33‘)?“ ...z w.-- Mental |1| _ THESlS 3 1293 10699 45 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of the County Extension Director's Administrative Role in Michigan presented by William A. Harrison has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Administration and Curriculum feat/WM Major professor» Dr. Eddie A. Moore Date May 2L}, 198ll MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 —_——_4 __ - ~ llllllllllllllllll‘llllllll" I‘lllllllllll L Q MSU LlBRARlES _ RETURNING MATERIALS: ace in boo rop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. I”, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE IN MICHIGAN By William A. Harrison A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1984 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE IN MICHIGAN By William A. Harrison The general purposes of this study were: (1) to define the role of the county Extension director in Michigan as viewed by county Extension directors. other Extension workers. and county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons; (2) to obtain informa- tion to help Extension personnel gain a better understanding of the relationships between the selected study groups; and (3) to provide Michigan Extension administrators with additional information on which to base performance evaluations. The data were obtained from a mailed questionnaire returned by l7l Michigan Extension workers and 48 county government CES contact persons on the Job in April 1983. The questionnaire provided opportu- nity for the respondents to record their Judgment concerning the extent to which 172 Possible role-definition items were a part of the Job of a county Extension director. 'The questionnaire was similar to the one used by Caul (1960) but with additional items to reflect contemporary issues and social responsibilities that the Cooperative Extension Serv- ice has in the 19805. Each respondent was asked to record. on an William A. Harrison eight-point scale. his/her evaluation of the extent he/she perceived the role-definition item to be a part of the county Extension director's role. All administrative processes studied were important. but empha- sis was placed on the county Extension director's functions in the following order: (1) business management and finance. (2) educational leadership. (3) organization and policy. (4) direction and coordina— tion. (5) planning and programming. (6) administrative relations. (7) personnel management. and (8) supervision. ‘The rankings reported in this study were not different from the Caul study (1960). County Extension directors viewed their administrative role differently than did county Extension agents and state Extension administrators. These differences were observed in three administrative processes with county Extension agents and in four administrative areas with state Extension administrators. .Age. staff size. Extension experience. formal educa- tion. or time spent on administration did not change the county Exten- sion directoré' view of their administrative role. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful for the guidance and assistance given him by the chairman of his guidance committee. Dr. Eddie A. Moore. and other members of his committee: Drs. Clifford Jump. 0. Donald Meaders. Fred J. Peabody. and Louis Romano. Sincere appreciation to Gordon Guyer. Director of the Coopera- tive Extension Service. who cooperated fully and provided encouragement for the completion of the study. The author is indebted to all members of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service staff and county govern- ment officials who provided data and to those who aided in the collec— tion and analysis of the data. especially Ray J. Gillespie. Sandra 5. Clarkson. and Mary L. Andrews. The author expresses appreciation to his parents for their encouragement and support during the researcher's undergraduate and graduate programs. Gratitude is expressed to the Almighty God for assistance in this endeavor. Finally. profound thanks and grateful appreciation must be extended to my wife. Judy. and to my children--Bradley. Jill. and Bryan--for their patience. encouragement. and sacrifices which made this study possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I O INTRmUCI' ION O O O O I O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study . Background of the Study Definition of Terms . . Limitations of the Study Overview . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . Role Theory . Role Consensus . . . . . Role Analysis Concepts . Administrative Theory . . Historical Perspectives in Admin More Theories and Issues in Administration Related Studies Summary III. PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY Planning the Study . . . . . . . Reviewing the Literature . . . Preparing the Survey Instrument istration Selecting the Population and the Respondent Groups Conducting the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Securing Responses to the Questionnaire Processing the Data Summary Page vi xi Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . 53 Research Objectives and Relevant Data . . . . . . . . 53 Characteristics of Respondents in the Four Position Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Administrative Processes in CES at County Level . . . 63 Planning and Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Organization and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Program Direction and Coordination . . . . . . . . . 73 Personnel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Administrative Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Business Management and Finance . . . . . . . . . . 93 Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Relative Importance of Administrative Processes . . . 103 Consensus Within Each Position Group . . . . . . . . . 105 Differences Between Each Position Group . . . . . . . 108 County Extension Directors' Views Based on Age. Staff Size. Extension Experience. Formal Educa- tion. and Time Spent on Administration . . . . . . . 113 Comparing the Caul Study and the Present Study . . . . 123 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Characteristics of Respondents in the Four Position Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Findings Resulting From the Analysis of the Different Expectations of the County Extension Director's Administrative Role . . . . . 134 Findings Resulting From the Analysis of Five Dependent Variables of the County Extension D1 rectors O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O 136 conc1u510ns O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 136 Characteristics of Respondents . . . ._. . . . . . . 136 Expectations of the County Extension Director's Administrative Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 County Extension Directors' Views Based on Differing Demographic Background . . . . . . . . . 138 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Recommendations for Additional Research . . . . . . 139 APPENDICES e o o o e o o o o o o o o o e e o e o o o o o o o e o 141 BIBLIWRAH'IY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 187 Table l. 4. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Number of Respondents by Position. Michigan. 1983 . . . Age of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. State Extension Administrators. and County Government CES Contact Persons in This Study. 1983 . . Sex of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. State Extension Administrators. and County Government CES Contact Persons in This Study. 1983 . . Race of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. State Extension Administrators. and County Government CES Contact Persons in This Study. 1983 . . Formal Education of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. State Extension Administrators. and County Government CES Contact Persons in This Study. 1983 O O O O O O O O O C O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Years in Extension Work of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. and State Extension Adminis- tratorsinThisStudy.1983 eeeeeeeeeeoee Region of County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. and County Government CES Contact Persons inThTSStUdy019830.000000000000000 Size of TOtal Staff of Responding Michigan County EXtGflS‘lOfl DirOCtorSI 1983 e o e e e o e e e o e e e 0 Proportion of Time County Extension Directors in This Study Spent on Administration as Surveyed. 1983 . . . Number of County Extension Directors With Various Assigned Proportions of Time for Administration and Their Reported Proportions of Time Spent. 1983 . . . . Twenty-Three Items Pertaining to County Extension Planning and Programming. Classified by Mean Score and Rank Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 52 S6 57 S7 58 59 6O 61 62 62 65 Table Page 12. Twelve Items Pertaining to County Extension Organiza- tion and Policy. Classified by Mean Score and Rank order 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71 13. Twenty-One Items Pertaining to County Extension Direction and Coordination. Classified by Mean Score and Rank order 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 74 14. Twenty-Three Items Pertaining to County Extension Personnel Management. Classified by Mean Score . and Rank order 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O 79 15. Twenty-Two Items Pertaining to County Extension Super- vision. Classified by Mean Score and Rank Order . . . . 84 16. Twenty-Nine Items Pertaining to County Extension Administrative Relations. Classified by Mean Score and Rank order 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O 89 17. Twenty-Three Items Pertaining to County Extension Business Management and Finance. Classified by Mean Score and Rank Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 18. Nineteen Items Pertaining to County Extension Educa- tional Leadership. Classified by Mean Score and Rank order 0 O C O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 100 19. Mean Response Scores and Rank Order for Eight Administra- tive Process Areas for County Extension Directors. by Each of Four Respondent Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 20. Friedman Analysis of Variance of Administrative Process Means by Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 21. Bartlett Homogeneity of Variance Tests by Administrative Process for County Extension Directors. County Extension Agents. State Extension Administrators. and County Government CES Contact Persons . . . . . . . 107 22. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Planning and Programming Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . 109 23. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Organiza- tion and Policy Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . 109 vii Table Page 24. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Direction . and Coordination Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . 110 25. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Personnel Management Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . . . 111 26. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Supervision Between COunty Extension Directors and Other Respond- ent Groups in This Study . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 27. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Adminis- trative Relations Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . 112 28. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Business Management and Finance Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . 112 29. An Analysis of Variance for County Extension Educational Leadership Between County Extension Directors and Other Respondent Groups in This Study . . . . . . . . . 112 30. County Extension Directors' Mean Scores for the Admin- istrative Process Areas. Classified by Age . . . . . . . 114 31. An Analysis of Variance Between County Extension Directors' Age and the Eight Administrative Process Areas 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 15 32. County Extension Directors' Mean Scores for the Admin- istrative Process Areas. Classified by Size of Staff . . 116 33. An Analysis of Variance Between County Extension Directors' Staff Size and the Eight Administrative Process Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 34. County Extension Directors' Mean Scores for the Admin- istrative Process Areas. Classified by Extension Exper‘ence O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 118 35. An Analysis of Variance Between County Extension Directors' Extension Experience and the Eight Admin- istrative Process Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 viii Table Page 36. County Extension Directors' Mean Scores for the Admin- istrative Process Areas. Classified by Formal Education 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O 118 37. An Analysis of Variance Between County Extension Directors' Formal Education and the Eight Administrative Process Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 38. County Extension Directors' Mean Scores for the Admin- istrative Process Areas. Classified by Time Spent on AdMInIStration O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 121 39. An Analysis of Variance Between County Extension Directors' Time Spent on Administration and the Eight Administrative Process Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 122 40. A Comparison of Responses to the Administrative Pro- cesses Between the Harrison Study and the Caul Study. Classified by Mean Score and Rank Order . . . . . . . . 124 41. Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance for County Extension Director. County Extension Agent. and State Extension Administrator Respondents' Administrative Processes Between This Study and the Cau1 Study. by Rank 0 O O O O O O I 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 125 42. Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance for County Extension Director Respondents' Administrative Processes Between This Study and the Caul Study. by Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 43. Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance for County Extension Agent Respondents' Administrative Processes Between This Study and the Caul Study . . . . . . . . . 127 44. Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance for State Exten- sion Administrator Respondents' Administrative Pro- cesses Between This Study and the Caul Study . . . . . . 127 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Norm, R0199 alldPOSlt‘lOn 00000000000000... ‘8 20 A POSItTOfl-Cefltl'lc MOOGT o o e e o o o o o o e e e e e e o 23 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. ROLE EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 B. MEAN RESPONSES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEAN RESPONSES FOR THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD APPRAISAL FORM . . . . . . . . . 166 D. SUPERVISORY STANDARDS APPRAISAL FORM . . . . . . . . . . 171 E. COVER LETTER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17h F. COVER LETTER TWO . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 G. INFORMATION CARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . 181 H. SUPPORT LETTER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 I 0 FOL Low-UP CARD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 85 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Cooperative Extension Service is dedicated to "the deve1opment of people themselves. to the end that they. through their own initiative. may effectively identify and solve the various problems directly affecting their welfare” (Boone. 1970. p. 265). 'This goal is met primarily by utilizing the research findings of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state land-grant institutions to assist the people through county offices in meeting a variety of educational needs. Che of the major factors contributing to the success of the Cooperative Extension Service as an agency of change has been its willingness to undergo rigorous internal and external evaluation and make adaptations in organizations and programs consistent with societal needs (Boone. 1970). Although the basic mission of Cooperative Extension has remained essentially the same. social. technological. and economic changes have broadened its program scope in terms of clientele. methods. and techniques. In 1958. the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service established the position of the county Extension director (CED) (Olstrom. 1982). This action officially created an administratiye unit at the county level. Previous to the designation of a county Extension director. a county staff chairman had been selected to head up the local staff. The administrative role of the county Extension director in Michigan Cooperative Extension Service (CES) has become a vital one. Because of the geographic dispersion of Extension personnel throughout the state. the need for effective decentralized administration decision making by those most in touch with county-level problems has been and remains critical. The proficient discharge of managerial responsibilities at all levels in the Extension organization allows for the maximizing of energies to meet the educational needs of clientele (Peabody. 1979. p.1). The county Extension director's position. like other positions within the organization. is influenced by being just one of many inter- locking positions. The county Extension director. like incumbents in other positions. performs various roles to fulfill specific functions of the organization. Certain expectations come to be held of those individuals filling various positions in any organization. An organi- zation operates in a certain way largely because the incumbents in a position perform as is expected of them by the occupants of other positions in the organization. .SInIamanI_QI_Iha_ELOhlam Administrative demands on the county Extension director have never been greater. Competition for budget dollars. accountability for program results. and personnel management demand sound administrative leadership by both the newly appointed as well as the experienced county Extension director. Different people are bound to have different perceptions of the county Extension director's administrative role and of its importance because of their different associations with county Extension work. Incumbents in this position are caught in the cross fire of expectations of persons associated with them and their own perceptions of the job to be done. Gross (1958) described the impor- tance of expectations in role when he said: Regardless of their derivation expectations are presumed by most role theorists to be an essential ingredient in any formula for predicting social behavior. Human conduct is in part a function of expectations. Whether a person is identified as a male or female. as a policeman or a teacher. a salesclerk or a janitor. a member of one social system or another. makes a difference in the expectations others hold for him or that he holds for himself. (p. 18) The more important groups holding expectations for the administrative role of the county Extension director and influencing his/her role on the basis of their expectations are: (l) the county Extension directors. (2) the county Extension agents. (3) the state Extension administration. and (4) the county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons. The expectations by others and the self-expectations are important to the county Extension directors' performance of their administrative role. Therefore. a current analysis of the county Extension director's administrative role in Michigan is essential. W The general purposes of this study were: (1) to define the role of the county Extension director in Michigan as viewed by county Extension directors. other Extension workers. and county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons; (2) to obtain informa- tion to help Extension personnel gain a better understanding of the relationships between the selected position groups; and (3) to help provide Michigan Extension administrators with additional information on which to base performance evaluations. The specific objectives of this study were: 1. To determine the administrative duties of the county Exten- sion director as perceived by the county Extension director. other county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons. 2. To determine differences in role perceptions of the county Extension director's administrative duties as perceived by each respondent group. 3. ‘To determine if there is an association between age. formal education. size of county staff. tenure. and amount of time assigned for administration of the county Extension director. and his/her perception of selected aspects of the county Extension director's role. 4. To compare the findings relating to the importance of the eight administrative processes of this study with selected information obtained from the Caul study completed in Michigan in 1960. The specific hypotheses tested in this study were as follows: 1. There are differences in the importance of the expectations held for the various administrative processes in the county Extension director's position as perceived by respondent groups. 2. There are differences in the consensus within each position group on the perceived expectations held for the administrative duties of the county Extension director's position. 3. There are differences between the county Extension direc- tors group and each of the other respondent groups on the perceived importance of expectations held for the administrative duties of the county Extension director's position. 4. There is a measurable association between: a. The age of county Extension directors and their percep- tion of responsibilities and activities. b. The size of staff and the county Extension director's perception of the position's responsibilities and activities. c. The tenure of county Extension directors and their perception of the position's responsibilities and activities. d. The extent of formal education of county Extension directors and their perception of the position's responsibilities and activities. e. The amount of time spent on administration of county Extension directors and their perception of the position's responsibilities and activities. 5. There are differences between the perceived importance of the eight administrative processes reported in this study and those reported in the Caul study completed in Michigan during 1960. .Backsneund_9£_the_SIunx In recent years. a concern has surfaced centering on the administrative role of the county Extension director position in the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. This concern is evident by the series of events that have emerged in recent years. In December 1978. an Extension School workshop was presented entitled "Functioning Effectively as a County Extension Director" (Michigan State University. 1978). The workshop outcomes focused on the major administrative functions of the county Extension director. The functions identified included maintaining a productive staff. coordinating communications with specific public audiences. managing people and resources. and helping staff effectively work as a team to serve the county. Throughout 1979. management-training seminars were held for the county Extension directors. These seminars generated a list of administrative attributes that help to determine success or failure as a county Extension director (Michigan State University. 1979). During late 1979. it was concluded by the state Extension administrative staff that there was a lack of clarity of perception of the county Extension director's role between and among both field staff and the state administrative staff (Peabody. 1979. p. 2). The group concurred that progress on this matter would require identifying current expectations. An initial draft of the expectations as viewed by state administrative personnel was prepared. The major administrative functions of the Michigan county Extension director in this draft were: (1) county program development and implementation. (2) fiscal management. (3) personnel management and development. and (4) administrative management. In short. the county director was the Extension adminis- trator at the county level and. as such. possessed the delegated responsibility. authority. and accountability for managing the Exten- sion effort. To assure involvement by field personnel. a committee of six county Extension di rectors. one from each region. was empaneled to meet with the associate directors to pursue further any current or potential problems of the county Extension director's role (Peabody. 1980). This group also was requested to recommend corrective action as needed. Teleconferences and meetings were held in early 1980 to gather informa- tion from the committee. Discussion revolved around the initial draft. previously submitted by the state Extension administrative staff. 'The recommendations of the committee were presented to the State Director of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service in June 1980. These recommendations follow: 1. County Extension directors to have the option to participate in the interview of candidates for board-appointed positions in the county. 2. County Extension directors shall make performance evaluations of all staff housed in the county and have the option to make annual performance evaluations of agents who serve. but are not headquartered in the county. 3. The policy statement of April 1. 1980 on procedures for "Field Staff Recruitment. Selection. and Employment" Cooperative Extension Service. be revised and two statements/policies be drafted which will include time frames and flow chart of the process for: a. County Extension director b. All other county. area. regional and district field staff positions 4. That a classification system for county Extension director administrative position responsibilities be established for all counties. The county Extension director's role to be classified based on the complexity required for county administration as determined by appropriate and relevant criteria. Provision be accorded for establishment of minimum salary differentials based on the amount and degree of administrative responsibility for each classification group. The further study of a classification system would be useful. 5. County Extension directors shall have responsibilities for the professional development of county staff and agents serving the county. Responsibilities to include counseling. in-service education. and providing opportunities for career growth. County directors may recommend county staff for advancement. promotion. transfer. reassignment or termination. 6. County Extension directors to assume the responsibility for the development. organization. management and accountability for the county's total Extension program. The county Extension director shall be pro-active in becoming informed and knowledgeable on all County Extension Service programs. County directors shall also assume or delegate responsibility for preparation of plans-of- work. coordination of staff efforts and evaluation of educational results in serving county audiences and clientele. 7. Recognizing the changing and evolving role for the county Extension directors. continued recognition be given to the need for adequate in-service education--both formal and informal. such training to be designed to meet individual needs of county Extension directors. Special training also be planned for both newly appointed as well as potential candidates for county Extension director positions. (Michigan State University. 1980) Several of these recommended corrective actions have been incorporated into the Administrative Guide. while others have not been addressed. .A more recent related concern deals with the evaluation of the Michigan county Extension director. During the 1981-82 review period. county Extension directors were evaluated in part according to a set of newly established administrative performance standards (Michigan State University. 1982L The performance items included the following categorized areas: administrative management (seven items). fiscal management (nine items). office organization and operation (six items). personnel management (six items). program management (ten items). and public relations (five items). ‘These new standards were the result of integrating the previously established generally accepted functions with selected items from the work presented in two recent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects (Artsbasy. 1982L The names of the projects were "A Nationwide Job Analysis of County Extension Agents' Work" (Bramback. Hahn. 8. Edwards. 1978) and a companion project. "Development of a Performance Evaluation System" (Hahn. Bramback. & Edwards. 1979L. These projects involved the active cooperation of the Cooperative Extension Services from Iowa. Michigan. New Hampshire. New Mexico. Pennsylvania. South Carolina. Texas. and Washington. However. it should be noted that the job analysis projects did not analyze the administrative role of the county Extension directors per se. The specific objective of the work was the multi- state job analysis for entry-level and experienced-agent positions in each of three position classes: county Extension agent--agricu1ture. county home economics agent. and county 4-H agent. oriented toward use for selection and performance evaluation (Bramback et a1.. 1978. p. 2). In addition to the recent concern in Michigan to clarify the administrative role of the county Extension director as well as a new evaluation system. a third concern related to the personnel in the position of county Extension director. During the past several years. there has been a substantial attrition of county Extension directors due to retirements and transfers. In fact. between January 1. 1979. and May 1982. some 30 new county directors were assigned to the positions available (Peabody. 1982). Of that number. 