ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR RECENTLY
EMPLOYED MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
AGENTS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING

by Fred J. Peabody

This study is part of a continuing search for instru—
ments and techniques by which to accurately assess training
needs of Cooperative Extension Service personnel. It draws
heavily upon previous research and proceeds from a base of
theory in three areas: basic human needs; role requirements
expressed as training needs; and techniques for identifying
and analyzing training needs.

This research was designed to employ the critical
incident technique to analyze the jobs of COOperative Exten-
sion Agents. The purposes were to describe the job require-
ments perceived as critical by a population of Michigan
extension agents, to identify the training needs, and to
determine possible differences in training needs and job.
requirements according to the employment position and the
tenure of incumbent agents.

Critical incidents comprised the basic data for this
study. A critical incident report form was developed which
contained scaled response items of both the importance and
difficulty of self-reported incidents which agents perceived

as critical for job success. Four hundred and forty-four

Fred J. Peabody

critical incidents were collected from 74 subjects in 23 small
group meetings. The incidents consisted of written descript-
ions of effective and ineffective job performance. Effective
incidents were inferred as representing competencies already
possessed by the reporting agent; ineffective incidents were
inferred as representing training needs; and the combination
of both were inferred to represent critical job requirements.

Incidents were classified among critical performance
categories according to a classification system based upon
the work of earlier extension researchers. These performance
categories consisted of six functional areas of agent job
performance.

The data were processed by the Computer Laboratory at
Michigan State University. The descriptive statistics em-
ployed included percentage and frequency distribution, mean
scores of importance and of difficulty, and rank-order. The
data are reported in 46 contingency tables which show the
frequency, importance, and difficulty of effective and inef-
fective critical incidents by the assigned critical perform-
ance categories. These data are also presented according to
the position and tenure of the reporting agents.

Over 98.5 percent of the incidents reported by agents
were classified within the critical performance categories
of the classification system. A hierarchy of frequency with
which critical job requirements occurred was found for agents

in general. That hierarchy was: Teaching and Communicating,

Fred J. Peabody

Organizing, Conducting Programs, Administering, Program Plan-
ning, and Evaluating. Teaching and Communicating was the
most frequent critical performance category for Home Econo—
mists and Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents, but 4-H -
Youth Agents most frequently reported Organizing incidents.
Agents of different tenure reported indidents with similar
frequency in all categories except Evaluating. Inexperi-
enced agents very infrequently reported incidents classified
in the Evaluating category.

Similar frequency rank-orders resulted for competen-
cies (effective incidents), for training needs (ineffective
incidents), and for critical job requirements (combined
effective and ineffective incidents). Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents and Home Economists most frequently
reported Teaching and Communicating competencies, while 4—H -
Youth Agents most frequently reported Organizing competencies.
Regardless of position, agents most frequently reported train-
ing needs in the Teaching and Communicating category.

In general, agents' ratings of the importance of inci-
dents resulted in a rank-order hierarchy which differed from
that for frequency. The importance hierarchy was: Organizing,
Conducting Programs, Program Planning, Evaluating, Teaching
and Communicating, and Administering. While ratings by Home
Economists resulted in ranking Organizing as the most impor-
tant category of critical job requirements, ratings by the

4-H - Youth Agents resulted in ranking Conducting Programs

Fred J. Peabody

first. Ratings by Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents
resulted in ranking the Evaluating category first in importance.
Experienced agents reported Program Planning as most important.
Inexperienced agents gave top importance to Organizing.

Agents generally attached much greater importance to
the competencies they possessed than to their needs for train-
ing. Differential ranks resulted from agents' ratings of the
importance of both competencies and training needs according
to their position and tenure.

For agents in general, the rank-order hierarchy of
difficulty was different from that for either frequency or
importance of performing job requirements. The difficulty
hierarchy for all agents was: Evaluating, Organizing, Admi-
nistering, Program Planning, Teaching and Communicating, and
Conducting Programs. Agents generally reported less difficulty
performing incidents in which they possessed competencies.
Perception of incident difficulty varied by agent tenure and
position.

Findings are limited to describing the perception of
incumbent agents only. Lack of high agreement of incident
classification by researcher and judges limits the extent to
which the findings ought to be generalized. The use of scaled
items in describing critical incidents appears to be a pro-
mising refinement to indicate the degree of criticalness of
incidents. Several hypotheses related to employment role

perception are suggested.

AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR RECENTLY EMPLOYED
MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION AGENTS

WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING

by

Fred J. Peabody

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to Professor Russell J.
Kleis who served as chairman of the doctoral guidance
committee. His painstaking efforts in directing this
thesis and his persistent employment of high scholarly
standards are hereby recognized.

Acknowledgment is also due the members of the doc-
toral guidance committee. Appreciation is expressed to
doctors Sheldon G. Lowry, Mason E. Miller, Max R. Raines,
and Troy L. Stearns for their direction, assistance, and
advice. A special tribute is due Dr. Mason E. Miller who
listened patiently and counselled soundly.

The Institute for Extension Personnel Development
was a valuable source of information. The author is grate-
ful for the freedom to draw from several disciplines for
this investigation.

Gratitude is extended the Michigan CooPerative
Extension Service-for study leave policies which permitted
the author to pursue a doctoral program. The cooperation
of Director George S. McIntyre and of the Extension Program
Directors in securing the data for this research is greatly

appreciated. This investigation would have been impossible

ii

without the active c00peration of the agent-subjects who
responded in such an excellent fashion to the rather
arduous task of writing longhand descriptions of critical
incidents.

Special thanks are extended to Miss Anne E. Field,
Dr. Howard L. Miller, and Mr. Joe T. Waterson who served
as judges in the time consuming task of classifying
selected critical incidents.

This work is dedicated to my wife June and our
children, Carl, Jeff, and Anne, who sacrificed most to make
it possible. They have shared both the hardships and the

satisfactions of accomplishment.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF TABLES O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF FIGURES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O 0

Chapter
I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. THEORETICAL AND OPERATIONAL BASIS OF
THE STUDY 0 C O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Basic Human Needs. . . . . . . . . . . .
Role Requirements Expressed as Training
Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problems in Id ntifying Training Needs .
Training Needs of COOperative Extension
Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Implications of Studies of
Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Techniques for Identifying and Analyzing
Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applications of the Critical Incident
Technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attributes of the Critical Incident
Technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The subjects 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Page
ii

vi

xi

[—J

\DmWH

11

11
ll

19
19

23
27
28
29

39
39

42

42
42

Chapter

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Classification System for Critical

Incidents . . . . . . . . .
Pretesting Procedure. . . .
Data Collection Procedure
Data Analysis .
The Hypotheses.
Some Questions.
Summary . . . .

IV. FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frequency Distribution of Classified
Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship of Agent Position and
Tenure to CPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hierarchies of CPC's for Incident
Frequency, Importance, and Difficulty . .
Hierarchy of CPC's for Incident
Importance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hierarchy of CPC' s for Incident
Difficulty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agent Tenure and Incident Difficulty. .
Agent Tenure and Incident Importance. .
Agent Tenure and Incident Effectiveness
Agent Tenure, Incident Difficulty, and
Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agent Position, Incident Difficulty, and
Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agent Tenure, Incident Importance, and
Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agent Position, Incident Importance, and
Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX.

The Problem . . . . . . . . .

Respondents . . . . . . . . .

Procedures . . . . . . . .

Findings and Conclusions. . . .

Conclusions about the Critical Inc'
a 1 .

Technique . .-. . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . .
Summary of Conclusions. . .
Implications and Recommend t'ons

cecal-loco.
0.:

0.000....
:1

oooorfoooo

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Page
50

53

54
56

58
61
66
66
68
68
72
82
89
91
93
96
99
103
104
110
118

124
130

134

134
134
136
137

145
150
151
154
158

186

Table

1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Distribution of Respondents by Sex and
Employment Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Distribution of ReSpondents by Age and
Employment POSition O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 4 5
Distribution of Respondents by Tenure and
POSition I O O l C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 46

Respondent Previous Work Experience and
Employment Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Respondent Level of Academic Attainment by
Employment Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Researcher Agreement in Classifying Critical
Incidents by Category and Subcategory. . . . . . 69

Agreement of Judges' and Researcher's Classi-
fication of a Sample of 44 Critical Incidents. . 7o

Researcher Agreement in Classifying 403
Critical Incidents by Category and Subcategory . 71

Distribution among Critical Performance
Categories of 438 Critical Incidents reported
by Extension Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Frequency and Rank—order of Critical Job Require-
ments for the Critical Performance Category of
Teaching and Communicating . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Frequency and Rank-order of Critical Job Require-
ments for the Critical Performance Category of
organiZing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 76

Frequency and Rank-order of Critical Job Require-
ments for the Critical Performance Category of
Conducting Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Frequency and Rank-order of Critical Job Require-

ments for the Critical Performance Category of
Administering. O O O O O O O C C C O O C O O O I 79

vi

Table

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Frequency and Rank-order of Critical Job
Requirements for the Critical Performance
Category of Program Planning . . . . . . . . .

Frequency and Rank-order of Critical Job
Requirements for the Critical Performance
Category of Evaluating . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Critical Incidents among 6
Critical Performance Categories by Position
of Reporting Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Critical Incidents among 6
Critical Performance Categories by‘Tenure of
Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution among Six Critical Performance
Categories of Agent Reported Effective and
Ineffective Critical Incidents . . . . . . . .

Frequency and Mean Scores of Importance for
Agent Reported Critical Incidents Distributed
among Critical Performance Categories. . . . .

Frequency and Mean Scores of Difficulty for
Agent Reported Critical Incidents Distributed
among Critical Performance Categories. . . . .

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Perform—
ance Categories by the Frequency, Importance,
and Difficulty of Executing Critical Incidents

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty for
Critical Incidents Classified among Critical

Performance Categories by Tenure of Reporting
Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance for
Critical Incidents Classified among Critical

Performance Categories by Tenure of Reporting
Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency Distribution among Critical Perform-

ance Categories of Effective Incidents by
Tenure of Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

81

82

85

88

90

93

94

96

98

101

105

Table

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Frequency Distribution among Critical Perform-
ance Categories of Ineffective Incidents by
Tenure of Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among
Critical Performance Categories for Effective
Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among
Critical Performance Categories for Ineffective
Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among

Critical Performance Categories for all Critical

Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among
Critical Performance Categories for Effective
Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among
Critical Performance Categories for Ineffective
Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Difficulty among

Critical Performance Categories for all Critical

Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among
Critical Performance Categories for Effective
Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among
Critical Performance Categories for Ineffective
Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among

Page

105

107

109

111

112

114

117

119

121

Critical Performance Categories for all Critical

Incidents by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among
Critical Performance Categories for Effective
Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . .

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among

Critical Performance Categories for Ineffective
Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . .

viii

123

125

127.

Table

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

Page

Distribution of Mean Scores of Importance among
Critical Performance Categories for all Critical
Incidents by Position of Reporting Agent . . . . 129

Summary of the Acceptance or Rejection of Hypo-
theses Based upon an Analysis of Study Data. . . 131

Summary of Mean Scores of Difficulty and Import-
ance by Tenure and Position of Reporting Agent
as Analyzed in Response to Study Questions . . . 132

Summary of the Frequency Rank-order of Critical
Performance Categories and Component Critical
Job Requirements for Michigan Extension Agents . 139

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Perform-
ance Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and
Importance of Effective Critical Incidents by
Tenure of Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Perform-

ance Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and
Importance of Ineffective Critical Incidents

by Tenure of Reporting Agent . . . . . . . . . . 146

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Perform-
ance Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and
Importance of all Critical Incidents by Tenure
of Reporting Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Performance
Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and

Importance of Effective Critical Incidents by
Position of Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . . 147

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Performance
Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and

Importance of Ineffective Critical Incidents by
Position of Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . . 148

Summary of the Rank-order of Critical Performance
Categories for Frequency, Difficulty, and Import-
ance of all Critical Incidents by Position of
Reporting Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Employee Maintenance and Motivational Needs. . 15

2. A Theoretical Model for the Taking of
Organizational Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . l7

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A

”It! D on:

Questionnaire for Extension Agents
Reporting Critical Incidents . . . . . . . .

Classification System for Critical Incidents
Administrator Letter to Respondents. . . . .
Researcher Letter to Respondents . . . . . .
Confirmation Letter to Respondents . . . . .

Examples of Critical Incident Classification

xi

Page

158
166
176
178

179
181

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

 

In modern industrial society a highly refined divi-
sion of labor has resulted in increased rolel specialization
and complex bureaucratic organizations. Hence, the neOphyte
incumbent to a professional position within an organization
likely faces a complex process of role socialization.2

Roles in an organization are created in order to ful-
fill the goals of that organization.3 Roles thus conceived
represent organizational needs. Therefore, the organization
holds a vital concern for the behaviors which are essential
to successful role performance. The new employee might be
viewed as a threat to the organization until he is suffi-
ciently socialized to permit him to successfully perform his

role.

 

1A role consists of a set of eXpected behaviors for
a member of a social group.

2Role socialization is the postemployment process
by which a person acquires the skills, knowledge, and atti-
tudes associated with successful performance of a professional
role.

3Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology
of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 19667.

 

 

Organizations generally have formal role sociali-
zationl procedures for new employees. These include
induction—orientation2 programs designed to facilitate
satisfactory role performance by the new incumbent. The
informal socialization seems not to abruptly halt at the
end of a few months of employment, but rather extends
well into the employment years.3 The input of institu—
tional resources for the training of personnel is an
investment for maintaining and increasing productivity.

The COOperative Extension Service is one of a num-
ber of organizations to which the above generalizations
may apply. The COOperative Extension Service was created

by the Federal Congress in 1914 when it passed the Smith—

. ~M .: --«-‘...‘ -.

 

lFormal or planned role socialization are terms
used synonymously with training and consist of purpose—
fully organized learning experiences sponsored by the
employing organization.

2Induction-orientation programs are planned sociali-
zation experiences which are provided prior to, or immedi—
ately following, assignment to a role.

3Orville G. Brim, Jr. & Stanton Wheeler, Socializa-
tion After Childhood: Two Essays (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1966), p. 18.

 

4Sally J. Olean, Changing Patterns in Continuing
Education for Business (Brookline, Mass.: Center for the
Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1967), pp. 8-12.

 

Lever Act. Its purpose is:
...to aid in diffusing among the peOple of the United
States useful and practical information on subjects
related to agriculture and home economics and to
encourage the application of the same...
There were 13,766 field and state extension personnel
working in the United States on August 31, 1966. During
the 12 months previous to this date, 1,480 new staff mem-
bers were hired. Thus, 10.8 percent of all personnel were
newly hired.2
There were 384 field and state personnel working in
Michigan on July 1, 1966. Of that number, 252 were field
agents. During the calendar year of 1966 there were 30

agent separations reported.3 Therefore, the rate of sepa-

ration or turnover among field agents was 11.9 percent.

The Problem

 

Extension administrators are responsible for allocat-
ing scarce resources for agent training. To the extent

that such training is essential to work role fulfillment,

 

1U. S., Statutes at Large, Vol. XXXVIII (March, 1913
to March, 1915), p. 372.

 

2Federal Extension Service, Report of Programs in
Extension Education for ProfessionaITExtension Workegg
TWashington, BTCC.: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, ER&T-48,
March, 1967), p. i.

 

 

3Federal Extension Service, Turnover of Cooperative
Extension A ents (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Dept. of Agricul-
ture' PDM- ' April, 1967) I p. 10

 

it is vital to the extension organization. Given the im—
portance of training, the planner of extension training
must understand the job requirements which are critical
for successful performance by extension agents. A basic
problem of the planner of extension training is to identify
training needs,1 to do it with maximum precision, and to
express the needs in behavioral terms.2
The specification of training needs is a task which
training officers readily acknowledge, but which few have
fully achieved. Korb says:
Like the weather, most training pe0ple talk about
training programs built upon needs, but the truth
of the matter is that very few training programs
...have been built on any thorough going investi-
gatiog of needs evolved and revealed at the work
site.
In this study it is assumed: (I) that training needs
for extension agents can and should be "evolved and revealed
at the work site"; (2) that training needs will differ ac-

cording to the tenure of extension agents and according to

the nature of the work agents perform; (3) that it is

 

lTyler considers educational need to be a gap between
the present condition of the learner and the standard or
norm to which he is being compared. See: Ralph W. Tyler,
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago,
111.: UniverSIty of Chicago Press, 1950), pp. 4-10.

 

2Robert F. Mager, Preparin Instructional Objectives
(Palo Alto: Fearon PubliShers, 1 62), pp. 13-44.

3David L. Korb ,"How to Determine Supervisory Train-
ing Needs," Personnel, Vol. 32 (Jan., 1956), p. 338.

 

necessary and possible to distinguish needs of neophyte
agents from those of experienced agents, and needs of agents
in one major area of responsibility from those in another.
The study investigates a technique for identifying and ana-
lyzing extension agent training needs in these terms.

Previous investigators have employed a variety of
means for identifying agent training needs. The first, and
most direct, is simply to ask agents to specify their own
needs. This approach was used by Clark1 and Coffindaffer.2
Such procedure has the great merit of involving the agent
directly, but it depends upon the dubious assumption that
a worker may fully know what he does not know.

A second approach involves seeking the judgments of
supervisors or "relevant others" concerning the training
needs of individuals or groups of agents. This approach
is rather commonly used in practice and has been investi-

gated with extension supervisors in Ohio by McCormick.3

 

1Harry E. Clark, "An Analysis of the Training Needs
of Wisconsin County Extension Service Personnel" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1960).

2Billy L. Coffindaffer, "Experiences of Beginning
CooPerative Extension Agents and their Implications for an
Induction Training Program" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1961).

3Robert W. McCormick, "An Analysis of Training Needs
of County Extension Agents in Ohio" (unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Wisconsin, 1959).

If the judgment of others is the sole source for identi-
fying training needs, it has the disadvantage of ignoring
the agent's own perception of his situation and his need.
A third approach, the critical incident techniquel
develOped and tested in other vocational settings, appears
to take account of the shortcomings of the first two men-
tioned approaches. It involves the role incumbent in the
analysis of his work role and permits him to specify sig-
nificant incidents in role performance. Investigations
by Fivars and Gosnell,2 Jensen,3 and Glickman and Vallance4
have been based upon such analyses. These investigations
were in such divergent fields as nursing, education, and
military services. The critical incident technique was

utilized to analyze work performance of incumbents to

 

1The critical incident technique is a behavioral
research method which consists of a set of procedures for
collecting and analyzing effective and ineffective behaviors
related to the actual performance of a job or activity.

2Grace Fivars and Doris Gosnell, Nursinngvaluation:
The Problem and the Process: The Critical Incident Tech-
nique (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966).

3Alfred C. Jensen, "Determining Critical Require-
ments for Teachers," Journal of Experimental Education,
Vol. 20 (1951), pp. 7g135.

4Albert S. Glickman and T. R. Vallance, "Curriculum
Assessment with Critical Incidents," Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 42 (1958), pp. 329-335.

 

identify the critical requirements1 of the job being studied
and as a basis for making inferences about training needs
of incumbents.

The central purpose of this study is to employ the
critical incident technique as a means of describing the
critical job requirements of extension agents, of identi-
fying training needs of agents, and of specifying those
needs by tenure and by major responsibility of the agents.
Specifically the study is designed to answer seven basic
questions:

1. Will job behaviors reported as critical inci-
dents2 by extension agents reveal training
needs similar to those identified by other
research methods?

2. Do training needs differ by agent position
and if so, what is the character of the
differences?

3. Do training needs differ by agent tenure and

if so, what is the character of the differences?

 

lRequirements which are critical in the sense that
they are associated with definitely effective or ineffect-
ive performance of the job or task under study.

2A critical incident is an episode which occurs in
the performance of a professional role, the consequences
of which are judged by the incumbent to be definitely
effective or ineffective.

4. What are the requirements agents perceive as
critical for effective job performance?

5. Do certain critical job requirements occur
more frequently than others?

6. How important do agents view the identified
job requirements to be?

7. To what extent do agents experience difficulty
in performing the critical requirements of

their jobs?

Definition of Terms

 

Field Extension Agent is a person who occupies a
position as an employee of the C00perative Extension
Service and who works on a county, multi-county,
area, or district basis. Synonymous terms include
Extension Agent, or Agent. Field Extension Agents
are often identified according to the following
subject responsibilities:

 

Agriculture and/or Natural Resources
4-H - Youth Programs
Family Living Education or Home Economics

An Experienced Agent is considered to be one who has
held a field extension position for 18 months or
more. None in this study had been employed more
than 6 years.

 

An Inexperienced Agent is considered to be one who
has held a field extension position for less than
18 months. None in this study had been employed
less than 3 months.

 

The Critical Incident Technique is a behavioral
research method which consists of a set of pro-
cedures for collecting and analyzing effective

and ineffective behaviors related to the actual
performance of a job or activity.

 

(

A Critical Incident is an episode which occurs in
the performance of a professional role, the con-
sequences of which are judged by the incumbent to
be definitely effective or ineffective.

 

An Effective Incident is a critical incident in
which professional role behaviors were perceived
as successful role fulfillment by the reporting
agent.

 

An Ineffective Incident is a critical incident in
which professional role behaviors were perceived
as unsuccessful role fulfillment by the reporting
agent.

 

Critical Job Requirements are requirements which
are critical in the sense that they are associated
with definitely effective or ineffective perform-
ance of the job or task under study.

 

Critical Performance Categories are major groups
of related critical job requirements.

 

A Training Need is a gap between the present con-
dition of the learner and the standard or norm

to which he is being compared. In this study, a
training need is inferred from the report of
ineffective incidents.

 

Incident Importance is the extent to which an
agent perceiVes an incident as likely to influence
his success as an agent.

 

Incident Difficulty is the extent to which an agent
felt taxed in executing the tasks involved in a
critical incident.

 

Overview

A frame of reference for the entire study is develOped
in Chapter I. A description of the background for the study
is presented along with a statement of the research problem.
The:specific questions with which this research deals are

stated and important terms are defined.

-10-

The theoretical and Operational basis for the study
are presented in Chapter II. The discussion proceeds from
a base of theory in three areas: basic human needs; role
requirements expressed as training needs; and techniques
for identifying and analyzing training needs.

The study design and procedures are described in
Chapter III. Information is presented about the study
subjects, the instruments employed and the pretesting
procedure followed. Data collection and analysis procedures
are described and the research hypotheses are presented.

Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data with
descriptions of the findings pertaining to each hypothesis.

A summary of the study, the conclusions, and the

implications for further research are presented in Chapter V.

 

.a

-
m.

IF

'0‘

0‘.

(II
A.»

9'
IA

(1.1

l

(I)
Mo

5 pl

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL AND OPERATIONAL BASES OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

This study is part of a continuing search for instru-
ments and techniques with which to accurately assess training
needs of Cooperative Extension Service personnel. It draws
heavily upon previous research and proceeds from a base of
theory in three areas: basic human needs; role requirements
expressed as training needs; and techniques for identifying

and analyzing training needs.

Basic Human Needs

 

In the absence of a single perfect theory of human
behavior, it is necessary to draw from several theories to
explain human behavior in the work situation.

One of these theories is based upon the concept of
human motivation toward need fulfillment. Abraham Maslow1
contends that certain human needs exist which are nearly

culture-free or universal. However, the means for ful-

filling those needs may be quite dissimilar among cultures.

 

lAbraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New
York: Harper Brothers, 1954).

 

-11-

,-
o¢\

PLL

-12-

Maslow views the human condition as such that man
is never fully satisfied. Man is seeking what is lacked.
His conception of the hierarchical arrangement of human
needs is as follows:

Self-actualization

Self-esteem and the esteem of others
Belongingness and love

Safety

Physiological needs

If all needs are unsatisfied, the physicflogical
needs dominate and the others are relegated to the back-
ground. Once physiological needs are fulfilled, other,
higher needs become dominant. An individual's need state
is not static, but is considered to fluctuate with other
factors. In this view, when a need is satisfied, it is
no longer a motivating force.

Another theory of work behavior relates job satis-
faction to a hierarchy of human need fulfillment. Herzberg,
Mausner, and Synderman1 postulated that man possesses two
sets of needs. The first are "avoidance needs" to evade

pain from the environment. The second set includes the

”approach needs" for psychological growth. These reflect

 

lSee Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and
Barbara Synderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1959), pp.*13-19; and Frederick Herzberg,
Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: The World Publish-
ing Co., I966).pp. 71-91.

 

 

-13-

man's need to know, to understand, and to become self-
actualized.

Empirical testing of this theory revealed differen-
tiated factors associated with job satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction. It was concluded that satisfying and
dissatisfying factors are arranged on a unipolar rather
than a bipolar scale. The satisfying group contains the
intrinsic motivators inherent in the content of the task
or job. The dissatisfying group describes man's relation—
ship to the context or environment in which he does his
job. These latter, extrinsic motivators are called hy-
giene factors by Herzberg, but others1 have labeled them
maintenance factors.

Studies2 which have tested this "motivational--
maintenance" theory of job satisfaction have offered the
tentative conclusion that performance of a new work task
tends to generate greater reaction to the context or en-
vironment in which that task is performed. In highly
stressful situations, maintenance needs emerge as most

important.

 

lSee Scott M. Myers, "Who are your Motivated
Workers?," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 42 (Jan.-Feb.,
1964), pp. 73-88; and Denzil O. Clegg, "Work as a Moti-
vator," Journal of Cogperative Extension, Vol. 1 (Fall,
1963). PP. 141-148.

 

 

2A number of studies are reviewed by Herzberg,
OE. Cite, pp. 93-167.

-14-

This seems consistent with Maslow's concept of a
hierarchy of human needs whereby physiological and security
needs are considered basic to other higher needs. Also,
one would expect new workers to be concerned about estab-
lishing a sense of belonging in the new environment.
Contrarily, experienced workers might already have estab-
lished such a sense and thus turn their attention toward
other tasks at hand. In the motivational sense, they
are attracted to fulfill needs for human growth and self-
actualization.

Myers1 tested the "maintenance--motivationa1"
theory with employees of an industrial company. Study
conclusions essentially supported the theory since the
work satisfying factors seemed to be distinct from work
dissatisfying factors. Hence, the unipolar character-
istic of the theory held when tested under industrial
conditions. An adaptation of Myers' model of this theory

is shown in Figure l.

 

lMyerS, OE. Cite, Pp. 73-88.

-15-

    
  

 

  

 

 

 

 

H

H wusmam

 

mommz choflwm>flpoz pcm mocmcmucfimz mmwoamEm

    
 

.em .a ..eanHH
momma Hmwoom
uxmucoo HMOHmwnm
90w OHEocoom
.mcflmm wuflhsomm
ImHDMmmHQ coHumucmHHo mommz
wee msumum muz¢zmezH<z
mOh mmB
momma mammz
pamuaoo mnaaabachQmmm qaone<>Heoz
non coeuflsmoomm
.mcflmm £u3ouo
nmflumm ucmEm>cho<
was
V\\\

 

tan

.4
n...

i .
tr.
on.

9....
'Ov

"H

‘V‘ A
i
‘QV

C.)

0"

D
(I)

 

Q“

-16...

