INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U n iversity M icrofilm s International
A B ell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R o a d . Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U SA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0

8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0

Order Number 9129446

A n analysis o f th e regional extension supervisor’s role in
M ichigan’s C ooperative E xtension Service. (Volum es I and II)
Clark, Raymond John, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1991

C opyright © 1991 by Clark, R aym ond John. All rights reserved.

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISOR’ S ROLE
IN MICHIGAN’ S COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
VOLUME I

By
Raymond John C la rk

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e req u ir e m e n ts
f o r t h e degree o f

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l and Extension Education

1991

A B S TR A CT
AN ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISOR’ S ROLE
IN MICHIGAN’ S COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
By
Raymond John Clark

The g e n e r a l pu rposes o f t h i s s tu dy w i t h i n t h e Michigan Coopera­
t i v e Extens ion S e r v i c e were (a) t o d e s c r i b e t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional
Ext ension S u p e r v i s o r as i t

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t

should be performed, as viewed by s i x p o s i t i o n groups in t h e o r g a n i ­
zation;

(b) t o o b t a i n i n fo r m a t io n t o help g a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d ­

ing o f t h e p e r c e iv e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e v a r i o u s groups and
the

position

being

studied;

and

(c)

to

pr o v id e

information

to

improve t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .
The d a t a were o b t a i n e d from a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n e d by
474 (74.4%) Michigan Extension employees.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked

t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o re c o r d t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s c on ce rn in g t h e l e v e l
involvement

of

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor

d e f i n i t i o n items p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e p o s i t i o n .
s i m i l a r t o th e one used by Caul
some

modifications

position.
scale,

to

describe

(1960)
more

and H a rr is o n

record,

h is /h e r p e rcep tio n s regarding the

114

role-

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was

accurately

Each r e s po nd en t was asked t o

on

of

level

the

(1984),

with

Supervisor’s

on a f i v e - p o i n t
of

involvem ent

Raymond John Clark
S u p e r v i s o r s have r e g a r d i n g each o f t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items as t h e
p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t shou ld be performed.
Supervisors
responsibility
position

were

on

32

of

seen

to

the

114

ha ve

at

least

role-definition

a

shared

items

as

th e

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and on 67 o f t h e 114 r o l e -

d e f i n i t i o n items as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.

Significant

d i f f e r e n c e s were found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

as to

t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s c u r r e n t l e v e l o f involvement and what i t should be
on a l l

eight

adm inistrative

functions

studied.

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional
position

should

be performed

in

the

The f i n d i n g s

Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r

f o ll o w i n g o r d e r :

pe rsonnel

management, Extension programming, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y ,

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development, program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,
program development, p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s , and budge tin g and f i n a n c i n g .
Gender,

age,

o•P'P'i
1 A n + t rm
I I I I I U k> I U I I )

U

formal
U I I U

education,

UIIIWUII W

length

onrJ Vt w
n oW
J

M M W

of

n f Wr nW Mn tW M

W «

s i g n i f i c a n t regarding therespondents’

service,
W W

region/campus

u• • Vi n• *W P n •» WmW rl IlW

views o f t h e

r o l e of t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan.

+WnW

hMoW

adm inistrative

Copyright by
RAYMOND JOHN CLARK
1991

This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s d e d i c a t e d t o my f a m il y :
J e a n , A. J . , and S a l l y Ann Na rhi .
t o my s o n ’ s own f u t u r e

John (d e c e a s e d ) ,

May i t be used as an i n s p i r a t i o n

education,

as well

as

an

example

of

my

s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e f o r t h e i r c o n ti n u in g love and s u p p o r t th r ou gh out
t h i s endeavor.

v

A CK NO W LE D GM EN T S

Dr. 0. Donald Meaders was my chairman and my mentor th r o ug ho ut
the

doctoral

interest

program.

he devoted

Agricultural

and

I
to

am g r a t e f u l

my can didacy

Extension

to
in

Edu ca tio n.

him f o r
the

the

doctoral

Although

he

tim e

and

program

in

had

numerous

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s both in t h i s c o u n tr y and ab road, he accommodated me
with h i s ti m e ,

interest,

professionalism,

patience,

en thu si asm ,

and n e v e r -e n d i n g s u p p o r t .

encouragement,

and

friendship

His
will

always be t r e a s u r e d .
I wish t o thank t h e o t h e r members o f my guidance committee f o r
t h e i r encouragement, s u p p o r t , and endorsement o f my endeavor:

Drs.

Mary Andrews, Frank B o b b i t t , and Allan Shapley.
Others t o whom I owe my d e e p e s t g r a t i t u d e in c l u d e Murari Suvedi
and C hr is t. o ff e l Den B ig g e la a r f o r t h e i r d a t a e n t r y , s t a t i s t i c a l , and
analytical

assistance;

M ar th a Meade rs

for

her

assistance

in

performing t h e ERIC s e a r c h e s ; Laura Mathieus f o r h e r d a t a e n t r y and
secretarial
J.

Ray

assistance

G illespie

Administrative
Drs.

Carroll

Kimball,

in

and

the

the

early
other

Program Team f o r
H.