22 were promoted from within Extension and eight from outside of Extension. In the past. county Extension directors were traditionally trained in agriculture. although in recent years a few came from the Extension areas of 4-H and family-living education. Generally. their educational experiences have focused on program responsibilities rather than in administrative fields that might help them to identify and perform the functions of administering a county Extension unrb. After appointment they must assume the roles of program leadership. coordina- tion. personnel management. business management. public relations. and obtain local financial support. Further. the county Extension director must assume responsibility for the total Extension program in the 10 county to which he/she is assigned. Thus. the county Extension director must divide his/her time between the expected administrative role as well as the accepted programming role. The balance between these two roles may vary from county to county. These are challenging expectations to be held for incumbents of any position. but they do suggest the characteristics that are expected to be present in the character of the county Extension director. An often-quoted unknown author has humorously described the characteris- tics of a goOd CED as follows: The strength of an ox. the tenacity of a bulldog. the daring of a lion. the industry of a beaver. the vision of an eagle. the disposition of an angel. the loyalty of an apostle. the heroism of a martyr. the faithfulness of a prophet. the tenderness of a shepherd. the fervency of an evangelist and the devotion of a parent. The county Extension director in the Michigan Extension is responsible for administration at the county level of the basic mission of Cooperative Extension in disseminating and encouraging the application of research-generated knowledge and leadership techniques to individuals. families. and communities. Since its creation over 25 years ago. there has not been a comprehensive study conducted to determine the perceptions about the administrative role of the county Extension director in Michigan. mm For the purposes of this study. the following definitions have been used for purposes of clarity and consistency: 11 .Qgnuty_£x:enslgn_d1negtgn. The county Extension director is the person designated to head the county Cooperative Extension Service unit and is expected to assume responsibility for the total Extension service and its program at the county level. .3919. A role is a set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position (Gross. Mason. & McEachern. 1958. p. 60). lhuninistnatign. The process of bringing about coordinated action of a group of individuals through a social organization by giving guidance. leadership. and control to the effort of individuals toward the maximum realization of a common goal. lhuninistna111e_duties. The responsibilities and activities normally performed by the county Extension director. .Eenceiyed. Perceived in this study is defined as: To be aware of through the senses. as of sight. hearing. etc.: acquire a mental impression of. from immediate presentation of sense modified by the reactions determined by attention. interests. previous experience. etc. (HQle_BOQk_Diniinnany. 1974. p. 1530). .Expectations. Expectations are an evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position. There are two dimensions to a single expectation. One has to do with direction. Every expectation has to be either for or against something. The second dimensions is inten- sity. Any expectation can be placed on a continuum measuring the extent of the expectation. 12 .Egsjtlgn. Position is a location in a group structure which contains one or more roles with associated norms. Noun. Norm refers to a commonly held behavior expectation or a learned response held in common by members of a group. .Bespgndents. Respondents refer to the "significant others" Onembers of the counter positions) and county Extension directors used in the population sample. .Bgle_cgn£1191. Role conflict refers to a lack of consensus in the expectations held for the administrative role of the county Exten- sion director by significant others and the expectations of the direc- tors themselves. .Bgle_cgnsensus. Role consensus refers to agreement in the definition of a specific role. LimitationLOLthLStudx The study was subject to the following limitations: 1. The study was limited to the administrative role of the county Extension director and was not concerned with other roles an incumbent of this position may perform. 2. The data obtained were limited to persons in the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and selected county government officials during 1983. 3. The questionnaire was limited to the 186 role definition items. which were taken from the literature by the researcher and evaluated by retired Michigan Cooperative Extension persons. 13 4. ‘The responses expressed by the respondents were limited to their judgment and experience with the administrative role of the county Extension director. mm... Chapter I dealt with a description of the research problem. the establishment of the background for conducting the study. definition of the terms. and the study limitations. Chapter II of the report discusses role theory and the theory of administrative role of the county Extension director. Chapter III describes the procedures used in planning and conducting the study. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study with reference to the respondent groups and their expectations of the county Extension director's administrative role. Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions based on the data obtained and the implications of this study. with suggestions for future research in this area. The Bibliography and Appendix conclude the manuscript. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study involves an analysis of the administrative role of the county Extension director in Michigan. In the early phases of such an analysis. it is essential to construct a frame of reference. This study was designed to establish a frame of reference compatible with theories of role analysis. Theories are by nature general and abstract: they are not true or false. but rather useful or not. Albert Einstein. one of the greatest theorists of all times. captured the essence of theorizing in the following: In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands. even hears it ticking. but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes. but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observation. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that. as his knowledge increases. his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. (Einstein & Infeld. Griffiths (1964. pp. 955-96) reported that the most common use of the term ”theory" was as a synonym for speculation. supposition. or some conception of the ideal. while others claimed that anything that l4 15 was impractical was theory. Halpin (1958) maintained that under- standing in administration is complicated by the fact that some writers have used the term to mean axiology. Frigl (1951) defined theory as a set of assumptions from which a larger set of empirical laws can be derived by purely logicomathe- matical procedures. Kerlinger (1964) suggested a more general defini- tion: “A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts). definitions. and propositions that presents a systematic view of phe- nomena by specifying relations among variables. with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena" (p. 11). For the practitioner. theory is perhaps most useful in furnishing a number of concepts. or sets of spectacles. with which to view his situation (Campbell. n.d.). The Cooperative Extension Service. as a social system. lends itself to the study of roles of individuals and positions within the organization. 'There are many roles within the system. each influenced by many role expectations held by significant others both within and outside the organization. These roles are supported by authority delegated through federal and state regulations. by county agreements. and by the people whom Extension serves. In addition. the informal arrangement. both within and outside the organization itself. supports and influences the expectations held toward and consequently the behavior of incumbents in different positions. 16 W People do not behave in a random manner. 'They are influenced by their own expectations of how they think a person should behave in their position and by significant others in the group in which they are participants. Although their formulations have some fundamental differences. most authors in their conceptualization of role include three basic components. These components are that individuals (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations (Gross et a1.. 1958. p. 17). The county Extension director is influenced by the expectations held for his/her position by occupants of other posi- tions both within and outside of the organization. Researchers in social sciences frequently make use of role as a central term in conceptual schemes for the analysis of the structure and functioning of social systems and for the explanation of individual behavior. Much of the literature in role theory can be traced to Linton's work. Linton treated the concepts of role and status in two major volumes. MW (1936) and WM .Eensgna111y_(l945). As a basis for the introduction of the status and role concepts. Linton (1936) said that three separate elements are prerequisites for the existence of a society: "an aggregate of individuals. an organized system of patterns by which the interrela- tions and activities of these individuals are controlled. and the esprit de corps which provides motive power for the expression of these patterns" (p. 107). He defined role in terms of normative cultural patterns and looked at social systems as a set of blueprints 17 for behavior. It is "the sum total of the ideal patterns which control the reciprocal behavior between individuals and between the individuals and society" (p. 105). Bates and Harvey (1975) viewed a norm as a conscious or unconscious conception held by an actor about how to act in respOnse to certain events occurring within himself or in his environment. As a real phenomenon. a norm is a particular sort of memory pattern which exists in a particular biological organism and functions as a study guide to the behavior of that actor. Newcomb. Turner. and Converse (1965) pointed out that role refers to the behavioral consistencies on the part of one person as he contributes to a more or less stable relationship with one or more others. Status and role represent a conceptual elaboration of the "ideal patterns which control reciprocal behavior.” Statuses are "the polar positions in. .. patterns of reciprocal behavior.. .. A status. as distinct from the individual who may occupy it. is simply a collection of rights and duties" (p. 113). A role represents the dynamic aspects of status. "When the individual puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect. he is performing a role” (p. 114). From the viewpoint of the individual. "the combined status and role serve as guides for his conduct. specifying the minimunn of attitudes and behavior which he must assume if he is to participate in the over-expression of the pattern" (p. 114). In short. role apparently has reference not to the actual behavior of an occupant of a position. but to behavior standards. It consists of "attitudes. values 18 and behavior ascribed by the society to any and all persons occupying this status" (Linton. 1945. p. 77). Bates and Harvey (1975) provided an interesting reformulation of the norms. role. and position concepts. Norms within any group structure may be defined in terms of five coordinates: (1) the function to which they are attached. (2) the physical location or locations regarded or appropriate for the performance of the behavior. (3) the temporal context within which the behavior is appropriate. (4) the actor who is expected to perform the behavior. and (5) the actor or object toward whom or which the behavior is supposed to be performed. The norms that have similar coordinates on all these vari- ables simultaneously constitute a role. A role. therefore. consists of a set of norms organized around a given function that one exact actor performs toward another actor. within a single real group. in a given temporal-spatial context. Figure l diagrams these relationships. inn-Role 4 -§ / norm\' a... 2 "°"" "°"“ \ Tuarnn “°"" /no/rm Roles I : Role 3 norm 5 ' . U U ' I 5‘ POSITION w Figure 1.--Norm. role. and position. 19 Not all authors agree with the "normative culture pattern" definition of role. In some definitions. a role is treated as an individual's definition of his/her situation with reference to his/her and others' social positions. Sargent (1951) said. "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 in his group" (p. 360). According to Parsons and Shels (1952). each actor in a social situation is faced with five basic choices before a situation has determinate meaning for him/her and before he/she goes into action. These alternatives of selection of pattern variables are: a. Affectivity . effective neutrality b. Particularism . . . . . . . . . . . universalism c. Ascription . . . . . . . . . . . . . achievement d. Diffuseness . . . . . . . . . . . . specificity e. Collectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . self-orientation In this analysis of action they viewed these pattern variables in terms of alternative choices which actors must take in combining normative expectations with their personal needs in situations before the situations have determinate meaning for them. In this context. a role is a mode of organization of the actor's orientation to the situa- tion. Not all authors view a role as the normative patterns for what actors should do or as the actor's orientation to his/her situation. Instead. they define role in terms of what actors actually do as position occupants. Davis (1948) defined role as how an individual actually performs in a given position or compared to how he/she is supposed to 20 perform. It is the manner in which a person actually carries out the requirements of his position. Slater (1955) had a similar conception of role: "We might define role as a more or less inherent and unified system of items of interpersonal behavior" (p. 48). Gross et a1. (1958) pointed out that a number of possibilities present themselves for the differences in role definition. One of the most obvious is that the definitions are influenced by the different disciplines of the definers and the special problems in which they are interested. Linton (1936) as an anthropologist stressed cultural patterns. and Sargent (1951) as a psychologist emphasized individual perceptions. Parsons (1951) developed his conception of role to fit into a theoretical model for social systems as part of a general theory of action. while other sociologists have emphasized group processes. Gross et a1. (1958) suggested that an interest in different problems also implies a difference in the frame of reference within which different authors place their role concept. They stated that Linton was concerned with positions in a total society. thus relating the individual to culture. Sargent's frame of reference was restricted to that of an individual's perception of a single interaction situation. Another reason for some of these differences in definition is simply semantic: the same phenomena are frequently given different names. What Linton and Newcomb defined as a role. Davis defined as a status. What Davis defined as a role. Newcomb called role behavior. 21 W: In a study of the administrative role of the county Extension director. a concern is that of identifying how this role is seen by significant others. This concern is brought about by the assumption that the expectations of these significant others have a bearing on the role and the actions of the individuals in that role. Gross et a1. (1958) pointed out this postulate in the following statement: Involved in many. but not all. formulations of the role concept in the social science literature is the assumption that consensus exists on the expectations applied to the incumbents of particular social positions. (p. 21) Newcomb et a1. (1965) at one point said. "Both behavior standards and norms for perceiving people are shared by all members of any group. but they apply in distinctive ways to different members of the group. depending upon how these members are classified" (p. 276% This would seem to imply that they assumed consensus in role definition. Yet their statement. "Roles thus represent ways of carrying out the functions for which positions exist--ways which are generally agreed upon within whatever group recognizes any particular position and role" (p. 281). seemed to recognized the possibility of imperfect consensus. Parsons (1951) indicated that: The institutionalization of a set of role expectations and of the corresponding sanctions is clearly a matter of degree. This degree is a function of two sets of variables; on the one hand those affecting the actual sharedness of the value orientation patterns. on the other those determining the motivational orientation or commitment to the fulfillment of the relevant expectations. . . . The polar antithesis of full institutionalization is. however. 22 anomie. the absence of structured complementarity of the interactive process or. what is the same thing. the complete breakdown of normative order in both senses. (p. 39) Gross et a1. (1958) concluded that the members of a social system. whether a dyal or a total society. must agree among themselves to some extent in values or expectations as a matter of definition. The point they underscored is that the degree of consensus on expectations associated with positions is an empirical variable. .Bole_Anal¥$12_Cencents Nearly every role theorist. regardless of the frame of reference in which his/her analysis is couched. adopts the view that a position is an element or a part of a network or system of positions. 'The term position used in this study and/or defined by Gross et a1. (1958) refers to the location of an actor or class of actors in a system of social relationships. It is difficult to separate the idea of location from the relationships that define ft. Just as in geometry a point cannot be located without describing its relationships to other parts. so persons cannot be located without describing their relations to other individuals: the points imply the relationships and the relationships imply the points. For social-psychological purposes. Newcomb et a1. (1965) said that the manner in which a society is organized is best described in terms of the positions that exist in that society for people to fill. Every individual in any society occupies at least one position: even the newborn child occupies the position of infant. Further. most individuals beyond the age of infancy occupy several positions: The 23 same adolescent girl is daughter. sister. and president of her high school class: the same man may be a husband. a father. a deacon. and a business person. No one. however. occupies all the positions that are recognized by his/her society. No one individual participates in all of a culture. In this study the county Extension director (CED) was the focal position and was studied in relation to three counter positions. The counter positions were (1) the other county Extension agents working in the county (CEA). the members of the state Extension administrative staff (SA). and (3) the county government (Cooperative Extension Service) contact person in the county (CGCP). Gross et a1 (1958) described this as the position-centric model illustrated in Figure 2. Counter position (SA) Counter position (CEA) / K counter position (CGCP) \ J (CED) Focal position Figure 2.--A position-centric model. 24 In referring to the relationships of the focal positions to the different counter positions. the concept of positional sectors is used. Gross et a1. (1958) viewed a positional sector as the relationship of a focal position to a single counter position and defined as an element , of the relational specifications of a position. The position-centric model used in this study provides a framework for focusing on one position and examining the role expectations held by it and by a series of counter positions. Administnatimlbeou BMW immunization Taylor and his associates (1947) thought that workers. motivated by economies and limited by physiology. needed constant direction. He hoped to maximize the output of workers by applying what he called the principles of scientific management. A few excerpts reveal the flavor of his managerial theory: (1) each person in the establishment. high or low. should have a clearly defined daily task. The carefully circumscribed task should require a full day's effort to complete: (2) the worker should be given standardized conditions and appliances to accomplish the task with certainty: (3) high pay should be tied to successful completion: (4) failure should be personally costly: and (5) as organizations become increasingly sophisticated. tasks should be made so difficult as to be accomplished only by a first-rate worker (pp. 63-64). Taylor's chief concern was organiza- tiOnal productivity. and he saw man as an economic being who. with the 25 right incentives. could be used much as machinery is used to increase productivity. While Taylor's chief focus was on the shop level of production. Fayal (in Gulick & Urick. 1937) turned his attention to management. particularly the top manager; According to Fayal. administrative behavior consists of five functions. which he defined as: (l) to plan means to study the future and arrange the plan of operations: (2) to organize means to build up material and human organization of the business. organizing both people and materials; (3) to command means to make the staff do their work:(4) to coordinate means to unite and correlate all activities; and (5) to control means to see that everything is done in accordance with the roles which have been laid down and the instructions which have been given (p. 119). Gulick (in Gulick & Urwick. 1937) amplified these functions in answer to the question. "What is the work of the chief executive?" He responded by bringing attention to the topics of the division of labor. coordination of work. organizational patterns. and departmentations. Under coordination. the concept of span of control was developed. The span of control considered to be most effective was five to ten subordinates. As part of his consideration of organizational pattern he developed POSCoRB. an acronym for his seven administrative procedures: planning. organizing. staffing. directing. coordinating. reporting. and budgeting. He also suggested that organizations might be departmentalized in terms of purpose. process. persons. or place. 26 The view that people could be seen as things or that they were motivated chiefly by economic considerations led to a counter movement--the human-rel ations view of administration. Follett (1924) wrote that the fundamental problem in all organizations was in developing and maintaining dynamic and harmonious relationships. In addition. she thought that conflict was not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities. but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for enrichment of all concerned. Despite Follett's early work. the development of the human- relations approach is usually traced to studies done in the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago by Mayo (1946). The first experiment was designed to test the effects of illumination on worker production. andings on illumination did not turn out as expected. 'This led to a need to reexamine the basic assumptions and to explore the problem more fully. The findings suggested that whatever factors were changed--rest periods. length of day. method of paymentr- and in whatever way they were changed. even return to the original conditions. led to greater production (p. 73). The general thesis of the human-rel ations movement placed great importance on "good 1eadership"—-democratic rather than authoritarian and employee-centered rather than production-centered. Likert (1967) gave more attention to human relations in organizational terms. In his early work he established four systems of organizations: explorative authoritative. benevolent authoritative. 27 consultative. and participative. Later he gave up these descriptions and called them simply Systems 1. 2. 3. and 4. He contended that effective organizations tended toward System 4 and that they had the following characteristics: high levels of cooperative behavior: organization structure and interaction skills to deal with conflicts. capacity to motivate and coordinate the work of employees without resort to line authority and superior-subordinate relations which enable a person to perform well even with two or more superiors. Likert summarized his views in Won (1967). In his view. great faith could be placed on workers. and their participation would do much to increase the productivity of an organization. Barnard (1940) provided the original definitions of formal and informal organizations and cogently demonstrated the inevitable interaction between them. He contended that authority did not reside in the giving of an order by a superior. but rather in the accepting of the order by members of the organization. Barnard also presented the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency. By effectiveness he meant the accomplishment of the purpose of the organization. which he saw as essentially nonpersonal in character. By efficiency he meant the satisfaction of individual motives. obviously personal in character. Just as the mechanistic nature of industrial management seemed to be a factor in the birth and development of human relations. the excess of human-relations disciples probably gave support for a more structural view of organizations. 28 Weber (in Gerth & Mills. 1946) gave the concept of bureaucracy. and for him the distinctive characteristics of bureaucracy include the following: (1) a clear-cut division of labor to permit specialization. (2) positions organized into a hierarchical authority structure. (3) a formally established system of rules and regulations. (4) an impersonal orientation on the part of officials. and (5) career employment in the organization. Weber also dealt with the question of authority and suggested three types: traditional. charismatic. and legal. March and Simon chose to look at organizational behavior as different from individual behavior. ‘Their concepts were set forth in two books: ‘Admjnjstnat11e_fleha11gn by Simon (1957) and Organizations by both authors (1958). They saw man as "intendally rational." but limited by his capacities and his knowledge. .As such. men in organiza- tions when making decisions make a limited search for alternatives and they tend to select the first satisfactory alternative that comes along. Thus. organizations do not continue to search for optimal decisions: they settle instead for "satisfying" decisions. Organization. according to Griffiths. Clark. Wynn. and Iannacone (1962). is that function of administration that attempts to relate and ultimately fuse the purposes of an institution and the people who comprise its working parts. It is the continuously develop- ing plan that defines the job and shows how it can be efficiently and effectively accomplished by people functioning in a certain social environment. 29 The idea that organizations were social systems was present in Merton's (1968) work. As social systems. each part of an organization was dependent on the other parts. Viewing the organization as a social system and placing the focus on the organization. as such. tended to ignore the context within which organizations exist and probably contributed to the notion that organizations are closed systems. Bennis (1970) took the position that nearly all our institutions are failing today because they are living on the borrowed genius of the industrial revolution. when bureaucracy came into its own. It was an elegant invention. a creative response to what was then a radically new age. But the passing of that age has left its characteristic form of organization hopelessly out of joint with contemporary reality. Whereas structuralism focuses largely on organizational arrangements. open systems recognize the exchange both by way of input and output between the organization and its members. Katz and Kahn (1966) defined an open system as an energic input-output system in which the energic return from the output reactivates the system. Social organizations are frequently open systems in that the input of energies and the conversion of output into further energic input consists of transactions between the organization and its environment. Another approach to open systems proposed by Weick (1976) is that elements. or subsystems. in organizations are often coupled together loosely rather than through tight. bureaucratic linkages. By loose coupling Weick intended to "convey the image that coupled events 30 are responsive. but each event also preserves its own identity" q» 3). He also saw potential functions and dysfunctions in loose coupling as follows: (1) allows positions of the organization to persist. (2) may provide a sensitive sensing mechanism. (3) may be a good system for localized adaption. (4) may allow the system to retain more mutations and novel situations. (5) may keep a breakdown in one part of the system from affecting other parts of the organization. (6) may allow Inore room for self-determination on the part of the actors. and (7) may be relatively inexpensive. for less money is spent on coordination. The open-system model of organization. according to Schein (1965). holds that any given organization imports various things from its environment. uses these imports in some kind of conversion process. and then exports products. services. and waste materials which result from the conversion process. Thus open systems. such as schools. depend on outside agencies in the environment for making available required energic inputs (operating funds. teachers. materials) and for absorbing the organization's products (educated and trained students). The significant fact is that open systems must be in intimate contact with the external environment to receive inputs relative to the expectations which are held for the organization. For the most part. the views of administrative theory previously mentioned did net originate in educational administration. Yet developments in educational administration closely parallel those in the broad field of administration (Hoy & Miskel. 1982). 31 W W Considerable activity in developing still more useful theories that would help to advance the science of administration has brought about several newer approaches to administration. 'The Getzels and Guba (1957) model of behavior in social organizations is widely recognized. It is based on the theory that administration is a social process in which behavior is conceived as a function of both the individual and the institution. In this model. administration is structurally the hierarchy of subordinate-superordinate relationships within a social system: and functionally the focus for allocating and integrating roles and facilities in order to achieve the goals of the social system. The social system is comprised of two dimensions: 'the nomothetic. which. consists of institution. role. and expectations: and the idiographic. which consists of the individual. his personality. and his need- dispositions. The term institution is used to designate agencies established to carry out institutionalized functions for the social system as a whole. and roles are the dynamic aspects of the positions. offices. and statuses within an institution. Roles are defined in terms of role expectations. and roles complement one another. A given act is derived simultaneously from both the nomothetic and idiographic dimensions: that is. behavior is the product of both the role and the personality of the role incumbent. The proportion of role and personality factors determining behavior will vary greatly from one situation to another. 