The above theories are oriented to needs based upon
the psychological nature of the individual. Other theories
deal with impinging forces which influence the individual
in the work situation. Evidence1 indicates that one's
personality is profoundly influenced by environmental
interaction. Therefore, the study of sociological rela-
tionships and structure in human organizations is stressed
by authors like Merton.2

Between the extremes of psychological and sociolo-
gical theories of human behavior resides the middle ground
of social psychological theories. A theory so classified
is offered by Katz and Kahn3 who have suggested a model of

socialization into the work role as part of their Open-

system theory of human organization.

 

1See Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P.
Quinn, and Diedrick J. Snoek, OrganizationalStress, Studies
in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley 8
Sons, 1964), pp. 35-70; and Katz and Kahn, op. cit., pp.
182-187.

2Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc-
ture (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957).

 

3Katz and Kahn, Op. cit., p. 28.

-17-

Figure 2

A Theoretical Model for the Taking
of Organizational Roles

 

Personal
' Attributes Y:

 

 

 

I

x
| s
I

I
l
Jé

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
Organi- Role Senders ; Focal Person
zational ,_ Role Sent Reggized Befigiior
factors Expectation Role
7K ,’

 

 

 

I

‘\ Inter- i'.'
~ Personal

Factors

 

 

Solid lines denote causal relationships; broken
lines show influencing factors. ‘

The model in Figure 2 depicts a recent incumbent,
or "focal person," as the recipient of information from
relevant others as to his proper role. The relevant
others, or role senders, have their eXpectations tempered
by such organizational factors as institutional goals,
needs, policies, etc. Such personal attributes of the
focal person as his abilities, values and needs are con-
sidered too. Finally, on the basis of these factors, and
tempered through interaction, the role senders assess and

evaluate the role performance of the incumbent in the focal

 

1Ibid., pp. 182 and 187.

Pan--

'U‘Vn-

.1.
(II
(I)

.
.,..
Ui—

NI“—
Ev.

Vp'
fiv‘.

ill
ban

‘F
‘4.

‘ v-
~:.

-l8-

position. Subsequently, the sender's expectations are
communicated to the incumbent.

The incumbent in turn, weighs, evaluates, and
assesses these "sent messages" on the basis of his own
perceptions which are founded upon his personal attri-
butes, his interactions with relevant others, and his
conception of organizational goals, policies, and the
like.

From this theoretical View it is apparent that
role socialization is likely accomplished by far more
than formal induction-orientation and other training
experience. The entire system likely plays a part in
an intricate process of socialization of the recent
incumbent.

Two important assumptions are made in relation to
the Open-system theory. One assumption is that the orga-
nization goals, needs, policies, and structure are not
static, but rather occur in what Katz and Kahnl have
called a "dynamic equilibrium." The individual incum-
bent similarly does not exist in a static condition, but

also grows in a process of dynamic equilibrium. This

latter assumption appears to be consistent with Herzberg's

 

lIbid., p. 456.

2Herzberg, op. cit., pp. 71-91,

2

-19-

l
concept of motivating factors and with Maslow's concept
of man's prOpensity for self-actualization.

Role Requirements Expressed as
Training Needs

 

 

A number of studies have been conducted which deal
with some aspect of post-employment role learning by pro-
fessional employees. The emphasis has ranged from evalu-
ation studies of actual induction-orientation programs,
to studies of general training needs. Some have followed
a psychological approach to analyze the fulfillment of
personality needs in the work situation. Those studies
most relevant are found in research conducted with edu-
cators, workers in business and industry, and cooperative
extension employees.

Problems in Identifyinngraining
Needs

 

 

Studies of problems and concerns of new faculty-
members in colleges and universities were conducted by

McCaul2 and Tracy.3 The former found faculty members

 

1Maslow, op. cit.

2Harlan R. McCall, "Problems of New Faculty Members
in Colleges and Universities," North Central Association
Quarterly, Vol. 36 (Fall, 1961), pp. 222-234.

 

3Norbert J. Tracy, "Orienting New Faculty Members
in Colleges and Universities," North Central Association
Quarterly, Vol. 36 (Fall, 1961), pp. 2144221.

 

.D‘

nu

in

M-

O 1
-\~

H u
u‘U

”V

A.

V-

.5!

'4

 

- i
.U

‘(U

-20-

had experienced such problems as locating secretarial help
and understanding administrative policies. Tracy identi-
fied concerns for learning curriculum objectives, content
to be taught, and similar areas. Allen and Sutherland1

studied personal adjustment of faculty members and isolated

 

such influencing variables as value consistency between
graduating and hiring institutions; communication effective-
ness in hiring interviews; and contract specification.
These studies illustrate a problem common to much
behavioral research. The theoretical background which
alternately stressed problems, concerns, and adjustments,
subsequently delimited the possible findings. The framing
of the question conditioned response possibilities.
Studies of elementary and secondary teachers illus-
trate two possible differences in research approach for
determining the content of induction-orientation training.
While most authors agree that training should be based
upon need, there is not consistent agreement on whose per-
ception of need should be measured. Fishburn2 emphasized

the self-perceived competencies needed by teachers and their

 

lLucile A. Allen and Robert L. Sutherland, Role Con-
flicts and Congruences (Austin, Tex.: Hogg Foundation, THe
University of Texas, 1963).

2C. E. Fishburn, "Learning the Role of the Teacher,"

iggurnal of Teacher Education, Vol. 17 (Fall, 1966), pp. 329-
.31,

 

 

.FH

la

a:

N

-21-

relative change in a longitudinal study. McCrearyl, on
the other hand, developed a check list of administrators'
perception of new elementary teachers' training needs.

Programs and methods for orienting and inducting
new teachers have been described by Archer2 who emphasizes
the means of training with limited regard for the ends.
It appears to be one thing to show that video tape play-
back is an effective method or means of training; it is
quite another to show which types of behavior are most
important to learn.

Several studies in business and industry have
attempted to identify a foundation for training programs
on the basis of skills, abilities, and understandings
necessary for effective job performance. Some of these

have focused upon job analysis. Other studies, like those

 

1Anne P. McCreary, "Determining Individual Needs of
Elementary Teachers as a Basis for an Orientation Program,
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 54 (Sept., 1960),
pp. 20-24.

2Vern B. Archer, Roy A. Edelfelt, and Hite Herbert,
"Point Points the Way: Project for the Orientation and
Induction of New Teachers," NEA Journal, Vol. 54 (Oct.,
1965), pp. 29-30.

-22-

of Herzbergl, Schafferz, and Walsh3, have stressed the
relationship of certain personality needs to job satis—
faction. A typical approach has been to analyze satis-
faction in work according to adaptations of Murray's4 or
Maslow's5 lists of human needs. While such studies help
test psychological theories and have implications for
personnel management, they have been criticized on a
number of counts. One might question the extent to which
the individual determines the perception of the job, or
the job determines the perception of the individual per-
forming it. Another concern begs the question, "Is the

satisfied or happy worker the productive worker?"

 

1See Herzberg, et al., The Motivation to Work, pp.
cit., pp. 3-20; and HerzBerg, Work and the Nature of Man,

OEe Cite, ppe 71-9le

2R. H. Schaffer, "Job Satisfaction as Related to
Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monographs, Vol.
67, No. 14, Whole No. 364, (1953i.

 

 

 

3Richard P. Walsh, "The Effect of Needs on Responses

to Job Duties," Journal of Counselling Psychology, Vol. 6
(1959). PP. 194-198.

 

4Henry A. Murray, Exploration in Personality (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1938).

 

5Maslow, op. cit.

-23...

It would appear that studies of role socialization
which measure satisfaction without consideration of perform-
ance level, or which consider an individual's perception
as a static entity, are not likely to be useful in identi—
fying training needs.

TrainingNeeds of Cooperative
Extension Workers

Related research conducted among c00perative exten-
sion workers has been designed to identify perception of
role for single positions, or to identify training needed
by incumbent agents. Coffindafferl develOped a question-
naire to measure difficulty experienced and training needed
by 134 low tenured field extension agents in the New England
states. His questionnaire employed component tasks drawn
from earlier extension studies and from agent narrative
reports of job activities.

Training needs of Ohio field agents in 3 positions
were investigated by McCormick2 using a questionnaire.

This instrument was designed around nine areas of com-
petency needs identified by an earlier National Extension
Task Force for Extension Training (1957). The component
items reflected the understanding of a number of leaders
as to the role of agents, the organizational goals and ob-
jectives, and the potential contribution of several human

behavior disciplines.

 

1Coffindaffer, 0p. cit. 2McCormick, op. cit.

-24-

Similarly, Clarkl developed a questionnaire to meas-
ure the importance of, and the training needs for, the nine
major extension objectives outlined in the Scope Report2
as perceived by Wisconsin extension field agents. The 55
component items structured around these nine areas were
considered by the author to be representative of the
knowledge, understandings, and competencies needed by
extension personnel in order to meet organizational
objectives.

The above authors have provided valuable informa-
tion for planning agent training experiences. However,
in instances where data were obtained by questionnaire,
an underlying assumption is that the items are fully rep-
resentative of the important content under consideration.
The content validity of the research instrument determines
the limits of what can be measured by that instrument. The
possibility exists that important content items have not

been included.

 

lClark, op. cit.

2This is a popular abbreviation for a publication
developed under the chairmanship of Paul A. Miller for the
1957 Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP)
entitled: The Cooperative Extension Service Today; A State-
ment of Scope and Responsibilipy (no publisher crediEEdT—_—
April, 1958). A Subsequent publication, also known as the
'Scope Report,‘ was designed to amplify the 1958 edition.
This latter publication is: The Agricultural Extension
Service, A Guide to Extension Programs for the Future: The
Scope and Responsibilities of the Coopsrative Extension
Service. (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, 1959).

 

 

-25-

In addition to the above extension researchers,
other authors in the field have specified factors which
they consider to be important for the performance of
agents' roles. Kelsey and Hearnel have stressed their
perception of important duties performed by agents.
Problem areas for agents were identified according to
Duncan's2 view of extension philoSOphy and the content
of training programs offered agents. A National Task
Force3 specified competency needs of agents as implied
by the purposes of the Cooperative Extension Service.

The divergent approaches employed by various
authors in describing the terms and the sources for

identifying training needs are itemized in Figure 3.

 

lLincoln D. Kelsey and Cannon C. Hearne, Coo era-
tive Extension Work (Ithaca: Comstock Publishing, I963),
pp. 65-79.

 

2James A. Duncan, Training COOperative Extension
Workers: The Coordinated Approach (Madison: Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Wisconsin, April, 1957).

 

 

3National Task Force on Cooperative Extension In-
service Training, An Inservice Training Program for Coopera-
tive Extension Personnel (Topeka: H. M. Ives & Sons, 1960),
pp. 12-15.

 

-25-

Figure 3

Terms and Sources of Extension Agent Training Needs

 

Author Term
Kelsey & Hearne1 Duties
Duncan2 Problem areas

National Task Force3 Competency needs

McCormick4 Competency needs
Clark5 Program Emphasis
Coffindaffer6 Work areas

 

Source

Author's percep-
tion of agent
functions.

Author's percep-
tion of philoso-
phy and content
of training
programs

Task Force per-
ception of common
needs as implied
by purposes of
extension.

Perception of
agent competency
needs as tested
with supervisors
and agents.

Measures of agent
perception of
competency needs.

Measures of agent
perception of
task difficulty.

1Kelsey & Hearne, Op. cit., pp. 65—79.

2 .
Duncan, op. Cit.

3National Task Force on Cooperative Extension In-

Service Training, 0p. cit., pp. 12-15.

4McCormick, op. cit. 5

6Coffindaffer, op. cit.

Clark, op. cit.

-27-

Summary of Implications of

 

Studies of Traifiing Needs

 

Upon examination of the writings of the extension

authors cited in Figure 3, there were persistent categor-

ies of job behaviors for extension workers. Such behavi-

oral categories appeared to be descriptions of functions

performed by extension agents. While terminology varied

by author, reference to one or more of the following

categories was found:

1.

6.

Planning and developing extension programs
Implementing programs through social systems
Communicating and using the educational
process

Conducting programs for developing human,
economic, and other natural resources
Evaluating programs, conducting research,
and solving problems

Administering extension work

Furthermore, the following is a summary of impli—

cations of researcher decisions which appear to be especially

relevant for research related to training needs:

1.

The theoretical approach and attendant questions
asked by the researcher limits the responses

and subsequently the application of results.
There is an issue as to whose perception ought

to be considered in determining training needs.

-23-

3. The identification of the need for and the con-
tent of early role socialization on the job
appears to be basic to the consideration of
methods for accomplishing such socialization.

4. Perception is probably dynamic rather than
static. So consideration should be given to
impinging factors like environment, group
goals and role expectations, and changing psy-
chological attributes.

5. The content validity of a behavioral research
instrument largely determines what that device
can measure.

Techniques for Identifying and
AnalyzingiTraininngeeds

 

 

In seeking a method for identifying training needs,
the critical incident technique (CIT) was uncovered. The
CIT consists of a set of procedures for collecting and
analyzing effective and ineffective behaviors related to
the actual performance of a job or activity.1 This tech-

nique was develOped by Dr. John Flanagan as a method to

 

1Robert M. Kessel, "The Critical Requirements for
Secondary School Business Teachers Based upon an Analysis
of Critical Incidents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1957).

-29-

obtain a representative sample of actual incidents of air
crew behavior for the purpose of identifying critical re-
quirements for Air Force Officers in World War II. Since
then it has frequently been employed to analyze a particu-
lar job by identifying its critical requirements. A
critical requirement is:

A requirement which is crucial in the sense that

it has been reSponsible for outstandingly effect-

ive or definitely unsatisfactory performance of

an important part of a job or activity in question.

Adaptations have been made in the methodology by

several investigators since its inception. In recent
correspondence, Dr. Flanagan provided a 1963 bibliography
of reports of over 200 research applications of the
technique.2

Applicatipns of the Critical
Incident Technique

 

Flanagan3 reported nine generalized research appli-
cations of the method: criteria measures of performance;

proficiency measures; training requirements and evaluation;

 

1John C. Flanagan, "Critical Requirements: A New
Approach to Employee Evaluation," Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 2 (1949), p. 420.

 

2Personal correspondence with the author. June 5,
1967.

3Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique,"
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51 (1954), pp. 327-358.

 

-30-

Many of the early applications of the technique were
related to armed services personnel. However, the technique
has been used for such divergent purposes as identifying
ethical standards of psychologists; determining the critical
requirements for private secretaries;1 developing projective
tests for dentists; and testing a motivational theory of
worker satisfaction on the job.2

Numerous researchers have utilized the critical
incident technique in studies related to the educational
enterprise. Jensen3 identified some critical requirements
for teachers and recommended these requirements as a basis
for teacher evaluation and as a guide for in-service
growth. Priorities of training requirements for a group
Of naval officers were studied by Glickman.4 He also
conducted an evaluation of the naval officer candidate

curriculum in relation to critical officer behaviors.

 

1Eugene J. Kosy, "Critical Requirements for Private
Secretaries Based upon an Analysis of Critical Incidents"

(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
1959).

2For instance, see: Clegg, Op, cit., pp. 141-
148; Herzberg, Op, cit., pp. 71-79; and Herzberg, et al.,
Op. cit., pp. 107-120.

3Jensen, Op. cit. 4Glickman & Vallance, Op. cit.

-31-

Training needs for the staff of a mental institution were
identified in a study by Fleming.l Steiner2 used the CIT
as a method for teaching and for evaluating the performance
of attendants in an institutional setting. Fivars and
Gosnell3 develOped objectives for pre-service nursing train-
ing programs on the basis of critical incidents collected
in the environments where nurses are employed.

In an effort to determine what constitutes "good
teaching," some authors4 have identified the components of
effective and ineffective teaching behavior. Similarly,
the components of effective and ineffective administrative
personnel selection and classification; job design; Opera-
tional procedures; equipment design; motivational and

leadership studies; and counseling.

 

1Jack W. Fleming, "The Critical Incident Technique
as an Aid to Inservice Training," American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, Vol. 67 (1962), pp. 41-52.

 

 

2Kelley E. Steiner and Irene L. Cochran, "Simulated
Critical Incident Technique as an Evaluative and Teaching
Device," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Vol. 70
(1966), pp. 835-839).

3Fivars and Gosnell, Op. cit., p. 59. See: Lane B.
Blank, "Critical Incidents in the Behavior of Secondary
School Physical Education Instructors," The Research Quarterly,
Vol. 29 (1958). pp. 1-6; Melvin Goldin, 1rRehaviors Related
to Effective Teaching," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1957); and Kessel, op. cit.

 

-32-
behavior by school principals were identified by Cooper.1
The CIT was employed by Hedlund2 in developing a predict-
ive device for estimating teaching success of secondary
education undergraduates in New York. A standard of
performance for nurses was develOped through this tech-
nique.3 In the massive study of teacher characteristics
by Ryans4, this technique was used to establish the
criteria of relevant teacher behavior.

Two important criticisms are leveled at the critical
incident technique. The first is that each reporter of

incidents is basing his report upon his own value judgment.5

 

1Bernice Cooper, "Analysis of the Quality of the
Behaviors of Principals as Observed and Reported in Six
Critical Incident Studies," Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 56 (1963), pp. 410-414.

 

2Paul A. Hedlund, "COOperative Study to Predict

Effectiveness in Secondary School Teaching," Journal of
Teacher Education, Vol. 4, (1953). pp. 230-234.

 

3Fivars and Gosnell,op. cit.

4David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Wash-
ington, D. C.: American Council on Education,il960).

5Hobert W. Burns, "Success Criteria and the Critical
Incident Technique," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 38 (1956), pp.
73-75.

 

-33-

The second relates to the subjective nature of the induc—

tive classification of incidents on an a posterori basis,l

Dr. Flanagan speaks to both of these criticisms
and reflects his appraisal of the potential for the method:

...the critical incident technique, rather than
collecting opinions, hunches, and estimates,
Obtains a record of specific behaviors from
those in the best position to make the necessary
observations and evaluations. The collection
and tabulations Of these observations make it
possible to formulate the critical requirements
of an activity. A list of critical behaviors
provides a sound basis for making inferences

as to requirements in terms of aptitudes, train-
ing, and other characteristics. It is believed
that progress has been made in the develOpment
of procedures for determining activity 5equire-
ments with Objectivity and precision...

Several assumptions are made when using the CIT.
Among the major ones are:
l. Extremities of effective and ineffective be-
havior can be more accurately identified
than those which fall between such

extremities.3

 

1For instance see: John E. Corbally, Jr., "The
Critical Incident Technique and Educational Research,"
Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. 35 (1956), pp. 57-62;
"Reply to Hobert W.§urns," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 38
(1957), pp. 141-142; and "A Study of the Critical Elements
of School Board-Community Relations" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, 1955).

 

 

2Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique," pp.
Cit.' p. 355.

3Corbally, "The Critical Incident Technique and
Educational Research," Op. cit., p. 57-60.

-34-

One must not assume that the middle behaviors
. . l

are inconsequential.

Respondents can report incidents in which

results are very clearly recognizable in

terms of the goals of the activity.

There is a common core of behavior in the

performance of a given job or task.2

The CIT is not a set of rigid rules, but instead

consists of a flexible set of principles for collecting

behavioral data.

3 Therefore, other investigators have

used slightly differing adaptations of the method. The

steps which follow represent an effort to eclectically

incorporate the essentials of the method from reports of

several investigators.

1.

The specification of the job or activipy to

 

5e studied.

 

Persons reporting incidents must be clearly

‘instructed as to the job, task, or activity

being studied. Time limitations must also

be indicated.

 

1

2

Ibid., p. 58.

This point is discussed by both Hedlund, op. cit.

and Ryans, Op. cit.

3Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique," pp.

cit.

-35-

2. Determination of the observer group.

 

Flanagan's original concept of this technique
called primarily for Observers who recorded
the critical behaviors of the subjects under
study with only occasional self-reported in-
cidents by the subjects.1 Since the mid-
fifties, a number of researchers have relied

exclusively upon self-reported incidents.2

3. The specification of criteria for observer
use in reporting critical incidents.

 

 

These include the following:

a. A description of the situation regarding:
(1) Time of occurrence
(2) Persons involved

(3) Circumstances leading to the incident

b. A description of the behavior which relates
exactly what was done.

c. A statement of why the results of the inci-
dent were effective or ineffective.

 

lIbid.

 

2For example, each of the following has successfully
employed self-reported incidents: Frank D. Alexander, "Pre-
test of the Critical Incident Technique," unpublished paper,
Cooperative Extension Service, Cornell University, circa,
1965; Clegg, Op. cit.; Loren F. Goyen, "Critical Components
Of the Work Environment of County Extension Youth Agents"
(unpublished Ph.D. study in progress, University of Wiscon-
sin); Herzberg, et al., 0 . cit.; Herzberg, Op. cit.; and
Fred E. Kohl, "Critical Requirements for Idaho Extension
Agricultural Agents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in
progress, University of Wisconsin).

-36-

4. Selection of a method for collecting represent-
ative incidents.

 

 

Three methods of securing critical incidents

have generally been used: individual interviews,
group interviews, and mailed questionnaires.
Incidents are usually oral or written descrip-
tions of behavior in narrative form. The

reputed communication advantage of the indivi-
dual interview is offset in part by the expense
and time incurred in securing the data which
results in a decline in the number of subjects
that can practically be contacted.1 Some re-
searchers have resorted to mailed questionnaires
as a means for economically increasing sample
size. However, there have been instances of very
low rates of instrument returns.2 Some incidents
have been discarded due to misunderstood instruc-
tions to subjects. Wagner has reported distinct

time savings for the group method without loss

 

lAlexander, Op. cit.

2Low returns were reported by Bengt-E Andersson and

Stig-G Nilsson, "Studies in the Reliability and Validity

of the Critical Incident Technique," Journal of Applied

Ps cholo , Vol. 48 (1964), pp. 398-403; Corballfi,"A Study
of the Critical Elements of School Board-Community Relations,‘

op. cit.; and Goldin, Op. cit.

 

-37-

of quality of reported incidents.1 When inci-
dents are collected in small groups with the
researcher present, questions and answers help
reduce the likelihood of reporting unusable
incidents.

5. Establishing the minimum number of incidents
required.

 

 

A study in Sweden showed the first 320 critical
incidents for retail store managers provided

100 percent of the categories, and 95.3 per-
cent of the subcategories identified from a
total of 1,847 incidents.2 Jensen reported

that the first 400 incidents for U. S. school
teachers revealed nearly all groups of behaviors
found in 1,500 incidents.3 It therefore appears
that a minimum of 320 incidents is required for
a representative sample of job behaviors for

professional workers.

 

lRalph Wagner, "A Group Situation Compared with In-
dividual Interviews for Securing Personnel Information,"
Personnel, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1948), pp. 93-107.

 

2Andersson and Nilsson, Op. cit.

3Jensen, op. cit.

-38-

The acceptance or rejection of incidents on
the basis of established criteria.

 

 

Actual behavior must be reported and the cri-
teria specified in Item 3, above, must be met.

Thepperformance of a content analysis upon
accepted’incidents.

 

 

a. Selecting a frame of reference:
The intended use of the data determines
the criteria for this step. For use in
personnel selection, the criteria may be
psychological traits. Where training
uses are Of prime concern, criteria may
relate to training courses or goals.

b. Formulation of categories of accepted
incidents:
This has apparently been universally accom-
plished by an inductive process whereby
definitions for each category are develOped
from the collected data. A panel of judges
is commonly used for maintaining objectivity
and as a check for reliability.

Interpretation of data and reporting results.

 

Data are generally interpreted by describing the
categories and/or subcategories of incidents. The
frequency of incident occurrence and relationships

among variables are often reported.

-39-

Attributes of the Critical
Incident Technique

 

 

Several reputed attributes of this technique tend
to support the conclusion that it is an appropriate method
for the identification of behaviors needed for effective
role performance.1 It will permit the reporting of be-
haviors by the subjects actually engaged in the task.
Their perceptions of both the job and the work situation
are considered. It will afford insight into both the
ineffective and effective behaviors executed in perform-
ing elements of workers' roles. This method makes possible
the identification of job behaviors which respondents per-
ceive as critical.
Summary

The determinants of agent training needs may reside
in a number of sources:

A hierarchy of basic human needs suggested by Maslow

A maintenance-Motivational theory of work proposed
by Herzberg

A theory of role taking in organizations offered by
Katz and Kahn

Such theoretical considerations provide a framework

for generating hypotheses about agent training needs.

 

1See discussions by: Burns, Op. cit.,; Corbally,
"The Critical Incident Technique and Educational Research,"
0 . cit.; Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique," pp.

git.; and Fleming, op. cit.

-40-

The results of previous studies of extension agent
training needs suggest there may be six categories of
needs which persist for extension agents:

1. Planning and develOping extension programs

2. Implementing programs through social systems

3. Communicating and using the educational
process

4. Conducting programs for developing human, eco-
nomic, and other natural resources

5. Evaluating programs, conducting research, and
solving problems

6. Administering extension work.

Related research suggests that the method employed
to identify training needs mlgpp: limit possible subject
response; fail to measure perception of the incumbent;
focus upon methods of meeting training needs rather than
identifying them; treat perception as a static rather than
dynamic quality; and fail to identify important needs. It
appears the critical incident technique offers a method for
surmounting, at least to a high degree, each of these
problems.

The CIT seems an apprOpriate method for identifying
training needs and for specifying job requirements of
extension agents as perceived by incumbents. The eight-
step procedure generally followed by those employing the

CITLis-as follows:

-41-

Specify the job or activity to be studied
Determine the composition of the observer group

Specify the criteria for observer use in re—
porting critical incidents

Select a method for collecting representative
incidents

Establish the minimum number of incidents
required

Accept or reject incidents on the basis of
established criteria

Perform a content analysis of accepted incidents

Interpret the data and report the results.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

The methods employed to determine critical job
requirements and to identify training needs of field
extension agents are described in this chapter. Four
major sections are developed. The first presents demo-
_graphic characteristics of participating agents. The
next describes the instruments employed and the pretest-
ing procedure followed. Another describes the data
collection procedures and finally, data analysis is dis-

cussed and research hypotheses are presented.

The subjects

On the basis of findings of Andersson and Nilsson
and of Jenson, it appeared that approximately 70 subjects
would be needed to provide the minimum number of critical
incidents required for this study. Since it was unneces-
sary and economically unfeasible to include all Michigan
agents, it was necessary to decide whether to use a ran-
dom sample of all agents, or to select a pOpulation of
agents with contiguous years of service. The latter de-
cision was made since it appeared to minimize the probable

age and tenure differences among respondents.

-42-

-43~

Both experienced and inexperienced agents' percep-
tions of job requirements and training needs were desired.
However, the first three months of agent work seemed
largely devoted to induction experiences and therefore was
judged to be prerequisite for enabling agents to report
critical incidents. Agents thus were selected as sub-
jects in chronological order of their tenure beginning with
those employed three months prior to launching the investi-
gation and extending back over whole years until more than
70 had been selected. This resulted in 74 subjects who
comprised the total population of Michigan COOperative
Extension Agents who had experienced not more than six
years, nor less than three months of duty and were employed
in a field agent position on December 1, 1967.

A dichotomy was arbitrarily established according
to agent tenure. Agents with less than 18 months of exten-
sion employment were considered to be inexperienced since
such a period seemed a reasonable requirement for agents
to grasp important role expectations. Agents with 18 or
more months of extension employment were considered to be
experienced since all would have had an Opportunity to plan
an extension program and at least begin to execute the plan.