Wamhoff,

E in er Olstrom,

Gerald

stages

of

members

their

the
of

su p p o rt

Schwab,

Glenn

dissertation;

the

Extension

and encouragement;
McBride,

William

and Karl T. Wright f o r t h e i r guidance and

su p p o rt d ur in g my g r a d u a t e program; and Sue Cooley f o r t y p i n g and

vi

e d itin g the fin al

copy.

I also

individuals

who p a r t i c i p a t e d

members

the

of

Michigan

in

State

extend my a p p r e c i a t i o n
the

pilot

University

Se r v i c e who provide d d a t a f o r t h e s tu d y .
to the

Extension s t a f f

s tu dy

and t o

C oo pe ra ti ve

to

th o s e

all

th e

Extens ion

I am e s p e c i a l l y ind e b te d

in t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a ,

who encouraged me

thr o u g h o u t my program.
I e x p r e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my p a r e n t s , John and J ea n C l a r k , and
my i n - l a w s ,

Arvid and Gladys

Narhi,

for

th eir

encouragement

and

su p p o rt d u ri n g my g r a d u a t e program.
F i n a l l y , I o f f e r ve ry s p e c i a l tha nks and g r a t e f u l

appreciation

t o my fa m i l y , Dr. S a l l y Ann Narhi and Arvid John ( A . J . ) Narhi C la rk ,
for t h e ir patience,
stud y p o s s i b l e .
m a in ta in ed

our

encouragement,

I am e s p e c i a l l y
cow-calf

position

as

high

g r a d u a te

program.

school

and s a c r i f i c e s which made t h i s
in de bte d t o my w i f e ,

operation

in

principal,

T h e i r s u p p o rt

c on tin uo us and ne v er -e n d i n g .

vii

addition

so t h a t

to

her

I could

th ro u g h o u t t h i s

Sally,

who

full-tim e

complete

u n d e r ta k in g

my
was

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................

xii

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... x x i i i
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

...................................................................................

1

H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e .........................................................
Background o f t h e S t u d y .........................................................
Statement o f t h e Problem .....................................................
Purposes o f t h e Study .............................................................
Importance o f t h e Study .........................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ..................................................................
L i m it a ti o n s o f t h e Study .....................................................
O v e r v i e w .......................................................................................

3
6
8
10
12
14
18
19

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................................................................

21

Role T h e o r y ...................................................................................
A p p l i c a t i o n s o f Role Theory ............................................
Role Consensus and C o n f l i c t ............................................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory ...........................
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n Versus D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ..................
Related S tu d i e s ..........................................................................
S tu d i e s Dealing With th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role o f
County Extension D i r e c t o r s ........................................
S tu d i e s R e l a ti n g to t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role
of Middle Managers .........................................................
S tu d i e s R e l a ti n g t o t h e Middle Manager’ s
P o s i t i o n in G e n e r a l .........................................................
Summary............................................................................................

22
26
31
33
44
50

PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY........................................

82

Planning th e S t u d y ..................................................................
Reviewing t h e L i t e r a t u r e ................................................
Preparing t h e Q u e s ti o n n a ir e ............................................
S e l e c t i n g t h e Pop ulation and t h e Respondent
G r o u p s ...................................................................................

82
82
82

viii

51
60
68
80

86

Page

IV.

Conducting t h e S t u d y ..............................................................
Securing Responses t o t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..................
Proce ssi ng t h e D a t a .............................................................
Analyzing t h e D a t a ..............................................................
Summary............................................................................................

88
88
92
93
94

......................

95

Research Questions and Relevant Data ...........................
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondents in t h e Six
P o s i t i o n Groups ......................................................................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fun ctions in t h e CES a t t h e
Regional Level as They Are C u r r e n t l y Performed .
Personnel Management .........................................................
S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development ...............................
Program Development .............................................................
Extension Programming .........................................................
Program Ev a lu a ti o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y ......................
A d m in is tr a ti o n and Po li cy ................................................
Pu blic R e l a t i o n s ..................................................................
Budgeting and Financing .....................................................
R e l a t i v e Importance o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Functions as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Formed . .
Consensus Within Each P o s i t i o n Group ...........................
D if f e r e n c e s Between th e Regional Extension
S u p e rv is o r Group and Each o f t h e Other P o s i t i o n
G r o u p s ........................................................................................
Respondents’ Views Based on Gender, Age, Formal
Education, Years Employed by t h e CES, Years
in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n , Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n ,
Size o f County S t a f f , Amount o f Normal C o n ta ct ,

96

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

Tv/no
tarf ,
‘J r ~ o f P- wn n ------------------

anH P o r -----------r o n ~t a n o~ n f T i m a ^ n o n ~t

r

115
115
121
127
134
141
147
154
159
165
168
172

w . . ~

on A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ..................................................................
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Functions in t h e CES a t t h e
Regional Level as They Should Be Performed . . .
Personnel Management .
................................................
S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development ...............................
Program Development .............................................................
Extension Programming .........................................................
Program Ev a lu a ti o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y ......................
A d m in is tr a ti o n and Po li cy ................................................
Pu blic R e l a t i o n s ..................................................................
Budgeting and Financing .....................................................
Comparison of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fun ctions a t th e
Regional Level as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being
Performed and as They Should Be Performed in
M i c h i g a n ...................................................................................
D i f f e r e n c e s Between the P o s i t i o n as I t Is
C u r r e n tl y Performed and as I t Should Be
P e r f o r m e d ...................................................................................

ix

98

178
204
206
213
221
228
237
244
253
257

299
302

Page
Most Impo rtant S k i l l s Needed by Those in t h e
P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r
in M i c h i g a n ...............................................................................
Most Impo rtant Tasks t o Be Performed by Those
in t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan .....................................................
Summary.............................................................................................
V.

