STATUS-ROLE PERCEPTIONS IN. THE TAIWAN EXTENSKDN GRGANIZATION Thesis for fihe Degree of Ph. D.. MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY Irving Rudciph Wyeth E964 bV1531,J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from —c—. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. Wok—+9499??? V x . P JUL? f4“ 2%; ”’5‘?H,’(},.‘xu\xi Q'- .q 1,1 .J -..‘(,',‘1!!: Ui\l"’r‘r""" ‘L;:‘AL {rufli'tlfl ,1)‘ II. ‘ ’5 , . ~. ., ’2‘: bunAlfls Hit-CHE b . N L Outfit: Imitkefir ABSTRACT STATUS-ROLE PERCEPTIONS IN THE TAIWAN EXTENSION ORGANIZATION by Irving Rudolph Wyeth The purpose of the study was (1) to determine and analyze the attitudes held by status-role groups toward the present extension organization in Taiwan and their perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change, and (2) to ascertain whether or not there was consensus between status-role groups with respect to such attitudes and perceptions. ~ It was hypothesized that status-role groups of the Taiwan extension organization (1) would not hold significantly differ- ent attitudes toward the structure and functionality of the present organization, (2) would not significantly differ in their perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change, and (3) there is no relationship between the consensus on the attitudes held toward the present organization and the consensus on percep- tions of expectations and needs for organizational change. The sample consisted of eight administrators, fourteen supervisors, nine- ty-one advisors, and ten specialists. From this sample, 119 responded to each of thirty statements dealing with organizational and administrative principles ap- plied to the present organization. Forty-six of the total sample were interviewed to determine their perceptions of what was expected and believed needed for or- ganizational change, oriented to each of the four status-role groups and self. There was a relatively high degree of inter-group consensus regarding the structure and functionality of the present organization. Such consensus tendedto be one of general disagreement to many of the thirty statements which described an effective and efficient organization. There was no significant difference in the consensus between administrator, supervisor, adviser, and specialist groups with respect to fifteen of eighteen ranked expectations for organizational change. The extent of agreement between these status-role groups was less evident when oriented to ranked needs. When analyzed, relationships between the consensus ’ Irving Rudolph Wyeth on attitudes held toward the present organization and consensus on expectations and needs for organizational change revealed mixed patterns depending upon par- ticular aspects of organization and administration in question. Findings of the study identify areas of inter—group consensus and suggest the types of stresses and strains confronting the organization. Results of the study imply the following for the Chinese Extension Chief and his immediate staff of administrators: concern for improved authority-responsi- bility relationships; professional improvement programs; improved cooperation and/ or coordination; organizational goal achievement; the carrying out of assigned responsibilities; consideration for the selection of more competent personnel; planning and decision—making; and, improved financial support for the organiza- tion. Implications for an American extension advisor are: the danger of mixing education with business and/or politics; adequate financial support; better plan- ning; job security; and, improved cooperative and coordinative arrangements. STATUS -ROLE PERCEPTIONS IN THE TAIWAN EXTENSION ORGANIZATION By Irving Rudolph Wyeth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education College of Education 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the many individ- uals and groups who contributed to the planning and completion of this study. The writer is especially grateful to Dr. Floyd G. Parker, doctoral com- mittee Chairman for his wise and patient counsel throughout all phases of the study (both on campus and during the time the study was being undertaken in Taiwan). His ever present guidance and support have been a constant inspira- tion throughout the writer's graduate program in Education Administration. Special thanks go to Dr. Walter E. Freeman for his continuing interest and numerous suggestions pertaining to the development of this dissertation and his thorough teaching in organizational theory oriented to the sociological frame of reference. The writer is indebted to Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover who willingly gave his time and interest helping the writer to focus on important components of the study and for his many suggestions growing out of his rich knowledge of role theory. To Drs. William H. Roe, Harold M. Byram, and George H. Axinn, the writer expresses his appreciation for their continuing interest in the deveIOpment of this dissertation. Special acknowledgments are due to Dre. 0. Don Meaders and Charles F. Sarle for their helpful advice. in Taiwan and to Frank Colling, American Extension Advisor, U. S. AID/China for his ever-present cooperation. The writer is deeply indebted to the numerous Chinese extension personnel who so patiently c00perated and who so willingly gave of their; time and views: To Dr. Martin M. C. Yang, the writer's counterpart and Rural Sociologist at the Na- tional Taiwan University; to Yang-Lien, Extension Chief, and his staff; to Huang Ta-chou for his countless hours of time assisting the writer plan, develop, exe- cute, and interpret the study; and, to Lee Yung-chang of the University's Exten- sion Department for his assistance. Finally, the writer is greatly indebted to his wife, Barbara, who willingly sacrificed much during the conduct of the research and its subsequent writing and who provided a constant source of help and encouragement throughout. Her ever present secretarial services are also hereby acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS AC KNOWLE DGME NT . LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF APPENDICES . . LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . Introductory Statement . Some Perspectives . Statement of the Problem . Purposes of the Study. Scope and Limitations Chinese Value Patterns and Their Relationship to the Extension Organization. Characteristics of the Organization and Its Personnel . Procedures and Techniques Used 11. ANTECEDENTS OF THE STUDY . Introduction . . Orientation to Taiwan. . . Other Cross—Cultural Studies . . Extension Organizational Studies in the United States. Related Antecedents of the Study. III. ORIENTATION TO THEORY . The Concept of Role . The Concept of Status. . The Combined Status-Role Concept. Consensus. . Operational Definitions. Development of a Theoretical Schema Assumptions. Hypotheses . . . iii Page ii vi vii viii GUIOONH {DO} 13 13 14 15 17 20 24 24 26 28 29 31 32 35 36 Chapter Page IV. METHODOLOGY 38 Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Thelnstruments.................. 41 StatisticalTests.................. 43 V. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . 48 Status-Role Group Attitudes Held Toward Present Organizational Structure and Functionality. . . . . 48 Summary of Attitudes Held Toward Present Organizational Structure and Functionality. . . . . 64 Status-Role Perceptions of Expectations for Organizational Change. . . . . . . . 66 Summary of Expectations Held for Organizational Change. . . . . . . . 73 Status-Role Perceptions of What is Needed for Organizational Change. . . . . . . . . 74 Summary of Needs for Organizational Change. . . . . 81 VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENSUS HELD TOWARD PRESENT ORGANIZATION AND CONSENSUS ON PER- CEPTIONS OF EXPECTATIONS AND NEEDS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Introduction. . . . . . . 83 Relationship Between Consensus on Expectations and Needs. . . . . 84 Relationship Between Consensus on Attitudes Held Toward the Present Organization and Consensus on Perceptions of Expectations and Needs for Organizational Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary.................... 97 VII. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 100 For Taiwan Extension Administrators . . . . . . . 100 For American Extension Advisors . . . . . . . . . 107 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Deficiencies of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................... 121 APPENDICES 130 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Status-Roles in Study Sample. Distribution of and Response to Interview and Attitude Schedules by Status-Role Incumbent Groups. Summary of Attitudinal Responses to Thirty Grouped Statements Regarding Present Organizational Structure and Functionality by Status-Role Groups. Mean Group Responses and Significance of Difference Between Status-Role Groups on Thirty Grouped Statements of Present Organizational Structure and Functionality . Frequency of Response and Rank Order of Combined Status-Role Expectations. Frequency of Response and Significance of Difference in the Consensus Between Status-Role Groups on Eighteen Ranked Expectations. . . . . . . . Frequency of Response and Rank Order of Combined Status-Role Needs. Frequency of Response and Significance of Difference Between Status-Role Groups on Seventeen Ranked Needs. Relationship Between Consensus on Expectations and Consensus on Needs According to Expectation and Need Categories. Page 40 44 49 55 67 69 76 78 86 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Relationship of Independent Variable to Dependent Variables.-..................... 33 2. Relationship Between Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . 34 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Tables........................ 131 B Nature of Status-Role Responses and Their Subsequent Classification by Expectation and Need Categories . . . 147 C UNEQl Program Instruction for Analysis of Variance Routing. . . . . . . . . 155 Procedures and Formulae Used to Develop Computer Program for Expectations and Needs. . . . 156 Written Program for Calculating Significance of Difference Between Two Random Variables. . . . . . . . . . . 158 D Interview, Attitude Scale, Non-Directed, Non-Controlled Participant Observation, and Document Schedules . . . 160 vii APPENDIX TABLES Table 1. Expectations Held by Administrators for All Status- Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank. 2. Expectations Held by Supervisors for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response andRank. 3. Expectations Held by Advisors for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank . . . 4. Expectations Held by Specialists for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response andRank. 5. Needs Held by Administrators for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank . 6. Needs Held by Supervisors for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank. 7. Needs Held by Advisors for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank . 8. Needs Held by Specialists for All Status-Role Groups and Self Classified by Frequency of Response and Rank . viii Table 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 145 CHAPTER I IN TRODUC TION Introductory Statement This study of status-role perceptions finds its rationale in the fact that an increasing number of American professionals are working as extension educa- tional advisors in many underdevelOped areas of the world. In fulfilling their duties and responsibilities, these advisors usually encounter an array of pro- blems to include, for example, those of cultural lag; cultural, social, and psy- chological barriers to change; traditionally oriented patterns of behavior; con- flicting cross-cultural value patterns; and, the lack of local skills, knowledge, and competently trained personnel to assume positions of educational leadership. The American extension advisor is apt to experience frustration and conflict which, in turn, impair his effectiveness and efficiency of operation. It is be- lieved that an extension advisor can substantially reduce such tension and con- flict and thereby provide more effective service to the local extension leaders and workers if he understands the total culture within which he is operating. Included in the host country's culture are numerous institutions. One is the organization responsible for the development and implementation of extension programs. A thorough understanding of the organization should provide useful clues to the advisor as he seeks ways to understand organizational behavior and the solution to extension problems. It is believed that many of the problems fac- ing the American extension advisor in cross-cultural situations can be solved 1 through organizational analysis, utilizing concepts, assumptions, and empirical evidence furnished by organizational theory. Organizational analysis not only helps the American in the performance of his advisory role but also should pro- vide valid data to the local extension administrator as he decides upon courses of action and predicts consequences of action. Some Perspectives A formal organization can be examined from several perspectives. One approach views an organization as a legal-rational structure of impersonal, for- mal relationships postulating rights and obligations and devoid of psychological considerations for individuals who comprise the organization. 1 In direct contrast is a second approach which finds its rationale in psycho- logical theory and is stressed by adherents of the human relations school. Em- phasis is placed on such concepts as motivations and needs; group dynamics; morale; communications; and leadership.2’ 3’ 4 An examination of the formal roles of participants in an organization (nom— ethetic dimension) in conjunction with the needs and personalities of individuals 1Harold J. Leavitt, ed. , The Social Science of Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963) pp. 11-12. 2Ibid, pp. 13-15, 45-56. 3Daniel Griffiths, Human Relations in School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc. , 1956). 4William F. Whyte, "Human Relations - A Progress Report, " Complex Organizations, ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1962) pp. 100-112. as a whole (idiographic dimension) enables one to cast new light on the dynamics . ... .. 1,2This of interchange between 1nst1tut1ona1 roles and 1nd1v1dual personallt1es. frame of reference combines perspectives two and three above. This study finds its rationale in the first perspective, focusing on the per- ceptions of status-role groups of a formal, complex organization utilizing role theory as the study's frame of reference. Statement of the Problem Taiwan's extension organization has been encountering serious difficulty in achieving its goals. The organization's inadequate structure and the Exten- sion Chief's failure to take appropriate action have consistently been reported by organizational personnel as the major contributing factors. The Extension Chief and his immediate administrative staff have considered corrective measures, but all proposals have been restricted to and have focused upon the development of a few diagramatic sketches for what they believe to be ideal structural arrange- ments. As Extension Adviser to National Taiwan University, the writer's services were solicited by the Extension Chief and his immediate circle of administrative personnel. In this capacity, the writer could not effectively advise without first acquiring the needed knowledge and understanding of this organization's goals, personnel, programs, and needs. 1Philip Selznick, "Foundations of the Theory of Organization, " Complex Organizations, ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1962) pp. 18-24. 2Jacob Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process, " Administrative Theory in Education, ed. , Andrew W. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, 1958) pp. 150-165. 4 Initial observation and inquiry revealed a substantial number of possible clues. Conflicting reports regarding intra- and inter-organizational problems were revealed as possible impediments to goal attainment. As the initial search for additional clues continued, factual items were observed and recorded in an attempt to reveal new questions, provide further evidence, and uncover possible relationships between observations and explanations. Coupled with a review of existing concepts, assumptions, and empirical evidence comprising organization- al theory, it became apparent that Taiwan's extension leaders had given little or no consideration to the expressive activity of the organization, which in this case, represented the perceptions of all personnel regarding organizational improve- ments. How did each of the status—role groups (administrators, supervisors, ad- visors, and specialists) perceive their organization? What perceptions did such groups hold for each other regarding what they expected for organizational change and what did they believe was m to bring about such change? What percep- tions did the status-role groups hold with respect to the actual functionm of their present organization compared to how the organization ought to function. Was there consensus on these perceptions? If so, to what extent? Did there exist a relationship between the three variables, namely (1) consensus on the actual structure and functionality of the present organization, (2) consensus on expec- tations for organizational change, and (3) consensus on needs for organizational change ? These are the kinds of questions with which this study treated. Our center of focus was upon the normative aspects of status-role perceptions, name- ly, what ought to be, compared to what is. Purposes of the Study The general purposes of this study were: (1) to identify major organization— al problems in Taiwan's extension organization; (2) to provide valid, analyzable information of Taiwan's extension organization in order that the Extension Chief and an American extension advisor might more effectively cope with those organ- izational problems believed to be impeding goal attainment, to calculate conse- quences of action, and to increase administrative predictive powers; (3) to more fully understand the patterns, factors, and variations of organizational and ad- ministrative behavior within the Chinese culture, believed useful to an American advisor; and, (4) to offer insights and useful concepts for possible future exper- imentation conducted by the Extension Department of National Taiwan University. Specific objectives of the study were: 1. To determine the attitudes held by occupants of status-role groups with respect to how they view the actual structure and functionality of their present organization . 2. To determine the expectations for organizational change as perceived by occupants of status-role groups; to condense and "group" all such expectations into meaningful categories placed in rank order; and, to ascertain whether or not there is consensus between status-role groups with respect to such expectations. 3. To determine what the occupants of each status-role group believed was 1619M to fulfill the expectations for organizational change; to condense and "group" all such needs into meaningful categories placed in rank order; and, to ascertain whether or not there is consensus between status-role groups with respect to such needs. ..-.il... til . 1. .o . s ... I. .IIII w 6 4. To determine if there is a relationship between (a) the consensus on attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present organ- ization, and (b) the consensus on perceptions of expectations and needs for or- ganizational M. 5. To draw conclusions and propose recommendations in accordance with the data. Scope and Limitations The study was limited to status-role perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change, the perceptions held with respect to the structure and functioning of the present organization, and the determination of the extent to which such perceptions agreed or disagreed. Although Taiwan's overall extension programs were inter-organizational in sc0pe, the study was further limited to the single organization responsible for the development and implementation of extension, namely, the Farmer's Asso- ciation collectivity. Both vertical and horizontal patterns of relationships, or more specifically, the perceptions between superordinates, subordinates, and peers were considered. Chinese Value Patterns and Their Relationship To the Extension Organization Any analysis of Taiwan's extension must give prime consideration to the ecological context of the organization. This country's economic, social, and educational development more nearly parallels that of a Western state, ranking second only to Japan in all of Asia. Industrialization and urbanization are commonplace phenomena. Deep-rooted traditional social values continue to play a vital role in the daily lives of these people. Knowledge of these societal values is imperative to an American advisor as he attempts to understand the structure and functioning of a non—Western organization. The very fact that an organization may be inde- pendent does not preclude its divorcement from the culture within which it oper- ates. What are some of these universal Chinese values which ought to be consid- ered in a study of Taiwan's extension organization? Kinship and family patterns, although somewhat disrupted by the phenomena of industrialization and urbaniza- tion still play major roles in influencing behavior, especially in rural areas. Concommitant to this is the widely held value of respect for age. Even in the more formal interpersonal relations, one observes that seniority predominates. In like fashion, the goal of personal status is one which is commonly desired. The implementation of "benevolent authoritative" policies by the ruling Nationalist Kuomi ntang Party in Taipei to include denying citizens the right to vote in National elections but granting them the Opportunity to fully participate in political activities at lesser governmental levels are three political factors that significantly determine individual and group behavior. Formal education is strongly revered and is more likely to be viewed as an end in itself. Classroom teachers at each level of education occupy the high- est positions of status within the culture. Their wisdom and counsel is seldom challenged. Teaching methods within the classroom rely almost entirely upon the lecture method and great emphasis is placed on memorization of subject- matter. In contrast. extension personnel have been attempting to utilize more informal techniques of teaching as they work directly with rural people in an adult educational setting. There is the strong inherent desire on the part of many Chinese to strive for white-collar rather than blue-collar positions. Ex- cept for extension personnel, many educators are reluctant to engage in practi— cal pursuits which, at times, may involve "the rolling up of white shirt sleeves and the dirtying of ones hands. " Using an ideal-typical bureaucratic model1 as a base for cross-cultural comparison, the following characteristics based on Chinese cultural value pat- terns. seem appropos to the Taiwan extension organization. This bureaucracy was neither completely charismatic nor legal—rational although it exhibited a growing tendency toward the latter. The Extension Chief and his superiors were not entirely free to decide up- on courses of action. In addition to being subject to authority with respect to their impersonal official obligation, they were responsible to the policies of the ruling Nationalist Party who initially appointed them to their positions. Although technical qualifications were supposedly employed as a b a sis f o r se 1 e c - tion of personnel at all levels, recruitment tended to be subjective and "particu- laristic" rather than "universalistic. " Yet, extension employees did represent divergent class, ethnic, and religious groups. The Extension Chief was subject to strict and systematic discipline and control by his superordinates in the conduct of his office. This characteristic applied to lesser administrators and supervisors as well. All extension positions 1 Robert V. Presthus, "Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organization," Social Forces, Vol. 38, 1959, p. 103. constituted a career. Only under certain defined circumstances did the employ— ing township, county, and provincial managers terminate one's employment. Characteristics of the Organization and Its Personnel Extension education, as one of several services provided to 1, 000,000 rural families by Taiwan's highly bureaucratized Farmer's Association, was and still is the function of approximately 1, 000 men and women hired and controlled by township, county, and provincial association managers and their respective boards of elected directors. All associations at each operational level within the hierarchy functioned as semi-autonomous units. The Provincial Extension Chief and his staff of administrators were unable to exercise any degree of control over the county supervisors. In a similar fash- ion, there was a minimum of authority, power, and/ or control inherent in county supervisory positions with respect to their relations to township extension advis— ors. Superordinate-subordinate relationships within the extension hierarchy were largely restricted to such functions as influence, communication, joint program planning, personnel training, technical assistance, and the dissemina- tion of knowledge . Formal authority in all extension matters rested with indivi- dual association managers. Extension personnel at all levels were often required to conduct Farmer Association business and to implement rural policies developed by the National- ist government. Such non-educational activities were in direct opposition to extension's delegated role of education outlined by a contract signed by the Chin- ese and United States governments and the Farmer's Association. 10 Extension's annual budget of one-and-one-half million dollars was jointly shared by governmental and Farmer Association units at all levels, by farm fam- ily contributions, and by the United States Government. As an arm of China's Nationalist Government, the United States AID/Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction provided an Extension Division with ten ex- tension specialists, assigned the role of providing technical and financial assist- ance to on-going extension programs. All 850 township extension advisors as well as all 85 county extension super- visors had completed no less than secondary levels of formal education. By and large, these individuals were conscientious and hard working. Their financial rewards were minimal but their positions carried a relatively high degree of esteem and prestige as viewed by their clienteles. The Extension Chief and his administrative staff of seven were all college- trained and had accepted opportunities for professional improvement through formal and informal educational experiences in EurOpe, Japan, or the United States. Each was proficient in two or more languages, including English. Of significance to the investigator was the fact that (1) the Extension Chief's posi- tion carried the requirement that he be a member of the ruling Chinese Nation- alist (Kuomintang) party, (2) the Extension Chief, as a political appointee, had little previous knowledge of extension and had performed his role as Chief for only one year. All ten specialists were generally recognized by their colleagues as Tai- wan's extension elite, endowed with considerable know-how, enthusiastic, highly trained in Taiwan, mainland China, and/or the United States, and dedicated workers . L....