32 The Getzels and Guba model suggests some administrators may be more nomothetic or normative in their behavior and somelmore idio- graphic or personal in their behavior. Moser (1957) was able to use these ideas and define three styles of leadership: (1) the nomothetic style is characterized by behavior which stresses goal accomplishment. rules and regulations. and centralized authority at the expense of the individual. Effectiveness is rated in terms of behavior toward accomplishing the school's objectives: (2) the idiographic style is characterized by behavior which stresses the individuality of people. minimum rules and regulations. decentralized authority. and highly individualistic relationships with subordinates. ‘The primary objective is to keep subordinates happy_and contented; and (3) the transacted style is characterized by behavior which stresses goal accomplishment. but which also makes provision for individual need fulfillment. The transactional leader balances nomothetic and idiographic behavior and thus judiciously uses each style as the occasion demands. According to Little (nut). leadership may be considered one of the two primary functions of administration: the other function is management. The leadership function requires the capacity to "live ahead" of his institution: to interpret his institution's needs to the public and the publicfls needs to his institution: and to conceive and implement strategies for effective changes required for his institution to fulfill its purpose. ‘The management function requires the capacity to arrange and operate his institution in a manner that elicits an 33 efficient and effective effort of the total membership of his institu- tion toward its purposes. McGregor (1960) advocated the integration of organizational and individual goals in what he called Theory Y; He felt that too many administrators still operate in the traditional view of direction and control. and he labeled this Theory X. McGregor based his Theory Y on motivational research. He stated: Man is a wanting animal--as soon as one of his needs is satisfied. another appears in its place. This process is unending. It continues from birth to death. Man continuously puts forth effort-—works. if you please--to satisfy his needs. (p. 36) Campbell. Bridges. Corbally. Nystrand. and Ramseyer (1971) viewed the central purpose of administration in any organization as that of coordinating the efforts of people toward the achievement of its goals. In education. they said. these goals have to do with teaching and learning. ‘Thus. administration in an educational organization has as its central purpose the enhancement of teaching and learning. Moore (1984) felt the basic theories of administration have not changed in the past 20 years. but the social setting in which education functions has undergone considerable change. Long (1982) stated that educators need to focus on the emerging trends and issues suggested by current census data. One of these trends is the growth of the 65-and-older population. Census projections indicate this group of senior learners will double between 1976 and 2020. topping out at approximately 45 million. .Another trend is the emergence of the Hispanic population. 'The Bureau of the Census place 34 the Hispanic population in the United States at well over 12 million. If Present trends persist. the mushrooming Hispanic population will outnumber blacks as the largest minority group by 1990. A third trend to consider is the shifting family composition. Unprecedented numbers of single-parent families are evolving primarily because of divorce. During the 70's. two-parent families plummeted by one million. or 4 percent. while one-parent families climbed by 2.6 million or 79 percent. At the close of the decade. the number of divorces (1.170.000) was approximately half the number of marriages (2.317.000). Society's economic state plays an important part in its view of education. As resources become limited. educators and noneducators demand the verification of schools' purposes through such quantifica- tion measures as accountability and minimal-competency legislation and policies (Bakalis. 1981). This verification inevitably results in greater bureaucracy and the escalation of decision-making control to ever higher levels of educational governance. Bakalis (1983) believed that in past practice. quality education has in fact meant quantity education: that is. the purpose of the schools has become doing everything for everybody. Can we be equal and excellent too? When Americans have had to choose between the two. equality and not excellence has been the victor. The Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (Goldberg 1: Harvey. 1983) expressed that mediocrity. not excellence. is the norm in American education. It further reported that we do not have to put up 35 with this situation. We can do better. we should do better. and we must do better. Cooperative Extension administration. like all educational administration. in spite of the universality of administrative processes. does of necessity get back to the teaching and learning process. Extension administration exists for the purpose of guiding and facilitating the organization to meet the out-of—school needs of the people it serves. primarily in the areas of agriculture and marketing. family-living education. 4-H youth and natural resources. and public policy education. As we analyze the administrative role of the county Extension director. we will operate in the frame of reference that has been established here. .Bfilntfid_§1ndlfis In a study of this nature. it is essential to review the literature and examine the research that may have bearing on the problem under investigation: the administrative role of the county Extension director. Caul (1960) conducted a study of perceptions of the county Extension director's administrative role in Michigan. The data for his study were obtained from 395 Michigan State Extension workers. who as respondents had an opportunity to record their judgment concerning the extent to which 132 possible role-definition items were a part of the job of a county Extension director. The role-definition items were grouped into two broad categories. One group described 50 items as specific responsibilities with which the county Extension 36 director must be concerned. including functions such asi(l) effective use of Extension resources in the county. (2) interpretation of Exten- sion organization and policy. (3) being aware of strengths and weak- nesses of Extension agents in his/her county. and (4) selection of the new county agents when needed in his/her county. ‘The second group described 82 items identified as activities in which the county Exten- sion director would engage. including items such as (1) adjusting assignments of agents so as best to use their talents and skills. (2) reviewing reports of program accomplishment in all program areas. (3) employing and assigning duties of office secretaries. (4) planning and evaluating the county Extension program. (5) serving as a consul- tant to other agents in their area of program responsibility. (6) making periodic reports of use of funds under his/her direction to county governing and/or advisory groups.and (7) supervising personally the technical work of other county agents. Caul's findings defined the role of the county Extension director in the following vein (items in rank order): 1. Providing the educational leadership at the county level. 2. Obtaining necessary local financial support. managing it and the county Extension office effectively. 3. Taking responsibility for broad areas of county Extension organization and policy. 4. Helping select new workers for the county. aiding in training of county workers. looking after their general welfare. and evaluating their performance. 37 S. Coordinating county staff efforts. 6. Maintaining effective public relations. 7. Providing leadership in program development. 8. Supervising the work of the county staff. Abdullah's (1964) study attempted to define and clarify the role of the county Extension director in California as viewed by representative members of the California staffl.lhe questionnaire consisted of 50 responsibilities and 82 activities items classified under the following eight administrative processes: (1) planning and programming. (2) organization and policy. (3) direction and coordina- tion. (4) personnel management. (5) supervision. (6) business and finance management. (7) administrative relations. and (8) educational leadership. Respondents perceived "educational leadership." such as developing and maintaining ability to work with people and planning and executing an educational program in his/her subject matter. as the primary function of the county Extension director. .Administrative processes viewed as "most significant" of the county Extension director's role were organization and policy. business management and finance. personnel management. and direction and coordination. When the findings of this study are compared to other research findings. there was a strong agreement between the total respondents in California and Michigan on the perception and ranking of the eight administrative processes. 38 The McNabb (1964) study of Missouri county Extension directors considered two aspects of the administrative processes: (1) the rights and obligations of the county director and (2) his/her role performance or behavior as perceived by county directors. other county staff. and state administrative staff of the Extension Division. Some of the major conclusions were that there was a high degree of consensus among county directors. a high degree of consensus between county directors and the state administrative staff. and a high degree of consensus between county directors and other county staff on a majority of the role-expectation items. However. on specific items there was a definite lack of consensus among the position groups. For example. county directors. to a greater extent than other county staff. felt that they had the right to approve new county staff prior to approval by the County Extension Council. that members of the county staff should secure the approval of the county director before going to the district director with program or personal problems. and that the county director was obligated to see that evaluation studies of various programs were carried out. Another major conclusion was that county directors. to a greater extent than other county staff. felt they were suggesting new ideas or new approaches in programs of other staff members and that they were encouraging and making use of suggestions given by them. In general. county staff members with high job-satisfaction scores felt that the county director was obligated to exert stronger leadership than did those scoring lowest on the job-satisfaction scale. 39 Black (1969) chose to study how employees in the three lorganizational levels of the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service perceived and expected county Extension directors to behave as leaders. The three organizational levels were district Extension directors to whom the county Extension directors are administratively responsible. county Extension directors. and professional staff members subordinate to the county Extension directors. ‘The leadership behavior was measured along two dimensions: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure is behavior that delineates between the leader and members of the staff and establishes well-defined patterns of organization. channels of communication. and methods of procedure. Consideration is behavior indicative of friendship. mutual trust. respect. and warmth. The county Extension directors! description of their own behavior of the initiating structure dimension did not significantly differ from the descriptions of their behavior by district Extension directors or subordinates: nor were there significant differences between the descriptions of the district Extension directors and subordinates. However. significant differences in perception were noted for the consideration dimension of the county Extension director's behavior. The district Extension directors saw the county Extension directors as showing more consideration than did either the subordinates or the county directors themselves. In respect to consideration. the county Extension directors and subordinates tended 40 to agree in their descriptions of the county Extension director's behavior. In a North Carolina study. the major objectives were to determine (1) expectations the selected job groups held for the administrative role of the county Extension chairman and (2) the degree of congruency or conflict that presently exists between the norms established by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service administrative staff and the expectations held by the selected job groups (Jones. 1969). A role model consisting of six functions and 51 tasks was designed to guide the study. These major functions were as follows: (A) management and coordination of personnel in the county office. (2) budget for and finance of county operations and programs. (3) office management. (4) professional development of self and others. (5) communications and relationships. and (6) program development. The responses of the selected job groups indicated strong support of the role ascribed for the county Extension chairman. ‘There were signifi- cant differences between the administrative norms and the selected job groups' expectations for 15 of the 51 tasks. A study with similar objectives was conducted in Florida by Wheaton (1971). Three null hypotheses developed to guide this study were: (1) there is no difference between the five selected job groups in expectations held for the administrative role of the county Extension director job group. (2) there is no difference between the norms established by the Florida County Extension Service administra- tive staff and expectations held by the five selected job groups 41 concerning the county Extension director job group. and (3) there is no difference in respondents' expectations of the administrative role of the county Extension director job group and each of the selected fac- tors which were the independent variables of this study. Hypothesis I was rejected because of variation of responses reflecting differences in expectations held by the selected job groups. Hypothesis II was rejected for four of the five selected job groups and four of the six county Extension director job groups' functions. Hypothesis III was rejected for 10 of the 12 independent variables. Findings from this study indicated there was a lack of clarity in role definitions among job groups in the Florida Cooperative Extension Service. A high degree of communication has been‘achieved concerning the role of the county Extension director job group. although this appeared to be greatest at the administrative. supervisory. and county Extension director levels. Rodgers'(fl977) study identified the competencies that were believed to be requisite to the effective performance of the adminis- trative role of the county Extension chairman in Georgia. ‘The major purpose of this study was to identify the competencies that are believed to be requisite to the effective performance of the adminis- trative role of the county Extension chairman (CEC) in the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. The conceptual perspective of the study was derived from a review of literature concerning the concepts of profession. role. administration. administrative functions. and competency. ‘The methodology employed was the coupling of two 42 research techniques-~the critical-incident and the content-analysis techniques. The critical-incident technique was used first to collect critical incidents related to their administrative role directly from 35 randomly selected Georgia county Extension directors. The content- analysis technique then was used to analyze and categorize the inci- dents under four major administrative-function areas: personnel man- agement (counseling. communicating. evaluating. motivating. problem solving. delegating. directing. disciplining. decision making. and teaching): program administration (public relations. problem solving. teaching. communicating. leading. coordinating. motivating. planning. delegating. analyzing. and policy compliance): financial management (record keeping. budget control. budget forecasting. financial analy- sis. staff support. and budget accountability): and office management (establishment and maintenance of adequate office support. establish- ment and maintenance of efficient office layout. establishment and maintenance of accessibility to clientele. allocation of facilities and equipment. establishment and maintenance of a good office image. and facilitation of an efficient work flow). The findings indicated that a combination of the critical- incident and content-analysis techniques can be used as a basis to identify the administrative functions in the administrative role of the CEC. Further. by examining each incident in light of the identified administrative functions. competencies believed to be requisite to the effective performance of the administrative role of the county 43 Extension chairman can be deduced by social scientists through content analysis. The preceding studies all dealt with the administrative role of the county Extension director. It is apparent that research in this area attacked the study of the role from the standpoint of expectations for that role. Sumacy In this chapter an attempt was made to systematically review the literature. The first portion of the chapter dealt with a review of role theory. 'The second part consisted of a systematic review of literature pertaining to theories in administration. The last part of the chapter dealt with studies related to the study under investi- gation. CHAPTER III PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY ElanmanStudx In a study of this nature. it is essential to follow specific procedures for planning and conducting the study. This chapter describes the procedures and activities carried out in planning and conducting the study. Wm A review of the literature was the first step in planning this study. (See Chapter II. Review of LiteratureJ Because the study deals with the administrative role of the county Extension director. it was essential to review the following kinds of literature pertaining to (1) research related to role theory. (2) studies revealing the various theories in administration. and (3) related studies that may have bearing on the problem under investigation. Wm The questionnaire used was similar to the one used by Caul (1960). This questionnaire was adapted to Extension from one used by Hemphill (1959) in his study of executive positions. Based on the executive factor analysis made by Hemphill on a similar set of questions designed for measuring executive positions in industry. it #4 45 was assumed that the questions would (1) measure respondent expecta- tions toward the position of county Extension director. (2) measure the extent to which different elements are perceived to be a part of the position of county Extension director. (3) discriminate between expectations held for different types of responsibilities and activities. and (4) discriminate between expectations held by different respondents. Caul's study was conducted in 1960; therefore. additional items were included in the questionnaire to reflect contemporary issues and additional responsibilities that the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service has in the 19805. ‘The items described in the Administrative Standards (see Appendix C) and Supervisory Standards (see Appendix 0) used in the 1981-82 Professional Appraisal were interfaced with the Caul survey items to expand the scope of the county Extension directorus role expectations. Further. an analysis was made of the questionnaires used in the Missouri (McNabb. 1964) and North Carolina (Jones. 1969) studies to obtain additional items to strengthen the instrument. The survey questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section I: Your Experience. Education. and Background sought demo- graphic information about all respondents. with several questions per- taining to only county Extension director respondents. Section II: Position Responsibilities of the County Extension Director centered on perceived role items with which an individual in the position of county Extension director must be concerned. Section III: Activity Expecta- tions of the County Extension Director considered perceived role items 46 which described the activities in which a person in the position of county Extension director would be expected to take leadership and should perform. Section IV: Additional Comments was an optional oppor- tunity for respondents to present their additional thoughts. Respondents were asked to record. on an eight-point scale. their evaluation of the extent they perceived the role-definition item to be a part of the position. If it was not a part. the respondent marked in the zero column. If the question did apply. the respondent was required to make a second decision. that of placing a weight on the item on a continuum ranging from 1 through 7. A weight of l was labeled "may be a minor part of the position." A weight of 4. or the Iniddle weighted score of the continuum. was labeled "a substantial part of the position." The number 7 score was labeled "a most significant part of the positionJ' Therefore. both the direction and intensity held for the role expectation could be measured. The updated questionnaire was pilot tested with persons representative of each of the four position groups to be surveyed. This activity was helpful in determining whether or not the questions were stated clearly and the expected interpretation given them (Wiersma. 1975. p. 171). ‘Twenty retired Michigan county Extension directors. six Michigan county Extension agents (Kent County). one county government Cooperative Extension Service contact person (Kent County). and one former associate director of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service pretested the questionnaire. Kent County representa- tives were involved in the pretest only. but not the regular survey due 47 to the researcher's employment in this county. Changes were recom- mended in primarily two areas. In Section III Of the questionnaire. which dealt with activity items. changes were made in the introduction to distinguish this section from the responsibility items--Section II. In addition. minor changes were made in items to keep them in the "county" context. The final version of the questionnaire comprising 172 possible role-definition items was placed on mark-sensitive answer sheets (see Appendix A). It was determined that this format would save time and expense. The idea of this survey format had its genesis from the survey conducted by the National "Extension in the 80's" committee. Dr. Laverne Forest (1982). project coordinator. was contacted and provided input to the design of the survey instrument for this study. His primary advice was to put specific instructions on the survey instrument and not on a separate sheet. In addition. the Michigan State University Scoring Office staff was interviewed to gather additional suggestions to assure scoring accuracy. WM 3W Because the study was concerned with the expectations held by significant others for the administrative role of the county Extension director. it was decided to include the following groups in the study population: (1) county Extension directors. (2) county Extension agents. (3) state Extension administrators. and (4) county government CES contact persons. 48 Individuals who had been employed less than one year with the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service were eliminated before selecting the sample. Seventy-seven county Extension directors. 177 county Extension agents. and 20 state Extension administrators were identified in the eligible population. It seemed reasonable to use the entire eligible population of county Extension directors and state Extension administrators in the sample. To achieve a similar size of county Extension agents. a random 50 percent sample was taken. The sample was selected by use of a table of random numbers (Ary. Jacobs. & Razavieh. 1972. pp. 366-70). The random sample included 89 county Extension agents. The identification and selection of the county government CES contact person posed some difficulty. ‘This was due to the lack of uniform titles at the county government level. Further. each county had a preferred manner in which the Cooperative Extension Service interfaced with the county government structure. Fer the purposes of the study. it was important that the county government CES contact person possessed a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the Cooperative Extension Service and. more specifically. the administra- tive role of the county Extension director. HOuse (1982) indicated that what was desired was not the identification of individuals by uniform titles. but by uniform results. To obtain this information. he suggested that the county Extension director could best answer the question. "Who is the contact person for administrative matters at the county government level?" 49 More specific criteria for selection of this person would include an affirmative answer to a majority of the following items: (1) Is nor- mally contacted about Cooperative Extension Service personnel matters. (2) Is the county government individual responsible for the Cooperative Extension Service budget. (3) Is consulted about Cooperative Extension Service office management concerns. and (4) Receives reports of Coop- erative Extension Service programs being planned and conducted within the county. Therefore. the 77 eligible county Extension directors were asked to identify the county government CES contact person in their respective counties. WW Minimize Two sets of mailing labels of all Extension respondents were obtained from the Personnel Office of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. One set was used for the initial mailing while the second set was used for necessary follow-up mailings. A cover letter was sent with the questionnaire to respondents of each of the three Cooperative Extension Service position groups (see Appendix E). In addition. all county Extension directors had a second cover letter enclosed requesting them to identify their county government CES contact person using the enclosed stated criteria (see Appendix F). They were asked to forward the enclosed packet of materials to this person. Further. the county Extension directors were asked to return to the researcher an information card (see Appendix G) on their county 50 government CES contact person. Afll respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire in a pre-addressed. stamped envelope which was provided. A letter of endorsement encouraging the participation of respondents was sent by the Associate Director for Programs. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service (see Appendix H). The first mailing was sent in April. At this time. the annual performance appraisal process had recently been completed by all staff and possibly provided the stimulus for responding. The response to the first mailing was 70 percent for county Extension directors. 78 percent for county Extension agents. 82 percent for state Extension administra- tors. and only 30 percent from the county government CES contact person respondent group. ‘To provide a method for follow-up. a coding system was established. Questionnaires were coded using the following sys- tem: 100 series for county Extension directors. 200 series for county Extension agents. 300 series for state Extension administrators. and 400 series for county government CES contact persons. ‘The first two digits in the series designated a specific individual (00). while the third digit (2--) denoted the appropriate position group: i.e.. 203 was a person from the county Extension agent group. 303 was a specific state Extension administrator. and so on. The coding system was coor- dinated further by giving the county government CES contact person the same two-digit number as the county Extension director of that same county. Thus. county Extension director "X" might have code number 107. while his/her county government CES contact person's code number would be 407. 51 A follow-up card (see Appendix I) was sent to all nonrespond- ents approximately four weeks after the mailing of the original ques- tionnaire. It was planned to use the COMNET'MAIL (C-mail) to remind all Cooperative Extension service respondents. This electronic mail system permits instantaneous communication among the Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources campus offices and all county Cooperative Extension Service offices. However. due to a temporary shut-down of the system. this method of follow-up was not permitted. A phone call was made as a second reminder to nonrespond- ents approximately two weeks following the first reminder. The data in Table 1 show the number and percentage of usable questionnaires by specific respondent positions. The county Extension directors had a 92 percent usable rate. while the county Extension agents had a 91 percent usable rate. The state Extension adminis- trators had the highest percentage usable: 95 percent. The lowest percentage usable. 62 percent. was established by the county government CES contact persons. The low rate of return of the county government CES contact persons was due in part to 16 county Extension directors failing to identify and select their county government CES contact person. It was established that the county Extension directors could best perform this role in the survey process. In addition. several county Extension directors representing large metropolitan counties were hesitant to follow up with this contact. However. the overall response rate of 83 percent was within levels suggested by experts for making valid generalizations. Kerlinger (1973) recommended a response 52 rate of at least 80 to 90 percent. and Wiersma (1975) suggested that generally 75 percent should be the minimum rate of return. Table l.--Number of respondents by position. Michigan. 1983. Number Percent Position Group Surveyed Usable Usable County Extension directors 77 71 92 County Extension agents 89 81 91 State Extension administrators 20 19 95 County government CES contact persons 77 48 62 Total 263 219 83 W The data on returned mark-sensitive survey questionnaires were processed by the Michigan State University Scoring Office. The data were placed directly on a magnetic computer tape and stored. .Analysis of the data was done by the Michigan State University Control Data Corporation Cyber 170 Model 750 computer through the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program. Sumarx This chapter dealt with the procedures used in planning and conducting the study up to the point of presenting and analyzing the data. Chapter IV presents the data and an analysis of the results. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the study of perceptions of the degree of importance of the 62 selected administrative responsi- bilities and the 110 selected administrative activities considered possible parts of the role of the Michigan county Extension director. An analysis of these data. by position groups and classified by admin- istrative process. is presented in this chapter. The responses of the following groups are analyzed and compared: (1) county Extension directors. (2) county Extension agents. (3) state Extension adminis- trators. and (4) county government CES contact persons. W In light of the general purposes of this study. the research questions and relevant data for each were as follows: 1. Are there differences in the importance of the expectations held for the various administrative processes in the county Extension director's position as perceived by respondent groups? The data relevant to this question were acquired by calculating the mean responses for each administrative process. ranking them. and applying the Friedman analysis of variance test. 53 54 2. Are there differences in the consensus within each position group or the perceived expectations held for the administrative duties of the county Extension director's position? The data relevant to this question were acquired by calculating the mean response. the standard deviation of each role item. classifying by administrative process. and the application of the Bartlett homogeneity of variance test. 3. Are there differences between the county Extension directors group and each of the other respondent groups on the per- ceived importance of expectations held for the administrative duties of the county Extension director's position? The data relevant to this question were acquired by calculating the mean responses of each posi- tion group for each administrative process and applying the analysis of variance test. 4. Is there a measurable association between the importance of the administrative processes and the county Extension director's age. staff size. Extension experience. formal education. and time spent on administration? The data relevant to this question were acquired by clustering the county Extension directors into reasonable group sizes by each demographic item. calculating the mean responses for the eight administrative processes. and applying the analysis of variance test. 5. Is there a difference between the importance of the eight administrative processes reported in this study and the Caul study completed in Michigan in 1960? Data relevant to this question were acquired by determining identical role items and respondent groups. 55 calculating mean responses of each administrative process by respondent groups within each study. ranking them. and applying the Friedman analysis of variance test. W W Four characteristics were selected to describe the respondents in each of the four groups. and two additional characteristics were used to describe the respondents who were in Extension positions. ‘The four common characteristics were age. sex. race. and formal education; these are presented in Tables 2 through 5. The two additional characteristics of respondents in Extension positions were years in Extension work and region in which located: these are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The data in Table 2 indicate that the age distribution of the 219 respondents ranged primarily from 26 to 65 years of age. Slightly under 3 percent were 25 years of age or younger: 6 percent were over 65 years old. There was a difference in age make-up of the four position groups. Nearly three-quarters of the county Extension directors were between 36 and 55 years; 65 percent of the county Extension agents were in a younger grouping of 26 to 45 years. Further. only 21.1 percent of the county Extension directors were 35 years or younger. while 50.1 percent of the county Extension agents were in this age category. All of the state administrators were 26 to 55 years old. ‘The county government CES contact persons seemed to be equally distributed 56 in each of the four age categories between 26 and 65 years; this was the only position group to have over-65-year-old respondents. Table 2.-Age of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons in this study. 1983. Respondent Groups CED CEA SA CGCP No. x 33.—‘7 NOT—"i No. x 25 years a under 1 1.4 5 6.3 O 0 0 0 26-35 years 14 19.7 35 43.8 5 26.3 9 18.8 36-45 years 28 39.4 17 21.2 6 31.6 11 22.9 46-55 years 24 33.8 13 16.2 8 42.1 11 22.9 56-65 years 4 5.6 10 12.5 0 O 12 25.0 Over 65 years 0 0 0 0 O O 5 10.4 Not given 0 O l O O 0 O 0 The sex of the respondents is presented in Table 3. Only 9.9 percent of the county Extension directors and 8.3 percent of the county government CES contact person respondents were females. State administrators were approximately three-fourths males. whereas the county Extension agents were more equally divided. The data in Table 4 reveal that over 95 percent of the county Extension directors. county Extension agents. and county government CES contact persons were white. Nearly 90 percent of the state Extension administrators were white. while two minority groups had single representatives. Other position groups had representatives in only one minority group. 57 Table 3.--Sex of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons in this study. 1983. Respondent Groups Sex CED --~~CEA » SA CGCP No. I No. I No. I No. 5 Male 64 90.1 41 50.6 14 73.7 44 91.7 Fem al 9 7 9.9 41 49.4 5 26.3 4 8.3 Table 4w--Race of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons in this study. 1983. Respondent Groups Race CED CEA SA CGCP No. x No. I No. 5 No. 1 Asian 0 O O 0 O O l 2.1 Black 2 2.8 3 3.7 l 5.3 O 0 Hispanic 0 O O O l 5.3 O 0 White 69 97.2 78 96.3 17 89.4 46 97.9 Not given 0 O O O O O l O The data in Table 5 indicate important differences in the extent of formal education were also evident between the four position groups studied. Most of the county Extension directors held master's degrees. while three directors had doctorates. The county Extension agents' degrees were split primarily between bachelor's and master's. 58 43.2 percent and 51.9 percent. respectively. Most state administrators had master's degrees (52.6 percent). and 42 percent had doctorates. An interesting observation is that.41J7 percent of the county government CES contact persons did not have a college degree. However. over one-third of them did have bachelor's degrees. These differences in the amount of formal training indicate the necessity of the county Extension director possessing the ability to communicate to individuals at varying levels of education. Table 5.--Forma1 education of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons in this study. 1983. Respondent Groups Highest Degree CED CEA SA CGCP Hel d __—_.. __ __..__ __ No. S No. I No. I No. 5 None 0 O O O O O 20 41.7 Bachelor's 23 32.9 35 43.2 1 5.3 16 33.3 Master's 43 61.4 42 51.9 10 52.6 11 22.9 Specialist's 1 1.4 2 2.5 O O 1 2.1 Doctorate 3 4.3 2 2.5 8 42.1 0 0 Not given 1 O O 0 0 O O 0 Tabler6 illustrates the length of service in Extension was the greatest among the county Extension director respondents. While 23.2 percent of the county Extension directors had worked in Extension over 20 years. only 9.9 percent of the county Extension agents and 10.5 percent of the state administrators had this amount of Extension experience. The county Extension agents' largest tenure group by far 59 was the 1 to 5 year category with 44.4 percent. The most common lengths of service for state administrator respondents were 11 to 15 years and 6 to 10 years. respectively. Table 6.--Years in Extension work of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. and state Extension administrators in this study. 1983. Respondent Groups Years in Extension CED CEA SA No. S No. I No. 5 Under 1 year 0 O l 1.2 2 10.5 1-5 years 12 17.4 36 44.4 1 5.3 6-10 years 13 18.8 14 17.3 5 26.3 11-15 years 14 20.3 13 16.0 6 31.6 16-20 years 14 20.3 9 11.1 3 15.8 Over 20 years 16 23.2 8 9.9 2 10.5 Not given 2 O O O O O The data in Table 7 reveal that the geographic distribution of the county position group respondents was evenly scattered throughout the six regions. There was less than 10 percent difference in the participation of the county Extension directors between the regions. with a high of the North region of 22.7 percent. Most of the county Extension agents represented the East Central and Southeast regions. The county government CES contact persons distribution seemed to have the least difference within the six regions--two regions at 21 percent and three regions at 1349 percent. The geographic distribution of the respondents was very similar to that of the eligible population. 60 However. the North region had the largest differences between the sample and the population of 3.3 percent with county Extension directors. 2.9 percent with county Extension agents. and 5 percent with county government CES contact persons. Table 7.--Region of county Extension directors. county Extension agents. and county government CES contact persons in this StUdYo 1983. Respondent Groups Region CED CEA CGCP No. S No. X No. 1 East Central 12 18.2 19 24.4 9 21.0 North 15 22.7 11 14.1 9 21.0 Southeast 10 15.2 16 20.5 6 13.9 Southwest 10 15.2 14 17.9 7 16.3 Upper Peninsula 10 15.2 6 7.7 6 13.9 West Central 9 13.6 12 15.4 6 13.9 Not given 5 O 3 O S O The size of total staff of responding county Extension directors is presented in Table 8. Staff size represents the maximum size of the total staff. including board-appointed professionals. program assistants. program aides. clerical staff. and student interns. One-third of the county Extension directors had staffs of four to six persons. Over 80 percent of the county Extension directors had staffs of 12 persons or fewer. The staff size of over 16 persons was fairly evenly divided between the remaining categories. 61 Table 8.--Size of total staff of responding Michigan county Extension directors. 1983. Staff Size CED Z O C II 1-3 persons 4-6 persons 7-9 persons 10-12 persons 13-15 persons 16-18 persons 19-21 persons 22-25 persons Over 25 persons Not given Jaw N§WhNO—a~l U'l .JNW OW-meOU'th‘l O O I I Guano «>0sz The data in Table 9 reveal the time required to perform the administrative role of the county Extension agent varied from county to county. Over 40 percent of the county Extension directors spent 21 to 30 percent of their time on administration of their position. Approxi- mately 10 percent of them spent over 70 percent of their time with the administrative role. The data in Table 10 indicate the proportion of time county Extension directors spent on the administration of their position. There was a match when the percentage administrative time surveyed category intersected with the same percentage time category on the assigned administrative time axis. Twenty-seven or 39.7 percent of the responding county Extension directors had such a match. Five county Extension directors spent less time on administration of their position than assigned. Thirty-six or 52.9 percent of the county Extension 62 directors responded that they spent more time on administration than the time assigned for this purpose by state Extension administration. Table 9.--Proportion of time county Extension directors in this study spent on administration as surveyed. 1983. Percent Time on CED Administration No. X 20 and under 17 21-30 31 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Over 80 ulna-owes: Table 10.--Number of county Extension directors with various assigned proportions of time for administration and their reported proportions of time spent. 1983. Percent Time Assigned for Administration Administration Time Surveyed 20 & Under 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 71-80 20 8 under 13 3 1 O 0 0 21-30 17 10 1 O 0 0 31-40 1 5 1 O 0 0 41-50 1 1 1 l O 0 51-60 0 l l 2 l 0 71-80 0 O 1 O 2 1 Over 80 O 0 0 0 O l 63 W The eight administrative areas identified to describe the administrative processes at the county level of Extension work were (1) planning and programming. (2) organization and policy. (3) direc- tion and coordination. (4) personnel management. (5) supervision. (6) business management and finance. (7) administrative relations. and (8) educational leadership. The data in this portion of the chapter have been grouped into the eight administrative process areas listed above in order to facilitate analysis of the items associated with the job of the county Extension director. The data are based on the perceptions of 71 county Extension directors. 81 county Extension agents. 19 state Extension administrators. and 48 county government CES contact persons. 'The analysis is based on the degree of importance held for the county Extension director's performance on responsibilities and activities associated with the eight administrative areas. Waning Planning and developing a county Extension program in cooperation with the people and the county staff is a designated responsibility of the Michigan county Extension director. Planning is the conscious process of selecting and developing the best course of action to accomplish an objective (Niles. 1958. p. 172). ‘The essential features of planning and programming consist of clarifying the problem. determining the alternatives and the key factors in deciding which is 64 best. getting the facts. analyzing the facts. deciding on the action to be taken. and arranging for execution (Newman. 1952. pp. 88-89% Examination of the distribution of the responses by position groups is shown in Table 11. Twenty-three role items were used to define the planning and programming administrative process. The role item with the highest mean score from all position groups was the effective methods of reaching county Extension goals. The state Extension administrators and county government CES contact persons both indicated the highest level of importance for this item in planning and programming. Focusing on the long-range objectives of the county Extension service was the most important rOle item to the county Extension directors. The county Extension agents viewed developing with appropriate local leaders and other Extension agents a written long-term Extension program for the county as the most important role item for county Extension directors. When ranked by the researcher. this item only ranked seventh among state Extension administrators and county government CES contact persons. When reviewing the role-item rankings. it was evident that there was a high degree of similarity between the groups in the way they viewed the county Extension director's planning and programming responsibilities and activities. However. some differences were noted. County government CES contact persons considered the following role items more important than the other three respondent groups: (1) to approve the introduction of new types of Extension activities and programs in the county and (2) to make use of specialists in planning 65 m. :m.: o ~m.m N mm.m m o:.m _ mo.m oo.m 0N.m om.: mm.m mm.m mm.m No.4 .35 .o.m .m.: om.: mm.: .m.m mo.m om.m mm.m mm.m mm.m om.: m_.m w_.m m~.m mm.m ::.m uo_>cum co_mco~xw >ucsoo ecu mo mo_u__m_ucOuoa omcmcumc04 masoLm >L0m_>cm .muo_ se.: mc_xcoz Lo» cm_a ._mco>o mo acquo_u>uc on» mmmum :u_3 mc_um:.vcooU >ucsou ecu Lo» EmLmoLa :o_mcuuxu Secuumco_ cucu_cz m mucumm .uxm cucuo can mcucmu_ .30. 32.80.33 :u m: 3.06: EmLmoLa co_mcuuxm >ucaou .muOu co_m_:: m cot xcoz sconce—a Acmu>v secuiuLOcm m mucumm .uxm Luzuo can newcom— _muo_ cumTEoLnEm 3:3 oo_o>oo oo_>cum :o_mc0uxm >ucaou ecu mo mu>_uuumno umcmcumcoJ m_mom co_mcuuxm >ucsoo mc_;umuc mo mcocuue u>_uoummm xcmm x can: muou x m_uz x x m_~nz .muoh museum unoccoamoz mo Lucco xcmx cam ocoom coo: c. ommmcm Lo :u_3 coccuucoU om u_:ocm accuuoL_o co_mcuuxm >ucsou umgh msuu. u_m_ouam .couco xcmc can oLoum :muE >3 co_e_mmm_u .mc_EEmcmoLa can mc_ccm_a co_mcuuxw >ucaou ou mc_c_mucua mEuu_ oucguu>uc03hnu.__ u_nmh 66 w— m— o— N— o— mw.m m~.: m:.: nm.m om.: mo.m mo.m m.m m— N— m.m __ m.m oo.m mu.: m:.: :m.: m— N— :— m.w m.m o— mm.m mm.: m_.: :m.m w:.: 3... am.: m— .— N— o— :_.m om.: m_.m am.: mm.: 0—.m m~.m m— m.__ m... 0— mm.: om.: mm.: $9.: _N.: .m.: am.: >ucaou :_:u_3 u_aoua ecu to move: .mco_u umuaco acmucoasm oc_ELuuoa oum>cum co_mcuuxm u>_u uncuaoou on» uuuwwm u;m_s umcu co_um_m_mu_ tumoaoca avenues mc_cumuu .uXm >uc=ou mo mmucu>_uouwmo mc_>ocae_ >ucaou c_ mEmLmoLa .mco_umo:co .uxu com m_mom can mu>_uuu-ao yum mc_xc_;u u>_umcum_c_sum .uxm >ucaou c. mccoLu omcmcumcoa ou_>LOm co_mc0uxm >ucaou on» to mcuoc Lo mucucu ecsuam mc_ummouc0u muu_>cum _nco_umo:uo .uxm >ucaou :_ co_uma_o_ucma cummoLoc_ you on cum: mcozuuz scam x wauz muuu game .m m_uz ucaou umch ween. o_m_ouam .eu=c_.cou--.__ «.3.» 67 _~ o:.m m. :n.m m. mm.m m_ am.: w_ mm.m m. o:.: m. ._.M Na o~.m o. :a.: n. mm.m : mm.m mu mm.~ o~ m~.m m. mm.: 0. mo.: cu mn.m m.:_ oo.: __ :N.: a- _m.: m. _~.: __ oo.m m.:_ 00.: u. _:.m m_ mm.: :_ w~.: >ucaou onu c. o_aoua ecu mo mucucu acoe>o_aeu can co.um_:a0m EncmoLa co_mcuuxm >uczou use mc_u:uuxo cw um__m_uunm mo um: oxmz >ucaou osu c_ msmcmoLa Lo mu_u_>_uum co_mcouxw mo mua>u 36: mo conuoacoLu:_ unu u>0caa< uo_>cum :o_mcuuxm em: on: u_aoua ecu mc_uuuumm mco_u_ccou u.EOcouun_m_OOm >u_::EEOu mEmLmoLa cobmcuuxm >ucaou mo :o_um:_m>u ecu cm_m xcmm M xcmm M xcmx M xcmx M xcmx M :wuz m_flz —wuz _Nuz m—le muuu (m (mu owu —mu0h masocu ucuvcoamom so Lucco xcmm new oLoum emu: :. ommmcu co cu_3 uocLOOEOQ om v_:o;m mcouuuc_o commcuuxm >uczou posh mama. u_w_uuam .eu=c_ucou--.__ v.3.» 68 mu Nm.~ m. _~.m m. .m.m NN No.m mu .m.m NN N_.m NN om.N m_ 0:.m MN nm.m NN :m.m m- :w.m m. mm.m @- :o.m .N mn.m _N _m.m .2 3.: mam oo.m _N -.m 5 mm... om mmé m N_.m m.o~ oo.m MN 0—.m cm 50.: m_ mm.m mc_xc_;u .mco_umoacu cw mucuch >ucaou oz» c. mu_ocomm .mco_u umuacu cuzuo mo mo_u_>_uo< >ucaou ecu c. mu_ucomm o__a:a team—cc Locuo to mu_u_>_uu< uo_>LOm co_mcuuxu >ucsoo onu >n cum: mo:v_: unuuu .mco_umu:cu uN>_mc< EmLmOLQ co_mc6uxu >ucsou ecu mc_ccm_n :_ um__m_ouqm we um: uxmz xcmx ix. xcmm um xcmx ix. xcmm M xcmm R mJNz m_nz _wuz _Nuz m_~lz muuu ucaou umzh meow. u_m_uoam .eo=c_ucou--.__ 0.3.» 69 the county Extension program. Another difference was noted--that the county Extension directors gave more importance to improving the effec- tiveness of county Extension teaching methods than the other groups. In general. those items dealing with developing long-term and short-term plans had the highest mean scores. Questions pertaining to Extension teaching methods. such as improving methods used. evaluation of Extension programs. and making use of specialists. were of medium importance. Items dealing with investigation and analysis of needs. such as population and employment trends and attention to activities of other agencies. had the lowest mean scores. OmanjzathnLEOJm Effective administration requires that the organization be in balance and adapted to the major objectives and basic operations. In Michigan. county Extension units are given the responsibility of determining their basic objectives for the county program within the broader framework of the state and federal Extension commitment. Organization is the pattern of ways in which large numbers of people. too many to have face-to-face contact with each other. and engaged in a complexity of tasks. relate themselves to each other in the conscious. systematic establishment and accomplishment of mutually agreed purposes (Peabody. 1962. p.230L. In other words. organizational structure is the instrument by which members of an organization together with their clients outside of the organization arrive at mutual goals and ways of achieving them. Policies are the guiding 70 principles established by the organization to govern actions. usually under repetitive conditions (Holden. Fish. & Smith. 1951. p. 79). Questions used to determine the respondents' perception of the importance of role definition items pertaining to county Extension organization and policy are set forth in Table 12. County Extension directors. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons all agreed that the most important organization and policy role item was the effective use of Extension resources in the county. However. the item with the highest mean score for the county Extension agents was the supporting of the county Extension agent when the county Extension director believes the facts show that the state office complaints are unjustified. A further major difference in this item was noted between the mean scores of the county Extension agents and the state Extension administrators. 6.19 and 3.89. respectively. Both the county Extension directors and the county Extension agents agreed that keeping county Extension agents advised on the content of reports. letters. etc. and the adequate staffing of county Extension jobs were extremely important role expectations. The county government CES contact persons placed a higher importance on defining areas of responsibility for county Extension personnel and adjusting assignments of county Extension agents so as to best use their talents and skills than did the other three respondent groups. In general. the county Extension directors gave the highest values for organization policy role items. while state Extension administrators gave the lowest mean values. 7i __ m~.s m m~.m m m~.s s sm.m e Nm.s .a_cmco.uo. uuwcco >o_a5u mucumm co_mcuuxm >uc=ou N .N.m m .e.: N mm.: m o_.m m mm.: cu >u___n_mcoamoL smcmoLa mo maven .mcucom cacao—on eu_._umsaca can muc_m_aeou uu_mmo w om.: N mm.m _ m_.m m .m.m : 4:.m uumum ecu umzu 365m muomm use mu>u__on emu ecu cos: acumm .uxm >uczou m acoaaam m . mo.m N oo.m m mm.m m mm.m m .m.m mao- co_mc0uxu >ucaoo mo mc_mwmum uumaouc< .uuu .mcduaO. .mucoauc N Nm.: : mm.: N mw.m N :m.m N mm.m mo accucoo egg :0 vum_>cm mucomm .uxu >ucaoo aoox _ .N.w _ om.m : mm.m _ no.m _ .m.m >ucaou ozu c. muuL30muc :o_chHXu mo um: o>_uoommu xcmx M xcmx M xcmm M xcmx M xcmx M was: m_nz .wnz .an m_an :. ommmcm co cu_3 coccuucou Luau (m (mu emu —MHOP 0m t—flOSm mLOuumgmn c0_mc0uXm > :30 m mEo o. uoa masoLo ucuccoamom mo Lucco xcmx can ucoom emu: u u u sh u. .m. m .cocco xcmc cam ecoum cmue >n nu_m_mmm_u .>u__oa new co_um~_cmmco co_mc0uxm >ucaou ou mc_:_mucoa mEOu_ u>_ozhun.N_ u_nmh 72 N— 0— mo.: Nm.m um.m om.m m¢.: mm.: __ N— o— :m.~ wN.m NN.N oo.m NN.: Nm.: N— .— o— ma.N mm.m o:.m am.m om.: on.: N— o— __ mm.m mm.: m:.: .m.: mo.a om.: N— .— o— om.m m_.: m_.: mN.: w:.: w~.: >ucaoo on» c. mucumm .uxu >n come mco_m_uuu co» >u___n_mcoamuc ._am uncoo< mu_cmuuc loam ou_mwo mo mu_u:c cm_mm< _u:comcun co_mcuuxm >ucaou Lo» >u___a_mcoamoL to women oc_moo m___xm can mace—mu c_u:u o~___u: anon Ou mm on mucumm .uxm >ucaou mo ucOEcm_mmm unsav< :o_um~_cmmco c0.m:0uXu mo co_umuucacuuc_ >u__oo co_mcuuxu mo co_umuuLaL0uc_ xcmm x mcuz muwu acme x m_uz xcmm x _mnz scam x xcmx x .Nuz m_Nuz .muo» mg:0co unoccoamux mo couco xcmx can ucoum cmuz c. ummmcm Lo cu.) concoucOu um c.30zm mcouuuc_a co_mcuuxm >ucaou was» meow. u_u_uoam .eu==_ucou--.~. o_nmh 73 EmaLaLOiLectIOLanddeJmtm Direction is that vital step between preparation and actual operation: it is the issuing of instructions and otherwise indicating to subordinates what should be done (Newman. 1952. p. 388). Every instruction should possess three basic features: (1) compliance should be reasonable: (2) the instruction should be complete as what is to be done. and when; and (3) it should be clear to the person receiving it. Coordinating is the process of communicating with elements outside (and inside) the administrator's jurisdiction to secure their cooperation wherever they influence or are influenced by the administrator's operation (Niles. 1958. p. 313). The action consists of securing agreement to. understanding of. or active aid in the pursuit of a common purpose. Coordination in administration. according to Newman. . . . deals with synchronizing and unifying the actions of a group of people. A coordinated operation is one in which the activities of the employees are harmonious. dovetailed. and integrated toward a common objective. (p. 390) Twenty-one items were used to test the expectations held for direction and coordination of the county Extension service. Table 13 shows the mean score and rank for each item. The fair treatment of all Extension agents in the county was the most important role item for all respondent groups except the county government CES contact persons. They felt the primary function of the county Extension director's direction and coordination role was providing leadership in the assessment of county needs for the total Extension effort in the county. 7h N— m— om.a mw.: m_.m :m.m N_.m NN.m EmcmOLQ .uxw . . . . >uc50u ecu mo mummza ._m cm mucomm .uxu >ucaou coax m.m mm.: m mm.m m mm.m m 4N.m >ucsou on» c. mucumm .uxu mo mzumcoLum mmmum ._m to mu_u_>_uum m mN.m : :_.m : mm.m : om.m uumc_ccoou cu muocoLumcoo memum >ucsou Lm_:moL v.0: >ucaou . . . . c. acomuo .uxm .muou com o mo m N no a m mm m m Nm m mcuuc >ucaou mo acoEmmummm on» c. a_:mcocmu_ oc_>oca mEmLmoLa >ucaou : .N.m N mm.m N om.m N No.m mc_uuo.cm meo_._uoe E. mucumm .uxm >ucaoo o>_o>c_ m._ Nm.m _ mm.m _ .N.o _ mw.m >ucaoo use c_ mucomm .uxm ._m mo acuEumuLu L_mu New; x we»: muuu scam x xcmm x same x scam x m-uz .mnz .an m_Nuz c. ummmcm Lo £u_3 concoucOu (m u::0u umch menu. o_u_ooam masocu unoccoamum mo couco xcmm can ecoum coo: .Lucco xcmc can ucoum cove >n uu_w_mmm_o .co_umc~ccooo can :o_uuuc_u co_mc0uxu >ucaoo cu mc_:_mucua meuu_ ocou>uc03huu.m_ o_nmh 75 m o_.m N. oN.: o. mN.m :_ 5.: :_ ::.: N- _m.: o. N:.: :_ mo.: __ 0N.m m. Nm.: 0 m..m m. _N.: N. oN.: m_ mm.: N. Nw.: __ oo.m __ Nm.: o. m:.: w mm.m __ :m.: m. mN.: m._ Nm.m m mm: o_ NN.m o. mm: o. mo.m N we.: m :o.: N. N_.m m .m.: N mm.m m __.m m. NN.: o m:.m m :m.: m .m.m m.m mm: 2 mm: N o:.m N mm: zo__0m cmo mucomm .uXm Nucaou mccmccmum .m:o_m umomoa cam .9632. so; 33mm mmmum >ucaou macaw can cuuzuua co_u -mcoaoou Emcmoaimmocu waved—us. “Imam Sauce 3 2030332. .3..— -mc_cmoe can duo—aeou uv_>oc¢ Nucaou ecu c. mucomm .uxm mo mummocxmoz mmucm Emcmocq ._m mmoLom macOmmo .mco_umo:uu mmmum uc_03 uocmum_mmm uu_>c0m .uxu Nucaou Lo» mccmEuc vumcmco coNucm 30c euma_o_uc< cm ommmco cu m_ ou_>cum .uxm Nuance ozu mu_u_>_uum .mco_umo:co was: uu.>cum co_mcuuxu u>_umcoaoou Nucnou can to mu_u_>_uum .mco_u -moscu ecu ou co>_m mu_umco_cm xcmm M. xcmm M :23. M xcmm R xcmz M. wcuz m—nz _muz .Nuz m—Nuz muwu (m uc30u umch mew». o_w_ooam .em==_acou--.m_ ._gm» 76 m.w_ mm.: _N NN.N _N mN._ _N :m.m .N mm.N _N mm.m oN wN.N 0N 0:.N m- mN.m 0N o—.m :_ oN.: @— mm.m m_ N:.N m.N_ _o.: m_ Nm.m u. .N.: m_ mN.N m. mo.m 0N mm.m w— oo.m m.w_ mm.: N. ._.m N. mN.m m.N_ .o.: N. mN.m 0N mu.m w. eo.m w ow.: u. om.: u. :m.: m we.m :_ ._.: m. 0N.m m_ mu.: m. mm.: .uXm Nucaou No mmucm EmcmoLe ._m co» mEmcmoLe m:_;m__emumup; vu>_o>c_ ue museum .uxu Nucsou cuguo mo mucm cuuume Noumesm ecu c. ucoseo_u>uc EmLmoLe co_chNXm Nuceoo mo mmoLm Emcmoce ._m Low mo>_uou~eo mc_zm__emumu c. vo>_o>:_ ue ummum >ucaou ecu No coo—Nee: >_cmo> new .chmmum uzu ummuoLou uu_>com co.mc0uxm o>_umcue00u >ucaou ucu coe: Lmue umnu u_em—_m>m .occOmLoe can mEmLmOLQ Nucumm wean—cc can m mc____u uaoem mcueEuE Numum >ucaou :u_3 u_:mc0u muco>o ucmucoee_ ;u_3 mucumm co_mcuuxm >ucaoo um.mm< xcmm m. xcmx ix. xcmm R xcmx M xcmx Tum m:nz m-uz —wuz .an m_NIz muou (m uc30u was» menu. o_u_ouem .eo==_ucou--.m_ ._nmc 77 County Extension directors and county Extension agents also agreed with each other on the relative importance of the second. third. and fourth items: involving county Extension agents in decisions affecting county programs. strengths of Extension agents in the county. and holding regular county staff conferences to coordinate activities of all staff. County Extension agents placed a higher importance on consulting with county staff members about filling a vacant county Extension agent position than the other respondent groups. When the researcher ranked the role items within this adminis- trative process. the county government CES contact persons had the following items considerably higher than the other position groups: ranked second--what educational activities the county Extension service is to engage in; ranked third--priorities given to the educational activities of the county Cooperative Extension Service; and sixth-- provide complete and meaningful instruction to county staff. In summary. the role items that dealt with coordination generally had higher mean scores than items related to direction. County Extension directors and county government CES contact persons indicated the highest mean scores for the process of direction and coordination. WW Personnel management is concerned with obtaining and maintaining a satisfactory work force (Terry. 1964. p. 742). Finding. selecting. and placing people on the proper jobs constitute an enormous 78 task. but motivating and keeping them on the job and satisfied are perhaps even greater tasks. In general. it is the management of human resources in employment. The scope of personnel management was arranged under three main headings (1) acquisition of competent employees. (2) retaining competent employees. and (3) increasing individual productivity (Terry. 1964). The responses to seven possible responsibilities and 16 possible activities of the county Extension director. judged to be examples of the personnel functions at the county level. are shown in Table 14. The maintenance of a competent staff was ranked as the most important role item when the mean score of all 219 respondents was considered. However. there was only 0.08 difference between the number-one-ranked item and the fourth-ranked item overall. County government CES contact persons viewed this role item as most important. County Extension directors and state Extension administrators agreed that the orientation of new Extension workers in the county was most important. Acquainting newer agents with their responsibilities was the most important personnel management item of the county Extension agent respondents. County Extension directors considered guiding the development of county staff members as Extension employers and participating in the interview of candidates for board-appointed positions in the county Inore important than did the other position groups. State Extension 79 >ucaou ogu c. : N_.m o. mm.m N wu.: N mN.m N ww.: cocoa: con: mucumm co_mcuuxu Nuceoo 3o: mo co_uoo_um museum co_mcuuxu m Nm.: : mo.m : w_.m m :N.m m No.m >ucaou c. acuEeo_u>uc .mco_mmuuoce ummcaoucw m mm.m e me.: 0 mo.: : mm.m m m_.m mue=u_uum .mucum< Nucaoo cam >u_c m.N :N.: N N:.m N e:.m m eN.m : o:.m -seeou ecu c_ euuc_m=oum ma. usouoe :_ mucumm 3o: um_mm< N m:.m m oo.m _ Nm.m e m:.m m m:.m mo_u___n_mcoamac E_u;u se.: mucumm >uczoo so: u:_m:ou< o :m.: _ mu.m m ::.m _ om.m N N:.m >ucaou ecu :_ mcoxcoz co_m Tecuxm 3o: mo co_umucu.co _ NN.m m N:.m m we.m N mN.m _ m:.m mumum ucuuueEOO m we oocmcuuc_mz xcmm x xcmm x xcmm x xcme x xcmm x , c. ommmcu Lo ;u_3 concou:0u w:uz m_uz .wuz .Nuz m_Nuz um c_:o:m mcouuuc_e co_mcuux~ $060 (w ucaou “NSF mEOH_ Umwpuoaw mesoLu unoccoemom mo Levee xcmm cam ecoom emu: .Lucco xcmc ecu ucoum cmus Ne cu_u_mmm_u .ucueommcme .uccomcoe co_mcuuxw >uc30o ou ec_c_mucue meuu_ ouceun>ucu3huu.:_ o_nmh 80 I m:.: 0N :04 :_ mm.m m. NN.: m. Nm.m _N N0.N m. N_.m N_ 0N.: m Nm.: :_ N0.: 0. Nm.m m mwé 0. MN.m 0. 