306
315
316

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................

324

Summary o f t h e Study ..............................................................
Need f o r t h e S t u d y ..............................................................
Purposes o f t h e Study ..........................................................
O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Study .....................................................
P r o c e d u r e ....................................................................................
Summary o f F ind in gs ..................................................................
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondents in t h e Six
P o s i t i o n Groups ..................................................................
Findi ngs R e s u l t i n g From t h e A na ly si s o f t h e
D i f f e r e n t E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Role as I t Is C u r r e n t l y Being Performed . . . .
Findi ngs R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly si s o f Ten
Independent V a r i a b l e s o f t h e Respondent
Groups as t h e Regional Extension Su pe r­
v i s o r ’ s P o s i t i o n Is C u r r e n t l y Being
Performed in Michigan .....................................................
Findings R e s u l t i n g From t h e A na ly si s o f t h e
D i f f e r e n t E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Role as I t Should BePerformed in Michigan . .

324
324
325
326
327
329

P4 *m44

I I i i u I iivjd

m l 4- A

i \ c ^ u v i* I My

i i win

m e

A«*»1 w#* i r

niiui

ij

333

338

344

r>4r T o n
v i

ivii

Independent V a r i a b l e s o f t h e Respondent
Groups as t h e Regional Extension Su pe r­
v i s o r ’ s P o s i t i o n Should be Performed in
M i c h i g a n ...............................................................................
Findings R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly si s o f t h e
D i f f e r e n t E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Role as I t Is C u r r e n t l y Being Performed
and as I t Should Be Performed in Michigan . . .
Findings Regarding t h e Most Important S k i l l s
That I n d i v i d u a l s in t h e P o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r Should
Possess and t h e Most Important Tasks
They Should P e r f o r m .........................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................................................................
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Respondents ..............................

x

329

348

355

358
360
360

Page
E x p e c ta t io n s o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R o l e ........................................
Recommendations ...........................................................................
Recommendations f o r A d d iti on a l Research ..................

362
365
368

A.

CORRESPONDENCE.................................................................................

370

B.

THE ROLE EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................

379

C.

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

...........................................................

393

D.

MEAN RESPONSES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEAN
RESPONSES FOR ITEMS IN THE ROLE EXPECTATION
QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................

395

ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION
SUPERVISORS IN MICHIGAN AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY
BEING PERFORMED AND AS THEY SHOULD BE PERFORMED. . .

417

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS, BY POSITION GROUP

429

APPENDICES

E.

. F.
G.

. . . .

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERVICE ...........................................................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.....................................................................................................

xi

444
445

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

A C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f F a y o l ’ s P r i n c i p l e s ................................

36

2.

Four Most Im port an t S k i l l s a Middle Manager Should
H a v e .................................................................................................

72

Most Important Tasks Middle-Managers Perform, as
Per ce ive d by F i e l d S t a f f and Other S ta t e - L e v e l
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ...........................................................................

73

Items Most Liked and Least Liked About th e
Middle-Management P o s i t i o n .................................................

74

3.

4.
5.

Number o f Respondents by P o s i t i o n :

6.

Gender o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extens ion Agents,
County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l ­
i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, and Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in This Study: Michigan,
1989

7.

8.

9.

Michigan, 1989 . .

91

99

Age o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extension Agents,
County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l ­
i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, and Regional
Extension s u p e r v i s o r s in i n i s Study: Michigan,
1989

101

Formal Education o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team, and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in This
Study: Michigan, 1989

103

Years Employed by CES o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team, and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in This
Study: Michigan, 1989

104

xi i

Page
Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
County Exten sio n Agents, County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team, and Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r s
in This Study: Michigan, 1989 ....................................

104

Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
County Exten sio n Agents, County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team, and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
in This Study: Michigan, 1989 ....................................

104

Normal Amount o f Con ta ct With Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team, and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in This
Study: Michigan, 1989 .....................................................

109

Type o f Contact With Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team, and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in This
Study: Michigan, 1989 .....................................................

111

Perce nta ge o f Time Spent in A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f
Extension S t a f f o r Programs o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
County Extension Agents, County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team, and Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s
in This Study: Michigan, 1989 ....................................

112

Si z e o f County S t a f f o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, and County E x t e n ti o n D i r e c t o r s
in This Study: Michigan, 1989 ....................................

114

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u rr e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
18 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Personnel Management
Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d by Mean
Score and Rank Order .........................................................

117

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u rr e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
15 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and
Development Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d
by Mean Score and Rank Order ........................................