Agents were asked to report such personal demogra-
phic characteristics as age, sex, employment position,

tenure, previous work experience, and educational level

-44-

since such variables might be differentially related to
training needs.

About two—thirds of the agents comprising the study
pOpulation were males and one-third were females. As indi-
cated in Table l, the 25 Agricultural and Natural Resource
Agents were males and the 22 Extension Home Economists were
females. Among the 27 4-H - Youth Agents, 24 were males
and three were females.

Approximately 90 percent of the 4-H — Youth Agents
were below 36 years of age and 70 percent of them fell
within the 26 through 35 year range. Extension Agricul-
tural Agents were older, with 80 percent of them 31 years
or Older; and 40 percent of them 36 years or older. The
distribution of Extension Home Economists' ages formed a
dichotomy with 27 percent in the youngest (21-25) age
group and 54 percent in the older (over 40) age group.
This might reflect a typical pattern of the young home
economist employed until the child bearing years, leaving
employment to bear children, and then returning to profes-
sional employment in later life.

Fifty percent of the agents were classified as ex-
perienced and fifty percent were classified as inexperi-
enced agents as previously explained. Table 3 shows that

about three-fourths of the 4-H - Youth Agents were

-45-

 

 

oo.ooa mm
oo.oa v
oo.¢m m
oo.ov OH
oo.om m
«o o
w z
mucmmd

mousommm amuspwz

a HMHOOHOOHHmd

oo.ooa mm
me.vm m
mo.m m
mm.v H
mm.v a
hm.hm w

w z

mumflfiocoom
mfiom

coamcmuxm

 

oo.ooa hm HmDOB
on.m H ow Hm>0
av.h N ovlmm
wo.hm OH mmnam
mm.mm m omnmm
mm.ma m mNIHm

w z

mucmmfi "mumww >3
nusow I mav msoum mom

ZOHBHmOm BZMZNquzm OZ¢ m0¢ Mm mfizmozommmm m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

 

oo.ooa as
sm.mm ea
Hm.ma OH
mm.mm Hm
am.om ma
em.va as
w 2
dance .
00.00H as
ms.mm mm
mm.oo as
w z
sauce

 

oo.ooa mm
uuumul ml
oo.ooa mm
w z
mucmmfi

mousommm amusumz
w HMHDDHDOHHmd

N mqm¢9

oo.ooa mm
oo.ooa mm
o o
m z
mumfleocoom

mfiom
coflmcmuxm

 

00.00H hm Hmuoe

 

HH.HH m mHmEmm

mm.mm em mam:
m 2 ”Mom
mvcmm¢

QUDOM I mlv

ZOHBHmOm BZMZNOAQZM QZ¢ xmm Mm mBZmnzommmm m0 ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

H mamma

-46-

.mzucoa m swap mmwa pmmoamfim comb pm: mcoz .mnpcOE ma cmcu

mmma How sofluflmom coemcwuxm cw pawn was 0:3 mmozu mumz mucmmm pmocmwummxmcHn

.mummhm swap OMOE pmmoamEm some pm: 0:02 .Ouoe Ho
mausoe ma How cofluflmom coemcwuxm cm pawn pm: 0:3 mmonu wumz mucmmm UmocmflHmmxmm

 

 

 

bbhbbm. mm. mmhmmw mm. mmhmmw. mm bbhbbm. em amsoe
oo.om km oo.mm a ms.ms OH no.4k om nemocmaumaxmcH
oo.om Am oo.~s ma mm.vm NH mm.m~ A memocmaumaxm
m z w z w i z m z
Hmuoa ucmm< muwwEocoom mucmmd "muscme
OOHOOmOm amusumz mfiom zusow I mlv

w amusuHsOflumd GOflmcmpxm

ZOHBHmOm Q24 mmDZMB Nm mBZMQZOmmmm m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

m mqmdfi

.Hms©H>HU:H mac ma pmuuommu Ob mmE mwocmHummxm mOOH>mHm
Hmum>mm moch mucmpsommmu mo MOQEOO may swap kummum 85m HHHB mCEOHoum

-47-

 

 

 

HH.m m oo.mH m mo.m N on.m H msoz

Hm.OH m oo.om m mo.m m on.m H nonmmmmm

ms.mm em oo.om a ma.ma a ms.os Ha suumsecH

one mmmchsm

m>.mm mm oo.mv NH we.MH m mm.mm s OOH>umm OHHbOm

Hm.mm he oo.ss Ha mm.am ma sm.me ma maaromme
m .62 w mz. w mz w mz

Hmuoe ucvm< mumHEocoom mosmHummxm

OOHDOmmm Hmusumz wEom mucmmm xuoz

w HmusuHsOHumd GOHmsOuxm nusow I mlv msoH>mHm

ZOHBHmOm Bzmzwoqmzm 02¢ MUZMHmmmx-m MMOK mDOH>mEnH .HZm-QZOnHmm-m

v MHm/wm.

inexperienced, while over 70 percent of the Agricultural
and Natural Resource Agents were experienced. The Home
Economists were almost equally divided; about 55 percent
were classed as experienced and about 45 percent were
inexperienced.

Teaching was the most frequently reported previous
work experience for agents in this study. A considerably
larger proportion of Extension Home Economists and 4-H —
Youth Agents had teaching experiences before extension
employment than did Extension Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents.

The second most frequent work eXperience was in
business and industry. Public service (other than teaching)
ranked a close third and was the most frequently reported
experience of Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents.
Public service was considered to include employment with
such agencies as Social Welfare Departments, the U. S.
Forest Service, Michigan Department of Conservation, U. S.
Soil Conservation Service, Farmers Home Administration,
and others.

Research experience was reported by about 10 percent
of the agents. Extension Agricultural and Natural Resource
Agents more frequently reported research experience than

either 4-H - Youth Agents or Extension Home Economists.

-49-

About eight percent of all agents had no previous work ex-
perience before extension employment.

The educational backgrounds of the agents are re-
ported in Table 5. Approximately four-fifths of them had
academic credits beyond their Bachelor's degree. About
one-half had completed their Master's degree or had worked
beyond it. Such accomplishments were more frequently
reported by Extension Agricultural and Natural Resource
Agents than by either 4-H - Youth Agents or Extension Home
Economists. Incumbents to the latter two positions most
frequently reported having a Bachelor's degree plus some

credits, but not enough for a Master's degree.

TABLE 5

RESPONDENT LEVEL OF ACADEMIC ATTAINMENT
BY EMPLOYMENT POSITION

 

 

Agricultural
Extension and Natural
Academic 4-H - Youth Home Resource
Attainment Agent Economist Agent Total
% N % N % N %
Bachelor's 5 18.52 7 31.82 4 16.00 16 21.62
Bachelor's
Plus 15 55.56 8 36.36 5 20.00 28 37.84
Master's 4 14.81 3 13.64 6 24.00 13 17.57
Master's

Plus 3 11.11 4 18.18 8 32.00 15 20.27
Doctor's _Q 0 _Q 0 _2 8.00 2 2.70

*

Total 27 100.00 22 100.00 25 100.00 74 100.00

-50-

Instrumentation

 

Two principal instruments, plus associated instruct-
ions, were develOped for this investigation: A Critical
Incident Report Form, attached in Appendix A; and a Classi-
fication System for Critical Incidents, Appendix B.

The Critical Incident Report Form was developed for
use of respondents in self-reporting incidents. This form
was structured to assure that reported incidents would
meet the criteria for acceptance noted in Chapter II. The
content of the questions was designed to meet these cri-
teria. The order Of questions about each incident was
adapted from that followed in oral interviews by Alexander.1
The questions were:

. Exactly what did you do?

What circumstances led up to the incident?
What was your objective?

Who was involved?

What were the results of your action?
When did this incident take place?

O‘U'llfiwNi-J
e e

This research is concerned with the significance of
agent training needs and job requirements. One indication
of the significance of such needs and requirements is the
frequency with which agents report them. The Critical
Incident Report Form was designed to collect information

about critical incidents so they could be classified into

 

lAlexander, op. cit., pp. 1-5.

-51-

common groups of agent needs or job requirements. The
frequency with which incidents occurred would be one indi-
cation of the significance of such needs or requirements.
That is, large numbers of incidents in a given group would
tend to indicate more significant activities; small num-
bers Of incidents would tend to indicate less significant
activities.

However, frequency alone seemed not to provide a
complete picture since it did not fully indicate the degree
of criticalness of a need.1 To illustrate, a commercial
fisherman might seldom need to swim, but if the need arose
but once it would be highly critical. Therefore, an indi-

cation of the importance of a training need seemed to be

 

a considerable refinement over the frequency of occurrence
alone. Respondents were asked to indicate on a seven-point
scale the extent to which they believed each self-reported
incident was likely to influence their success as an exten-
sion agent.

It was also desired to determine if agents differen-

tially reported the difficulpy experienced in executing

 

critical incidents. Respondents were asked to indicate on

 

1Interpretation of incident frequency is discussed
by: Corbally, "The Critical Incident Technique and Edu-
cational Research," 0 . cit.; Glickman and Vallance, pp.
plp.; Flanagan, "Critical Requirements: A New Approach to
Employee Evaluation," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 2 (1949),
pp. 419-425; and Andersson and Nilsson, Op. cit.

 

-52-

a seven-point scale how difficult it was to do each self-
reported incident.

The questionnaire was constructed so respondents
could provide descriptions of three effective and three
ineffective incidents, for a total of six incidents. A
separate page was used for reporting each incident with
the pages alternating between effective and ineffective
incidents.

Effective incidents were considered to indicate
competencies or skills possessed by the reporting agents.
Ineffective incidents were considered to indicate training
needs of the reporting agents. The combination of all ef-
fective and ineffective incidents, when classified, was
considered to reflect agent job requirements.

The potential for maximizing the number of usable
reported incidents seemed greatest with small group meet-
ings of respondents. Since the respondent's understanding
of the instructions was deemed to be crucial to the validity
of the research data, incident descriptions, special effort
was made to insure adequate and uniform communication of
instructions. A full page of instructions, including ex—
amples of incidents from other professions, preceeded the
critical incident report form. To provide audio reinforce-
ment to the visually presented instruction, this page was

tape recorded and the four-minute recording was played in

-53-

each group meeting. The general information was narrated
on the recording by the researcher, but the sample incidents
were each narrated by a different voice. During data col-
lection meetings, the subjects were encouraged to both read
and listen to the instructions.

Respondents were asked to provide the following per-

sonal demographic information:

Name Employment experience
Sex Educational level attained
Age Extension tenure

A classification System for
Critical Incidents

 

 

A classification system was required to meaningfully
interpret the critical incidents collected in this research
and relate them to the variables under study. Other re-
searchers using the CIT have apparently, without exception,
classified the collected incidents a posteriori. Typically
the incidents were collected and the classification system
was then inductively developed from the collected data.

In the present study a classification system was
develOped a priori. It was noted in the review of extension
literature that there appeared to be six functional groups
of agent job behaviors which persisted among the writings
of several authors in the field. These six groups of agent

behaviors served as the major categories of the classification

-54-

system used in this study. These categories are herein
referred to as critical performance categories (CPC's).
Hypotheses were generated about the CPC's and about the
relationship of other variables to the CPC's.

Component subcategories were assigned to each
category. The subcategories were generalized statements
of agent behaviors. They were primarily derived from
over 200 items used by earlier cited extension researchers.l </‘

The typical behaviors subsumed under each performance /
category were not necessarily exhaustive of all possible
behaviors reported. The intent was to use the itemized be-
haviors as guides or as typical examples of appropriate

behaviors for a single category.

Pretestinngrocedure

 

After individual members on the doctoral guidance
committee offered suggestions for refinement in both the
form and the procedure, the incident report form was pre-
tested. The pretest subjects were ten students currently
enrolled in college who had served as Extension Assistants
for one or more summers. All had worked in county extension
offices as Assistants during the summer of 1967.

Each pretest subject was telephoned by the researcher

and asked to participate in the research. If they responded

 

1The researchers include McCormick, Op. cit., Clark,
Op. cit., Coffindaffer, op. cit., and Alexander, op. cit.

-55-

favorably, a personal letter was sent. This letter briefly
described the procedure and requested a card be returned to
indicate a preference for a meeting time. Four meetings
were held. Attendance ranged from one to four at each
meeting.

The ten pretest subjects responded favorably to the
task. They provided a total of 57 of the requested 60
incidents. Eight subjects provided six incidents each,
one subject provided five incidents and another provided
four incidents. The mean time spent by each subject was
one hour and 35 mintues. The time ranged from one hour to
two hours and 15 minutes. The mean time spent in writing
each incident was slightly over 16 minutes. This appeared
reasonable, and the decision was made to request six inci-
dents from each participant in the study.

A change was made in the Critical Incident Report
Form as a result of the pretesting experience. The order
Of the questions about the incident was altered since the
subjects had difficulty describing the incident without
first describing the circumstances which led to the incident.
This change was incorporated and subsequently printed in
the form in which it appears in Appendix A.

On the basis of the pretest experience a change was
made in the amount and kind Of information sent to the sub-

ject before the data collection meeting. The pretest subjects

-56-

indicated a need for general examples of critical incidents
before arriving at the meeting. They reported that a des-
cription of the method alone was inadequate to prepare them
for reporting critical incidents. Also, they indicated
that the fact that they were to report six incidents should
be stressed before arriving at the meeting. These sug-

gestions were incorporated into the research procedure.

Data Collection Procedure

 

Extension administrators were asked to send letters
to the participating agents on their respective field
staffs to alert them to this research and ask the agents'
cooperation. A suggested letter was drafted by the re-
searcher and provided to each administrator along with a
list of agents to be invited to participate. The researcher
also provided attachments for the letters which contained
a map showing the location of the study subjects as well as
a list of the subjects by counties. This was done to faci-
litate group travel, where necessary, to attend small group
data collection meetings. A sample of the administrator
letter and attachments is included in Appendix C.

A similar letter was sent to the county agent-in-
charge to inform him of this research effort.

Three days later, a letter was sent by the researcher

to each agent subject which explained the purpose of the

-57-

research, alerted him to the small group nature of the
effort, and indicated that a telephone call would be forth-
coming seeking his participation. This letter is shown in
Appendix D.

A telephone call to each subject elicited, with no
exceptions, affirmative responses to the invitation to
participate. Schedules were arranged during this telephone
conversation so that each agent could attend a data col-
lection meeting.

A letter of confirmation was sent to each agent ap-
proximately one week before the data collection meeting was
held. More CIT details were included in this letter and
examples of incidents were provided. This letter is
attached as Appendix E.

Procedure in each data collection meeting was struc-
tured to insure agent understanding of instructions. The
following statement was made at the beginning of each
meeting:

I appreciate your willingness to take time from

your busy schedules to participate in this research.
The purpose of this study is to try to find what
Specific actions are necessary for performing the
role of an extension agent. The intent is to analyze
your job, not to evaluate you. Please complete the
first page of your questionnaire, then I will have
more instructions for you. Remember, your responses
will remain confidential.

When all agents had supplied the data on page one of

the questionnaire, the tape recording of instructions and

examples of incidents was played. The agents were encouraged

-58-

to simultaneously listen and read the material on page two
of the questionnaire attached as Appendix A.

Agents were then encouraged to ask questions. Follow-
ing a discussion the agents were asked to individually write
three effective and three ineffective critical incidents.

If questions were raised by the subjects as they wrote the
incidents, the researcher attempted to answer them. How-
ever, the researcher tried not to influence the nature of
the incidents reported by subjects other than to repeat the
instructions given on page two of the questionnaire.

Critical incidents were collected from 74 extension
agents in 23 meetings. The meetings ranged in size from two
to 11 agents. The mean attendance per meeting was 3.21
agents. All incidents were collected during the six-week
period which ended in January, 1968.

Each agent reported six incidents, thus a total of
444 incidents were collected. The agent time spent in the
single meeting which each attended ranged from 60 to 180
minutes. The mean time spent per meeting was 101.2 minutes.
Hence, the mean respondent time invested per incident was

about 17 minutes.

Data Analysis 1

 

This research was designed as a descriptive study.

Since it was a study of a finite pOpulation, the respondents

-59-

were considered a total universe and any differences which
occurred were considered to be actual differences. Descrip-
tive statistics were employed throughout.

The statistical treatment of classified incidents
included the computation of percentage and frequency dis-
tributions and mean scores for Critical Incident Report
Form items which dealt with the importance and difficulty
Of the classified incidents. Rank-orders were derived by
constructing frequency tables and by computing the mean
scores of scaled responses to "importance" and "difficulty"
items. An equal distance was assumed between the alter-
native choices in the scaled items.

To determine the reliability of incident classifi-
cation, each incident was independently classified on three
occasions for category and subcategory by the researcher
according to the definitions contained in "The Classification

1 Symbols for each classi-

System for Critical Incidents."
fication were recorded on the back of the form, thus sub-
sequent classification was possible without knowledge of

previous classification. Percentages of agreement of the

subsequent classifications by the researcher were computed.

 

1See Appendix B.

-60-

Three judges were asked to independently classify
by category and subcategory a 10 percent sample of all re-
ported incidents. The percentagesof agreement of the
judges with the researcher's classification were computed.

A plan was followed which had been devised to handle
incidents which did not seem to fit the classification
system. All incidents which appeared too difficult to
classify by this system were to be so coded by the re-
searcher. If more than 5 percent of all incidents were so
coded, the above judges were to be asked to function with
the researcher as a panel to review each "difficult" incident.
If 3 out of 4 on the panel agreed upon a category and sub-
category within the system, an incident was to be so clas-
sified. If 3 out of 4 agreed that an incident fell beyond
the system, it was to be coded as "unclassified."

In the event that more than 5 percent of all reported
incidents were "unclassified," the panel was to inductively
consider additional categories and subcategories provided
that 3 out of 4 agreed that more than 5 percent of all
reported incidents fell within each newly identified category.

The data were processed by the Computer Laboratory
at Michigan State University. Symbols for the classified
incidents and other raw data were transferred by the re-
rearcher to a "Data Coding Form," from which keypunchers
prepared data cards. Consultants in the Computer Laboratory

recommended an apprOpriate computer program.

-61-

The Hypotheses

 

Previous investigators have identified behaviors
which are important for successful extension agent per-
formance. Common findings of these earlier studies of
extension tasks were adapted and arranged into critical
performance categories. Critical incidents reported by
extension agents were expected to fall within those cate-
gories. Hence, the following hypothesis was posed:

H1 Five or more percent of the classified critical

incidents reported by extension agents fall with-

in each Of the following critical performance

categories:

a. Program planning

b. Organizing

c. Teaching and Communicating

d. Conducting programs

e. Evaluating

f. Administering

The postulated relationship of several variables with
critical performance categories are indicated in the hypo-
theses which fOllow. It is postulated that Hypothesis H1
will hold regardless of agent position or tenure. The
following hypothesis was therefore suggested.
H2 Each critical performance category contains 5 per-

cent or more of the classified critical inCidents

regardless of reporting agent:

a. Position

b. Tenure

-62-

Just as a frequency hierarchy of satisfying factors
was identified in studies founded on the motivational-
maintenance theory, so too might a hierarchy of critical
performance categories emerge in the present study. Agents
might report as effective and ineffective incidents behavi-
ors which, when classified, would form a hierarchy of fre-
quency, importance, and difficulty.

In addition, the earlier cited extension studies
have isolated hierarchical relationships based upon such
factors as the importance of certain skills and understand-
ings for job performance; the perceived degree of need; and
the difficulty experienced in performing certain tasks. In
the present study, the incidents would similarly be expected
to be differentially distributed among the critical per-
formance categories according to frequency, importance, and
difficulty. It was hypothesized that:

H3 The distribution among critical performance catego-

ries of critical incidents reported by extension
agents are differentially arranged in rank-order
according to:

a. The frequency of reported effective incidents
b. The frequency of reported ineffective incidents

-c. The frequency of all incidents

d. The perceived importance to job success of all
incidents

e. The perceived difficulty of executing all
. incidents.

-63-

It was assumed that socialization to agent-roles is
a process which does not end with the induction procedure,
but rather is one which extends throughout agents' pro-
'fessional careers. It seemed reasonable to expect increas-
ing years of service to be associated with differentiation
in agent perception of appropriate role behavior. Hence,
the reported frequency, importance, and difficulty of
executing critical incidents were expected to vary accord-
ing to agent tenure.

Further, if inexperienced agents are seeking a sense
of belonging to the organization, they would be expected to
report incidents which reflect concerns about structural
relationships, policies, goals, sources of sanctions and
rewards, and apprOpriate behavior within the extension
bureaucracy. These incidents would be classified as compo-
nents of the critical performance category entitled
"Administering." Behaviors in this category are perhaps
more stressful, and therefore more difficult for ne0phyte
agents to perform.

It was assumed that there is a broadening of agent
orientation over time. That is, early in the agent's work
experience his concern might tend to focus upon organiza-
tional maintenance factors and upon relevant others who
may provide a feeling of belonging. With further experi-

ence, the agent might tend to expand his perception of

~64-

appropriate role behavior toward broader role performance.

Therefore, experienced agents were expected to report

incidents which reflected broader perceptions of role as

represented by the performance category of "Program

Planning." Behaviors in this category are perhaps more

stressful, and therefore more difficult for experienced

agents to perform. It was therefore hypothesized:

H4 The difficulty scores of critical incidents are
differentially distributed among critical per-
formance categories according to the tenure of
reporting agents:

a. The mean score of difficulty is higher
in the Administering category for
inexperienced than for experienced agents.
b. The mean score of difficulty is higher
in the Program Planning category for ex-
perienced than for inexperienced agents.
In the reasoning which prefaced Hypotheses H4, a
differential perception of incident difficulty according
to agent tenure was postulated. Similar reasoning led
to the postulate that agents differentially perceive the
importance of incidents according to their tenure. Hence,
the following hypothesis:

H5 The importance scores of critical incidents are
differentially distributed among critical per-
formance categories according to the tenure of
the reporting agents:

a. The mean score of importance in the
Administering category is higher for

inexperienced than for experienced
agents.

-65-

b. The mean score of importance in the
Program Planning category is higher for
experienced than for inexperienced agents.
Both effective and ineffective incidents were compo-
nents of the critical performance categories referred to
in Hypotheses Hl through H5. This application of the cri-
tical incident technique has been called "job analysis."
It leads to the identification of what Flanagan has called

1 The purpose of such an analysis

"critical requirements."
in this study was to provide understanding of the elements

of agents' roles which they perceived as being crucial for
success.

However, the central purpose of this study was to
refine the specification of training needs of extension
agents. The report of ineffective incidents was herein
considered to infer training needs since agents were asked
to report incidents which they had actually ineffectively
performed. The hypothesis and questions which follow were
developed to examine possible differential relationships
of certain variables with effective and ineffective incidents.

It was an extension of the rationale for Hypotheses

H3, H4, and H which led to the postulate that agents will

5
differentially report effective and ineffective critical in-
cidents among the performance categories according to agent

tenure. Hence, the following hypothesis was posed:

 

1Flanagan, "Critical Requirements: A New Approach
to Employee Evaluation," Op. cit.

-66-

6 The frequency of report of effective and of inef-
fective incidents varies among critical performance
categories according to the tenure of the agents
reporting:

a. Experienced agents more frequently than
inexperienced agents report effective
incidents which are classified in the
Program Planning category.

b. Experienced agents more frequently than
inexperienced agents report ineffective

incidents which are classified in the
Administering category.

Some Questions

In addition to testing the above hypothesized re-
lationships, these data were also analyzed to seek answers
to the following questions:

1. What is the relationship of tenure to the dif-
ficulty of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

2. What is the relationship of position to the
difficulty of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

3. What is the relationship of tenure to the im-
portance of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

4. What is the relationship of position to the im-

portance of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

Summary

A detailed description of the research method used
in this study is provided. The first section contains a

description of the 74 Michigan COOperative Extension Service

—67-

Agents who were the subjects of this study. The subjects
had experienced not more than six years, nor less than three
months of duty and were employed in a field agent position
on December 1, 1967. The following agent demographic vari-
ables are described by employment position: age, sex, exten-
sion tenure, previous work experience, and level of education
attained.

A critical incident report form is described which
was designed to permit written descriptions of effective and
ineffective critical incidents by subjects and to elicit
their response on scales of incident importance and diffi-
culty. The report form was pretested with ten college
students who had been employed in county extension offices
as Assistants during the summer of 1967. The development
of an incident classification system consisting of six
critical performance categories is described as having
been founded upon earlier studies of agent training needs.

Information is provided about the procedure followed
in collecting 444 critical incidents in 23 small group meet-
ings. Correspondence and instructions to the subjects by
tape recording are described.

This research is a descriptive study of a finite
population which employs descriptive statistics. The reli-
ability Of the classification of incidents by the researcher
was assessed by three judges. The preparation of data for

and the tabulation of data by the Computer Center is described.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Introduction

 

The major findings of this study are presented in
this chapter. The data resulted from the classification
among six critical performance categories (CPC's) the cri—
tical incidents reported by a population of Michigan Coopera-
tive Extension Agents. Each incident was classified in a
single category and subcategory. (Data pertaining to the
relationship of certain variables with the CPC's are pre-
sented. The chapter is organized around the study hypotheses.
The concluding section contains data pertaining to certain
questions raised in Chapter III.

In one sense, the classification system (Appendix B)
was itself an hypothesis since it was unknown whether inci-
dents would fall within or without the defined categories
Of the system. Since each incident was classified in one,
and only one, category and subcategory, this seemed to be
a rigorous test of the system.

The agreement of the researcher's classification of
critical incidents on three separate readings is shown in
Table 6. The category classification on the second reading

agreed with the first for 78.8 percent of the incidents and

-68-

-69-

the agreement for subcategory classifications was 63.2 per-
cent. On the third reading, category classifications agreed
with those on second reading for 89.6 percent of the inci-
dents; and subcategory classification agreement between

second and third readings increased to 77.2 percent.

TABLE 6

RESEARCHER AGREEMENT IN CLASSIFYING CRITICAL INCIDENTS
BY CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY

Second classification Third classification
agreed with the first: pgreed with the second:

 

 

N % N %
Category 350 78.8 398 89.6
Subcategory 281 63.2 361 77.2

Three judges were asked to independently classify
by category and subcategory a 10 percent sample of the re-
ported incidents employing the "Classification System for
Critical Incidents." Each judge spent about four hours in
this task. The results of the judges' classifications are
reported in Table 7 as the percentage of agreement of the
judges' classification by category and subcategory with the
researcher's classification. The judges classified 25 per-
cent of the incidents in different categories than the
researcher did. One or more judge agreed with the researcher's
category classification for 75 percent of the incidents; two
or more judges agreed with the researcher's category classi-

fication for 47.2 percent of the incidents; and all three

-70-

judges agreed with the researcher's category classification
for 20.45 percent of the incidents.
TABLE 7
AGREEMENT OF JUDGES' AND RESEARCHER'S CLASSIFICATIONS

OF A SAMPLE OF 44 CRITICAL INCIDENTS

Percent of Cases:

 

 

No judge l or more 2 or more 3 judges

pgreed judge agreed judges agreed agreed
Category 25.00 75.00 47.72 0.45
Subcategory 43.18 56.81 29.54 11.36

There was persistently less agreement on subcategory
classification than on category classification. Examples
of incident classification by the researcher and the judges
are provided in Appendix F.

