriculture & Natural Resources, Family & Consumer Sciences, 4-H Youth Development, and more than one program area, who had a dominant Clan culture. Dominant Culture Type--Preferred SituationTable 3 illustrates the dominant culture type of OSU Extension personnel by demographic groups in the preferred situation. An analysis of the highest mean scores obtained (Mean= 32.14) shows that the dominant culture type for OSU Extension personnel in the preferred situation is the Clan culture.
The dominant culture type exhibited by OSU Extension personnel in the group categories labeled as sex, location, program area, job title, age, and length of employment was the Clan culture. A statistically significant difference was found among job title categories. The post hoc pairwise multiple comparison analysis using the Tukey method revealed that there were not significant differences between pairs of groups, meaning that the significant difference could be between one group and a combination of two other groups. Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the mean scores obtained in each of the four culture types for both the current and preferred situations of OSU Extension personnel using the competing values framework axis and quadrants. Figure 2 shows that the mean scores are diminishing in the Hierarchy and Market culture quadrants (current), and the mean scores in the Clan and Adhocracy quadrants are increasing (preferred). Figure 1.
Dominant Culture Type StrengthThe strength of the dominant culture type exhibited by OSU Extension personnel is related to the number of points assigned to a specific culture type. In the current situation, the Clan culture type exhibited by OSU Extension is slightly strong, while in the preferred situation the Clan culture type is considered moderately strong. In the case of the dominant Clan culture type exhibited by OSU Extension personnel in the current situation, a mean score of 28.44 was considered less strong than a mean score of 32.14 in the preferred situation (Smart & St. John, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 1999). When the mean scores of the culture types Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy, are compared with the mean score of the dominant Clan culture exhibited by OSU Extension personnel, statistically significant differences are found between the dominant Clan culture and the Market and Hierarchy culture types in both current and preferred situations. This finding suggests the presence of characteristics of both Clan and Adhocracy culture types in the organization. Table 4 shows the mean scores by culture type for OSU Extension personnel in both current and preferred situations.
Dimensions of Organizational CultureSix dimensions were analyzed by the organizational culture assessment instrument using the competing values framework. The highest mean score for each of the culture types in both current and preferred situations for OSU Extension personnel are shown in Table 5. In the current situation, the highest mean score exhibited by OSU Extension personnel was in the criteria for success dimension (Mean= 34.07), while the lowest mean score recorded was in the organizational glue dimension (Mean= 26.90).
In the preferred situation, the highest mean score exhibited by OSU Extension personnel was in the criteria for success dimension (Mean= 37.19), while the lowest mean score recorded was in the dominant characteristics dimension (Mean= 28.83). Two dimensional profiles demonstrated to be different from the overall Clan culture profile in the current situation, organizational leadership (Hierarchy) and strategic emphases (Adhocracy). Two dimensional profiles demonstrated to be different from the overall Clan culture profile in the preferred situation, dominant characteristics (Adhocracy) and strategic emphases (Adhocracy). Conclusions and RecommendationsThe findings of this study are in agreement with the fact that almost two thirds of the colleges and universities in a nationwide study currently have a Clan culture type. In the same study, trustees, administrators, and department chairpersons perceive the Clan culture as the most effective culture type for colleges and universities (Smart & Hamm, 1993; Smart & St. John, 1996). The Clan culture classification applied to Extension portrays the institution as an organization that concentrates on internal maintenance with flexibility, concern for people, and sensitivity for customers. The Clan culture is characterized as a family type of organization and represents a friendly place to work, where people share a lot of themselves. The Clan culture views its leaders as having the role of mentors or facilitators. The glue that maintains the organization together is loyalty and tradition, with a high level of commitment among its members. Clan organizations emphasize individual development, morale, teamwork, participation, and consensus (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The strength of the culture is determined by the number of points conceded to a specific culture type. In the current situation, the Clan culture type exhibited by OSU Extension is slightly strong, while in the preferred situation the Clan culture type is considered moderately strong. OSU Extension personnel desire a stronger (moderately) Clan culture in the future. This finding is in agreement with what research has revealed about organizations that possess strong cultures; they are associated with having homogeneity of effort, clear focus, and higher performance in environments where unity and common vision are required (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Three dimensions of organizational culture displayed a distinctive profile from the overall culture profile exhibited by OSU Extension in current and preferred situations. The dimension labeled as "Dominant Characteristics" is concerned with what the overall organization is like. The Adhocracy classification in the preferred situation is not in agreement with the overall culture profile of OSU Extension (Clan), but it is in agreement with the finding that no statistically significant difference was found between the mean scores of the Clan and Adhocracy cultures in the preferred situation. This finding suggests that OSU Extension possesses a combination of the core characteristics of the dominant Clan culture with those of the less dominant Adhocracy culture type. The dimension labeled as "Organizational Leadership" is related to the dominant leadership style and approaches used by leaders and administrators in the organization. The Hierarchy classification in the current situation of this dimension is not in agreement with the overall culture profile of OSU Extension (Clan). In terms of the leadership style, OSU Extension personnel perceives its leaders and administrators as currently having a Hierarchical type of culture, wanting them to change to a preferred Clan culture type. The dimension labeled as "Strategic emphases" is concerned with the definition of areas of emphasis that drive the organization's strategy. The Adhocracy classification in both the current and preferred situations are not in agreement with the overall Clan culture exhibited by OSU Extension personnel, but they are in agreement with the finding that no statistically significant difference was found between the mean scores of the Clan and Adhocracy cultures in both current and preferred situation. This finding suggest that OSU Extension possesses a combination of the core characteristics of the dominant Clan culture with those of the less dominant Adhocracy culture type when it comes to areas of emphasis and strategy in the current situation and that OSU Extension personnel want this condition to become stronger in the future. Some demographic groups considered in this study displayed a different culture type from the overall dominant Clan culture of Extension. The demographic groups comprised of OSU Extension employees at the state level and in the Community Development program area exhibited a Hierarchical type of culture in the current situation. Evidence supports the fact that the culture type considered most effective in a college or university setting is the Clan culture. In addition, organizational success is said to depend on matching the culture type with the demands of the external environment (Smart & St. John, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 1999). In the case of OSU Extension, where characteristics of the Clan and Adhocracy culture coexist, the strengths of both culture types should be used to conform to the external environment. Although the study applies to Ohio State University Extension, it has implications for Extension on a national level. The research results might provide some thoughts on the way to embrace some of the issues facing Extension nowadays. In this regard, one of the strategic issues identified by the Cooperative Extension System (CES) in Framing the Future: Strategic Framework for a System of Partnerships report was: "Extension must embrace multiple organizational models to be visionary and responsible" (p. 6). On the other hand, one of the actions for success recommended was: "... to challenge and rethink assumptions about organizations, methods, and processes" (p. 6). The CES report also recommends addressing issues and challenges, and making changes in Extension's complex internal environment in order to secure the evolution of the Cooperative Extension System. This could only be done by means of identifying critical internal factors, and it has been suggested that Organizational Culture is one of those factors compromising the CES effectiveness (ECOP-CSREES; 1995). The researcher recommends that other states perform similar studies in order to have a better understanding of the current organizational culture type, which could help Extension make the necessary changes in pursuing enhanced effectiveness of its programs. Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the cooperation of Ohio State University Extension personnel at the county, district, and state levels in answering the survey questionnaire. The author would also like to acknowledge the collaboration of OSU Extension Associate Vice-President & Director, Keith Smith; OSU Extension Organizational Learning Officer, Nikki Conklin; and OSU Extension Organizational Learning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