123

xiii

Page
Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u r r e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
16 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Program Development
Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d by Mean
Score and Rank Order ..........................................................

129

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u r r e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
16 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Extens ion Programming
Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d by Mean
Score and Rank Order ..........................................................

135

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u r r e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
12 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Program E v a lu a ti o n
and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n ,
C l a s s i s f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order
. . .

143

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u rr e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
20 Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
P o li c y Function of t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d by
Mean Score and Rank Order .................................................

149

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u r r e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
Eight Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s
Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d by Mean
Score and Rank Order ..........................................................

156

Responses by Six Groups Regarding t h e C u r r e n t Role
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan on
Nine Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Budgeting and
Financing Function o f t h e P o s i t i o n , C l a s s i s f i e d
by Mean Score and Rank Order ........................................

161

Mean Response Scores and Rank Order f o r Eig ht
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They Are C u r r e n t l y
Being Performed by Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r s ,
by Each o f Six Respondent Groups ...............................

166

Friedman A na ly si s o f Variance o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Function Means by Rank .....................................................

168

B a r t l e t t Homogeneity o f Variance T e s t by Adminis­
t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They Are C u r r e n t l y Performed,
f o r t h e Six Respondent Groups ........................................

172

xiv

Page
A n a l y s i s o f Vari an ce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F unc tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan Between
Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s , P a r a p r o f e s s i o n ­
a l s , County Exten sio n Agents, County Exten sio n
D i r e c t o r s , Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team .................................................

174

Respon de nts ’ Mean Score s f o r t h e E ig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
F u nc tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Gender ........................................

179

A n a l y s i s o f Varian ce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F unc tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Gender o f Respondents in This Study ......................

180

Respon de nts ’ Mean Score s f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fu nc tio ns o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Five Age Groups ......................

181

A n a ly s is o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nct io ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Age o f Respondents in This Study ...............................

180

Respo nde nts ’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fun ct io n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michi^cin, C l c i s s i f i s d by FormSl Education

10/1
t w I

A n a ly s is o f Varian ce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F un c tio n s as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Formal Education o f Respondents in This Study

.

184

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fun ct io n s o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Length o f S e r v i c e With
t h e CES .............................................................................................

186

A n a ly si s o f Varia nce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nct io ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Length o f S e r v i c e With t h e CES o f Respondents
in This Study ................................................................................

187

xv

Page
Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Ei gh t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Functions o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n .

189

A n a ly s is o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nc tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n o f Respondents in
This Study ....................................................................................

189

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Ei gh t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n .

190

A n a ly s is o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n o f Respondents in
This Study ....................................................................................

191

Respondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fu nctions o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by Size o f County S t a f f
( P r o f e s s i o n a l and P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l ) ...............................

195

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Size o f County S t a f f o f Respondents in This
Study .................................................................................................

195

R esp ondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Normal Amount o f
Co ntact They Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ..............................................................

196

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fun ctions as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Amount o f Normal Contact t h e Respondents in
This Study Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ..............................................................

197

xvi

Page
44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

4O

*t3.

50.

51.

Respondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Functions o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Normal Contact They
Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ....................................................................................

199

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nct io ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Type o f Normal C onta ct t h e Respondents in
This Study Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ..............................................................

200

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r th e Eight A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in
Michigan, C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Perc e nt ag e o f Time
Spent A dm in is te rin g Extension S t a f f or Programs . .

202

A na ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan,
by Per c e nta ge o f Time Spent A dm in is te ri ng
Extension S t a f f o r Programs ..............................................

203

Eighteen Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Personnel Management
Function o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order .....................

207

r” -I

n nm

I I i tccn

T4

i cci i i j

rci

A •** A

Mn

c o ining

iu

f kn

tnc

C+

vwui •

Av»4 o n f n f i a w
vi

ivnvuvtMn

and Development Function o f Regional Extens ion
S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should
Be Performed, C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank
O r d e r ................................................

214

Si x t ee n Items P e r t a i n i n g t o th e Program Development
Function o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order ......................

223

Si x t ee n Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Extension Programming
Function o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank O r d e r ......................

230

xvii

Page
Twelve Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Program E v a lu a ti o n
and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Function o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be
Performed, C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank
Order .............................................................................................

238

Twenty Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
P o l i c y Fun ction o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
in Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order ..................

245

Ei ght Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s
Function o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order ..................

254

Nine Items P e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Budgeting and Financing
Function o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
Michigan as t h e P o s i t i o n Should Be Performed,
C l a s s i f i e d by Mean Score and Rank Order ..................

258

Mean Response Scores and Rank Order f o r Eight
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F un ct ion s as They Should Be
Performed by Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ,
by Each o f Six Respondent Groups ...............................

263

Friedman A na ly si s o f Variance o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Function Means by Rank .....................................................

265

B a r t l e t t Homogeneity o f Variance T e s t by Adminis­
t r a t i v e Fu nc tio ns as They Should Be
Performed; f o r t h e Six Respondent Groups

270

A n a ly s is o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F u nc tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan Between Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County
Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team ...........................................................................

271

Respo nde nts ’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fu nctions o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Gender .........................................................

275

xviii

Page
A n a ly si s o f Varia nce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F u n c tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Gender o f
t h e Respondents in This Study ............................................