Low agreement of classification might be attributed
to a number of causes. The judges might have lacked famili-
arity with the classification system since less than an hour
was used in orientation of the judges. The definitions in
the system may not have been sufficiently discrete. Instruc-
tions to the judges may have lacked specificity. Perhaps
these results support the contention of some writers who are
critical of the subjective nature of the critical incident
classification process.

There were 41 incidents coded by the researcher as

difficult to classify. Hence, nearly 10 percent of the

-71-

original 444 incidents were so coded. Researcher agreement
of classification was very low with this "difficult" group.
The second category classification had not agreed with the
first for any of the 41 incidents. Only 58.5 percent of
the third classification agreed with the second.

It was decided to test the impact of removing the
41 "difficult" incidents from the total originally reported.
As shown in Table 8, the category agreement increased to
86.8 percent when the second classification was compared
with the first for 403 incidents. This was 8 percent
higher than the similar classification Of the total 444 in-
cidents shown in Table 6. Agreement rose to 92.8 percent
on the third classification for the 403 incidents, an in-
crease of 3.2 percent. Subcategory agreement similarly
increased to 69.7 percent and 84.1 percent on second and

third classifications respectively.

TABLE 8

RESEARCHER AGREEMENT IN CLASSIFYING 403 CRITICAL
INCIDENTS BY CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY

Second classification Third classification
agreed with the first: agreed with the second:

 

 

N % N %
Category 350 86.2 374 92.8
Subcategory 281 69.7 339 84.1

The three judges were asked to function as a panel,

with the researcher, to review each of the 41 incidents since

-72-

this number of incidents exceeded the 5 percent maximum
specified in the classification plan. Panel members spent
about four hours in which they independently read and clas-
sified a photocopy of each incident and then discussed the
classification each had selected. In the event that 3 of
the 4 panel members agreed upon a category and subcategory,
an incident was so classified.

Thirty-five incidents were so agreed upon and assigned
to categories and subcategories with the other incidents.
Six were considered to fall outside the classification
system and were rejected. Therefore, the basic data of this
research consisted of 438 critical incidents which were
classified among six categories and component subcategor-
ies in a classification system developed a priori. Thus,
98.65 percent of the reported incidents were classified
among the CPC's of the system and only 1.35 percent were
classed outside the system.

Frequenoy Distribution of
CIassified Incidents

 

 

The distribution of 98.65 percent of the reported
incidents was another issue since incidents might have been
differentially distributed among the categories of the
classification system. Hypothesis Hl posits the distribu-

tion of the incidents.

-73-

H Five or more percent of the classified critical
incidents reported by extension agents fall within
each of the following critical performance cate-
gories:

a. Program Planning

b. Organizing

c. Teaching and Communicating

d. Conducting Programs

e. Evaluating

f. Administering
The distribution Of the classified incidents is
shown by CPC in Table 9. There is considerable variation
in the distribution of incidents among the categories.

The CPC, "Teaching and Communicating" received the
greatest number of critical incidents. About one-third of
the incidents were classified in this category. The em-
phasis in this category was upon reaching and teaching
people. It included behaviors of sending and receiving
messages. Relevant behaviors pertained to both the learn-
ing and the communication process. The basic concern was
with process rather than the content taught or communicated.

This finding is an interesting contrast to the pre-
liminary results reported by Alexander1 when pretesting the
critical incident technique. He found only 5 incidents re-

lated to communication and 1 related to teaching in a total

of 122 incidents. However, category definitions in Alexander's

 

1Alexander, op. cit.

-74-

work excluded from teaching and communicating those inci-
dents related to organizing, counseling, and conducting

demonstrations.

TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION AMONG CRITICAL. PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
OF 438 CRITICAL INCIDENTS REPORTED
BY EXTENSION AGENTS

Critical Incident

 

Critical Performance Category: Number Percent Rank
Teaching and Communicating 150 34.25 1
Organizing 105 23.97. 2
Conducting Programs 86 19.64 3
Administering 51 11.64 4
Program Planning 27 6.16 5
Evaluating 19 4.34 6

Total 438 100.00

The distribution of incidents among component sub-
categories within the CPC of Teaching and Communicating
is shown in Table 10. Component subcategories are con-
sidered to be critical job requirements for extension
agents. The most frequent critical job requirements for
agents when Teaching or Communicating was, "using appro-
priate method to communicate or teach." This job require-
ment contained over 60 percent of the Teaching and Communi-
cating incidents. The absence of any incidents reporting
the establishment of a feedback system will be noted.

Since Table 9 shows 34.25 percent of the incidents
were classified in this category, Hypothesis Hld was sup-

ported and Teaching and Communicating was accepted as a CPC.

-75-

TABLE 10

FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY OF TEACHING
AND COMMUNICATING

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirements: Number Percent Rank

 

Using apprOpriate method to
communicate or teach 91 60.67 1

Analyzing communication patterns
and/or organizing messages 28 18.67 2

Adapting communication and

teaching to the individual 17 11.33 3

Motivating the clientele 14 9.33 4

Establish a feedback system 0 O 0
Total 150 100.00'

Organizing was the second ranked CPC in frequency of
incidents. Nearly 24 percent, or 105 incidents were so
classified as reported in Table 9. This category was con-
sidered to include behaviors of implementing programs
through social systems. Incidents might include organizing
individuals into groups and organizing groups for social
action. Other behaviors were the identification of early
adOpters and leaders; the analysis of the power structure;
and the use or organization of groups to achieve program
Objectives. Such behaviors were considered to be instru-
mental actions which enabled an agent to conduct programs
within the social system in which the extension service

functions.

-76-

The distribution of incidents in the Organizing CPC
varied considerably as shown in Table 11. The most fre-
quent critical job requirement was, "using existing groups
and/or relating parts of the social system." The second
ranking critical job requirement was, "organizing groups."
These two critical job requirements contained over two-

thirds of the critical incidents in this category.

TABLE 11

FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY OF ORGANIZING

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirements: Number Percent Rank

 

Using existing groups and/or
relating parts of the social

 

system _ 40 38.10 1
Organizing groups 28 26.67 2
Identifying and/or using early

adOpters or leaders 15 14.29 3
Developing rapport with clientele 10 9.52 4
Considers values, attitudes, needs,

etc., of self and others 9 8.57 5
Analyzing the power structure 3 2.86 6

Total 105 100.00

It is somewhat surprising that agents so infrequently
reported incidents related to the develOpment of rapport
with the clientele or the analysis of the power structure.

It might be expected that recently employed agents would

-77-

Often report such behaviors if they were motivated to ful-
fill belonging needs as Maslow suggests.

As indicated in Table 9, 23.97 percent of the inci-
dents were classified within the Organizing CPC. Hypothesis
Hlb was therefore supported and Organizing was accepted as
a CPC.

Conducting Programs was the third ranking CPC. This
category contained nearly 20 percent of all the classified
incidents. It was considered to reflect the understanding,
knowledge, and abilities of an agent to provide experiences
which improved the state of human, economic, and other
natural resources. Behavior was interpreted to include the
act of knowing. The outcomes of the use of knowledge were
stressed rather than the process of imparting knowledge.

Hypothesis Hld was supported on the basis of the
data in Table 9 since 19.64 percent of the incidents were
classified in this category. Conducting Programs was
accepted as a CPC.

"Providing technical information" was the first
ranked critical job requirement. The second ranked was,
"developing leadership abilities in self-and/or others."
These two critical job requirements contained nearly three-
fourths of all incidents classified as Conducting Programs.

Neither the critical job requirement, "Interpreting the

-78-

impact of change," nor that of "learning technical informa-
tion" were reported in significant numbers.
TABLE 12
FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
OF CONDUCTING PROGRAMS

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirement: Number Percent Rank

 

Providing technical information 38 44.19 1

Developing leadership abilities
in self or others 26 30.23 2

Developing insight into and/or
exciting pe0p1e about develop-

ment potential 19 22.09 3

Interpreting the impact of

change and trends 2 2.33 4

Learning technical information 1 1.16 5
Total 86 100.00

The fourth ranked CPC was Administering. This
category consisted primarily of internal administrative
behaviors of agents which might enable the actions to
occur in the other five categories. It will be noted in
Table 9 that 51 incidents, or 11.64 percent of the total,
were classified in this category, thus affirming Adminis-
tering as a CPC.

Component critical job requirements for Administering
are shown in Table 13. "Managing work consistent with

resources" accounts for nearly one-half of the incidents in

-79-

this category. "Coordinating work with co-workers" accounts
for another one-fifth of them. These agents very infrequently
reported incidents reflecting efforts to obtain support for
extension programs.

TABLE 13

FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY OF ADMINISTERING

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirements: Number Percent Rank

 

Managing work consistent
with resources 24 47.06 1

Coordinating work with co-workers 10 19.61 2

Making decisions consistent
with extension policies 7 13.73 3

Using knowledge of the structure,
function, policies, and programs
of extension 6 11.76 4

Obtaining support for extension
programs 4 7.84 5

Total 51 100.00

The CPC ranking fifth in frequency was Program
Planning. This category included agent behaviors of ana—
lyzing impinging situations, assessing available resources
and formulating an explicit plan of action for conducting
extension programs. Only 27 incidents, a surprisingly low
6.16 percent of all classified incidents, were classified

in this category as shown in Table 9. Since the process of

-30-

program planning and develOpment appeared to be a baSlC
expectation of agent performance, more critical incidents
were anticipated in this category.

Component critical job requirements of the Program
Planning CPC are shown in Table 14. The most frequent re-
quirement was "using human resources in program development."
Over 51 percent of the incidents in this category were so
classified. Another 25 percent were classed in the job
requirement Of "analyzing social, political, or economic
situations." Over three-fourths of the incidents were
classified in these two critical job requirements. Only

' while

one incident involved "developing a program plan,’
only 5 incidents related to "determining the availability
of resources for programs." Apparently agents in this study
did not very often perceive program planning and develOpment
as critical for successful job performance.
The 6.16 percent of the incidents classified in this
category was sufficient to affirm Program Planning as a CPC.
On the basis of frequency, the lowest ranked of the
6 CPC's was entitled, Evaluating. This category included
agent behaviors intended to assess the results Of extension
programs; to conduct research trials; and to solve work re-

lated problems. Creative thinking, innovation and logical

reasoning were included.

-31-

TABLE 14

FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY OF PROGRAM PLANNING

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirements: Number Percent Rank

 

Using human resources in
program development 14 51.85 1

Analyzing social, political,
or economic situation 7 25.93 2

Determining the availability

of resources for programs 5 18.52 3
DevelOping a Program Plan 1 3.70 4
Total 27 100.00

The component critical job requirements of the
Evaluating CPC are shown in Table 15. It is readily ap-
parent that agents did not frequently report incidents.
which were classified in this category. Incidents invol-
ving creativity and problem solving accounted for 57.9
percent of the Evaluating incidents. Incidents of agent
research represented 42.1 percent of the total.

The numbers upon which the following percentages
were based are so small as to raise serious doubts about the
significance of differences among critical job requirements.
Indeed, the more impressive finding in Table 15 is the ex-
tremely small number in this category. Apparently, agents

did not frequently perceive behaviors of this nature as

-82-

critical job requirements. Not a single incident was clas-

sified as "measuring the results of extension programs "

TABLE 15

FREQUENCY AND RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY OF EVALUATING

Critical Incident
Critical Job Requirement: Number Percent Rank

Thinking creatively or

reasoning logically 8 42.11 1
Conducting applied research 6 31.58 2
Using the problem solving

approach 3 15.79 3
Conducting Opinion surveys 2 10.53 4

Measuring the results of

extension programs 0 0

 

__9
Total 19 100.00
As incidated in Table 9, there were 19 incidents,
or 4.34 percent of the total classified in this category.
Evaluating was not affirmed as a CPC for all agents.
In sum, Hypotheses Hla, b, c, d, and f were supported
by these data. Hypothesis Hle was not supported.

Relationship of Agent Position
and Tenure to CPC's

 

 

Hypothesis Hl was designed to test the distribution
among CPC's of all classified incidents reported by all agents.

Hypothesis H represented an attempt to examine possible re-

2
lationships of position and tenure of agents With CPC's into

-83-

which incidents reported by those agents were classified.

\
H Each CPC contains 5 percent or more Of the classi-

2
fied critical incidents regardless of reporting agent:

a. Position

b. Tenure

Table 16 reveals the distribution of critical
incidents among CPC's according to the position of the re-
porting agent. This table should be read in the following
manner: of the incidents reported by 4-H Agents, 40 were
classified in the CPC Of Teaching and Communicating. These
40 incidents comprised 25.2 percent of all incidents reported
by 4-H Agents. Teaching and Communicating ranked second in
frequency of incidents reported by 4-H Agents.

Fifty-six incidents classified as Teaching and Com-
municating represented 42.4 percent of all incidents reported
by Extension Home Economists. Similarly, 54 incidents, or
36.7 percent of the incidents reported by Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents were classified in the Teaching and
Communicating CPC.

It is apparent from Table 16 that 4 categories were
affirmed as CPC's regardless of agent position: Teaching
and Communicating; Organizing; Conducting Programs; and Ad-
ministering. However, the category Of Program Planning was

not affirmed for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents.

-84—

Nor was the Evaluating category affirmed for 4-H - Youth
Agents or for Home Economists. These data support Hypo-
thesis H2a 1 through 4, while they fail to support Hypothesis
H 5 and 6.

2

Some differences occurred among agent positions in
terms of frequency distributions of reported incidents
among CPC's. Incidents reported by 4—H Agents were most
frequently classified in the Organizing category. One might
expect the 4-H Agent role to be oriented toward working with
groups in social systems.

Home Economists shared with Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents a first place frequency ranking for Teaching
and Communicating, but a larger percentage of incidents re-
ported by the Home Economists were classified in this cate-
gory. This suggests that communication and teaching behaviors
are more frequently perceived as critical for successful job
performance by Home Economists.

Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents had a slightly
higher percentage of incidents classified as Conducting Pro-
grams. This perhaps reflects the technical orientation of
incumbent Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents.

Only the Administrative category maintained a consis—

tent frequency rank among all positions. Hence, agents per—

ceived administrative behaviors as being critical to job

-35-

 

 

 

o.OOH mmw o.OOH sVH

m.v mH m m.b HH

m.m mm o H.v m

m.HH Hm w m.OH mH

o.mH om N m.mm mm

o.vm mOH m o.mH mm

m.vm omH H n.om em

wI z xcmm w z

Hmuoe mucmmd

.m.z a 41.84

Bzmwd OZHBmommm m0 ZOHBHmOm Mm mmHmOOmfifiu

 

 

0.00H NMH
m m.m m
m m.w HH
v m.NH pH
m v.vH mH
N h.mH mm
H v.mq mm
xcmm (WV 2
mumHEosoom
mEom

 

 

o.QOH mmH
m H.m m
m m.w OH
v m.HH mH
m v.HN em
H H.mm Hm
m N.mm ow
Msmm w z
musmmd
nusow I me

Hmuoe
msHumsHm>m

mcHacmHm
Ewumoum

mCHHmuchHEp4

mfimumoum
msHuOOUOOU

OOHNHGmmuO

msHOMOHssEEOU
was msHsommB

whommumu
mesmEHOmumm
HMOHOHHU

moz¢2m0mmmm HdUHBHmU w UZOZfi mBZmQHUZH HflUHBHMU m0 ZOHBDmHMBmHD

0H mHmde

-86-

success with about equal frequency. That frequency, how—
ever, was so uniformly low as to rank performance in this
category fourth in a ranked list of six CPC's by incumbents
in each position.

The distribution of incidents in the Program Planning
category was less consistent. Incidents reported by both
4-H Agents and Home Economists were more frequently clas-
sified here than were Agricultural and Natural Resource
Agent reported incidents. While numbers involved are small,
it does suggest that 4-H Agents and Home Economists may more
frequently perceive program planning and develOpment beha-
viors as critical job requirements.

Critical incidents reported by Agricultural and Natu-
ral Resource Agents were more frequently classified in the
Evaluating category than were incidents from other agents.
Apparently these agents more frequently perceive evaluation
and research behaviors as critical job requirements.

The distribution of critical incidents among CPC's
according to the tenure of the reporting agent is shown in
Table 17. Experienced agents reported 70 incidents which
were classified as Teaching and Communicating behaviors.
These represented 32.0 percent of the classified incidents
reported by experienced agents. Eighty, or 36.5 percent of
the incidents reported by inexperienced agents were classi-

fied in the Teaching and Communicating category. This

-37-

category was therefore ranked first by frequency of inci-
dents for both experienced and inexperienced agents. How-
ever, it will be noted that a greater prOportion of the
incidents reported by inexperienced agents were classified
in this category.

Both experienced and inexperienced agents were con-
sistent in the number and proportion of incidents classified
in the categories of Organizing, Conducting Programs, and
Program Planning. The difference in prOportions for each
Of these categories was less than 1 percent. Only a slight
difference occurred in the Administering category.

Hypothesis sz is supported from the data in Table
17 for experienced agents, but not supported in all cases
for inexperienced agents. Only one category, Evaluating,
failed to be affirmed as a CPC for inexperienced agents.
This was a CPC for experienced agents. Incidents classified
in this category were 1.8 percent and 6.8 percent respectively
Of those reported. Apparently inexperienced agents much less
frequently perceived evaluation and research behaviors as
being critical job requirements.

These data supported Hypothesis sz in all except the

Evaluating category.

-88-

 

 

00.00H ems
m sm.s an
m os.e km
s so.HH Hm
m so.aa mm
m sa.mm moa
H mm.sm omH
scam w z
Hmuoe

 

 

oo.QOH mHm
m mw.H v
m em.m MH
e m>.mH mm
m mH.mH me
m e>.mm mm
H mm.mm om
mmmmI m z
pmocmHHmmwmcH

 

oo.OOH mHm
m mm.m mH
o mm.m «H
v om.OH mm
m mo.om we
m om.vm mm
H om.Hm on
xcmm w z
pmocmHnomwm

BZMOd GZHBMOmmm m0 mszmB Mm mMHmowmfido

Hmuoe

msHumon>m

OGHCCMHm
Emumoum

mcHuOuchHEpfl

mfimumoum
OCHDOOOCOU

mcHNHsmmuo
OGHOMOHCOEEOO

paw mcHnommB

whommpsu
mosmfiuomnmm
HMOHOHHU

mUZHEmOmmmm HHUHBHmU w 0202¢ mBZmQHUZH HdUHBHmU m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

NH MHm¢B

-89-

Hierarchies of CPC's for Incident
Frequency, Importance, and Difficulty

 

 

Hypothesis H3 postulated a hierarchy of critical per-
formance categories according to incident frequency, impor-
tance and difficulty. Specifically it stated:

H3 The distribution among critical performance cate-

gories of critical incidents reported by extension
agents are differentially arranged in rank-order
according to:

a. The frequency of reported effective incidents

b. The frequency of reported ineffective
incidents

c. The frequency of all incidents
d. The mean score of importance of all incidents
e. The mean score of difficulty of all incidents
Table 18 shows the frequency distribution among six
CPC's of effective and ineffective incidents, and the totals
of these incidents. The Teaching and Communicating category
contained the greatest number of effective incidents, Of
ineffective incidents, and hence of total incidents. The
same rank-order occured for the six CPC's regardless of in-
cident effectiveness. While percentages varied, no variance
was sufficient to alter the rank-order of categories.
For instance, nearly 8 percent more ineffective than
effective incidents were classified as Teaching and Communi-
cating behaviors. Conversely, more effective than ineffective

incidents were classified in the categories of Organizing and

-9o-

o.QOH mmv

 

o m.v mH

m N.© SN
v m.HH Hm
m m.mH mm

N o.vm mOH

H m.vm omH

scam w z
Hmnoe

 

 

 

c.00H omm o.OOH mHm

e m.s OH e H.e m

m m.m mH m 4.0 4H

s m.mH em a m.s AH

m a.mH em m m.mm om

m m.mH ms m m.mm mm

H m.mm am H m.om we
scam w z xcmm w z
m>HuommmmcH m>Hnomeem

musmpHocH HmoHuHHU

Hence

mcHumon>m

mcHGGme
Emnmoum

mcHHmumHsHfip<

msmumonm
mcHuospcou

mcHNHsmmHO

mcHHMOHsDEEOU
pom mcHsommB

wuommumo
mosmEHOmHmm
HmoHuHHU

mBzmaHUZH HGUHBHmU W>HfiummmmZH 02¢ m>H90mmmm DMBmOmmm
BZMU< mO.mmHmOUMB¢U m02<2fi0mmmm H<UHBHmU XHm 02024 ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

mH HHm¢B

-91-

of Conducting Programs by 9 percent and 6.5 percent respec-
tively. Ineffective incidents surpassed effective incidents
by two to one in the Administering category.

Regardless of the above variations, the rank-order
persisted for the six CPC's. It appears in general that
the competencies possessed by agents, as inferred from
incidents perceived as effective, and agent training needs,
as inferred from incidents perceived as ineffective, form
similar rank-order hierarchies. The data in Table 18 fail

to support Hypotheses H3a and b.

Hierarchy of CPC's for Incident
Importance

 

 

These data were next analyzed to determine mean
scores and to derive rank-orders of importance for all clas-
sified incidents as a test of Hypothesis H3d.

The mean scores of importance for all incidents re-
ported by all agents as classified among CPC's are shown in
Table 19. Mean scores of importance ranged from a low of
4.53 for Administering behaviors to a high of 4.96 for
Organizing behaviors. The rank-order of mean scores of
importance differed from the rank-order of frequencies re-
ported in Table 18, thereby lending support to the assertion

1

by Corbally that importance or "degree of criticalness" for

 

9

1Corbally, "The Critical Incident Technique and
Educational Research," Op. cit., p. 60.

-92-

job success is not necessarily revealed by the frequency
with which critical incidents are reported.

Examination of the data in Table 19 revealed that
no two mean scores of importance were precisely the same;

a hierarchy existed. However, there were 3 groups of
categories which had importance scores of similar magnitude.
Importance scores for Organizing and Conducting Programs
resulted in derived ranks of l and 2 respectively, but the
range of mean scores was only .05 on a seven-point scale.
The derived rank for the Program Planning category was
third with a mean score which fell at about the mid-point
of the range of all scores. Importance scores for the
categories of Evaluating, Teaching and Communicating, and
Administering resulted in ranks of fourth, fifth, and sixth
respectively. The range of mean scores among these cate-
gories was .05 points on the seven-point scale.

These agents seemed to perceive two CPC's as having
more influence upon job success than other categories.
Agents rated incidents classified in Organizing and Conduct-
ing Program categories as more important. Lower scores were
reported for incidents classified in Evaluating, Teaching
and Communicating, and Administering categories. Program
Planning incidents were rated about mid-way between the

lowest and highest categories in importance.

-93-

TABLE 19

FREQUENCY AND MEAN SCORES OF IMPORTANCE FOR AGENT REPORTED
CRITICAL INCIDENTS DISTRIBUTED AMONG
CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES

 

 

 

Critical Mean Score Rank-Order
Performance Number of of of
Category Incidents Importance Importance
Teaching and
Communicating 150 4.54 5
Organizing 105 4.96 1
Conducting Programs 86 4.91 2
Administering 51 4.53 6
Program Planning 27 4.78 3
Evaluating 19 4.58 4
Total 438 4.73

Hierarchy_of CPC's for
Incident Difficulty

 

 

Hypothesis H3e posited a hierarchy of difficulty
scores among CPC's. The distribution among CPC's of the
mean scores of difficulty reported by agents is shown in
Table 20. Scores ranged frOm a low of 3.13 for Conducting
Programs, to a high of 4.05 for the Evaluating category.
This spread Of .92 for difficulty scores was compared with
the spread of .43 for importance scores. Therefore, there
was a greater variability among difficulty than among impor-

tance scores.

-94-

TABLE 20

FREQUENCY AND MEAN SCORES OF DIFFICULTY FOR AGENT REPORTED
CRITICAL INCIDENTS DISTRIBUTED AMONG
CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES

 

 

Critical Mean Score Rank-order
Performance Number of of of
Category Incidents Difficulpy Difficulpy
Teaching and

Communicating 150 3.37 5
Organizing 105 3.78 2
Conducting Programs 86 3.13 6
Administering 51 3.76 3
Program Planning 27 3.41 4
Evaluating 19 4.05 1

Total 438 3.50

It will be noted in Table 20 that certain difficulty
scores were nearly identical. Mean difficulty scores of
3.37 and 3.41 were determined for the categories of Teaching
and Communicating and Program Planning, respectively. The
difference was only .04 points. Agents failed to strongly
differentiate the difficulty of executing these categories.
Component incidents of Program Planning and of Teaching and
Communicating seemed to be perceived as nearly equally dif-
ficult to execute. Such incidents were, however, perceived
as more difficult to execute than those classified as Con—
ducting Programs.

Another close pair of difficulty scores were found

for Organizing and for Administering incidents. The mean

-95-

scores were 3.78 and 3.76 respectively. Agents apparently
did not significantly differentiate the difficulty of work-
ing with social systems from that of administering extension
work. However, these categories were clearly seen as more
difficult than those of Organizing and Administering.

The mean difficulty score for Evaluating was the
greatest for any category. Agents apparently perceived
behaviors involving evaluation, research, and problem solving
as more difficult than behaviors classified in other categories.

Table 19 shows that the mean score of importance for
all incidents was 4.73. Table 20 shows that the mean score
of difficulty for all incidents was 3.50. This difference
in mean scores Of 1.23 points on a seven-point scale appeared
to be substantial.

The hierarchies which resulted from testing Hypothesis
H3 were reported in Tables l8, l9, and 20. The rank-order of
CPC's differed according to the frequency of incident report,
the mean score of importance, and the mean score of difficulty.
Table 21 shows a summary of the derived rank-order for those
3 variables. It was noted earlier that rank-order did not
vary according to the frequency of reporting incidents as
effective or as ineffective. Hence, these data failed to

support Hypothesis H a and b. However, there was support

3
for Hypothesis H3O, d, and e, so differentiated hierarchies
were found for incident frequency, importance and difficulty

among CPC's.

-95-

TABLE 21

SUMMARY OF THE RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
BY THE FREQUENCY, IMPORTANCE, AND DIFFICULTY
OF EXECUTING CRITICAL INCIDENTS

Critical Frequency of Incidents: Mean Scores of:
Performance

Category Effective Ineffective All: Importance Difficulty
Teaching and

Communicating l l l 5 5
Organizing 2 2 2 l 2
Conducting

Programs 3 3 3 2 6
Administering 4 4 4 6 3
PrOgram

Planning 5 5 5 3 4
Evaluating 6 6 6 4 1

Agent Tenure and Incident Difficulpy

 

Hypothesis H contained postulates of the relationship

4
of tenure to the difficulty of executing critical incidents.

It stated:

H4 The difficulty scores of critical incidents are dif-
ferentially distributed among critical performance
categories according to the tenure of reporting
agents:

a. The mean score of difficulty is higher in
the Administering category for inexperienced
than for experienced agents.

b. The mean score of difficulty is higher in
the Program Planning category for experienced
than for inexperienced agents.

