|
June 2005
|
       |
FeaturesDecision-Making Styles: A Comparison of Extension Faculty and the PublicKristine Saunders Kathleen Riggs Tom Gallagher IntroductionWhen we work with one another it is common to assume that: 1) if we speak the same language we are basically the same and 2) what we do or experience has the same meaning to others. Thus, when we assess a situation or make a decision we may not realize that other people use quite different processes to analyze a situation or draw their own conclusions. When others fail to conform to our method or style of decision making, confusion can ensue. Because the nature of the difference is sometimes very subtle, we might have the tendency to inaccurately judge the other person as being ignorant or difficult (Gallagher, 2002). This attribution error, or misattribution of motive, can create fundamental conflicts that are difficult to resolve. In a previous article (Saunders & Gallagher, 2003) we described differences in decision-making styles that occur between on- and off-campus faculty. These differences we linked to challenges in working relationships between on- and off-campus faculty described in a national Extension report (Ukaga et al., 2002). In this article, we describe how Extension faculty, both on and off campus, are different from the public in decision-making styles and how these differences can lead to communication challenges, conflict, and sometimes misinterpretation of educational needs. ReviewTo briefly review how people differ in their decision-making styles, the mother-daughter team of Myers and Briggs (Myers, 1990), building on the theory of Carl Jung (1923), developed a four-letter code to help people gain insights about themselves. Focusing on the opposites in Jung's theory, preferences can be established for:
In a previous article (Saunders & Gallagher, 2003) we found that Extension faculty are relatively homogenous on certain problem-solving characteristics as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Many authors suggest that people are drawn to others who are like themselves. This self sorting can lead to micro cultures whose members are similar in the MBTI sense, including businesses, organizations, trade groups, and educational entities. These micro cultures thus do not represent the MBTI diversity found in the general public (Kroeger, 1992; Keirsey, 1998; Berens & Nardi, 1999). Indeed, we commonly expect people in the same profession to share certain qualities or preferences. While "like gravitating to like" may make for friendlier or easier working conditions, we were curious about whether Extension faculty, both on-campus specialists and off-campus agents, were measurably different from the public. If so, can we then identify some challenges in communication across groups, and whether there is a problem with Extension faculty dominated by one type designing educational programs for other types? We propose that it would be beneficial for faculty to know these differences when communicating with clients and designing educational programs. MethodTo assess decision-making preferences of Extension faculty in Utah, we used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). A more thorough description of the MBTI history and theory is provided in our previous article (Saunders & Gallagher, 2003). As described in that article, to identify faculty preferences we provided a self-administered 70-question variant of the MBTI (available from the lead author on request) to all Utah State University Extension faculty. We contacted all 49 on-campus Extension specialists and received 29 responses (55%) and all 78 off-campus Extension agents and received 55 responses (70%). To identify the public's preferences we referred to the National Representative Sample (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). This sample included 3,009 individuals weighted so as to approximate the 1990 U.S. census distribution by gender and ethnic groups. For this national sample the research form of the MBTI was given to randomly selected individuals by telephone. For the study described here, we argue that it is desirable to use a national sample, instead of existing Extension clients, because Extension is mandated by the intent of the federal Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Policy to serve all people. We compared both on-campus specialists and off-campus faculty to the public. ResultsIn our analysis we first identified the responses for each group for each of the four decision-making/problem-solving preferences: extraversion or introversion, sensing or intuiting, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving. Table 1 presents results for on-campus specialists and the public; Table 2 presents similar information for off-campus agents and the public.
DiscussionOn-Campus Specialists and the PublicOn-campus specialists are slightly more introverted (I) than the public. Although the results are not significant, there may be a tendency for those members of the public who are energized by group interaction to be more engaged in public discourse about a decision than some on-campus specialists, who would prefer more one-on-one or small-group interaction. Specialists are significantly (at the .001 level) more sensing (S) in information-gathering style (93%) than the public (72%). While specialists as a whole are more likely to be sensors, the public is more diverse, with 28% preferring an intuiting (N) style. Thus, where specialists are comfortable making decisions based on facts, the public may be more interested in meanings and relationships, which can be the bigger issues surrounding the data. When actually making decisions, significant differences (at the .01 level) are also found for thinking and feeling. While 72% of specialists make decisions based on thinking criteria, 60% of the public makes decisions based on feeling criteria. Thus, while specialists strive to be rational, the public may be more concerned about who is affected and how. Also significant (at the .001 level) are differences in judging and perceiving. Almost all (97%) specialists prefer the judging function and the related focus on process and closure. However, only 54% of the public share the judging function and far more are perceivers, who are less concerned about time frames and feel comfortable leaving things open ended. In review, on-campus specialists are much more likely to prefer sensing (S), thinking (T), and judging (J) than the public. Off-Campus Agents and the PublicOff-campus agents are much more like the public in terms of the extroversion/introversion scale; both are about 45% extroverted. However, agents are much more like on-campus specialists in their orientation to the sensing method of gathering information, 93% compared to the public's 72% (significant at the .01 level). Off-campus agents and the public score the same on the thinking/feeling preference (40% thinking), a score far below that of the specialists (72%), which is a significant difference we identified in our earlier article (Saunders & Gallagher, 2003). Thus, agents in the field are more like their clients than they are like on-campus specialists in terms of using the feeling function in making decisions. Specialists, Agents, and the PublicOff-campus agents and on-campus specialists differ significantly (at the .001 level) from the public for the judging/perceiving preference. Almost all Extension faculty, both on and off campus, prefer the judging function (93%), while the public is much more focused on perceiving (46%). In review, off-campus agents share the sensing (S) and judging (J) preference with their on-campus specialists, but are like the public in their thinking/feeling (T/F) dimension. Sources of ConflictThe qualities of the specialists described above (strong S, T, and J) can be interpreted as hallmarks of the professional: data oriented, rational, and focused on closure. No doubt universities strive to develop these qualities in their graduates, and Extension selects for these qualities in hiring and promotion. However, these same qualities could be liabilities in working with those outside of Extension. This might be particularly true given the very high percentage (over 90%) of S's and J's among Extension faculty. The lack of diversity suggests the potential for "group think," where voices for the intuiting (N) and perceiving (P) styles are dismissed, or worse, ridiculed. As Kroeger (1992) notes, "Your strength maximized becomes your liability." For specialists, a primary challenge is to recognize when their preferred style of decision making (dominated by S, T, and J) is different from that of much of the public. Specialists should anticipate that they will encounter N's who want to go beyond the facts to the "larger picture" and to examine possibilities that are "less than scientific." Specialists should also anticipate that their "J-ness" can look like too much structure and too many rules, where P's in the general public want to learn through action and don't want to limit opportunities. Most important, specialists can anticipate that their rational-decision making style will be off-putting to a large portion of the public that cares more about who is affected. To feelers, the thinkers can appear "cold blooded" and indifferent to less tangible or less measurable concerns. Where the specialist uses the developed thinking function to assess risk inherent in decisions, some of the public will use a developed feeling function to assess risk. The two assessments, thinking/feeling, of the risk in a decision--the human, economic, social, or environmental values--can be very far apart. Thus, a specialist's thinking (T) point of view when measuring the value of a stand of trees may be hotly debated by those whose feeling (F) preference measures the value of trees in more subjective ways. It is appropriate that agents, who are more feeling oriented, act as intermediaries in decision processes involving the public. Agents share much with specialists, but in the critical function of making decisions they are much more like the public in considering who is affected. In some situations, however, specialists are engaged with the public very directly, e.g., in conducting a study of the Klamath Basin water issue, where over a dozen specialists engaged with the public in a series of community meetings (Cartwright, Case, Gallagher, & Hathaway, 2002). In these situations specialists need to remind themselves that some members of the public don't agree with the process specialists use to draw their conclusions, although they may agree with the overall outcome. In the worst-case scenario, the specialist, not recognizing the nature of the citizen's concern, aggravates the situation by adding more facts, more rationale, and more process. It is not our intent to suggest that specialists abdicate this style. It is, of course, what specialists are supposed to do, and it is valuable to society. However, the larger debate about the decision is better served if specialists don't misunderstand the nature of the debate and particularly if specialists don't misattribute motive to the public. As noted in the introduction, one of the possible outcomes of misattribution