276

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e E ig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fun ct io n s o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Five Age Groups ............................................

277

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu n c ti o n s as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Three Age
Groups o f t h e Respondents in This Study ......................

278

Respon de nts ’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eight A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Formal Education ........................................

279

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F un c tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Formal
Education o f t h e Respondents in This Study . . . .

279

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Funct ion s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Length o f S e rv ic e With t h e CES . . .

281

A n a ly si s o f Va riance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’s Adminis t r a t i v e F u nc tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Length o f
S e r v i c e With t h e CES o f t h e Respondents in This
Study .................................................................................................

282

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eight A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
F unc tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n ......................

283

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F u nc tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Years in
P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n o f t h e Respondents in This Study .

284

xix

Page
70.

71.

72.

73.

Respondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e E ig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n . . . . . .

285

A n a l y s i s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Exten sio n
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by Region/Campus
A f f i l i a t i o n o f t h e Respondents in This Study
. . .

285

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Ei gh t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by S iz e o f County S t a f f ( P r o f e s s i o n a l
and P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l ) ..............................................................

288

A n a ly s is o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by S iz e o f
County S t a f f o f t h e Respondents in This Study .

.

.

288

74.

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fu nctions o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Normal Amount o f Con ta ct They
Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r .....................................................................
291

75.

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by t h e Amount
o f Normal Contact t h e Respondent? in This Study
Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ....................................................................................

291

Res pondents’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fun ctions o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Normal Type o f Con ta ct They
Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ....................................................................................

294

A n a ly si s o f Variance f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by t h e Type of
Normal Con ta ct t h e Respondents in This Study
Have With t h e P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ....................................................................................

295

76.

77.

xx

Page
Respo nde nts ’ Mean Scores f o r t h e Eig ht A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fun ct ion s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
P o s i t i o n as They Should Be Performed in Michigan,
C l a s s i f i e d by t h e P e rc e nta ge o f Time Spent Admin­
i s t e r i n g Extens ion S t a f f or Programs ...........................

296

A n a l y s i s o f Varian ce f o r t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nct io ns as They
Should Be Performed in Michigan, by t h e P e r c e n t ­
age o f Time Spent A d m in is te ri n g Exten sio n S t a f f
o r Programs ....................................................................................

297

Mean Response Score D i f f e r e n c e s f o r Eight Adminis­
t r a t i v e F un c tio ns as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being
Performed and as They Should Be Performed by
Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s , by Each o f
Six Respondent Groups ..............................................................

300

Comparison o f Mean Scores by P o s i t i o n f o r t h e
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Func tio ns as They Are C u r r e n t l y Performed and
as They Should Be Performed, Using P a ir e d t - T e s t s .

303

Four Most Im po rt an t S k i l l s a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r Should Have, as
Perc e iv ed by Extension P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ..................

308

Four Most Im portant S k i l l s a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r Should Have, as
P e rc e iv ed by County Extension Agents ...........................

309

Four Most Im portant S k i l l s a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r Should Have, as
Perc e iv ed by County Extension D i r e c t o r s ......................

310

Four Most Im portant S k i l l s a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r Should Have, as
Perc e iv ed by Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ...............................

311

Four Most Im portant S k i l l s a Person in t h e
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r Should
Perc e iv ed by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Position
Have, as
Team
......................

312

Most Important S k i l l s Needed by Those in t h e
P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r , as
Perc ei ved by P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extension
Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s , Extension
S p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ........................................

313

xx i

Page
88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

Four Most Im po rt an t Tasks a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Ex te ns io n S u p e r v i s o r Should Perform,
as Per ce ive d by t h e Extension P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

.

317

Four Most I m po r ta nt Tasks a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r Should Perform,
as Per ce ive d by t h e County E xt ens ion Agents . . . .

318

Four Most I m por ta nt Tasks a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r Should Perform,
as Perc ei ved by t h e County E xt ens ion D i r e c t o r s . .

319

Four Most Im po rt an t Tasks a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Ex te ns io n S u p e r v i s o r Should Perform,
as Per ce ive d by t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ..................

320

Four Most Im po rt an t Tasks a Person in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r Should Perform,
as Per ce ive d by t h e Admihi s t r a t i v e Program Team/
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ........................................

321

Most Important Tasks t o Be Performed by Those in th e
P o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r , as
Perc e iv ed by P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extension
Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s , Extension
S p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ........................................

322

xxii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fi gu re

Page

1.

P o s i t i o n - C e n t r i c Model ...................................................................

28

2.

P o s i t i o n , Rol es, and Norms.............................................................

30

3.

G e t z e l s and Guba’ s General Model Showing
the
Nomothetic and t h e I d i o g r a p h i c Dimensions
o f Social Behavior ..................................................................

43

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n - D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y .....................

46

4.

xxiii

C H A PT E R I
INTRODUCTION

The Co o pe rati ve Extension S e r v i c e (CES) in
a key r o l e
Michigan

in

since

p r o v id i n g
the turn

nonformal
of the

education

century.

Michigan has played
to

the

The f i r s t

citizens

of

agricultural

a g e n t , H. G. Smith, was ap poin te d t o s e r v e Alpena County in 1912, a
y e a r fo ll o w i n g t h e appointment o f Robert J .