00.: 9 N0.: :_ 00.: m- :m.N _— _M.: 0- _N.: N- __.: m. 00.: m 00.: m. mm.m m.m_ 00.: __ :N.: m.N :N.: 0. mm; 0. mm: 2 N0.: 0. mm: m N_.m N. 00.N m _:.: N. 00.: 0 mm.: N. 3.: N 0N.: 0 mm: m 3...: 0 0N.: >uceou ecu cuc_ mucumm No mucumcmcu o>ocee< Nuance usu cm mco_u_moe uuuc_oeemuccmoe ecu muum0_ucmu No 3u_>cuuc_ oz» c. uume_o_ucme Numum ucoeeam cozuo 0cm mu_cmu0cuum mammbmceem c_ Numum acomm um_mmm Lo um_mcee< mco_u_moe Locuo Lou Nucaou on» :_ mucomm mc_0cmumu:o uumc_EOz >ucaoo uzu cm mcoxcoz co_mcuuxm so: cmmch Nucaou onu c_ mucumm .uxu No >Lm_mm cm mummoLu:_ u_cos Lem mcomumecuseoOOL oxmz Nucaou on» E 35% .80 ".0 233.5; Lo .mco_uoeoce .mucuEucmoeem cow mco_umucueeoouc oxmx muu>o_esu .uxm mm mcueeos mumum Nuceou mo acuEeo_o>u0 ecu uv_:u xcmx R xcmx M xcmm .m xcmm M xcmm .m m:uz m—uz .wuz —Nuz m_Nuz @000 <0 (mu 0M0 _mu0h mesoLu ucuvcoemux No Louco xcme 0cm ucoum cmoz c. ommmcm co zu_3 cuccuucOu om 0.:o;m mucuuoL_e :o_mcuuxm >uc360 umch mama. u_u_ouem .eoscuucou--.:_ ._nmh 81 emu can. MN MM.N NN me.. MN Me.. NN mN.N MN NN.N cacao co. mcm.a oucm.smc. ecu acueo..uu. acomm .uxm m. NN.M MN om. .N ON.N MN :M.N NN M:.N Mucaou as. .o .:o mucumn No Lommcmcu u>oLee< NN $.N m. 2N NN 2N .N NMM .N 3N ms... 3 32.. 35.82 c. mucumm .uxm Nuczoo so: um.mm< >ucaou uzu c. mco.u N. N0.M e. NN.N M. NM.N oN m:.M 0N M..M -..oa scum. .uxm 3o: co .cmum> ._.» cu .occOmcue 30: u.:.uu¢ 06.000 c. mcuxcoz m. Nm.m N. NN.m 0N :m.N 0. Nm.m m. mm.m ummum .m:v.>.nc. .0 memo: ec_:_mcu .mco_umo:vu mmumm< oN mo.M :. oo.M m. Mo.M N. e..: m. N:.M we... co_umum> _m_.muu.uum 0cm acum< e. .N.M .. MM.M N. oN.M m.M. m0.: N. .N.M mucosa .o _o>m.u can uE_u >ucaoonuo-u:0 0. MM.: .N e... M. MN.M M. MN.M e. NN.M Nassau as. c. aco.u..oa acomm Emum> com mean—0.2.3 coucum xcmm .m xcmm .m xccx x xcmx x xcmm x 0: z m. z .0 z .I _N z .I m_N 2.1 :_ vacuum .0 sum: vuccuocOu a u a n n u :o mcouuuc co accux euuu u¢ .3550 0.: 3 09.0. mm... ucomm 0 .N.: m :m.: 0 N0.: m 0m.m 0 mo.m some .00 .mm_m.eem oocmscoucoe cue. wane. u>_uoumeo uu_>o.e m No.m : oo.m m M..m 0 0m.m m :N.m >0...a.mcoamo. .ouume-uquaam Lo;\m_; c. mco_um:_m>u Emcmoce mu_u._oe :o_uo< m. mm.: m._ NN.m _ 0m.m m m0.m : 0m.m o>.umE._um< 0cm .0mm .mu;0_m __>_u co.mcuuxm ucoso_es_ 30303333. .2. _ucco.......oe no? N 0N.M 0 mm.: : N..M : MM.M M .M.: -EOOxu ecm Nu...o>.c= oumum Ema 1.20.: .>uc:ou ;u_3 oucm_.eEOu um..m Nona mm 0 00.: m ._.m m 0m.m N, N0.m N m:.m wee—ecce .uc:0mcoe .uxm >ucaoo 3 53:3; .233 030 uu.>cum co_mcuuxm u>.u . NN.: m.. NN.M N e:.m . 0N.o . :m.m -mcuaoou Nucsou on. .o mace... .mco_umueuu ozu mo >u__m:0 xcme .M xcmm .m xcme x xcmm. x xcmx x i. I. i. c. ommmcm .0 50.3 tenuoucOu 0:uz m_uz _0uz _an m_Nuz ue 0.30:0 n.0uo0._e co_mcuuxm $000 (w (mu emu —muOP >uc300 HMLP mEflu- Umwwuuam mascuu acovcoemum No cuvco xcmx 0cm ecoom cmoz ..00.0 sec. can ucoom cmuE Ne cu_u_mmm_o .co_m_>.oe:m co_mcuuxm Nuance cu m:_c_mu.oe mama. 03u1>ucuzhin.m_ u_emh 85 0_ 0_.: :_ 0m.m N. N0.m m— N:.: :_ 00.: m 0N.: m. mm.m m. :m.m m. 00.: m_ 0_.: N_ m:.: m 0N.: __ N0.m :_ _m.: N_ NN.: m NN.m m... m0.m :_ mm.m m... m0.: __ 0m.: :_ —m.: m... m0.m m m_.: 0. 00.: 0. _:.: N 00.: 0 mm.: 0. m0.m m mo.m 0 mm.: N. NN.M N em.: m MN.: N MM.M e NN.: co_mc0uxm cu noun—o. mcuuume .mco.umo:vu co mucumm .uxm >ucaou um.>0< mcovmu_ couu::_o> Nucaou mo mmucu>_uuuNNu ugh ue.u co cauu_Ee:m ucm >ucaou c. mmmum so.» macaque ._m umcu 0.3mm< mu_u_>.uum 0cm mEmLmoLe .mcomumuevo co.mcuuxm >ucsou mo mu_:mo. ecu ummm.ee< mucumm .uxm Nucaoo m:_umL mo umoecae ecu com mco.um0cueeouo. uxmz mNmmceEu 00 women ._m c. mamcmoce .uxm Nuceou No News uo>o.eE_ com mco_umummam oxmz emu> m moe_u omega .0 oz» mEmLmOLQ .mco_umu 1:00 c. mucomm >ucaou u>Lumeo xcmx R xcmm M. xcmm . R xcmm M xcmm M 0:uz m_nz _0uz .Nuz m_an 0000 <0 <00 000 —mNOP menacu ucuvcoemox mo Luuco xcmx 0cm ucoum cmuz c. ummmcm co ;u_3 voccuocou ue 0.30:0 mcouuo._e coumcowxm >uc:0u Neck meuu. u.m_uuem .eusc.ucou--.m. a...» 86 _N 00.N NN m:.N 0.0. m0.m 0.0. m0.m 0N 0:.m 0. 00.: __ Nm.: m_ 0N.: NN _N 0N m— 0— m— N— 0— 0N.— 00.N _:.N m0.m 0N.m 0N.m NN —N 0N m— 0— N. m— 0. .0. :0. mm.— m..N m:.N mm.N mm.m 0N.m NN .N 0N m. 0— N— 0— m.__ 0N.— 0N.— 0N.N 0N.N 00.N No.: 0_.: m0.: NN .N 0N m— 0— N— 0— m— N:.. 00.. 0_.N .m.N m0.m 00.0 0.0000. Luuuc:_0> Nucaoo 00 :0.000_0m u>0cee< 3:000 .uXm 5.500 00 3.03 .00... .:000 0:u um_>coe:m >__chmcue >ucaou 0:0 0. 000000 00 mu_u_>_uom 0:0 :00: x00:0 0:000:00 m 000x mucemm 00~__0.0oem 00 5000 m om_>cue:0 000.0 LeuumEuuooaeam .mucumm co.mEONXm Nucaou .0:00 0. :0_u:00x0 20.00.; 3:000 .uxm 5.500 .0» 2000 00:05:00.00 No :0_umcmeuce >u___:_000000. 50000.0 00 00.0 ._0:u c. mucoem >u::00 :00: 0:.xcoz c. 0:00—30:00 0 mm 0>c00 000.0 Leuumeiuuoweam .mucomm 20.0:0uxm >ucaou .0:00 00 co_um:_m>u 20:00.0 xcmm x 0::2 0000 xcme x m_nz xcmm x —0nz xcmm x .Nuz emu xcmm m_an .mcoN 0030.0 0000000000 00 .00L0 :00: 000 0.000 :00: c. ommmcm .0 :0.3 000.0000u 00 0.30:0 0.0000._e 00.0000xm >uc:0u um:h 0500. 0.0.0000 .eosc..cou--.m. o.amN 87 CES contact persons viewed the reviewing of county program accomp'lishments in ai'l program areas as much more important. (ranked fourth) than the other position groups (ranked as low as fourteenth). In an opposite situation. the observation of county agents in educationai programs two or three times a year was important to county Extension directors. with a mean score of 5.39. resu‘lting in a ranking of seventh. whi‘le county government CES contact persons' mean score resuited in a ranking of seventeenth. In summary. those items concerned with the direct supervision of other agents received the 'lowest mean scores. Items dea'ling with county Extension personne‘l probiems and other personne] practices generaiiy were viewed as most important. W The Job of administering any organization. or any part of an organization. carries with it the responsibi‘lity of gaining the sanction of the peop‘le to whom it is responsible. In this capacity the county Extension director must be aware of the opinions of the many pub'lics which county Extension work serves. To administer effective1y any institution which re‘lies upon and interacts c'loseiy with a geographic community requires that the administrator understand that community. its historica‘l perspective as we‘|1 as its contemporary sociai miiieu ("enrich a Henrich. 1974. p. 245). This invo‘lves carefu'l. systematic study of individua'ls. informai groups. and formal organizations. Further. the requirements for bui‘lding a constituency are that the community should be informed about what is going on. that 88 it should be able to have input on critical decisions of the institution. that it should feel that the resources and facilities of the institution are open to the community. and that the administration should actively seek its opinion and preferences about the direction the institution should take (Wenrich & "enrich. 1974. p. 258). Twenty-nine items a county Extension director might be concerned with or engage in were used to obtain the respondents' perception of their importance in carrying out the administrative role. They were ranked according to their mean score by total respondents and by position groups. as shown in Table 16. The total respondent group viewed relationships with leaders in the county as the most important administrative relations role. with a 5.98 mean score. Only the county government CES contact persons expressed this role as their highest value. A 6.24 mean score by the county Extension directors made the acceptance of Extension in the community their highest level of importance. County Extension agents and state Extension administrators. with mean scores of 5.81 and 6.ll. respectively. felt making periodic reports of Extension accomplishments to the County Board of Commissioners deserved top attention. Interest- ingly enough. county government CES contact persons viewed this role item much lower (ranked ninthh The role item of working toward developing and maintaining good working relations with other public agencies in related fields had similar mean responses in all position groups. County government CES contact persons viewed the preparation of news and other county 89 N ma.m N. NN.: ._.m a m:.m NN.m ___zuoom co_mcoaxm no.0.m vuum.oc c. mo.u . . . . . ucomm u..a:a Lonuo su.3 mco.u . mm m N sN m mm m __ N. m mm m -m... m=_xzoz woos mc_c_mac_me ucm m:.ao.o>ov vLmZOu .503 0 mm.m : N0.m N0.m m :0.m 0N.m ucoEcLo>Om >ucaoo mo mo>.umucomocaoc cu.z uooz mcoco.mm.EEOU mo 0Lm00 m mN.m . ...0 .0.m 0 .0.m .N.m >uc200 0» mucoszm..oeooom .uxu .o mucoaoc u.uo.coa oxmz m Nm.m N sm.m m:.m : mm.m NN.m >ucaou one c. o.aooo >m. no.3 mco.um.om m mo.m m om.m mN.m .m _o.o om.m u._a=a «no utocon .uxm muoeoLo cu mo.u.c:ucoaao N eN.m m mm.m o~.m _ :N.o om.m >a_c=eeou on“ c. co.mcouxw mo oocmuaouu< . No.0 m 0N.m mN.m N .N.o mm.: >ucaou ox“ c. mcovmo. zu.3 ma.;mco.um.ox xcmx M xcmm M M xcmm. .m M m m c. o m :0 co :u.3 voccoocOU 0am: 0.»: .Nuz m.Nuz o : mucuuoc. co.mcoux muuu u::00 umch memo. u...uoam .Looco xcmc tam acoum :moE >0 no.0.mmm.o .mco.um.oc o>.umcum.:.svm co.mcouxU >ucaou cu mc.c.mucoa meow. 0:.cu>ucozhnu.0. o.nmh 90 a. Nm.s ON om.m m. a... m... m... m. .... 0.0. .m.: 0.0. 00.: m. 00.: N. a..0 :. .N.: .. 00.0 .. 00.: a. #0.: a. .m.: m. 00.: N. :0.: 0.0. 00.: N. N0.: 0 .m.0 N. 00.: a. 00.: 0 N..0 .. 0N.: o. mN.0 .. 00.: 0 NN.0 0.0 00.0 0 0..0 m. .0.0 0. :..0 0. N..0 0.0 00.0 0. 00.0 m 00.0 m :N.0 0:0.umN.cmmLo ucomm .uxm .mco.mmo.oLa c. ouma.u.ucmm mucoauc o>.umccmc 0cm .mo.um.umum ocmaocm masoLm u.>.o\>u.caeeou 0cm 0:0.umn.cmmco zu.z uumucou .chmLoa c.0uc.mz om.umoca co.mcouxu 0&3000 >L00.>0m >ucnoo cu mucossm..aeouum .uxw mo macoaoc u.0o.coa oxmz m.m00 .uxm 00.30umum 0cm .muo. .0 005500;. u..0:a .mcocom ucm n.0oE .m.m.u.mmo .muo. ouox o.0m..m>m econ: >h LO\vcm c.0mc .Looma -mzoc .moo. no.3 co.umu.caseou .o m.occm;u cm.:moc gm..0mumu xcmm x xcmm x gem“ x Nana x xcmz x 0:": m.nz .0uz .an m.an 0000 <0 <00 000 .mNOP managu acoucoamom wo Lotto xcmx new ocoo0 com: a. ommmcm Lo cu.) noccou:00 00 0.3000 mucuooc.o co.mcouxm >uc300 umzh mama. o.0.ooa0 .uo==_ucou--.0_ a...» 91 x00: 000 >uc:00 00 m. mM.q .N mM.M :N :_.m .N M0.M MN m:.M m0_=mo0 0:0 000.000 >_0oao00 o0 0000000000 00.00:.m>0 0m.>00 m.m_ .M.: N. 0... MN oM.M 0N mm.M NN mN.M 0mo> 000 ouco “mam. 00 003000 0.>.0 00005 00 x0000 NN .N.: m. Mm.M m. om.M NN om.M .N m0.M ._mc0aoM .m:o_mmo0o00 .uxu 0mm: 0.0.0 0.0.00 .0. 0000.305. 0000>00 0. 00.: NN 00.0 0N 00.0 .N 00.0 0N 00.0 00 0020000 003 00000000000 00.3 >.0:....3 000000000 M. MN.: MN 0N.M NN NM.M 0. mm.. 0. Mo.: mumm0000 co00m50o0c0 .uxu >uc=ou 00:00 0:0 030: 00 00.00000000 000000 000000:. .N _M.: a. a... m. mN.M m. mo.. 0. #0.: .muo_ cu mucue;m__aeouom .0x0 00 0000000 0.00.000 0x0: 0N 00.: 0. 00.: 0. 00.: 0. 00.: N. 00.: 0:000:00 0.00:0..0 03000 000.> -00030 .0xm .0:0.000 E0000. 000.000 00.0000x0 N. 00.: 0. 00.: N. 00.0 0.0. 00.: 0. 00.: >00300 0003000 00.00000000 00000 000 5000000 00.000000 0000 .M 0000 .M 0000 .m x000 x xcmx x .u I. c. 000000 00 00.3 00:000c00 0cuz 0.uz .0uz .Nuz 0.an 00 0.0000 m000000.0 00.0000x0 0000 000 .0000 000000 0000000000 00 00000 xcmx 000 00000 :00: >00000 00:0 0500. 0.0.0000 .uo=c_0co0--.0_ 0.0.0 92 0N .0.N 0N 00.. 0N N0.. 0N 0..N 0N 00.N 0N N..0 0N 00.. 0N 00.. 0N 00.N 0N 0N.N 0N 00.0 0N 00.N 0N 00.N 0N 0..0 0N 00.N 0N .:.0 0N 00.N 0N 00.N 0N 0N.N 0N 00.N 0N 0N.0 0.:N 00.0 0N 00.N 0N .0.0 0N 00.N :N 00.0 0.:N 00.0 .N 00.0 0N 00.0 :N N0.0 00:05 >00>0 00:0 0000. 00 0:05 n0000:0 0:.x0000n0..030 0 0>0= :0.0000000 000 :. 000:00 00 0.0 u0:00 00 0a ._.3 £0.03 0.0:0300 .0:0.0000000 000 00.0.000 00.03 x00300000 0:.0300 0:.00.0500 >00 000 0300 0:0 0000. 00 0:000 .00000>0 0:0 :0 :0.0.000 0:000 0:000> 0 0:....0 03000 003000 00 03000 >000.>00 >0:300 00.3 0.30:00 0:.55000000 0:0 >0..00 :0.0:00xu 00.3 00:000:00 00000.5500 00.300000 0005 00 0:0 00 000505 0 00 0>000 >0:300 000 00.0030 00:. :0005 00 3:300 0.00 0:0000000. 53. .x. .53. m .530 .0. .53. .0. .530 0. 00.2 0.»: .muz .Nuz m_Nuz 0000 <0 <00 900 .m0o0 003000 0:00:00000 00 00000 0:00 0:0 00000 :00: :_ 0000cm 00 :0.) 00:000:00 00 0.3000 0000000.0 :0.0:00x0 >0:300 000% 0500. 0.0.0000 .003500500--.0_ 0.0.0 93 Extension information releases more important than did the other respondent groups. In summary. those role items that related to some specific public of Extension work were considered most important and had the higher mean scores. .Administrative relations items dealing with paperwork and attending meetings outside the county had the lower mean SCOPBS o W Finance is an indispensable field of economic activity and is of cardinal importance in many managerial activities (Terry. 1964. p. 722). The financial administration of a county Extension unit in Michigan consists of a series of steps whereby funds are made available by county government to operate a county Extension office and pay the local expenses of Extension staff assigned to that county by the state Extension service. A core staff of agents is assigned to each county and their salaries paid by the state Extension service. Additional agents are assigned to a county on the basis of need and the county's willingness to provide a grant to Michigan State University to help support the additional service. Twenty-three items were used to survey the responsibilities and activities of the county Extension director in this area. Most of the items listed in Table l7 were considered important tasks for the county Extension director to perform if he/she is to properly carry out the role expectations. 9h n m0.0 0.0 0 N0.m 0.0 0 00.0 m 0 0N.0 m 0 00.0 N N 00.0 0 No.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0m.0 0m.0 0N.0 m0.0 0... 00.0 0 m~.0 0 0N.0 0 0N.0 m .0.0 N 00.0 . m0.0 N 00.0 0 00.0 0 .0.0 0 00.0 m 0N.0 N NN.0 . 00.0 000> .000.» 0300030000 000:0:3 H.o 0:05000:05 000000 0030:. 00 0 .00 0:00 00:00x0 .0xu >0:300 0>.000000 00..0000u 000:0.00.5500 mo .00 >0:300 00 00030.0:00x0 .0xu >0:300 ..0 >0.003a 00 00000000 0m 0003 :o.0:00xu >0:300 00 000000 ..0 000 00:30 >0:300 00030000 0:.03000 :. 0.0000000. 0>.000 000k >0:300 000 :. x003 .0xm 00 0000030 .0.0:0:.0 00:00u0:o0 05000000 :o.0:00xu 000 00000: 0000030 00 0:05000000 :0 :0 00000 0. 0000 0.0.0.000 >0:300 00 0003000 000030 < .0xm 00 0:05:00>o0 >0:300 000 >0 000000..0 00:30 00 0030.0:00xm 000030 :o.0:00xm >0:300 .03::0 :0 mo :o.00000000 .500 x 0:00 x 0:»2 0.uz 0000 <0 x 0:00 x 0:00 x .muz 000 0.0.2 .0000 003000 0:00:00000 00 00000 0:00 0:0 00000 :00: :_ 0000cm 00 00.3 00:000:00 00 0.3000 0000000.0 00.0:00xu >0:300 000k 0500. 0.0.0000 .00000 0:00 0:0 00000 :005 >0 00.0.000.0 .00:0:.0 0:0 0:05000:05 000:.030 :o.0:00xm >0:300 00 0:.:.00000 0500. 00000u>0:03hau.>. 0.005 95 o. m. .. m. m. o. m. 00.0 00.: n..m oo.m m..m NN.m :0.m 0N.: mm.m N. 0. m.w m.m .. m.m. m. 0.0. 00.0 mm.m ~0.m Nn.m mm.m mm.m 0N.m 00.0 n..m m. 0. N. 0. .. o. m. 0N.m mo.m 0:.m 0m.m mm.m 00.m m:.m N0.m 00.0 0. m..m 0.0. :0.m oN m..m 0 00.0 m... 00.0 0 00.0 .o. mm.m m. N0.m o. m. 0. m. N. .. o. m..m 0N.0 Nm.m :m.m 00.0 no.m om.m .~.m Nm.m 00003000 000030 mug .03::0 00000000 0:.0030 :. 00:000 .0Xm >0:300 003.00. >0:300 :. .0xm 000 00.0...000 .00.0>00 0.00..0>0 00 003 0000 000 :0.0 000:0.00.5500 00 .00 >0:300 00 :0.0000.0 000\0.0 000:3 00:30 00 003 00 0000000 0.00.000 000: 0000000 >0.>.000 0:0 .0.0:0:.... 00003000 0:0 00..0000 0000 .000 .0..030 000300 0030.000 .00..0 .0005 u0.300 .0:0500:0000 00.::00.000 0x..000:.030 0 00 00:0:00:.0z 0000005 000:.030 0mg 00» 0003000000 000.000000 30..00 0.00:00000 00.>000 .0xm >0:300 00 00000 000 0:.0000 00. 0. . .00“. 00.0.0.0 >0:300 0003000< 05000000 030 >003 00 0000000 0.00 u:00000 0>00 00000 ..0 0000 00 >.000.300 00.:05 000030 00000..< 0:00 x mauz 0uwu 0:00 x m.nz <0 0500 x . muz 0:300 000k 0500. 0.0.0000 .uoac00co0--.0_ 0.0m0 96 w. ON N— _N MN NN :— ~m.: 9.5 m_.m m:.: ~m.m 3.: No.m MN m~.: m.n_ ~_.m m.m_ oo.m _~ oo.m m.m_ oo.m - mm.: m.m_ w~.m mm NN .N m— m— a. On .n.m 0N.: :~.: ~w.: mo.m oo.m se.: mm o_.: - um.: .N :m.: m. :_.m S $.m : m: m.:_ am.m MN NN _N om m— w— m— o_.: o:.: .m.: mm.: .m.: mm.: ._.m muu_>gcm .mcomumuavu ou_>gum .uXm >ucaou acuguum_u mc_guncog $0 umou ecu o~>_mc< museum .muo_ mum_gaoLaam cu co_uuog_u Lo; \m.: Love: mvcaw .mmuuam mo om: mo mugoaog u_uomgoa oxm: co_umgum_c_svm co_mcouXm uumum Cu mcowuuug_v mmu >ucaou use have: muss» $0 on: we wagon»; u.uo_50q oxm: meagmoLn co_mcoHXu >ucsou ucmaxm\a0_u>ov cu macaw vuum_gaoLanmu>uc:ou Ou co_u -_vum c. ugoaaam .muucmc_m xoum mco_umgoao .uxm mo aconcva nova. Lau.u:m cm >n >__m:ccm tou_v:m mugouog _m_ucmc_m o>m: unusao_o>ou ummvan c_ mmmum >ucaou ecu $0 acoeu>_o>c. mguuume mmu:_m:n >ucaou no» mogavuuoLa ton_LUmoLa zo__0m xcmm x manz moon xcmx x m_az ucaou umch menu. u_m_uuam .uo=c_u=ou--.~_ o_amp 97 The preparation of an annuai county Extension budget received the highest mean score from a1] respondent groups. Long-range financiai support of Extension work in the county was viewed as being Tess important (mean score of 5.27) by county government CES contact persons than the other position groups. In addition. these contact persons considered the importance of adequate county office facilities differentiy from the other groups. They viewed the item Tess important (ranked nineteenth). whiTe other respondent groups expressed a higher vaTue (ranked no higher than thirteenth). The state Extension administrators viewed the a110cation of budget monies equitabTy so that aTT staff have reasonabie support to carry out programs as Tess important than the county Extension agents (mean scores of 5.17 and 5.96. respective'ly). The expectation of the county Extension director to keep detailed and accurate financiaT and activity records was considered more important to state Extension administrators and county Extension directors than the other two respondent groups. Both county Extension directors and county government CES contact persons agreed that keeping the cost of county Extension service reasonabTe was important by reporting simiTar mean scores of over 5.90. However. this item was viewed high‘ly important (ranked third) among the business management and finance roie items by county government CES contact persons. In overview. the most important items focused on the securing of funds to carry out programs in response to the needs of the county. 98 Less important were the business management and finance role items which dealt with financial reporting and analyzing. However. even the less important items had mean scores above 4.00. EducationaLLeadensbJp Leadership has usually been thought of as a specific attribute of personality. a personality trait. that some persons possess and others do not. Leadership is the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives (Terry. 1964. p. 473). A closer look at leadership reveals several basic ideas (Browne & Cohn. l958. p. 76). First. leadership is always relative to the situation-- relative in two senses: (a) leadership flourishes only in a problem situation. and (b) the nature of the leadership role is determined by the goal of the group. The second principle of leadership is that it is always toward some objective goal. The third principle is that leadership is a process of mutual stimulation--a social interactional phenomenon in which the attitudes. ideals. and aspirations of the followers play as important a determining role as do the individuality and personality_of the leader. Based on the above definition. the county Extension director can be considered an educational leader. However. this Job is differ- ent from most other educational administrators' in that county Exten- sion directors in Michigan have programming responsibilities in addition to their administrative role. 'They must demonstrate expertise in a specific subject-matter area. as well as provide leadership to the entire county unit. 99 The broad aspects of the educational leadership role of the county Extension director were examined by looking at the responses to the 19 questions presented in Table 18. To develop and/or maintain the ability to work with people was viewed as the most important role item by total respondents. with a 6.05 mean score. Three out of the four position groups gave this item their highest score. However. the county Extension directors viewed program execution in own area of subject-matter responsibility as most important. Further. county Extension directors considered program development in own area of subject-matter responsibility and conducting an effective educational program in own area of subject-matter responsibility their second and third most important educational leadership role expectations. County Extension agents and county government CES contact persons placed a high value (mean scores of 5.84 and 5.71. respectively) on the county Extension di rector's capacity to be skillful in the decision—making process. Staff solidarity. morale. or esprit de corps was viewed as the third most important item to both county Extension directors and county Extension agents. Also. the county Extension agents placed a higher value than others on the ability of the county Extension director to be skillful in the use of words. In summary. all educational leadership role items were con- sidered very important by the four position groups. The mean scores of county Extension directors were the highest. while county government CES contact persons had the lowest scores. lOO Lo;\E_; ;u_3 Lomm_u on: umozu >3 mco_c_ao o _N.m m w~.m No.m __ N:.m m:.m ocm mmc__oow to co_mmoaaxo ecu soc >u_::uaoaao ecu ov_>oam N so.m m ~_.m m~.m m.m oo.o mo.m maaou be a_aamo Lo o_maos .>u_amo__om cumum >u___n_mcoomoL mo mocm Louume m m¢.m a 5:.m mm.m o Nm.m mm.m -uuoaasm c_ >ucuuoaeou .mu_c unoou :_mucmme Lo\vcm ao_o>oo m 5m 9. $6 ems N 3.... $.m >3 233.5%». $32-89;... co new :30 c. Humane—goo 5960.... N _~.m o mm.m sm.m m m~.m m~.m mmuuoaa m:_xme -co_m_oot 0;» :_ _:w___xm on s «m.m m mm.m .o.m _ o~.m om.m >u___a_mcoamoaLocome-uuumn=mco mean :30 c_ comuaooxo EmLmoLm _ co.» m._ mm.m m_.m m om.m mo.o o_aooa no.3 xaoz ou mo_u -___nm :_muc_ms coxocm ao_o>oo xcmx R xcmm R ..x. xcmx R R «:12 m. z _n z m_~ z c. ommmcm Lo ;u_3 uoccoocou I n n u o :o maOuuoL co mcoux muou ucaou Honk mama. o_w~ooam .LOULO JCGL Ucm GLOUm cams >9 oo_w_mmm_o .omcmaovmo_ _mco_umusoo co_mcouxm >ucaoo ou mc_c_mucoa meow. coouoc_zuu.w_ o_nmh 10) m NN.: .. NN.: m. mm.: N. mm.m m. oo.m m. mo.: N. mm.: .. mo.m m. :m.m N. .o.m :. Nm.: w. mN.: N. mm.: o. wm.m .. No.m 0. mm.: :. :a.: m m:.m N. :..m o. No.m .. mo.: m mm.m o. o..m N mm.m m NN.m N. mm.: N mm.m m Nm.m m.m oo.o w 0:.m mono.c;uou .mco.u umosuo :0 menu cu a: noox mo.u.>_uom Nu..m:o Losm.c Lo Loumocm Ou ucomm some mum.:e_um ucoL. c. uao m. 0:: ocooEOm mm czocx mc_om mucoz .0 0m: ecu c. .3»...xm on mean LouumEnuoomnam oco ammo. um c. co.umELo.:_ .mo.c;ooh Nu...n.mcoamoa aouume nuuoanam .0 mean :30 c. EmLmoLa .mco.umoauo o>.uoo..o cm uuao:0u xcmm M xcmm .m. xcmm Ix. xcmm M xcmz M mcuz m.flz .muz .an m.Nuz muuu (m 05mm m.m. 00.: m. ::.m m. :N.: m. mm.: m. 0N.: ozu ocmzm yo: 0v on: m.m:o.> u.vc. mao.Lm> soc» Em.o.u.au m. mm.: m. om.: m. mo.: :. cm.m m. .o.: co.umsco.c. o...uco.om oumc.eomm.o vcm ou.>oLm m oo.m w_ .m.. N. se.. a oN.. N. mm.s Ngaomo__;a .mco_u amusoo co oumquuna: coax m.w. oo.: m. .m.: o. mm.: m. mo.m o. 0N.: omamo one :. mo>o..on osmNo; .. oocmco m mc.xmh 0. MN.: N. w..: m. am.: .m. N..m m. .m.: mocmvcmum oucmELo.Loa nouuoaxo vcoNon co.um>0cc. ommaaoocm N. o:.: o. oo.m :. .m.: m. NN.m :. :m.: mmc.uooe :o.umu:oo oo.>comu:. .mco.mmo.oca acouu< xcmm M xcmm R xcmm M. xcmx M xcmm M w: z m. z .m z .N z m.N z c. ommmcm Lo no.3 voccoucoU u u u u n o :o mLOuuoL co.mcoux muuu .mu0h m o. cm .o u masoLu acoucoamom .0 Loose xcmx new ocoom cmoz >u::0u umzh mama. u.w.ooam .eo=c_ocou--.m_.o_nmN 103 Was: The null hypothesis was established that "there are no signifi- cant differences in the importance held for the various administrative processes in the county Extension director's position as perceived by the respondent groups." This was tested by calculating the mean score for each of the eight administrative process areas for the total 219 respondents and for each position group. Table 19 shows the adminis- trative process areas for county Extension directors. classified by mean score and rank order. By observing the mean score and the rank for each adminis- trative process. it was noted that differences existed. The business management and finance administrative process had the highest mean score of 5.43 and consequently was ranked first. The other adminis- trative processes conti nued in the following rank order as determined by decreasing mean scores: (2) educational leadership. (3) organiza- tion and policy. (4) direction and coordination. (5) planning and programming. (6) administrative relations. (7) personnel management. and (8) supervision. To determine the significance of these differences. the Friedman analysis of variance test (Kerlinger. 1973). a form of rank- order analysis of variance. was used. In Table 20. the observed significance level is .001 with 7 degrees of freedom. Having established a predetermined significance level of .01. the null hypothesis related to differences between the importance of the eight administrative processes was rejected. The data showed that 10h .mEou. .0 Lucas: I zm N mm.: N ON.m cm.m w N:.: mo.: NN I mz co.m.>coa:m m m_.: m Nm.m mm.m m.o Nm.: a..: MN n m2 ucoeommcmz .occOmLoa o m:.: m om.: :..: m.m Nm.: Nm.: mN a mz mco.um.om o>_umcum.c.sv< m 0N.: : NN.: wo.: m :N.: m:.: MN u mz m:_EEmLmoLm ucm mc_ccm.m : mm.: m .N.: 0N.: : mm.: mm.: .N u mz co.umc_oLoOU vcm co.uuoc.o N mm... o mo... No... m mo.m mNé N. u «.2 Nu..0m can co.um~.cmmco m Nm.: N Nm.: m_.m N om.m m_.m m. n mz a.;mcovmoa .mco.umo:om _ m..m . ::.m Nm.m . mo.m m:.m MN u mz mecca... new ucoeommcmz mmofmzm xcmm M xcmx M .m xcmx M M waaz m.uz .Nuz m.an mmoa< mmooocm o>.umaum.c_5o< muou _umcum.c_som unm.o Lo» LovLo xcmc ucm mocoom uncommoc cmozuu.m. o.nmh 105 administrative relations and personnel management had the greatest number of different rankings (three each). while organization and policy. planning and programming. and supervision each had two groups that varied. The administrative process with the highest level of consensus appeared to be business management and finance. Table 20.--Friedman analysis of variance of administrative process means by rank. Rank Order of Administrative Process Respondent GrOUpS Areas Mean Rank CED CEA SA CGCP Business Management and Finance- 1.00 l 1 l 1 Educational Leadership 2.25 2 2 2 3 Organization and Policy 3.50 3 3 6 2 Direction and Coordination 4.25 4 4 5 4 Planning and Programming 5.00 5 6 4 5 Administrative Relations 5.13 6.5 5 3 6 Personnel Management 7.38 6.5 7 8 8 Supervision 7.50 8 7 7 degrees of freedom = 7 significance = .001 W Differences in consensus within each position group were examined by testing the null hypothesis that "there are no significant differences in the consensus within each position group on the per- ceived expectations held for responsibilities and activities of the county Extension director's position. 106 This hypothesis was first tested by calculating the standard deviations on each role item for each position group and the total respondents. Standard deviation is used as a measure of variability and indicates consensus or the lack of consensus within a position group. Appendix B illustrates the 172 role definitional responsibili- ties and activities carrying the various levels of agreement within each position group. The county Extension directors had 36 role items with a standard deviation over 2.000. The administrative relations role item (no. 158). ”on the average. spend at least one hour per day completing routine paperwork." had the highest standard deviation of 2.526 for county Extension directors. The largest variance with the county Extension agents was an organization and policy role item. that of "defining areas of responsibility for county Extension personnel” (no. 95). County Extension agents had 40 items with over a 2.000 standard deviation. State Extension administrators had the widest response to the county Extension director's role item (no. 27). "proposed legislation that might affect the Cooperative Extension Service)‘ This item had a 2.588 standard deviation. In addition. 39 other role items! standard deviations were over 2.000. County government CES contact persons had 78 items. 45 percent of the total items. with a standard deviation over 2.000. The person- nel management role item. "participate in the interview of candidates for board-appointed positions in the county." had a 2.504 standard deviation. 107 The data presented in Appendix 8 seem to indicate that there are no differences in the consensus within each position group on the perceived expectations held for the responsibilities and activities of the county Extension director's position. However. it was concluded to further test this hypothesis. ‘The Bartlett homogeneity of variance test was calculated for the position groups on each administrative process. This test is used to determine if the samples or groups being reviewed come from populations with equal variance (Kerlinger. 1964. p. 287). Table 21 presents the results of the Bartlett test for each administrative process. A predetermined level of significance of .01 was established for each administrative process. Therefore. the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the consensus within each position group on the perceived administrative expectations was not rejected. Table 21.--Bartlett homogeneity of variance tests by administrative process for county Extension directors. county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons. Significance Level Administrative Process p = * Planning and Programming .504 Organization and Policy .327 Direction and Coordination .188 Personnel Management .037 Supervision .172 Business Management and Finance .819 Administrative Relations .258 Educational Leadership .124 *p < .01. 108 W The null hypothesis was prepared that "there are no significant differences between the county Extension directors group and each of the other respondent groups on the perceived importance of expectations held for responsibilities and activities of the county Extension director's position." Observation of previously established Table 19 indicated differences in mean scores of the four position groups for the eight administrative processes. To determine the significance of these differences. the analysis of variance statistical technique was used. This technique partitions the variation in the observed data into parts. each part assignable to a different cause or causes. It is one of the most powerful and most widely used procedures to test for differences between means (Wiersma. 1975. p. 237). The results of this analysis of the eight administrative processes indicated differences existed between the position groups. The results of these analyses are displayed in Tables 22 through 27. A predetermined level of significance for each administrative process was established at the .01 level. The data in Table 22 reveal ed that the planning and programming administrative process was at the .0015 level of significance. Thus. there was a significant difference between the county Extension direc- tors and members of the other position groups. The major difference seemed to be with the county Extension agents at 4.08. while county 109 Extension directors had a 4.74 score. State Extension administrators' mean score of 4.22 also indicated a slight difference. Table 22.