\ -J.. HI... .H a . . E .. ...-..It... - . .....f...... .H. ,. I. .....J-.|...4..m M343 . ...? ..r. , . civilllt 11 At the time of the study, the great majority of extension personnel were well aware of their organizational problems and frankly discussed these dilem- mas with their superiors, subordinates, peers, constituents, and the writer. Procedures and Techniques Used A review of all available literature in Taiwan was undertaken in an effort to identify and formulate the final problems with which this study dealt. Numer- ous American and Chinese sources were and have since been explored. Refer- ences to similar research conducted within American organizations, to include extension, were studied. Insofar as could be determined, no similar investi- gations had ever been reported as having been planned for or conducted by the Chinese with respect to their own organizations. Frequent contact was estab- lished and maintained with local Chinese and American educators, sociologists, and other professionals so as to profit from their breadth of experience and knowledge. Based on the foregoing, a study design was developed to incorporate con- cepts of role theory. The theoretical formulations of Getzels, 1 Loomis, 2 and 9 Parsons3 and readings of such authorities as Etzioni, 4 Gross, 5 and Linton, 1Getzels, loc. cit. 2Char1es Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 1960) pp. 1-56. . 3Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, eds. ,Toward A General Ther of Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951). 4Amitai Etzioni, ed. , Complex Organizations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1962). 5Neal Gross, Ward Mason, and Alexander McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958). 6Ralph D. Linton, The Study of Man (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1936). 7Ralph D. Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. , 1945). ‘LIII. ii- i I, 12 to mention but a few, have since supplemented and complemented the initial re- search design. These authorities, as a totality, provided clues for a frame of reference which makes it possible to examine status-role perceptions with re- spect to organizational expectations and needs, as well as the structure and func- tionality of the present extension organization. A series of instruments was deveIOped to include interview, attitude scale, observation, and document schedules. The interview and attitude scale sched- ules were pre—tested among several extension personnel of the Farmer's Asso- ciation (excluding those in the study sample) as well as among Chinese and Amer- ican professionals not directly associated, but familiar with, the extension or— ganization. Based on their suggestions, the number, scope, and nature of items on these two specific instruments were re-examined and reformulated. All data were collected by the writer—investigator, assisted by a Chinese graduate student in Rural Sociology and a junior staff officer in the University's Agricultural Extension Department. CHAPTER II ANTECEDENTS OF THE STUDY Introduction Oriented to the American scene, there has been an increasing tendency in recent years to understand organization structure and function through the appli- cation of role theory to the study of various positions. Such concepts as those of status, role, expectations, consensus, and conflict have represented typical units of analysis. The role theory approach to the study of organizational be- havior has made it possible to (1) focus on the conceptions, expectations, and performances of individuals occupying various positions within a social system and (2) to analyze the relationship of individuals to others within the system. In contrast, recent research of formal organizations in non-Western so- cieties, although providing the Opportunity to examine the implications of vary- ing cultural environments for organizations and providing useful insights into their structural and functional aspects, has not been oriented to role theory. Taiwan's extension organization, largely patterned after the American "model, " appeared to lend itself to the study of status-role perceptions inher- ent in role theory. It was assumed that knowledge of such perceptions would provide a means whereby major problems affecting the organization might be identified and subsequently assist the Chinese Extension Chief decide upon pos— sible courses of administrative action for organizational change. 13 1.. ... . .|v .l...l|» t .... .! I.~I." . K r . filming! in 14 Orientation to Taiwan Consultation with prominent social scientists in Taiwan prior to the study's formulation and execution revealed that none of this country's formal, complex organizations, to include extension, had ever been systematically investigated within the role theory framework. The Taiwan Farmer's Association collectivity, organized initially by the Japanese occupation government more than 60 years ago, was studied by Ander— son1 in 1950 following Taiwan's restoration to the Chinese Nationalist Govern- ment. His survey research uncovered numerous organizational weaknesses of a structural-functional nature to include among others the lack of intra-and inter-organizational COOperation and coordination; the splintering of responsi- bilities; the need for professionally trained extension educators; and, the dev— astating consequences of political involvement in organizational Operations. Recommendations evolving from Anderson's study formed the basis for a reor- ganization of the Farmer's Association to include a modern system of democratic extension education patterned after the American "model" but hopefully adapted to local conditions and needs. In the decade that followed, Chinese and American extension advisors be- came increasingly alarmed over the mounting problems facing the organization. By and large, only superficial evaluations were undertaken, largely the work of 1W. A. Anderson, Farmer's Associations in Taiwan, A Report to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction (Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, 1950) pp. 8, 11, 12, 29. 15 short-term visiting American consultants assigned by the United States Govern— ment. 1 As a permanently assigned American Extension Adviser to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction in Taipei, Celling2 exchanged views and developed plans with local Chinese extension leaders in an attempt to help re- solve reported organizational problems. Kwoh's3 progress report, encompassing the overall Farmer's Association organization, enumerated major areas of concern impeding organizational goal attainment. Problems of authority relationships, financial support, and person- nel competency were among those reported. Although each of these studies can be viewed as systematic attempts to identify organization problems, none was designed within a theoretical frame.- work, namely role theory. Other Cross-Cultural Studies Bureaucratic theory seemingly provides the theoretical framework for all organizational studies of a cross-cultural nature reviewed in existing literature. Concepts of role, status, and consensus which serve to focus upon the basic con- tent and process in the bureaucratic situation through the active involvement of individuals and which serves to synthesize information gained from other relevant 1 Reports on file. Agricultural Extension Division, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, Taipei, Taiwan. 2Ibid. 3Min-hsioh Kwoh, Improvement Program of the Farmer's Association in Taiwan, A Report to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction (Taipei, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, 1960). . .t . 4.. .Dllu‘VQIj. ... 16 areas is lacking in all such studies. Instead, emphasis has been placed upon formal structure and the effects of the surrounding milieu on the bureaucracy as well as concentration on the culturally prescribed behavior which conforms to normative standards of the particular society. Bradburn's research1 points out a few of the problems characteristic of Turkish bureaucracies which arise when peeple who have been socialized into one pattern of interpersonal relations try to operate in an organizational setting that was developed in the context of a different pattern of inter-personal relations. This study has useful application to our analysis of Taiwan's extension organiza- tion. A "pattern analysis" approach by Presthus2 based on existing social values of two Middle Eastern States demonstrates the functional relations between tra- ditional culture values and organizational behavior. It is his thesis that organ- izational change must rest upon deeper cultural change than by mere microscopic analysis of a bureaucratic structure. In a study of the Turkish coal industry, Presthus3 concluded that the Weberian model was useful in his cross-cultural analysis. Like other organizational analyses of complex organizations of the non- western world, Soemardjan's study4 focused on cultural values and their effect 1Norman Bradburn, "Interpersonal Relations Within Formal Organizations in Turkey," Journal of Social Issues, Vol, 19, No. 1, January, 1963, pp. 61-67. 2Presthus, loc. cit. 3Robert V. Presthus, "Weberian vs. Welfare Bureaucracy in Traditional Society," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, June, 1961, pp. 1-24. 4Selo Seemardjan, "Bureaucratic Organization in a Time of Revolution, " Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1957, p. 182-199. 17 on bureaucratic organization and function. To him, organizational change is ef- fected only as there is both social and political revolution within a society. Abegglen's research1 on fifty—three factories in Japan revealed the im- portance of traditional values in sharp contrast to the pervasive impersonality in western organizations. A study of civil servants in Egypt by Berger, 2 which compared bureau— cratic and professional predispositions in the East as well as the West, revealed that there may be differences of attitude and behavior in spite of similarities in structure. Extension Organizational Studies in the United States Limited use has been made of role theory in studying American extension organizations. The comparison of the perceptions of county agricultural committee mem- bers with those of county extension agents regarding general objectives and spe— cific roles of county extension workers was studied by Wilkening. 3 Patterned after the Massachusetts superintendent's study, his investigation was essentially one of role consensus. 1James G. Abegglen, The Japanese Factory (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958). 2Morroe Berger, "Bureaucracy East and West, " Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 518-529. 3Eugene A. Wilkening, "Consensus in Role Definition of County Extension Agents Between the Agents and Local Supervisory Committee Members, " Rural Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 2, June, 1958, pp. 184-197. 93...... .3..." .. so... .[Ir 18 Brown and Deekens1 reported on the findings of a study which focused on the role of extension specialists as conceived by themselves and the perceptions of role expectations held by researchers, extension administrators, and county agents. In another investigation, Wilkening2 studied role conflict and role consen- sus as they relate to role performance. He viewed stress within the extension organization as a resultant of present (or past) behavioral situations and situa- tions as the extension individuals would like to see them. The variables of sex, age, length of service, and status in the extension organization were revealed as factors of influence in role consensus. Role expectations of county agricultural agents and their superiors held toward the job of the supervisor were studied by Durfee. 3 Extensive differences were found between the expectations held by agents and those held by their super—- visors on all of 96 supervisory or responsibility items. Differences also exis- ted between agents reporting to the same supervisor, between agents reporting to different supervisors in the same state, and between supervisors in the same state . 1Emory T. Brown and Albert Deekens, "Roles of the Extension Subject- Matter Specialist, " Rural Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 3, September, 1958, pp. 263- 276. 2Eugene A. Wilkening, Role Discrepancy as a Measure of Stress in Coop- erative Extension Work, Preliminary Report No. 2 (Madison, Wisconsin: De- partment of Rural Sociology, March, 1956). 3Arthur E. Durfee, "Expectations Held Toward the Extension Supervisor's Role, " An Abstract of a Dissertation (Ithaca: Cornell University Extension Ser- vice, 1956). I! .... III-ll I: it? ... .. . . I. II 5 ... .... . .. . . 1 .44 4 of r ’4, 19 Perceptions of role expectations and role performance of advisory com- mittee members in the county extension organization were studied by Bible and Brown. 1 They found a high consensus on role expectations as well as role per- formance perceptions between and among two sets of role definers. In Michigan, Caul2 studied county extension director perceptions regard- ing administrative roles. He reported on (1) the difference in the importance of the consensus on expectations held for various administrative processes in the county extension director position as perceived by the respondent groups, and (2) the difference in the consensus within each position group and between the county extension director group and each of the other respondent groups on the perceived expectations and their importance as held for responsibilities and ac- tivities of the county extension director position. An attempt was made by Wilkening3 to determine how county extension agents had performed their roles in the past compared to how such agents felt they ought to be performed. Ferver's study4 in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan revealed both role con- sensus and dissensus among county extension directors with regards to how they perceive the function of their position. 1Bend L. Bible and Emory J. Brown, "Role Consensus and Satisfaction of Extension Advisory Committee Members," Rural Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 1, March, 1963, pp. 81-90. 2Denio A. Caul, "Perceptions of the County Extension Directors Admini— strative Role in Michigan" (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1960). 3Eugene A. Wilkening, "Perceptions of Role Definitions as Viewed by Agents, " The County Extension Agent in Wisconsin, Research Bulletin 203 (Madison, Wis- consin: September, 1957). 4Jack C. Ferver, A Paper Prepared for Extension 500 (East Lansing, Mich- igan: Institute of Personnel Development, Michigan State University, 1959). PTA!!! I1.I{l|..ly'iv .|4 ... ..t, II.I0.¢?.P'1§‘1 . .v Q .. . .I .Iu .11.“! &‘ 20 Related Antecedents of the Study Based on findings, Jacobson, Charters, and Liebermanl have suggested that a more extensive application of role theory to the analysis of complex struc- tured organizations should lead to a better understanding of the functioning of the organizations. To them, the degree of integration existing within an organiza- tion at any time stems in part from the degree of consensus or sharing of expec- tations. Behavior can be predicted more accurately in an organization when con- sensus is highly developed than in one where it is relatively underdeveloped even though formal organizational charts are identical. Reissman2 tested the significance of the difference of frequencies on de- lineated categories resulting from questions asked respondents about how each individual conceived his role in an organization. He found the concept of role to be a valuable tool for the study of a bureaucracy. A study of naval leadership by Scott3 was concerned with the problem of how the social structure of an organization is perceived by its members. He ex- amined the perceptions of the members comprising the organization to determine the nature and extent of the deviations from formal organizational charts in use. 1Eugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters, Jr., and Seymour Lieberman, "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations," The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1951, pp. 18-20. 2Leonard Reissman, "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy, " Social Forces, Vol. 27, Nos. 1-4, October, 1948-May, 1949, pp. 305-310. 3Ellis L. Scott, Leadership and Perceptions of Organization (Columbus: The Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, 1956). 21 Scott concluded that an organization as perceived by its members may be quite different from the organization as formally defined. A total of 57 civilian and military administrators were asked by Stogdill1 to describe what they do and what they ought to do on forty-five items of work performance. Data was analyzed in terms of relations between expectations and performance as well as in terms of discrepancies between expectations and per- formance. Role theory has provided the framework for an increasing array of investi- gations related to the American public school. Of particular interest are those which describe the relationship of school administrators to such other groups as the teaching staff, school board, and community. Primary concern is with those dealing with staff relations. Chase's study2 demonstrated that teacher morale and satisfaction are related to participation in planning and formulating policies. Teacher satisfaction was studied from the point of view of teacher involvement in decision making. 3 Schultz4 found that administrative practices and procedures were of primary importance in determining roles. 1Ralph M. Stogdill, Ellis L. Scott, and William E. Jaynes, Leadership and Role Expectations, Ohio Studies in Personnel, Monograph R-84 (Columbus: Ohio State University, March, 1962). 2Francis S. Chase, "How to Meet Teacher's Expectations of Leadership, " Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 1, April, 1953, pp. 1-4. 3"Who Should Make Such Decisions ?" Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 3, April, 1955, pp. 1-4. 4Raymond Schultz, "Keeping Up Teacher Morale, " Nation's Schools, Vol. 50, October, 1952, pp. 53-56. 22 A determination of how the superintendent and staff perceived the actual behavior of a school administrator compared to how the administrator should be- have was made by Halpin. 1 Bidwell's study2 indicated the usefulness of role theory in the study of ad- ministrative behavior. It revealed the importance of the superordinate-subordin- ate duality for effective organizational performance. Buffington:3 and Medsker4 studied the role of the elementary school princi- pal as viewed by parents and teachers. The teacher group expected leadership from their principal while the parents tended to see the role of the principal as one of organizing, implementing, and working with groups. In their relation to parents, the teachers saw their role as one of coping with parental pressures whereas the parents held no expectation at all for the principal's behavior toward teachers. The extensive study of educational administration by Gross, Mason, and McEachern5 using the role analysis approach provided the theoretical formulation 1Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1956). 2Charles E. Bidwell, "Some Effects of Administrative Behavior: A Study in Role Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1957, pp. 163-181. 3Reed L. Buffington, "The Job of the Elementary School Principal As Viewed by Parents" (Doctor's thesis, Stanford University, 1954). 4Leland L. Medsker, "The Job of the Elementary School Principal As Viewed by Teachers" (Doctor's thesis, Stanford University, 1954). 5Gross, et al., 100. cit. 23 for Bible's examination1 of the relation between teacher effectiveness and con- sensus on role definition and role performance involving vocational agricultural teachers and school administrators. Lacognata's study2 among faculty and students at Michigan State Univer- sity revealed relatively high degrees of consensus and convergence on the norm— ative aspects of role behavior. . Although the foregoing review of studies,which have applied concepts of role theory to organizational and administrative analyses, has provided useful insights, none is directly applicable to the nature of the problem confronting the Taiwan extension organization. Moreover, none of the organizational studies of a cross-cultural nature utilized one or more concepts of role theory. No attempt was made in Taiwan to first secure information regarding per- ceived role definitions. Attention centered on what each of the status—roles ex- pected and believed was needed (of others and of themselves) for organizational change and how such individuals viewed the structure and functioning of their pre- sent organization. The focus was upon the interrelationship and extent of con- sensus between all status-role groups within the extension hierarchy and thus not limited to any one or two positional groups. 1Bond L. Bible and James D. McComas, "Role Consensus and Teacher Effectiveness," Social Forces, Vol. 42, No. 2, December 1963, pp. 225-233. 2Angelo Lacognata, "Role Expectations of University Faculty and Students: A Social Psychological Analysis" (unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1962). CHAPTER III ORIENTATION TO THEORY The purpose of this chapter is to present and define a body of concepts in role theory believed to be useful in developing a theoretical framework for in- vestigating status-role consensus. Role Theory The Concept of Role Four interpretations of the concept, role, although not exhaustive, are rep— resentative of the major role formulations in social science usage today. One such definition is normative in approach in that it views role as the ways of behaving which are expected of an individual who occupies a certain posi- tion. 1 Thus, one interpretation is concerned with what an actor should do. In a second interpretation, a role is treated as an individual's definition of his situation with reference to his and other's social positions. According to Sargent2 a person's role is a pattern or type of social behavior which seems situationally appropriate to him in terms of the demands and expectations of those of his group. 1Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951) p. 280. 2Stansfeld Sargent, Social Psychology (New York: The Ronald Press Com- pany, 1958) pp. 351-355. 24 25 A third category defines role as the behavior of actors occupying social positions. Gross says, A role defined in this way does not refer to normative patterns of what actors §______hould do, nor to an actor's orientation to his situation, but what actors actually do as position incumbents. Sarbin's social psychological treatment of role represents a fourth inter— pretation. He says, A role is a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation . . . . A role, the organized ac- tions of a person in a given position, may be a person's own, or it may be the actigns of other persons not immediately involved in the reciprocal be- havior. Although the concept, role, is treated differently by different authorities representing the various social science disciplines, three basic ideas appear in most of the conceptualizations, namely that individuals (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations. 3 Most conceptualizations of role em- brace the normative element of social behavior. According to Gross, People do not behave in a random manner. Their behavior is influenced to some extent by their own expectations and those of others in the group or society in which they are participants . . . . Sometimes, the expectations referred to are ascribed to society; in other formulations they are held by members of the group in which the actor participates. Regardless of their 1Gross, op. cit., p. 14. 2Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , Inc., 1954) p. 225. 3Gross, Op. cit., p. 17. 26 derivation, expectations are presumed by most role theorists to be an es- sential ingredient in any formula for predicting social behavior. Human conduct is in part a function of expectations. If expectations are to be held for an actor, it becomes necessary to speci- fy his location or position in a social system, thus, consideration for the concept, status or position. The Concept Status Like role, the concept, status, is conceptualized differently by various authorities. Some distinguish between the two while others treat status-role as a single concept. Secondly, status can be viewed either positionally or as differ— ential ranking. Loomis and Beegle regard status as "the ranking of individuals, based up- on the consensus of members as to what traits and qualities are to be rated high and low. "2 Such ratings give individuals different status within a social system. In similar fashion, Gross conceives of status as the "differential ranking among a set of persons or social locations. "'3 A more commonly held frame of reference by most role theorists concep- tualizes status as "position" or "location" within a social system. For Linton, 1Gross, op. cit., pp. 17-18. 2Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Social Systems (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951) pp. 5-6. 3Gross, 0p. cit. p. 48. 27 "The place in a particular system which a certain individual occupies at a par- ticular time will be referred to as his status with respect to that system." 1 In a similar fashion, Parsons2 refers to status as a place in the relationship system. For Gross3 and Brookover4 the term position refers to the location of an actor or class of actors in a system of social relationship. A similar view is held by Westie who says, Inasmuch as one's position or status is meaningless without reference to others, the concept must always be defined in terms of interaction of persons.5 Sarbin6 and Linton7 view position (status) as equivalent to a system or collection of rights and duties. Statuses, as positions, do not exist within a social system at random, but instead, are interrelated. To locate individuals within a social system requires a description of their relationships to other individuals. In addition, positions 1Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. , 1945) p. 76. 2Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951) pp. 88-96. 3Gross, Op. cit., p. 48. 4Wilbur B. Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education (New York: American Book Company, 1964) p. 323. 5Charles M. Westie, A paper presented before the Sociology Section of the Michigan Academy of Arts, Science, and letters, Ann Arbor, March 23, 1962. 6Sarbin, op. cit., p. 225. 7Ralph D. Linton, The Study of Man (New York and London: D. Appleton- Century Company, Inc. 1936) p. 113. I .IIIII‘ ...IIIlI. ll..\lfl [II . .‘Ylil I‘ll... I ‘ illIll' Iflil 28 need to be specified situationally, describing the scepe of the social system in which the position is to be studied. 1 . . . . . 