-97-

The distribution of mean scores Of difficulty among
CPC's according to agent tenure is shown in Table 22. A
mean score of difficulty of 4.17 was computed for incidents
reported by experienced agents and classified within the
Administering category. This was the most difficult cate-
gory for experienced agents. On the other hand, a mean
score of difficulty of 3.43 was computed for incidents re-
ported by inexperienced agents and classified in this
category. Hence, these data failed to support Hypothesis
H4a. Inexperienced agents did not report higher difficulty
scores in the Administering category than experienced agents
as hypothesized. Instead, the inverse of this hypothesis
held.

A mean score of difficulty of 3.36 was computed for
incidents reported by experienced agents and classified in
the Program Planning category. This was the least difficult
category for experienced agents. However, a mean score of
difficulty of 3.46 was calculated for incidents reported by
inexperienced agents.

These data failed to support Hypothesis H4b. Experi-
enced agents did not report higher scores of difficulty for
Program Planning incidents. Indeed, the mean scores of

difficulty were higher for inexperienced than for experienced

agents.

-98—

 

 

sm.m aHm ss.m mHm

H 00.4 s m no.4 mH

m es.m MH e mm.m 4H

H ms.m mm H 5H.s mm

m Hk.m ms 4 mm.m as

m ss.m mm m mk.m mm

m om.m om m ss.m as
Hmpuo muoom musmp pruo whoom musmp
Ixsmm sow: IHOOH stmm one: IHOGH
suHsoneHQ mo .02 HmHsoHeuHo no .02

"mucmmé pmosmHummxmsH

Bzmwfi wzHBmOmmm ho mmDZMB wm

"mucmmm pmoomHHmmxm

Hmuoe
mcHumsHm>m

msHocmHm Emumonm
msHHmumHsHEp¢

mfimumoum
msHuospsou

msHNHsmmHO

msHHMOHsdEEOU
one mstommB

anommumo
mocmEHOwnmm
HsOHuHHU

mmHmOOWBHU moz¢2m0mmmm H<UHBHMU wZOZd QmHmHmdeU
mBzmQHUZH H<UHBHmU mom NBHDUHmmHQ m0 mmmoom de2 m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHD

NN mqmdfi

-99-

It is apparent from Table 22 that Teaching and Com-
municating ranked fifth in difficulty for both experienced
and inexperienced agents. The Evaluating category was rated
as difficult by both tenure groups with respective rankings
Of second and first. However, only 4 incidents reported by
inexperienced agents were classified as Evaluating incidents,
compared with 15 for experienced agents. Inexperienced
agents much less frequently reported Evaluating incidents,
but tended to agree with experienced agents that such inci-
dents were difficult to perform.

The mean score of difficulty for incidents reported
by experienced agents exceeded the score for inexperienced
agents in all CPC's with one exception: The Program Planning
category. The mean score of difficulty for all incidents
reported by experienced agents exceeded that for inexperi-

enced agents by .32 points on a seven-point scale.

Agent Tenure and Incident Importance.

 

Just as Hypothesis H4 tested the relationship of tenure
to difficulty of executing critical incidents, Hypothesis H5
tested the relationship of tenure to importance.

H5 The importance scores of critical incidents are
differentially distributed among critical per-
formance categories according to the tenure of
the reporting agents:

a. The mean score of importance in the
Administering category is higher for
inexperienced than for experienced
agents.

~100-

b. The mean score of importance in the Program
Planning category is higher for experienced
than for inexperienced agents.

Mean scores of importance for CPC's by agent tenure
are shown in Table 23. A mean score of importance of 4.83
was computed in the Administering category for incidents
reported by experienced agents resulting in a third rank-
ing in importance for this group of agents. A mean score
of importance of 4.29 was computed for incidents reported
by inexperienced agents. Consequently, the Administering
category was ranked the least important for inexperienced
agents.

Instead of the hypothesized direction, it was found
that the experienced agents perceived Administrative inci-
dents as more important than did inexperienced agents.

A mean score of importance of 4.93 was computed for
Program Planning incidents reported by experienced agents.
Hence, this category was ranked first in importance for
this group of agents. On the other hand, a mean score of
importance of 4.62 was found for Program Planning incidents
reported by inexperienced agents, so this category was ranked
fourth in importance for inexperienced agents.

These data support the hypothesis that experienced
agents did perceive planning incidents as holding more im-

portance for job success than did inexperienced agents.

-101-

m©.v mHN hh.v mHN HmuOB

 

 

m oo.m a s ss.e mH mcHumsHm>m

a No.4 mH H mm.s 4H schcmHm summons

G mm.s mm m mm.s mm maHnmuchHsea

m om.e ms N Hm.s as msmumonm

msHuOOUOOU

H NH.m mm s Hm.s mm mcHNHcmmuo

m ms.s om m ke.s on mcHumoHcsssoo

paw mcHnommB

umpuo muoom musmp HOUHO mHOom mucmp >uomwumu

Ixcmm new: IHOQH Ixcmm cmmz IHOGH mosmfinomumm

mosmunomEH mo .02 mocmuuomEH mo .02 HmOHuHHU
awesome pmosmHnmmxmcH "musmmfl poocwHHmmxm

Bzmwd UZHBmommm m0 mmbzma Mm
mMHmOUmedo moz<2m0mmmm HdUHBHMU UZOSd QmHmHmmdqu
mBZHQHUZH HdUHBHmU mom mUZHBmOQZH ho mmmOUm de2 m0 ZOHBSmHmBmHQ

mm NHmdB

-102-

The similarity of the mean scores of importance for
all incidents can be seen in Table 23. This contrasts
sharply with the differences noted in Table 22 for mean
difficulty scores. There was more variability among the
means Of importance scores for inexperienced than for experi-
enced agents. Mean importance scores ranged from 4.47 to
4.93 for experienced agents while the range was from 4.29
to 5.12 for inexperienced agents. This lends support to
the postulate that with extension work experience, agents
become more homogeneous in their perception of appropriate
job behavior.

Table 23 shows that importance scores for the Teach-
ing and Communicating category resulted in a fifth-place
rank of importance for both experienced and inexperienced
agents. The category Of Conducting Programs was almost
identically _ perceived by both groups. Incidents in the
Organizing category were however perceived as more important
by inexperienced than by experienced agents. The derived
ranks for the Organizing category were first and fourth
respectively for these two groups of agents.

So few incidents reported by inexperienced agents
fell into the Evaluating category that little can be inter-
preted from the importance scores. These incidents were

rated as the least important by experienced agents.

-103-

Agent Tenure and Incident Effectiveness

 

It was postulated that agents would differentially
report incident effectiveness according to agent tenure.
Specifically it was hypothesized:

H6 The frequency of report of effective and of inef-
festive incidents varies among critical performance
categories according to the tenure of the agents
reporting:

a. Experienced agents more frequently than
inexperienced agents report effective in-
cidents which are classified in the Program
Planning category.

b. Experienced agents more frequently than
inexperienced agents report ineffective
incidents which are classified in the
Administering category.

The frequency distribution of effective incidents
among CPC's by tenure of reporting agents is shown in Table
24. The Program Planning category contained more effective
incidents for experienced than for inexperienced agents,
although the difference was less than 2 percent. This
difference is in the direction postulated, thus supporting
Hypothesis H6a.

Table 24 reveals an amazing similarity of the frequ-
ency of reporting effective incidents by CPC. The greatest
difference for experienced and inexperienced agents was
found in the Evaluating category, but it did not reach five

percent. This suggests that agents of different tenures do

not differentially perceive effective incidents.

-104-

Next, the hypothesis of possible differences of the
frequency of reporting ineffective incidents by tenure of
reporting agent was tested. Table 25 shows the distribution
of ineffective incidents by CPC for experienced and for
inexperienced agents. The Administering category contained
more ineffective incidents for inexperienced than for ex-
perienced agents. This is contrary to the direction postu-
lated. These data failed to support Hypothesis H6b.

About 9 percent more ineffective incidents were clas-
sified in the Teaching and Communicating category for inex-
perienced than for experienced agents. The Evaluation
category contained 5.45 percent more ineffective incidents
for experienced agents. A similar situation existed in the
Organizing category which contained 4.55 percent more inef-
fective incidents for experienced agents. These results
suggest possible differentiation of training needs in these

3 categories based upon agent tenure.

 

A ent Tenure, Incident Difficulty
and Effectiveness

 

In addition to testing the above hypotheses, these
data were analyzed to seek answers to several questions.
The first was:

Q1 What is the relationship of agent tenure to the

difficulty of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

-105-

 

oo.OOH bmw
mm.e OH
Hm.m mH
mv.mH em
mm.mH om
mm.mH me
mH.mm em
unmoumm HOQEOZ

”mucmpHOsH
usmmfi

HHH

 

oo.o0H bHI
mm.H m
mm.m b
hm.hH mH
mm.vH mH
hm.hH mH
m>.me we
unmoumm HmbEdz
"mucmpHosH
ucmmfi
pmocmHHmmxmsH

 

oo.OOH bl!
hm.h m
mv.m o
vo.mH mH
mH.mH om
Nm.HN em
vo.mm hm
unmoumm Hmnfisz
"mpsmpHocH
ucmmd
pmocmHHmmxm

Hmuoe

mcH

mcHquHm>m
chHm Esumoum
mcHHmpmHsHEp4

mamumonm msHuODOGOO

msHuHcmmHO
msHHMOHCOEEOU
pew OCHnomme

muommumu
mocmEHOmumm
HMOHHHHU

Bzmwd OZHBmOmmm m0 mmbsz Mm mBZMDHUZH m>HButhMZH m0
mmHmOOmBHU m02<2m0mmmm HdUHBHmU 02024 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ wuszOmmm

 

oo.ooH Mil
MH.v m
Nv.m vH
om.n SH
mm.mm om
ve.mm mm
mm.om mo
unmoumm Hmnfisz

"mucmpHoaH
ucmmfi
HHd

Bzmwd UZHBmOmmm m0 mmDZMB wm mBZmaHUZH

 

 

mm mqm<e
oo.ooH bbl oo.OOH bbw
mm.H m me.m h
om.m o vm.w m
om.m m em.n m
mm.mm em mo.mm em
mm.om mm Ho.mm mm
mm.om mm mm.om mm
unmoumm HOQEOZ unmoumm HOQEOZ
"mucmpHocH ”musmpHocH
usmm< usmmfi
pmocmHHmmxmcH pmocmHnmmxm

Hmnoe

OOH

mcHumsHm>m
scmHm Emumonm
osHHmuchHfipm

mamnmoum maHuOOpcou

OOHNHGMOHO
msHHMOHCOEEOU
was manommB

whomwumu
mocmauowumm
HmOHuHHO

m>HBUmmmm m0

mmHmOUmfiflu MUZHZmommmm HfiUHBHmU UZOZ< ZOHBDmHmBmHQ wuzmbommm

vN MHMHB

-106-

The mean scores of difficulty for effective incidents

 

are reported in Table 26. In general, experienced agents
reported higher difficulty scores for effective incidents
than inexperienced agents reported. The means of difficulty
scores for all effective incidents were 3.43 and 3.15
respectively for the two groups of agents. The range of
mean difficulty scores for inexperienced agents was from
2.75 to 4.00; scores for inexperienced agents ranged from
2.33 to 3.58.

Evaluating was the most difficult category for ex-
perienced agents; for inexperienced agents, Teaching and
Communicating was the most difficult. Experienced agents
apparently perceived Teaching and Communicating incidents
as less difficult since the derived ranking for this cate-
gory was fifth place.

The Conducting Programs category was nearly a full
point, on a seven-point scale, more difficult for experi-
enced than for inexperienced agents. Similarly, the mean
difficulty score in the Administering category was more
than a full point greater for the experienced agents. With
the exception Of the Evaluation category, there was little
variability in the frequency of reporting effective incidents.

These data suggest that incidents do not vary signi-
ficantly in the frequency with which they are reported as

effective according to agent tenure. However, it appears

-107-

 

 

mH.m mOH mv.m mOH Hmuoa
oo.m m oo.e b DGHumsHm>m
se.m e mk.m m mchamHm anemone
mm.m a om.m m mcHnmumHaHsea
om.m em ms.m em mamumonm
mCHuOOUCOO
mm.m mm mm.m mm mcHNHcmmno
mm.m mm mm.m mm mcHumoHasssoo
pom mcHsommB
Hmpuo muoom mucmp Hmpuo muoom mucmp whommuwu
Ixcmm cmmz IHOaH Ixcmm cams IHOOH mosmfiuomumm
ansoHeeHa no .02 HstoHeeHo Ho .02 HmoHuHuo
"mucmm¢ poocmHummxmsH ”mucmmd pmosmHummxm

BZMUH UZHBmOmmm m0
mmDZMB wm mBZmaHUZH M>H80mmhm mom mmHmowmfiflu
moz<2mommmm HdUHBHmU UZOZd MEHDUHMMHQ m0 mmmOUm z¢m2 m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

mm MHm<B

-108-

that experienced agents perceive the effective incidents
they report as more difficult to execute.

The question of the difficulty of executing inef-
fective incidents was examined in Table 27. Once again,
experienced agents in general reported higher difficulty
scores for ineffective incidents than did inexperienced
agents. The means for all ineffective incidents were 3.88
and 3.53 respectively for the two groups of agents. Mean
difficulty scores ranged from a low of 3.49 to a high of
4.53 for experienced agents. Scores for inexperienced
agents ranged from 3.06 to 5.00.

Ineffective incidents in the Administering category
were the most difficult for experienced agents, while inef-
fective incidents in the Evaluating category were the most
difficult for inexperienced agents. Only 2 incidents were
involved for inexperienced agents in the Evaluating cate-
gory. Experienced agents gave higher difficulty scores
than did inexperienced agents in the categories of Teaching
and Communicating, Conducting Programs, and Administering.
The differences for the mean scores of difficulty in these
categories were .38, .59, and .58 points, respectively.

Greater variability existed between experienced and
inexperienced agents in the frequency of reporting ineffect-

ive incidents than was the case for effective incidents.

-109-

 

 

mm.m OHH mm.m OHH Hmuoe
oo.m m NH.H m mcHnmus>m
«H.w n pH.e w mcHQGMHm Emumomm
s mm.m aH H mm.s mH mcHumumHaHsea
m mo.m SH m me.m om msmnmoua
msHuUspcou
m eH.s mH m mH.s am mcHNHammuo
m HH.m as e as.m km maHanHcsssoo
poo manommB
Hmpuo muoom mucmp Hmpuo whoom mucmp wuommpmu
Ixcmm com: IHOGH Ixcmm new: IHOOH mocmEHOMHmm
suHsoHeeHa mo .02 HstoHeeHo no .02 HmoHuHuo

“mucmmd pwocmHummxmcH "mucmm< pmocmHHmmxm

BZmO< GZHBmOmmm m0
MMDsz Mm mBzmaHUZH m>HBUmmmmzH mom mMHmOQMBHU
muzflzmommmm H<UHBHmU UZOZd NEHDUHmmHQ m0 mmmoum 24MB m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

hm mHmdfi

-110-

Also, both experienced and inexperienced agents reported
higher scores of difficulty for ineffective than for ef-
fective incidents.
A summary of mean difficulty scores for all critical
incidents according to the tenure of reporting agents is
shown in Table 28. The mean difficulty scores were 3.66
and 3.34 for experienced and inexperienced agents respectively.
Conducting Program incidents received higher difficulty
scores by .81 points on a seven-point scale for experienced
than for inexperienced agents. Mean difficulty scores for
experienced agents in the Administering category, exceeded
those for inexperienced agents by .74 points. These two
categories account for the major portion of the variance of
mean difficulty scores for all classified incidents.

A ent Position, Incident Difficulty,
an Effectiveness

 

 

Attention was next directed toward examining possible
differences in difficulty scores according to the employment

position of the reporting agent. The question was:

Q2 What is the relationship of position to the reported
difficulty Of executing effective and ineffective
incidents?

Table 29 shows the mean scores of difficulty for
effective incidents according to the employment position
of the reporting agent. Teaching and Communicating was

perceived as somewhat more difficult for 4-H — Youth Agents

 

em.m mHm
H oo.v e
m ev.m mH
a me.m mm
o Hn.m me
-
n
d m as.m mm
m om.m om
Hmpuo muoom mucmp
Ixcmm cam: IHOCH
HmHsoHeeHa mo .02

"mucmmfl pmosmHummxmcH

mmbzmfi Wm
MUZHZMOmmmm HHUHBHmU

m ve.m

Hmpuo muoow
Ixcmm sews
suHsoHeeHa

mHN

mH

vH

mm

we

mm

on

mucmp

MO

HUGH
.Oz

"musmmfi pmostHmmxm

Bzmwd OZHBmOmmm m0

Hmuoe
msHumsHmbm

mcHQCOHm Emumoum
mOHHmpmHCHfipm

mEoumOHm
msHuospsou

mcHNHsmmHO

osHHMOHqOEEOU
pom mcHnommB

wuommumo
mosmEHOmumm
HMOHHHHU

mBZMQHUZH HHUHBHmU HHfl mom mmHmOUMBGU
02024 NBHDUHthQ m0 mmmoum Z¢m2.hO.ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

mm MHm¢E

-112-

 

 

 

50.0 00 00.0 00 00.0 00 H0009
00.0 0 00.0 0 H 00.0 0 00HumsHm>m

00.0 0 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 mchamHm
Emumoum

00.0 0 00.0 0 0 0H.0 0 mcHnmuchHsea

0 NH.0 0H 0 0H.m 0H 0 sH.0 0m msmumoum
mcHuOSOGOU

H 00.0 0H H H0.0 0H 0 00.0 00 mcHuHammno

0 00.0 00 m 00.0 00 m 00.0 0H mcHumqusesoo
pas manommB

umpuo muoom meson HOUHO muoom mpcmp HOUHO muoom musmp mnemmumu
Ixcmm com: IHOGH Ixcmm com: IHOOH Ixsmm com: IHUCH OOGMEHOHHmm
suHsoHeeHa mo .02 wuHsoHeeHa mo .02 mesoHemHo 00 .oz HmoHuHuo

"musomm monsOmmm Hmusumz
pom HMHOHHOOHHOH umpmHEosoom meow "mucmm< apoow I mIe
Bzmo< OZHBmommm mo
ZOHBHmOm Mm mezmoHqu m>HBUmmmm mom mmHmomemO
muz¢zmommmm HdUHBHmO U202< MBHDUHmmHQ mo mmmoum z<mz mo ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

mm MHQGB

-ll3-

than for either Home Economists or Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents. Organizing was more difficult for Extension
Home Economists than for 4-H - Youth Agents, and even more
difficult for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents. The
Conducting Programs category was less difficult by more than
1 point on a seven-point scale for Extension Home Economists
than for incumbents of the other positions. There was con—
siderable variability among scores in the remaining cate-
gories. However, the numbers of incidents in these categories
(Administering, Program Planning, and Evaluating) were so
small as to cast doubt upon the meanings of the differences.

The mean score of difficulty for effective incidents
reported by 4-H - Youth Agents was 3.32 and for Agricultural
and Natural Resource Agents it was 3.37. The two scores were
nearly identical, but the Extension Home Economists' mean
score was 3.09. In general then, Extension Home Economists
tended to perceive the effective incidents they reported as
less difficult to execute than incumbents to the other two
positions.

The mean scores of difficulty for ineffective inci—
dents according to the position of the reporting agent are
shown in Table 30. Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents
rated Teaching and Communicating incidents lower by 1.00
point on the seven-point difficulty scale than did 4-H -

Agents and lower by .79 points than did Extension Home

~114-

mv.m we mb.m mm mm.m om HmuOB

I I I III] I

 

 

 

0 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 H 00.0 0 mcHumsHm>m

0 00.0 0 m 00.0 0 m 00.0 m mchcmHm

Emumoum

m 00.0 0 H 00.0 0H 0 00.0 0H mcHnmanaHsea

0 00.0 0H 0 00.0 0 0 sm.0 HH 05000000

mchOSOOOO

H 00.0 0H 0 00.0 0 0 00.0 00 ocHNHcmmuo

0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 mcHumoHasssoo

paw mcHnommB

HmUHO muoom musmp Hmpuo whoom musmp umpuo OHOOm macmp whommumu

Ixcmm com: IHOGH :xcmm cmmz IHocH Ixsmm com: IHOCH mocmEHOMHmm

HstoHeuHo no .02 HstoHeeHo mo .02 stsOHmeHo no .02 HmoHano

"mucmmd OOHSOmmm Hmnsumz

pcm HMHOuHOOHHm< "mumHEosoom meow ”museum Susow I mIe

Bzmwfi OZHBmommm ho
ZOHBHmOm wm mfiszHUZH MDHHUmWMMZH mom mmHmOwMB40
muzazmommmm HHUHBHMU 02024 MBHDUHmmHQ ho mmmOUm z¢m2 MO.ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

om mHmfia

-115-

Economists. Difficulty scores for Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents resulted in ranking the Organizing category
first in difficulty, while scores for 4-H Agents and Home
Economists resulted in ranking it third in difficulty.

Derived difficulty rankings in sixth place were
found in the Conducting Programs category for both 4-H
Agents and Home Economists, but the latter agents reported
lower difficulty ratings by .60 points. Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents gave higher difficulty ratings to
the Conducting Programs category. The Administering cate-
gory received the highest mean difficulty score from the
Home Economists. This resulted in a second ranking for
Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents, but a fourth for
4-H - Youth Agents.

The mean scores of difficulty for ineffective inci-
dents reported by 4-H — Youth Agents and by Home Economists
were nearly identical. Agricultural and Natural Resource
Agents however, had a lower mean difficulty score. In
general, Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents perceived
the ineffective incidents they reported as less difficult
to execute than incumbents to the other positions. A com-
parison of the mean scores of difficulty in Tables 29 and
30 revealed that all agents reported higher difficulty_

scores for ineffective than for effective incidents. The

difference was only slight, however, for Agricultural and

Natural Resource Agents.

-116-

Difficulty scores for effective and ineffective inci—
dents are combined in Table 31. Difficulty scores for Teach-
ing and Communicating incidents ranged downward from 3.67 for
4-H - Youth Agents, to 3.44 for Extension Home Economists,
and to 3.00 for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents.
However, the reverse order held for the Organizing category.
For both effective and ineffective incidents, the Organizing
category was consistently perceived as most difficult for
Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents. The conducting
Programs category was perceived as least difficult by
Extension Home Economists.

Incidents in the Administering category were perceived
as about equally difficult for 4-H — Youth and Agricultural
and Natural Resource Agents, with respective mean scores of
3.53 and 3.62. It was the most difficult category for
Extension Home Economists. Program Planning was rated as
considerable more difficult by 4-H Agents than by other in-
cumbents. Home Economists perceived Program Planning inci-
dents as more difficult than did Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents. The numbers in the Evaluation category
are small, but it will be noted this category was rated the
most difficult by 4-H - Youth Agents. Others rated it about
equally difficult.

In general, Extension Home Economists and Agricultural

and Natural Resource Agents about equally rated the difficulty

-ll7-

 

 

 

H0.0 00H 00.0 H0H 00.0 00H Hanoe
m 00.0 HH 0 00.0 0 H 00.0 0 0aHumsHm>m
0 00.0 0 0 00.0 HH 0 0H.0 0H mchcmHm
Emumoum
0 00.0 0H H NH.0 0H 0 00.0 0H mcHnmuchHsea
0 00.0 00 0 00.0 0H 0 Hm.0 00 mamumonm
msHuOOOGOU
H 00.0 00 m 00.0 00 0 H0.0 H0 mcHuHcmmno
0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 mcHumoHasssoo
was mcHsoomB
Hmpuo muoom wusmp Hmpuo muoom mucmp Hmpuo mnoow musmp whommpmu
Ixcmm use: IHocH Ixcmm com: IHOCH Ixsmm Com: IHocH OOCMEHOmHmm
suHsoHeeHa no .02 NwH26HmeHo 00 .oz .HmHsoHemHo no .02 HmoHano
"mucmmm mousommm Hmuspmz
pom HMHSHHDOHHmd "mumHEOGOOm mEom "mucmmm npsow I mIv

Ezmwd UZHBmOmmm m0
ZOHBHmOm Mm mBZmoHUZH HdUHBHmU HHQ mom mMHmowmfidu
muz<2m0hmmm HdUHBHMU UZOSd WBHDUHmmHQ m0 mmmoum 24m: m0 ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

Hm mHm49

-118-

of executing all reported incidents. The means were 3.44
and 3.41 respectively. However, the 4-H - Youth Agents
reported greater difficulty. They provided an overall mean
difficulty rating of 3.60.

Agent Tenure, Incident Importance
and Effectiveness

 

 

Attention was next directed toward possible dif-
ferences in importance scores according to the tenure of
the reporting agent and the effectiveness of the critical
incident. The question was:

Q3 What is the relationship of tenure to the importance
of executing effective and ineffective incidents?

The distribution of mean importance scores for
effective incidents among critical performance categories
is shown according to the tenure of the reporting agent in
Table 32. There was only slight variation in the mean
scores among the categories. Scores for experienced agents
ranged from a high Of 5.59 to a low of 5.13, giving a range
of .46 points. The range for inexperienced agents was also
narrow, from a high of 6.00 to a low of 5.38. A range of
only .39 occurred among the mean scores for all agents.

Inexperienced agents assigned slightly higher impor-
tance scores for Teaching and Communicating and for Organi-
zing categories. The Conducting Programs category was the
only one in which experienced agents gave a higher importance

score, but this difference was only .20 points. In general,

-119-

Hm.m mOH wv.m mOH HMHOB

 

 

0 00.0 m 0 0H.0 0 mcHumsHm>m

H 00.0 o w mH.m m mcHssmHm Ewumoum

0 00.0 0 0 0m.0 0 mcHumuchHsea

0 00.0 00 m 00.0 00 msmsmonm

msHHODUGOU

0 H0.0 00 H 00.0 00 0eHNHcmmno

m 0s.0 00 0 00.0 00 mcHumOHcsssoo

pom mcHnommB

Hmpuo whoom musmp Hmpno muoom mucmp whommumo

Ixcmm com: IHosH Ixcsm new: IHOOH OOCMEHOMHOH

mocmuuomEH mo .02 moswuHOmEH mo .Oz HMOHHHHO
"musmmé poosmHHmmxmcH "mpsmmfi pmostummxm

Bszd UZHBmOmmm m0
mmDZMB mm mBZMQHUZH m>H90mmmm mom mmHmomeGU
moz<zm0mmmm HdUHBHmU UZOSd moz¢am0m2H m0 wmmoum-ZészmOnZOHBDMHmFmHQ

mm mHm<B

-120-

inexperienced agents reported higher importance scores for
effective incidents than did inexperienced agents, but the
difference in mean scores was only .13 points on a seven-
point scale.

There seemed to be a division of importance scores
for experienced agents between two groups of categories.
The first 3 categories listed in Table 32 were rated at
about the same magnitude of importance. The last 3 cate-
gories were less important for experienced agents. Impor-
tance scores by inexperienced agents resulted in ranks of
first, second, and third for Program Planning, Teaching and
Communicating, and Administering categories, respectively.

The frequency distribution of effective incidents
for the two tenure groups will also be noted in Table 32.
With the exception of the Evaluating category, it seems re-
markable that both groups would report effective incidents
which were so similarly distributed among CPC's. Perhaps
this indicates that the two tenure groups hold similar per-
ceptions of effective job behaviors.

The distribution of mean importance scores for in-
effective incidents among CPC's according to the tenure Of
the reporting agent is shown in Table 33. The Administering
and Evaluating categories were rated as considerably more

important than the remaining categories by experienced agents.