Baldwin, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t

o f A g r i c u l t u r e E xt ens ion , by Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l C ol leg e P r e s i d e n t
Robert S.
counties
county

Shaw.

Michigan pl a ce d

under th e
agents,

supervision

before

the

of

13 a g r i c u l t u r a l
Eben Mumford,

federal

Smith-Lever

a g en ts
state

Act

in

nine

leader

creating

of
th e

n a t i o n a l Extension S e r v i c e was si gned by P r e s i d e n t Woodrow Wilson in
May 1914 (Olstrom & M i l l e r , 1984).
Since 1912, Michigan’ s Extension S e r v i c e has grown t o
499 Bo ard-appointed F i e l d S t a f f ,

Department S p e c i a l i s t s ,

A d m in is tr a ti v e /P r o g ra m S t a f f

(Moline,

additional

Paraprofessionals

the

university-funded

f o u r p ro gr am a r e a s

1988)

of A g ric u ltu re

in c lu d e

and S t a t e

and a pp ro x im a te ly
(Glazier,

and M a r k e t i n g ,

1988)

150
in

N atural

Resources and Publi c P o l i c y , Home Economics, and 4-H Youth Programs.
A p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n to da y t h a t has r e c e i v e d
l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n by pr e v io u s r e s e a r c h e r s i s t h e p o s i t i o n of Regional
Extension

Supervisor.

The

focus

of

1

this

dissertation

was

an

2
analysis

of

the

Supervisor’s

adm inistrative

position

within

role

of

Michigan’ s

the

Regional

Exten sio n

Extension

organization-^

p o s i t i o n t h a t i s invol ve d with Extension s t a f f c u r r e n t l y housed in
81 county o f f i c e s and 28 de pa r tm en t s on t h e campus o f Michigan S t a t e
University.
The

Cooperative

Extension

development o f people th e m s e lv e s ,

Service
to

the

is

dedicated

end t h a t

to

they,

"the

through

t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e , may e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f y and s o l v e t h e v a r i o u s
problems d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g t h e i r w e l f a r e " (U.S. Congress, c i t e d in
Boone, 1970, p. 265).
for local,
"assist"

state,

This goal i s met by h e l p i n g pe opl e " or ga niz e "

or regional

them in a d d r e s s i n g

action,

"facilitate,"

the various

problems

and o th e r w is e

affecting

their

l i v e s " p r i m a r i l y by e xt e n d i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s
of

the

U .S .

in stitu tio n s

Department

of

A griculture

to th e people

through

and

state

c o u n t y and

area

Land-Grant
Extension

o f f i c e s " (Boone, 1970, p. 265).
According to Moline (1988),
The Extension system f u n c t i o n s through a unique p a r t n e r s h i p of
f e d e r a l , s t a t e and l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s a l o n g w i t h p r i v a t e
contributions.
Extension encourages a broad base o f c i t i z e n
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e pla n n in g and d e l i v e r y o f e d u c a ti o n a l
programs t o i n s u r e r e l e v a n c e t o t h e community.
Programs are
a v a i l a b l e to a l l c i t i z e n s r e g a r d l e s s o f r a c e , c o l o r , sex,
hand ica p, n a t i o n a l o r i g i n , or p la c e o f r e s i d e n c e , (p. 2)
The 1948 J o i n t Committee Report on Extension Programs, P o l i c i e s and
Goals emphasized t h a t Extension r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e no t l i m i t e d to
farm people or even t o r u r a l
people (Boone, 1970).

residents,

but i n c lu d e a l l

interested

3
Michigan’ s Coo per ati ve Extension S e rv ic e has come a long way
s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n in 1914 with t h e passage o f t h e Smith-Lever Act.
Funding f o r Michigan’ s Extension Se rv ic e has changed from t h e f i r s t
$26,000 s t a t e - f e d e r a l
(Olstrom & M i l l e r ,

a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r Extension work in 1914-15
1984)

to

$29,155,040

in

federal,

state,

and

county funds being a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r Extension programs in Michigan
during

1 9 8 7 -8 8

(Michigan

State

U niversity,

19 90 ,

Table

A).

According t o Boone (1970),
One o f th e major f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e s u cc e ss o f t h e
Cooperative Extension Se rv ic e as an agency o f change has been
i t s w i l l i n g n e s s t o undergo r i g o r o u s i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l
e v a l u a t i o n and make a d a p t a t i o n s in o r g a n i z a t i o n and programs
c o n s i s t e n t with s o c i e t a l
needs. Although t h e b a s i c mis si on of
C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n has r e m a i n e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same,
s o c i a l , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , and economic changes have broadened i t s
program scope in terms o f c l i e n t e l e , methods and t e c h n i q u e s .
(p. 268)
In

writing

about

Patto n

(1987)

Service,
Extension

the

future

said,

professional

of

"The

w ill

be

the

life

Co operative

and

work

dram atically

Extension

of

tomorrow’ s

d ifferen t.