2 What Gross descr1bes as ach1eved or ascr1bed pos1tions, Merton chooses the term achieved or ascribed statuses. In either usage, the concern is for the manner in which an individual acquires his status (position) either by means of individual performance, competition, and/or achievement or by virtue of fortu- nate birth. The Combined Status-Role Concept As viewed by Brookover, the two concepts status and role are inseparable in social phenomena. He says, The single concept of status-role is the complex of expectations which apply to a particular position in a social system apply to the individual oc- cupying that position . . . . Status may be defined as the expectations which various persons or groups interacting with a particular position held for any occupant of that position . . . . The expectations held for a spe- cific person occupying a position may be different in some respects from those held for another occupant of the same position . . . . These speci— fic expectations we term role. We distinguish role from status . . . by identifying it as the expectations which persons or groups hold for a parti- cular occupant or action in a status. 3 Status-role incorporating both element and process is basic to Loomis' theoretical scheme for the analysis of a social system. In his words, 1 Gross, Op. cit., p. 49. 2Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957) p. 382. 3Brookover, op. cit., pp. 322-323. 29 The two-term unit, status-role therefore contains in the concept a structural element (status) and a functional process (role). Status-role is that which is expected from an actor in a given situation. Use of the com- bination 'status-role' in preference to 'role' makes it possible to eliminate from consideration such psychological concepts of role as 'agression role, ' 'glamour' role, and 'altruistic' role . . . . In his noted book, Explorations in Role Analysis, Gross says, The use of the phrase, 'the combined status and role, ' indicates that except for the locational function assigned to status, which is not assigned to role, there is little to distinguish the two concepts. The former refers to the ideal pattern, the latter to behavior which expresses the pattern. 2 Similarly, Linton3 sees little distinction between the two concepts. For him, a status, as distinct from the individual who may occupy it, is simply a collection of rights and duties. A role represents the dynamic aspects Of status. When the individual puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into ef- fect, he is performing a role. Consensus Another of the concepts characterizing role theory is that of consensus. Like status and role, consensus is conceptualized differently by role theorists. Reismann4 and Gross5 conceive of consensus in terms of expectations as- sociated with positions. Consensus on evaluative standards is assumed by Par— sons6 in his definition of a social system. 1Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton: Van Nostrand Co. , Inc. , 1960), p. 19. 2Gross, op. cit., p. 12. 3Linton, loc. cit. 4 . . Re1smann, Op. Clt., pp. 305. 5Gross, op. cit. p. 43. 6Parsons, op. cit. pp. 5—6. 3O 1 According to Newcomb, the concept of role is incomplete without consid- eration for the concept of consensus. Normative integrationist theories of society make the assumption that con- sensus is a necessary factor underlying social stability. In applying the concept to a study of complex organizations, Jacobson et a1 say, The degree of integration existing within an organization at any time stems in part from the degree of consensus. Behavior can be predicted more accurately in an organization where consensus is highly developed than in one where it is relatively underdeveloped, even though formal or- ganization charts are identical. Objective consensus is conceived by Newcomb3 as a necessary cementfor holding structures together, and as such, effects perceived consensus. In a comparative analysis of complex organizations Etzioni4 treats con- sensus as the differences and similarities in the orientations of two or more groups. In his words, The degree of consensus is a measure of the degree to which the or- ganization is integrated as a collectivity, though no assumption is made that high consensus is generally found in organization, nor that it is uni- versally required if an organization is to operate effectively. 5 1Theodore M. Newcomb, "Sociology and Psychology, " For A Science of Social Man , ed. John Gillin (New York: The Macmillan Co. , 1954) p. 249. 2Jacobson, op. cit., p. 20. 3Newcomb, op. cit., pp. 250-251. 4Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), p. 128. 5Ibid. 31 Although Etzioni's treatment of consensus is not associated with that of role, he advances the thesis that "no paradigm for the study of consensus is com- 1 plete unless it specifies the status groups among which consensus is measured. " This organization theorist suggests that "organizations differ not only in the de- gree of general consensus they require, but also in the degree of consensus they . . . 2 . require 1n var1ous consensus—spheres. " HIS proposal for one such consensus Sphere, namely, the state of affairs that an organization endeavors to bring about, seems particularly appropriate to the Taiwan extension organizational study. Operational Definitions Status-role, as used in this study, will be treated as a combined concept follow- ing Linton. A m will be conceived as being a collection of rights and duties, expressed through the medium of individuals. A £912 will represent the dynamic aspect of the status. Each extensioner in Taiwan is assigned to a status and oc- cupies it in relationship to other statuses. When he puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he is performing his role. Thus, there are no roles without statuses and no statuses without roles. Consensus will refer to the extent of agreement or disagreement between status- role incumbent groups, namely, administrators, supervisors, advisors, and specialists with respect to their perceptions of expectations and needs for organ- izational change and their attitudes toward the structure and functionality of their present organization. 1Ibid. 2 mg. 32 Expectations will denote what extension personnel of the four status-role incum- bent groups believe their organization, both structurally and functionally ought to be, oriented to the future but based on the present operation of the organiza- tion. Needs will refer to those things which status~role incumbents believe they and others must have (requirements) in order that structural and functional changes in the organization can be effected. Perceptions will refer to the way things seem to be to the various status-roles at the moment. An attitude is a predisposition to act. Opganizational structure will connote the "building materials" (the various ex- tension personnel themselves), the interpersonal relationships, and the final na- ture of the extension organization as a total social system. Organizational functionality, patterned after anthropological functionalists, will be understood to mean the various processes (communicating, coordinating, plan— ning, influencing, and so forth) in which extension personnel engage for the main- tenance of the organization (structure). DeveIOpment of a Theoretical Schema The theoretical plan of this study can be visualized by utilizing two separ- ate, but interrelated, illustrations. In Figure 1, page 33, each of the four status-role incumbent groups, as the independent variable, represent the hub of a wheel. Related to these 33 moEfimew Botswana 8 Houseaoefi we mEmsouflom A enema 3 .oz menses» 88388 Omega Rsofimflgwno new mlewmm we msoflqeenem no 255980 2 .oz unmask, 28888 32983055 was eufiesbm OHMWMMMMm “Home Enema Hammond gemstone—m we movgfifiw no 3.95200 macaehmfififigw 3 .oz mists, Hegemony mmsouw owemae Heefiafifiwwso ofiomumBSm no.“ mcoflfiegxm .«o meowuaoonem so newcomeoo 34 32.3.63, 2825an efifiusw “amusemen— mofifinmxw usecseaea cesium QEmOOBflOm -\./ Bonnmaflm 3 3e: manage 322335530 new meooz mo msoflaoenem so msmsemsoo mefiennmflfim an Eon ewsese Esoflmflsewno new 383.38% HO msofiaoenom so msmsemsoo .m 389.2. BASES, 23:32:: mefionumfifim 3 3o: amusesesa use 833% floweflgwuo Emma «0 “4.33354 no 965980 35 status-role incumbent groups are three dependent variables, namely, (1) con- sensus on attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the or- ganization, (2) consensus on perceptions of gxpectations for organizational change, and (3) consensus on perceptions of pe_e_d_s_ for organizational change. The theo- retical model as conceptualized here provides one of two approaches for analyz- ing status-role perceptions of Taiwan's extension organization. Figure 2, page» 34, constitutes a conceptualization for the second major approach. In this, the dependent variable number 1 ( to include status-role in- cumbent groups) is treated as an independent variable and, in turn, is related to dependent variables 2 and 3 (to also include status—role incumbent groups). Such treatment of the selected variables should facilitate achieving the objectives of this study. Assumptions Deducing from the theory and applied to this study, it can be assumed that the Taiwan extension organization, as a social system, consists structurally of a plurality of interacting individuals (administrators, supervisors, advisors, and specialists) and functionally as a series of various processes (organizing, com- municating, planning, coordinating, influencing, and evaluating). It is further assumed that this organization is composed of statuses - the collection of rights and obligations expressed through the medium of individuals. Moreover, each extension person assigned to a status occupies it with relation to other statuses. When each extension educator puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he or she is performing his or her role. 36 It is the thesis of this study that consensus is a significant variable for the study of social behavior and the functioning of an organization. A study of con- sensus seems incomplete unless it specifies the status-role groups. It is further assumed that there is no significant difference on the consensus between status- role groups with respect to how they perceive the structure and functioning of their organization and what they expect and believe is needed to effect organiza- tional change. Such an assumption constitutes the basis for the hypotheses of this study. In conclusion, it is assumed that knowledge of the extent of agreement and disagreement between status-role groups will reveal a more valid "state of af- fairs" existing within Taiwan's extension organization and should suggest means by which organizational changes might be made. If such knowledge can be deter— mined, status-role behaviors, to include those of the Extension Chief, should be better understood and predicted. Hypotheses General Hypothesis Status-role groups within the Taiwan extension organization do not hold significantly different attitudes with respect to the structure and functionality of their present organization nor are their perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change significantly different. 37 Specific Hypotheses I. There is no significant difference in the consensus between administra- tor, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with respect to attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present organization. 2. There is no significant difference in the consensus between administra- tor, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with respect to their perceptions of expectations for organizational change. 3. There is no significant difference in the consensus between administra- tor, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with respect to their perceptions of what is needed for organizational change. 4. There is no relationship between (1) the consensus on attitudes held to- ward the actual structure and functionality of the present organization, and (2) the consensus on perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is threefold: first, to describe procedures used in selecting the study sample; second, to enumerate the instruments developed and their use in data collection; and third, to summarize statistical tests employed for analyzing all data. Samplng Procedures Although the application of the principles of a mathematical probability in designing a sample provides the best known means of obtaining representative data, it became necessary to deviate from this more reliable approach in planning the study. For two of the status—role groups, namely, administrators (provincial) and specialists (national), it was possible to select a 100 percent sample without dif- ficulty. However, for the remaining two groups, supervisors (county) and advis- ors (township), the situation dictated the establishment of criteria on an a priori basis. The lack of adequate funds and time for the research, the shortage of trained and available Chinese rural sociologists to assist in interviewing respond- ents where language barriers prevailed, and the uncertainty of transportation fa- cilities proved to be significant factors. Personal consultation with Dr. Charles F. Sarle1 in Taiwan confirmed this methodology 1Research Consultant and Visiting Professor at the Colleges of Agriculture, Chung Hsing and National Taiwan Universities, representing the Council of Econ- omic and Cultural Affairs, New York. 38 39 For the selection of counties and townships, it was arbitrarily decided to select ten of Taiwan's sixteen counties and, in turn, to select one township within each of these ten counties. Criteria used for the selection of counties and town- ships were: types of farming areas; population density; relative wealth; size and composition of extension staffs; relative strengths of extension programs; and the extent to which the county or township extension program met its own financial needs. Criteria which were also established on an a priori basis for selecting the sample of supervisors and advisors from within each of the chosen counties and townships follow: the inclusion of one or more supervisors and/or advisors ir- respective of staff size, nature of respondent's position, tenure of service, or formal levels of education completed. (Such information, however, was secured and recorded at the time of each interview.) These criteria were fully met. Information was ultimately collected from fourteen supervisors in ten separate counties and from fourteen advisors in ten different townships located within the ten selected counties. To further strengthen the advisor sample, it was decided in the early stages of the original study plan to include seventy-seven advisers who were to attend one of National Taiwan University's Extension Summer Schools. This inclusion increased the total advisor sample to ninety—one. Table 1, page 40, shows the distribution of status-roles in the study sample. 4O 8332: 828333... 5. a .fi mu ”3 mason. .3; Sandman A: mewfiosoem eSOm .E :1. .3 2332.23. .3 3333s.. .3 320 2: S S 88338 has 858.com 08o: .33 mi. .33 83323... Z: 8 8m 28:64 . 3O 3388s meow .Gv :1. .3; 2332.3... cs: 3 mm 332235 .5 Sagas AG 0338 sow—«83mg AC mewfionoom eSOm .Emé .3 233.334 .3 Banana. .3 use 2: m w 2328883. seam 5 $ .02 33822 3832: has; on... 8373.3 REESE 295m 5 “sum Bestsej seesaw: “Em 38. .oasam seam a 33733 3 :osBEmE . H 33H. 41 The Instruments Six separate instruments were developed using Young1 and Lindzeyz as major sources of available reference. For interviewing respondents with respect to what they expected and be- lieved was needed for organizational change, a structured interview schedule consisting of open—ended questions was devised and utilized. To assist the in- terviewer in recording information, a set of organizational and administrative guidelines was prepared (see Appendix D for copies of status-role interview schedule forms and guidelines). A second device employed in the study was an attitude schedule scale con- taining thirty statements deve10ped from basic principles of organization and ad- 4 ministration as purported by such American authorities as Morphet, 3 Simon, Barnard, 5 Koontz, 6 and Neuman. 7 Each item was designed and adapted to fit 1Pauline V. Young, Scientific Social Surveys and Research (New York: Prentice-Hall, inc. , 1960). 2Gardner Lindzey, ed. , Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1954). 3Edgar L. Morphet, R. L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller, Educational Administration (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959). 4Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960). 5Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960). 6Harold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnell, Principles of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1959). 7William H. Newman, Administrative Action (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1951). 42 one or more of the following organizational groupings: organizational goals; work reaponsibilities and job description; decision-making; authority and responsibility relationships; recognition and job security; loyalty; span of control; leader selec- tion; cooperation, coordination, and communication. Each statement asked for an expression of attitude on a four-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. At the suggestion of Dr. Sarle1 in Taiwan, the commonly used fifth point on the scale, namely "undecided, " was omitted. This procedure elim— inated the possibility of indecision on the part of respondents and forced answers into one or another side of the mid-point. The purpose of the attitude schedule scale was to secure data with respect to how each status-role respondent viewed the structure and functionality of his present extension organization (see Appen- dix D for copy of this form). The above two described instruments were of prime importance and form the major basis for analyzing data in this study. However, other devices were de- signed and utilized during the two-year period in order to secure additional in- formation believed useful in testing hypotheses. Schedules for non-directed in- terviews, non-controlled participant observation, and documents were designed and used extensively, each providing pertinent data. A personal diary represen- ted still another instrument. Although a portable transistor tape recorder was purchased for the study, it was used by the investigator only to supplement the recording of observed data. Although all respondents were aware of the employ- ment of interview and attitude schedules, none was conscious of these supplement- al instruments which were h0pefully used in a judicious manner. Copies of each of these supplemental data collection forms appear in Appendix D. 1Loc. cit. 43 A pre-test was made of the interview and attitude schedules. For the for- mer, one of the American Extension Advisors of the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction and the writer's counterpart, Head of the Agricultural Extension Department, National Taiwan University, performed pre-test roles. For the latter instrument, pre-testing was carried out with these two extension leaders and twenty-two extension supervisors who attended an Extension Summer School at the University. None of the pre-testers was included in the study sample. Not all sample personnel were administered identical instruments. A total of forty-six status -roles were personally interviewed with each interview requir- ing approximately one hour of time. Forty-two of these interviewees plus an ad- ditional seventy—seven advisors (attending a training session at the University) completed the attitude schedule scale. Table 2 summarizes the distribution of and response to interview and attitude schedules by status-role groups. Statistical Tests All status-role responses to each of the thirty statements comprising the attitude scale schedule were coded and the information key-punched on IBM cards. Since the study was concerned with the extent of consensus between four status- role groups on each of these statements, an analysis of variance was in order. The UNEQI written program1 with its one option, a one-way analysis of variance involving unequal sub-classes, was ideally suited (see Appendix C). Considerable information, to include the desired F statistic, was furnished by the Control Data Corporation 3600 computer at Michigan State University. The F statistic, which 1W. L. Ruble, Use of Analysis of Variance Routines on the CDC 3600, Agricultural Experiment Station, Description 2 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Computer Laboratory, September 30, 1963) p. 35. .2528 833:. 8m ... .2330». 3359:: new H mHH mHH cw ww mNH mmm deHorH. 2: S S 2 2 S S msmzfiooqm <05 . o H How .H Hm Hm HVH HuH Hm omm MHOmH>U< 2 9833,8000 330 .N. H309 H0Q=m 0.HBN.HH0HHHH8HH< 008080 .N 038 51 2sz 2sz NHH N H N N H. 0< .NN “GENE 30sz A423 .093. 0H0H0 HHH mHH m 0H 3 00 o o N 0 H o m 0 000000 H000 H0: $00000 :0H003xm .HN 00 0000 000 003 < SN 00000300 00000Q $0000 000 00 000? :00000 0000 00 00000000 0000800 00 0000000 009 .0N N o m H H000000 00 0000 H0008 Q Q0 <0 3300800 < Q Q0 Hafiz 00000>0< <0 < Q Q0 0an 0000300000 H.400 m< NQ HQ0 0000000000 03 muz H0 3 H000 08000000500000 000 00000 .0. 0 025080 .N 0300 54 003000 02 00000 02000000 000w< 0000005 00000000 02000000 HNO’JQ‘LD NHH 0N >00. 0 00000000008 000000000 00000? H m N 0 00000 000 0000000 :00000 .00 00000000 0000 0 00 00000. .00 H080. <0 < 0 00 Nan 00003800 <0 < D Q0 HmuZ 00000>0< <0 < Q Q0 oan 0000300000 0<0 m< NQ HQ0 0000000000 3 wnz 0000000000 00000000 00000000000000< 080050 .N 0300 55 ** ** 0C 0G ** mg 00.0 No.0 0N. 00. 00.0 omH Hm.N 00.N Hm.H 00H H>.N 0N.H omH oo.N om.H 0N.H 00H o0.H mwN No .m 00H 00H mmN Hm...H omN oo.m 00H omH oH.N on. oo.N mNN mNH oo.N 00H 00H 00003300000000 0003 800000 02.00000 0000 0>00 HH< .0 .00000 00 00000008 00 0003. 3000 H00000000 HH< .0 0000300800 00 0.83 000000000000 00000 00 00000000 000 000.00 -085 23003583 .0. 03000 H0000 00 00000 000000 000000000000 00 0000000 000000& .0 .3000 000000000 00000 0000 00000 000 0>00 H00000000 HH< ..N 0050000 00000 000 0300 000000000 .H 00000 0000000000 @050 000000 0000000 h 0002 H0000. CHHZ 0000 -3800 Hmuz 00000>0< 00000000m 00000 0002 oHuz 0000? ..00000 0H2 0000000 I030000< 0000000000 00 00000000000 00000000 .5030000005 000 0030000 00000000000000 000000m 00 00000000000 0000000 30009 00 000000 0800000000 0003000 000000000Q 00 0000000000 000 00000000m 00000 0002 .0 0500. 56 .0000300000000 ... 00.0 00.0 00 .0 Ho .0 00.0 00 .0 0000000 000000004 .3 .000000 00 000000 ...... 2 .0 S .0 00 .0 00 .0 2 0 8 .0 -2008 2.0 5 , 00300000000 .2 0002000 000000 00000 00 00 .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 .0 00.0 om .0 000 0000 $000300 000000 0000000 000 000000 0003. .0 0000000 2 . . . . . . 0.0% 93 00 00. oo 0 00 0.0 0 S. 2 0 0000000000 000 000000000 00 0005 .0 00000 00000000 000 00000000000000u00000000< .000 000 00 00 .0 mo .0 on .0 S .0 8.0 2 .0 0800000 080 950 00000000000 0.00 0.. Suz Hmnz oauz 0uz 00000 00000000 0002 0000 0000? 0000000 0000000000 00 000000 0 0000. -3800 280000 180:0 000800 00008830 000800 0000000 00 00000 0002 0000080 .0 0300. 57 mg mG mfl mfi mG mar” ma. mm .m wmé wbé SYN omé Twim Nazn mmé mmé bod OH.N om.m om. owé ow. omé 2.4 om.m on .H mafia mwé cad om.N Sim om. ow. omé Sim Homage qoflfloomm< 938.3% 303 o5 N3 om .N 338 93 232006 58538 .832 .5 . .mnowmwooc E 983.0. mm m Eggnog :< .3 .maowmwoou :03 L838 Rafi 938 B b30535. v.5: mquhmefig‘ .2 maé .mcofimwomu 938 3 bafinoaao 9: 2m mmfiw noflau uEmwgo Eommnm .3 ooé 9833an .Homwimmsm 28 mm .H Eco 8 3.8%.“ 83%.» scam .2 3820 mm .N 2 bflnofisa mo 95 2E. .3 0280 ..ana 335% h 532 #309 OHHZ mum“ -30QO H mHZ mnomtfidx 398% mm 95.5 €82 oanz whom? summsm mnz 2895 moflowouao 3 $554 mEQEBSm 2:94am 883:8 4 239 58 ** mg mfl mg mfl ma— mwS om.N hm. mmé ©H.N math mad om.m mp. wwé uvmé mm.m omé omé on. 0N4 om. om.m 5.6.. aim ow. #wé wwé No .m oozw. om.N om. ow. ow. omd wm.m oo.N mm. Mara wmé om.m .3833 -383 3 3%: 0.3 mmuuagugsm .mm muomwzomsm 3 1..on mum whomtrgw . Nu am .mnon 50$ E 930% $8 3: $8qu cowmamfinm .3 4830893 “8 mosfiflpoaao 96: EEOmuom .om 428023 :03 L838 mo $58 388 "83.2“ Agape “commam .3 3.83 coow .393 no“ cwmfiawoomn 98 29:03 cowmamuxm .3 mUvaz fimflflom “mm moaao ..uawa oumsfim m 582 H309 OHHZ mum“ -30on HmuZ 383*; momaoammm 95.5 532 oHnZ whom; uhoasm wnz 33mg ..EESE mowuommumo 3 muaoafifim 0&6QO 6055300 3v 03.98 59 m3 mg ma cm. .3. Nw.N pdm mmé 3.4 mwd Zia omé owé omd on. wmé oo.m «AVA omé ZEN 22m Nwé om. .mumvam~ nowmaflxm Ho :03 103$ no“ nomofiokwv moon was H83 < oozm SN 55028 .8va Sada 08 mm .SmHZomam some 8 Umawwmmd muomtém Ho .8886 23. mwé 6N 33:00 mo :mmm ..Hmwmnwfi aoflmwoommzw mm .m 935$ m3 3 mm .8233 as go 333 BHE .wnobs no ”EM: 9% >9: om .H p939; m3“: $3086 9836 mufimbmawfiudw .“vm mogo 4::me 233% m 532 ~30? Snz mam“ -38on Hmnz oan whom? muomw>b< 389i 328% mm 95.5 532 mnz 28.95 -3583. mmEowmfimO an mucoSBSm 3&0on 6035.300 . «V gawk. n..v.-.~—-.-.vnv .-, .-—.-ow.-. 60 .35 .m 52: 89mb E onmufim r... E .622 mo. 9: am 8&0meme $295 523 432 S. a “523mm - i .Amm .m. 93 mm .m 88253 2 3353»... h 3 ~32 mo . 3 23.032me .. * Ame .N :58. mmfl 3 oBmESm rm .3 £8053me «02 n m: WC mG bmé «m4 mo .m mad aim HH.N owd omé ooé Hod owim mad omim wad ON.N .noflmumadwpo "H398”— nxm 55:3 mama: mm .m was “8368.3?“ «0 magnoxm 09¢ a 3 98:9 SHREBQV 3 noflaa ..Edwuo :onamn—xm 05 55?» aoflmpomooo oo.N 63.23800 mm .H 0.8 aoflfioomm< mLoEnam mfi 552» moflgflom aofimnflxm .mm .mm :oflwfivuooouaofimuomooo condo ..aama cumuSm m cums H.309 Suz 3m“ -383 Hmnz oHuz whom? 2833‘ nuoqsm 398% mm 930.5 582 wnz anon—«.5 $554 mmflowmfimo mp mucmSBSm 3:0on 83:50 .v 038. 61 on which inter-group consensus prevailed (at the .05 and . 01 levels) no consis- tent pattern of positive or negative reactions can be determined when all data are viewed macroscomcally. The observation that all status-role groups were in general accord in re- acting negatively to eleven of thirty statements seems significant in view of the fact that these eleven statements represented a diversity of organizational and administrative considerations. There was inter—group consensus on the follow- ing: extension organizational goals are E being achieved; the present system of organization does n_ot fulfill the needs of rural clientele and extension personnel; extension administrators do not understand the function of their organization; there is a E}; of clearly defined lines of authority and responsibility and subse- quent knowledge on the part of advisors to whom they are responsible; all exten- sion personnel do M share in decision-making opportunities; the organization does go_t provide for promotional opportunities; personnel do not feel secure in their jobs; administrators do 315g defend their subordinates whether right or wrong; and, the span of control with respect to supervisor-advisor relationships is no_t disproportionate . A further overview of the data discloses differences in the extent of con- sensus between statements as categorized and reported (see Tables 3 and 4) by all status-role groups. As related to extension goals, overall response to each of statements 1, 3, and 4 revealed consensus (negative reactions). A high degree of dissensus, how- ever, applied to statement 2. For statements oriented to work responsibilities, there was consensus on item 7 but inter—group dissensus (at the .05 and .01 levels) on statements 5 and 6. 62 Consensus indices for statements 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 pertaining to authority and responsibility relationships ranged widely from a relatively high degree of consensus on statement 8 to one of high dissensus on statement 10. 