-121

 

hw.m OHH
H om.v N
w me.m h
e mo.m mH
m MH.v oH
N mN.v mH
m mm.m he
HOOHO muoom niccp
Ixcmm smmfl HOQH
mocmuHOQEH mo .02

"mucmmm pmocmHHmmxmcH

Bzmwd
mmDZMB Nm mBZMDHUZH
moz¢2m0mmmm HfiUHBHmU @2024,

 

no.e OHH
m mw.m m
H no.0 m
N 00.0 mH
m 0H.w 0N
m mm.m 0N
v Nm.m mm
noose muoom musmp
Ixsmm com: IHocH
mocmuuomEH mo .02

"mucmmm UmosmHHmmxm
OZHBmOmmm m0
m>HBUmmmMZH mom mmHmOGMB¢U
MUZ¢BMOQEH m0 mmmOUm 24m:

mm mHQmB

Hmuoe
mchmsHm>m

osHCCMHm
Emumoum

msHHmuchHEU<

mEmHmOHm
OCHHOSOQOU

mcHNHsmmHO

mcHHMOHsOEEOU
pcm mcHaommB

anommumu

mocmEHomHmm
HMOHHHHU

m0 ZOHEDmHmBmHQ

-122-

Inexperienced agents rated incidents in Evaluating, Organi-
zing, and in Conducting Program categories as more important
than other categories.

The mean importance score for ineffective incidents
by experienced agents was 4.07 and for inexperienced agents
it was 3.77. Hence, experienced agents reported higher
importance scores for ineffective incidents than did inex-
perienced agents. The Opposite condition was reported for
effective incidents in Table 32 where inexperienced agents'
importance scores exceed those of experienced agents.

There was a much lower importance score attached to
ineffective incidents than to effective incidents. Mean
importance scores for experienced agents ranged from 5.48
for effective incidents (Table 32) to 4.07 for ineffective
incidents (Table 33). The range for inexperienced agents
was from 5.61 to 3.77. The comparable range for experienced
and inexperienced agents' importance scores was from 1.41
to 1.81 respectively.

Importance scores for effective and ineffective

 

 

incidents are combined in Table 34 according to agent tenure.
The more important categories for experienced agents were:
Program Planning, Conducting Programs, Administering, and
Organizing. The more important categories for inexperienced
agents were: Organizing; Conducting Programs; Program

Planning; and Evaluation. Numbers of incidents in the latter

-123-

 

 

00.0 0H0 00.0 0H0 Hayes
0 00.0 0 0 00.0 0H mcHumsHm>m
0 00.0 0H H 00.0 0H mcHaamHm gaseous
0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 meHumuchHsea
0 00.0 as N H0.0 00 msmumoum
msHuOOUCOU
H NH.0 00 0 H0.0 00 mcHuHcmmuo
0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00 maHnmoHasssoo
pew manommB
Hmpuo muoom mucmp Hmpuo whoom mucmp. whommumo
Ixcmm ewes IHocH Ixsmm new: IHOGH mosmfihomumm
mosmuHOMEH MO .02 wosmunomEH mo .02 HsOHuHHU

"musmmm UmosmHHmmxmcH "mpcmmd pmosmHnmmxm

Bzmwm OZHBmommm ho

mszmB Mm mBZMQHUZH HdUHBHmU HH4 mom mmHmomeQU
HUZHZmommmm HdUHBHmU UZOZd MUZHBmomSH m0 mmmOUm de2 ho ZOHBDmHMBMHD

vm mqmflfi

-124-

category were very small.

The differences noted earlier between importance
scores for experienced and inexperienced agents very nearly
disappeared when scores were combined for effective and
ineffective incidents. Table 34 shows a mean importance
score Of 4.77 for all incidents reported by experienced
agents. The mean score for inexperienced agents was 4.68.

A striking contrast results when difficulty scores
reported in Tables 26, 27, and 28 are compared with impor-
tance scores in Tables 32, 33, and 34. Whether incidents
were effective, ineffective, or a combination of both,
agents recorded considerably higher scores for importance
than for difficulty. This holds regardless of agent tenure.

A ent Position, Incident Importance
an Effectiveness

 

 

Attention was next directed toward possible differ-
ences in importance scores according to the position of the
reporting agent and the effectiveness of the critical incident.
The question was:

Q4 What is the relationship of position to the importance
of executing effective and ineffective incidents?

Table 35 shows the importance scores for effective
incidents according to the position of the reporting agent.
In general, the mean scores of importance for all effective

incidents did not extensively vary by the position of the

-125-

 

 

 

00.0 00 00.0 00 00.0 00 Hmnoe
0H.0 0 0 0 00.0 0 mcHumsHm>m
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 mchcmHm
Emumoum
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 mcHumuquHssa
0 H0.0 0H H 00.0 0H m 00.0 00 msmnmoum
. mCHHODUCOO
0 00.0 0H 0 00.0 0H 0 H0.m 00 mcHNHcmmuo
N 00.0 00 m 00.0 00 0 00.0 0H mcHumoHcsssoo
pom mcHsommB
nacho muoom musmp Hmpuo muoom mpsmp HOOHO whoom musmp whommumu
.Ixcmm use: IHOCH Ixcmm new: IHOQH Ixsmm new: IHOsH mesmEHOmHmm
mocmuuomEH mo .02 mocmuuomEH ,mo .oz OOCMHHOQEH m0 .Oz HmoHuHHU

"mucmmd OOHOOmmm Hmususz
w HmHsuHsOHHmd "mumdeocoom mfiom "massed capo» I mIv
Bzmwm wzHamommm mo
oneHmOm Mm mazmoHqu m>H90mmmm mom mmHmowme<O
moz<zmommmm HHOHBHMU Ozozm muzmamomzH mo mmmoom z<mz mo ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

mm MHmdfi

-126-

reporting agent. However, some categories were differentially
rated by the agents. For instance, the Administering category
was rated as most important by 4-H - Youth Agents. Though the
number of effective incidents was low, the Evaluating category
was rated as least important by Youth Agents.

Extension Home Economists rated effective incidents
in the Conducting Programs category as the most important,
with Teaching and Communicating incidents a close second.

Low importance scores were attached to the effective Program
Planning incidents which is Opposite the pattern reported by
incumbents of the other positions. The Home Economists re-
ported no effective incidents Of Evaluating.

For Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents, the im-
portance score was highest in the Evaluating category, but
only 3 effective incidents were so classified. Importance
scores for Teaching and Communicating and Organizing cate—
gories resulted in ranks of second and third, respectively.

Table 36 contains the mean scores of importance for
ineffective incidents according to the position of reporting
agent. In general, the mean scores of importance for all
ineffective incidents did not extensively vary by agent
position. The means were 4.04, 3.76, and 3.95 for the three
positions.

However, there were variations among categories both

within and among agent positions. The 4-H - Youth Agents

 

‘1 .\

H4.

A~J4'.

L-

2. ..I .i;_'

a;

I!

. . .
a...
\l(4 ...3

o

'J
C.
.‘ I. ‘
I "d'(

r.:

44'

r. .5. .71
i: I

V..
L

l '3
“ix.
.‘ ,
’k‘

-‘

1 I

\
‘15: .1
3.4 \4’

-, .
\l '4
-. ‘
\.‘1
5.2 -
. .\
.\\J

l.)

mm.m vb

 

a oo.v m
w oo.w m
. m mm.v o
W“ .
d m we w ma
m mm.m ma
m- mm.m mm
Hmwuo muoom mucmc
Ixcmm cams uflocH
mocmunomEH we .02

"mucmmm wousommm amusumz.

cam amusuHDOHumm

ZOHBHmom Nm mBZmOHUZH

Hmcuo muovm
cmmz

-xcmm

ob.m

hm.m

ov.v

mm.m

wv.m

mm.v

mm.m

 

mocmuHOQEH
"mumHEocoum meow

Bzmwfi UZHBmOmmm m0
N>HBUMWWMZH mom mmHmOUWBdU

NH

mm

“mgnmc
-HocH
mo .02

vo.w

oo.m

om.m

Nm.m

mn.v

vo.v

mm.m

-HmUHo whoom
Ixcmm cams

 

ma

Ha

mm

mm

mpcmw
twocH

mocmuuomEH mo.Joz
"mucmm¢ susow u mr¢

Hmuoe
mcfiumnam>m

mcHGGMHm
Emnmoum

mCHHmancHEG4

mEmHmOHm
mafluosccou

mcfluflcmmuo

mcfluMOHCSEEOU
cam mcflzomma

whomwumu
mommEHOHHmm
HMUflyflno

mozmzmommmmuquHBHmu UZOZfl MUZdBmomEH m0 mmmOUm z¢m2 EOKZOHBDmHmBmHQ

mm mqmfifi

-128-

rated ineffective incidents in the Conducting Programs
category as more important than other categories. The
categories of Program Planning and Evaluating were both
infrequently reported and rated low in importance by 4-H -
Youth Agents.

Extension Home Economists on the other hand, rated
ineffective incidents in the categories of Program Planning
and Organizing as holding more importance than those in the
Conducting Programs category. The more important categories
for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents were Evaluating
and Administering; the Teaching and Communicating category
was ranked lowest by them.

It was noted earlier that importance scores for inef-
fective incidents were consistently lower than those for
effective incidents, regardless of agent tenure. When com-
paring Tables 35 and 36, that same difference was found,
regardless of agent position. Mean Scores of importance
for ineffective incidents were lower than those for effect-
ive incidents by 1.62 points for 4-H - Youth Agents, 1.78
for Extension Home Economists, and 1.45 for Agricultural
and Natural Resource Agents.

Importance scores for effective and ineffective inci-
dents were combined in Table 37 according to agent position.
The mean score of importance for all incidents reported by

4-H - Youth Agents was slightly higher than for agents in

-129-

 

 

 

am.a FVH so.a HmH am.v mmH Hmuoe
H Hm.¢ HH m aw.m m m ov.s m mcHumsHm>m

m mm.¢ m m so.s HH m om.v OH mcHacmHm
Emumoum

m om; mH m $4 3 v :6 mH mcHHmfiEEwm

a ma.s mm m mo.v mH H mH.m am mamumoum
mcfluospcoo

m mm.v mm H NH.m mm m mm.a Hm mcHNHcmmuo

m we.« am a mm.v mm m om.v ow usumoHasssoo

w mcflnomwfi

Hmpno muoom mucmp Hmouo mnoom mucmw Hmcuo whoom mucmp muommumu
Ixcmm cmwz IHUGH Ixcmm cow: IHUGH :xcmm com: :HUCH modMEHOMHmm
mocmuuommw mo .02 mocmuuomEH mo .02 mocmuuomEH mo .02 HMUfluHHU

"mucwm< mUPSOmmm amusumz
paw Housuasoflnmm "mumHEocoom meow "mucmmd cusow u miv

Bzmw< UZHBmommm m0
oneHmom wm mezmaHUzH aduHBHmU add mom mmHmowmaflo

muz¢2mommmm Q¢UHBHmU OZOZ¢ WUZ¢BmOAZH MO mmmoom de2 .mo ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

hm qudfi

-l30-

other positions. The Home Economists and Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents had nearly identical mean importance
scores for all incidents (4.64 and 4.67, respectively).

The 4-H Agents rated the importance of incidents in
the Conducting Programs category much higher than did other
agents. The 4—H Agents also recorded higher importance
values for Administering incidents than did the Home Econo-
mists. The Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents reported
more Evaluating incidents, and they placed considerably

higher importance scores upon those incidents.

Summary

Agent reported critical incidents were classified
among six critical performance categories. ’Hypotheses about
the frequency, importance, and difficulty of executing those
categories of incidents were tested. In addition, hypothesized
relationships of the critical performance categories to agent
tenure and employment position were tested. A summary of the
acceptance or rejection of the study hypotheses is presented
in Table 38.

These data were also analyzed to answer four questions
about the relationship of agent tenure and agent position to
the difficulty and importance of executing effective and
ineffective critical incidents. A summary of the results of

this analysis is presented in Table 39.

-131-

TABLE 38

SUMMARY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF HYPOTHESES
BASED UPON AN ANALYSIS OF STUDY DATA

 

 

Analysis:
Hypothesis: Supported Failed to Support
H a x
1b x
c x
d x
e x
f x
Hza (1-4) x
a (5-6) x
b (1-5) x
b (6) x
H a x
3b x
c x
d x
e X
H a x
4b x
H a x
5b x
H a x
6b x

-l32-

hw.v

wm.v

vm.v

mm.q

hb.v

HHm m>HuommmmcH m>Huommmm

mm.m

oh.m

vo.v

hh.m

no.v

ov.m

wm.m

mm.m

Ho.m

mv.m

 

”mucmpflocH HMUHuHHU mo
mmuoom mocmuuomEH com:

av.m

vv.m

om.m

wm.m

wo.m

HHa m>HuommmmaH m>Huommmm

mv.m

mn.m

mm.m

mm.m

mm.m

mm.m
mo.m

mm.m

mH.m

mv.m

 

"mucmoflocH Hmowpfiuu mo
mmuoom muHSUHmmwo com:

mZOHBmMDO NQDHm OB.mmZOmmmm ZH
QmeAdZ< m¢.mBZmU¢ UZHBMOmmm m0 ZOHBHmom 02¢

.um< mOHSOmmm amusumz
6cm amusuazoflum<
umflsocoom
mEom coflmcmuxm
ucmma nose» : mnv
"cofluflmom ucmm<
poocmflummxmcH
omocmflummxm

"mudcme ucmmfl

mHQMHHm> ucmm<

MMDZmB Wm MUZ¢Bm0m2H QZGANBADUHhmHQ ho mmmOUm de2 ho Nmfizzbm

mm mqmfifi

-l33-

Agents generally assigned greater difficulty scores
to ineffective than to effective incidents, regardless of
the tenure or position of the reporting agent. Inexperienced
agents gave lower difficulty scores than experienced agents
to both effective and ineffective incidents. The 4-H - Youth
Agents assigned lower difficulty scores than other agents to
effective incidents. Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents
reported less difficulty for ineffective incidents than did
other agents.

Agents generally assigned greater importance scores
to effective than to ineffective incidents, regardless of
the tenure or position of reporting agent. Experienced agents
gave lower importance scores than inexperienced agents to ef-
fective incidents. Inexperienced agents gave lower importance
scores to ineffective incidents than did experienced agents.
The 4-H — Youth Agents reported higher importance scores than
other agents for effective, ineffective and all incidents.
The Home Economists and Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents

reported nearly identical importance scores for all incidents.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Problem

 

This research was designed to employ the critical
incident technique to analyze the jobs of COOperative
Extension agents. The purposes were to describe the cri-
tical job requirements as perceived by a population of
extension agents, to identify the training needs as in-
ferred from self-reported incidents of ineffective job
performance, and further, to determine possible differences
in training needs according to the position and the tenure

of incumbent agents.

Respondents
All respondents in this study were employees of the
Michigan COOperative Extension Service who had eXperienced
not more than 6 years, nor less than 3 months of duty and
were employed in a field agent position on December 1, 1967.
A summary of findings about the respondents is given below:
1. Of the 74 reSpondents in this study, 25 were
Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents; 22
were Extensicn Home Economists, and 27 were

4-H - Youth Agents. About two-thirds of the

-134-

-l35-

agents were male and one-third were female.

2. Over one-half of the 4-H - Youth Agents were
between 21 and 30 years of age while over one-
half of the Extension Home Economists were
over 40 years. Nearly two-thirds of the Agri-
cultural and Natural Resource Agents were
between 31 and 40 years old.

3. The 4-H — Youth Agents were more often inex-
perienced in extension work while the Agricul-
tural and Natural Resource Agents were more
often experienced. The Extension Home Economists
were more equally divided between the experience
groups; about 55 percent were experienced and
45 percent were inexperienced.

4. Teaching was the most frequently reported pre-
vious work experience for 4-H - Youth Agents and
for Extension Home Economists. Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents more frequently reported
public service1 as their previous work experience.

5. Over two-thirds of the Extension Home Economists
and the 4-H - Youth Agents held a Bachelor's
degree or had earned credits beyond it, but not
enough for a Master's degree. Nearly two-thirds

of the Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents

 

1Public service primarily consisted of employment with
governmental agencies like the U. 8. Soil Conservation Service.

-l36-

held a Master's degree or higher. Forty percent

had earned credits beyond a Master's Degree.

Procedures

 

Critical incidents were collected in small group meet-
ings from incumbent field extension agents. The incidents
were classified by the researcher according to a classifi-
cation system develOped a priori and based upon the work of
earlier extension investigators. Three judges classified
3 random sample of incidents. As outcomes of the research
procedure:

1. The 74 respondents reported 444 critical inci-
dents in 23 meetings. Attendance at those
meetings ranged from 2 to 11 agents each. Mean
attendance per meeting was 3.2 agents. Each
agent, as requested, reported 6 incidents, of
which 3 were perceived as effective and 3 in—
effective. Mean respondent time per incident
was about 17 minutes.

2. Four hundred thirty-eight, or 98.6 percent of a
total of 444 critical incidents, were classified
among the categories of the classification system
which had been develOped a priori.

3. The researcher's agreement of third independent

classification with the second was 89.6 percent

 

-l37-

for categories and 77.2 percent for subcategories.
4. One or more judges agreed with the researcher's
classification for 75 percent of the incidents
by categories and 56.8 percent of the incidents
by subcategories. Two or more judges agreed with
the researcher's classification of 47.7 percent
of the incidents by categories and with his
classification of 29.5 percent by subcategories.
The descriptive statistics employed to analyze cri-
tical incidents included percentage and frequency distribu-
tions, mean scores of both importance and difficulty, and
derived rank-order. The data were processed by the Computer
Laboratory at Michigan State University. The findings were
presented in detail in Chapter IV. The balance of this
chapter is devoted to a restatement of the principal findings

and to the conclusions based upon those findings.

Findings and Conclusions

The critical performance categories outlined in Table
40 are generalized groups of critical incidents which reflect
agents' perceptions of critical requirements for successfully
performing their jobs. The subcategories are more specific
job requirements perceived as critical by extension agents.
There is a hierarchy of frequency with which the job require—
ments occur. More than one-half of all incidents were classi-

fied in two critical performance categories: (1) Teaching

-l38-

and Communicating, and (2) Organizing. It is therefore con-
cluded that Michigan Extension Agents most frequently perceive
such component behaviors as teaching, sending and receiving
messages, organizing groups, and implementing programs

through social systems as critical for successful job per-
formance.

The critical performance categories of Evaluating,
Administering, and Program Planning are less frequently per-
ceived as critical job requirements. That is, agents do not
as frequently View as critical such behaviors as conducting
applied research or solving problems; managing resources
and administering extension work; or planning and developing
extension programs.

Agent perception of job requirements differ somewhat
by agent position. The 4-H - Youth Agents more frequently
perceive Organizing behaviors as critical job requirements,
while Extension Home Economists and Agricultural and Natural
Resource Agents more frequently view their jobs as requiring
Teaching and Communicating behaviors. Agricultural and
Natural Resource Agents, more often than others, perceive
tasks related to Evaluating as critical job requirements.
Agricultural Agents do not very often view Program Planning
behaviors as critical job requirements, while extension

youth workers and home economists do.

-139-

TABLE 40

SUMMARY OF THE FREQUENCY RANK-ORDER OF CRITICAL PERFORMANCE
CATEGORIES AND COMPONENT CRITICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
FOR MICHIGAN EXTENSION AGENTS

Critical Performance
Categories Critical Job Requirements

 

 

 

TEACHING AND
COMMUNICATING 1. Using appropriate method to
communicate or teach.

2. Analyzing communication pat-
terns and/or organizing
messages.

3. Adapting communication and
teaching to the individual.

4. Motivating the clientele.

ORGANIZING 1. Using existing groups and/or
relating parts of the social
system.

2. Organizing groups.
3. Identifying and/or using early

adopters or leaders.

4. Developing rapport with
clientele.

5. Considering values, attitudes,
needs, etc. of self and others.

6. Analyzing the power structure.

CONDUCTING
PROGRAMS 1. Providing competent technical
information.

2. DevelOping leadership abili-
ties of self or others.

3. DevelOping insight into and/
or exciting pe0p1e about
develOpment potential.

4. Interpreting the impact of
change and trends.

5. Learning technical information.

Critical Performance

 

Categories

 

ADMINISTERING

PROGRAM PLANNING

EVALUATINGa

-l40-

Critical Job Requirements

 

Managing work consistent

with resources.

Coordinating work with co-
workers.

Making decisions consistent
with extension policies.
Using knowledge of the struc-
ture, function, policies, and
programs of extension.
Obtaining support for exten-
sion programs.

Using human resources in
program develOpment.
Analyzing social, political,
or economic situation.
Determining the availability
of resources for programs.
DevelOping a program plan.

Thinking creatively or
reasoning logically.
Conducting applied research.
Using the problem solving
approach.

Conducting Opinion surveys.

aAffirmed as a critical performance category only
for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents and for inex-

perienced agents.

-l4l-

Agent perception of critical job requirements differs
only slightly according to agent tenure. They appear to
agree about a great majority of job requirements. However,
inexperienced agents much less frequently perceive Evaluating
and other research behaviors as critical for job success.

In general, Extension Agents appear to perceive the
critical requirements of their jobs as occurring in similar
frequency, regardless of their own competency in fulfilling
those requirements. The competencies possessed by agents,
as inferred from effective incidents, and the training needs
of agents, as inferred from ineffective incidents, form
similar rank-order hierarchies. It is concluded that in
general, agent training needs are distributed in about the
same manner as agent competencies.

The rank-order of importance varied considerably from
that of frequency. In general, agents appear to rate as most
important for job success behaviors like: (1) working with
social systems, and (2) conducting programs. These results
suggest that the measure of importance provided an indication
of the "degree of criticalness" of job requirements beyond
that revealed by an analysis of incident frequency.

The rank-order of difficulty differed from that of
either incident frequency or importance. Agents appear to
generally perceive Evaluating behaviors as much more difficult

than behaviors related to Conducting Programs.

-l42-

Agents reported higher values on a seven-point scale
for incident importance than for incident difficulty. Per—
haps this reflects the agents' need to achieve success or
possibly their need to avoid failure.

Exprienced and inexperienced agents differ in their
perception of the difficulty of performing incidents. Ex—
perienced agents reported higher difficulty scores than
inexperienced agents. Perhaps those with longer tenure
have a greater sense of belonging to the organization and
are less fearful to admit difficulty. Or, perhaps agent
perception of appropriate role behavior expands with sociali-
zation, resulting in greater complexity and hence, greater
difficulty of execution.

Agents differ in their perception of the importance
of critical job requirements according to their tenure.
Experienced agents attach most importance to Program Planning
behaviors, while inexperienced agents view Organizing beha-
viors as most important. In this study, there was less
variance in importance scores for experienced than for in-
experienced agents. This lends support to the postulate
that with extension employment experience, agents become more
homogeneous in their perception of apprOpriate job behavior.

There was little difference between the two tenure
groups in the frequency of reported effective incidents.

This may have resulted from the failure of the classification

-l43-

system to discriminate subtle differences in perceptions

of effectiveness. Or, perhaps agents' perceptions of their
own effectiveness develOp at the early induction period;
they might be develOped previous to employment.

Training needs appear to differ according to agent
tenure. Such needs, as inferred from ineffective incidents,
were present in each critical performance category. Differ-
ential training needs are suggested according to agent tenure
for the critical performance categories of Teaching and
Communicating, Organizing, and Evaluating.

It is more difficult for experienced agents to per-
form critical incidents whether the incidents are effective
or ineffective. In addition, agents seem to have more dif-
ficulty in performing ineffective than effective incidents.
Lack of training appears to contribute to agent difficulty
in performing incidents perceived as critical for job
performance.

Agents differ in their perception of the difficulty
of executing effective and ineffective incidents acCording
to the position of reporting agents. The 4-H - Youth Agents
expressed more difficulty with ineffective incidents than
other agents. While it was more extreme for 4-H Agents,
agents in general appeared more likely to experience dif-
ficulty with ineffective incidents where agents lacked train-
ing, than with effective incidents where the agent possessed

needed competencies.

-l44-

Agents differentially perceive the importance of
both effective and ineffective incidents according to agent
tenure. Experienced agents rated ineffective incidents as
more important and effective incidents as less important
than did inexperienced agents. However, both experienced
and inexperienced agents seem to attach more importance to
incidents in which they possess competencies than to inci-
dents in which they lack competencies-—inexperienced agents
appeared eSpecially likely to do so. It is a conjecture
that the greater importance attached to effective incidents
might reflect agent needs to attain self-esteem and the
esteem of others.

Agents of different positions appear not to agree
upon the relative importance of either effective or inef-
fective incidents. Youth agents, for instance, accord
greater importance to their competency of Administering
their work, while Home Economists view their competencies
of Conducting Programs as more important. Differences by
position recur in the hierarchy of agent training needs too.
The 4-H Agents rate training needs related to Conducting
Extension Programs as most important; Home Economists
attach more importance to Program Planning training needs;
while Evaluation or research training needs appear more im-

portant for Agricultural and Natural Resource Agents.

-l45-

A summary of the rank-order of Critical Performance
Categories by the frequency, difficulty, and importance of
critical incidents according to the tenure of the reporting
agent is presented in Table 41 for effective incidents; in
Table 42 for ineffective incidents; and in Table 43 for all
incidents.

A summary of the rank-order of Critical Performance
Categories by the frequency, difficulty, and importance of
critical incidents according to the position of the reporting
agent is presented in Table 44 for effective incidents; in
Table 45 for ineffective incidents; and in Table 46 for all
incidents.

Conclusioggabout the Critical
Incident Technique

 

 

It is concluded that the critical incident technique
lends itself to the collection of incidents in small groups
of 2 to 11 respondents. It is possible for persons supply-
ing data to write 3 effective and 3 ineffective critical
incidents in less than 2 hours.