The

c h a l l e n g e i s t o p r e d i c t how t h e work w i l l change" (p. 40 ).
H isto rical Perspective
The s u p e r v i s o r y
undergone many

role

changes

in

the

Michigan

s i n c e employment

Extension

of the

Service

first

has

supervisors

took pla ce in e a r l y 1947 by D i r e c t o r Baldwin as a r e s u l t o f t h e 1945
R eo rg ani za tio n

Plan

(Olstrom

& M i l l e r , 1984).

The

position

Regional Extension S u p e rv is o r in Michigan, as i t was known in 1989,
a t the time of t h i s stu dy, was c r e a t e d in t h e e a r l y 1980s by Gordon
Guyer, former D i r e c t o r o f Ext ension.

This i s a p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e

of

4
Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t has r e c e i v e d l i t t l e

previous a t t e n t i o n

by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s .
Before

an

in-depth

analysis

of

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e could be un der taken in Michigan, i t
was im po rt an t f i r s t t o und e rs ta n d t h e changes t h a t had ta ken p l a c e
in t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f Michigan’ s Exten sio n S e r v i c e o v e r t h e y e a r s .
These changes p ro vi de a b a s i s
expectations

that

have

f o r u n d e r s ta n d in g t h e

evolved

over

the

years

institutional
regarding

the

s u p e r v i s i o n r o l e in Michigan.
1.

For s u p e r v i s i o n ,

t h e s t a t e was f i r s t

d i s t r i c t s o f 15 to 18 c o u n t i e s .
too k pl a ce in 1947.

organized

Employment o f t h e f i r s t s u p e r v i s o r s

The d i r e c t o r ’ s mandate was f ir m :

"Your j o b is

t o keep a peac eful Extension f a m ily and g e t a j o b done!
develop a team w i t h i n your d i s t r i c t "
1984), p.
o c cu r re d

15) .

into five

(cited

You a r e to

in Olstrom & M i l l e r ,

When t h e new s u p e r v i s o r s came "on l i n e , "

in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c ha in o f a u t h o r i t y

a shift

from campus

to

counties.
2.

During th e term o f S t a t e Extension D i r e c t o r Durward Varner

(September 16, 1952, t o March 31, 1955), t h e s u p e r v i s o r y s t r u c t u r e
in Michigan was changed t o s t a f f a s u p e r v i s o r y team in each o f f o u r
Extension d i s t r i c t s .

This c r e a t e d s u p e r v i s o r s f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , home

economics, and 4-H c l u b work.
of

th e

assistant

state

With t h i s change, some o f t h e d u t i e s

program

leaders

were

transferred

to

the

d i s t r i c t s u p e r v i s o r s (Olstrom & M i l l e r , 1984).
3.
31,

Under S t a t e D i r e c t o r Paul M i l l e r (April 1, 1955, t o Jan ua ry

1959),

state

supervisors

were o r ga niz ed

into

five

districts.

5

Former s u p e r v i s o r y
reassigned,
title:

team members f o r

and one s u p e r v i s o r

home economics

in each d i s t r i c t

D i s t r i c t Exten sio n D i r e c t o r .

and 4-H were

was giv en

a new

The n o r t h d i s t r i c t e v e n t u a l l y

was d i v i d e d i n t o two s u p e r v i s o r y u n i t s (Olstrom & M i l l e r , 1984).
4.

During t h e term o f S t a t e D i r e c t o r Pat R a l s t o n (F ebr uar y 1,

1959, t o June 30, 1966), t h e r e were numerous a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s h i f t s
w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
scrapped

the

supervisory

The new a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e

structure

created

formed a new D iv i s i o n o f F ie ld O p e r a t i o n s .
were a l l
field

reassigned,

operations

and t h e i r

staff.

This

earlier

and

The D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s

functions
new

20 y e a r s

were ta k e n

field

operations

over by th e
team

would

p ro vid e c a m p u s - f i e l d l i a i s o n with county and d i s t r i c t s t a f f (Olstrom
& M i l l e r , 1984).
5.

In t h e e a r l y 1970s,

a f i e l d operations

team c o n ti n u e d to

p ro vi de c a m p u s - f i e l d l i a i s o n with county and d i s t r i c t
1974,

S t a t e D i r e c t o r Gordon Guyer (1974 t o

o r ga n i7 at .i on

consisting

of

into

five

d istricts

two s u p e r v i s o r s

pe r

or

1984)

re g i o n a l

region.

staff.

restructured
supervisory

In

In

later

th e

teams

moves,

six

s u p e r v i s o r y re g i o n s were c r e a t e d , w i t h one s u p e r v i s o r in f o u r o f th e
r e g io n s and two s u p e r v i s o r s in each o f t h e o t h e r two r e g i o n s .

The

eight

and

supervisors

pro vid ed t h e l i n k a g e between a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

a l l program a r e a s through th e 1970s (Olstrom & M i l l e r , 1984).
6.
the

With t h e r e t i r e m e n t s o f f i v e o f t h e e i g h t s u p e r v i s o r s

transfer

of

a sixth

in

the

early

1980s,

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f Michigan’ s Extension S e r v i c e

the

and

supervisory

had developed

into

6

one Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r now a s s ig n e d in each o f t h e s i x

r e g i o n s w i t h i n Michigan’ s Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n (Olstrom & M i l l e r ,
1984).
Background o f t h e Study
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r in
Michigan has become an i n t e g r a l one in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
It

is

adm inistratively

Programs,

w ith c lo s e

Extension

and

Regional
program,

the

liaiso n

en tire

Extension
and

responsible

the Associate D irector

m a in tain ed w ith

A dm inistrative

S upervisors

supervisory

to

in

the

D irector

of

Team

(APT).