0f the four statements on which inter-group consensus existed, two (8 and 13) rep- resented a negative reaction while the others (9 and 12) showed mixed patterns. Referring to the four decision statements, three exhibited consensus and one lacked consensus at the .05 level. Consensus on statement 14 was one of negative reaction, on 16, a positive reaction, and mixed with respect to state- ment 17. Consensus existed on each of the four statements 18, 19, 20, and 21 ori- ented to extension personnel needs. For each of items 19, 20, and 21 the con- sensus was one of negative reaction and for statement 18, positive reaction. On four of the categorized loyalty statements, two revealed consensus, al- though slight, and two dissensus, one each at the . 01 and .05 levels of signifi- cance. Consensus appeared on both the span of control and leader selection items. There was a lack of consensus between status-role groups with respect to state- ment 28 but consensus held for the remaining statements relative to cooperation and coordination. Areas of inter-group dissensus (at the . 01 level of significance) applied to statements 2, 5’, 6, and 23. Whereas items 5 and 6 relate to work responsibili- ties, statements 2 and 23 represent two widely divergent organizational and ad- ministrative considerations, namely, extension goals and subordinate loyalty. Although the macroscopic approach as used above provides a broad over- view of inter-group consensus and dissensus on responses to all statements, a 63 focus now on microscopic analyses, helps to identify specific areas of agreement and/or disagreement between two or more status-role groups on selected items. The methodology used for this microscopic analysis is twofold: one, by objective inspection of the frequency of responses on all items by all groups as reported in Table 3; two, by interpretation of mean score responses in Table 4. In the latter, the lower the mean for any group, the greater is the concordance of expressed disagreement to any of the thirty statements by that group. Conversely, the higher the mean, the greater is the concordance of expressed agreement by that group to any of the statements. From Table 3, statement 6, it is observed that seventy percent of the super- visors believed that all personnel had been assigned definite work responsibilities. In sharp contrast are the specialists who generally disagreed. This same pattern of supervisor agreement and specialist disagreement held for statement 7 with respect to the preparation of job descriptions. Within the authority and responsibility category, significant differences be- tween two or more status-role groups are readily observed. Most evident is the difference between administrators and specialists in their responses to statements 9, 10, and 12. In each, the specialists held a more pronounced negative reaction than did the administrators. Supervisors, in general, joined with the specialists in reacting negatively to item 9. The specialists were alone in their general negative reaction to statement 10. By and large, all other status-role groups held the attitude that responsibil- ity in the organization i_s shared. In somewhat similar fashion, the specialists, as a group, were in more agreement (a negative reaction) than were other groups with respect to statement 12. 64 Closely related to the authority and responsibility statements are those dealing with decisions. Response to statements 14 and 16 is believed to be par- ticularly pertinent. All status-role groups generally were in accord that the pre- sent organization does 1191 give all extension personnel the opportunity to make decisions. On the other hand, they agreed that they _s_h_ar_e in decisions. As noted in statement 17 , the majority of administrators and supervisors generally agreed that major extension decisions are made by the local Farmer's Association manager. On the other hand, a larger percentage of advisors were inclined to hold somewhat different attitudes. The divergence of attitudes between status—role groups held toward state- ment 28 is worthy of note. Specialists generally disagreed to the statement, "Extension activities within the Farmer's Association are coordinated." Follow- ing them were the administrators who held mixed reactions. . As one then pro- ceeds downward within the Extension hierarchy, it can be observed that there is increasing agreement on the part of supervisors and advisors. Summary of Attitudes Held Toward Present Organizational Structure and Functionality There was no significant difference between status-role groups in their re- sponse to statements 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30. Thus, all null hypotheses relating to these twenty-one statements are accepted. Consensus on these twenty-one statements represented 70 percent of all thirty items. Consensus on statements 16, 18, and 30 was one of positive reac- tion whereas consensus on statements 1, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 65 26 revealed a negative reaction. The remaining seven statements on which con— sensus prevailed did not reveal any consistent positive or negative patterns. There was a significant difference of consensus between status-role groups at the . 05 level with respect to statements 10, 11, 15, 25, and 28. Accordingly, the null hypotheses pertaining to these five statements are rejected. In similar fashion, the lack of inter-group consensus at the . 01 level of significance on re- sponse to statements 2, 5, 6, and 23 necessitates the rejecting of the four hy— potheses relating to these items. The greatest degree of consensus between status-role groups was found in the response to statements 4, 8, 16, and 26. Consensus on statements 4, 8, and 26 was one of negative reaction and to item 16 a positive reaction. The lack of consensus was most evident with respect to statements 2 and 23. Specialists were in noticeable disagreement with administrators on such statements as 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 28. In each, the specialists were more inclined to disagree to these statements than were the administrators. Items on which administrators and specialists seemed to hold similar attitudes of agreement or disagreement were statements 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 18, 20, 26, and 29. Supervisors and advisors, who collectively constitute extension's field force, tended to express similar attitudes on items 4, 5, 6, 18, 22, 26, 28. Statements on which relatively similar attitudes were held with respect to the administrator and supervisor groups were limited to items 3, 10, 12, 17, and 27. Specialists tended to disagree more strongly to statements 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 23, and 26 than either of the other three status-role groups. n-no. 66 Status-Role Perceptions of Expectations for Organizational Change Hypothesis 2, page 37, states that "There is no significant difference in the consensus between administrator, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with respect to their perceptions of expectations for organizational change. " The total frequencies of response and rank order for combined status-role expectations are summarized in Table 5. It is noted that expectations ranked 1 and 2, when combined, constitute 35 percent of all 588 responses. The pattern of distribution for all 588 responses to include total frequencies for each of the four status-role groups as well as the significance of difference in the consensus between groups on all eighteen ranked expectations are summar- ized in Table 6. The bases for these summaries can be found in data presented in Appendix A, Tables 1-4. Referring to Table 6, it is observed that there was no significant difference in consensus between status-role groups with respect to fifteen of the eighteen ranked expectations. For expectations on which there was inter-group dissensus, numbers 6 and 10 are significant at the . 01 level while expectation 4 is significant only at the .05 level. It should be borne in mind, however, that a decreasing amount of impor- tance can be attached to any differences in the consensus between these four groups on expectations ranked 10 through 18. When the smallest expected frequency for any expectation is less than 5. 00, owing to too few responses, any interpretation that is made becomes a questionable one. For this reason, the following analysis of data concentrates on expectations ranked 1 through 9. 'MV‘ Ex: V IL" ‘ \- I B-.. 9' ‘5 7" 1 .HJ 67 Table 5. Frequency of Response and Rank Order of Combined Status-Role Expectations 1 Frequency Expectation Categories of Rank Response Order Improved cooperation and/ or coordination 105 1 Carry out assigned responsibilities 103 2 More competent personnel 71 3 Improved authority and responsibility relationships 47 4 Professional improvement 45 5 Improved financial support for Extension 40 6 Improved plarming 35 7 Better understanding of needs and problems 32 8 Avoid mixing education with business and/ or politics 29 9 Job security 20 10 Extension legislation 14 11 More extension personnel 10 12 Job descriptions 9 13 1Categories based on the condensation of 588 expectation responses pro- vided by status-role respondents. See Appendix B. 68 Table 5 . Continued Frequency Expectation Categories of Rank Response Order Respect for and loyalty to superiors 7 14 Higher material personal benefits 6 15 Improved morale 4 16 Expanded Extension programs 2 17 Miscellaneous1 9 18 Total 588 1Be more professional Promote enthusiasm Promotional opportunities Promote good relationships Quit complaining Spend more time in office Evaluation of personnel Exert influence Reduction of training costs 69 .33on uo>o§ md Sim 34. mod 3 mm.m N mmé 5 mad. N. 39:35 fits :03 nmospo wfifia 303w .m we 38 3.... 8.4 w :3 a 3.8 2 55 m 88263 93 6850 3353282: uofiom .w 6.: SA cod 3;. «A and m 36 m 36 3 .wfiqqfln 6263:: .b . . . . . . nowmcofinm .8.“ upoamsm .... mm an E m. 3 N m S m m E m; 8 mm m w 38mg... 638%: .e 6.: mad 36 meg. ma mm.m m 3.5 3 2.: S .azofi $5.39: Baowmmouonm .m .mmEmaoflflou i. $5 :6 3.2 cm is w mm.m ... 1.: S 3238882 was fiflofiqm 863:: ..v 9: $6 3.3 :3 2.. 8:2 2 was 2 8.: on 658.23 333800 p.82 .m .m.: S .N. :23 3.3 pm 36m mm 3...: em no.2 om 60323328de pocwmmmm «so >580 .m :01: cod 8.3 Harem .3. www.mm 3 3.2 an :.3 en .coflaficnooo 9035... :oEmquooo cognac: .H § Hmong“ “we 6lo mm $on o5 .mouh condogswwm ofimflfim .coum wmfium gum mmfinm mmaumm .820 “.3de E x 883$ Suz Snz Euz mufiz 38.5 Eoméasm m $238.0; 952.30on muomggw muomtfioazm maBmflm nonwnfioo mo maoflNuooaxm, Aswan}. 655.38qu coxcmm 5333mm no 3:95 BonumBSm noogom mzmcomcoo on... E ooaouomhn .«o oogowfinwwm and oncommom mo >825lo .o 2an uv.v--—--.-MV .mv .'-suu.-. 70 63 .HH :mfi 888.8 3 383:8 «x. E 88H no . 85 8 80:8on8.me 82:8: 833 88H 8. 8 883$:me n ...... .me .HH 98 Na .N 5232 2 3353.. Na 8 H33 mo. 3.. H5883 - ... .Amw .H. 52: $2 3 oHumEfim m: a: .88anme 8: .. .m .: m dsonw 88.7888 .3 6388: 88288: 8 893:: 88H. ...... .Qsonw 88:83.88 5 3:382:88: 8 88:32 H .md 3N NNH SH m o o NNH N $.N H., msooéHEomHHz .NH .m.: . . . . mgmwoam 3. N NN o o NH H H 3 H o o 865me 828%: .NH .9: Hm.N S. No.H N o O .NH N o o 222: 838:5 .8H .m .: . . . . . 958:8: 8:098: 3 N 8 Hm H o o mm H N HN H N 3.838 .8an: .3 . . . . . . . 23:895. 3 38%: m a mo H. 8 H No H N o o S H He N H. Ham :8 338: .H.H .9: .NH. NNH 3N m o o o o SN H. $833888 :2. .NH .m .c . . . . . . .6288: EN NH. H mm H N NH H H mo. H N 8 H N 86:88 2on .NH .m .n E .8 8 .N 8 .N m mm .N N Na .H. N o o .aoHHmHmeoH 565%: .HH ...... NH.H.H 3N Hm. H SN. N 3; NH SN H. .8233 n2. .3 Hm. $lo Hm. . .Hm Hm. Ayah AN. 62% 85.5 2.58.3.0. .82: 8H": Nmu: 8H": NNHuN: .828 :8: E :85 N: H.389": 0an 3% H.Huz "Hz 388 mHoméafim amonmfim 3388on 98335. 388.89% 988:8 “8:3:80 .8 SCESOQQNH -583 83:80 .8 038. It \I aFL I l . F. H. W». , p -\ 71 As one views the data from a macrosc0pic point of view, there appears to be a wide range within the "not significant" categories. There was a high degree of consensus, for example, between administrators, supervisors, advisors, and specialists with respect to improved planning, while the consensus became much less evident on expectations 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. A more detailed study of the data reveals possible clues to status-role dif- ferences as related to selected expectations. The most evident of these is ex- pectation 6 with a x2 value of 33. 28. It is readily observed that the supervisor group held entirely different perceptions with regards to the expectation for im- proved financial support. In fact, no other expectation was more commonly men- tioned by this group (see Appendix A, Table 2). One-half of all of their respon- ses relative to this expectation were directed at specialists. Supervisors were also largely responsible for the significant difference in consensus on expectation 4. Only two-and—one-half percent of this group's total responses pertained to improved authority and responsibility relationships. Again referring to Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, it is noted that not one supervisor held this expectation for other supervisors or for self. On the other hand, a sizable percentage of their superiors, the administrative staff, perceived this expectation for supervisors. Although less value can be attached to the statistic computed for expectation 10, it is interesting to note that supervisors again were in general disagreement With other groups, particularly with specialists. Table 6 reveals further areas of dissensus with regards to the advisor group. Most apparent is expectation 5. Professional improvement was mentioned only 72 two times. Only one advisor respondent perceived this expectation for himself and none for other advisors (see Appendix A, Table 3). On the other hand, their superiors, the supervisor and administrator groups, generally expected advisors to engage in professional improvement. The most frequently mentioned expectation by advisors was that of carrying out responsibilities (number 2). The expectation was perceived by them for all other groups to include self, but not held for other advisors. Advisors were more prone to mention the expectation, better understanding of needs and problems. However, the majority of such perceptions were directed toward administrators. No administrator, on the other hand, held this expectation for advisors (see Appendix A, Tables 1 and 3). Referring to Appendix A, Tables 1-4, a few significant observations can be noted. The expectation improved cooperation and/or coordination was widely held by supervisors for other supervisors and by advisors for other advisors, but not one mention of this expectation was oriented to self. Referring to expectation 3, supervisors generally expected advisors to be more competent but not other supervisors. In similar fashion, advisors expected more competency among supervisors, but did not hold this expectation for other advisors or self. The authority and responsibility relationship expectation was more widely held by administrators and specialists than by supervisors or advisors. Fifty percent of all status—role group responses relative to improved plan— ning were directed at administrators. None of the advisors perceived this 73 expectation for other advisors or self. On the other hand the expectation was mentioned eight times by each of the other combined status-role groups for ad- visors. Summary of Expectations Held for Organizational Change There was no significant difference in consensus between status-role groups with respect to fifteen of the eighteen ranked expectations. The lack of consensus was evident on expectations 6 and 10 at the . 01 level and on expectation 4 at the . 05 level of significance. The x2 values for expectations 10 through 18 were generally discounted ow- ing to the too few frequencies of response. Accordingly, null hypotheses for ex- pectation 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are accepted. On the other hand, those relating to expectations 4 and 6 are rejected. Within the "not significant" categories, inter—group consensus ranged from x2 = 1. 61 on expectation 7 to x2 = 7. 16 for expectation 2. Lesser degrees of con- sensus held for expectations 1, 3, 5, and 8. The most significant lack of consensus was evidenced by expectation 6. Supervisors perceived this expectation as being most important, especially ori- ented to the specialist group. Little or no mention of improved authority and responsibility relationships by supervisors was the major contributing factor for the lack of consensus on expectation 4. Only two supervisors held this expectation for other supervisors and none for self. On the other hand, a sizable percentage of their superiors held this expectation for them. Less mention was made of this expectation by 74 supervisors and advisors than by administrators and specialists. Advisors did not place importance on professional improvement for other advisors or self, but their superiors generally expected this of them. The expectation improved cooperation and/ or coordination was widely held by supervisors for other supervisors and by advisors for other advisors, but no mention was made of this expectation for self. Supervisors expected advisors to be more competent, but not other super- visors. In contrast, advisors held this expectation for supervisors but not for other advisors or self. The expectation, improved planning, was held by all status-role groups for administrators. Each of the administrator, supervisor, and specialist groups expected advisors to improve their planning, but none of the advisor group ex- pected this for other advisors or self. Status-Role Perceptions of What is Needed for Organizational Charge In the preceding section, attention was focused on status-role perceptions with respect to expectations which they held for organizational change. Such ex- pectations are normative in nature, oriented to a future state of affairs, and spe- cify status-role beliefs of what ought to be. In this section, the focus is on what these status-roles believed they and others needed (must have) if organizational change is to be effected, or more specifically, if the expectations that they hold are to become a reality. Hypothesis 3, page 37 , states that "There is no significant difference in the consensus between administrator, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups 75 with respect to their perceptions of what is needed for organizational change. " The total frequencies of response and rank order of combined status-role needs are summarized in Table 7. The pattern of distribution for all 606 need responses to include total fre- quencies by status-role groups as well as the significance of difference in the consensus on all seventeen ranked needs are summarized in Table 8. The bases for these summaries appear in Appendix A, Tables 5-8. It is noted that there was no significant difference in inter-group consensus with regard to twelve of the seventeen ranked needs. There was a lack of con- sensus on needs ranked 1, 4, and 6 at the . 01 level of significance and on 7 and 9 at the . 05 level. In view of the limited number of responses given to needs ranked 10 through 17, less importance can be attached to the x2 values indicated in Table 8. For this reason, the presentation and analysis of data relative to need perceptions will be restricted to needs ranked 1 through 9. Consensus between the four groups is noted only with respect to needs 2, 3, 5, and 8. Only one of these, the need for improved 000peration and/ or coor- dination, presents a relatively high extent of agreement. There is a greater lack of agreement between the four groups with respect to the needs for professional improvement and improved planning. The most pronounced lack of agreement is evidenced by need 6, namely, a better understanding of problems and needs. There is also a significant differ- ence at the . 01 level in the consensus on needs ranked 1 and 4 and on needs 7 and 9 at the .05 level of significance. 76 Table 7. Frequency of Response and Rank Order of Combined Status—Role Needs Nee dsl Frequency Rank of Order Response Carry out assigned responsibilities 97 1 Professional improvement 78 2 Improved cooperation and/ or coordination 64 3 Improved authority and responsibility relationships 5 7 4 More financial support for Extension 54 5 Better understanding of problems and needs 53 6 More competent personnel 48 7 Improved planning 34 8 Higher material personal benefits 33 9 Job security 23 10 Avoid mixing education with business and/or politics 17 11 More personnel 16 12 Extension legislation 12 13 Job descriptions 10 14 1Categories based on the condensation of 606 need responses provided by status—role interviewees. See Appendix B. Table 7. Continued 77 Opportunities for promotion To be flexible Respect for superiors More adequate span of control Frequency Rank Needs of Order Response Higher morale 3 15 Exert influence 2 16 1 Miscellaneous 5 1 7 Total 606 1 . Equality 78 0.50:3 H2823 ... 3 .m HN .0 pm .s 0H N .m 0 HA. . H HH. s NH ESQ—08 90:93 .m .32 $8 3.0 «as NH 3.0 N. 53 NH mm; m 05:53 8833 .w .H0qaomu0q ... 5‘ .N mo .0 0w .0 NH mm .N m mm .NH NH «.0 .w 0H E3388 0.82 .s . .0000: 93 080395 .3 ...... NH. 3. um .m 0N6 cH wméN NN 3.0 a E. .N 0 9263300098 u0fl0m .w m a . . . . . . 82233.0 as .3 N 0H 3 as m HH ow HH NH 8 3 H mm m 0H «Hogan H2235“ 0.82 .m .dem ...... Nm .3 NH. .3 mo .HH HN c o 5 .NH NH me .3 NH £3332 3:33:33“ uonfiH—a 00163:: .H. . . . . . . . . .aoflafivuooo SEEN 0 a N0 H .3 NH co 3 NH 0H NH 3 3. HH 0H 00 w H 853038 608.325 .N . . . . . . . . .308 m a on m 5 HQH 3 0H NN cm H. m 0H NH NH Hum NH N 05095 quonmflonnH .N . 00323822302 ...... Hm .HH mN .NH 0H .NH N on .NH NN mm .m NH 3. .NN mm 08300.0 :5 3.80 .H my 69$ m. .d0um Hm. $0M $3 Hugh 858 339% .8; 870 370 3.70 27% $0.5 ism E 10806 New aflooaxm Suz Euz «.72 may“? 3:80 0303330 $03.26 mumHHmHoam 0.8325 mpomHEgH—m uHEEBH 605,380 mo 06002 06002 USESH =03s0>0m no 095.5 0Hom|033m :00250m 080.8me Ho 00§oHHEmHm 65w 0mnomm0m .Ho mon0sd0uh .0 030a. 79 .00 .00 500 03800 00 38030 x a 0080 no. 05 00 0000000000000 0030000 0023 H0>0H H0 . 00 00000000000 u ...... N .00 .00 05 00 .0 82380 2 000080 «x 8 880 no. 8 0800808 .. ... .AN0 .0. 0.000 0000 00 00000030 N0 05 00000000000 80 n .0 .0 0 00000 08003.30 .3 0300000 000000000 00 0000000 0080. N .0800 000003000 00 00000000000 8 80082 H .0.0 0N0. 00. mm. H 00. H 00H N N0. H 0000000000002 EH .0 .0 00. .H 00 . mm. H 0 0 H0. . H o 0 000000.000 000000 .0H 8.0 3.0 00. 8.0 a 00. 0 o o o o 88.88 .8005 .00 .0 .0 00 .0 00 .H 00 .H m 0 0 H0. . H S. .0 0 000000000000 00H. :3 . . . . . . . . 800882 0 0 00 H 0N N 00 H m 00 N m 00 N v 0N H N 0000000030 .2 0 .0 on .0 Ho .0 00 .N m 00. H 00 .H N 00 .0 0 000000000 0002 .NH 00580 00\000 .0 .0 HN .0 0N .m 3. .0 0 00. .H N 0.0 .0 0 N0 . H 00000000 $03 00080 -38 00008 083. .2 .0 .0 NN .N 00 .0 3. .0. 0 00 .N m 00 .0 0. 5 .N 0 $000000 000. .3 £0 000:0 .00 000.0 0N. .0000 0w. 000.0 .020 000nm 000nm 3.80 $800 .80 .0 0 0000 880 28080 038000 Snz Euz Enz 0.42 E 095 o 0 0000me N 00020000 000508000 00000>0< 0000300000 00000000 . 0O 00 m: 3.80 . . . N . . . . 000000< 0003080 .8 00002 'L 00:03:00 . 0 030m. 80 Viewing the data in Table 8, supplemented by Tables 5-8, Appendix A, a few significant phenomena are observed. The high degree of dissensus on need 6 is obviously due to perceptions held by advisors. Their combined responses to this need ranked highest among all needs expressed by them. On the contrary, this need occupies a rank order of 8 or below for all other status-role groups. Thirteen of the fourteen advisor re- spondents mentioned that administrators need to have a better understanding of problems and needs. In general, administrators did not hold this perception for themselves nor for advisors. The advisor group was again responsible for the significance of difference in consensus on need 4. Not a single mention was made by any advisor regarding the need for improved authority-responsibility relationships. In contrast, their immediate superiors, the supervisory group, mentioned this need more frequent- ly than any other one. The need was also mentioned frequently by each of the ad- ministrator and specialist respondents. See Appendix A, Tables 5-8. A study of all data shown in the separate tables indicates one important reason for the significant difference in consensus on need 1. The need to carry out assigned responsibilities represents the most frequently mentioned need by administrators and the second most for each of the advisor and specialist groups. Based on all need responses given by supervisors, however, the carrying out of assigned responsibilities ranks only sixth. Only one supervisor expressed this need for administrators while every administrator believed that supervisors need to carry out their responsibilities. The largest number of responses given by advisors with respect to this need was directed at supervisors. Only two 81 supervisors on the other hand perceived this need for advisors. Although the need for more competent personnel occupies only seventh position in the rank order of all expressed needs for combined status-roles, it ranks second for supervisors. It is observed from Appendix A, Table 6 that the majority of such responses were directed at advisors. In fact, twelve of the fourteen supervisors responded in this manner. Not one advisor believed that he needed to be more competent and only one mentioned this as a need for other advisors. Likewise, none of the administrators and only two specialists perceived this for advisors. It is of interest to note that not a single advisor mentioned that the supervisors need to be more competent. Among those needs which indicate no significant difference in consensus, one is worthy of comment, namely, need 8. Improved planning was mentioned by administrators only three times out of a total of 162 need responses. See Appendix A, Table 5. In the following table, however, one observes that this need was more highly considered by supervisors, especially oriented to admin— istrators. Summary of Needs for Organizational Change There was no significant difference in consensus between status—role groups with respect to twelve of the seventeen ranked needs. A lack of consensus was found on needs 1, 4, and 6 at the .01 level and on needs 7 and 9 at the .05 level of significance. The x2 values for needs 10-17 were discounted owing to the limited fre- quencies of response attached to each. Based on the remaining needs, null 82 hypotheses are accepted for needs 2, 3, 5, and 8 and rejected for 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9. The most pronounced lack of consensus was evidenced by need 6. The com- bined responses of advisors to this need ranked highest among all needs expressed by them. In contrast, other status—role groups placed considerably less impor- tance on the need to better understand problems. A second evidence of dissensus between status-role groups occurred on need 4, due largely to the absence of any such responses by advisors. However, the need for improved authority and responsibility relationships was mentioned frequently by each of the other three groups. Consensus was also lacking on need 1. Supervisors tended to mention the need for carrying out assigned responsibilities less often for themselves and others than they did for either the administrators, advisors, or specialists. And finally, a significant difference in consensus between the four groups was noted with respect to the need for more competent personnel. Although the need occupied seventh position in the rank order of all expressed needs for com- bined status—roles, it ranked second among all needs mentioned by supervisors. The majority of such responses by supervisors were directed at advisors. Not one advisor, however, mentioned this need either for himself or for supervisors. CHAPTER VI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENSUS ON ATTITUDES HELD TOWARD PRESENT ORGANIZATION AND CONSENSUS ON PERCEPTIONS OF EXPECTATIONS AND NEEDS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE The purpose of this chapter is to analyze all data in an effort to determine whether or not there is a relationship between (1) the consensus on attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present organization and (2) the consensus on perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change. Introduction In the preceding chapter, the three consensus variables of this study were treated as dependent variables while the four status-role groups constituted the independent variable. See Figure 1, page 33. For the purposes of the present chapter, consensus on attitudes held by status-roles toward the present organi- zation is treated as the independent variable and consensus on expectations and needs become the two dependent variables. See Figure 2, page 34. The indepen- dent variable represents an antecedent or "if" condition, which when applied to this study, is the consensus on attitudes held toward the present organization. Both of the dependent variables oriented to how the organization ought to be rep- resent the consequent or "then" conditions which appear, disappear, or change as the independent variable is manipulated. It is hypothesized that there is no relationship between (1) the consensus on attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present or- ganizations, and (2) the consensus on perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change. 