A central purpose of this study was to employ the
critical incident technique as a means for identifying the
job requirements and agent training needs. It was not known
whether this technique would identify needed job behaviors

which had not been identified by other methods. The incident

 

 

 

 

 

 

G H G H H G G G G maHumsHm>m
G N G G N G H N G mchcmHm ewumoum
N N G G G N N H G mcHumuchHsee
H G G G G G N G G meaumoum
mcfluosooou
G G N N N N G G N mcHNHcmmHo
G G H G G H G G H mcHumoHasasoo
pom mcflnomme
mocmu wpaoo wocwsw mocmu muaso wocmov oocmu weaso mesons muommumu
uHOQEH Iflmmflo Iwum IHOQEH Iflmwflo Imum IHOQEH IHMMHQ umHm mocmEuomem
mucmmfi Ham mucmmm poocmflnmmchH mucmmm Umocmflmwmxm HMOHDHHU
Bzmw< OZHBmommm mo mmDZMB Mm
mBzm0HUZH AfloHBHmU m>H9000002H mo 002<Bm002H 02¢ IwBADUHthO
.wuzmbommm mom mmHmOUMB<U.moz<Emommmm AdUHBHmU.monmm0mOhMZ¢a,mmB so mmdzzam
_ Ne mqmdB
r0
4
l
. G H G G G G G H G mcHumsHm>m
m G G H G G G G G mchamHm emumoua
G G G G G G G N G maHumuchHsGN
G G G G G G N G G msmumoum
mQGDOSUCOU
N N N G N H H N N maHNHcmmHo
H G H N H H G G H mcHumoHcsseoo
pom mcflnomme
mocmu muaoo wocmsv momma muaso wocmso mommy wuaso mocmov whommumo
IHOQEH AHMMHQ Imum IHOQEH IGMMGQ Imum IHOQEH Iflmwflo noun mocmeuomuwm
mpcmwm Hafi mucmmm poocwflummxmcH mucumfl poocmflummxm HMOHDGHU

BZMU< UZHBMOmmm mO mmDZMB mm
mBZWOHUZH AdUHBHmU m>HBUmmmm mo m02<BmOmZH 02¢ ~29000HO0H0
.wvzmadmmm mom mMHmmeedU WUZdSmommmm AflUHBHmU mo mMQmOIM2¢m mmB mo Nm<220m

av mqmfie

 

 

 

m N G I I I m H m mcGDMSHm>m

H G G G G G N G G mchamHm smumoum

G G G G G G H G G maHumpchHsGG

G G N H G G G G N msmumoum
mofluosocoo

m a m m H N m m a mnfluwcomuo

N G H N N H G N G mmHumoHcsssoo
can msflcowme

mocmu moaoo hocosv mocmu huaoo woomsv mocmu hpaso hocmsv wuommumu
IHOQEH IGMMHQ loom IHOQEH IHMMHQ .rmnh IHOQEH IGMMGQ mum mocoEHomumm
mucumm .m.z G mm wpmGEoooom meow mucmmm nusow I mue HGUGDGHU

92m0¢ UZHBmommm 00.20H9Hm00 Mm
mBZMQHUZH A¢UHBHmU m>HBUmmmm mo mUZ¢BmOmSH 02¢ .WBADUHhhH0
.NUZWDOMMM mom mmHmOUMB¢U m02¢zmommmm A¢UHBHmU m0 mm0m0IMZ¢m mma mo Mm¢220m

 

 

 

we mqm¢B
.
u. G H G N H G G N G mcHumsHm>m
A G G G G G G H G G GVcHEBHm emumoum
G G G G G G G H G mcHuwuchHsG<
N G G G G G N G G msmumoum
mofluosoooo
H N N H N N G G N GEHNHcGaGHo
G G H G G H G G H mcHumoHasssoo
pom mcflnomma
wocmv muaso mocmsw mocmu >paoo woomsw mocmu huaoo hocmsv whommumu
IHOQEH IGMMHQ umnm IHomEH IGMMGQ Imum IHOQEH IGMMGQ nmnm mocmEHomuwm
mucmm¢ Ham mpcmm< poocmGHmQWocH mucmmd omocmfiummxm HMOGDHHU

Bzmw¢ UZHBMOmmm mOfmmDZMB 20
mBZMOHUZH A¢UHBHmU 04¢ 00 MUZ¢BmOmSH 02¢ .MBADUHmmH0
.Nozmoommh mom mmHmOUMB¢U MUZ¢SmOmmmm A¢UHBHmU mo 200MOIMZ¢M mm& 00 Nm¢220m

mv MAM¢B

-148-

 

 

 

H N G G G G G H G mcHumsHm>m

N G G G G G G N G mcHaamHm gaseous

G G G G H G G G G maHumumHaHEGG

G G N N G G H G G msmumoum
mofiuooocou

G H G H N N N G H mcHNHcmmHo

G G H G G H G G N mcHumoHasssoo
pom msflcomoa

mocmu >u050 wocmsw mocmu muHSo hocmso mocmu mu050 mocmov muommumu
IHomEH IGmwGQ Imum IHOQEH IGMMGQ Imnm IHOQEH IGMWGQ Imum mocmfiuowumm
mucomd .m.z G .m¢ mpmHEocoom mEom mpcmmm cusow I mIG HMUGHGHU

Bzmw¢ UZHBmOmmm mo
ZOHBHmom wm m8200H02H 0¢UHBHmU 00¢ m0 mUZ¢BmomzH 02¢ .28000HmmH0
.wozmbommm mom mmHmOUmB¢U MU2¢Smommmm 0¢UHBHmU mo 000MOIMZ¢M mmB mo Nm¢220m

 

 

GG mqmde
H G G G G G G H G mcHumsHm>m
G G G H N G G N G mchcmHm smnmoum
N N G G H N G G G mcHumuchHEGG
G G N G G G H G G msmumoum
mcfluoowcou
G H G N G G N G N mcHNHcmmHo
G G H G G H G G H mcHumoHcsssoo
com mcflnomme
oocmu GDHSO mocmsv mocmu GDHDQ mocmsv mocmu Guano wocmov whommumo
IHOQEH Immmwo Imum IHOQEH IGMMGQ Imum IHOQEH IHmMGQ Imum mocmfiuomumm
mucmmw .m.z G .m¢ mumGEomuom 050m mucom¢ canow I mIG HMUGDGHU

BZWD¢ UZHBmommm m0 ZOHBHmom Mm
mBZMOHU2H 0¢UHBHMU m>HfiummmMZH mo m02¢8m002H 02¢ .WBODUHO0H0
.MUZMDommm mom mmHmowMB¢U m02¢£mommmm 0¢UHBHmU mo mm0MOI22¢m 028 m0 wm¢ZSDm

mv m0m¢8

-l49-

classification system employed in this study was largely
developed from items contained in questionnaires used by
other extension researchers. Therefore, if the critical
incident technique were to identify important job behaviors
not contained in previous research instruments, one would
expect such behaviors to fall outside the classification
system.

Since it was possible to classify over 98.5 percent
of the incidents within this classification system, it was
concluded that the critical incident technique failed to
reveal significant numbers of important job behaviors be-
yond those shown by other research methods. However, this
result suggests that the critical incident technique revealed
needed job behaviors which are similar to those revealed by
other research methods. In addition, it made possible the
ranking of needed behavior according to frequency, impor-
tance, and difficulty, thus providing evidence of the degree
of criticalness of identified needs.

The classification system employed in this study was
sufficiently comprehensive for the researcher to classify
nearly all the reported incidents with about 90 percent cate—
gory consistency. However, judges' agreement was considerably
less, thereby lending credence to claims of subjectivity for
the system employed in this study and for the critical inci-

dent technique in general. Therefore, it appears that this

-150-

classification system requires refinement and further test-
ing to enhance both its comprehensive nature and its reli-
ability as a research instrument. It does seem reasonable
to conclude that this system was sufficiently comprehensive
for the researcher to classify the critical incidents re-
ported by the agents in this study.

The critical incident technique as employed in this
study permitted a description of job requirements as per-
ceived by a population of Michigan extension agents; it
permitted inferences of training needs for those agents;
and it revealed differences in inferred job requirements
and training needs by position and tenure of participating

agents.

Limitations

 

l. The application of the critical incident technique
in this study involved only incumbent agents,
thereby resulting in a reflection of the percep-
tion of this single group.

2. The results of this study are subject to the
limitations of cross-sectional research. Changes
over time can only be assumed to be represented
in the variables under study.

3. This research describes agent job behaviors as

they currently exist. It should not be interpreted

Summaryfiof

-151-

as describing them as they ought to be or as they
may be at some future date. Similarly, the objec—
tives in the work situation were those actually
being pursued and not necessarily those that
ought to be pursued.

The relatively low level of agreement of category
classification by researcher and judges limits
the extent to which these findings ought to be
generalized.

Confidence in the findings of this research is
limited at points due to the small number of
subjects involved. This was particularly evident

when analyzing variables by agent position.

Conclusions

 

There is a hierarchy of frequency with which agent
job requirements are perceived to occur among cri-
tical performance categories.

Agent perceptions of job requirements differ some-
what by agent position.

Agent perceptions of job requirements differ only
slightly by agent tenure.

In general, agent training needs are distributed
among critical performance categories in about

the same frequency as agent competencies.

10.

ll.

~152-

Agents appear to differentiate between the fre-
quency with which job requirements occur and

the importance attached to those requirements.
Agents differentiate among frequency, importance,
and difficulty of performing critical incidents
thereby suggesting that the degree of criticalness
varies with the measure employed.

Agents generally seem to place higher ratings
upon the importance than upon the difficulty of
performing the incidents they reported.

Agents apparently differ in their perceptions of
the difficulty of performing incidents according
to their tenure since experienced agents reported
higher difficulty scores than did inexperienced
agents.

Agents appear to differ in their perceptions of
the importance of job requirements according to
their tenure.

The frequency with which self-reported competencies
occur among critical performance categories does
not seem to differ by agent tenure.

The frequency with which training needs occur
among critical performance categories differs

according to agent tenure.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

-153-

Lack of training evidently contributes to agent
difficulty in performing incidents perceived as
critical for job performance.

Competencies and training needs seem to differ
according to agent position.

Perceptions of the importance of competencies
and training needs appear to differ according

to agent tenure.

Agents of different positions apparently do not
agree on the importance of competencies and
training needs.

The critical incident technique lends itself

to collection of incidents in small groups of

2 to 11 respondents.

The critical incident technique failed to reveal
significant numbers of job behaviors beyond those
shown by other research methods.

The critical incident technique makes possible
the ranking of needed job behaviors according

to their frequency, importance, and difficulty.
The classification system develOped for this
study was sufficiently comprehensive to classify
agent reported critical incidents, but both re-

finement and further testing are needed.

-154-

Implications and Recommendations

 

The results of this study offer several practical
applications to the Cooperative Extension Service. The cri-
tical performance categories and subcategories provide a
description of extension agents' views of the critical
requirement of their job. The results of this job analysis
should provide understanding of the things agents consider
critical for successful job performance.

Future research with such "relevant others" as admi-
nistrators, Specialists, and clientele would reveal additional
dimensions of agent job requirements as perceived by others.

Agent training needs were identified as they occurred
within the reality of the situation in which agents work.
Hierarchies were specified for the frequency with which train-
ing needs occurred; for the difficulty associated with those
needs; and for the importance attached to the training needs.
These hierarchies provide a potential criterion for establish-
ing a priority of agent training. Future research in this
area, if it is to analyze the variables by agent position,
should involve greater numbers of agents.

This study revealed that the 3 categories of job
requirements most frequently reported contrasted sharply with
those least frequently reported. Such evidence could be use-
ful for extension administrators as they make training and

other personnel management decisions.

 

 

Ii .4,

-155-

It appears that the initial 3 month induction period
may be very important in develOping agent perception of the
critical requirements of their jobs. After 3 months, the
agents in this study held similar perceptions of the fre-
quency with which job requirements occurred. This is not
to imply that agents do not change their ideas about some
aspects of their jobs. Their perception of difficulty and
importance do seem to change with time. Indeed, agents
appeared to report greater difficulty as they gained job
experience. The need for agent training does not seem to
decline with increasing tenure, but rather changes in
emphasis.

The agents reported more difficulty in performing
incidents in which they lacked competencies. This suggests
that special efforts might be necessary if training were
to be provided in such areas as conducting applied research,
planning extension programs, and administrative behaviors.

It seems useful to know that agents do not generally
view the importance of critical job requirements in the same
way they report the frequency of their occurrence. It would
probably require considerably less motivation to alter com-
petencies of agents in those areas they already believe to
be of greater importance.

The results of this study should provide useful evi-

dence for making judgments about differentiating training

-156-

on the basis of agent position and/or tenure depending upon
the training needs to be met.

It appears that the use of scaled items in conjunction
with the critical incident technique offers Opportunities for
researchers to refine the interpretation of the results.
Further application and refinement of such scaling efforts
appear potentially rewarding.

The classification system employed in this study re-
quires considerable refinement. Since it does seem to hold
promise for analyzing agent job performance, other researchers
may make adaptations in the system.

Studies in changes of perception of appropriate role
behaviors would likely be promising terrain for future re-
search. The results of this study suggest the hypothesis
that with socialization, agent perception of apprOpriate
role behavior expands, resulting in greater complexity and
hence greater difficulty of performance. It is recommended
that a longitudinal research project for studying changes
in agent job perception over time be assigned to a division
of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service.

An hypothesis which grows from this study is that
agents become more homogeneous in their perceptions of appro-
priate role behavior as length of extension work experience
increases. The question of changes in agent perception of

role behavior during the initial 3 months of induction seems

-157-

promising for future research. Also, to what extent do
agents differ in employment role perception at the point

of entry in the extension organization?

APPENDIX A

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXTENSION AGENTS REPORTING CRITICAL INCIDENTS

Please complete the information requested below. No personal information will be revealed
for individuals. You are asked to give your name only in case more information is needed. You
are assured that individual information will remain confidential.

Background Information

 

1. Name:

 

2. Today‘s Date:

 

3 . Sex: B Male [:1 Female

h“ Present Age: Present Extension Position

 

 

5. On what date did you join the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service?
6. Have you held other extension positions? [3 Yes C] No

If yes, please give the following information:

Type of Position How Long Held?

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. What type(s) of work did you do before joining the Cooperative Extension Service:

Dates of

Service Nature of Responsibility

Employer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. What is the highest academic degree you have completed?

(Please check): Major area of completed degree(s):

 

 

C] Bachelor's

C] Master's

 

E] Specialist's

 

E] Doctor's

 

11). How many term hours of graduate work have you completed beyond your highest degree?

 

-158-

-159-

The Information Below Will Help You Complete This Questionnaire

On the following pages you are asked to provide examples of things you have done in connec-
tion with your job as an extension agent. Some things you may feel were particularly effective,
others you might now judge were very ineffective things for an Extenstion agent to do.

 

This research method is called the critical incident technique. The purpose of this study
is to identify the specific actions which are required for the performance of an extension
agent's role. Since you are in the best position to know what you do in your job, your frank
answers are extremely important.

This method has been widely used in other professions. Examples of both effective and in-
effective incidents are given below. These are provided just to give you an idea of the kind of
information needed. You will notice that the examples contain answers to each of the following
questions about the incident:

Exactly what did you do?

What circumstances led up to the incident?
What was your objective?

Who was involved?

What were the results of your action?
When did this incident take place?

OWFWNH

An Effective Incident for a Teacher

 

I was teaching a unit of tumbling in a seventh grade gym class. I asked one boy to practice
some stunts outside the class and then demonstrate them to the rest of the class. This boy was
self-conscious due to his size and age. His neuro-muscular skills were poor and the other kids
made fun of him. I wanted him to develop self-confidence by learning how to do some stunts well.
When the rest of the class saw him demonstrate the stunts, they were very surprised. This was
an effective incident because the class began to respect this boy. He became more confident
and was treated as "one of the gang." This happened in January of 1965. '

An Ineffective Incident for a Nurse

 

When on duty in the hospital emergency room I became irritated with the number of forms
that had to be filled out before a patient could be treated. I was short-tempered with my
supervisor and I told her this was a needless waste of time. I felt that carbon impregnated
forms could reduce the time and effort and permit quicker treatment. She was angry for my
lack of tact and refused to listen to my idea. My encounter with the supervisor happened when
a child was in terrific pain, but I wasn't permitted to treat him until the parents had com-
pleted 3 different forms. I wanted to improve the speed of patient care. However, this was an
ineffective incident because it resulted in severed communication with my supervisor and the
idea I suggested was never used. This was in October of 1966

An Effective Incident for a School Superintendent

 

I brought some data before the school board about the drop-out rate in our school. I pro-
posed that groups of teachers, local citizens, and consultants be contacted to study this
matter and suggest methods for combating the drop-out situation. I became concerned when I
found that our drop-out rate was at its highest level in 25 years. I wanted to prevent this
loss of human potential. This proved to be an effective incident since the board endorsed the
idea in April of 1966 and as a result, a new "drop-in" prOgram is now being initiated.

An Ineffective Incident for a Minister

'-
I

 

I contacted ten fellow clergymen to promote the idea of a supervised "Teen-Center" in our
community. When we met, the others seemed favorable o the idea, but I could never get their
active support. I was promoting the idea because th e had been a rash of juvenile delinquency.
I thought a Teen-Center would help prevent it. This as an ineffective incident because the
other clergymen failed to act on the idea or to sugge t other alternatives. This happened just
before Christmas in 196A.

-l60-

CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably have done

Inany things in your job which you would now judge as being very effective - things that would
cflaaracterize you as an effective agent. Think of a single such incident in which you feel you
vnere particularly effective. Please describe what happened:

1.

The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I did:

 

 

 

 

My objective:

 

 

 

Person(s) involved:

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence Great Influence

How difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

I

1. 2. 3. A. S. 6. 7.

 

Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

—161-
CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Once again, think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably
did some things which you would now judge as being very ineffective. Of course, these things
may not be typical of your normal performance, but rather are things you did on the job which
you now judge as being particularly ineffective. Please describe what happened:

1. The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What I did:

 

 

 

 

 

3. My objective:

 

 

1+. Person(s) involved:

 

 

 

5. Results:

 

 

 

6. When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

'7. To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. u. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence Great Influence

8. wa difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

10 2. 30 LL. 5. 60 7'
Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

 

-162-
CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably have done

many things in your job which you would now judge as being very effective - things that would
characterize you as an effective agent. Think of a single such incident in which you feel you
were particularly effective. Please describe what happened:

I.

The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I did:

 

 

 

 

My objective:

 

 

 

Person(s) involved:

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. LI. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence Great Influence

How difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7.

 

Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

-l63-
CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Once again, think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably

did.some things which you would now judge as being very ineffective. Of course, these things
they not be typical of your normal performance, but rather are things you did on the job which
yTNl now judge as being particularly ineffective. Please describe what happened:

I.

The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I did:

 

 

 

 

My objective:

 

 

 

 

Person(s) involved:

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. II. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence Great Influence

How difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. II. 5. 6. 7.

 

Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

-164-
CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably have done

Inany things in your job which you would now judge as being very effective - things that would
characterize you as an effective agent. Think of a single such incident in which you feel you
‘were particularly effective. Please describe what happened:

1.

The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I did:

 

 

 

 

My objective:

 

 

 

Person(s) involved:

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence Great Influence

HOw difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7.

 

Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

-165-
CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT FORM

Once again, think back over your experience as an extension agent in Michigan. You probably

(iid.some things which you would now judge as being very ineffective. Of course, these things
they not be typical of your normal performance, but rather are things you did on the job which
y<NI now judge as being particularly ineffective. Please describe what happened:

1.

The circumstances:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I did:

 

 

 

 

My objective:

 

 

 

Person(s) involved:

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

When did this incident take place?

 

Month Year

To what extent do you believe this incident is likely to influence your success as an
extension agent? Please circle the most appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7.

 

Little Influence Some Influence ‘Great Influence

How difficult was it for you to do the incident you described above? Please circle the most
appropriate number:

1. 2. 3. 2+. 5. 6. 7.

 

Not Difficult Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR CRITICAL INCIDENTS

This system consists of six critical performance
categories with attendant definitions for classifying cri-
tical incidents reported by the agent-subjects. The cate-
gories appear to be six functional groups of agent job
behaviors. They are hypothesized to be critical in the
sense that they are associated with definitely effective or
ineffective job performance by field extension agents.

Typical behaviors subsumed under each performance
category are not necessarily exhaustive of all possible be-
haviors. The subcategories are generalized descriptions of
behaviors primarily derived from some 200 items used in
research instruments by other researchers. The intent is
to use the itemized behaviors as guides or examples of
appropriate content for that subcategory.

Each incident is to be classified in one, and only
one, category and subcategory. Examination of the definition
of each critical performance category and attendant subcate-
gory examples, will reveal possible confusion as to the
most appropriate classification for a given incident. This
occurs in spite of efforts to formulate each category as a
discrete entity. Therefore, an incident will first be clas-

sified on the basis of the description of what the agent did.

-l66-

-167-

If classification in a single category is not then possible,

additional evidence will be sought sequentially from the

description of

l.
2.

3.

The
The

The

the incident which follows:
objective being pursued
circumstances leading to the incident

results of the incident

I. TEACHING AND COMMUNICATING

This category includes agent behaviors of communi-

cating with clientele and using the educational process.

The emphasis is upon reaching and teaching people. It in-

cludes sending and receiving messages. Relevant behaviors

pertain to both the learning and the communication process.

The basic concern is with process rather than the content

taught or communicated.

a.

Typical Behaviors

 

Using apprOpriate method of communicating and/or
teaching to achieve desired goal through:

(1) Written media such as personal and circular

(2)

letters, news releases, reports, bulletins,
etc.

Speaking engagements before groups, on the
radio, and on television.

(3) Personal contacts for counseling in office

(4)

calls, telephone calls, and personal visits.
Demonstrations, tours, discussion meetings,
training sheps, sensitivity training, etc.

-168-

b. Motivating the clientele:

(1) Preparing, stimulating, and challenging
the clientele to participate in learning
experience.

(2) Creating an awareness of the need for
learning.

(3) Acting in behalf of own welfare.

c. Adapting communication and teaching to indi—
vidual differences:

(1) Using shared experiences and involvement.

(2) Acknowledging conflicting viewpoints.

(3) Pacing communication and teaching to
participants' interest, need, aptitude,
maturation level, etc.

d. Analyzing communication patterns and/or
organizing messages to reach people:

(1) In publications (i.e. bulletins, Special
reports, project guides, etc.)
(2) In mass and "mail" media.
(3) In person-to-person relationships.
e. Establishing a feedback system:
(1) Identifying and listening to key informants.

(2) Determining audience perception of the
message.

II. ORGANIZING

This category is considered to include behaviors of
implementing programs through social systems. Incidents
might involve organizing individuals into groups and organi-
zing groups for social action. Other potential behaviors
are identifying early adapters and leaders; analyzing the
power structure; and using groups to_achieve program objec-

tives. Such behaviors are considered to be instrumental

-l69-

actions which enable an agent to conduct programs within

the social system in which the extension service functions.

Typical Behaviors

 

a. Identifying and/or using early adapters or leaders
in extension programs:
(1) According to talents and competencies.
(2) According to functions to be performed.
(3) For program execution.
(4) As demonstrators.

b. Analyzing the power structure membership to:
(l) Attain program goals.
(2) Elicit financial resources for programs.
(3) Identify pressure groups.

C.

Using existing groups and/or interrelating parts
of the social system to:

(l) Stimulate interaction and participation.
(2) Coordinate programs of mutual interest.

(3) Secure understanding of extension goals.
(4) Achieve extension goals.

d. Organizing groups to achieve program objectives:

(1) Organizing people around shared needs.

(2) Involving members in organizing and managing
their own groups.

(3) Organizing planning groups.

e. Maintaining consideration of the values, attitudes,

needs and goals of self and others:

(1) Maintaining confidences.

(2) Discussing controversial issues objectively.

(3) Maintaining positive interpersonal relation—
ships.

f. Developing rapport with the clientele.

-170-

III. CONDUCTING PROGRAMS

This category is intended to reflect the understanding,
knowledge, and abilities of an agent to provide experiences
which improve the state of human, economic, and other natural
resources. Component behaviors relate to develOping leader-
ship and stimulating self-improvement actions and providing
information which allows the recipient to achieve a goal.
Behavior is interpreted to include the act of knowing. The
outcomes of the use of knowledge are stressed rather than

the process of imparting knowledge.

Typical Behaviors.

 

a. DevelOping leadership abilities:
(1) In self:

(a) through professional activities.
(b) through formal and informal studies.

(2) In others:

(a) providing information and stimulating
participation.
(b) delegating responsibilities.

b. Developing insight into and/or exciting peOple
about the potential for human, economic, and
other resource develOpment:

(1) Speaking knowledgeably.

(2) Anticipating behaviors and acting accordingly.

(3) Anticipating economic trends and acting
accordingly.

(4) Understanding human motivation.

-171-

c. Interpreting the impact of change and trends
upon the clientele due to:

(1) New technology.
(2) Social, economic, and political change.

d. Providing technical information which permits
the recipient to solve a problem or achieve a
goal from such sources as:

(1) Personal knowledge.
(2) Specialists or other resource persons.
(3) Published materials.
e. Learning technical information:
(1) Through personal study.
(2) From resource person(s).

IV . ADMINISTERING

This category primarily consists of intraorganiza-
tional administrative behaviors which permit the agent to
carry out other functions of his job. Such behaviors as
managing, coordinating, and maintaining support for personnel

and programs are included.

Typical Behaviors

 

a. Managing work consistent with organizational
resources:

(1) Delegating appropriate duties to secretary
or others.

(2) Organizing work and materials to fit office
conditions and procedures.

(3) Using office file system.

(4) Securing supplies, etc., according to the
budget.

(5) Managing own time effectively.

(6) Managing and directing the work of employees.

-172-

b. Making decisions consistent with extension policies:

(1) Completing required internal reports.

(2) Maintaining professional standards in work
and appearance.

(3) Handling funds, mailing lists, etc., within
policies.

(4) Using apprOpriate channels for matters con-
cerning salary adjustments, staff benefits,
etc.

(5) Implementing programs consistent with
Extension goals.

(6) Participating in required meetings.

c. Coordinating work with other extension workers:

(1) Avoiding duplication of programs.

(2) Using talents of other extension workers
in program execution.

(3) Coordinating workload with coworkers.

(4) Coordinating use of equipment, facilities,
etc.

d. Using knowledge of the structure, function, policies,
and programs of the c00perative extension service to:

(1) Explain them to others.
(2) Explain the general role of extension workers.

(3) Meet the minimum role expectations of relevant
others:

(a) Extension administrators and/or specialists.
(b) Clientele.

(c) Peers.
(4) Explain own role to others.
(5) Learn role expectations from others.

e. Obtaining support for extension programs:

(1) General public support for extension goals.
(2) Financial support from public and private
sources.

-l73-

V. PROGRAM PLANNING

This category encompasses behaviors related to the
process of planning and developing extension programs. Com-
ponent behaviors are analyzing impinging situations, assess-
ing available resources, using human resources in planning
and develOping programs, and formulating an explicit plan.
of action for conducting extension programs. Teaching.during
the planning process and the actual conduct of the planned

prOgrams are relegated to other categories.

Typical Behaviors

a. Analyzing the situation influencing the clientele
according to social, political, and economic
factors as a basis for:

(1) The identification of the need for extension
programs.

(2) The priority for the content of programs.

(3) The objectives of programs.

(4) The timing of programs.

b. Determining the resources available for program
develOpment.

(1) Determining the availability of human resources.
(2) Determining the availability of economic
resources.

c. Using human resources in program development.

(1) Involving "lay" people.

(2) Involving extension Specialists and other
extension workers.

(3) Involving other resource persons.

d. DevelOping a written program plan previous to its
execution and integrated with:

(1) State extension plans.

-l74-

(2) Other field extension efforts.
(3) Other agency efforts.

VI. EVALUATING

Typical component behaviors are those intended to

assess the results of extension programs, to conduct research

trials, and to solve work related problems. Creative think-

ing, innovation, and logical reasoning are included. Such

behaviors as writing and disseminating reports of results,

and conducting either result or method demonstrations are

relegated to other categories.

Typical Behaviors

 

Measuring the results of extension program(s):

(l) Seeking assistance from authorities in
evaluation.

(2) Designing an evaluation instrument.

(3) Conducting an evaluation project.

Conducting applied research with pilot program
projects or research trials and plots in:

(1) COOperation with research authorities.
(2) The behavioral sciences.
(3) The natural sciences.

Using the problem solving approach:

(1) In own work.
(2) In assisting clientele to solve problems.