--An analysis of variance for county Extension planning and programming between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 20.4861 3 6.8287 5.3229 .0015 *p < .01. The data in Table 23 show the results of the analysis of variance for county Extension organization and policy between county Extension directors and the other respondent groups. With a required difference of .01. the resulting calculated significance level of .0082 indicated a significant difference. There was almost a whole point difference between county Extension directors and state Extension administrators (mean scores of 5.03 and 4.08. respectively). Table 23.--An analysis of variance for county Extension organization and policy between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 16.7808 3 5.5986 4.0286 .0082 *p < .01. 110 The reported value from Table 24 for the significant difference of the County Extension directors! and the other respondent groups' direction and coordination administrative process was .0001. County Extension directors viewed this process at:4.93. while county Extension agents and state Extension administrators responded with lower scores of 4.20 and 4.21. respectively. Table 24.--An analysis of variance for county Extension direction and coordination between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 26.4713 . 3 8.8238 7.1080 .0001 *p < .01. The data in Table 25 indicate that there were also significant differences between the county Extension directors and the other respondent groups at the .0005 level for the personnel management administrative process. ‘This difference was primarily located between county Extension directors and state Extension administrators. 4.57 and 3.37. respectively. The information from the data in the analysis of variance table (Table 26) shows a significance level of .0002. indicating a significant difference in the responses to the supervision administrative process. County Extension directors had a mean score of 4.42. while state 111 Extension administrators' and county Extension agents' scores were only 3.70 and 3.64. respectively. Table 25.--An analysis of variance for county Extension personnel management between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 26.0300 3 8.6767 6.0920 .0005 *p < .01. Table 26.--An analysis of variance for county Extension supervision between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 29.4713 3 9.8238 6.8857 .0002 *p < .01. The remaining three administrative processes had significance level scores above the required JTI level. Administrative relations-- .1682 (Table 27). business management and finance--.1459 (Table 28). and educational leadership--.0215 (Table 29) indicated there was not a significant difference between the county Extension directors' views and those of the other respondent groups. 112 Table 27.--An analysis of variance for county Extension administrative relations between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 7.227 3 2.4091 1.7005 .1682 *p < .01. Table 28.--An analysis of variance for county Extension business management and finance between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of . Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 7.261 3 2.4224 1.8134 .1459 *p < .01. Table 29.--An analysis of variance for county Extension educational leadership between county Extension directors and other respondent groups in this study. Sum of Mean Source Squares df Square F p* Between groups 13.2415 3 4.4138 3.2958 .0215 *p < .01. 113 The results of these analyses of variance on each of the eight administrative processes indicated there was sufficient difference in five out of the eight processes. Therefore. the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between the county Extension ‘ directors group and each of the other respondent groups on the perceived importance of the expectations held for the responsibilities and activities of the county Extension director's position was rejected . W W Win The null hypothesis was established that "there is no measur- able association between the county Extension di rectors' perception of the position's responsibilities and activities and their age. size of staff. amount of Extension experience. extent of formal education. or amount of time spent on administrationJ‘ To provide meaningful group size. the county Extension directors were placed in the following age groups: under 35 years. 36- 45 years. and 46 years and older. Table 30 shows the county Extension directors' mean scores to the eight administrative processes by the three age groups. An analysis of variance. a test for differences between means. was used on each administrative process to determine significant differences. The data in Table 31 indicate that there were no significant differences at the JTI level. The educational leader- ship administrative process had the nearest significant score of .0375. Upon examination of this process in Table 30. there seemed to be some 114 differences between the 36 to 45 years county Extension directors group (5.09) and the 46 years and older group (5.85). Table 30.--County Extension directors' mean scores for the adminis- trative process areas. classified by age. Administrative Process Under 35 Yrs. 36-45 Yrs. 46+ Yrs. Area N=15 N=28 N=28 Planning and Programming 4.88 4.58 4.84 Organization and Policy 5.38 4.69 5.16 Direction and Coordination 5.20 4.62 5.08 Personnel Management 4.87 4.12 4.82 Supervision 4.74 4.12 4.55 Administrative Relations 4.85 4.16 4.83 Business Management and Finance 5.75 5.36 5.91 Educational Leadership 5.59 5.09 5.85 Staff sizes were grouped into three categories: 1-3 persons. 4-6 persons. and 7 or more persons. The data in Table 32 indicate the county Extension directors'lnean scores to the eight administrative processes. Table 33 displays the analysis of variance results. No significant differences were noted at the .01 level. although the personnel management administrative process was at the .0383 level. Review of Table 32 showed that county Extension directors with 4-to-6- person staffs viewed this process much lower (3.93) than the other two age groups (4.83 and 4.80). Experience in extension was the third way used to determine differences in county Extension directors' perceptions of the various county Extension administrative processes. Three groupings were used: 115 ._o. w a. mNmo. mass.m Nsmm.m .Nmm.N mas... couzaom ._gmtmamus _.=o_a..=ua mNNN. .Nmm.. mo...N OMMN.: museum cooZuom oocmc.u new ucoEommcmz mmoc.m:m w.No. omMN.N mNmm.m Nm.N.N masoLm cooZHom mco.um.o¢ o>.umcum.c.so< N..N. .mwm.. .NmN.N NcNm.: masoLm :oQZHom co.m.>coo:m came. mN::.N mo.N.: N.N:.m manoLm coozuom ucosommcmz .occOmcom omON. mNom.. N.m..N mmom.: masocm coozuom co.umc.vLoOu can co.uooa.o NNN.. mmom.. mNaN.N m:ma.m manoLm coozuom No..0m vcm co_um~.cmmco :Nom. m:.:. Nsz. :amo.. masoLm consuom mc.EEmLmocm new mc.:cm.m «a u onmwmm mHMmHWM ooc:Om mmooocm o>.umcum.c.2c< umcum_:_5cm usm.o ecu new one .chuuoa_n co.m:ouxu Nucaoo coozuon .mmoLm mmoooca o>.u oocm.cm> mo m.m>.mcm c.umaum.c_sv< mNmo. _omm.N :mmm.m momN.o masoam coozoom =o_m_>aoa=m mwmo. mmm:.m ammo.m wo.m... masocm coozuom acoeommcmz .occomaom mmNo. NNmo.N wmm:.m NNNm.o maaocm cooZNom co_umc.vcooU can co.uooa.o mom_. o_oN._ Noom.N a_Nm.m maaoam cumzaom >u__oa can co_omN_cmmao mmm.. ONNm.. MNwm.N maoN.: masoLm coozuom mc.EEmcmoLm ucm mc.ccm.m «a m onmwnm mwmmmwm oo530m mmouoLm o>.umcum.:_5v< .mmocm mmoooLo o>.umcum.c_5vm u;m_o ecu ocm o~_m ..mum .chuuoL.u co.mcouxm >ucaou coozuon oucm.cm> mo m.m>.mcm :.umcum.c.so< mew. omma. m.mm. N Nmmm.. maaoLm coozuom co.m_>coo:m .mmN. oomN.. oocN.N N .om:.: masoLm coozuom ucoEommcmz .occomcom mNom. NN.N._ mmNo._ N ommm.m masoam :aozuom co_um=_eaoou new co_auoa_o NONo. mmo..: N::m.m N ommw... masoLm coozuom >o..om can co_um~_:mmao :MNm. ..om. NNNN. N :m::.. masoLm coozuom mc.EEmLmoLm new m:.ccm.m «a u ocmwwm mu mHMmHWM ooL30m mmuooLm o>_umcum.c.5v< .mmoLm mmouoLa o>.umcum.c.Eum unm.o any can ou:o..oaxo co.mcouxm .maouooc.u co_mcouxm Nucaoo coozuon oocm.cm> No m.m>.mcm c_amao.zc_se< mNmm. om_m. mmmN. N mNom._ museum couzomm co_._>aoa=m :mmm. momm. .Na... N mawN.N monocm cooZuom acoeommcmz .occOmcom .NaN. mNmN. oaoa. N owom. monoLm cooZNom co.umc.vL00u 0cm co.uooc.o on:. .NmMN. ooa... N mmNN.N manoLm cooZuom No..om vcm co_um~.cmmco mo.w. NNma. mwNw. N Nme.. manoLm coozuom mc.EEmLm0cm can mc.ccm.m «a m oummmm mo mwmmmwm ooL:Om mmoooLm o>.umaum.c.ev< .mmoam mmoooLa o>.umcum.c.evm u;m_o ecu ucm co.umo:oo .mEL0m .maOuuoL.u co.m:0uxm >ucaou coozuoa oucm.cm> mo m.m>.m:m c.umcum.c_5o< wNNN. mmom.. omNm.. N NNJN.m masocm coozuom co.m.>coa:m mNNo. m.oo.N comm.: N oo~..m masoLm comzuom ucOEommcmz .oc:0maom o::.. Nmmm.. Nmao.N N ammN.m museum coozuom co.umc_ocoou cam co.uooc.o omN.. ommN.. .MNN.N N .oqc.m masoLm cooZHom No..0m vcm co.umn.cmmao mmmN. :JJN. :.Nm. N NNaw. masoLm coozuom mc.esmcm0cm ocm mc.ccm.m «a m ouwwmm mu mwmmmww ooL30m mmoooL¢ o>.umcum.c.2n< .mmoam mmoooLa o>.umgum.c.Ecm unm.o one cam co.umcum.c.Eum co ucoam oe.u .chuooc.v co.m:ouxu Nucaoo coozuon oocm.cm> mo m.m>.mcm cLoa:m ucoeommcmz .o::0mao¢ mco.um.om .a._c_su< mc.EEmLmoLe w mc.ccm.e co.umc.cc00u w co.uooa.e >o..oa vcm co.umN.:mmLo n.5mcovmoe .mco.umo:uw oocmc.m new .umz mmoc.m:e gem“ x xcmx x xcmm x xcma x Nana x xcmx x xcmx x xcmx x m.nz m.uz om.uz .muz .Nuz .le :.le _umcu -m_:_2e< .cooco xcmc ocm oLoom cmoe >3 we...mmm.o .>v:um .amu ozu cam >ozum com.Lcmx ecu coozuon mommoUOLQ o>.umaum.c_2vm ecu o“ momcoamoc No cem.cmaeoo (--.oc o.nmh 125 To determine the significance of these differences. the Friedman analysis of variance test was applied to the administrative process rankings of total revised respondents from both studies as well as the three position groups: county Extension directors. county Extension agents. and state Extension administrators. The data in Table 41 indicate a significance level of .064 with 7 degrees of free- dom. With a required significance level of.01. the null hypothesis of differences between the administrative processes of the respondent groups cannot be rejected. Table 41.--Friedman two-way analysis of variance for county Extension director. county Extension agent. and state Extension administrator respondents' administrative processesa between this study and the Caul study. by rank. Rank Order Administrative Process Mean This Study Caul Study Area Rank (CEDoCEAs SA) (CED'CEAp SA) Business Management 1.5 1 2 Educational Leadership 1.5 2 1 Organization and Policy 3.0 3 3 Direction and Coordination 4.0 4 4 Planning and Programming 5.0 5 5 Personnel Management 6.5 7 6 Administrative Relations 7.0 6 8 Supervision 7.5 8 7 Degrees of freedom 8 7 Significance 8 .064 aIdentical responsibility and activity items. 126 The data in Table 42 indicate the rankings of the county Extension directors from both studies appear similar. with only the personnel management administrative process beingiexchanged with planning and programming. Table 43 of the county Extension agents indicated a significant level of .074. while the state Extension administrators of both studies in Table 44 show a .126 significance level. Table 42.--Friedman two-way analysis of variance for county Extension director respondents' administrative processesa between this study and the Caul study. by rank. Rank Order Administrative Process Mean This Study Caul Study Area Rank (CED) (CED) Educational Leadership 1.0 1 1 Business Management and Finance 2.0 2 2 Organization and Policy 3.0 3 3 Direction and Coordination 4.0 4 4 Planning and Programming 5.5 5 6 Personnel Management 5.5 6 5 Supervision 7.0 7 7 Administrative Relations 8.0 8 8 Degrees of freedom = 7 Significance = .054 aIdentical responsibility and activity items. 127 Table 43.--Friedman two-way analysis of variance for county Extension agent respondents' administrative processes“ between this study and the Caul study. Rank Order Administrative Process Mean This Study Caul Study Area Rank (CEA) (CEA) Business Management and Finance 1.5 l 2 Educational Leadership 1.5 2 1 Organization and Policy 3.0 3 3 Direction and Coordination 4.0 4 4 Planning and Programming 5.5 6 5 Personnel Management 6.5 7 6 Administrative Relations 6.5 5 8 Supervision 7.5 8 7 Degrees of freedom 8 7 Significance = .074 “Identical responsibility and activity items. Table 44.--Friedman two-way analysis of variance for state Extension administrator respondents' administrative processes“ between this study and the Caul study. Rank Order Administrative Process Mean This Study Caul Study Area Rank (SA) (SA) Business Management and Finance 1.50 l 2 Educational Leadership 1.50 2 1 Planning and Programming 4.00 3 5 Direction and Coordination 4.25 4.5 4 Organization and Policy 4.50 6 3 Administrative Relations 6.25 4.5 8 Supervision 7.00 7 7 Personnel Management 7.00 8 6 Degrees of freedom 8 7 Significance 8 .126 “Identical responsibility and activity items. 128 Sumarx This chapter presented and analyzed the results of the data gathered by administering the perception expectation questionnaire to the four role-defining position groups. The data were presented and analyzed in terms of the major research objectives listed in Chapter I. Mean responses to role-definitional items classified by administrative process were analyzed as a measure of expectations held by the four position groups. A variety of types of analysis of variance tests were used as a measure of variability in the expectations held for the administrative role of the county Extension director. Chapter V pre- sents the summary. conclusions. and recommendations of the study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to review the objectives of the study and the method of investigation. to summarize the major findings. to present conclusions. and to make recommendations. Wm .Naad_ion_tbe_fitun¥ The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service established the position of the county Extension director in 1958. This action' officially created an administrative unit at the county level. Because of the geographic dispersion of Extension personnel throughout the state. the need for effective decentralized administrative decision making by those most in touch with county-level problems has been and remains critical. Competition for budget dollars. accountability for program results. and personnel management demand sound administrative leadership by the county Extension director. In recent years a concern has surfaced centering on the administrative role of the county Extension director. In the late 1970s a number of workshops and committee meeting agendas centered on clarifying the administrative role of the county Extension director. It was concluded that there was a lack of clarity of perception of the 129 130 county Extension director's role between and among both field staff and the state administrative staff. During the 1981-82 review period. county Extension directors were evaluated in part according to a set of newly established administrative performance standards. These new standards were the results of integrating the previously established generally accepted functions with selected items from two nationwide projects. These projects focused on the county Extension agent's work and did not analyze the administrative role of the county Extension director. In addition to the previous concerns. there has been a substantial attrition of county Extension directors in recent years due to retirements and transfers. ‘The persons who were assigned to these positions generally had educational experience in technical content rather than in administrative fields that might help to identify and perform the functions of administering a county Extension unit. ‘The foregoing concerns determined the need for a comprehensive study to determine the perceptions about the administrative role of the county Extension director in Michigan. W The general purposes of this study were: (1) to define the role of the county Extension director in Michigan as viewed by county Extension directors. other Extension workers. and county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons; (2) to obtain informa— tion to help Extension personnel gain a better understanding of the relationships between the selected study groups; and (3) to 131 provide Michigan Extension administrators with additional information on which to base performance evaluations. W The specific objectives of this study were: 1. To determine the administrative duties of the county Exten- sion director as perceived by the county Extension director. other county Extension agents. state Extension administrators. and county government CES contact persons. 2. To determine differences in role perceptions of the county Extension director's administrative duties as perceived by each respondent group. 3. To determine if there is a measurable association between age. formal education. size of county staff. tenure. and amount of time assigned for administration of the county Extension director. and his/her perception of the county Extension director's role. 4. To compare the findings relating to the importance of the eight administrative processes of this study with selected information obtained from the Caul study completed in Michigan in 1960. Emcedune The data were obtained from a mailed questionnaire returned by 171 Michigan Extension workers and 48 county government CES contact persons actively on the job in April 1983. County Extension directors were requested to select the county government CES contact persons. The usable rate yielded an overall average of 83 percent with 92 132 percent for the Extension personnel and 62 percent for the county government CES contact persons. The questionnaire provided opportunity for the respondents to record their judgment concerning the extent to which 172 possible role- definition items were a part of the job of a county Extension director. The questionnaire was similar to the one used by Caul (1960) but with additional items to reflect contemporary issues and social responsi- bilities that the Cooperative Extension Service has in the 19805. The role-definition items were grouped into two broad areas. One group of 62 items was described as specific responsibilities with which a person in the position of county Extension director must be concerned. The second group of 110 items was identified as activities in which an individual in the position of county Extension director would engage. The survey instrument was printed on mark-sensitive answer sheets. Each respondent was asked to record. on an eight-point scale. his/her evaluation of the extent he/she perceived the role-definition item to be a part of the county Extension director's role. The scale. 0 through 7. ranged from "no part of the job" to a "most significant part of the job." Thus. both the direction and the intensity for the role expectation were measured. The respondents were divided into four position groups for purposes of the basic analysis of the data. The groups were: county Extension directors (CED). who are the designated administrative heads of the county units of the Michigan Extension Service: the county Extension agents (CEA). which includes agents (Agriculture and 133 Marketing. 4-H/Youth. Family Living and Natural Resources/Public Policy) assigned to a county or group of counties; state Extension administrators (SA) at the regional and state level: and county government CES contact persons (CGCPO. who interact with the county Extension director to facilitate the county Extension service. Wading: The findings of this study were as follows: WHEELS—1.0 W 1. Nearly three-quarters of the county Extension directors were between 36 and 55 years old. 2. Sixty-five percent of the county Extension agents were in a younger age grouping of 26 to 45 years old. 3. County government CES contact persons were the only position group to have over-65-year-old respondents. 4. Over 90 percent of the county Extension directors and county government CES contact persons were males. 5. Over 95 percent of the county Extension directors. county Extension agents. and county government CES contact persons were white. 6. Fifty-six percent of the Extension personnel had master's degrees. 7. Over 40 percent of the county government CES contact persons did not have a college degree. 134 8. ‘The length of service in Extension was the greatest among the county Extension directors. 9. Geographic distribution of the county position group respondents was evenly scattered throughout the six regions of the state. 10. Fifty-three percent of the county Extension directors spent more time on administration than the time assigned for this purpose by state Extension administrators. W W 1. There were significant differences in the importance held for one administrative process than for another in the county Extension director's position. 2. The total group considered the business management and finance administrative process as most important. ‘The other adminis- trative processes continued in the following ranked order as determined by decreasing mean scores: (2) educational leadership. (3) organiza- tion and policy. (4) direction and coordination. (5) planning and ‘ programming. (6) administrative relations. (7) personnel management. and (8) supervision. 3. The administrative process with the highest level of consensus appeared to be business management and finance. 4. Administrative relations and personnel management had the greatest number of different rankings (three each). 135 5. There were no significant differences in the consensus within each position group on the perceived expectations of the county Extension director's position. 6. ‘There were significant differences between the county Extension directors group and the other respondent groups on five out of eight administrative processes. 7. County Extension directors had the greatest differences with county Extension agents when dealing with the planning and programming administrative process. 8. State Extension administrators and county Extension directors had the greatest difference in their views of the organization and policy adminiStrative process. 9. When considering the direction and coordination adminis- trative process. county Extension directors had the greatest difference with both county Extension agents and state Extension administrators. 10. ‘The major difference in their view of the personnel management administrative process was located between the county Extension directors and state Extension administrators. 11. County Extension directors had the greatest difference with state Extension administrators and county Extension agents on the importance of the supervision administrative process. 12. When comparing identical role items of the same position groups. there was no significant difference between the importance of the eight administrative processes reported in this study and the Caul study completed in Michigan in 1960. 136 W151; W W 1. There were no significant differences between the county Extension directors"three age groups and the eight administrative processes. 2. The staff size groups (1-3 persons. 4-6 persons. and 7 or more persons) viewed the eight administrative processes similarly. 3. County Extension directors' different levels of experience in Extension revealed no significant differences in the importance of the eight administrative processes. 4. ‘There was no difference in the views of county Extension directors within the three formal-education groups. 5. The varying time spent on administration by the county Extension directors revealed no significant difference concerning the importance of the eight administrative processes. Conclusjgns The conclusions that follow are based on the findings of this study and the review of literature and research. WWW: 1. Most of the county Extension directors. over 90 percent. were white males. These data indicated the lack of an administrative staff at the county level that was reflective of the population being served. 137 2. A considerable portion. over 40 percent. of the county government CES contact persons did not have a college degree. However. over one-third of them did have a bachelor's degree. These differences in the amount of formal training indicated the necessity of the county Extension director possessing the ability to communicate to individuals of varying levels of education. 3. A majority (over 52 percent) of the county Extension directors spent more time on administration than actual time assigned by state Extension administration. There was a discrepancy between county Extension directors and state Extension administrators on the time necessary to perform administrative responsibilities. W W W 1. All administrative processes studied were important. but emphasis was placed on the county Extension director's functions in the following order: (1) business management and finance. (2)1educational leadership. (3) organization and policy. (4) direction and coordina- tion. (5) planning and programming. (6) administrative relations. (7) personnel management. and (8) supervision. Economic concerns and conditions at the time of the study may have contributed to the level of importance of the business management and finance administrative process. 2., County Extension directors viewed their administrative role differently than did county Extension agents and state Extension administrators. ‘These differences were observed in three 138 administrative processes with county Extension agents and in four administrative areas with state Extension administrators. 3. The relative importance of the administrative processes that described the administrative role of the county Extension director has not changed in the past 20 years. The ranking reported in this study was not different,from the Caul study (1960). MW Wm WW 1. Age. staff size. Extension experience. formal education. or time spent on administration did not change the county Extension directors' view of their administrative role. Recommendations The findings and conclusions already reported provided the basis for several recommendations. 1. The Michigan Extension Service should continue to plan and conduct an active affirmative action program to provide the opportunity for women and minorities to assume the position of county Extension director. .A comprehensive inservice and graduate study program should be established to assist these individuals in succeeding as county Extension directors. 2. Consideration should be given to revising the current process for evaluating county Extension directors to reflect the importance of the administrative functions described in this study. 139 3. Special consideration should be given to the communication efforts with county government CES contact persons. Cbunty Extension directors should identify and use the most effective communication skills when working with county government persons. 4. An inservice program should be conducted for all Extension workers to develop a better understanding of the county Extension director's administrative role. This effort would create a favorable climate to resolve differences in perceptions of the importance of the county Extension director's administrative processes. 5. Consideration should be given to an inservice program for those county Extension directors who desire to improve their adminis- trative skills. ‘This training should include the following administra- tive processes: business management and finance. education leadership. organization and policy. direction and coordination. planning and pro- gramming. administrative relations. personnel management. and super- vision. Becomendatioan: Additionaljeseamb 1. Research should be conducted specifically with county government CES contact persons to: a. evaluate differences between large metropolitan counties' and smaller counties' views of the county Extension director's role. 140 b. determine their preferred method of communication with the Cooperative Extension Service and current communica- tion effectiveness of the county Extension director. c. ascertain the usefulness of various data-collection techniques to obtain reliable information relating to the Cooperative Extension Service. 2. .Additional study is necessary with other governmental groups (i.e.. townships. cities. etc.) that interact with the Coopera- tive Extension Service to obtain their views of the administrative role of the county Extension director. 3. The amount of stress and other factors associated with the incumbents holding the county Extension director's position should be studied. APPENDICES 1111 APPENDIX A RQE EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE 1112 1&3 AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS' ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE IN MICHIGAN The purposes of this study are: l. to define the role of the county Extension Director in Michigan as viewed by county Extension directors and other groups such as other Extension workers and county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons: 2. 'to obtain information that will help Extension personnel gain a better understanding of the relationships between the selected study groups: and 3. to help provide Michigan Extension administrators with additional information on which to base performance evaluations. General directions: You are asked to record your most sincere feelings and beliefs about each of the questions in the questionnaire. There is no one certain way that you are expected to answer any question. However. please record your opinion to each question even if it means marking that the "question doesn't apply" to you. This survey is being conducted using special computerized answer forms. ‘You are asked to be very careful in filling in your answers to each of the questions. If you follow the suggestions listed below. the computer will be able to process your answers quickly and correctly. 1. Use a dark lead pencil only. 00 NOT use ink. Preferably. use a number 2 pencil. 2. DO NOT make any stray marks on the answer sheet. Fill in only the circles that correspond to your answers. 3. If you erase. try to do so cleanly. DO NOT use a white paint available for use in correcting typing errors. 4. Be certain your marks are dark so the computer will be able t recognize them. - 5. DO NOT remove the staple from these forms. w. DO ‘- - NOT ,j.vvflll’§_{;§N§QTHIs AREA PAGE 1 SECTION I. 1. YOUR EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION AND IACNGIOUND P111 in the circle that soot closely indicates your age: CODE UbUND-‘O Pill in the circle CODE 0 1 Pill in the circle “O‘UNH CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 25 years or under 26 - 35 years 36 - 45 years 46 - 55 years 56 - 65 years Over 65 years that indicates your sex: CATEGORY DESCRIPTION Male Female that describes your race: CATEGORY DESCRIPTION Aaarican Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black White Hispanic Other: Please specify Indicate the highest university degree that you now hold by filling in the appropriate circle: CODE #UNHO Pill in the circle experience in your 3 OUIFUNHO CATEGON! DESCRIPTION lone Bachelor's laster's Specialist's Doctor's that indicates the nusber of years of present job title: CATIGOKY DESCRIPTION lone Less than 12 sonths l - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years Over 20 years 5. W000 0W 0000000000 0000000000 00.000.000.00 00.000.00.000 0000.00.00.00 0000000000 0000.00.00.00 00.00.000.000. 