83 84 Relationshij Between Consensus on Expectations and Needs Before exploring the relationship between the independent and two depen- dent variables, which constitutes the major focus of Chapter VI, it is advisable to first explore the relationship between the two dependent variables, consensus on expectations and consensus on needs. Referring to Tables 5 and 7, it is noted that status-role perceptions rela- tive to both expectations and needs, when categorized, fall into similar patterns. The variance is one of rank order only. Expectations ranking 1 through 8 also appear within the first eight ranked needs. The only exception is number 9. It is the expectation that status-roles avoid mixing education with business and/ or politics and the need for higher material personal benefits. Referring to Table 9, it is noted that there is a relationship between the consensus on expectations and consensus on needs with respect to five of the eight listed categories, namely, improved cooperation and/ or coordination, more competent personnel, improved authority and responsibility relationships, professional improvement, and improved planning. Although there was inter- group consensus regarding more competent personnel as an expectation and dis- sensus as a need, the two x2 values are not far apart. The lack of or infrequent mention of authority-responsibility relationships by advisors either as an expec- tation or as a need is observed as the significant factor making for dissensus within this category. The x2 values for each of the remaining three categories listed in Table 9 indicate little relationship between the consensus on expectations and consensus 85 on needs. However, a microscopic look at the data in Appendix A, Tables 1-8 reveals a significant observation. In each of these three categories there was one specific group, either supervisor or advisor, which largely contributed to the high degree of dissensus. Whereas the respondents of that group may have failed to mention or only infrequently mentioned the category as an expectation (need), they reversed the pattern and frequently mentioned the same category as a need (expectation). Relationshj) Between Consensus on Attitudes Held Toward the Present Organization and Consensus on Percept_ions of Expectations and Needs for Organizational Change Specific statements by categories which appear in Tables 3 and 4 and which were utilized for determining attitudes relative to the actual structure and func- tionality of the present organization are used as the basis for the antecedent con- dition or event (the independent variable). Expressed expectations and needs for organizational flange which fit similar categories are treated as the consequent effect (dependent variables). More specifically, the search is being made to find the relationship that may exist, as for example, between consensus on coopera- tion and/ or coordination as viewed by status-role groups with regard to the pre- sent organization and cooperation and/ or coordination as it is perceived as an ex- pectation or need for organizational change. It is assumed that if status-role groups believed that there was c00peration and/ or coordination in the present or- ganization, then cooperation and/ or coordination would not be widely held as either an expectation or need. Conversely, if status-role groups generally held the attitude that cooperation and/ or coordination was lacking in the present 86 Table 9. Relationship Between Consensus on Expectations and Consensus on Needs According to Expectation and Need Categories . Expectation and Consensus on Consensus on N d C _ Expectations Needs ee ategories x2 Value Signifi- x2 Value Signifi- cance cance Improved cooperation and/or coordination 5. 00 N. S 1. 62 N S Carry out assigned responsibilities 7. 16 N. S 14. 51 ** More competent personnel 5 . 89 N. S 9. 47 * Improved authority and responsibility relationships 9. 58 * 15. 52 ** Professional improvement 5. 96 N. S 5. 30 N S Improved financial support 33.28 ** 3. 54 N S Improved planning 1. 61 N. S 6. 88 N S Understanding problems and needs 6. 95 N. S 44. 72 ** 87 organization, then this condition should appear as a generally held expectation and/ or need for organizational change. The search for relationships described above will be limited to the follow- ing expectation—need categories: improved cooperation and/ or coordination; carry out assigned responsibilities; more competent personnel; improved author- ity and responsibility relationships; and, professional improvement. Improved C00peration and/ or Coordination Referring to Tables 3 and 4, pages 49 and 55, it is observed that by and large, there is a relatively high amount of agreement by status-role groups with respect to each of statements 28, 29, and 30 relating to the category, cooperation. and/or coordination. Most agree to these statements. Disagreement by special- ists to statement 28 constitutes the only extensive deviation. In addition, each of the administrator and specialist groups are about evenly split in the attitudes they held toward statement 29. However, when one studies the data in Tables 6 and 8, pages 69 and 78, supplemented by Appendix A, Tables 1-8, it is observed that cooperation and/ or coordination for combined status-role groups occupies the highest ranked expec— tation and the third ranked need. For administrators, the expectation ranked first, third for supervisors, second for advisors, and first for specialists. Whereas there appears to be a lack of relationship between the attitudes held toward statements 28, 29, and 30 on the one hand and the expectation coop- eration and/or coordination on the other hand, there is at least a relatively high degree of consistency in the importance attached to the expectation by all status- role groups . 88 As a need, cooperation and/or coordination occupies lower rank orders, namely, fifth for administrators, fourth for supervisors, third for advisors, and fourth for specialists. The lack of relationship between attitudes held toward statements 28, 29, and 30 on the one hand and the need for cooperation and/or coordination on the other hand becomes less evident than it did when viewed as an expectation. A more detailed study of all data casts additional light on this apparent lack of relationship between these independent and dependent variables. There was general agreement that there is a free exchange of information and ideas within the organization (see statement 30). During the interviews, no mention was made of a "free exchange" by either administrators or specialists and only an occasional reference to it by supervisors either as an expectation or a need. Thus, a relationship does appear to exist between statement 30 and ex- pectation—need responses for these three groups. In contrast, advisor respondents when interviewed1 made frequent mention of the expectation "the Opportunity to exchange ideas, information, and exper- iences with other advisors. " It will be noted that this group was more prone to agree to statement 30 than were other groups. Thus, there appears to be an in- verse relationship between the attitudes they expressed toward statement 30 and their expectation responses. Referring to statement 28, an emerging pattern is noted. First, there are the specialists who in 90 percent of the cases answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree." In similar fashion, this group placed the greatest importance on im- proved c00peration and/ or coordination as an expectation. 1Data on file with writer—investigator. 89 Next are the administrators who in 50 percent of the cases "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" to statement 28. They, too, mentioned cooperation and/ or coordination more times than any other expectation. Finally, there are the supervisor and advisor groups, both of whom gener- ally agreed to statement 28 on the one hand and still frequently mentioned coop- eration and/ or coordination as an expectation on the other hand. It is noted, however, that the expectation ranked only third for supervisors and second for advisors. See Appendix A, Tables 2, 3, 6, and 7. From the investigator's data1 it is noted that advisors did not generally expect improved coordination. Thir- teen of their nineteen responses within the cooperation-coordination category pertained to the exchange of ideas, information and/or experiences, not coor- dination. From the above, it appears that a relationship does exist between respon- ses given to statement 28 and the expectation for improved cooperation-coordin- ation as related to specialists, administrators, and advisors, but not for super- visors. In view of the fact that no mention was made of voluntary c00peration (statement 29) as either an expectation or a need, it is not possible to explore a possible relationship. Carry Out Assigned Responsibilities Although statements 5, 6, and 7 (Table 3) relate to work responsibilities, none asked for a specific expression of attitudes which would reveal whether or not assigned responsibilities were being carried out. However, it is believed 1Data on file with the writer-investigator. 90 that the highly ranked expectation-need, to carry out assigned responsibilities, is related to one's knowledge of his duties and the assignment of work responsi- bilities. One's ability to carry out an assigned responsibility depends upon his knowing what he is expected to do as well as having been assigned a definite re- sponsibility. As one observes status-role responses to statements 5 and 6 (Table 3) it is noted that 75 percent of all responses fall within the agree or strongly agree category. Supervisors and advisors were particularly prone to agree, admini— strators less so, and specialists the least. The fact that so large a percentage of status-roles believed that they know what is expected of them and agreed that all have been assigned definite work responsibilities makes the search for re- lationships between statements 5 and 6 and related expectation-need responses more meaningful. More specifically, it is hypothesized that if all personnel know what is expected of themselves, then such status-role responses, either as an expectation or need, are more valid. - An analysis of data in Tables 4 and 6, and Appendix A, Tables 1-4 indi- dates a somewhat mixed relationship between responses to statement 5 and 6 on the one hand and the similar expectation-need category on the other hand. Ad- visors who generally agreed to the two statements placed a high value on the carrying out of assigned responsibilities both as an expectation and need. Super- visors, who also generally reacted positively to statement 5, rated it highly as an expectation but only sixth as a need. Administrators, who were in less agree- ment to statements 5 and 6, rated it only third as an expectation but 23 percent of their total need responses were assigned to the carrying out of assigned 91 responsibilities. Specialists attitudinal responses were split for statement 5 and generally showed disagreement to statement 6, but a large percentage of their perceptions of expectations and needs were directed toward this category. No significant pattern of relationships can be deduced from the above des- cribed phenomena other than the observation that if personnel agree on their knowledge of what is expected of them, then the carrying out of assigned respon- sibilities becomes more meaningful. The fact that the expectation-need, job description, was mentioned so in- frequently by all status-roles makes any analysis of relationships to statement 7 one of extreme unreliability. However, it is of interest to note that almost no reference was made to job descriptions by the forty-six status-roles when inter- viewed, but a tabulation of their responses to statement 6 revealed that slightly more than one-half of these same persons held the attitude that job descriptions had n_o_t been prepared for all. More Competent Personnel Only statement 27 applies to the expectation-need category, more compe- tent personnel. It is further limited to extension leaders, namely, administra- tors, supervisors, and specialists. The search for relationship is thereby fo- cused on attitudes and perceptions oriented to these three status-role groups. It is observed in Table 3, page 49, that 50 percent of administrator re- spondents disagreed. Following the "if-then" approach, one would anticipate that if this many administrators disagreed to the statement, then there should be at least one—half agreeing to "more competent personnel" both as an expec- tation and as a need. Referring to Appendix A, Tables 1 and 5, it is noted that 92 all eight administrators expected the selection of more competent personnel for administrative staff positions. Five of the eight expected this of themselves. Half of the same respondent group believed this as a need for other administra- tors and five felt this for themselves. Fifty percent expected this of the super- visor group and five of the eight held this as both an expectation and need for specialists. Thus, as viewed by the administrators themselves, there appears to be some relationship between the consensus on their attitudes toward state- ment 27 and the consensus on the related expectation-need. Six of the ten supervisors did not believe that a plan had been developed for the selection of extension leaders. One would suspect from this that super- visors would place a correspondingly high importance on more competent lead- ers either as an expectation, or need, or both. Only five of the fourteen respond- ents expected this of administrators, none for specialists, and only three for self. Only two supervisors believed that the administrators needed to be more competently selected, and none believed this for either specialists or self (see Appendix A, Tables 2 and 6). Thus, oriented to supervisors, there appears to be an inverse relation- ship between consensus on supervisor attitudes toward statement 27 and consen- sus on their related expectation-need responses relative to the category, more competent personnel. Six of the ten specialists likewise did not believe that a plan had been de- veloped for the selection of extension leaders. The consequent of this antece- dent follows in a regular pattern. All ten specialists expected more competent administrators and seventy percent of the group mentioned this as a need ori— ented to administrators (see Appendix A, Tables 4 and 8). On the other hand, 93 only three expected more competency for themselves and none believed this to be a self need. Little mention was made by specialists of this expectation-need category with respect to supervisors. There appears to be a direct relationship between specialist consensus on responses to statement 27 and their consensus on the expectation-need, more competent administrators. The same relation- ship does not hold when oriented to supervisors or to other specialists. Improved Authority and ReSponsibility Relationships Statements 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 have been selected as the basis for ex— ploring possible relationships between consensus on responses to the six separ- ate statements and consensus on authority and responsibility relationship as an expectation and need. If one studies the responses of the four status-role groups on five of the six above listedstatements, it is noted that by and large, when viewed macro— scopically, with exceptions, of course, there was general agreement that lines of authority and responsibility are ngt_ clearly defined; when people are delegated responsibility, they are 99$ given the needed authority; authority does M equal responsibility; the present organization does not giyg all the opportunity to make decisions; and, administrators do not have the authority to make decisions. In accord with these responses, all status-role groups with the exception of advis- ors, placed much importance on the need for improved authority and responsi- bility relationships (see Appendix A, Tables 5-8). It ranked third for admini- strators and specialists and first for supervisors. This pattern of relationship is less firm when the focus is on expectations. 94 A more detailed study of the data with respect to selected statements re- veals significant findings needed to test hypotheses. All of the groups-were in accord that lines of authority and responsibility are E clearly defined (see statement 8). Most pronounced were the specialists who made frequent mention of improved authority and responsibility relationships both as an expectation and as a need. Most of their answers were directed at ad- ministrators. The administrators themselves placed much importance on the need for more authority for themselves. Six. of the eight administrators expected that supervisors be given more authority. Supervisors made little mention of authority and responsibility as an expectation but the need for authority ranked first among all of their expressed needs. Advisor respondents when interviewed almost never mentioned authority and/or responsibility. More specifically, it is noted in Table 7, Appendix A, that not a single advisor referred to this cate- gory for any status—role group or self. From the above, it appears that the following direct relationships exist be- tween statement 8 and the category in question: on both expectations and needs as perceived by administrators and specialists; and, on needs expressed by super- visors. For advisors, there appears to be no relationship between their consen- sus on attitudes and consensus on expectation and needs with respect to authority and responsibility relationships. The consensus between groups with respect to their responses to statement 9 revealed no significant difference. A more careful lock at data in Table 3 in- dicates that whereas each of the supervisors, advisors, and specialists general- ly believed that people are not given the needed authority when delegated respon- sibility, six of the eight administrators held a different attitude. However, when 95 administrators were asked what they needed, six of the eight mentioned "more authority. "1 This phenomena suggests the lack of a relationship between admin—- istrator consensus on statement 9 to consensus on the need for authority. On the other hand, six of the eight administrators believed that authority does not equal responsibility (statement 11). When responses to this statement are used for comparative purposes with expectation and needs, a direct relationship appears between the independent and dependent (need) variable. Nearly one-half of all respondent advisors either disagreed or strongly dis- agreed to statement 11. If this large a group believed that authority (_ige_s not equal responsibility, one would suspect the deficiency to be correspondingly men- tioned either as an expressed expectation or need. The pattern did not hold and thus the evidence of an existing inverse relationship. Referring to statement 12, 75 percent of the administrators and 70 percent of the supervisor sample believed that the line of authority is a clear one from administrators to advisors. On the other hand, both groups frequently mentioned the need for "more authority." Thus, a pattern of direct relationship is lacking. The great majority of administrators, supervisors, and specialists be- lieved that administrators do not have authority to make final extension decisions (see statement 15). The fact that each of these groups was consistent in believ- ing that administrators needed more authority makes for a direct relationship between consensus in response to the statement and consensus on the correspon- ing need. 1 Interview forms on file with writer -investigator. 96 Professional Improvement Taiwan's major extension goal as reported by various extension documents1 is the dissemination of information and knowledge to rural men, women, and youth in order that they may improve their way of life. Although advisors are in closer contact with local clienteles than are other status-roles, the activities of all personnel are geared toward the fulfillment of this goal of education. To achieve this reported organizational objective, all personnel need knowledge, skills, and certain attitudes in order that they, in turn, can more effectively serve this end. For these reasons, statement 1 has been selected for consider- ation. The majority of status-roles within each of the four groups held the atti- tude that extension goals are _ngt being achieved. - Such a response was most pro- nounced among supervisors. - As one views the data in Appendix A, Tables 1-8, professional improvement as a need is rankedfirst for specialists, second for administrators, third for supervisors, and fifth for advisors. Less frequent mention was made of the expectation "to be provided or provide professional im- provement Opportunities" by each of the four groups. It appears that a definite relationship exists between consensus on goal achievement and consensus on the need for professional improvement. Such relationship is less evident, but still present, when consideration is given to the expectation variable. 1 Record on file with writer-investigator. 97 Summary 1. There was a relationship between the consensus on expectations and consensus on needs (the two dependent variables) with respect to the following categories: improved cooperation and/ or coordination; improved authority and responsibility relationships; more competent personnel; professional improve- ment; and, improved planning. No relationship existed between these two var- iables relative to the categories: carry out assigned responsibilities; improved financial support; and, understanding problems and needs. 2. There appeared to be a lack of relationship between consensus on atti- tudes held toward the combined statements 28, 29, and 30 and consensus on the expectation and need of improved cooperation and coordination. a. The relationship between responses to statement 30 and the corres- ponding expectation-need category was a direct one for administra- tors, supervisors, and specialists, but an inverse one for advisors. b. A relationship did exist between the consensus on response to state- ment 28 and consensus on expectations for improved cooperation and/ or coordination as related to specialists, administrators, and advisors, but not for supervisors. 3. No significant patterns of relationship could be determined with respect to consensus on statements 5, 6, and 7 and consensus on the expectation-need, carry out assigned responsibilities. 4. There appeared to be a direct relationship between the consensus on attitudes held toward statement 27 and the consensus on the expectation and need 98 for more competent personnel when oriented to administrators and specialists. The Opposite applies to supervisors. 5. There was a relationship between the consensus on attitudes held to- ward statements 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 and consensus on the need for improved authority and responsibility relationship. This pattern of relationship was less apparent when focused on the expectation variable. a. A direct relationship appeared to exist between responses to state- C. ment 8 and the category in question: on both expectations and needs as perceived by administrators and specialists; and, on needs ex- pressed by supervisors. For advisors, there did not appear to be any relationship between their consensus on such attitudes and their consensus on corresponding expectations and needs. . There was no relationship between administrator consensus on statement 9 and their consensus on the need for authority, but there was a direct relationship between consensus on their response to statement. 11 and consensus on their perceived need for more au- thority. For advisors, the relationship was lacking. With respect to statement 12., and oriented to administrators, there was no relationship between consensus on response to statement 12 and consensus on the need for more authority. A direct relationship was found to exist between consensus on re- sponse to statement 15 and consensus on the need for more author-— ity as held by administrators. supervisors, and specialists for administrators. 99 6. It appears that there was definite and direct relationship between con- sensus on responses to goal achievement and consensus on the need for profes- sional improvement. Such relationship was less evident, but still present, when consideration was given to the expectation variable. CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to consider the implications of the study for the Chinese Extension Chief, to include his immediate staff of administrators, and for American extension advisors in Taiwan. For Taiwan Extension Administrators Arising from the analysis is an awareness that all is not well with the Tai- wan extension organization. Although this conclusion had already been reached by the organization's leaders prior to the investigation, no systematic attempt had previously been undertaken to ascertain the nature and source of organiza- tional problems as perceived by extension workers throughout the entire organ- ization. Furthermore, no one had endeavored to determine how individuals viewed their present organization in comparison to what they expected and be- lieved was needed to bring about organizational improvements. Such informa- tion was believed to be essential if the Extension Chief and his immediate staff of administrators were to initiate change, calculate consequences of action, and increase their predictive powers. Although a number of inconsistencies appear when comparing respondent attitudes held toward the present organization with their perceptions of expec- tations and needs for organizational change, a number of deficiencies seem quite obvious. 