is that the "other" is considered ignorant or difficult. The more defensible argument is that the public is simply using a different decision-making style. Both specialists and agents need to recognize their strong bias toward sensing and judging. This shared preference could lead both on- and off-campus faculty, as a group, to a tacit agreement on "one right way" of thinking. For those members of the public who are strong N's and strong P's, such agreement can be very challenging, making Extension appear to be the group that is ignorant and difficult. Extension's strong orientation toward structure can lead to the design of programs that are challenging to other temperaments. Highly structured programs--requiring regular attendance, extensive rules, frequent reporting--are likely to be a "turn off" to those who don't share the SJ style. If only SJ-style programs are available, it is likely that a segment of the population is not being served. Further, because SJ's comprise only about 40% of the population, it may be difficult to serve all of the public or grow a program when the program designers take a different view of decision making than over half of the population. ConclusionIt is not possible in this short article to address the many issues related to communication between Extension faculty and the public. As we noted in our earlier article (Saunders & Gallagher, 2003), we see the prescription as more long term, and we see it as necessary to be adapted to each faculty group and community/client situation. We see the information provided here as giving impetus to faculty, individually or in groups, to anticipate differences so that they might improve their communication among themselves and with the public. Several authors (Mckenna & Martin, 1992; Barrett & Horner, 1989; Earnest, 1994) have recognized the value of determining MBTI preferences among Extension faculty and using that knowledge to improve communication and programming. So, if these results are true for Utah Extension, how can one be certain these same results will hold true in other states? While we have no direct evidence that the MBTI scores in this study can be generalized to other states, the work of many studies ( Berens & Nardi, 1999; Barrett & Torner; 1989, Gallagher, 2002; Earnest, 1994; Jung, 1923; Keirsey, 1987; Keirsey & Bates, 1978; Keirsey, 1998; Kroeger, 1992; McKenna & Martin, 1992; Meyers et al., 1998; Meyers, 1990; Ukaga et al. 2002) dealing with "type begets type" suggest that, when people can control their circumstances, they will choose to associate with similar personality types. Hence, the results of this study could, in theory, be similar to results found in similar studies conducted in other states. We propose that Extension faculty become sufficiently familiar with the MBTI to informally assess the type of those with whom they are communicating and that they have the knowledge, skills, experience, and motivation to shape their communication and programs to be more effective. We see this training as a fundamental part of what Extension must do to adapt to the challenges and changes the Cooperative Extension System now faces as it strives to remain relevant in a changing world. Extension has a strong culture, and one effect of that culture is that it selects those who fit. And, when people don't fit, the strength of the culture encourages them to leave. The result is that Extension truly needs to examine the present culture and note how it is its own "worst enemy" in terms of future success. ReferencesBerens, L. V., & Nardi, D. (1999). The 16 sixteen personality types. Huntington Beach, California: Telos Publications. Barrett, L. A., & Torner, J. T. (1989). Personality types and rural leadership. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989spring/rb1.html Cartwright, S., Case, P., Gallagher, T., & Hathaway, R. (2003). Extension's role in responding to community crisis: Lessons from Klamath Falls, Oregon. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a2.shtml Gallagher, T. (2002). Decision making: An architect's model for Extension application. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/tt1.html Earnest, G. W. (1994). Managing administrative conflicts. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 32(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/rb1.html Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Keirsey, D. (1987). Portraits of temperament. Prometheus Nemesis Books, Del Mar, California. Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me. Third Edition. Prometheus Nemesis Books. Del Mar, California. Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me: Temperament, character, intelligence. Prometheus Book Company, Del Mar, CA. Kroeger, O., with Thuesen, J. (1992). Type talk at work. Dell Publishing, New York, New York. McKenna, J., & Martin, D. (1992). Understanding clientele differences. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 30(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992spring/a3.html Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd Edition. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto. Myers, I. B. (1990). Gifts differing. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Ukaga, O., Reichenbach, M. R. Blinn, C. R., Zak, D. M., Hutchinson, W. D., & Hegland, N. J. (2002) Building successful campus and field faculty teams. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/a3.html
Invisible Force: Farmers' Mental Models and How They Influence Learning and ActionsEileen Eckert Alexandra Bell In the last 20 years, farming in the United States has been undergoing accelerated change. Farmland is being lost to development, farmers are going out of business, and more people are leaving than entering the field of farming. In many parts of the country, conventional farm production and revenue are being consolidated in the hands of a few mega-agribusinesses. Family farming, always precarious, has become an endangered way of life (Dillon, 2003). At the same time, demand is growing for some products, such as organically grown produce and specialty products. Small farmers who can produce these and other value-added products can maintain and even improve their economic well-being (Burros, 2002; Greene, 2000). Farmers can develop small farming operations that will succeed and endure in this era of polarization. They can do this by recognizing and taking advantage of niches within the food market, especially niches that may see sudden, explosive growth. Agricultural educators appreciate that individual ingenuity is often the key to success among operators of small farms. Ingenuity enables farmers to see possibilities, take advantage of market niches, and anticipate and solve problems. Indeed, the ways in which farmers put their visions into practice are indicative of their mental models of farming. Mental models are defined as "inventions of the mind that represent, organize, and restructure domain-specific knowledge" (Seel, 2001, p. 408). Individuals have mental models for different aspects, or domains, of their lives. For example, an individual can have a mental model about family or politics or about his or her profession. A mental model for a particular domain includes related values and beliefs. It includes conceptions of knowledge and skills, and how to use them. Mental models create perspectives and points of view; they serve as both a filter and a guide for information, learning experiences, and problem solving. Often, mental models overlap. For example, for some of the farmers in this study, their mental model of farming and their mental model of family had many components in common. Agricultural educators who seek to promote the success of small farm operators need to understand the mental models of farming held by farmers with whom they work. In her study of the role of transformative learning in successful Extension partnerships, Franz (2003) highlighted the importance of recognizing and understanding different "world views" (p. 7). Though Franz focused on the educational relationship between campus researchers and county practitioners, the applications to relationships with farmers are equally relevant. By understanding the ways that individual farmers perceive their world, educators can help small farm operators to think and act in ways that enable them to overcome the many barriers to success. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the nature of mental models of farming and their role in farming practice among a sample of small farm operators in the northeastern United States, where pressures on small family farms are especially intense. MethodsThe researchers tape-recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 10 operators of small farms in the northeastern United States. The interview questions elicited farmers' perceptions of the different types of knowledge they possessed, ways they developed their knowledge, and how they went about solving problems and making decisions. Interviews lasted 60 to 90 minutes each, with two couples interviewed together. The sample included farmers representing a variety of approaches to farming and farm types, including vegetable, dairy, and livestock, and a range of marketing practices, from wholesale to direct marketing and community-supported agriculture (CSA). The researchers identified participants through referrals by providers of educational and other services to farmers, through referrals by farmers participating in the study, and through Web sites and newspaper profiles of successful farmers. In addition, the researchers analyzed 17 written profiles of "innovative" operators of small farms--11 from the northeastern U.S. and 6 from other regions--featured in the New American Farmer: Profiles of Agricultural Innovation (Berton, 2001). Analysis of the profiles helped to ensure the trustworthiness of the interview data and to extend knowledge of mental models in the domain of farming outside the northeastern United States. The researchers conducted the interviews over a 6-month period between February and August of 2002. During that period, the interview protocol was revised based on themes and questions that emerged from early data analysis. Data analysis began with transcription of the first interviews and continued throughout the study. The process entailed two alternating strategies (Miles & Huberman, 1994): (a) looking for themes, or patterns, in the data and constructing theoretical explanations for the themes, and (b) using pre-existing theories from the literature on mental models (e.g., Collins & Gentner, 1987; Greeno, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 1983; Seel, 2001) and examining the data for evidence that supported the theories. Relevant information about the interview participants and farmers whose profiles were analyzed is incorporated into the following discussion of the results. (Note that the names of interview participants have been replaced with pseudonyms.) ResultsThe definition of a mental model of farming presented here was constructed through analysis of themes in the data collected from operators of small farms. Three major themes emerged:
Prior Values, Beliefs, and Knowledge Influence Farmers' Mental ModelsA mental model of farming is an individual "mental map" or set of propositions that includes the individual's values and beliefs about the ideal and the actual state of farming. It also includes the role and relative importance of values, beliefs, knowledge, and skills, and ways of processing information and applying skills to learn and solve problems. Every farmer interviewed described his or her practice of farming in ways that reflected an underlying mental model. Kevin, a grass-based livestock farmer, was most explicit, saying:
Both Kevin and another farmer, Mike, talked about farming sustainably in terms of using a model of past farming practices. Their descriptions revealed a respect for tradition and for working with, instead of attempting to overcome, nature. Kevin, referring to current reliance on vaccines and antibiotics, said:
Mike, an organic vegetable grower, also spoke of his model and practices of farming by referring to past conventions:
While Kevin and Mike saw their organic farming practices in the context of tradition, Tom saw his organic farming practices as "cutting edge." He remarked, "I think the organic scene in [names the state], I mean, we are hot! Our biggest challenge every year is keeping up with demand! What other agriculture industry in the state can say that? None!" Tom's view of his farm as cutting edge is congruent with the value he put on innovation and overcoming limitations and barriers. For example, Tom moved his farm to a low-cost plot of land in a depressed urban area when farmland in his rural community experienced the pressures of suburban growth. For both of the couples interviewed--Carla and Jim and Mike and Cathy--several principles seemed to form the framework upon which their knowledge and practices were built. Their principles served as filters for learning and for knowledge and skill development. These principles, as articulated piecemeal in the course of the interviews, were:
This framework of principles based on personal values served to guide these farmers' development and application of knowledge and skills. Carla and Jim and Cathy and Mike shared an organic approach to farming, a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) approach to marketing, and an emphasis on a diversified operation that was not dependent on the success of any one crop or product. Farmers' Mental Models Guide Their Actions, Decisions, and Use of InformationThe second theme in the data was that farmers use their mental models to guide them in seeking information and deciding what feedback and advice to accept, reject, or adapt, as well as how to act and make decisions. As described above, farmers acted in accordance with mental models based on values, beliefs, and knowledge that were important to them. Especially for non-conventional farmers, this sometimes led them to reject advice and feedback from experts when it was not in accordance with their mental model of farming, or seek to further information that was congruent with their mental model. Carla gave several examples of how their principles served as guides, including the following:
In response to a further question about the Extension expert's first advice being to use a non-organic chemical, Carla answered:
In order to elicit non-chemical strategies, Carla had to ask for an alternative to the first advice given by the consultant. The Extension expert's advice was predicated on a mental model that valued efficiency as much as effectiveness, so that the "best" solution was the one that would produce the desired results with the least effort--spraying one product on the tomatoes. Carla's mental model valued an organic solution even if it required more work--taking steps to regulate temperature and humidity over a period of several days. Her mental model of farming served as a guide so that she did not accept the first advice given, and it served to expose her to more knowledge than she would have been given otherwise. If she had accepted the advice to use the non-organic spray, she would not have heard of the organic alternative. Another organic farmer, Ellen, described her reaction to expert advice that was not congruent with her mental model:
A Workable Mental Model of Farming Meets the Needs of the IndividualThe third theme that emerged from the data was that the quality of a mental model is derived from how well it meets the needs of the individual who uses it. "Goodness of fit" of the model to the needs of the individual is more important than goodness of fit between the individual's model and an abstract ideal model described by researchers, policymakers, or advisors. One study participant, Joe, was a conventional dairy farmer whose mental model was compatible with conventional industry standards for quality and growth, as indicated by his use of the Northeast Dairy Business Summary to set benchmarks for his operation. Joe's mental model was in contrast to those of Gordon and Marion Jones, and Mary Doerr, farmers whose profiles were analyzed for this study, as summarized in Table 1.
The contrast among the mental models and activities of the dairy farmers above demonstrates that the mental model influences the activities of the farmer. Contrasting the focal points of the mental models makes clear that mental models reflect unique individual values and perceptions of need. They do not necessarily conform to recognized best practices. For Joe, becoming a "top" dairy farmer by conventional industry standards was of primary importance, while for Gordon and Marion Jones, developing a system of dairy farming that allowed a quality family life was the most important value. Mary Doerr, for example, found a dairy operation that conformed to industry standards and best practices to be stressful and unsatisfying, and the profile of her farming operation demonstrated that a business that is congruent with her mental model of farming is both satisfying and successful. For each farmer, a mental model based on an abstract prototype of an ideal dairy operation would likely have involved a compromise of their unique values and a less-than-satisfying and perhaps less successful operation. Conclusions and RecommendationsThough this study was qualitative in nature and the specific mental models held by farmers in the study may not represent those held by other farmers, the study clearly illustrates that farmers can have very different mental models of farming, even among operators of small farms working in similar commodities and geographic regions. The results indicated that the farmers in the study have mental models of farming that are influenced by their values, knowledge, and experiences, and the models play a predominant role in their learning, problem-solving, and decision making. The results provide empirical support for conceptual researchers like Raedeke and Rikoon (1997), who recognized, particularly in more sustainable forms of agriculture, "the multiplicity of ways in which knowledge is constructed and thus linked to diversity in farmers' perceptions, understandings, and actions" (p. 154). Additionally, the results have implications for agricultural educators in both extension and field research settings. As illustrated in the comments by Carla and Ellen, farmers are more likely to attend to information and ideas that are congruent with their current mental models of farming, as well as with their current knowledge and skills. When educators consider the mental models, especially the guiding principles, of the farmers with whom they work, their feedback is more likely to be accepted and applied. For example, a farmer may seek the advice of an Extension agent about adding an agritourism component, or a value-added product, to diversify her operation. If a basic principle of the farmer's mental model is farming without debt, and the advisor's advice includes financing diversification through a loan, then the farmer is unlikely to accept the advisor's advice. If, however, the advisor probes to learn about the values that inform the farmer's plan, and the advisor tailors his guidance towards managing current assets that enable the farmer to diversify without incurring debt, the farmer will be more likely to apply the advice and maintain what she perceives to be a supportive relationship with the Extension agent. Agricultural educators can strive to become more aware of the unique mental model underlying each farmer's practice, their own mental model of farming, and the interaction between the two. Becoming more aware of one's own mental model and those held by others requires foregoing assumptions, careful listening and observation, and thoughtful assessment (Eckert, 2003). Educators can ask farmers to articulate the underlying principles and values on which they have based past actions. Often, these principles and values can be revealed through farmers' answers to questions such as "Can you tell me what led you to that idea?" or "What types of things did you consider when you made that decision?" Agricultural educators can introduce new information and ideas in ways that acknowledge farmers' values, highlight similarities between farmers' principles and those underlying new strategies, and leave open the possibility that each encounter can contribute to the continued development of both the farmers' and the educator's respective mental model of farming. Educators who are more aware of the role that mental models play in farmers' learning, problem-solving, and decision making are more likely to succeed in supporting farmers' application of knowledge and skills, resulting in improvements in farming practices and production. ReferencesBerton, V. (Ed.) (2001). The new American farmer: Profiles of agricultural innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. Burros, M. (2002, May 29). Eating well: The greening of the herd. New York Times, pp. F1. Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1987). How people construct mental models. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 243-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dillon, J. (2003, February 5). New England Milk. All Things Considered [Radio broadcast]. Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Retrieved February 20, 2003 from http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=979162 Eckert, E. (2003). Proficiency-development spirals: Occupational learning among farmers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Franz, N. K. (2003). Transformative learning in Extension staff partnerships: Facilitating personal, joint, and organizational change. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003april/a1.shtml Greene, C. (2000, April). U.S. organic agriculture gaining ground. Agricultural Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service. Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing (pp. 285-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage. Raedeke, A. H., & Rikoon, J. S. (1997). Temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge: Implications for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 14, 145-158. Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: Like a bridge over troubled water. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427.