Thinking creatively or reasoning logically to
improve:

(1) Own performance.
(2) Own work satisfaction.

-l75-

(3) Extension effectiveness and/or efficiency.
(4) Client welfare.

e. Conducting Opinion surveys.

APPENDIX C
COOPERAT IVE EXTENSION SE RVICE

HICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' EAST LANSING ' HICHIGAN 48823
Ofiioe of the Dueao' r

 

AND 0.8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

December 1, 1967

Dear Colleague:

Some research is being planned at Michigan State University
which involves a number of Michigan Extension Agents. This
study is being conducted by Fred Peabody to provide infor-

mation so we can help agents be even more successful. This
research Should provide evidence to help answer some impor-
tant questions about induction and orientation training for
Extension workers.

The purpose of this letter is to invite your participation
in this study. The location Of the agents being asked to
participate is Shown on the enclosed map. Your name, and
that of other participating agents are listed by counties
on the attached sheet.

You will be asked to attend a meeting in your own county or
area with two to eight other agents. You should be able to
supply all the information needed in a single two-hour
meeting.

Fred will contact you soon and give you more details. I
hOpe you will find time in your busy schedule to COOperate
in this research effort.

Very truly yours,

Richard W. Bell
Assistant Extension Director - Agriculture

RWB:mas
cc: G. S. McIntyre
Field Operations

F. J. Peabody
D. A. Caul

-l76-

 

 

I—m3-MI.‘ 7'01 - It:".l.~vr' -,,. I‘D..- 6...". .11 5‘” '1 . w '1')! we. ‘R' t - .. a ‘v’ - In I ’ \ - . W
, O O '
30 69' 53’ 57 cu' a~ u' 5:) ":
-.. ----_---..-. .-.._-.._.--..--. -- .-----..__ -..--. _ --I---..-.__-_...__-._-.---.- .- .-_ -.._---_.--1,- _--_-.-- ---.-_.--_.- I.
I.
[I o
.— ‘ I
’- I r': \ I
‘/_‘..\ \

 

_-__.,// _ , _____.--—-— --< 1' .. '
7 /’/ "2,.:,/ to“: ’-‘~'—— 1 . —.-__ ..--.______, ‘ '—"_.-"_. "’7. I--. --"“"“ H 5'

-1..- a..-
I... _..-.-..-._.--..._- --..._.....-.__._.--. -.._-.. ---._....-.--—~

 

 

 

I
\
:‘1’. .‘ '7,
._ /
”Jr‘:-:‘. '1.

C
:‘v—5 1"-

- _-_—.- --.-
—.—.. w...-

.~- -‘r'.’-"' .——.<mr~--~———~--» .. __ --- ._._.—G--—- —~— ———- -_,. .- -.— ——

 

 

 

 

tax-.1. P.”

a

 

 

 

3.3

 

‘11-
he
I»; x
g .
—fi
. I
/, .\‘
SAX/16.4 -3\\/
s 1.,
..
y

‘
I, _
5° 1
O

i, I
O
‘ :1
I
I
§
§
0
1
O
«9qu
{ ,1 x

. .-— cr
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
    
   

 

4, ._. __ a . “L..- ,2; .,\\ ,...~;
.____~_-‘-___.. {1. - ¥\ 4/ \ _ 4P.- __ _'_ __..
.. _ bx ‘ _l-.-. 3:.” “1‘1"" "' 1:1
.r ’ :\‘ ."_',‘_ ’r'_ A 3'.-‘h ’l/ |.
‘ ' >_\‘A\_-’/’ I I - ‘:\\’_1 r
I .3»..- '.
- ‘7’ - L'.‘\’ I"
- ‘ \ _:\' - ‘3’ 11
‘7“... \\-)/ '5
‘ J \\-' J" 2
"‘3 I._ f". \. , .-. ‘ ~
i ‘60.; \\
" 7' \\

      
    
      
  
 

'.
.I ”J.omm.2"K‘?.MJ1L:’..‘£‘L-’ELVJ EA” nut-..Im: 3'“ 7’ 1'1'31 42“

 

I"
J)“ 51 55'64'111’ '

 

 

-~. ——-._ _—_..___ -__.—-———-
g

 

 

 

,5 7 ’/ J?” I «#49153813oT/7mmzon.
4) ;;nén;; -7.....__ — _.__. mafia-“‘1'“ L :\.1/"! f! i, £5,757“
4' ~ / .-
[J

ML 4s-~flw.1 m-“

f”. 4.111.451” c»? 'I'II’D 05mm

.1-i/55.’..’.’/I’l:£ 9056013. 065M417

05cm“: (LT/PE REM?" I"

"fife-.mo IAICC‘STA menu MIDLAND

 

 

 

 

 

' . WEXFJRJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’V‘ ‘
. LL.‘1)1|i‘t‘1r]'O\/LLT\J

'-'-..... c -‘w‘. .. crud. oo‘

1-."

O“?

van-o.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. pry) .. .- ‘ o‘ .‘G, .‘ . f. 'Y ‘W' .p..¢
. I : H ' a. ' \ I g . I, \ I
J‘UL.A‘—, .J-L\_’ I .‘.J-_I'_'i.) '('.-“UI.I)J. IJ . . -»
M—q-g-wo Q ~-..~-. . -.~—.- ‘..- ~-—_u. «OI-“Q .---— «*M I.
\.
,.___..4 \‘ ‘
, - 1 ,I
m I) ,J ', .11" 'r H 'I .- -r"-j- ' :7 I": -. -‘ j',/"_ MONTCALM GRAIIOT 5,10!wa 1"
.L‘. ..“..11. .'..‘.JI..' .1114 J... II..I.-L-:‘.1"../ri ‘
I M 0 c O Nk.- e-‘-~-o»--_-o--..-.-.o-Gn—..-—--.. ...-.-.-.I ‘S

q fif/I’ .
. 10m $717.70” $h'lAWA.
1' AlLCK-Wf.‘ £3.4A’fif 7‘70” 1N5" 1,“ lell,"’6'P.’—. III! M.

1 -_
‘KALA/JA'CALHJUh Mun/v .‘msr‘mw. VIN/15..“

9). 0‘ '10 coo/“1

.— A—J - ...- _J..'J
51.2135". Yaw... 1311501151541 E! 114.5130:

...————-'__- _.—.-— --—.___._—.‘..._.-..—.-. —-

 

EROJ , "1'

...«w— “.-.I o.- -5-

 

/__T.
4

. ‘_~#1H#

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

”mt-arm's»: u... .a'Ls. '15:

 

 

42.0-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 .1— ‘ A
//-- " I.
‘ fr, i (I

,-
0 C I .
C :/ I ' I.
..—.. . a. v” {7‘ 1;; ' -ru..‘ ‘

1 I Tint. 23AM: ran. .axa ..m: :1) | I I”
I l ..
. I
’ I
' i {I
1.. ‘ '3
m . -.~. “Pony --~-onsa --m..—~~- 7- ”1‘ . . . Q‘
-. ~‘-r-‘ - _ L- — -I—b- _ - - ..."H-I ‘ . -.J- -— -- --- _- . --_ __-___.__'_.__‘_.-__._._‘ ”J... _-_ - __ m-_ -"w I»... ‘r..— —’-_”-— - ~ _ ‘ _____ —-- ‘ - ‘-~‘ I 2
m, ”a :5. 5" e-:‘ 65' 34' 55° ‘11
L" "*- iAEIIhmzz-Tsssasqi3.". 4.4:. aux-:5: . -:GZ;.:..‘:. ...2'31’. 1:,;-'—;;. $3.1! Let-"4.: :;-.'.;.'.';::.im“ 73.37;: . ; 55.1: ;..'..'.. .-..‘:T. .- .1712”; ;‘-..;T.':‘-' f. f1

0-121’.‘

APPENDIX D
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SE RVICE

HICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 48823
Office of the Direcnor

 

AND U.8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

December 4, 1967

Dear Co-Worker:

You recently received a letter from your Program Director
telling you about some research I want to do with Extension
agents. You were selected because you are in a unique
position to contribute to this study.

The purpose of this research is to try to find what specific
actions are necessary for performing the role of an Extension
agent. You will be asked to write brief descriptions of things
you have done in your job as an Extension agent. Examples are
needed of things you feel were particularly effective. In ad-
dition, examples are needed of things you have done that you
might now judge as ineffective things for an extension worker
to do. This is an effort to analyze the job of an agent, not
to evaluate you as a person or the work you are doing. I wait
to assure you that all responses will be treated confidentially.

 

 

By meeting in small groups it will be possible to clarify
instructions and answer your questions. I will call you in
the near future to see if you are willing to participate, and,
if so, to schedule a two-hour meeting.

I sincerely hope you will be willing to help in this effort.
Your participation is vitally needed.

Very truly yours,

Fred J. Peabody

FJP:mas

-l78-

APPENDIX E
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 48823
CEO: of the Direcnor

 

AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

TO:

I want to confirm our meeting for collecting Extension re-
search data. The meeting is planned for the following:

TIME

 

DATE

 

LOCATION

 

I look forward to seeing you at that time.

Some agents have asked for more details about the kind of
information needed in this study. You will remember that

we are requesting examples of both effective and ineffective
things you have done in your job as an Extension agent. ’This
research method is called the critical incident technique.

It has been used in several professions to analyze jobs in
those fields.

 

 

I am enclosing a couple of examples of critical incidents

from other professions. These are provided just to give

you an idea of the kind of information needed. You will be
asked to write three effective and three ineffective incidents
from your own experiences as an Extension agent. This will
probably take about two hours.

I really appreciate your willingness to COOperate in this
study. I hope the results will provide some answers to
questions about what it takes to be a successful Extension
agent.

Sincerely,

Fred J. Peabody

-l79-

-180-

EXAMPLE OF AN EFFECTIVE INCIDENT FOR A SOCIAL WORKER

 

Attendance by mothers receiving Aid to Dependent
Children at a series of "Money Management" meetings had
been very poor. A teacher, a home economist and I co-
Operatively planned the meetings with the mothers ,but
the mothers would not attend. We asked several mothers
why they had not participated, but their answers were
evasive.

In June of 1967 we asked a social scientist to
help us construct a questionnaire so the women could
anonymously indicate why they hadn't attended. We found
that many were afraid their ADC payments would be out if
they managed their money better. This was an effective
incident because we were able to assure the mothers that
funds would not be reduced if they participated. As a
result about fifty percent of the eligible mothers atten-
ded the series when it was repeated.

EXAMPLE OF AN INEFFECTIVE INCIDENT FOR A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL

 

The curriculum in our school was geared for college
preparatory students, but less than 50% of our students
went on to college. Many of our high school graduates
were not able to get jobs because they lacked vocational
training.

I worked with the teachers, the superintendent, the
board of education, and some concerned citizens to orga-
nize curriculum study groups. I hoped to initiate a new
vocational program, but the cost for implementing it was
over a million dollars. This was an ineffective incident
because we were not able to get the public enthused about
it and the voters rejected the issue in two elections.

We still have only the college preparatory curriculum.

EXAMPLE OF AN EFFECTIVE INCIDENT FOR A COLLEGE PROFESSOR

 

I was asked to act as a consultant to the board of
directors of a small marketing firm. This firm was in
serious financial difficulty. I carefully studied the
situation and recommended several changes in the organi-
zation; these included marketing procedures, staff
training and corporate structure. My objective was to
save the firm from financial ruin. On July 1, 1964 the
board reorganized the firm according to the guidlines I
had suggested. This was an effective incident because
the firm has now developed a sound financial base.

 

. 'Jffl .

APPENDIX F

EXAMPLE NUMBER 1 OF CRITICAL INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION

The effective critical incident which follows was re-

ported by an Agricultural Extension Agent. Three judges

agreed with the category and subcategory classification of
this incident by the researcher.

One of the farmers with whom I had been
working had about 30 acres of muck...
and another 30 acres that could be
cleared. He was considering planting
potatoes on this, however it would have
required...a system to pump water out
and then later to irrigate the potatoes.

The circumstances:

What I did: I collected information on the kinds
and costs of the equipment needed for
potatoes (and) how many acres would be
necessary to recover costs. Provided
information (about) how this enterprise
and his present Operation would compli-
ment one another.

My objective: To provide him with economic data re—
garding the enterprise for him to make
a good decision.

Person(s) involved: Farmer and myself.

Results: He decided not to enter the potato enter-
prise and purchased another farm that

would compliment his existing operation.

‘1

Classification of Example Incident Number 1

Classifier:

Category:

Subcategory:

Researcher Conducting Programs Providing Technical
Information

Judge 1 Conducting Programs Providing Technical
Information

Judge 2 Conducting Programs Providing Technical
Information

Judge 3 Conducting Programs Providing Technical
Information

-181-

-182-

EXAMPLE NUMBER 2 OF CRITICAL INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION

The effective critical incident which follows was
reported by an Extension Home Economist. Two judges agreed
with the category classification of this incident by the
researcher, but none agreed with the subcategory classi-
fication.

The circumstances: On surplus food pick-up day, in coopera-
tion with the Department of Social
Services, I gave an informal demonstration
of the use of surplus commodities in making
pizza.

What I did: Besides making the pizza, there were samples
available, recipes, and a sign-up bulletin
board for sewing classes. Instead of nar-
rating the demonstration, I simply answered
questions.

My objective: ...to meet some low income families, to
make known the resource material available
here, and to get them to meet as a group.

Person(s) involved: About 90 peOple of income low enough to
, qualify for surplus commodities.

Results: Not only did they clean out my supply of
pizza recipes, they shared with me and
each other some ideas they had found
successful in making better use of surplus
food.....

Classification of Example Incident Number 2

 

Classifier: Category: Subcategory:

Researcher Teaching and Using apprOpriate method to
Communicating communicate or teach

Judge 1 Conducting Providing technical information
Programs

Judge 2 Teaching and Analyzing communication patterns
Communicating and/or organizing messages

Judge 3 Teaching and Motivating the clientele

Communicating

-183-

EXAMPLE NUMBER 3 OF CRITICAL INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION

The effective critical incident which follows was

reported by a Natural Resource Agent. One judge agreed

with the category and subcategory classification of this

incident by the researcher.

The circumstances:

What I did:

My objective:

Person(s) involved:

One way of using idle lands in our
county is to use them for cow-calf
beef farming operations. Many beef
producers already existed in the
county, but more emphasis was needed
to encourage this kind of an enter-
prise and to improve management on
existing farms.

I organized a beef producers associ-
ation to promote beef farming in our
county. A meeting was held to deter-
mine if there was enough interest and
assistance was provided to form the
organization.

To utilize idle lands and to improve
management of existing beef farms.

Beef Producers

 

Results: This was an effective incident as several
demonstrations on management were held
and there was a 100% increase in market-
ing of cattle through (the) COOperative
feeder sale.

Classification of Example Incident Number 3

Classifier: Category: - Subcategory:

Researcher Organizing Organizing groups to achieve

program objectives

Judge 1 Program Analyzing social, political,

Planning or economic situation

Judge 2 Organizing Organizing groups to achieve

program objectives

Judge 3 Teaching and Motivating the clientele

Communicating

-184-

EXAMPLE NUMBER 4 OF CRITICAL INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION

The ineffective critical incident which follows was

reported by a 4-H - Youth Agent. No judge agreed with either

the category or subcategory classification of this incident

by the researcher.

The circumstances:

What I did:

My objective:

Person(s) involved:

Results:

A real need existed for jobs for young
teens in my area. I made contact with
berry growers and the farm labor service
to use teens if I could get enough in-
terested...

I talked it over with the Ag Agent and

{got his blessing to put a notice in

the paper of the Opportunity. I gave
our Extension phone number for youth
to call if interested. I did not tell
our secretaries much about it other
than typing the notice.

To find youth interested in working in
the berry fields and to provide trans-
portation for them.

Myself, a fine office staff, and a
total of 182 youth.

Our office was swamped with calls for
about four days. Our secretaries were
not prepared by having a list ready, etc.
As a result, it disrupted our office and
caused rough feelings until I got it
straightened out.

Classification of Example Incident Number.4

 

Classifier: Category: Subcategory:

Researcher Administering .Managing work consistent with

resources

Judge 1 Program Analyzing social, political,
Planning or economic situation

Judge 2 Conducting DevelOping insight into and/or
Programs exciting people about develop-

ment potential

Judge 3 Teaching and Motivating the clientele
Communicating

BIBLIOGRAPHY

~186-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Biddle, Bruce J., Rosecranz, Howard A., and Rankin, Earl F.
Studies in-the Roleiof-theNPublic School Teacher.
Columbia: Social Psychology Laboratory, The Uni-
versity of Missouri, 1963.

 

Blau, Peter, M. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York:
Random House, 1956.

 

Borg, Walter R. Educational Research:, An Introduction.
New York: David McKay Co., 1963.

 

Brim, Orville G., and Wheeler, Stanton. Socialization
after Childhood: Two Essays. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1966.

 

 

Festinger, Leon, and Katz, Daniel (eds.).. Research Methods
in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: The Dryden
Press, 1953.

 

 

Fivars, Grace, and Gosnell,.Doris. Nursing Evaluation:
The Problem and the Process: sThe.Critical Incident
Technique. -New.York: The MacmilIan Co., 1966:

 

 

Flanagan, John C. The AviationnPsychology,Program“in.the.
Army Air Forces-..Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1948.

 

 

Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward S. and McEachern, Alexander W.
Explorations in.Role Analysis: .Studies-ofnthe School
Superintendency. New York:' John Wiley and Sons,
1958.

 

 

Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard,.and Synderman, Barbara.
The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1959.

 

Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland:
The World Publishing Co., 1966.

 

Kahn, Robert L., Wolfe, Donald M.,-Quinn, Robert P., and
Snoek, Diedrick J. Organizational Stress, Studies in
Role Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

 

 

-187-

 

Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psycholo of
Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

 

Kelsey, Lincoln D., and Hearne, Cannon C. Cooperative
Extension Work. Ithaca: .Comstock Publishing Co.,
1963.

 

 

Lasswell, Harold D., Leites, Nathan, and Associates.
Language of Politics-. Cambridge: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press, 1947 and 1965.

 

Lindvall, C. M. (ed.) Defining Educational Objectives (3).
Pittsburgh:~.University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.

 

Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo
Alto: Fearon Publishers,‘I962.

 

Maslow, Abraham.. Motivation and Personality. .New York:
Harper Brothers, 1954.

 

McGregor, Douglas. {The Human Side.of Enterprise.- New
York: McGraw-Hili, I960. . . i

 

 

McNemar, Quinn. Ps cholo ical Statistics-. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, I932. ,

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957.

 

Murray, Henry A. Exploration in.Persenali§y. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1938.

 

Ryans, David G. Characteristics of-Teachers- .Washington:
American Council on Education, 1960-

 

Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to.Educational.
Research. »New York: The Macmillan Co., 1958.

 

Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruc-
tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

 

Vroom, Victor H. Work and.Motivation.. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1964.. *—

 

Yoder, Dale. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-HalI, 1962.

-l88-

Articles and.Periodicals

Andersson, Bengt-E., and Nilsson, Stig-G. "Studies in the
Reliability and Validity of the Critical Incident
Technique," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48
(1964), pp. 398-403.

 

Archer, Vern B., Edelfelt, Roy A., and Herbert, Hite.
"Point Points the Way: Project for the Orientation
and Induction of New Teachers," NEA Journal, Vol.
54 (Oct., 1965), pp. 29-30.

 

Blank, Lane B. "Critical Incidents in the Behavior of
Secondary School Physical Education Instructors,"
The Research Quarterly, Vol. 29 (1958), pp. 1-6.

 

Burns, Hobert W. "Success Criteria and the Critical Inci-
dent Technique," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 38 (1956),
pp. 73-75.

 

Clegg, Denzil 0. "Work as a Motivator," Journal of Coopera-
tive Extension, Vols 1 (Fall, 1963), pp.*141-148.

 

 

Cooper, Bernice. ”Analysis of the Quality of the Behaviors
of Principals as Observed and Reported in Six Critical
Incident Studies," Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 56 (1963), pp. 410-414.

 

Corbally, John E., Jr. "The Critical Incident Technique
and Educational Research," Educational-Research .
Bulletin, Vol. 35 (1956), pp. 57462.

 

. "Reply to Hobert Burns," Phi Delta Kappan,.Vol.
38 (1957), PP. 141—142.

 

Fishburn, C. E. "Learning the Role of the Teacher," Journal
of Teacher Education, Vol. 17 (Fall, 1966), pp. 329-
331.

 

Flanagan, John C. "Critical Requirements: A New Approach
to Employee Evaluation," Personnel Psychology, Vol.
2 (1949): PP. 419-425.

 

. "Critical Requirements Approach to Educational
Objectives," School and Sociepy, Vol. 71 (1950),

 

. "The Critical Incident Technique," Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 51 (1954), pp. 327-358.

 

-189-

Flanagan, John C. "Personnel Research and the Better Use
of Human Resources," Personnel, Vol. 35 (1958),
pp. 50-59.

 

Fleming, Jack W. "The Critical Incident Technique as an
Aid to Inservice Training," American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, Vol. 67 (1962), pp. 41-52.

 

Glickman, Albert S., and Vallance, T. R. "Curriculum
Assessment with Critical Incidents," Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 42 (1958), pp. 329-335.

 

 

Hedlund, Paul A. "Cooperative Study to Predict Effective-
ness in Secondary School Teaching," Journal of
Teacher Education, Vol. 4 (1953), pp. 230-234.

 

 

Hughes, E. C. "The Making of.a Physician," Human Organi—
zation, Vol. 14 (Winter, 1956), pp. 21-25.

 

Jensen, Alfred C. "Determining Critical Requirements for
Teachers," Journal of.Experimental Education, Vbl-

Korb, David L. "How to Determine.Supervisory Training
Needs," Personne1,-Vol- 32 (Jan., 1956), pp. 335-
352r

 

McCall, Harlan R. "Problems of New Faculty Members in
Colleges and Universities," North Central Association
Quarterly, Vol. 36 (Fall, 1961), pp. 222—234.

 

 

McCreary, Anne P. "Determining Individual Needs of Elementary
Teachers as a Basis for an Orientation Program,"
Journal of Educational Research,.Vol- 54 (Sept., 1960),
pp. 20-24.

 

Myers, Scott, M. "Who Are Your Motivated.Workers?," Harvard
Business Review,.Vol. 42-(Jan.-Feb., 1964), pp. 73-58.

 

Schaffer, R. H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satis-
faction in Work," Psychological Monographs, Vol. 67,.
No. 14, Whole No. 364 (1953), pp. 1-2 .

Steiner, Kelley E., and Cochran, Irene L. "Simulated Critical
Incident Technique as an Evaluative and Teaching Device,
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Vol. 70 (1966),
pp. 835-839. ‘

-190-

Tracy, Norbert J., "Orienting New Faculty Members in Colleges
and Universities," North Central Association Quarterly,
Vol. 36 (Fall, 1961), pp. 214-221.

 

Wagner, Ralph. "A Group Sitaution Compared with Individual
Interviews for Securing Personnel Information,"
Personnel, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1948), pp. 93-107.

 

Walsh, Richard P. "The Effect of Needs on Responses to Job
Duties," Journal of Counselling_Psychology, Vol. 6
(1959), pp. 194-198.

 

Reports

Agricultural Extension Service. A Guide to Extension Programs
for the Future: VThe Scope and Responsibilities of the
Cogperative.Extension Service. Raleigh: North Caro-
Iina State College, 1959.

 

 

 

Allen, Lucile A., and Sutherland, Robert L.. Role Conflicts
and Congruences. Austin: Hogg Foundation, The Uni-
versity of Texas, 1963.

 

 

Duncan, James A. Training Cooperative.Extension Workers:
The Coordinated Approach.m.Madison: CoOperative
Extension Service, University of Wisconsin, April,
1957.

 

 

Federal Extension Service. Report of Programs in Extension
Education for Professional Extension Workers. Washing-
ton: U. S. Department of Agricuiture, ER&T-48, March,
1967.

 

 

. Turnover of COOperative Extension Agents. Washing-
ton: U. S. Department of AgricuIture, PDM-4, April,
1967.

 

Hill, Maurice L. and COpeland, Harlan. Guidelines for
Induction Training. Washington: Federal Extension
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, ER&T-186,
Sept., 1963.

 

 

Johnson, Alton C., and Cassell, Roy D.. Appraising Personnel
in the Coqperative Extension ServiCe-- Madison:
National Agriculturai Extension Center for Advanced
Study, University of Wisconsin, 1962.

 

 

-191-

King, William B. Certain Critical Requirements for.the
Job of the.Vocationa1 Rehabilitation Counselor in
Georgia. _Atlanta: State Department of Education,
October, 1960.

 

 

Lavery, William E., Heckel, Maynard C., and Johnson, Alton
C. Developing Job and Position Descriptions in the
Cooperative Extension Service. Madison; .National
Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study,.
University of Wisconsin, 1965.

 

 

Michigan COOperative Extension Service.4 Your Appointment.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, May, 1965.

 

National Task Force on COOperative Extension Inservice
Training. An Inservice Training program.for Coopera- .
tive Extension Personnelu .Topeka: H. M. Ives & Sons,
1960.

 

. Induction Training for County Extension Agents-
TOpeka:. H. M. Ives & Sons, 1960.

 

Olean, Sally J. Changing Patterns in Continuing Education
for Business. vBrookline, Mass.: Center for the
Study of LiEeral Education for Adults, 1967.

 

The Cooperative Extension Service Today: AIStatemopppof.Scope-
and Responsibility.t.Published for the 1957 Extension
Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), by a
subcommittee under the chairmanship of Paul A. Miller.

 

UnpublishedlMaterial
Alexander, Frank D. "Pretest of the Critical Incident Tech-
nique." Unpublished paper, COOperative Extension
Service, Cornell University, circa, 1965.

Clark, Harry E. "An Analysis of the Training Needs of

Wisconsin County Extension Service Personnel." Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
1960.

Coffindaffer, Billy L. "Experiences of Beginning Cooperative
Extension Agents and their Implications for.an Induc-
tion Training Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
UniverSity of Wisconsin, 1961.

-l92-

Corbally, John E., Jr. "A Study of the Critical Elements
of School Board-Community Relations." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1955.

Goldin, Melvin. "Behaviors Related to Effective Teaching."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wis-
consin, 1957.

Goyen, Loren F. "Critical Components of the Work Environ-
ment of County Extension Youth Agents." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, in
progress.

Kessel, Robert M. "The Critical Requirements for Secondary
School Business Teachers Based upon an Analysis of
Critical Incidents." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1957.

Kohl, Fred E. "Critical Requirements for Idaho Extension
Agricultural Agents." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, in progress.

Kosy, Eugene J. "Critical Requirements for Private Secre-
taries Based upon an Analysis of Critical Incidents."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
1959.

McCormick, Robert W. "An Analysis of Training Needs of County
Extension Agents in Ohio." Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Wisconsin, 1959.

Ranta, Raymond R. "The Professional Status of the Michigan
Cooperative Extension Service." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1960.

Other Sources
Flanagan, John C. Personal correspondence, June 5, 1967.
Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses,

and Dissertations.“ Chicago: Phoenix Books, The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1955.

 

U. S. Statutes at Large. Vol. XXXVIII, March, 1913 — March,
1915.

 

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield,
Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1965.

 

"IT'l'i‘llljllllllflllllflT