100 101 One of the more noticeable concerns relates to authority and responsibility relationships. All status-role groups with the exception of advisors placed much importance on the need for more authority, primarily directed at administrators. Administrators and specialists often mentioned the category as an expectation, also. Advisors, too, were less inclined than were the other groups to report that authority does not equal responsibility. Lines of authority and responsibil- ity were believed by all groups {193 to be clearly defined. There was general con- sensus between the groups that administrators do n_ot have the authority to make final decisions. On the other hand, the reaction was mixed when applied to the statement, "Major extension decisions are made by the local Farmer's Associa- tion manager. " Data1 collected by the investigator utilizing other instruments points to frequent mention by administrators, supervisors, and specialists of authority and responsibility relationships. The apparent lack of full consensus relative to this administrative consid- eration indicates the following. Extension leaders, namely administrators, supervisors, and specialists held different views than those of advisors. Indi- viduals who occupy higher positions in the organization believed that authority should be lodged at the top of the extension hierarchy. Advisors either were unaware of this expressed problem, unconcerned, or somewhat confused. On the one hand, they obviously recognized the authority inherent in the position of the local manager and their prims responsibility to him. On the other hand, they were undoubtedly cognizant of their responsibilities to their superordinates. It seems logical to assume that this state of affairs could be a causal factor 1On file with writer-investigator. 102 contributing to confusion. Then again, it may be that advisors did not apper- ceive the full nature of the situation owing to their position in the hierarchy. And finally, advisors may have seen no need for concern. They were hired by the local manager and were paid by him, thus, first and foremost responsible to him. If authority and responsibility relationships are to be changed, it seems logical to assume that a clear line of authority and responsibility be established from administrators to advisors placing control over personnel in the hands of administrators and supervisors rather than Farmer's Association managers. The study has further implications for administrators with respect to pro- fessional improvement of extension personnel. Advisors were less inclined to mention professional improvement either as an expectation or as a need. This phenomenon is particularly evident when viewed as a need. Only one advisor mentioned professional improvement as a need for other advisors or for self. Other status—role groups, on the other hand, generally expected and believed that advisors needed to improve themselves professionally. This paradox leads one to assume that perhaps there was a significant difference in professional standards held by advisors compared to those held by extension leaders. It should be borne in mind that a wide gap in formal educational experien- ces exists between administrators and specialists on the one handand advisors on the other hand. The latter are vocational high school graduates only while the former are all college~trained, many of whom have engaged in graduate study in foreign countries. Although supervisor respondents had generally com~ pleted no more than secondary levels of education, some had graduated from non— vocational schools, while others had participated in post high school training 103 programs. - In addition, supervisors generally had served the organization for many years and were observed as being considerably better qualified than ad— visors. The fact that there was universal agreement with respect to the lack of goal achievement provides further evidence that professional improvement pro- grams need to be considered, especially for advisors. However, the major goal as reported by the organization (to disseminate knowledge to rural families) may not coincide with the perceptions of organizational goals held by advisors. Data collected by the investigator reveals confusion. Data1 collected by means of other instruments reveal that some advisors were critical of the action taken by superordinates and non-extension personnel requiring that they attend numerous training sessions. Such individufls were heard to say, "We don't have enough time left to do our regular work." An eval- uation of all existing training programs should be considered. Further observations by the investigator indicate that no one individual within the entire organization consisting of more than 1, 000 individuals had been assigned the responsibility to plan and/ or implement a coordinated professional improvement program. From the findings of this study, it is reasonable to as- sume that such action be considered. The carrying out of assigned responsibilities, when combined as both an expectation and need, was more frequently mentioned than any other category. Although as a need, it. ranked relatively low by supervisors, the same group made frequent mention of it as an expectation. The very fact that the majority 1On file with writer-investigator. 104 of all respondents generally agreed to the statement that all personnel know what is expected of them tends to make the corresponding expectation and need more meaningful. If individuals know what they are expected to do and do not fulfill these expectations, then one or more factors may be responsible. The lack of cooperation and/or coordination might be a contributing factor. . Adequate know- ledge and skills may be lacking. Some personnel may be unqualified for the posi- tion which they presently occupy. The lack of clearly defined lines of authority and responsibility may hinder certain individuals from carrying out their respon- sibilities. This phenomenon may be in part caused by inadequate budgetary pol- icies, or the-lack of planning, or the need to better understanding problems and needs. Any or all of these might be possible causes. Respondents were in gen- eral agreement that extension goals are M being achieved. One reason may be that personnel are not carrying out their responsibilities. Referring to cooperation and/ or coordination, there was a tendency on the part of all status—role groups to make frequent mention of it both as an expecta- tion and need. However, one could assume that because the majority of respond- ents agreed to statements 28, 29, and 30, a phenomenon of contradiction pre- vailed. This conclusion cannot be made. Each of the three statements treats of a special aSpect of the two administrative principles, c00peration and coordina- tion, while the expectation-need category is an all inclusive one. » More micro- scopic implications are evident, however. . Advisors made frequent mention of the expectation "the opportunity to ex- change ideas, information, and experiences with other advisors. " On the other hand, they were more prone to agree to statement 30, "There is a free exchange 105 of information and ideas. " Either the advisors did not fully understand the na- ture and content of statement 30 or else they were contradicting themselves. The fact that no mention was made of a "free exchange" by either administrators or specialists, considerable mention by advisors, and only an occasional reference to it by supervisors either as an expectation or need seems to be understandable. Administrators and specialists although,headquartered in separate offices and in different locations, operated as an administrative or specialist team. Supervis- ors and advisors were widely scattered throughout the country. Advisors, how- ever, felt a greater need to consult with their peers than did the supervisors who had greater Opportunity to work with other supervisors and who traveled more extensively between counties. The attitudes held toward statement 28 dealing with coordination indicate a significant pattern. Ninety percent of the specialists believed that extension activities were no_t_ coordinated. Only fifty percent of the administrator group held this attitude. But for supervisors and advisors the general belief was that extension activities are coordinated. This may indicate status—role differences in the connotation of the term, coordination, or it may direct attention to the greater importance placed on it by those in leadership positions. It is noted that the expectation, improved cooperation and/or coordination, when considered by supervisors was directed at other supervisors and when men— tioned by advisors was oriented to other advisors. ’Less consideration was given by these two groups to this expectation and need focusmg on either administra- tors or specialists . Specialists were particularly concerned about improved cooperation and coordination as an expectation for all groups. No other group made greater 106 mention of any expectation or any need than did the specialists for this expec- tation. It is reasonable to assume that the specialists were in a position where- by they could look from the "outside in" and thus be better able to detect the need. It may be due to the fact that they were more verbal than all other groups or placed greater importance on the expectation owing to their constant asso- ciation with Americans who tended to stress this principle of administration. The frequent mention of more competent personnel as an expectation by all status-role groups and the high rank given to it. by supervisors as a need, suggests that the extension organization reconsider its present selection policy. Observations made by the investigator revealed that advisors, in particular, were selected by Farmer's Association managers according to kinship patterns. The only requirement was that each candidate be a secondary school graduate. Friends and relatives played a major role in the selection of supervisors and administrators. Specialists were selected according to a rigorous system of standards established by the Chinese government in cooperation with American advisors. A general overview of all data as it related to the study indicates cleavage between lower and higher participants. According to Etzioni1 such cleavage is characteristic of complex organizations. It seems reasonable to assume that any action planned to strengthen the organization should consider what are the differences between status-role groups and in what areas is there dissensus. It is not assumed that high consensus between status-role groups is 1Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. , 1961) p. 130. 107 necessarily found in an organization nor is it assumed that a high degree of con— sensusis essential for effective Operation of the organization. However, it is believed that the degree of consensus is a measure of degree to which the organ- ization is integrated as a collectivity. 1 Although it is recognized that cultural differences do affect organizational structure and functionality, it seems logical to assume that certain basic essen- tials are vital to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Taiwan extension organ- ization. The organization must have a common goal and take action to achieve goals and purposes. It should have unity of purpose. Unless lines of authority and responsibility are clearly defined, chaos will continue. Personnel policies should be considered for the selection and training of personnel as well as the elimination of incompetents. Individuals should feel secure in their job. Coor- dination is essential if maximum results are to be accomplished. Cooperation is necessary for efficiency. Consideration should be given to the division of work, executive leadership and conduct, planning and decision making, goal achievement, and evaluation. For American Extension Advisors The most important implication of the study for an American extension ad- visor is its limitations. More questions evolved from the study than answers (see summary and study deficiencies in the following chapter). The lack of cer- tain expected relationships and apparent contradictions by status-role groups 2 Which were revealed by all data suggests, among other things, differences in 11bid, p. 128. 2Not confined only to interview and attitude schedules. 108 cultural patterns and differences between recorded observations and recorded responses. It is noted that the expectation-need, avoid mixing education with business and/or politics, was only infrequently mentioned. In reality1 the problem of mix- ing education and business was of grave concern to American advisors and spe- cialists of the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction who were responsible for the distribution of large sums of United States money to the extension organ- izationfor a program restricted to education. When in attendance at combined meetings of administrators, specialists, and American advisors of the Joint Commission, most administrators themselves often repudiated the practice. However, this group made little mention of it wheninterviewed. It was commonly known that many of the Farmer's Association managers required that advisors merchandize association products as an integral part of their extension responsibility. Advisors had been notified by the Joint Commis- sion that such practices could not be tolerated. Most advisors found it neces- sary to follow the wishes of theirlocal managers although they reported having disapproved of the practice.2 It is believed that the fear of reprisals and jeop- ardization of job security on the part of advisors contributed to the complete ab- sence of their mention about this as an expectation and only one response to it as a needfor other advisors. Half of the supervisor respondent group reported that they expected advisors to refrain from mixing business with education. 1Records on file with investigator. 2Data on file with investigator. 109 Apparently they felt freer to express themselves since they were not involved in such activities nor were they held responsible for such involvement. What has been described above with reference to the mixing of education and business equally applies to that of politics. A second paradox relates to the expectation-need category, improved fi- nancial support for extension programs. Based on interview responses given by administrators, it ranked only eighth as an expectation and fourth as a need. In contrast, no concern was more commonly voiced by administrators during the investigator's frequent association with them than that of financial support for extension programs. It is likely that these respondents were more reluctant to mention financial support at the time of individual interviews knowing that they had frequently expressed themselves on this matter on other occasions and un- der different circumstances. Improved planning is observed as occupying a relatively low rank order, both as an expectation and as a need. One should not necessarily conclude from this that improved planning was perceived to be unimportant. Program planning, as one administrative process, constituted a separate but integral part of the total overall study conducted in Taiwan. When interviewed, the same respond- ents were asked what they expected and believed was needed from each of the four groups and self for improved program planning. Although this phase of the study immediately followed the one in question (time and place) it may have af- fected respondent answers. Job security was often referred to as a need by advisors. . At one Exten- sion Summer School Session held at the University and attended by seventy-seven 110 advisors, the group, as a collectivity, requested that the Agricultural Extension Department do what it could to help improve job security for advisors. 1 When interviewed, not one of the fourteen advisor respondents even mentioned job se- curity as an expectation and only one as a need. Reference to job security was more commonly expressed as a felt need by other status-role groups in informal situations than it was during interview sessions. Although it is quite obvious that improved COOperation and/ or coordination was highly considered by most status—roles, one should be cautious in interpret— ing the data. There was a tendency on the part of a sizable number of respond- ents to treat 000peration and coordination as synonymous terms. Had a clearer distinction been drawn between the two terms by a number of individuals, a dif- ferent rank order may have evolved. It also seems reasonable to assume that the two terms hold somewhat different meanings when viewed by the Chinese compared to anAmerican's interpretation. . A general overview of all data provides further implications for an Amer- ican extension advisor. These appear to be some obvious inconsistencies. For example, it is noted that one or more status-role groups tended to respond in one way to a particular statement, but reversed themselves when responding to another statement that contained similar ”content" but had been recorded and assigned a different numbered position in the attitude scale schedule. 3 Further- more, one should be cognizant of those instances in which there appears to be 1Record on file with investigator. 2Observation schedules on file with investigator. 3The numbered positions of the thirty statements as they appear in Tables 5 and 6 are the result of rearrangement for convenience of presenting and ana- lyzing data. 111 little or no relationship between responses appearing on the attitude schedules and those reported as expectations and/or needs. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CON C LUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to cite deficiencies, to summarize the study, and present general conclusions. Deficiencies of the Study Frequent difficulties encountered in designing and implementing the research as well as tabulating, summarizing, and analyzing the data suggest a wide var- iety of deficiencies associated with the study. First, and foremost, was the study's orientation. Cross-cultural research is difficult to say the least. Although organization and administration are pheno- mena common to all cultures, there are differences. These differences become increasingly more evident as the study progressed, being most pronounced when all data were tabulated and analyzed. Social research is a moral action even when confined to a single culture. 1 In cross-cultural situations, this becomes more important. The investigator could not avoid the role of participant. According to Adams and Preiss2 this dilemma does not necessarily constitute an undesirable situation, but the behav- ior of the investigator does effect the outcome of a study especially within the human relations aspect of cross-cultural field work. The investigator often.- lWilliam Line and Margery R. King, "Cross-Cultural Research, " lh_e burnal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 7, March, 1956, p. 285. 2R. Adams and J. Preiss, Human Organization Research (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc. , 1960). 112 113 found himself faced with the problem of upholding the standards set for a research- er on the one hand, and at the same time attempting to render advisory service to the organization. The fact that other American advisors of the Joint Commis- sion on Rural Reconstruction, U. S. Agency for International Development, were officially designated advisors to this organization,whereas the investigator's role was unofficial,did help to reduce the dilemma described above. Accurate observation is difficult under any circumstance. This was parti- cularly pertinent in Taiwan. It is believed that many observations were not com- plete owing to the language barrier and possible reluctance on the part of some to divulge information. There is always the tendency for an observer to inject feelings and emotions into what one observes and also difficult to keep fact and inference apart. It was not easy to see the whole, or even the interrelated parts of the whole. These are all significant limitations to this study. However, it is believed that the use of the interview and attitude scaling techniques helped to offset this limitation. ‘The fact that more than one technique for data collection was utilized did provide important clues that likely would not have been as read- ily apparent had only one or two instruments been used. The instruments which were developed and used for the collection of data had their limitations. There is the possible danger that they were not standard- ized to the culture although this was apparent at the time. An instrument is not a thing in itself. Pe0ple differ in their relationship to an instrument far more than they differ in their variance within the instrument itself. The attempt was made to adapt the instruments but less success was achieved than was hoped for. - Although carefully prepared and pre —tested (in the case of interview and attitude 114 scaling schedules) too much attention was paid to American "ideals. ” A rating scale is taken for granted in our American culture, but can one be certain that this technique is as applicable to a culture where great emphasis is placed on superior-subordinate relationships? To help compensate for this possibility, respondents were not asked to identify themselves by name. Secondly, state- ments for the attitude scaling interview had their basis in democratic administra- tive principles, not those of the Chinese. It is logical to assume that some of these statements were not ideally suited to describe the present extension organ- ization. On the other hand, the organization aspired to a democratic system and hoped that these goals might be achieved. Additional deficiencies are apparent with respect to the interview schedule. The differentiation between the meaning of the terms expectation and need is dif- ficult enough in our own culture and becomes more pronounced when such terms are applied to a cross-cultural situation. It is believed that administrators and specialists were well aware of the differentiation, both because of their higher formal educational experiences and because the interviewer (writer) could inter- pret the meanings when questioned. This assurance was never fully felt when interviews were conducted by the Chinese interviewer. Not until expectation and need responses were tabulated did the investiga- tor become aware of the great difficulty encountered in attempting to tabulate such data. Use of Open—ended questions in this cross'cultural situation created problems of interpretation and "grouping. " Selected categories were sufficient- ly broad in scope to include all responses, but in an attempt to limit the categor- ies, finer points of difference could not be so readily uncovered. It seems 115 reasonable to assume that the study would have been more valid had the expecta- tion and need questions been translated into Chinese and a questionnaire admin- istered to each respondent for his or her completion. The barrier of language constitutes a prevailing problem in any cross-cul- tural research of this sort. Translators cannot be depended upon for providing the real meaning intended by the respondents. Another weakness of the study was the advisor sample size for the deter— mination of their perceptions with respect to expectations and needs. It would have been more desirable to have applied the principles of a mathematical pro- bability that would have provided all advisors an equal opportunity to be selected. Furthermore, use might have been made of a mail questionnaire for selected ad- visors. This technique was considered, but at. the time, presented various lim- itations. In view of the above described deficiencies, the study should be replicated. Statistical procedures should be developed and applied to the selection of the supervisor and advisor samples. Techniques for data collection need to be more adaptable to assure greater reliability and validity of results. If the study is to be replicated by an American, the use of instruments requiring interpretative translation should be avoided. Summary and Conclusions The primary objectives of this study were to ascertain problems of Tai- wan's extension organization; to determine what were the attitudes held by status- roles with respect to their organization's present structure and functionality; what did these individuals expect and believe was needed for organizational 116 change; to determine the extent of consensus between status-role groups relative to their attitudes and perceptions; and, to ascertain whether or not there was a relationship between the consensus on attitudes held toward the present organi- zation and consensus on perceived expectations and needs. 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that there is no' significant difference in the consen- sus between administrator, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with re- spect to their attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present organization. Inter --group consensus was apparent on twenty ~one of thirty statements to which respondents replied. Therefore, all null hypotheses regarding these twenty-one statements were accepted. Response to the remain- ing nine statements indicated the lack of inter-group consensus at either the . 05 or . 01 levels of significance. Null hypotheses for such statements were rejected. There was more evidence of general disagreement to the majority of state- ments than there was agreement. A pattern of positive reaction by the four groups was apparent only with respect to three of the thirty statements. This phenomenon seems particularly significant in view of the fact that each statement was based on a variety of principles considered ideal for effective organization and presen— ted in an affirmative manner. Moreover, evidence of disagreement by the var- ious status-role groups was not found to be restricted to any one aspect of organ- izational structure and functionality, but widely distributed throughout all cate- gories. From these findings one would ordinarily be inclined to conclude that there was a relatively high amount of agreement regarding inadequacies of the present extension organization. Furthermore, one might conclude that specific organi- zational problems are thereby identified. Such conclusions may have been drawn 117 had the study been conducted within the American cultural framework. Instead, it becomes necessary to conclude that these findings merely suggest areas of inter-group consensus and the possibility of organizational stress and strain. The following reasons are given to support this less definite conclusion. First, each of the thirty statements had their origin in organizational and administrative principles generally accepted within the highly industrialized areas of the Western world. - Second, even though Taiwan's Extension system was re- organized according to democratic patterns and hopefully adapted to local condi- tions, it does not necessarily follow that such patterns are acceptable to Chinese extension personnel. Third, words carry different meanings in different cultures. This is apt to be especially evident when dealing with organizational andadmini- strative concepts. Fourth, as one moves downward in the extension hierarchy. one finds individuals, especially advisors, who are much less familiar with or- ganization andadministration and less capable of comprehending the full scope and impact of the organization owing to their township "isolation. " Sixth, since many of the advisor respondents had served extension for only limited periods of time1 it is assumed that their knowledge of extension was limited. In contrast, the fact that administrators, supervisors, and specialists had longer tenures of service suggests their greater knowledgeability of extension matters. . And, fin- ally, one will note contradictory responses which lessen the reliability of some of the data. For example, it is noted that one or more status-role groups tended to respond in one way to a particular statement, but reversed themselves when responding to another statement that contained similar "content" but had been 1Approximately 30 percent turnover of advisor personnel per year. 118 recorded and assigned a different numbered position in the attitude scale sched- ule. 