Cooperative Director Training: Changing the Way Extension Programs Are PresentedSusan Hine Joan R. Fulton James Pritchett IntroductionAll sectors of agriculture are in the midst of dramatic change, often referred to as the "industrialization of agriculture" (Boehjle, 1999; Drabenstott, 2000). Agricultural cooperatives are no exception. Vandeburg, Fulton, Hine, and McNamara (2000) identify that the driving forces behind restructuring of locally owned cooperatives, through mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and strategic alliances, are decreasing numbers of farms, increasing costs, industrializing of agriculture, increasing competition, and decreasing profits. Agricultural cooperatives are member-owned businesses and as such operate with a Board of Directors consisting of farmers who are these member owners. In order for cooperatives to be competitive, their Boards of Directors must have skills in management, governance, strategy, and finance. This is true for any Board of Directors--no matter their business form (Gallagher & Andrew, 1997). We further identified the needs of this group by administering a survey to agricultural cooperatives throughout Colorado and Indiana, and some of the information elicited from the respondents showed how these same trends were also evident in these two states. Although not all situations were the same between the two states, there really were few differences in results; thus, aggregating the data gave us a larger number of observations and more insights. Additionally, the responses indicated a need to build skills for communication and effective decision making as a result of today's ever-changing market conditions. In fact, some of the responses showed how directors could potentially benefit from new Extension programs. This article describes the results of the study and how it was put to use to generate a new format for Extension director training in Colorado. This Extension format used in Colorado could be easily applied to other director training programs throughout the country. DataOur first goal was to determine the needs of cooperative managers and directors, which was accomplished through in-person interviews with the general managers of 70 locally owned agricultural supply and marketing cooperatives in Indiana and Colorado. These surveys were conducted during May and June of 2000. To ensure consistency of the data collected, each interview used a standard survey instrument and was conducted by the same interviewer in each state. The managers were very supportive of the research and willing to share information about their cooperatives, resulting in interviews that averaged 90 minutes in length, but varied from 45 minutes to 2 1/2 hours. The survey instrument had five parts; however, the relevant sections for this study included:
From this information, the following categories surfaced as extremely relevant factors for successful cooperative alliances and thus important factors for the director training program (Figure 1). Figure 1.
As noted in Figure 1, all factors have a value greater than 3.5 on a 5-point scale indicating that all were important or very important. It became readily apparent that many of the success factors among all types of cooperative alliances were in one form or another related to communication skills, from trusting one another to actually keeping egos in check. The ability of directors to effectively communicate with each other (either within their own cooperative or with directors from other cooperatives) thus became a focus of our training development program. We realized that it would not be enough to instruct directors on ways to improve the profitability of the cooperative; rather, we had to have a format that encouraged and improved overall communication skills among directors while providing them with the necessary skill set that allowed their cooperatives to be successful. It is interesting to note that these results are also consistent with observations from non-agricultural business sectors. The Harvard Business Review (2000) reported that chief executive officers (known as the M&A Group) from leading businesses across a wide range of sectors identified communication as one of the most important factors for the success of mergers and alliances. Thus, it was very apparent that our cooperative director training program needed to include communication-, trust-, and team-building exercises. Because profitability was key to the success of any cooperative venture, we also felt that it was very important to discover the level of financial ability of the managers and directors. For this reason, the survey also focused on capital budgeting techniques employed by the cooperative. As a result, we found that managers and directors were not using the most appropriate capital budgeting techniques (Figure 2). Six common business evaluation methods used in investment decision-making processes are net present value (NPV) or discounting, simple interest rate (simple), payback, book value, market value, and internal rate of return (IRR). We will not go into detail about how these individual techniques are calculated but would refer the reader to Gallagher and Andrew (1997). The bars in the graph represent the number of respondents who rated each of the methods from 1 through 5, with 1 being unimportant and 5 being very important. According to the finance literature, the net present value (discounting) evaluation method is the preferred approach for business evaluation since it incorporates the time value of money (Gallagher and Andrew, 1997). For example, this method discounts all future net cash flows at a predetermined investment rate that would be used by the business as a hurdle rate for new venture decisions. If the resulting dollar amount is positive, then the new venture would earn at least the specified rate of return and the project should be a go, all else equal. It should be noted that IRR also incorporates the time value of money but is less preferred because of the assumption that all cash flows are reinvested at the same rate. Again the reader is referred to the Gallagher and Andrew text (1997). It is interesting to see that most managers preferred the more simplistic payback method, with 89% responding with a 4 or 5 rating while only 17% considered discounting to be important. This finding further demonstrated to us that understanding the importance of financial analysis and capital budgeting techniques needed to be included in our training program. We now had much of the information needed to design the director training Extension program.
Figure 2.