0000000000 00.00.000.000. 00.000.00.000 0.00-00.0.0000 W 0000000000 00.00.000.000 000.00.000.00 0.00-0.0.0.0000 00.00.000.000 0000000000 0000000000 000.00.000.00 00.00.000.000 W W W 1 wmmw om ‘A‘H‘A eeeeeeenmm 0000000000 0000000000 eeeeeemmmm 00000000001 mmmmmmmmmm vvvv'fivvv 'vvvvvv'v' oooooccooo “senescence mmmmmmmmmm vvvvvvv @flflflflyyy000 l000€£flfl¥¥90 GQflMMMNMyfl0 00€QQMNN&&0 0000000000 000£flflfly900 €€HH¥¥90000 0000GQHNN90 GEEHNNN¥990 006%HNK9000 GQEEHMNNflGQ 0000000000 06EHKN¥9000 eoocccnmmm> W. DO NOT WRITE .xxxx\\\\xxxx>\xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx§§xx --A PAGE 2 SECTION I. 6. Pill in the circle that lost closely describes your type of position ONOUOUNHO 145 IN THIS vv'v \V§ -. TOUR mmmcs. MCATION AND BACKGROUND (comm) QEQEJEQEEQ County Extension Director Extension Agricultural or Horticultural Agent Extension Nose Econonist Extension 4-N Youth Agent Extension Natural Resource/Public Policy Agent District Extension Agent State Administrative Staff County Govern-ent CES Contact Person* Other (Please specify) *Go to Section II 7. Pill in the circle that as closely as possible indicates the nuaber of years that you have been enployed by the Cooperative Extension Service in a hoard-appointed professional position (include years in other states): CODE OUFUNHO CATEGORY DESCRIPTION None Less than 12 sonths l - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years Over 20 years 6. Indicate the nuaber of years of experience as a county extension worker by filling in the appropriate circle (include years in other states): ['5 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION None Less than 12 sonths l - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years Over 20 years 9, Pill in the circle that seat closely indicates your order of years as a regional supervisor, state progran leader or other state extension adsiniatrative worker: CODE OUJ‘UNHO CATEGORY DESCRIPTION None Less than 12 nonths 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years Over 20 years AREA _§§5\\\\ a----M Illlllll u.‘.¢”-a.oooecsnuosascsoe‘soeoeosoeasasayaeo-neauaeaeouosdeoee.neesgsoeoso-a.concouoso. 9.4-asauasoeoe ..0-0.4.ou4s .- o-..‘...- DO - - NOT WRITE 1116 IN THIS AREA ,m, 3 0000000000 sacnon 1. root mERlENCE, EDUCATION um um (oownmn) W 10. If you are a county. nulti-county or district Cooperative ID. 0000000000 Extension Service staff person, please indicate your region: 0000000000 mDE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION a nu “nu-.1 W‘ 1 North 2 song)...“ W‘ 3 Southwest 4 um... Peninsula 9969099600 5 Heat Central W’ 11. If you are a county Cooperative Extension Service staff 11. 0000000000 person, fill in the circle that as closely as possible indicates the sire of the board-appointed professional W’ Cooperative Extension Service staff (full-tine equivalent) in your cmtw W' CODE cartoon! bascnxrnon 0000000000 0 Under four professional persons 1 6 to 6 professional persons W’ 2 7 to 9 professional persons 3 10 to 12 professional persons W' 4 l3 and over professional persons ' W' 12. If you are a County Extension Director, fill in the circle 12. 0000000000 that lost closely indicates the naxinun sise of your total staff including professional. progr- assistants. progrsn W' aides. clerical. etc.: 0000000000' NOE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 0 Under four persons 0000000000’ 1 4 to 6 persons 2 7 to 9 persons 0000000000' 3 10 to 12 persons 4 13 to 15 persons W' 5 16 to 18 persons 6 19 to 21 Pum- W’ 7 22 to 25 persons a o... 25 persons W000 13. If you are a County Extension Director. fill in the circle 13. 0000000000 that as closely as possible indicates the percent of your c:- that u spent on administration in your position: 0W oops «mom nascnrnon 006000003 0 20 percent or less 1 21 to 30 percent W’ 2 31 to 60 percent -.N-.... 3 61 to 50 percent vuvvaCGG 6 51 to 60 percent 4...... 5 61 to 70 percent 000066613“ 6 71 to 80 percent 7 Over 80 percent W‘ 60808 an ARM WIWWW 0"” 0000000000 AAAAA -xxxxxsxxx\\xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “-- W00 A AA A A WUWWWWUWW 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 uvuuuuuét‘si) 0000000000‘ *mgmmm 147 PAGE 6 SECTION II: Consider each of the following state-ents which say describe sosething with which an individual in the position of County Extension Director (CED) Inst be concerned. If ou feel the Count Extension Director's sition re irea that he she be attggtive to. be respgnsible for1 or oversee the latter described in the state-entI zgu are to ggggider it a part of the pgsition. regardless of how such tine the Cooperative Extension Director would devote to it personally. However, if the state-ent describes soeething which is strictly the concern of a supervisor. or of another County'Extension worker. you should not consider it a part of the position. Pill in the circle that lost closely indicates the relative weight you attach to the isportance of doing the task by a person properly carrying out the duties of the position of County Extension Director: QQDE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 0 Definitely not a part of the position I May be a sinor part of the position 2 3 4 A substantial part of the position 5 6 7 A neat significant part of the position An individual in the pgsition of County Extension Director lust be sgsgeuaflfi 14. Long-range objectives of the County Extension Service. 15, Effective aethods of reaching eounty Extension goals. 16. Coordinating with staff the develop-ent of overall plan for working with local advisory groups. 17. Con-unity social-econoaic conditions affecting the people who use Extension's service. 18. Porecasting future trends or needs of the County Extension Service. 19. Long-range potentialities of the County Extension Service. 20. Methods used to get increased participation in County Extension educational services. \ §-§-§.§.§-§.} POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES OP THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR “abouuueouuuuuueosoun“usaeasagasoea“v-4eauasasawsaso-as‘soueosaeosoe‘eaecsaeosce‘sae ceasaeonaNagg-‘eaeo DO - - NOT WRITE 1118 IN THIS AREA noes SECTIOR II: POSITION IISPONSIEILITIES OP TI! COUITT EXIIISIOI nmc'ron (con-rum) An individual in the pgsition of County Extension Director Inst be £22£££!£!_!$£h‘ 21. 22. 23. 26. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 31. 32. 33. 35. 37. 38. b0. ‘1. Population and elploynsnt trends of the people in the county. Inproving effectiveness of county Extension teaching sethods. Activities of other educational agencies in the county. Trends in educational thinking. Activities of other related public agencies in the county. Long-range trends in county Extension adsinistretive thinking. Proposed legislation that light effect the Cooperative Extension Service. ~ Effective use of Extension resources in the county. Interpretation of Extension organisation. Adequate staffing of county Extension jobs. fair treat-ant of all Extension agents in the county. Strengths of Extension agents in the county. "hat educational activities the County Cooperative Extension Service is to engage in. Interpretation of Extension policy. Progras develop-ent in the subject setter area of other county Extension agents. . Seahnesses of Extension agents in the county. Joint staff educational efforts across all progras areas. Maintenance of a conpetent staff. Orientation of new Extension workers in the county. Selection of new county Extension agents when needed in the county. Priorities given to the educational activities of the County Cooperative Extension Service. 28. 29. 31. 33. 37. i5 ‘1. W W, 000.000.00.09 0000000000 .0000000000 .0000000000 0000000000 .0000000000 .0000000000 0000000000 .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000. 0000000000 ”3'"! . mm’rflmhmmm ”WWW-g 0|. DO NOT WR'ITE A‘AA‘AAAAA UUUVJUUUUUU 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 AAAA‘A‘A WW“ A“‘AAAAAA UVUUVVUWU 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 AA‘AAAA‘A 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 AAAAAAAA M VWVJVWVVVU 0000000000 AAAAAA A- UUUUUVUUW imam M9 PAGE 6 SECTION II: POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE coum EXTENSION DIRECTOR (CONTINUED) An individual in the Esition of County Extension Director suat be concerned with: A2. 43. M. 105. 66. £7. ‘8. ‘9. 51. 52. 53. 55. 57. 58. 59. Agents attitudes . Agent and secretarial vacation plans. Out-of-county rise and travel of agents. Extension agent retiresent and insurance plans for other than Cooperative Extension Director . Cowlience with County. Michigan State University and Extension personnel policies/practices. Progras evaluations in his/her subject-setter responsibility. Quality of the educational efforts of the County Cooperative Btension Service. The effectiveness of county volunteer leaders. Progras evaluation of other county Extension agent‘s subject setter areas. Preparation of perforsance goals for county Extension agents. Progras execution in other county Extension agent's subject setter areas. Extension prestige. Acceptance of Extension in the «unity. Relations with lay people in the county. Opportunities to prosote Extension before the public. Relationships with the leaders in the county. Preparation of news and other county Extension inforsstion releases . Postering progras and staff cooperation between county Extension offices. Extension goodwil l . IN THIS - - AREA . 8- 8. 8.8. 8.8.8l8.8.8.8.8.8-8.8l8.8. 8. XXXWXXEX 8- 8-8. 8.8- 8- 8. 8.8- 8- 8-8- 8-8.8.8 ”Mu-o.o.o.ouondoo.‘bd.dud.aso.‘.‘.o.oson‘QOsosobfigoso.Anasouosaso.ahooasaoagosasnsa.oso.osculsana§a§ognsascoo-asaWQOOO IllllllllllllllllllllIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFI 99 150 u _' . A ’0)“ .- not...»-.yvan'£' IN THIS AREA g. SECTIN II: Q individual in the mition of County Btension Director mat be rosxnou nsmsnnrnrs or m comm EETDISIOE nnrcron (cannon) Mm: 61. 62 . 63. 65. 67. 68. 70. 71. 72. 73. 76. 75. Preparation of an annual county Extension budget. Expenditure of funds allocated by the county governant to Extension. Adequate county office facilities. Long-vrange financial support of Extension work in the county. A budget request to county officials that is based on an assesssent of support needed for Extension progr-. Maintenance of a businesslike office - its arrang-ent, equipsent. files. attitude toward public. etc. Keeping the costs of county Extension Service reasonable. Involve-ent of the couty staff in budget developssnt. Progras develop-nt in own area of subject-setter responsibility. Progras execution in own area of subject-setter responsibility. Technical inforsstion in at least one abject-setter area. Seingknownassoseonewhoisoutinfront. Staff solidarity. nrale or esprit de corps. Taking a chance if helshe believes in the cause. Criticiss fros various individuals who do not share the one view. 61. 63. 65. 7O . 71. 72. 73. 76. 75. PLEASE LIST OTHER POSITIOI IESPONSIBILITIES “ICE rou oowsmn TO IS PART 0!" THE comm mu! DIRECM'S JOB. 76. 77. 78. 76. 77. 73. .0000000000 .0000000000 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 0000000000 00000-00000 0000000000 999ml 0000000000 0000000000 9999999999, 9999999999 9999999999, 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999. 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 MSUI’: so Affirms!” Acton/fouls! 0090mm" mammal! DO NOT WRITE IN THIS ‘_\-§.§\\\\\\\\\ ‘m- A---“ 0000000000 0000000000 9999999999 0000000000 9999999999 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000‘ 0000000000 9999999999 0000000000 7000000000 Muhosn Sun mm M's-o n wuss A ISI AREA 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8l.\.}l}.)l8.}l}.8.8,8.8-8.8-8.8:8:8-8-837.888-85-833.) PIE! 6 SECTION III: ACTIVITY EXPECTATIONS OP TEE COUITT EITIISION DIIECTOR In this section. you are to consider the following activities that a person would be expected to do to fulfill the position responsibili- ties of the County Extension Director (CED) listed in the previous Section II. II and Section 111. related activities. Many of the state-ents say appear sisilar between Section Por each responsibility there say be one or sore Therefore. you are resinded that you now are to consider possible activities that are needed to achieve the resppnsibilities sentioned in the previous section. If the state-ent describes sosethipg phat the Cooperative Extension Director is pgpected to take the leadership for the count! whether on his/her own or with the assistance of othersI consider it a part of the Cooperative Extesnion Director s pgsition. If soseone else is expected to take the lead, do not consider it a part of the Cooperative Extension Director's position. CODE CATEGORY DESCEIPTIOM O Definitely not a part of the position 1 May be a sinor part of the position 2 3 A A substantial part of the position 5 6 7 A soat significant part of the position An individual in the pgsition of Count! Extension Director would: 79. SO. 81. 85s 87. Detersine isportant educational needs of the people within county. Set objectives and goals for Extension educational progress in county. Develop with appropriate local leaders and other Extension agents a short-tars (year) plan-of-vork for a unified total county Extension progras. Approve the introduction of new types of Extension activities or prograns in the county. Make use of specialists in planning the county Extension progras. Develop with appropriate local leaders and other county Extension agents a written long-tern Extension progras for the county. Analyze educational techniques used by the County Extension Service. Make use of specialist in executing the county Extension progras. Plan the evaluation of county Extension progress. ““OOOOOOOAOOOCOOQ‘QoQJQA.4.‘.¢-4.o.d94.4.5.4.4..-ouu.oso-a“souuuouasasdsogcgdsasosasoun-aoa.once.asagnuasauo-agauusasa DO. l52 I - . - NOT- .WRITE IN THIS AREA I - ’ -“;'L»;fi‘ . '- ‘..v’.‘ ' ' I - l I- ‘ no: 9 I - W0 I - SECTION III: ACTIVITY WWATIOIIS 0' m COUNT! ”SI“ Um I — (CONTINUED) 0000000000 - I - An individual in the pgsition of County Extension Director would: W‘ - I - 88. Inplenent cross-progras cooperation between and along county gg, 0000000000 - I“. | - Ct I - I - 89. Support a county Extension agent when the Cooperative 39, 0000000000 I - Extension Director believes the facts show that the state I - office conplaints are unjmtified. W - I - 90. Ksep county Extension agents advised on the content of 90. 0000000000 I - reports. letters. policy state-ents, etc. - 0W I - I - 9l. Delegate general areas of progras responsibility to county 91. 0000000000 I - Extension agents. I - 0000000000 I - I - 92. hploy office secretaries. 92. 0000000000 - i - 93. Adjust assiment of county Extension agents so as to best 93. 0000000000 I - utilise their talents and skills. - 0W0 I - I-- 9‘ Accept full responsibility for decisions nde by Extension 9‘. 0000000000 I - agents in the county. I - W I - - 95. Define areas of responsibility for county Extension 95. 0000000000 I - personnel. I - 00W I - I - 96. Hold regular county staff conferences to coordinate 96. 0000000000 | - activities of all staff. I - W00 I — I - 97. Involve county Extension agents in decisions affecting county ,7. 0000000000 I - progras. I - 0000000900 I - I - 98. Assign duties of office secretaries. 9g. 0000000000 - I - 99. Eeep county Extension agents infornsd on what is going on 99. 0000000000 I - in all phases of the county Extension progras. - W I - I - 100. Consult with county staff newers about filling a vacant 10050000000000 I - county Extension agent position. I - 0000000000 - I - lOl. Anticipate new and/or changed denands for County Extension 101. 0000000000 I - Service assistance. I - 0000000000‘ I - bummed - MS U a an Aflwmeme Anton/fond 0mm Montana» 0 I!” W Sm: (mm M ©0@®©©©0©® oooooooooc ©0®®ee©oe® 9330099999 9099999099 9099999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9099999990 9099999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999996 9999999099 9969999999 0099999999 0099999999 9999999999 9999999999 9969969699 0099999999 9999999999 {99999999’ PAGE 10 SECTION III: ACTIVITY IXIICIATIONS 0’ THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIIICTOR An individual in the Ignition of County Intenaion Director would: 102. 103. 106. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 33-53.533.33 .. _. .. __ .. .. .. .. _. 3.3-3-3-s-$3.35-333-35-33.35 \ \ '53 WRITE IN THIS AREA (CDNTIIUZD) Coordinate other USDA and related agency prograne and pereonnel available that bear upon the County Cooperative Inteneion progra- Provide leaderehip in the aeeeeenent of county needa for total Inteneion effort in county. Aaeiat county Extenaion agenta with inportant evente. latahliah peraonal and proteeaional etandarda county Intenaion agenta can follow. ’orecaat the aeaaonal and yearly workload of the county ataff. Be involved in eetabliahing prograne lor all progren areaa of wuwlnnnm. Provide couplete and leaningiel inetructione to county etatf. Acquaint new county agenta with their reeponaihilitiee. Encourage profeaaional develop-ent of county Inteneion agenta. Hake recounendatione for nerit increaaea in ealary of Inteneion agenta in the county. Aeaiat new agenta in heconing acquainted in the con-unity and county. Guide the develop-ent of county etaff nelbera aa llteneion ennloyeee. loninate outetanding agenta in the county (or other poeitione. Screen candidatee for vacant agent poeitione in the county. Hake reconnendationa for appoint-enta. pronotione or dienieeal of Extension agenta in the county. Train nev Intention workere in the county. Approve tranefere of agenta into the county. Aeaiat new county Extenaion agenta in locating a place to live. ”uuuuuuuuuug4ca-aslsana-oocsogas4s‘snso.a§‘saso-agcs¢uusogcsosas4sagoson‘sosaQa-4.4.o§4sc5‘-‘.‘s‘ go.0.0““.0.0 ' I '. '1‘ - .2 .- ., 15h . ‘ 4‘ .‘ , £33.32" 0 an: o M; .- .1- norm"! ; m “"8 AREA _ MC! 11 srcnou 11!: W or m ooum mama! nmcron W999 (ammo) 9999999999‘ W: W‘ 120. lecruit new peraonnel to (ill vacant or out Intention agent 120 9999999999 poaitione .in the county. W999 121. Appraiae or aaeiat agent ataff in appraiaing aecretariea and 121 0000000000 other eupport etatf. W99 122. he involved in eatahliehing ohjectivea for all progr- areae 112 ’0000000000 of county kteneion. 9699999999 123. Aeeeaa educational training neede of individual etaff 123F0000000000 workera in office. 9999999999’ 12‘. Give apecial attention to county Intention peroonnel 11a +0000000000 problem an they ariae. W9 125. llplennt thenaion Civil Righte, £30 and “fir-ative 12 0000000000 “‘1” “°“““ W 126. Approve traneter of agenta out of the county. 12 9999999999 127. Review reporta of county progran acconplinhnente in all 11f.9999999999 progran areaa. W 128. Aneure that all reporte iron etatf in county are euhnitted ut000000000® on tine. 99W- 129. Make auggeetiona for inprovenent of county Exteneion ”0000000000 prograne in all areae of enphaaia. 99999-99999' 1”. Appraiee the reaulte of county Extenaion educational 1309999999999 prograne and activitiee. 9999999999 131. Provide objective input into perfornence appraisal for 1319999999999 each agent aeaigned to the comty. 132. Advice county Iranian agenta on educational latter 1319999999999 related to Exteneion. W9" 133. weerve county agenta in educational program two or three 1319999999999 tinea a year. MSUu an Aflmnw Action/Equal 00mm lnsMuflon “(Mon Slmlmy Am 0 m DO NOT WRITE IN THIS -_\.5.>.s.s.;>.m>.>.>-> 3. »@e@ee@©@ee 0099900999 ooecooccco ©0©©©ooo©© 9“. 999993 0999999099 9099999099 9996669669 0099999999 9099999999 9999999999 9999966999 9999999999 9966699666‘ 9099999999 0999999999 9966669699 0999999999 9666999699 9099999099 9999999999 96669696691 9999999999 . 155 AREA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfifixxVKSxxxxxx>\ PIC! 12 SECTION III: ACTIVITY EXPECTATIONS 0? THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR “NflMWI individua in e aition of Count htenaion Director d: 136. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 160. 1‘1. 1‘2. 1‘3. 1“. 1‘5. 1‘6. 167. 168. 1‘9. Serve aa a conaultant in working with county agenta in their areaa of progran reaponeibility. Hake reco-endationa for the purpoee of rating county lateneion agenta. Super-vine a ten of epecialiaed agenta. teep a content check upon the activitiea of agenta in the county. Approve eelection of county volunteer leadere. Pereonally auperviee the tecbical work of county htenaion agenta. hep local officiala. nedia and general public inforned of local and etate-wide htemion goale. Cooperate willingly with reeearchere who att-pt to advance knowledge in their field. lead Extension profeaaional joernala. llake periodic reporte of ktenaion accupliehenta to County board of Co-iaaionere . Maintain peraonal contact with organizatione ad co-Inity/civic groupe. Participate in profeeaional lateneion agent organiaatione. Hebe periodic reporte of Intenion acct-plieI-nta to county adviaory groupe. letahliah regular channele of co-nicatione with local newapaper. radio and/or TV were available. fleet with repreeentativee of county gover-ent. Prepare atatieticel and narrative reporte. uuuuuuuuuclsosouusosocososo5‘.454s-nancw.osasa.asa“...auas¢sasagasosa‘osososasasooa.a sogonos454souosouuuobo DO - - NOT WRITE I56 IN THIS AREA PAC! '13 SECTIOI III: ACTIVITY EXPECtATIONS OF THE COUNTY EXTIISIOI DIIICTOR (CONTINUED) An individual in the asition of County Extension Director would: 150. Consult with county advisory group or groups about filling 150, a vacant agent position. 151. Make periodic reports of Extension accolplishnents to local 151. interest groups. 152. Speak to najor civic groups at least once per year. 152, 153. Represent the county at neetings outside the county. 153. 154. Write articles for professional journals which will be of 15‘. benefit to others in the profession. 155. Serve as a Isobar of one or sore state~vide coalittees 155. concerned with Extension policy and progras-ing. 156. Inforn regional Extension supervisor about clientele 155. concerns. 157. Have a public speaking engage-ant at least once every south. 157. 156. On the average. spend at least one hour per day conpleting 153. routine paperwork. 159. Deviae evaluation procedures to properly reflect the results 159. of County Cooperative Extension Service work. 160. Follow prescribed procedures for county business natters. 150. 161. Be prepared to justify all county Extension expenditures 161. to County Board of Coasissioners. 162. Take active leadership in securing adequate county funds 162. for all phases of county Extension vork. 163. Keep detailed and accurate financial and activity records. 153. 164. Seek financial support in addition to county appropriated 15‘. funds to develop/expand county Extension progress. 165. Plan the best use of available physical facilities for 165. Extension in county. 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999099 9099999999 9999999999 9099999999 9999999999 9099999999 9999999999 9099999099 9999999999 9999999099 9999999999 9999999999 9999999099 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999099 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9099999999 UUUUUUUUUU 9099999999 MSU I: an All-meme Action/Equal Opponm Im 99W 9999999999 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 o00000000 mannnnaanfl Mr'womflmmm onus SECTION III: WRITE 157 IN THIS AREA \ 3.s.>.>.>.>..\.\.\_m.>.>.>.§.s.>-x3-8:st..\.\f§f\'_s_s.s-s-s_s-x> ACTIVITY EXPECTATIO§§_OP THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR (CONTINUED) An individual in the position of County Extension Director vould: 166. 167. 166. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 176. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. Involve county Extension agents in putting together annual Cooperative Extension Service budget requests. Allocate budget nonies equitably so that all staff have reasonable support to carry out progress. lake periodic reports of use of funds under his/her direction to County board of Consissioners. Follow prescribed procedures for Cooperative Extension Service business natters. Establish effective county Extension expense controls to insure proper nanagenent of finances throughout the fiscal year. Hake periodic reports of use of funds under the County Cooperativt Extension Services direction to State Extension adsinistration. Nake periodic reports of use of special funds under his/her direction to appropriate local groups. nave financial records audited annually by an auditor independent of Extension operations. Analyse the cost of rendering different County Extension Service educational services. Develop and/or ssintain abilities to work with people. Develop and/or naintain technical cospetency in subject-sstter area of responsibility. Conduct an effective educational progras in own area of subject- natter responsibility. Attend professional in-service education.leetings. Provide and dissesinate scientific inforsstion. leap up to date on educational techniques. uu§‘.‘.‘.‘.‘..-‘.‘.J.‘.J§O-‘§“‘.‘.O§‘§0.0.0.0QODO‘O‘OOOOO§‘.‘.‘.“‘.J-O.‘.0.0-0QO.‘..D‘-‘§‘.J§O“-‘-‘.‘§0.0‘O“.O.“‘.O““ 158 DO - - NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA DICE 15 SECTION III: ACTIVITY EXPECTATIONS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR (CONTINUED) An individual in the ggsition of County Extension Director would: 181. Participate in the interview of csndidates for board- eppointed positions in the county. 182. Stilulate each agent to greater or higher quality activitiea.1az‘ 183. be skillful in the use of words. 13‘. Encourage innovation beyond expected perforeence stsndards. 185. Provide the opportunity for the expression of feelings and opinions by those who differ with hie/her. 186. he skillful in the decisionuenking process. 1.7. Keep up-to-date on educational philosophy. 188. Iork towerd developing and neintsining good working relations vith other public agencies in related fields. PLEASE LIST OTHER ACTIVITY EEPECTATIONS “NICE YOU CONSIDEI TEAT SHOULD BE PEITOINED DY TEE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR. 189. 190. 191. 191‘ 183‘ 18“ 195‘ 196‘ 197 199. 189‘ 190¢ 191‘ 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000' 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 159 SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Now that you have completed the questionnaire and placed a weight on each of the responsibilities or activities that might be expected of a County Extension Director, I would appreciate any additional comments you have about the position. You might use the following questions as a guide. A. Primary educational responsibilities of the County Extension Director are: B. Primary administrative functions of the County Extension Director are: C. Other Comments APPENDIX B MEAN RESPONSES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEAN RESPONSES FOR THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR I60 I 61 MEAN RESPONSES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 0F MEAN RESPONSES FOR THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR 050 CEA SA CGCP $399 N=71 N=81 N=19 N=18 7' 5.0. i’ 5.0. 7’ 5.0. 7' 5.0. 11 5.676 1.671 1.963 1.913 5.526 1.837 5.158 1.868 15 5.557 1.317 1.926 1.759 5.556 1.512 6.085 1.282 16 5.631 1.667 1.513 1.913 5.263 1.821 5.319 1.562 17 1.511 1.863 1.211 1.777 1.000 2.351 3.783 1.725 18 5.101 1.708 1.181 1.931 1.171 2.170 1.083 1.911 19 5.311 1.877 1.667 1.768 5.000 2.131 1.938 2.098 20 5.271 1.769 1.312 1.818 1.737 1.522 5.085 1.792 21 1.338 1.897 3.827 1.929 3.737 2.130 3.396 2.229 22 5.157 1.566 1.185 1.851 1.316 1.731 1.129 2.051 23 3.571 1.798 3.395 1.618 2.895 1.663 3.122 2.068 21 3.620 1.719 3.309 1.960 3.211 1.813 2.918 2.225 25 3.716 1.803 3.612 1.683 3.579 1.127 3.837 1.929 26 1.789 1.956 1.181 1.905 1.789 2.097 1.959 2.217 27 1.500 2.097 1.889 2.080 1.158 2.588 1.250 2.110 28 6.072 1.375 5.587 1.510 5.895 1.187 6.213 1.232 29 1.690 1.932 1.358 2.088 1.222 2.130 1.158 2.259 30 5.775 1.666 5.651 1.512 5.000 1.782 5.082 1.751 31 6.211 1.206 5.963 1.170 5.368 1.606 5.221 1.918 32 5.592 1.536 5.333 1.696 1.579 1.611 1.833 1.982 33 5.185 1.110 1.222 2.098 5.105 1.853 5.333 1.961 31 1.901 2.061 1.700 1.905 1.368 2.006 1.878 2.068 35 3.751 1.769 2.157 1.803 2.778 1.768 3.633 2.157 36 5.357 1.125 1.132 1.816 1.316 1.857 5.000 2.129 37 5.268 1.567 1.531 1.710 5.368 1.606 1.750 1.919 38 5.786 1.596 5.075 1.820 5.121 1.610 5.771 1.653 39 5.803 1.180 5.113 1.517 5.681 1.731 1.939 1.812 10 5.251 1.751 1.681 2.023 3.579 2.009 5.167 2.231 11 5.157 1.630 1.375 1.789 1.579 1.502 5.313 1.190 12 5.519 1.371 1.688 1.556 1.889 1.811 5.333 1.831 13 1.155 2.082 3.050 1.771 3.000 1.719 3.087 2.199 11 1.686 1.861 3.200 1.782 3.333 1.609 3.711 2.191 15 2.789 2.070 1.825 1.605 1.617 1.766 2.533 2.180 16 5.586 1.719 5.173 1.572 1.911 1.952 5.261 1.511 17 5.557 1.603 5.127 1.505 5.000 1.620 5.022 1.889 18 6.261 1.107 5.175 1.599 5.772 1.602 5.870 1.681 19 1.676 1.722 3.513 1.775 3.529 1.068 1.696 1.821 50 1.831 1.905 3.281 1.912 3.291 1.619 1.200 2.332 162 CED CEA SA CGCP Item "=71 N=81 N-19 11:18 "°-a 31' 5.0. '1? 5.0. Y s.0. 7 5.0. 51 1.070 1.869 2.925 1.951 3.617 1.766 1.652 2.068 52 3.803 1.879 2.125 1.781 2.112 1.583 3.178 2.071 53 5.311 1.771 1.667 1.919 1.353 2.231 1.513 2.316 51 6.213 1.118 5.700 1.196 5.389 1.577 5.756 1.681 55 5.986 1.222 5.187 1.531 5.911 1.511 5.622 1.585 56 6.011 1.357 5.717 1.115 5.500 1.513 5.689 1.676 57 6.211 1.153 5.787 1.120 5.778 1.629 6.023 1.626 58 1.519 1.705 3.370 1.913 3.278 1.638 1.727 2.081 59 1.631 1.892 3.901 1.751 1.056 1.981 1.889 2.011 60 5.185 1.616 5.111 1.651 1.722 2.191 5.177 2.107 61 6.629 .871 6.130 1.009 6.556 1.199 6.191 1.813 62 6.519 1.093 6.225 1.125 5.911 1.552 6.061 1.180 63 6.155 1.370 5.921 1.338 5.111 1.617 1.792 1.890 61 6.286 1.371 6.337 1.030 5.911 1.135 5.271 1.710 65 6.111 1.110 6.351 1.026 6.111 1.217 5.851 1.621 66 5.901 1.605 5.525‘ 1.559 5.667 1.782 5.130 2.116 67 5.958 1.292 5.125 1.589 5.278 1.712 5.936 1.509 68 5.352 1.671 5.000 1.893 1.911 1.662 1.362 1.972 69 6.071 1.300 5.557 1.662 5.889 1.191 5.271 1.830 70 6.200 1.281 5.612 1.680 5.833 1.581 5.521 1.663 71 5.831 1.512 5.101 1.965 5.389 1.577 1.688 2.201 72 5.577 1.555 1.950 1.918 1.291 2.021 1.571 2.191 73 6.000 1.228 5.750 1.101 5.167 1.165 5.013 1.911 71 5.090 1.721 1.852 1.769 1.313 2.152 1.000 2.096 75 1.652 1.661 1.235 1.825 3.138 1.750 1.000 2.063 76 Open-ended 77 Open-ended 78 Open-ended 79 5.113 1.627 3.926 1.929 1.737 1.727 3.891 2.113 80 1.913 1.605 3.810 2.010 5.000 1.700 5.571 1.708 81 5.386 1.600 1.813 1.711 5.526 1.511 5.653 1.166 82 1.318 1.939 3.275 2.210 2.789 1.932 5.531 1.556 83 1.071 1.958 3.160 1.833 3.000 1.911 5.122 1.752 81 5.500 1.558 5.012 1.692 1.895 1.696 5.125 1.875 85 1.391 1.682 3.222 1.991 3.000 1.886 1.169 1.970 86 1.113 1.617 3.198 1.952 3.105 1.595 1.959 1.711 87 1.786 1.173 3.112 2.036 1.000 2.333 5.061 1.761 88 5.200 1.629 1.025 1.930 1.171 1.982 1.612 1.858 89 5.310 1.961 6.188 1.332 3.889 2.220 1.959 2.273 90 5.911 1.393 5.850 1.351 1.526 2.065 1.917 1.866 91 5.099 1.876 1.525 2.239 1.611 2.177 5.711 1.568 92 5.535 1.795 1.750 1.939 3.789 2.123 1.292 2.192 93 1.310 2.071 3.837 2.230 3.000 1.915 5.500 1.663 91 3.577 2.129 2.175 1.912 2.911 1.893 1.653 2.117 163 can CEA SA c009 Item N=71 N=81 N=19 N=18 "°-a 7' 5.0. 7' 5.0. 