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that there is no significant difference in the consen- sus between administrator, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with re- spect to their perceptions of expectations for organizational change. No signifi- cant difference was found on fifteen of the eighteen ranked expectations. There was a lack of consensus only on the following thr ee: improved authority and re- sponsibility relationships (at the .05 level); improved financial support; and, job security (the latter two at the . 01 level). Owing to the decreasing number of total responses given to expectations ten through eighteen and the corresponding unreliability of the x2 values computed for them, only those expectations ranking one through nine were considered. Thus, null hypotheses were accepted for seven expectations and rejected for two. It is concluded that there is a relatively high degree of agreement between status-role groups on all expectations suggesting areas of administrative concern relative to organizational change. The conclusion is one of suggestion, only, in view of such limitations as those of language barrier; the possible differences in interpreta- tion of words and terms both by all status-role groups and the investigator; and, varying levels of formal education, understanding of extension, tenure of service, and the like, relating to status—role groups. 3. Hypothesis 3 stated that there is no significant difference in the consen- sus between administrator, supervisor, advisor, and specialist groups with re- spect to the perceptions of what is needed for organizational change. There was no significant difference in consensus between these groups with respect to twelve 2 of seventeen ranked needs. The x values for needs ten through seventeen were 119 generally discounted owing to their decreasing frequencies of responses. There- fore, four null hypotheses were accepted and five were rejected. It is concluded that there is a relatively high degree of agreement between status-role groups on all ranked needs, but this agreement is less evident when the focus is on needs ranked 1 through 9. The phenomenon suggests areas of administrative concern relative to what is needed for organizational change. This conclusion is one of suggestion, only, for the same reasons as given for expectations above. 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that there is no relationship between (1) the consen- sus on attitudes held toward the actual structure and functionality of the present organization and (2) the consensus on perceptions of expectations and needs for organizational change. With respect to part two of this hypothesis, it was determined that there is a direct relationship between the consensus on expectations and consensus on needs with respect to five of eight categories: improved cooperation and/or co— ordination; more competent personnel; improved authority and responsibility re— lationship; professional improvement; and improved planning. In each of the re-- maining three categories which exhibited the lack of inter—group consensus either advisor or supervisor groups were largely responsible. Referring to part one of hypothesis 4, there were mixed patterns of rela— tionship between the consensus on attitudes held toward the present organization and consensus on expectations and needs for organizational change. Some of these relationships were direct while others were inverse in nature depending upon the particular aspect of organization and administration in question. No one particular status-role group was consistently responsible for the occurrence of 120 these apparent mixed patterns of relationships. _ An analysis of these relation- ships suggests areas of organizational stress and administrative concern rela- tive to organizational change. This conclusion is one of suggestion, only, in view of the kinds of limitations described above. The study raised more questions than answers although the original pur- poses of the study were generally achieved. . A replication of the study needs to be conducted either by Chinese extension leaders, an American advisor, or the cooperation of both. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abegglen, James G. The Japanese Factory. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958. 142 pp. Adams, R. and Preiss, J. Human Organization Research. Homewcod, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc. , 1960. 456 pp. Argyris, Chris. Understanding Organizational Behavior. Homewocd, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1960. 179 pp. Barnard, Chester I. Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard Univer— sity Press, 1960. 269 pp. Blau Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. , 1962. 312 pp. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, 1956. 126 pp. Brookover, Wilbur B. and Gottlieb, David. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1964. 481 pp. Campbell, Ronald F. and Lipham, James M. Administrative Thegy as a Guide to Action. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1960. 201 pp. Coladarici, Arthur P. and Getzels, Jacob W. The Use of Theory in Educational Administration. Educational Administration Monograph No. 5. Stanford: School of Education, 1955. 28 pp. Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations, A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Inc., 1962. pp.484 A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. Glencoe, Ill— inois: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. , 1961. 313 pp. Freund, John E. Mathematical Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Gillin, John P. (ed. ). For a Selence of Social Man. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954. pp. 227-256. 121 122 Goode, William J. and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1952. 376 pp. Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward 8., and McEachern, Alexander W. Explorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley 8; Sons, Inc. , 1958. 378 pp. Guba, Egon G. and Bidwell, Charles E. Administrative Relationships. Chicago: The Midwest Administration Center, 1959. 118 pp. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Mid- west Administration Center, 1958. 188 pp. The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1956. 109 pp. Homans,George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Com- pany, 1950. 468 pp. Koontz, Harold and O'Donnell, Cyril. Principles of Management, An Analysis of Managerial Functions. New York: McGraw-Hill Bock Company, Inc. , 1959. 708 pp. mavitt, Harold J. (ed. ). The Social Science of Organization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. 197 pp. Lindzey, Gardner (ed. ). Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume 1, Theory and Method. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. , 1954. 561 pp. Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: D. Appleton- Century Co., 1945. 157 pp. The Study of Man. New York; D. Appleton—Century Company, Inc. , 1936. 503 pp. Loomis, Charles P. Social Systems. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960. 331 pp. Loomis, Charles P. and Beegle, J. Allan. Rural Social Systems. New York: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1950. 850 pp. March, James C. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, 1958. 262 pp. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. 627 pp. 123 Morphet, Edgar‘L. , Johns, Roe L. , and Reller, Theodore L. Educational Administration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. 546 pp. Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. 690 pp. Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward, A. (eds.). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. 496 pp. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. 575 pp. Rubenstein, Albert H. and Haberstroh, Chadwick J. (eds. ). - Some Theories of Organization. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1960. 492 pp. Sargent, Stansfeld. Social Psychology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1958. pp. 351-355. Scott, Ellis L. Leadership and Perceptions of Organization. Columbus: The Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, 1956. 122 pp. Selznick, Philip. Leadership in Administration. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peter- son, and Company, 1957. 154 pp. Siegel, Sidney. Non Parametic Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1956. 312 pp. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Com- pany, 1960. 253 pp. Stogdill, Ralph M. , Scott, Ellis L. , and Jaynes, William E. Leadership and Role Expectations. Ohio Studies in Personnel, Monograph R-86. Columbus: Ohio State University, March, 1962. 168 pp. Tenth General Report of the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, 1959. 126 pp. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. 197 pp. Urwick, Lyndall. Notes on the Theory of Organization. New York: American Management Association, 1952. 75 pp. Young, Pauline V. Scientific Social Surveys and Research. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1949. 621 pp. 124 Periodicals Berger, Morroe. "Bureaucracy East and West, " Administrative Science Quar- terly, Vol. 1 (December, 1956) 518-529 Bible, Bond L. and Brown, Emory J. "Role Consensus and Satisfaction of Ex- tension Advisory Committee Members," Rural Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 1 (March, 1963). 81-90. Bible, Bond L. and McComas, James D. "Role Consensus and Teacher Effec- tiveness," Social Forces, Vol. 42, No. 2 (December, 1963), 225-233. Bidwell, Charles E. "Some Effects of Administrative Behavior: A Study in Role Wry, " Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 2 (1957), 163-181. Bradburn, Norman. "Interpersonal Relations Within Formal Organizations in Turkey," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January, 1963), 61-67. Brembeck, Cole S. "The American Educators in the Underdeveloped Lands," The Academy Quarterly, West Pakistan Academy for Village Development, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December, 1961), 107-111. Brookover, Wilbur B. "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles," Es Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (September, 1955), 2-13. Brown, Emory T. and Deekens, Albert. "Roles of the Extension Subject—Matter Specialist," Rural Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (September, 1958), 263—276. Chase, Francis S. "How to Meet Teacher's Expectations of Leadership, " Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 1 (April, 1953), 1-4. Chase, Francis S. and Guba, Egon S. "Administr ative Roles and Behavior, " Review of Educational Research. Vol. 25, No. 4, Chapter 1 (October, 1955b 281-294. Coladarici, A. P., Brooks, E., and Odell, W. R. "Research Priorities in Educational Administration," Journal of Educational Research, Vol.XLVII, No. 8 (April, 1954), 625-628. Coult, Allan D. "Role Allocation, Position Structuring and Ambilineal Descent. ” American Anthropologist, Vol. 66, No. 1 (February, 1964), 29-39. Drabick, Laurence W. "Measuring Locality Group Consensus, " Rural Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 1-4 (1959), 107-117. 125 Flower, George E. "Relationships with People Is the Key, " The American School Board Journal, Vol, 124, No. 6 (June, 1952), 25-27. Gallin, Bernard. "A Case for Intervention in the Field," Practical Sociology, Vol.10, No. 2 (March-April, 1963), 57-65. "Matrilateral and Affinal Relationships of a Taiwanese Village, " American Anthropologist, Vol. 62, No. 4 (August, 1960), 632—642. Gerard, Harold B. "Some Effects of Status, Role Clarity, and Group Goal Clarity Upon the Individual's Relations to Group Process, " Journal of Personality, Vol. 25 (September, 1956-December, 1957), 487-488. Hagen, Everett E. "How Economic Growth Begins: A Theory of Social Change," The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January, 1963), 20-34. Jacobson, Eugene, Charters, W. W. Jr., and Lieberman, Seymour. "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations, " The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1951), 18-20. Koch, Raymond S. "Superintendent's Problems Identified, " The School Executive, Vol. 73 (November, 1953), 72-73. Line, William and King, Margery R. "Cross-Cultural Research," The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 7 (March, 1956), 281-291. Marsh, Robert M. "Formal Organization and Promotion in a Pre-Industrial Society," American Sociological Review. Vol. 26, No. 4 (August, 1961), 547-556. McClelland, David C. "Motivational Patterns in Southeast Asia with Special Reference to the Chinese Case, " The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January, 1963), 20-34. Peabody, Robert L. "Perceptions of Organizational Authority: A Comparative Analysis," American Science Quarterly, Vol. 6., No. 4 (March, 1962), 463-482. Presthus, Robert V. "Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organization, " Social Forces, Vol. 38 (1959), 103-109. "Weberian vs. Welfare Bureaucracy in Traditional Society, " Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1 (June, 1961), 1-24. Reissman, Leonard. "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy, " Social Forces, Vol. 27, Nos. 1-4 (October, 1948—May, 1949), 305—310. 126 Schultz, Raymond. "Keeping Up Teacher'Morale," Nation's Schools, Vol. 50 (October, 1952), 53-56. Scigliano, Robert. "They'Work for Americans: A Study of the National Staff of an American Overseas Agency, " American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 5 (October, 1960), 695—704. Soemardjan, Selo. "Bureaucratic Organization in a Time of Revolution," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1957), 182-199. Smith, William M. and Stinner, John R. "Results of the New Jersey Program," School Executive, Vol. 73 (November, 1953), 69-70. Weiss, Robert S. "A Structure-Function Approach to Organization, " Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1956), 61-64. West, William H. " 'Tooling Up' for Action Research, " School Executive, Vol. 73 (November, 1953), 69. "Who Should Make Such Decisions ?" Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 3 (April, 1955), 1-4. Wilkening, Eugene A. "Consensus in Role Definition of County Extension Agents Between the Agents and Local Supervisory Committee Members, " Rural Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (September, 1958), 263-276. Yang, Martin M. C. "Changes in Family Life in Rural Taiwan," Journal of the China Society, Vol. 2 (1962), 68-79. Pamphlets and Bulletins Agriculture in Taiwan. Chunghsing Village, Nantou: Taiwan Provincial Depart- ment of Agriculture and Forestry, November, 1962. 68 pp. Agricultural Extension Education and Field Supervision Programs for Taiwan's Farmer's Associations. Tali, Taichung, Taiwan: Provincial Farmer's Association, 1960. 10 pp. Anderson, W. A. Farmer's Associations in Taiwan. A Report to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, 1950. 90 pp. Beers, N. Mason. Extension Evaluation in a Foreign Culture. Cooperative Extension Publications, Mimeo Release No. 5. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, February, 1961. 41 pp. 127 Chang, C. W. Present Status of Agricultural Extension Development in Asia and the Far East. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, March, 1960. 75 pp. Economic Miracle in Free China. Taipei, Taiwan: China Publishing Company, P.O.Box 337, May, 1962. 48 pp. Economic Progress of Free China, 1951-1958. Taipei, Taiwan: International Cooperation Administration, Mutual Security Mission to China, November, 1958. 83 pp. Kwoh, Min-hsioh. Improvement Program of the Farmer's Association in Taiwan. A Report to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, 1960. 27 pp. New Spirit for a New China in Agriculture. Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, June, 1957. 18 pp. Ruble, W. L. Use of Analysis of Variance Routines on the CDC 3600. Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Description 2. East Lansing: Michigan State University Computer Laboratory, September 30, 1963. 36 pp. Rural Progess in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Joint Commission on Rural Recon- struction, December, 1960. 160 pp. The Provincial mpartment of Agriculture and Forestry of Taiwan. Nantou, Taiwan: Provincial Department of Agriculture, August, 1959. 28 pp. Wilkening, Eugene A. Role Discrepancy as a Measure of Stress in C00perative Extension Work. Preliminary Report No. 2. Madison, Wisconsin: De- partment of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, March, 1956. 23 pp. Perceptions of Role Definitions as Viewedpy Agents. The County Extension Agent in Wisconsin, Research Bulletin 203. Madison: University of Wisconsin, September, 1957 . Unpublished Material A mimeographed summary of financial support to each of 287 extension sections in Taiwan's Farmer's Association. Extension Division, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction Taipei, Taiwan, June, 1962. Buffington, Reed L. "The Job of the Elementary School Principal as Viewed by Parents." Unpublished doctor's thesis, Stanford University, 1954. Caul, Denio A. "Perceptions of the County Extension Director Administrative Role in Michigan." Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1960. 128 Doyle, Louis A. "A Study of the Expectancies Which Elementary Teachers, . Administrators, School Board Members and Parent Have of the Elementary Teachers' Roles. " Unpublished doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. Durfee, Arthur E. "Expectations Held Toward the Extension Supervisor's Role. " An abstract of a PhD dissertation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Extension Service, 1956. Ferver, Jack C. A paper prepared for Extension 500. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute of Personnel Development, Michigan State University, 1959. Green, William. "The Outlook for Extension Work on Taiwan. " Speech given to Taiwan county extension section Chiefs and supervisors. Taipei, Taiwan: Extension Division, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. March, 1962. (Typewritten). Lacognata, Angelo. "Role Expectations of University Faculty and Students: A Social Psychological Analysis. " Unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. Medsker, Leland L. "The Job of the Elementary School Principals as Viewed by Teachers. " Unpublished doctor's thesis, Stanford University, 1954. Minutes of extension staff meetings of specialists, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction and Joint staff meetings of specialist, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction and administrators, Provincial Farmer's Asso- ciation. Myers, W. I. "National Agricultural Problems in Taiwan. " A memorandum to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan, February 7, 1962. (Mimeographed.) "Observations of Agricultural Development in Taiwan. " A report to the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan, Feb- ruary 16, 1962. (Mimeographed.) "Regulations Governing Agricultural Extension Work in China. " A mimeographed summary submitted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Edu- cation, and the Ministry of Interior to the Executive Yuan. Taipei, Taiwan, January 31, 1962. (Mimeographed.) Speech presented to Farmer's Association Managers by Frank Colling, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, September 5, 1960. Weinland, H. A report to the College of Agriculture, National Taiwan Univer- sity regarding extension work in Taiwan. California Advisory Group, 1956. 129 Westie, Charles M. "Status: Status Sources and Status Criteria." A paper read before the Sociology Section of the Michigan Academy of Arts, Science and Letters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 23, 1962. Tang, Yi-Feng and Chen, Yau-Hung. "Suggestions for Improving Extension Work in Taiwan. " A mimeographed report to United States Department of Agriculture upon return to Taiwan from advanced study. April, 1962. AP PE NDIC ES 130 APPENDIX A 33:09 Shaw 5 mm .H. H. m c N H H 82:35 fit.» :03 $260 manna Eo>< .m . mEoHnona 93 mp8: .Ho a mm m m o m c o N waged—mumps: uofiom .m e 3 .e S o H N H e 3333 383:: .s . nonaofinm new ragga m mm m o N m H o o 3355“ 69,895 .w . . , «noEQSHQEH , m H. HH HH pH N m w H. H. 1333895 .m 3325328 m ..., HH .HH 5 m m m e a $238832 as 3293:.» 695.35 .H. . . Honaomnoa H 8 5 mm m m H. H. w 3309800 982 .m . mmflHHHnHmnoamon m we mH ow v N. w Ht H cocmema use Frau .N . qofiefivuooo egos.» m 5H mH vm m m. m u w noflauonooo @95qu .H Em m. .Uoum monosdonm a agosdcnh momma—copra >28:th _ >825lo masonwflmmm_ magma“ H.809 how now an nob H.0 mom mm mom «4 norm pond—Eco mo muofifioonxm .3 was uncommom mo honogmnh .3 garage :8 as 38.5 Bomtssm 5. .28 Hausubmgaea. .3 36m muosSoosnm .H made 131 132 888.89 mo :oHHmHHHd>m 3828393 0.82 cm 28388 80 8383.880 3:28:8an .m 383.82% .N 32388 .m. 2828884 .N 2884 .e Bus 8 28% .H we .8 «3 N N N N NH. H<.H.O.H. N .3 He .N He H H N o o wmaomquHHoomHS .mH 2828.8 o o o o o o o o 88825 6.88me .NH o o o o o o o o 0388 8883 .2 . manages 888qu mH HN H N N o o o o 32088 .8an: .mH . . 22.896 3 bHetnoH N 3 Hm N e o o o H m we.» .8“ 838m .HH 3:2 Hod. H. o H o o m. 8.58288 8H. .2 . Housemuoa . HH 3 H m H o o o N 8383mm 082 .NH 5 o o o o o o o 88383 83:32 .HH 2.2 Hod H. o o N H H .3288 8H. .2 8m .w 8on honesvonm >28:th 8:28on monoavoum >828on mQHHOHMWMWmeMMWdM. H.309 flow 8% an 8M H.0 .Hom mm 8,.H N4 .8er vofinfioo .8 80530onan 6253.80 . H amfifi 133 06 Nm .0 003200 .8\000 000525 H005 003 00000 000000 083w .0 90.0 .2 0203000 000 00000 00 020000000000 .830m .0 0H .m 050020 008000: . N. >5 .0: 0N NH 02000me .80 0.80000 HOH0000Hu 00>0H0H0H . 0 H: .b HH 002026000: H.000H000000m . m HH me 00200000200 3238000000 000 308500 008000: .0 mm .w mH 80000000 000000080 0.82 .m ww .mH 0N 0032300000000 0002000 000 0.200 .N mm .MH HN o m H HH 0 005050.800 .8 \000 003080000 008000: . H 080 0002800m 20m .80.— 00028000 .8 mn— h 00028000 .8 H.0 .m 00028000 .8 mm .0 00028000 .8 N< h .8000 0—00m 5 000000 0Homu03$m 0003080 00 0005000002 .0002 000 0000002 .8 00008000 .3 020300 80 as 8:80 80-830 :0 .80 0.8250000 .3 08m 0003000000m .N 0300. 134 0.80804 .0 0000000500 0808.0nH 080800000 .0 308 0080.0 8:80 .0 230008804 .0 000208000 .0 0000.800 8 0000-00 .H 0.0 .00 00H 0H 00 H0 0H 00 A4809 0.: 00H 0 o 0 0 0 0 00000030000012 .mH . . 000000000 . 0 0H 00 H H o 0 0 o 0300me 000000000 .0H 0.3 00.0 N o c H o H 2088 008.800 .2 . . 00000000 0000080 0 0H 00 H 0 o o 0 0 H 00080000 8005 .mH . . 0.880000 3 30003 0 0H 00 H o o H 0 o 000 80 800030 .0H o o c o o c o o 80028.8 02. .2 . . 000000000 0 NH 00 H 0 o o o 0 0 0200me 082 .NH 0 .0 . 003000003 00 0 N. m 0 o o 0 00800.000 .HH 0 i. .0 00 o H 0 o ... 00.880 now .3 0*. 00.0.0 8000000h 0000000000 00000000..“ 000008.00 000000000 . 0 008M0Wfl00m _ 03”“ _ m 0 .8 .8 8 .8 2.1.8 3 mu m .0 09 h 00 .0 . mm ..H N< .0 0005080 8 00050000005 00003000 . N 050m. 135 003300 0 .0 00 .0 0 o 0 0 o 0 00\000 0000003 0.33 00300000 003000 08>< .0 . o . 0 00008000 000 00000 0 H0. H . 0 N 0 H w 8 00800308000 0030m .0 m .0. S .0 0 o o c o m 000803 0960080 .0. . . 000003030 .80 3000000 0 0 pm 0 m o N o o H 0080003 00 >0 0000.— .0 m .0 . 30000 00 N N H o 0 0 H 0800000 0000000080m .0 0080003080 0 . E .0 0 0 m o o m 003008080 000 03000300 0080003 .0 0 8 0 0 o 0 005803 H HH 0 H 300800.80 0.83 .0 . 0033800000000 H 0H 00 00 w m. 0 m 0 00000000 300 00000 .0 . 003008.800 .8 \000 0 00 «0 0H 0 0 0H H 0 0030000000 00800003 .H 080m .0 .0000 800000000 000006000 000000000 000000000 000000000H 0 0000M0WH00M_ 03mg” 0080. 30m. 00.0. ma 000 00 00.0 0m 00.0 04 00.0 0008080 8 0003080080 .8000 000 000000000 8 80000000 .00 8000800 000 05 09500 280-0330 00 08 008300 3 200 08038000 .0 0300. 136 30000800 .0 000030000004 .0 0030030000004 . N 0000304 .0 00000000 00 0000000 .H 00 .00 00 NH NH 0H 0H 0N 1040.00. 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 00000030000: .0H . . 000000000 0 NH 0H H H H 0 0 0 0 000000300 000000000 .0H 0 o o o 0 o c o 20020 8.60080 .00 0330000 00000000 0 c o o c o c o 30308 02000 .00 000000000. 3 03003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 300000m .0H 0 c o o o o o 0 0.800008% 0.0. .00 0 .00 00 .0 0 o o o 0 0 00008000 000000000 0002 .NH . . 003000003 0 0 00 N N N 0 o 0 0 000000000 .HH 0.0 00.0 0 o c c 0 0 00.380 .00. .3 00 .0000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0 0000W0wflwmxwwm 0% H0000. 30m 000 mn— 000H 00 00.0 mm 000 N4 000 00030000 00 0003000000an 025080 .0 2000. 137 «O. OH 3335 .2523 30525 53 defiance 9:58 393. .m OO. mEmHnouQ 93 £50: mo 3353338. moan—mm .m #H. H.H magi @9633 . u mm. nowmqoaxm .3“ «yoga. 383$ 83.3.5 .m mO. mH 39:963.“: Hauowmmomonm . m ON .OH ON magnoflflmn 3333.538 and fiwuoflaw vegan—EH .H. Hp .OH HN OH Honaomnmq unmamnaoo 0.32 .m um .wH pm OH OH OH mmazemuoamou 3533 30 EU .N HO .ON HHV H. OH N. OH OH #0328300 uo>Ed aoflduoaooo 695.33 .H “3am honmsvonm monoaguh Managua mom—25mph magma—38h . flew porn no mm— .m no «.0 ..H .3 mm .m no N< m H35 3 E man—cum 33H: 335 2: 8o 0 mac" 009% c .n on .ufi m .3 Had managed Ho hoagvmnh .3 85330 mom 23 88.6 28733 Smasoamé Bow Bofiflooenm a 038. no :4 .HH 138 00003.3: «.806— 083.84 A. 00¢.8 3 0H3“ 0.88 98.5 0.803309% .m 0:05.300 Ooow 08:8.HnH .O 0835083840. .N 8330on .m :3 00 20800 .3 OO .3 OOH 3. mm. On On Ow A<.H.O.H. O.NH OOH O O N O O H O080§=0032 .OH 08.00089 O O O O O O O O 030:0Oxm 606:0me SH 0.3 84 a c o o o m 22.08 03295 .3 . . 330009 3:803 O OH HO H H O O O O H3838 pgwa .OH . . 08809.0 3 bHamoH O OH «O H a O O H H O 93 8O “0800M .OH O .O OO .N O O O O O N 08338006 8O .mH . . H0nnO0u0O O NH «O H O H O O O N nofimnflxm 082 .NH . . 833303 O O OO N O O O O O O 38300033 .HH 0.3 S. H H o o o o 3.380 a2. .3 m. .d0n...H hon0sv0nh moq0sv0~h hoc0zv00m zon0sv0flm hoa0=v0~m .H0HZO 38m 3 38m H.308 30m .8..H Q .8h 0 .8h m .8...H .8r.H 09806 33703.03 0 a. m «a. 08588 No 29.58805 8:850 a «Bay 139 . 330000 380000 0 HH. O. OH O O O O O H3888 .H0HHOE . O NH 00 .H 0 H o H o H 0:83 008.300 .0 . . 300000000 O O HO O OH 0 O O H H. 00080080 0.82 .N. . . 30000 00.0 08030.8 .8 O O OO O O H O H O O 830030.800: 830m .O . 0300033 .8O H. OO O OH 0 H H H. O 800000 0300003 0.83 .O 0300030300 0 a. .S S 0. a H v 0 30308008 05 33.8008 008.83 .0 030030800 O .O HO .O OH H‘ O H O 0 .8\O00 830.8 L800 00880: .O N H0 .NH on m H b .... N. 308260000 000300080m .O . 03333080000 H OH. Om OO O O O O O 0003000 08 8.80 .H 30.03 O» 00.3 O000000nm 00000093 00000—000m O0000000m O000000Hh 0 QOOHWWHWM_ 03mm“ 0 0 8 .8 8 8 8 a H. .H— m rm mn— rm #0 .H mm mm N4 rm Umfimflaoo MO @6002” £0.03 08 00000003 O0 80008.3 .3 03.30030 .HH0O 00.0 3:20 030.0330 0... .80 HEBEBEEHE .3 300 0082 .0 0309 140 35:00 mo 5am 3.250va 0.82 .c 3230QO .m muomHtmasm .m muofifimHfifiHé . N 2833. .H. Ema Ho 2988 .H 3.3 «S mm 3 mm ‘ pm on 132.08 m4; mm. H o o o H o omsoquHHmomHsH SH o o c o o o o o 852%: ”imam .3 o o c o o o o o 322a 8&5 .3 mam S.” m H o o H H maougzomou 8H. .3 . noflaHmeoH . ”H mm H N H o o o H :onHHmaxm .2 m $3 m H o m N m 358qu 982 .NH moHHHHom SEE“ m .3 mo . H o o o o H 39:25 5H3 53.3 -35 mafia 392 .HH HH Sim ¢ o o a H H 5283 now .3 H8 Hm. .doum honmswoum hoqmsdonm 3:28on hoamsdmum mag—dank nacho E HHH x m H33. 