Program DevelopmentAfter a series of planning sessions, our program committee decided to divide the director training program into three tiers, each tier consisting of 2 days of Extension training. The committee consisted of four representative members: a university associate professor, the executive director of the Cooperative Council, a representative from Co Bank, and a manager from one of the state cooperatives. We are currently offering two tiers at a time, three times a year. Tiers One and Two provide directors with the management, governance, strategy, and financial skills necessary in the boardroom. Tier Three, however, is completely focused on helping directors develop better communication and decision-making skills while enhancing what they have learned in the previous two tiers. It is important to note that a key component in our design was related to the high ranking of the communication-related variables obtained from our survey. As a result, we decided to change the format that is often found in director training programs throughout Colorado (as well as other states) by incorporating a strong interactive component. It was felt that if directors were going to be induced to attend yet another Extension training program, it needed to be innovative while providing them with the necessary tools for running successful cooperatives. Sitting and listening to someone speak in a seminar format often is not a satisfactory approach any longer. To meet this challenge, we decided to intersperse small case vignettes combined with interactive exercises throughout the training in Tiers One and Two, where the directors learn the management, governance, strategy, and financial skills. Tier Three, on the other hand, involved designing a simulation that would allow participants to achieve the maximum level of communication and trust building skills, while at the same time let them apply the tools learned in the first two tiers. Following is a more detailed discussion of the individual three tiers and how they work together to provide directors with an effective training program. Tier OneTier One is a 2-day program that combines introductory governance issues with those of beginning financial and equity management. During the first morning, the directors receive training in basic governance issues, including Board and CEO teamwork as well as general board responsibilities. The instructors still make presentations; however, unlike traditional training, these instructors have been asked to intersperse their presentations with exercises and cases that the directors are asked to analyze while working with each other in an informal setting. In order to facilitate group work, participants are seated with other board members from their individual cooperative, with no more than six at any one table. Occasionally, directors are asked to move to other tables in order to learn about different approaches used by other cooperatives in the state; however, most prefer to have the time to work together with their cooperative directors. It provides them with an opportunity to come to consensus together--to learn to work with each other--on various problems that they are asked to solve throughout the day. They like the idea of working together as teams to solve problems, a necessary tool in the boardroom. The afternoon starts with a legal session where attorneys are asked to first present material on legal foundations and responsibilities of cooperative directors, but again, in keeping with the interactive format, the presentations are kept to a minimum. Following the presentations is a question-and-answer (Q&A) session where the attorneys are asked to act more as a panel to answer common questions that are collected from participants prior to the session. Questions related to the topics are provided to the attorneys should no questions be forthcoming; however, once discussion starts, directors are more responsive and tend to ask more questions. The final session of the day is focused on policy governance and uses the presentation and exercise/case format. There is a dinner at the end of the day in which directors from all tiers participate. Because directors start the training at different times of the year, this dinner provides an opportunity for everyone to get together and discuss what has been going on in the different sessions throughout the day. After dinner, a series of tables are arranged around the room where various presenters from the day (as well as other invited panelists expert in the topics offered) host a question-and-answer session on topics already covered that day or panelists will also address any additional questions that directors may have. Board members are then given the opportunity to move from table to table for a period of about 15 minutes to ask their questions or just "listen in." The tables are organized by topics including (but not limited to) finance, governance, and equity management. Day two focuses on an introduction to finance, during which a variety of exercises and cases that help directors learn how to read and interpret financial statements are included. The second part of the day provides an introduction to basic cooperative equity management and redemption strategies. Again, as in the case with day one, an emphasis is placed on the use of cases and exercises for enhanced understanding and interaction. Tier TwoThe format for Tier Two is similar to that of Tier One. The content is just different. The first day consists totally of an introduction to strategic thinking, including topics on strategy formulation and implementation. The entire day is spent with a dynamic presentation and interaction process that has been so stimulating that participants are very motivated to try out these new techniques once they return home. Day two is focused on more advanced governance issues, with emphasis placed on director and management evaluation, compensation and recruitment of management, and creating a high performance board. Again, the emphasis is on using exercises to get relevant points across to the audience. Tier ThreeTier Three's objectives are two-fold: to give directors an opportunity to practice the skills developed in previous tiers within an experiential learning setting and, perhaps more important, to create an environment of open communication that encourages board members to broach difficult topics related to their own cooperatives. In this setting, the decision-making process is emphasized rather than the decision itself. Participants are challenged to gather pertinent information from complex scenarios, listen to the opinions of others, and make decisions rather than tabling difficult problems. The experiential learning exercise is centered on a simulated business, Farm Country Cooperative, whose board of directors meets in six sessions over the period of 1 year to address representative cooperative issues (e.g., establishing equity payouts, closing down inefficient operations, or deciding how to go about handling redistricting issues). The board's decisions are recorded, and individual board members must provide a rationale for their decision on "input" sheets. The input sheets contain leading questions that encourage participants to place their decision in context. As an example, board members are asked to discuss how a merger decision relates to the overall strategic direction of the cooperative. The simulated cooperative's board composition facilitates learning. Specifically, Tier Three students are divided into groups of six who serve as Farm Country's Board. The groups are chosen so that no two members of Farm Country's board actually serve together on their own board of directors "back home," nor are they paired with a cooperative manager with whom they work. Consequently, individuals may be able to ask questions and share ideas and opinions more strongly than they might within a group of their hometown peers. In addition, the board members play different roles with each board meeting, so that everyone has the opportunity (and obligation) to adopt a leadership position. The chairman of the board rotates after each session, as does the role of the board secretary, and the cooperative manager. At the end of the six simulated board meetings, every individual has had a leadership opportunity in their group. Each table's facilitator ensures that the relevant information such as the board's meeting agenda is followed and occasionally will ask questions to generate discussion. A unique feature of each simulated board meeting includes the "rogue" board member who is responsible for raising difficult issues that the board must address. (The rogue board member rotates among the participants as well, and the facilitator provides directions for this individual). The rogue's comments generate discussion and thought--participants enjoy playing the rogue's role by arguing divergent views (e.g., it's time to fire the manager!). Playing the rogue is particularly valuable for introverted board members who need an icebreaker to fully participate in Tier Three training. Rotating the rogue role, as well as the other roles, creates a level of shared experience and trust among the Tier Three participants, encouraging them to share ideas with each other more readily. The simulated issues faced by Farm Country Cooperative are timely, complex issues with which cooperative boards frequently must deal. Most board members have confronted or considered similar situations, so during a simulated board meeting these participants fall out of their designated roles and discuss how their hometown cooperative addressed a similar issue. Ex post anecdotal evaluations suggest this is one of the most valuable contributions of the training. Likewise, each simulated board meeting ends with a general session eliciting the three most important lessons learned during that session. The board facilitators coordinate the general session, asking individual Farm Country Boards to discuss the process involved in making their individual board's decision. The decision process is contrasted against the experience of other Farm Country boards, and a general agreement is made about the most important learning points. These summary points are typed and distributed among the Tier Three participants at the conclusion of training. A final note needs to be made on the Tier Three experience. Board members are separated from their hometown peers to participate in simulations; however, significant break opportunities, meal times, and evenings are kept free from structured activity. Often, the hometown boards talk about the day's training during this free time, and then discussion shifts to the issues that the hometown board of directors face. A direct result of the training, then, is creation of a focused communication opportunity. ResultsThe results from our three-tier Extension training programs have been extremely encouraging. Not only have the written evaluations been extremely high, but also attendance continues to grow simply through "word of mouth." As an anecdote, we have learned that some cooperatives are actually planning to require board certification, which can be earned by attending all three tiers. Only through this certification process will directors be allowed to remain on their respective cooperative boards. See Tables 1 and 2 for a summary of evaluations received for the first two tiers. The percentage numbers represent those respondents who answered excellent, good, bad, or poor to the topics listed. It's interesting to note that the vast majority of the respondents (over 94%) gave either a good or excellent rating for the various categories.
Additionally, we have included some individual comments provided by participants.
We completed Tier Three for the first time in February 2005 and have not as yet put the evaluation numbers together, but as a note, general comments indicate that participants feel this tier was by far the most beneficial and enjoyable part of the training. In fact, some indicated that they wanted to come back in a year and go through the entire Tier Three again with a different group. The experience gained from communicating with other board members from around the state was extremely important to them. ConclusionsFinding new ways to conduct Extension programming is extremely important in today's agricultural environment. The competition for producers' time is steadily increasing, and they need to know that the time they dedicate to Extension programs such as this one is going to be worthwhile. To that end, the results of our initial year of training have been very encouraging, and we are excited about where this type of programming can lead us in the future. If the past is any indication of future results, cooperative board directors should continue to be supportive of this overall training program. ReferencesBoehlje, M. (1999). Structural changes in the agricultural industries: How do we measure, analyze and understand them? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 (5), 1028-1041. Carey, D. (2000, May-June). A CEO roundtable on making mrgers succeed. Harvard Business Review. pp. 145-154. Drabenstott, M. (2000). A new structure for agriculture: A revolution for rural America. Journal of Agribusiness 18 (1), 61-70. Gallagher, T. J., & Andrew, J. D. (1997). Financial Management: Principles and Practice. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Vandeburg, J., Fulton, J. R., Hine, S., & McNamara, K. (2000, December). Driving forces and success factors for mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and strategic alliances among local cooperatives. Paper presented at NCR 194 (Research on Cooperatives) Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.