7' 5.0. 2' s.0. 95 1.193 2.055 3.395 2.375 2.722 2.191 5-571 1.555 96 5.577 1.618 5.136 1.808 5.278 1.873 5.181 1.997 97 5.803 1.291 5.818 1.292 5.211 1.581 5.122 1.195 98 1.972 1.756 3.877 1.893 3.263 1.185 3.816 2.167 99 5.310 1.753 5.025 1.823 1.053 2.121 1.959 1.658 100 1.557 2.012 1.850 '1.962 3.000 1.732 3.688 2.191 101 5.169 1.603 1.612 1.511 1.681 2.029 5.063 1.713 102 1.011 2.001 3.287 2.076 3.105 2.052 1.531 1.827 103 5.529 1.520 1.825 1.851 5.053 2.091 5.939 1.329 101 1.690 1.761 3.762 1.921 1.105 1.595 5.082 1.915 105 1.811 2.202 3.717 2.109 1.263 2.156 5.102 2.091 106 3.676 2.006 3.063 1.738 2.789 1.619 1.708 1.786 107 3.338 2.077 1.782 1.617 2.722 1.873 1.532 1.801 108 1.930 1.959 1.262 2.012 1.211 2.016 5.116 1.738 109 5.193 1.835 5.519 1.608 5.000 2.111 5.117 1.839 110 5.239 1.967 5.175 1.636 5.053 1.717 1.673 2.076 111 1.817 2.107 1.350 2.013 1.917 1.717 1.735 2.177 112 5.761 1.563 5.181 1.663 5.171 1.775 1.735 1.931 113 5.391 1.677 1.525 1.786 1 263 1.910 1.108 1.813 111 1.211 2.212 1.313 1.959 2.911 1.798 1.063 2.251 115 3.815 2.517 3.825 2.091 1.681 1.565 1.592 2.111 116 1.803 2.061 1.112 1.960 2.681 2.001 5.122 2.018 117 1.686 1.975 3.987 2.138 1.056 2.071 1.083 1.808 118 1.268 2.366 3.925 2.180 1.812 1.125 1.129 2.273 119 3.380 2.111 2.162 1.695 2.158 1.612 2.653 2.006 120 3.193 2.083 2.568 1.760 2.778 1.396 3.673 2.313 121 1.857 1.852 3.725 1.981 3.889 1.151 3.571 1.969 122 1.011 1.916 2.169 1.911 3.556 2.202 1.755 1.961 123 3.915 1.803 2.513 1.628 3.222 1.700 3.918 2.216 121 5.873 1.153 5.383 1.655 5.111 1.715 1.980 2.016 125 5.631 1.692 5.500 1.793 5.722 1.565 1.327 2.119 126 2.513 2.177 2.198 2.015 .895 1.100 3.221 2.502 127 5.099 1.806 1.716 1.983 1.111 2.026 5.082 1.835 128 1.507 1.931 3.815 2.203 1.278 2.211 1.129 2.309 129 5.085 1.615 3.852 1.921 1.389 1.720 1.898 1.791 130 1.831 1.710 3.531 2.007 3.889 1.605 5.221 1.806 131 5.577 1.509 1.921 1.917 1.911 1.319 1.711 1.926 132 1 165 1.803 3.620 1.807 3.556 1.123 1.102 2.091 133 5.391 1.810 1.287 2.033 1.556 1 617 3.878 2.017 131 1.155 2.156 3.351 2.063 3.278 1.708 1.571 1.958 135 1.901 1 980 1.152 2.007 3.889 2.026 1.306 1.960 161 050 CEA SA CGCP lteg N=71 N=81 N=19 N=18 No. __ __ _. _. x 5.0. x 5.0. x s.0. x 5.0. 136 2.257 2 332 2.152 2.061 2.000 1.910 3.633 2.028 137 2.197 1.951 1.316 1.181 1.778 1.629 3.633 2.312 138 1.251 1 619 .810 .935 1.111 1 278 2.959 2.318 139 1.701 1.719 .937 1.078 1.167 1.219 2.190 2.063 110 5.011 1.915 5.179 1.711 5.056 1.552 5.271 1.617 111 3.815 2.019 3.603 1.909 3.333 1.615 1.673 1.991 112 3.803 2.026 3.797 1.970 3.833 1.505 1.208 2.269 113 5.811 1.118 5.810 1.168 6 111 1.367 5.250 2.005 111 1.913 1.687 1 511 1.999 1.911 1.830 5.000 1.901 115 1.631 1.966 1.397 2.103 3.500 2.119 1.571 2.198 116 5.232 1.526 1.756 2.090 5 167 1.581 1.691 2 013 117 5 557 1.500 5.038 1.831 5.056 1.765 5.167 1.826 118 5.813 1.585 5.667 1.663 5.667 1.531 5.571 1.827 119 5.111 1.710 1.611 1.911 1.353 1.618 1.313 2 012 150 2.786 2.126 2.651 2.020 2.556 1.653 3.108 2.362 151 1.085 2.012 3.7533 1.831 1.111 1.822 1.306 1.873 152 3.887 2.118 3.296 2.010 1.167 2.203 1.313 2.112 . 153 3.739 2.153 3.387 2.102 3 000 2.031 3.630 2.281 151 2.085 1.755 1.975 1.789 1.617 1.367 3.122 2.117 155 3.011 2.150 2.772 1.610 3.000 1 803 3.201 2.111 156 1.701 1.938 1.025 2.012 1.556 1 917 1.061 2.219 157 2.183 2.086 1.815 1.872 1.911 1.511 2.306 2.172 158 3.183 2.526 2.362 1.976 2.111 1 822 3.083 2.311 159 3.631 2.212 3.136 2.119 3.389 1.883 1.351 1.907 160 5.613 1.511 1.667 2.115 5.278 1.526 5.020 1.771 161 6.229 1.385 5.800 1.631 5.667 1.970 5.872 1.169 162 6.271 1.307 5.987 1.605 6 111 1.231 5.653 1.562 163 6.057 1.650 5.362 2.015 5.722 1.873 5 000 2.061 161 5 111 1.877 1.810 2.208 5.000 2.029 1.189 2.052 165 5.613 1.668 5.087 1.836 5.333 1.195 1.938 1.755 166 5.155 1.751 5.262 1.927 5.500 1.618 1.980 1.865 167 5.817 1.137 5.963 1.569 5.167 1.855 5.375 1.681 168 5.129 1.999 3.187 1.929 5.667 1.572 5.170 2.025 169 5.972 1.183 5.691 1.656 5.556 1.512 5.221 1.791 170 1.901 1.596 5.762 1.686 5.667 1.609 5.630 1.982 171 1.535 2.298 1.237 2.118 5.056 2.155 5.163 1.886 172 1.371 2.231 1.200 2.015 5.167 2.036 1.190 2.316 173 5.606 1.960 5.050 2.261 5.056 2.071 3.522 2.819 171 1.099 2.237 3.709 2.007 1.278 1.873 1.918 1.766 175 5.957 1.169 6.192 1.163 5.889 1.231 6.000 1.671 176 5.915 1.181 5.532 1.568 5.171 1.231 5.633 1.815 165 050 CEA SA CGCP Item N371 N381 N=19 "3&8 "°-a 7' 5.0. 7' 5.0. i' 5.0. 2' 5.0. 177 6.000 1.551 5.367 1.811 5.333 1.237 1.633 2.118 178 5.268 1.621 1.911 1.603 5.000 1.782 1.158 2 113 179 5.296 1.862 1.026 2.192 1.500 1.823 1.563 2.133 180 5.380 1.633 1.861 1.815 1.722 1.638 1.771 1.927 181 1.873 2.035 1.259 2.290 3.118 2.233 2.667 2.501 182 5.338 1.756 5.019 1.836 1.556 1.501 1.625 1.953 183 5.111 1.831 5.156 1.183 1.111 1.790 1.553 1.976 181 5.169 1.603 1.938 1.716 1.176 1.811 1.729 2.081 185 5.165 1.538 5.620 1.538 5.278 1.361 5.208 2.073 186 5.775 1.396 5.837 1.237 5.353 1.320 5.708 1.611 187 1 701 1.960 1.637 1.921 3.911 1.781 5.000 2.031 188 1.171 1.588 5.350 1.608 5.235 1.562 5.660 1.193 aSee Appendix A, survey instrument: sion Directors' Administrative Role in Michigan. An Analysis of County Exten- APPENDIX C ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS APPRAISAL FORM 166 167 INSTRUCTIONS: PART 5 Administrafive Standards wnoconmmrmsm Doerd-appointsdflcldshff-s-busvhonpuvbemam paldsmployecswincompletetheAdndmwveSunderdsseco Hmspproprlatstothchmpedum Father. comfy dinette: will cunplete the W Ad- nhlstretlve Standards section forsach board-appointed field Moanbawhoneornaepddunloyseshthe county. Pensahnmerungadmmstivepuforn- Whnyouhveosuflsfiiheapplopdsuadnin- encedmingthcrrvicwpaiodmpenhmhcued mmmmwsmm. hycountydhectwsendothsrfieldstsfflnelnhcnwith mflepoltandyourr-pmsesbothenndsrdstobc Manual-”11011011311166. cuisineechbooupletedpropainyyouuesnsgent. saddlescdocuneotstoyowoountydimeyou lmwsfz'mnulgdwm macumtydirsctuorsdisuict-ngionelamtsend 3“ “Mumww. T'hecnhmforrsspasesre: 168 NAME COUNTY REGION PERSON COMPLETING FORM LWW: Pub“ PM“ iii-'1 i AW__._ 1Q Dbcmesernployeedevelopnuntopportunideswlthstaflanda-immemln selecdngappropdsteopdons. 110 Cmfonnr to MSU and Extension personnel policies/practices. 111 Conic-nu to county personnel ponder/practices. WWCMI Rights.EEO.Affirms8veActionsndTideIX policies. Fadlintestwo-wsycommrmicedonamongmfflntheoountyofficew veriousmethods. 114 Hold: regular staff meetings. 115 KeepngimdmpenisahformedawaESinoounty. lMMsnsgansnt Fallslbued In“ lin‘t Erin/Net -_--A Budgctrequesttocountyofflcislsisbesedonsnmdsuppoflneeded forExtensionplognms. Staff are involved In putting together annual CES budget request. Securesedequeteflnancestoconductfixtensimeffoninmty. Modhxebudgettohumgxopermsnsgemenioffinsnoathroughonnthefiscel yeer. Anocstcshudgecmonicsrothsisllstsffhsversuonshlenpponbmyout pom Maintainsfinancialreoordsasrequired. Bufinancidmdsauditedsnnusflybyaneudflorhdependentoffirtsnuoo spa-adorn Seebfinancislmppaiinaddifionbcountysppmpristedimisbde‘nlop/ crpendErbensionpognnu. FoflowrprescribedpmceduraforcountysndCEShusineurneners. 169 (1%de 11.11.111.11... “2:2? nun 113-“751.7 119119111.__ Secummfiidenispoeendhsuresedequatelsyouttohomefimmfi sndequipnent Insuralmsinesslikeofficeappeannce. Insure: congenial office atmapbere. 0016. 1. adequamly mud Office Is adequately equipped. E5555 5 Office I: efficiently operated. amusing“ Puts“ n—‘i [new 131 Oheuvessgaltshfiesdpedtothecmmtyconducungpropmatleesttwice sachyeer. 132 Providesobiecdvelnpmhtoperformencesppnlsalforstsfi. 133 Assisuagentstsffinapprehingseaetariesandotherrupponmff. 134 Guidesthedevelopmentofmffmanbenasfinensionernployees. 135 Tskeslsadenhipforlocalorientsdonofnewmff. 11B Manges pohlern reledonships srnong stuff. Erna-Maegan.» rue-noun Paul-Iran l‘ulyua hooded "IS-7N3? Doe’l I A hhn-lsdgeebleofgsnsnldirectionendneinthnmdthemsreessi state/Wheel. Pmidahadaflphmtdmtymedsfahulmwh mty. Implements cross-pogram cooperstion within coumy Extension prop-am. Coordinsterendnnplemennshortendlongtermmtyprognmgoak 141 Erprenesshortsndlongtermcomtyprogramgoekinl’lsnofWork 142 ”Mammmmmlymhwdan's overellprogrsm. 170 143 Assurathstallrepcrtsfrommffin ccuntysresubmlttedcutirne. l“ Coordinateswithxaffthedevelopmtofoverallplanfcrwuidngvithad- visorygroups. 145 Develops and utilises an overall county Extension advisory board. 1 146 Fosters programs and staff cooperation between county Extension offices. 1 3 1 in! F MW 3 . ,. 1.. . 1.111 167 Keepsmbceloffidals ‘ 1 Iatesndfederalleuslstcn w‘*’°"’”°"‘m “m r...infonnedofstatevride ”a“ mwmm ctherspproplatesgendesh mutations genenlpublic 148 Keeps...loeelofficnls 1 statesndfederalhglslatcrs ; Wmohmnmlm “.de '—1 media 1 Extensionprogranub “Wham. accomplishment. uganixsticns , genenlpublic 4 l 149 Establishesanddevelopsrapportwlth...locelofficials statehfederallefislstors chatelegroupstaganhticu media 1 otherapplopiateegendest | aganinticns 1 generalpublic l 150 Coordinate: with staff the development of a CBS county public relations program. 151 Informs regional Extension supervisor about concerns clientele have. APPENDIX D SUPERVISORY STANDARDS APPRAISAL FORM 171 172 INSTRUCTIONS: PART 4 Supervisory Standards WHO COMPLETES THIS FORM Bonrd-appointsdfieldstaffmernherswhosnperviseooeorrncre paidemployeeswillcompletedreSupewisoryStandardscntheir performances. Further. cotmtydirectonwfllcornpletetheSupervisoryStan- dsrdshxeachbcard-appointedfieldrtaffrnemberwhonpes- visesoneornaorepaidanployeeslnthecounty. numerizingmpervisoryperformnce. usedonly countydirectorsand haveasslgnedofficialmfisuperfisoryre- ormonepaldstafi members. andmcrdingper- ldenticaltothstforparis2 isfa This’mpartuis tobe byag tswho spcnsibiliu‘es fcrone Thepocedureforkreviewing hmanceforpartlis nda. Thecolurnnsfcrresponseare: —Failed to meet performance standard. —Partia.11y rnet pain-ounce standard. —Fullymetperformancestandard. —Esceeded pertumance standard. —Substantially exceeded performance standard. —Don’t know/not applicable. Whenyouhaveconrpletedalloftberupervisory W: —liyouareacountydirectororhaveadmirus- tretiverespomibilitimpmceedtotheadrnin- Ishetivesundardranft). -—IfyousrenotaCEDordonothsveadrnin— istative responsibilities, check your Agent‘s AnnuaIProgressRepcrtandyourrespcnsesto thestnndardstobeccrtalneacbiscompleted properly. Hmmacounty. multi-ccuntyor sreaagentrubrnitscopycfyowpcgressre- portsndymrrospcnsestothestandards to yourcountydircemrforrevlew anddiscussicn. If you are a district-regional agent submit a 173 COUNTY REGION PERSON CDMPLETINC FORM LW’W TMWWMMWWWWd WWMWWMWWW. havailabletotalkwithstaflnomatterhownnallthedetails. hphinsbsuffvbyresourcesaren’tanilabletnstsadofsinplynyingmd’. Allowstirnefordiscussioncfplmandmccrnplishments. Resolvesrtaffcornplaints. Helps coordinate work with secretsry. I-Iasadequsteresoumesforabasicprogram. Reporsprogremsandactifitiestostaffwhenafied. Providescompleteandmeanlngfullrltructionstostsfl. Givesshfiidcessfairtrial. 8888882883 H Diacuseswohlemvlthcfflcestaffwhocouldhsveflghtfcsolving theproblern. 101 Makesfimetogivedlredsopervidontolessesperiencedalesscepableuaff. Holds office conferences to coordinate activities of all staff. 100 Updatesstaffcnprogramsandeventsastheneedrequires. 104 Delegates work to staff as appropriate. 1N Helps staff get equipment and resources needed. 100 Secretarialworltlosdisplannedsufficientlyinsdvance. 107 Assesseaneedsofindividualstaffworltersinoflice. 1m Providesfeedbackregardingstaffperformanceonacontinuinghasis. Puts“ APPENDIX E COVER LETTER ONE 171 175 ES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE d COUNTIES COOPERATING xeu'r couurv moon ornce . sat FULLER AVENUE. 11.2. . onauo amps. 11110111ch000 . (01017740005 April I, 1983 Dear County Extension Director: As a part of my doctorate program. I'm conducting a current analysis of the County Extension Director‘s administrative role in Michigan. The need for effective administrative decision making by those most in touch wlth county-level concerns has been and remains critical. The expectations of others and the expectations of themselves are important to the County Extension Directors' performance 0‘ th-ir administrative roles. You have been selected to examine the Items presented and to indicate whether or not these Items represent the administrative role of the County Extension Director. Please take a short break from your busy schedule to express your opinion. You will find instructions within each section of the enclosed questionnaire. and it should not require more than 25 minutes to complete. The successful completion of this study depends on your reply. All responses will be treated on a confidential basis. A pre-addressed. stamped envelope Is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your Innediate attention and cooperation In returning this Information by April 18. 1983. Sincerely. 1.4/.2624 16...; William A. Harrison County Extension Director HAhzaIb Enc. WEATIVE EXTEIBION SERVICE WATION AM) renews ARE AVALDLE TO ALL meow flOARD TO ® NACLCOLOR. NATIONALMNMIEX. 176 E5 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A COUNTIES COOPERATING KENT WNW EXTENSION OFFICE 0 .3 FULLER AVENUE. N.E. 0 GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN” 0 (016) name April l, l983 Dear State Extension Administrator: As a part of my doctorate program. I'm conducting a current analysis of the County Extension Director‘s administrative role in Michigan. The need for effective administrative decision making by those most in touch with county-level concerns has bccn and remains critical. The expectations of others and the expectations of themselves are important to the County Extension Directors' performance of their administrative roles. You have been selected to examine the items presented and to indicate whether or not these items represent the administrative role of the County Extension Director. Please take a short break from your busy schedule to express your opinion. You will find instructions within each section of the enclosed questionnaire. and it should not reQuire more than 25 minutes to complete. The successful completion of this study depends on your reply. All responses will be treated on a confidential basis. A pre-addressed. stamped envelope Is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for yOur prompt attention and cooperation in returning this Information by April l8, l983. Median-a? Hilliam A. Harrison County Extension Director HAI'I: al b Enc. WTNE EXTEICION SERVICE II‘OMATIDN AND WI AK AVMLE TO ALL WITHOUT mp TO ® RACLOOLOR. NATIONALORIOINMIEX. l77 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - US DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE a COUNTIES COOPERATING KENT COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE o m FULLER AVENUE N.E. - GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN“ - me) new April I. l983 Dear Selected County Extension Agent: As a part of my doctorate program. I'm conducting a current analysis of the C0unty Extension Director's administrative role in Michigan. The need for effective administrative decision making by those most in touch with county-level concerns has been and remains critical. The expectations of others and the expectations of themselves are important to the County Extension Directors' performance of their administrative roles. You have been randomly selected to examine the Items presented and to indicate whether or not these items represent the administrative role of the Caunty Extension Director. Please take a short break from your busy schedule to express your opinion. You will find instructions within each section of the enclosed questionnaire. and it should not require more than 25 minutes to complete. The successful completion of this study depends on your reply. All responses will be treated on a confidential basis. A pre-addressed. stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation in returning this information by April I8. l983. 52.2444 24...; Uiliiam A. Harrison County Extension Director UAhzalb Enc. mmmmmmmmmmxvmmmmmm ® RACEOOLMJ‘ATIONALMM‘X I78 ES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN sTATE UNIVERSITY - U.s. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE I. COUNTIES COOPERATING KENT ooum'v EXTENSION omce . ass FULLER AVENUE. N.E. . GRAND RAPIDS. NwNIoANasoa . mo) mazes April i. l983 County Government Cooperative Extension Service Contact Person: As part of my doctorate program. I'm conducting a current analysis of the County Extension Director's administrative role in Hichigan. The need for effective administrative decision making by those most in touch with county-level concerns has been and remains critical. The expectations of others and the expectations of themselves are important to the Caunty Extension Directors' performance of their administrative roles. You have been selected by your County Extension Director as a person possessing a knowledge and understanding of the Cooperative Extension Service. Please examine the items presented and indicate whether or not these Items represent the administrative role of the County Extension Director. You will find instructions within each section of the enclosed questionnaire. and it should not require more than 25 minutes to complete. Find enclosed a packet for a cup of coffee. So. take a short break from your busy schedule to express your opinion. The successful completion of this study depends on your reply. All responses will be treated on a confidential basis. A pre-addressed. stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation In returning this information by April 25. l983. Sincerely. . William A. Harrison County Extension Director HAflzalb Enc. WEATIVE mm SERVICE IWATION AND W Al! AVAAMLE TO ALL WITHOUT “BAND TO ® RACE. COL“. NATIONAL MOON on DEX APPENDIX F COVER LETTER TWO I79 I80 ES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE WWIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE I COUNTIES COOPERATING KENT COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE 0 I“ FULLER AVENUE. N.E. 0 GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN“ 0 (610) 77.-335 Dear County Extension Director: In addition to your response, this study seeks the responses of county government Cooperative Extension Service contact persons. Each county has a preferred manner in which the Cooperative Extension Service interfaces with the county government structure. In some counties, this interface is achieved primarily through the county controller. while in other counties. the county commissioners are dealt with directly. You are asked to identify your contact person for administrative matters at the county government level. Hore specific criteria for the selection of this person would include an affirmative answer to a majority of the following items: 1) 1s normally contacted about county Cooperative Extension Service personnel matters. 2) Is the county government individual responsible for the county Cooperative Extension Service budget. 3) 1s consulted about county Cooperative Extension Service office management concerns. 4) Receives reports of Cooperative Extension Service programs being planned and conducted for the county. Once you have selected the individual who best fulfills the criteria mentioned above. please address and forward the enclosed packet to your county government Cooperative Extension Service contact person. Please complete and return to me the enclosed County Government Representative Information Card. Mam Villiam A. Harrison County Extension Director COOPBATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MONATION AND Pnoonms AK AVALMLE TO ALL WITHOUT EGARD TO ® RACE. 00L". NATMAL MINOR“ APPENDIX G INFORMATION CARD I8I l82 INFORMATION CARD NAME PHONE COUNTY GOVT. TITLE ADDRESS Street City Zip Code DESCRIPTION OF CES RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PERSON: CED SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY ’ APPENDIX H SUPPORT LETTER ONE l83 Iiih ES COOPERATIV EXTENSION SERV'CE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURESCXJUNTIES COOPERATING OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ' EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN 48824-1039 April 8, 1923 To: Selected County Extension Directors and Extension Agents itw FROM: J. Ray Gillespie, Asquiate Director/Programs 0 RE: Bill Harrison's Survey oi CED Administrative Role Although 1 frequently attempt to Rae; surveys from ylur desk. this is not the case with this one. Bill's study happens to address a very important topic in our organi- zation and your responses axe critical to a useful outcome. Such a study has not been made in Michigan since 1960. Much change has occured in tnosc 23 years since. This role is 100% more prominent in the cxganizatzon than it was 10 years ago. It is vital that we gain a kncw‘edjc of these peraep~ tions from you and sciecteé colleagues. ilease find tne time to give Bill your best response in a timely way. In this case you'll not only b: helping bill but the whole organiza- tion. Thanks for a quick response. 1b cc: Regional Supervisors William Hariison MSU Is an Affnmawe ACIIONEDUO’ Ooponwrv Inslllum' APPENDIX I FOL LON-UP CARD l85 I86 Deer The position you represent is an important one. Your extectatlons of the County Extension Director's administrative role In Michigan Is valuableiand is needed in order to obtain an accurate analysis of the CED position. I have not received your completed survey questionnaire. If you have already returnedfithis information to me. thanks for your cooperation. If you have yet to complete thls information. please do it'now; Your input ls appreciated. Sincerely, William A. Harrison County Extension Director BIBL IOGRAPHY 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY Banks Acz. Donald: Jacobs. Lucz 0.; and Razavich. Asghar. Introduction to .Beseargh in Education. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc.. 1972. Bates. Frederick L.. and Harvey. Clyde C. .Iha Structure of Social .Systams. New York: Garner Press. 1975. Boone. Edgar J. .flandbppk of Adult Education. New York: Macmillan Browne. 0. G.. and Cohn. Thomas S. .Ihe.§tudx.n£.Leadenship. Danville. 111.: The Interstate Printers & Publishers. Inc" 1958. Campbell. Roald F.; Bridges. Edward M.: Corbally. John E.. Jr.; Nystrand. Raphael 0.: and Ramseyer. John A. .Intrgnuctipn to WW. Boston: Allyn 8. Bacon. 1971. Davis. Kingsley. .fluman Society. New York: The Macmillan Co.. 1948. Einstein. Albert; and Infeld. Leopold. {Ihe.Eyplut1gn.p£.Ehysigs. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1938. Follett. Mary Parker. .Qraatixa Experience. London: Longmans & Green. 1924. Garth. H. N.. and Mills. 0. Wright. eds. .Ernm.Max.lebcni.£ssa¥E.in .Sggiglpgy. New York: Oxford University Press. 1946. Griffiths. Daniel E. Sensational Science and Educational Adminis: .tnatipn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1964. 3 Clark. David L.: Wynn. D. Richard; and Iannacone. Lawrence. Organizing Schools 191: W Educatin- Danville. 111.: Interstate. 1962. Gross. Neal; Mason. Hard 8.; and McEachern. Alexander H. .Explpnatipns mmmmmmmwm New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.. 1958. l88 189 Gulick. Luther. and Urwick. Luther. eds. .ano s on.t e Soionoo of .Aoministnation. New York: Columbia University Press. 1937. Halpin. Andrew VI. AdministnatixalhaorxinEducation. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center. University of Chicago. 1958. Hare. A. Paul: Borgatta. Edgar F.: and Boles. Robert F.. eds. .Small .Gzouos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1955. Harris. Ben M. ‘Suoonxisony.Bohaxion.1n.£duootion. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1975. Holden. Paul E.: Fisk. Lounsbury 8.: and Smith. Hubert L. ,Ioo .Qnganization.and.Cnntnol. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1951. Hoy. Wayne K.. and Miskel. Cecil G. Enusational.Administnation. New York: Random House. 1982. Katz. Daniel. and Kahn. Robert L. ‘Iho.§oo1a1.Esyohology.o1.gzganizg; .tions. New York: John Wiley. 1966. Kerlinger. Fred N. ‘Eounoations.oI‘Bohaxion.Bosoanoh. New York: Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. 1964. Likert. Rensis. ‘Iho Human Qnganization. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967. Linton: Ralph. Ina annual woman of Eamnalin- New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.. 1945. ________, .Iho Study of Man. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.. 1936. March. J. G.. and Simon. H. A. .nganizations. New York: Wiley. 1958. Mai/o. Elton. Ibo Human Emblems of an Industrial .QixiJization. Boston: Harvard University. 1946. McGregor. Douglas. Iho.fluman.51n§.nf.Entannniso. New York: McGraw-Hi11. 1960. Merton. Robert K. .Sooial Ihoory and Social W. New York: The Free Press. 1968. Newcomb. Theodore M.: Turner. Ralph H.: and Converse. Philip E. i§oo131.Esyoho1ogy. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Inc.. 1965. 190 Newman. William H. AdministnatinActionalbolecbniouasoiflmm zotion.and.flanagomont. New York: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1952. Niles. Mary Cushing. .Iho‘Easonoo.o1.flanagomont. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1958. Oliva. Peter F. .Suoonxision.£on Ionoyls Schools. New York: Harper 8 Row. Publishers. 1976. Parsons. Talcott. and Shels. Edward. eds. .Iouand a.Gono:a1.Ihoony of .Aotion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1952. Rohrer. John. and Sherif. Muzafer. eds. .5oo1a1.E§ycho1ogy.nt.tho .Cnoasnoads. New York: Harper 8 Brothers. 1951. Schein. E. H. .Qnganizotional.Esyohology. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1965. Simon. H. A. .Administnatixo.Bohaxion. New York: Macmillan. 1957. Taylor. Frederick W. .Sciontiiic.Manaoomcnt. New York: Harper. 1947. Terry. George R. ‘Eninciolosjoi.Managomont. Homewood. Ill.: Richard D. Irwin. Inc.. 1964. Wenrich. Ralph C.. and Wenrich. J. William. .Loadocsbio.in.Adminis: tnation of locational and .‘Lecbnical Education. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.. 1974. Wiersma. William. .Bosoanoh.flothods.1n.Enuootion. Itasca. Ill.: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Inc.. 1975. Ibo Wonld.Book.Dictionany. Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corp.. 1974. mm Bakalis. Michael J. ”American Education and the Meaning of Scarcity." .Ebi.Dolta.Kaooan (September 1981). . "Power and Purpose in American Education." .Ehi.DalIo mm (Septanber 1983). Barnard. Chester 1. ”Comments on the Job of the Executive." .flanxand Businoss Baum l8 (1940). Bennis. Warren C. "Organic Populism.” .Esyohology.1oday 3 (February 1970). 191 Frigl. Herbert. "Principles and Problems of Theory Construction in Psychology." .Qunnent Inends in Esxcbological Ibeorx (1951). Getzels. Jacob W.. and Guba. Egon G. "Social Behavior and the Admin- istrative Process." ‘SQLool‘Boxion 65 (1957). Goldberg. Milton. and Harvey. James. "A Nation at Risk: The Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education." .Ehi [no1;o.fiaooan (September 1983). Hemphill. John K. "Job Descriptions for Executives." ‘flanxand.Business .Boyiou (September-October 1959). Long. Sandra M. "An American Profile: Trends and Issues in the 80's." EducationalteadenebibzzloumaloitbeAesociatJonIoLSunenLIsion andQuLLiculumDeeronment (March 1982). Moser. Robert F. "The Leadership Patterns of School Superintendents and School Principals." .Administnatons Notebook 6 (September 1957). Peabody. Robert L. "Perceptions of Organizational Authority: A Comparative l‘inalysis."~ Administnatixe Science .Quactele 6 (March 1962). Weick. K. E. ”Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems." Administcatixe Science Wanted: 21 (March l976). EublisbeLDocumentLanLBeport: Brumbach. Gary B.: Hahn. Clifford P.: and Edwards. Dorothy S. ”Reaching and Teaching People: A Nationwide Job Analysis of County Extension Agent's Work." A document prepared for the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture by the American Institute for Research. Washington. D. C.. June 1978. Hahn. Clifford P.: Brumbach. Gary 8.: and Edwards. Dorothy 5. "Development of a Performance Evaluation System." A document prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by the American Institute for Research. Washington. D. C.. May 1979. Michigan State University. Cooperative Extension Service. "Administra- tive Standards." An instrument used to evaluate a County Director's Administrative Performance. 1982. 192 innoublisbed_flatenial Abdullah. Fawzi M. ”Analysis of the Administrative Role of the County Extension Director in California." Ph.D. dissertation. The Uni- versity of Wisconsin. 1964. Black. Delbert O. "Perceptions and Expectations of the Leadership Behavior of County Extension Directors in Oklahoma." Ed.D. thesis. Oklahoma State University. 1969. Caul. Denio A. "Perceptions of the 00unty Extension Director's Admin- istrative Role in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Wisconsin. 1960. Jones. Howard E. "A Study of the Expectations Held by Five Selected Job Groups for the Administrative Role of the County Extension Chairman Job Group in the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service." Ed.D. thesis. North Carolina State University at Raleigh. 1969. Little. Kenneth. ”Leadership as Viewed by a Psychologist." Unpub- lished paper. n.d. McNabb. Coy G. "The Administrative Role of the County Extension Director in Missouri.” Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University. 1964. Michigan State University. Cooperative Extension Service. "County Extension Director Attributes That Determine Success or Failure.“ A document listing ideas generated in Management Training Semi- nars. 1979. . "Definitions and Needs Stated by Cooperative Extension Directors." A document describing the outcomes of an Extension School Workshop. December 1978. . "Recommendations for Clarifying the Administrative Role of the County Extension Director." A position paper submitted by a committee of County Extension Directors. June 1980. Peabody. Fred. "Initial Draft of the Expectations of the Michigan County Extension Director's Role." Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University. November 1979. . "Letter to County Extension Director Role Committee.” Office of Director. Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University. January 1980. 193 Rodgers. Thomas F. “Competencies Critical to the Administrative Role of the County Extension Director." North Carolina State Univer- sity at Raleigh. 1977. Wheaton. Ernest R. "An Administrative Role Study of the County Extension Director Job Group in the Florida Cooperative Exten- sion Service." Ed.D. thesis. North Carolina State University at Raleigh. 1971. Intentions Artabasy. James. Extension Program Leader. Compensation. Michigan State University. Personal interview. April 1982. Forrest. LaVerne. Extension Program Development and Evaluation. University of Wisconsin. Telephone interview. May 1982. House. A1. Professor of State and Local Government. Michigan State University. Telephone interview. May 1982. Moore. Samuel. Professor of Administration and Curriculum. Michigan State University. Personal interview. January 1984. Olstrom. Einer. Historian. Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University. Telephone interview. May 1982. Peabody. Fred. Professor of Extension. Michigan State University. Personal interview. April 1982. "IWilliiliiii'liiir "I71111111111111111