5mm norm G .Hoh O .Hom m mom 4 new 3:80 mHOMImBSm m H» m N cmfinfioo Ho 3092 umHHHHHuHHoO . m 3&9 141 . . @5989 3:889 N «H Hp H H o o o o HER—NE .8:me .m m .8 56 NH H o N N b mfinfia 838an .m . H8888.“ N mm NH NH H N NH H H Hafimmfioo 8.82 . b . 388: can 2:388 no N NHq m m N N o H N wHHHUHHdugoHEHH .Hmfimm .m . w. nonamflHm .8“ m 8 CH HHH H. N N N m p.888 HNHQHRHHHH 8.82 .m mmEmHHoflmHmu H 5 .NH mH m o N H. u bHHEHmHHoammu 98 $8055.» @3923: .w :oflafivuooo H. NHV .HH 3 N m N m N .888 83a 183000 H8>ou9dH .m . «cmfimgnafia N H.H NH NH o N m N N 88883on .N . . mmuHHEHmHHoammu m w 3 m NH N H. N m H H8888 HHS 8.80 .H 8m 8 .Umnh moamsdmuh moaoHHdoum 8:25lo zonmsvonh >983.on masouwwmoomummfimhm o o .8 4 .8 8 .8 .8 . .8 E» .H. .HH m ..H mm .m H.0 ..H mm m N< h 353800 Ho 8882 18m 98 omqommmm Ho 882.2% 3 853.30 38m EB 3580 oHOMImBSm HH< 8H 20¢?qu3 3 38: 882 .w 8389 H 142 323mg “003mm baaxflm .m 3230on .m 28:64 2025255 . mHBNBmHEEEw savanna Ho madam . HNC‘GQ‘ Nada ovH aN NN Hm HVN Hum A4809 m.NH m¢.H o o emsooquHoomHS SH «.HH Hp. 00.83%: “.8me .wH 2.308 umgwa NHH Hp. mnoflflaommv non HH ch now—23mm: nonnouxm .NH m.NH NH..H Hogomuma 0.82 .NH OH bmd moBHHon no>2§ mmmfimsn firs H8550 -35 $38 396 .HH cod N o m N o 5350mm new .cH xddm .Uourm >825lo >895on monondmum moaosgnm hoamswmnh .830 g g H309 flow mom no mm .m no H.0 ..H no mm ..H .Ho N< ..H 3:80 oHOMumBSm cmfinfioo .Ho mummz $83.80 .w 038. 143 r . 050:0: 3.80.89 N N N N N o N o o H3888 8&5 .N N H .N N. H o N H N NESBHN c0>o88H .N . . 858209 N N NN N N o o H o N 809.2380 0 .82 .N. . 0600: 28 08030.8 No H NN «N NN N N N N NH 8858828 8fi0m .N . :onnflxm .8“ 9.8350 H. 3 HH NH N N N o H 385$.“ 0 82 .N 0QEmaoH§H0u c o o o c o o o 3:33:88“ 98 3823:.» 888:: .Hu now—«8.800 N NH .NH NH H N N N N 885 85a ...8980 N0>088H .N N N . N. N 8080888 N H N H N N HN8H0m08unH .N . 83:55:38.” N NN NH NN N N N N N 8:900“ 80 8.80 .H Em NN .U0uh >0G0=U0fim hogsgnm 8:0:60um honosugh Nona—ugh 0 QSOHMHMWMHH mfimum o 0 8 .8 8 8 8 H3 .H. NH m h NHH .m #0 .NH Nm ..H N< ...H 6032080 .8 8002 diam HEN 00:0N00m No 8:0:d0um an 6033.20 NH0m ES 38.8 2cm-masm =4 .8“ H 2833. 3 30m 882 s 033. 144 830808 .8.“ 00383830 .N 323080 .N 0808896 .N 003050HHHH8< . N 0.80804 .Hg 003.88 8 038.3 .H No 63 NHH NH NH NN N N HN H<.H.O.H. N .NH NN., H o o H o c N080H8HH000§H .NH o N o o o o o o 00:03.8H ”500% .NH m .NH 3. H o H o o c 03.88 .885 .NH o o o o o o o c 0:33:88 non 4: . . :030H0HN0H N N NN N N H N o o N aonHHSxm .NH «.NH mm. H o o H o 0 H2823 98: .NH moflHHod 8 \600 HH N» .H N H o H o o 000503 fits H83 $260 9508 083. .HH 3w 8.0 m H o o o a $288 8H. .2 NN 60.5 800530.; ho:0:d0.H...H Non0dv00h 8:0:v0nm Non0sv0nm 0 QuouWWHWHHxHHWNM _ m o 8 8 8 8 ..8 . 3 .H. flow m ND h H.0 ..H Nm h N< ...H H.0HHEHH80 .8 06002 83080 s 230. 145 H 0 0 N :3. NH o a N N H. 30 :8 H2800 30.0308 .0230 .m N. «”0 NH H. m H H H 0:253 8.6.0an .w . H00000000 N NN N NH N N N H N. 000000080 0002 .N. . 06000 600 00003000 8 N NN N NH H N H N N 8803000600 0 0fl0m . N . 0080005 00“ N Na N HH N N H N N 0000000 88005“ 0002 .N 0300003080 a no .HH H« H o H m 3 303880.80 28 380080 608095 .N 0030080000 N NN .NH NH N N H N N 00\600 000.0 £80000 60.8000: .N 00 > 00: H ,3 .NH mm 0. m m N. OH 08 o 8 . 800000080HH .N . 003288000000 N NH NH NN N N N N N 600N800 000 N080 .H 8m NN .0002 80000002 80000002 0200000002 80002000,..H 8000000m 0 0000MMHW~H_ 03230“ 0 0 8 .00 00 00 . .00 N3 .H. NH m m NHH 2 No ..H Nm ..H NN. ..H 6008080 8 06002 .3 60.0 00000002 8 8008002 .3 60380.20 20m 600 ma=20 030-0330 HH< .80 3338.00 .3 200 0802 .m 28.0. 146 00380 .N 333803 .N 000080005 .N 00000000H0H0H6< . N 0000H>6< .N 03 8 0H0H00m .H 8 .2: 20 NN NN mm mm NN 000.00. N.NH NN. H H o c o o 003850832 .NH N.NH NN. H H o o o o 8530:30me .NH NH NoH N o o o o N 03.88 .8800 .NH N.NH NNH N o o H o N 2003088 new .NH . . 803.0me N NH NN H N N H o o N 0808300 .NH NH NNN N N N o o H 358.0% 0.82 .NH 005200 00\60.N N .3 3 .N N o H N N N $0525 :03 808 -38 N558 280 .HH NNH 3N N c o. N N N .0283 new .NH NM. .N00nH 80030002 8000v00h 080000002 8000a00m 8003.002 0 0000mWHMHMH00muH 032.0“ 0 m .Ho .Ho .Ho .HO .Ho _ 0 H3 0. NH 0 0 N0 0 N0 0 N0 0 N< 0 80388 No mcmoz 600E800 . N 0309 APPENDIX B NATURE OF STATUS-ROLE RESPONSES AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT CLASSIFICATION BY EXPECTATION CATEGORIES 1. Improved Cooperation and] or Coordination a. b. c. d. e. a. b. O. f. g. Improved cooperation and coordination. 1 Communications - horizontal, vertical and channels of. Closer working relationships. Exchange of ideas, information, and/or experience. Public relations. Carry Out Assigned Responsibilities2 Provide technical assistance. Furnish more educational materials. Disseminate information to rural people. Organize farm groups. Provide or be provided with support, guidance, counsel, and/or advice to Extension workers and/ or rural clienteles. Strengthen local voluntary leadership. Assist rural clientele in improvement of living standards. 3. More Competent Personnel3 a. b. C. Better qualified personnel entering Extension. Higher standards for personnel selection. Selection of personnel with rural oriented background and experience. 1Generally reported in this form by status-role respondents without their differentiating between the two. 2General tasks (duties) oriented to the conduct of the Extension program as enumerated by document schedules in the possession of the writer. 3Not categorized as professional improvement in accordance with respond- ent's beliefs. 147 148 d. College-trained personnel. d. Stronger'leadership potential. f. Extension workerswho work hard, are industrious, possess initiative, exhibit consideration of others, who are fair, and who set good exam- ples to others. Such responses were grouped as character traits. Improved Authority and Responsibility Relationships a. Clearer lines of authority and responsibility. b. To be given more authority and/ or responsibility or authority commen- surate with responsibility. 0. Know to whom responsible. d. More control over subordinates. Professional Improvement a. To be provided or provide more opportunities for professional improve- ment both within and outside of Taiwan aimed at improved work perfor- mance. b. Additional and/ or improved training sessions. 0. Take more advantage of training Opportunities (specialist's expectations of other groups). (1. » Acquire additional knowledge for improvement of skills. Improved Financial Support for Extension a. To secure more financial support from JCRR', 1 FA, 2 and government. b. Dependable sources of support. c. To explore new sources of financial support. d. To work toward an adequately financed Extension system. c. To financially assist less fortunate Farmer's Associations. Improved Planning a. Program planning based on local needs. b. Planning for organizational change. 0. Development of plans of work. 1Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. 2 . . Farmer's Assoc1at10n. 10. 11. 12. 13. 149 (1. General planning. Better Understanding of Needs and Problems a. Understanding of needs and problems of rural people. b. Understanding of needs and problems of the organization - its goals, structure, functionality, and personnel problems. 0. Become better familiarized with problems and needs. 1 (1. Understand "our" problems. e. Improve "their" understanding of the problems confronting the organi- zation. Avoid Mixing Education with Business and/ or Politics a. "Stick to" educational work. b. To discontinue practice of selling Farmer's Association merchandise as part of delegated work responsibilities. 0. To avoid becoming involved in political activities of local Farmer's Association managers. (1. "Pay strict attention" to your Extension work. Job Security a. To be provided with job security. b. The assurance that "we" will not be unfairly discharged. Extension Legislation2 a. To assist in the preparation of regulations. b. To promote Extension legislation. More Extension Personnel a. Additional staff to assist in the implementation of the present program. b. To provide for subject-matter specialists headquartered at the Provin- cial Farmer's Association. Job Descriptions a. To prepare job descriptions. b. To be provided with job descriptions. 1No elaboration on part of respondents. 2 A set of regulations drafted by Chinese leaders representing government and non-governmental agencies (and assisted by American advisors) designedto correct some of the more evident problems confronting the present extension organization. Such regulations were to be presented to the legislative bodies of Provincial and National Governments for appropriate action. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 150 c. To know his duties. Respect for and Loyalty to Superiors a. To be more loyal to superiors. b. To respect the position of superior. 0. Protect subordinates. Higher Material Personal Benefits1 a. More salary. b. To be provided with or provide increased per diem benefits. c. To provide or arrange for the provision of motorized cycles to facilitate travel. Improved Morale a. To raise morale of personnel in the organization. b. To demonstrate better morale. Expanded Extension Programs a. To broaden Extension offerings to clienteles. Miscellaneous Promotional opportunities. a b. Be more professional. c. Quit complaining. d. Evaluation of personnel. e. Reduction of training costs. f. Promote enthusiasm. g. Promote good relationships. h. Spend more time in office. Exert influence. H0 0 1Is closely associated with the expectation ranked sixth, (Improved financial support for Extension) but categorized separately in accordance with status-role responses. 151 NATURE OF STATUS-ROLE RESPONSES AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT CLASSIFICATION BY NEED CATEGORIES 1. Carry Out Assigned Responsibilities F" (D Q. 0 H5 1"“? H0 0 j. Need to provide or be provided with technical assistance. More educational materials for use in working with rural people. To carry out responsibilities associated with their Extension position(s). Support and encouragement from superiors and/or peers. To provide more support and encouragement to others. To provide support, counsel, and/or advice, to rural people. Spend more time "in the field" working with subordinates. Assist other Extension personnel solve problems. Train local leaders. To perform well on the job. Professional Improvement To provide or be provided with more in-service training opportunities. To take greater advantage of training opportunities. To devote more time and effort to the development of personal skills and knowledge. To develop more effective personnel training programs geared to needs. More knowledge, improved skills and/or changed behavior for more ef- fective work performance. 3. Improved Cooperation and/or Coordination To improve c00peration and coordination. 1 To conduct a stronger public relations program. The opportunity to exchange ideas, information, and/ or experiences with others, especially peers. To improve communications with others. Closer working relationships within extension organization. lGenerally reported in this form without respondents differentiating between the two. f. 152 To develop and effect closer relationships with other Extension and non- Extension organizations. 4. Improved Authoritx and Responsibility Relationships a b. O 9* More authority. 2 More authority commensurate with responsibilities. Authority to select and control personnel. More authority to make decisions. To develop or have knowledge of clearer lines of authority and responsi- bility that embody all levels of the Extension hierarchy. More Financial Support for Extension More dollars. 3 More financial support from JCRR. The assurance of an adequately financed Extension organization. To explore sources of financial support and secure needed funds. Better Understanding of Problems and Needs a. b. To acquire a better understanding of the problems confronting the organ- ization. To improve the understanding of rural people's needs and problems. 7. More competent Personne14 a. b. C. Personnel who can exercise stronger leadership. More rigid standards for selecting personnel. Administrators, supervisors, advisors, and/or specialists need super- iors and/ or peers who are better qualified and experienced. 1 Taiwan's overall Extension offerings involve no less than eighteen separate government and non-government agencies. 2 The most common manner in which this need was reported. 3Most frequent manner in which this need was expressed. 4Not categorized as professional improvement in accordance with respond- ent's beliefs. 153 8. Improved Flaming a. To plan Extension programs based on the needs of rural people. 1 b. To pay more attention to (general) planning. c. Devote more time to planning. (1. To develop program planning procedures. e. To understand program planning. 9. Higher Material Personal Benefits a. To provide or be provided with higher salary for individual performance. b. To provide or be provided with increased per diem allowance. 0. Motorized transportation. 10. Job Security a. Job security. 11. Avoid Mixing Education with Business any or Politics a. To find ways to avoid becoming involved in Farmer's Association busi- ness and/ or political activities. b. Devote full time to educational endeavors or the opportunity to do such. c. Avoid being involved in "shady" deals that do not relate to education. 12. More Personnel a. To provide or be provided with more Extension personnel to assist on- going program. b. Subject-matter specialists within the present extension organization. 1Most responses relative to planning, as a need, were oriented to extension program planning. 2Such personnel are currently assigned to the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Their responsibilities to extension are secondary. 154 13. Extension Legislation1 a. Extension legislation or regulations. b. To help in the formulation, promotion, and promulgation of Extension legislation. 0. An organization that is relatively free from major problems. 14. Job Descriptions a. To prepare job descriptions. b. An understanding of my duties. 15. Higher Morale a. To improve morale within the organization. 16. Exert Influence a. To exert influence. 17. Miscellaneous Equality. a. b. Opportunities for promotion. To be flexible. O 9' Respect for superiors . e. More adequate span of control. 1A set of regulations drafted by Chinese leaders representing government and non-governmental agencies (and assisted by American advisors) designed to correct some of the more evident problems confronting the present extension organization. Such regulations were to be presented to the legislative bodies of Provincial and National Governments for appropriate action. APPENDIX C UNEQI PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONS1 FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ROUTING UNEQI has only one option--a one-way analysis of variance in which the subclass numbers may be unequal (i. e. , an unequal number of subjects per group). AOV Card X( )=A0V(X( ))* Observed (Factor A Variable Variable (gives the level number of each obser- vation) AOV Table SS DF MS F A # # # # ERROR # # # TOTAL (AFTER. MEAN) # # MEAN # TOTAL # Notice that this table is the same as option 1 of FACREP. The only differ- ence is that since the number of replications for each level of factor A may be un- equal, a variable for replications is not specified on the AOV Card. 1W. L. Ruble, Use of Analysis of Variance Routines on the CDC 3600, Agricultural Experiment Station Program Description 2 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Computer Center, September 30, 1963) pp. 35-36. 155 156 PROCEDURES AND FORMULAE USED TO DEVELOP COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR EXPECTATIONS/NEEDS 1. A table of frequencies was constructed to show the number of times each expectation/need was mentioned by each of the four status-role groups. An example follows. Expectation 1 24 Expectation 18 - 2. From the above table, tation, i.e., a 2x4 x2 Status-Role Groups B C D 2 1 19 4 1 2 a x test of contingency was computed on each expec- test. Example Status-Role Groups A B C D Totals Expectation #1 (No. of times mentioned) 24 21 19 41 105 Expectation #1 (Number of times not mentioned.) 129 134 65 155 483 Total of all expectation responses. 153 155 84 196 588 It is hypothesized that Expectation #1 (is or is not mentioned) is indepen- dent from status-role groups, A, B, C, D, or more specifically, that the indiv- idual answering to Expectation #1 is a member of Group A, B, C, or D. 157 3. To test the hypothesis, the following formula was devised: ’6 " W211 ’- ‘ (g4 -¢‘J—C£:dg-f¢4j>éfij\z 3 éé “J \ fix“; 7 X}: =2 < + § J S— L, . I ' . . ‘ | “ éf¢t g n ”a $31 where 0 is the observed frequency (i.e. , 24 for Group A in Expectation #1), i represents expectation 1, 2, 3. . . 18; and, j designates the status—role group (A, B, C, D). This formula is expanded from the standard x2 test of contingency formula1 which makes it possible to work directly from a "grand" table of frequencies rather than having to form eighteen separate 2 x 4 tables of contingency. 1.2 = éé (W 4' ' EA"? )1 ‘- 4 E 13' where Oij is the observed and Eij the expected frequency. (em >(,éwa‘) % 2 first ‘3 158 WRITTEN PROGRAM1 FOR CALCULATING SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO RANDOM VARIABLES (STATUS-ROLE GROUPS AND EXPECTATIONS/ NEEDS) UTILIZING THE 3600 COMPUTER 1 Prepared by Charles Hart, Computer Consultant, Michigan State Univer- sity, September, 1964. 1 1 1 10 11 12 1 159 PROGRAM HYETH I DIMENSION o¢1e.4). E<18.4). EX(18.4). SUMO(4). SUMR(18). culsoc1e). SHALL(16). TITLE(18.4) FORMATt79H .11) FORMATCZAé) FORMAT¢4A5 .4r2.0) TORNAT¢56R1TABLE OF OBSERVED FREQUENCIES AND cHt~SOUARE TESTS rOR .9A6 .2/.1OX. 29HOBSERVED FREQUENCIES BY GROUP.4X.21HSMALLEST CH 2I-SOUAREaln26Xa1HAn5Xa1HBn5Xa1HC.5Xe1HDn4Xa36HEXPECTED STAYISTIC 3 13 14 20 21 .22 ton 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1 110 111 112 200 1 201 2n2 SIGNIFICANCEo/O4XO2A6 033XI9HFREQUE~CYO/) FORMAT¢1H0.12.1X.4A5 .3x.4(F4.0.2X).ZX.P6.2.2on11.4, FORMAT¢1H1) RFAO ‘lN 1r¢N-9)21.22.21 PRINT 1 on To 20 K 818, DO 101 J I 11 4 SUHCIJ’ 3 00 On 10, I - 1. K SUH'1I, ' 0. SMALLtl) - 99999. CH!SO(!) c 0. SUN 8 D. RFAD 10. READ. HEADl DO 104 I I 1: K A ' RRAD 11. (T!TLE(I.L).LI1.4) . (O;J-1.4, DO 103 J 3 1: 4 SUNflll) a sunntl) o 0¢!.J) SUHCCJ) - SUMCtJ) 0 0(an3 SUN - SUN o Otan) CONTINUE DO 111 I - 1.x DO 110 J l 1: 4 ECIoJl - SUNRt!) . SUMC(J: I sun EX(I.J) - (sun - SUNR¢1)) o sunch) / SUN trtsnALL(t) - E(!.J))106.106.109 SHALLII) I EtloJ) 1r¢8NALL¢!) - EX(I.J))1OD.1DO.107 SHALLll) . EX(!.J) lFtSNLLL(I))1D9a112o109 cutsoct) . culsocr) . ((0tlaJ) - Ec13J)>«-2 / E(I.J)) . (C(SUNCCJ) - OtiaJ, - EX(!.J))ot?)/EX¢I.J)) CONTINUE CONTINUE DO TO 200 outset!) . 0. GO TO 111 PRINT 12. HEAD. NEAD1. HEAD.NEAD1 PRINT 1:. (l. (T!TLE. x . 1. K) Irck-ta)202.201.202 K a 17 GO TO 100 PRINT 14 STOP 111 END END APPE NDD{ D INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (Used for all status-roles included in study sample.) Expectations If the Farmer's Association extension organization is to be strengthened, what do you expect from: 1. Administrative staff b. Extension Chief c. Section chiefs County supervisors Township advisors JCRR specialists Self 01th Needs If the Farmer's Association is to be strengthened, what do you believe each of the following needs: 1. Administrative staff a. Extension Chief b. Section chiefs County supervisors Township advisors JCRR specialists Self 01pr 160 161 ATTITUDE SCALE SCHEDULE 1 Following are a series of statements. Would you kindly indicate your atti- tude toward each. How do you feel about each of these statements? How well does each statement describe the way you feel using the scale which ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Check how you feel about each statement and check only one space for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers. 1. Extension goals are being achieved in Taiwan. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 2. All extension workers in Taiwan know what is expected of them. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 3. Lines of responsibility and authority are clearly defined. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 4. The present extension organization in Taiwan gives all extension personnel the opportunity to make decisions. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 5. Extension administrators in Taiwan understand the function of their organi- zation. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 6. The PFA Extension Chief and his four Section Chiefs have the authority to make final decisions about extension work in Taiwan. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 7. Extension workers in Taiwan feel secure in their jobs. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 8. A plan has been developed for the selection of extension leaders in Taiwan. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 9. Extension activities within the Farmer's Associations in Taiwan are coor- dinated. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 10. There is a free exchange Of ideas and information within the extension or— ganization. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree lTranslated into Chinese. 2Instructions clarified verbally before test administered. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 162 All township advisors, hsien supervisors, and PFA extension personnel have the same idea about extension goals. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Present extension policies and programs are not changed until results are evaluated. 1 Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree COOperation within the extension organization is voluntary. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Procedures for routine operations of administration have been developed and put into operation. 2 Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree All extension personnel have been assigned definite work responsibilities. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree The number of township advisors assigned to each hsien supervisor is too many in number. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree When extension personnel are delegated responsibility to do a certain job, they are also given the necessary authority. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Responsibility in the extension organization is shared. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Township extension workers are loyal to their hsien supervisors. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Extension workers are loyal to their PFA chiefs. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Extension administrators defend their subordinates whether they are right or wrong. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Authority equals responsibility in Taiwan's extension organization. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree 1Not included in present study. 2Not included in present study. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 163 Job descriptions have been prepared for all extension positions. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree All extension personnel at the township, hsien, and provincial levels share in decisions. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree The line of authority is a clear line from PFA to township advisors. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Each township extension advisor reports to only one superior. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Extension personnel in Taiwan have opportunities for promotion in extension work. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree The present system of extension organization in Taiwan meets the needs of rural people. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree The present system of extension organization in Taiwan meets the needs of extension personnel. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Major extension decisions are made by the local Farmer's Association Gen- eral Manager. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree The first loyalty of a township extension advisor is to the Farmer's Asso- ciation General Manager. Strongly disagree: : : : : Strongly agree Extension workers in Taiwan are recognized for their good work. Strongly disagree: : ; : : Strongly agree 10. 164 RECORD OF NON -DIRECTED INTERVIEW:l Reference to phase of study (a) Component of administrative process (check one) Organizing Coordinating Planning Communicating (b) Element of administrative behavior (check one) Role Needs Goals (0) Interaction (check one) Vertical Horizontal Conditions under which interview made Where interview held? When interview took place ? Who interviewed (name, title, organization of informant) Record of interview (additional information on reverse side) How interview recorded? Name of interviewer Criticisms of interview data (defenses, opinions, biases, etc.) Remarks 1Used for total Taiwan extension investigation of which this study is a part. NNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH wmqmmhwmwowmqmmpwmwo (quamrkCDNl-fi 165 GUIDE LINES FOR EXTENSION ORGANIZATION INTERVIEWS Reasons for organizing. Nature and function of extension organization. Departmentation. Span of control. Authority and responsibility. Spelling out relationships. Flexibility. Unity of purpose. Job descriptions. Line and staff relationships. Service departments. Unity of command. Balance, continuity, leadership facilitation. Personnel policies - salary; hiring; termination, promotion. Security. Coordination. COOperation. Relations with other organizations. Decentralization. Structural arrangements. Communications. Control. Loyalty. Decision-making (allocation and distribution). Evaluation. Division of work. Executive leadership. Human relations. Others. 10. 166 1 RECORD OF NON-CONTROLLED PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION Reference to phase of study (a) Component of administrative process (check one) Organizing Coordinating Planning Communicating (b) Element of organizational behavior (check one) Expectations Needs (c) Interaction (check one) Vertical Horizontal (Intra-org. ) (Inter-org.) How observed? (Conditions under which observation made and information collected) Where observed ? When observed? Who was Observed? (Name, title, organization) What observed? (Record of) - Additional information on reverse side. How recorded? Name of recorder Criticisms of observation (defenses, opinions, biases, etc.) Remarks: 1Used for total Taiwan extension investigation of which this study is a part. 16'.7 1 DOCUMENT SCHEDULE Reference to phase of study: a. Component of administrative process (check one) Organizing Coordinating Planning Communicating Element of organizational behavior (check one) Expectations Needs Interaction (check one) Vertical Horizontal (intra—org. ) (Inter —Org. ) Nature of document a b. c. d. e. Kind of document Official Unofficial Organization Date Name and title of informant Record of data Criticisms of data (defenses, opinions, biases. rationalizations, etc.) Remarks: 1Used for total Taiwan extension investigation of which this study is a part. HICHIORN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES lllWillNllll"NI/HIHUMWIW”IUIIHIWHIIHI 31293104748490