Increasing Educational Impact: A Multi-Method Model for Evaluating Extension WorkshopsKathleen D. Kelsey Mike Schnelle Patricia Bolin Oklahoma State University Introduction and BackgroundExtension professionals are increasingly being asked for more accountability in their work by stakeholders (Altschuld & Zheng, 1995). In response, they have turned to the processes and products of evaluation for methods in documenting impacts of their programs. Many evaluation models have been applied with varying degrees of success to Extension programs. Some models have followed a singular structured format (Bailey & Deen, 2002; Garst & Bruce, 2003), while others have used a variety of activities to demonstrate program outcomes (Brown & Kiernan, 1998; Chapman-Novakofski et al., 2004). The purposes of evaluation have evolved over time and are currently described by Mark, Henry, and Julnes (2000) as a) assigning the merit and worth of a program, b) improving the program or organization, c) oversight and compliance, and d) knowledge development or testing theory. The process of evaluation can occur before and during (formative), or after (summative) (Scriven, 1991) the program has been implemented. Formative evaluation is designed to facilitate program improvement, whereas, summative evaluations are designed to judge the merit and worth of a program or to focus on oversight and compliance issues. The model presented in this article was developed by the IPM coordinator, the Extension Specialist, and the Evaluator to document impacts and outcomes of a series of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) workshops delivered by Oklahoma State University. The model focused on unobtrusive measures that would capture the processes and products of the workshop effort. The model incorporated formative and summative concepts (Scriven, 1991) as well as the Context, Input, Process, and Products (CIPP) model introduced by Stufflebeam (1973). The CIPP model includes four phases of evaluation. Phase one is Context centered and addresses the questions of where the program is now and what the program needs to do to achieve its goals. Phase two is Input centered and asks questions about how the program will get to where it needs to be and what resources are required to drive the program. Phase three concerns the Process and asks how the program is going to achieve its goals. Phase four is Product focused and asks if the program has achieved its goals and what the measurable outcomes are. A Description of the IPM WorkshopThe workshops were funded by the Southern Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. The project goal was to educate opinion leaders such as ornamental horticultural specialists, Extension Educators, nurserymen, and advanced hobby gardeners in IPM principles for environmentally sound use of pesticide applications around the home. The project adopted a train-the-trainer approach by targeting opinion leaders so that the participants would diffuse the knowledge throughout their communities. The objective of the project was to maximize participants' adoption of IPM principles in ornamental pest management. Implementation of the program involved delivery of three IPM-centered workshops. The workshops were structured as follows: 8:00 a.m.: Welcome and introduction of IPM presenters and the evaluation process. 8:15 a.m.: Participants network and fill out knowledge pretest. 8:30 a.m.: Participants split into two groups and moved outside for a walking tour. 11:30 a.m.: Participants rejoin for lunch and a formal IPM presentation back in meeting room. 1:00 p.m.: Participants resume walking tour outside. 3:30 p.m.: Participants gathered in meeting room to pick up brochures and to complete knowledge posttest and customer satisfaction survey. The walking tour was scouted in advance by the IPM Coordinator for common pest problems seen in this state. Thirteen presenters led two groups of participants around campus and explained the problems and the most effective treatments. The IPM Program Evaluation ModelProgram evaluation was an integral component of the funding proposal, thus, formative evaluation began as the proposal was written. Once funding was secured, the team worked to develop a model for program implementation where evaluation was integrated into the workshop. The team decided to use participant observation (Patton, 1990) to capture the context, input, and processes involved in delivering the workshops and to use a pretest-posttest to document the products of the program (changes in attitude, knowledge, and behavior) (Creswell, 2003). The evaluator served as the participant observer by attending and fully participating in every workshop. The evaluator documented activities and informally interviewed other participants during the walking tours. This method was unobtrusive and yielded high quality data on the workshop processes. The evaluator was able to discuss subtleties of the workshop with program planners that a written instrument could not capture. A written pretest-posttest instrument was developed by the team based on information to be presented in the workshop. Unlike many workshop evaluations, the instrument focused on capturing knowledge gained during the event in addition to customer satisfaction data. Sample questions are: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is used to control all but which group of insects? What is the recommended treatment for leaf or petiole galls? The 2002 instrument had 27 items, the 2003 instrument had 17 items, and the 2004 instrument had 32 items. The instrument was modified from year-to-year to reflect new content added to the workshop in water ecology and termite control. The response set included matching, multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and Likert-type items to increase participant responses (Chapman-Novakofski et al., 1997; Shepard, 2002). The instrument was administered at the beginning of each workshop. As participants entered the meeting room, they were greeted and handed the instrument and asked to fill out the form by the workshop leaders, adding legitimacy to the process. At the end of the workshop, the participants filled out the same instrument, allowing for a matched pairs t-test to be used for the analysis. The results of observations, the pretest-posttest, and customer satisfaction surveys from each workshop were used to improve successive workshops. The team met before and after each workshop to discuss desired outcomes, the lessons learned from previous evaluation efforts, and if the model needed to be refined. Findings from the pretest-posttest instructed the team about strengths and weaknesses within the content and presentation. The customer satisfaction data was fed back to the 13 speakers regarding their effectiveness as an opportunity for self-reflection and improvement. The IPM Program Evaluation Model can be summarized as follows.
Evaluation OutcomesIn all three workshops (2002, 2003, 2004), participants were asked to put their names on the surveys so that a matched pairs t-test analysis could be run. A research assistant graded the tests, and an entomologist confirmed questionable responses. Significant gains in knowledge were documented using this procedure. Workshop ResultsIn 2002, 38 participants took both the pre- and the posttest. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for the population.
According to the results of the pre- and posttest, participants made significant knowledge gains in 22 of the 27 tested variables (81%). The presenters were effective in communicating the majority of the intended content to participants. Although participants did significantly increase their knowledge, observational findings noted much room for improvement in teaching adult learners about IPM practices. The Extension team set about improving the instructional design to deliver more effective content and coached presenters in effective speaking techniques. The team also worked to improve the comfort of participants during the long walking tour. In 2003, 39 participants took both the pre- and the posttest. Table 2 details the descriptive statistics for the population. Significant gains in knowledge were documented for 7 of the 17 (41%) concepts. The remaining 10 (59%) concepts were already known by the participants.
In 2004, 51 participants took both the pre- and the posttest. Table 3 details the descriptive statistics for the total population. The workshop was effective in communicating 19 of 32 (60%) new IPM principles to participants. The remaining 13 (40%) concepts were already known by the participants.
One possible explanation for the decrease in knowledge gained from 2002 (81%), to 41% in 2003, and 59% in 2004 is that many experienced professionals attended the workshop in 2003 and 2004 in part to earn continuing education units. They may have also attended the 2002 workshop as well. Observational Findings for All WorkshopsObservational findings noted that the workshop presentation team had adjusted and improved their performance as a result of previous formative evaluations. Specifically:
DiscussionAn "overwhelming lack of attention to project evaluation" (Shepard, 2002) can be avoided with the effective use of stakeholder-centered evaluation practice. Shepard reported that project directors had "no plans to address evaluation" and that project evaluation seemed to be "reactive, using neither basic evaluation planning nor formative research techniques" (2002). Chapman-Novakofski et al. (1997) reported that Extension staff "found few rewards for conducting evaluations." Implementing and improving evaluation requires awareness among Extension professionals that evaluation practice can be used to learn within organizations (Preskill & Torres, 1999) and that, subsequently, they can offer more effective programs to create more satisfied clients. The IPM Program Evaluation Model developed and implemented for the IPM program was highly effective in directing program improvement because the Extension professionals were engaged in the evaluation processes from start to finish. They valued evaluation findings and incorporated them into future activities. They were engaged stakeholders, a critical component of successful evaluation (Bryk, 1983). Inviting an external evaluator to join the project early in the process was essential for building trust within the team. Team members trusted the evaluation process because they were co-creators of the processes and products of evaluation (Kelsey & Pense, 2001; Patton, 1997). Having solid evidence from a mixed-method approach allowed the team to improve the instructional design of the workshops and add content that was educational. As Brown and Kiernan (1998) reported, "combining quantitative and qualitative measures within the model framework led to a more rigorous examination of acceptance and impact of a pilot educational program." Over time, the workshop evolved to better meet the needs of clients. Finally, the Extension specialists gained confidence in their own evaluation skills by working with an external evaluator. That experience will translate into a lifetime practice of incorporating evaluation methods into future activities. ReferencesAltschuld, J. W., & Zheng, H. Y. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of research organizations: An examination of multiple approaches. Evaluation Review, 19(2), 197-216. Bailey, S. J., & Deen, M. Y. (2002). A framework for introducing program evaluation to Extension faculty and staff. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(2), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/iw1.html Brown, J. L., & Kiernan, N. E. (1998). A model for integrating program development and evaluation. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 36(3), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb5.html Bryk, A. S. (Ed.). (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Chapman-Novakofski, K., Boeckner, L. S., Canton, R., Clark, C. D., Keim, K., Britten, P., & McClelland, J. (1997). Evaluating evaluation: What we've learned. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 35(1), Available at : http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/rb2.html Chapman-Novakofski, K., DeBruine, V., Derrick, B., Karduck, J., Todd, J., & Todd, S. (2004). Using evaluation to guide program content: Diabetes education. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 42(3), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/iw1.shtml Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Garst, B. A., & Bruce, F. A. (2003). Identifying 4-H camping outcomes using a standardized evaluation process across multiple 4-H educational centers. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 41(3), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003june/rb2.shtml Kelsey, K. D., & Pense, S. L. (2001). A model for gathering stakeholder input for setting research priorities at the land-grant university. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2), 18-27. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. (3 ed.). London: Sage. Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shepard, R. (2002). Evaluating Extension-based water resource outreach programs: Are we meeting the challenge? Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(1), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/a3.html Stufflebeam, D. L. (1973). Toward a science of educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Burnout: How Does Extension Balance Job and Family?Karen M. Ensle Are you overstressed, feeling tightness in your back and shoulders? Are you having difficulty sleeping? It may include a chronic feeling of "being sick", "overtired", or "fatigued." In the Extension office do you ask yourself, "How am I balancing my job and my family?" Let us take a look at several states and how they are addressing the problem of burnout and related issues. There are pros and cons when working for Extension. The job offers a flexible work schedule, but requires many night and weekend meetings. The employee derives much personal satisfaction from educating the clientele served, but the enjoyment of teaching and working with the public often gets sidelined for endless paperwork with unrealistic due dates. The position requires a person with a high energy level who is extremely well organized and a good communicator; however, the employee is often either "left on their own with no supervision" or over supervised and told there is only ONE way to get the job done. Burnout often is the result of overwork, not dislike of the work itself . Being an Extension agent has many positives as well as the negatives. Extension Programs That Address Employee BurnoutBurnout often happens slowly. Some states have lost staff due to heavy work loads and lack of time with family and friends. A few states, such as Pennsylvania, have made efforts toward employee retention. Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension provided in-service training to address staff needs regarding home and workplace issues with support from the Dean and administration. Educational sessions were offered to agents, staff and volunteers on managing their personal and professional lives. Participants evaluated these sessions very highly and indicated the information was practical and useful. Other states have addressed personnel issues differently. In Kansas in the mid-1990's, an informal network of Extension professionals explored creating a healthier work environment. Eight organizational workshops were offered on "Change and Renewal" with a document called Caring People Respond: CPR for Extension Health and Maintenance, used as the basis for the workshops. Its purpose was to foster pride and encourage responsibility on the job both personally and professionally. A set of principles called the "ethics of caring" were written. Extension personnel were asked to rate their job satisfaction identifying the most valued characteristics of the workplace. Results showed:
The perceived barriers identified were lack of resources and overall effectiveness of the organization as a whole. Vermont Extension (UVE) researchers conducted a study on health and wellness of Extension faculty and staff. Administration wanted to boost morale and performance of employees, while the researchers conducting the study were more interested in the type of activities that should be included in a wellness program. Overall, the interest by administrators coupled with the survey results led to the creation of a strong state-wide program. Survey findings presented to UVE administration included:
Although this project was part of the USDA "Decisions for Health" initiative, it was not federally funded like many USDA initiatives. Vermont Cooperative Extension used state funds to get this project activated, and Vermont Extension has continued its commitment to wellness by serving as the role model to the university. As a result of this wellness initiative, the University of Vermont now provides all employees with additional fringe benefits that support wellness, including exercise and fitness activities, lifestyle enhancement workshops and seminars, educational programs on stress management, seminars on balancing work and leisure, and relaxation training. In Illinois between 1979 and 1982, field agents began leaving their positions within 4 years of hiring. Concern about the costs of hiring and training encouraged Illinois Extension administrators to review the "stayers" and "leavers" in the system. More leavers were found in agricultural positions than in home economics or 4-H. It was found that the leavers were not more dissatisfied than the stayers regarding in-service training, guidance, and subject matter support. The three reasons Illinois field agents cited for leaving Extension positions were:
The concern of the Illinois Extension administration was that both stayers and leavers were not happy with the Extension System as an organization. The morale problems of employees affected their job output and produced high levels of stress. To reduce this stress, additional supervisory trainings were developed for those in leadership positions, and new job descriptions were written for agents that more closely tied to the work they actually performed. Work expectations were carefully reviewed with new employees after hiring. Unfortunately, Illinois never addressed the "too much time away from family" issue nor clearly defined their "compensatory time" program. Both of these issues greatly affect agents' ability to balance work and family. Defining Burnout and the Extension JobBalancing Extension work with family obligations is not easy. Fetsch and Kennington reported in 1997 the history of balancing work and family within Extension. Researchers in states such as Ohio, Minnesota, Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Colorado have conducted studies with Extension agents in the areas of stress, burnout, and balancing work and family. Research with Extension faculty is scant during the last 20 years, and little can be found in the last 10 years in journal articles. First, let us define "burnout." Igodan and Newcomb in a 1986 Journal of Extension article, "Are You Experiencing Burnout?," defined it as a depletion of oneself by exhausting one's physical and mental resources. It is a process that begins with excessive and prolonged levels of job stress that produces strain in the employee. Either the worker learns to defensively cope with the job, or it may cause a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. Physical, psychological, and behavioral symptoms cause a change in body function, attitudes, and actions toward others. The Extension office is often a hectic place of work. Colleagues are anxious, tense, and possibly unsettled over a variety of county, state, and national issues. Trying to work within multiple systems and reporting to multiple supervisors is very stressful. Agents often are teachers, counselors, information referral agents, and researchers. The agent recognizes the job requires multi-tasking with government, farmers, homemakers, business and industry, local agencies, schools, and youth organizations. In addition, the land-grant university has its own rules and strategic plan that agents must integrate into their work. Large amounts of required paperwork for both the university and county along with increased service demands from the public and these systems create a double workload. Many feel that it is impossible to get the job done because there are too many requests and not enough staff to meet all the required work. Extension agents often feel "out of control" and unable to meet the demands placed on them by the university and local county government. Time, funding sources, or the lack of funding, often drive the Extension professional's yearly plan of work. Agents are often asked by the university, the county, or both to find money to pay for their own salary or that of others. This is often challenging and difficult because most agents have had little training in grants writing or contract negotiation. There is no time for boredom or slowing down as the nature of the job is multidimensional. They also need superior communication and negotiation skills for interacting with multiple supervisors, public groups, local government and the university. For Extension staff in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Vermont, and Illinois, frustration was experienced when the results of educational programs and outreach were not readily evident in the behavior of those who were taught. Documenting impact of programs is often difficult and sometimes impossible to get. Teaching evaluations may show good to excellent results, BUT if the participant does not show behavior change after a period of time, that reflects negatively on the Extension agent and Extension system. Each Extension agent is an independent teacher, counselor, advisor, and leader who must market his or her individual programs to supervisors, volunteers, colleagues, and the public. A successful agent learns political, social and educational skills to allow navigation within this system that connects counties across the United States with the land-grant system. Besides negotiating systems, the agent needs to balance work and family on a daily basis. A study of Extension staff satisfaction in Rhode Island in 1990 by Mallilo found that job satisfaction depended on a number of factors, however, the most negative job satisfaction factor was salary. Over 81% of the Rhode Island Extension staff felt they were not adequately compensated for the work they did. Job Satisfaction: Keys to Being a Successful AgentJob satisfaction in Extension is dependent on many factors. In 1993, a random sample of 301 Extension County Agents working in the Western region of the United States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) were mailed a questionnaire that centered on coping strategies and effective ways of reducing on-the job stress. Most of the agents surveyed had more than one program responsibility, 46% were male, and 72% held master's degrees. Seventy-eight percent were married, and 12% were single due to divorce, death, or other reasons. More than 40% had no children presently at home, 38% had 1-2 children at home, and 19.5% had three or more children living at home. The study rated their job satisfaction, current salary/fringe benefits, amount of authority to run programs, administrative supervisors' support, level of challenge of the job, and opportunity for growth that the job offered. They also rated their satisfaction with the Extension system and their colleagues. Five coping strategies identified by Hamilton, McCubbin, Olson, and Larsen were adapted from the F-COPES (Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales) for use in their study. The five coping strategies were defined as:
The results of the Western Region survey were analyzed to assess:
The factors of job satisfaction for agents included:
Respondents indicated they were "moderately satisfied" with their jobs, their colleagues and with CES as an organization. When considering overall job satisfaction, as the number of agent responsibilities increased, job satisfaction rate decreased. Agents who had little or no responsibility for children at home were more satisfied with Extension as an organization. Agents most often used reframing and passive appraisal to cope with stressful job situations. Agents who were able to "reframe" stressful situations into positive outcomes were able to cope with stress better and were more satisfied on-the-job. Agents who could not reframe, did not cope well and were unhappy. Burnout: Extension Agents Need to Learn Coping SkillsBurnout occurs when an employee experiences a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. It causes changes in the emotional, psychological, and physiological body functions. Behaviors including low job performance and poor job satisfaction are evident. Decreased communication, withdrawal, absenteeism, loss of enthusiasm for the job, increased drug and alcohol use, increased marital and family problems, accident proneness, constant job complaints, forgetfulness, poor concentration, and workaholism are all behavioral changes that indicate burnout according to Igodan and Newcomb (1986). A study of 241 Ohio Extension Agents in 1985 centered on burnout. About 12% had high levels of burnout, but the majority experienced low-level burnout. As a group, 4-H agents experienced the most burnout followed by young, single agents. As job satisfaction decreased, burnout increased. Coping strategies that were successful in helping to prevent burnout were:
Life balance is critical in reducing stress and the potential of burnout. Wellness is dependent on a continued balance of giving and getting, stress and calm, at work and at home. Reducing Stress for Extension EmployeesTwo systematic methods to reduce stress for Extension employees include:
Both will increase the coping skills and productivity of Extension employees. Stress levels have been widely studied in business but little has been studied in Extension. Major outcomes of reducing stress in business have been achieved by having staff prioritize goals, use daily planners along with developing realistic personal and work management plans. Some state systems like Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension felt that reduction of stress would improve morale. Time management and communication seminars helped Pennsylvania employees avoid burnout and job dissatisfaction. According to Pennsylvania Extension Administration, "attending to the 'human side' of agents is as important, if not more important, than doing the job." Pennsylvania has indeed demonstrated a commitment to maintaining balance between work and family life. Personal Values of Young Extension Agents: Boomers and Generations X and Y Are DifferentYoung Extension agents have increased needs for flexible work schedules and child and adult day care. Today's Extension employees are emerging in the workplace with different attitudes and goals for themselves. Younger Extension employees with children are more willing to make sacrifices in their education, career, and their job in exchange for more time with their family or more personal time. As the workforce shifts and baby boomers retire, values of new employees need to be acknowledged by Extension Administration. A major challenge for Extension administrators is to understand how individual values of these young agents are affecting the Extension system. Increased burnout and employee turnover becomes costly to the organization from both economic and time efficiency standpoints. Personal values and goals of agents of different time periods shape their view of work and family priorities. As the "Baby Boomers" finish up the last decade of their employment, the Generation X and Y agents become the majority of the workforce. The Generation X agents born between 1961 and 1981 are independent thinkers and know their shortcomings. They are sandwiched between their own parents and their children, and they have a different commitment to work and family than the "Baby Boomers." The Xers are willing to sacrifice salary increases and promotion and tenure for more time with family and friends. The Xers value fitness, time with their children, and the institution of marriage. To them, Extension is a "way to make a living." They say, "life is too short to be a workaholic." They ask, "Are we working harder or smarter"? In 1994, Ohio Cooperative Extension researchers studied Generation X agents. The study revealed that Xers either burned out or decided the pay was too low or their family was more important than the night meetings. Important work issues were:
The Ohio study revealed when administrators ignored work/life issues, the employees quit. It often costs the organization up to 150 per cent of the departing employee's salary to replace the agent. Recommendations from the Ohio study encouraged other states to adopt policies that mesh work/life strategies. These strategies should include: flexible work schedules, job sharing, telecommuting, virtual offices, and adding employee leave policies for sick dependents and community volunteer projects. The Challenge of Working for ExtensionIn the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Extension, Kutilek, Conklin, and Gunderson of Ohio State University discuss "points to ponder" regarding work/life challenges of Extension employees. Extension job positions are multidimensional, often including new projects before the old are completed. Frustration and stress are continuous due to the slowness of finishing many projects. Time frames are much longer due to a variety of factors, including a lack of funding, a long approval process, differences between agent and administrative values, and philosophical differences. University business and county business are separate entities that are handled simultaneously each work day. Volunteer groups, grant-funded programs, and team collaborations are part of the job as well. In addition, agents are expected to be professionally active. Service and Extension practice require establishing partnerships inside and outside the university. These relationships are necessary for writing grants and receiving funds. Without grant funds, the majority of Extension programs today, will be stymied. In some ways the Extension System gives positive support to employees because it allows the local Extension office to run programs that meet the needs of local residents. On the other hand, the Extension System is very stressful and does not provide help or support directly to local county agents. This causes stress for employees who are left to figure out how to balance work and family with few or no resources to do so. Recommendations and ImplicationsThe following are some suggestions for balancing work and family within the Extension System based on information included in this article.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