M ic h i g a n hav e d i r e c t

line,

responsibility

Prog ram

for

f o r c ou nty ,

multi-county,

and d i s t r i c t s t a f f w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r e g i o n s .
Because of t h e
throughout

the

g e ogra ph ic

state,

the

dispersion

ne ed

for

o f Extension

effectiv e

pe rsonnel

decentralized

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n making by t h o s e most ,in touch with countylevel

problems w i t h i n

the

re g io n

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n was a l s o

has

been

corroborated

and

remains

by H a r r i s o n

critical.
(1984)

in

r e f e r e n c e t o th e r o l e o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r in Michigan.
The Regional
the

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n ,

organization,

interlocking
incumbents

is

positions.
in

influenced

by

The Regional

other p o s itio n s ,

performs

s p e c ific functions of the o rg anization.
Michigan’ s Regional
the

broad

like

being j u s t
Extension
various

others

one

of

many

Supervisor,
roles

to

in

like

fu lfill

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e r o l e s of

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s can be c a t e g o r i z e d under

function

headings

of

p e r s o n n e l m an ag em en t,

staff

7
o rientation

and

programming,

program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,

and p o l i c y ,

developm ent,

public r e l a t i o n s ,

p ro gr am

developm ent,

Extension

administration

budgeting and f i n a n c i n g ,

as well

as

p e r s o n a l - p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t and m i s c e l l a n e o u s a c t i v i t i e s
( G i l l e s p i e , 1988).
C ertain
filling

expectations

various

operates

in

come t o

positions

a

certain

in

be

he ld

by

those

any o r g a n i z a t i o n .

way l a r g e l y

because

the

individuals

An o r g a n i z a t i o n
incumbents

in

a

p o s i t i o n perform as i s ex pec te d o f them by t h e occupa nts o f o t h e r
p o s i t i o n s in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n (Caul, 1960).
The s t a t u s t h a t t h e r o l e o f th e Regional

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r

hol ds w i t h i n Michigan’ s Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n makes
i m po rt an t

that

the

role

of

the

Regional

Extension

it

ex tre me ly

Supervisor

be

d e s c r i b e d and understood by both t h e Extension f i e l d s t a f f and the
campus-based a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and programming s t a f f .

James Anderson,

V ic e- P ro v o s t and Dean o f t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Co llege of
A g r i c u l t u r e and N a t u r a l
Prov ost
Committee

David

Scott,

to

examine

Resources

d u ri n g
the

(ANR),

1989-90

role,

a pp oin te d

structure,

C oop era ti ve Extension S e r v i c e in M i c h i g a n J
Study Committee,

in c o n s u l t a t i o n

and

a

special
program

with
Study

of

the

One o f t h e t a s k s o f the

a c c or di ng t o a l e t t e r from Dean Anderson

(1989),

was t o :
H h e s p e c i a l committee c o n s i s t e d o f both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l
committee members. A s e r i e s o f meetings both on and o f f campus was
held f o r t h e purpose o f c o l l e c t i n g in fo r m a t io n t h a t would be used in
devel opin g t h e f i n a l r e p o r t designe d t o a d d re ss t h e c har ge s o u t l i n e d
in Dr. Anderson’ s l e t t e r .

8

. . . review and make recommendations c once rn in g what t h e
optimal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e ( s p e c i a l i s t s t r u c t u r e , f i e l d
s t a f f , s u p e r v i s o r s and c o o r d i n a t o r s ) should be o f t h e MCES so
as t o maxim iz e e f f e c t i v e n e s s and m i n i m i z e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
conflict.
Before p e r c e p t i o n s could be o b t a i n e d r e g a r d i n g how t h e r o l e o f t h e
Regional
future,

Extension
a

s tu d y

Supervisor

needed

to

be

in

Michigan

und ertaken

should
to

change

de te r m in e

in

the

how t h i s

p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n was c u r r e n t l y being p e r c e i v e d by
t h o s e g ro u p s ,

significant

others,

within

the

U n i v e r s i t y who were

most in c o n t a c t with t h e incumbents in t h i s p o s i t i o n .
State ment o f t h e Problem
The C o op er ativ e Extension S e rv ic e

in Michigan has been faced

with d e c l i n i n g revenues in terms o f both r e a l
from f e d e r a l

and nominal d o l l a r s

and county s o u rc es over t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s .

This

d e c l i n e in reven ue, along with an in c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e a t t h e f e d e r a l ,
state,

and county l e v e l s f o r Extension t o be more a c c o u n t a b l e , has

fo r c e d Extension a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in Michigan t o begin a p r o c e s s of

reallocating E x t e n s i o n ’s limited resources to programs and personnel
that

would

most

effectiv ely

serve

the

needs

of

E xtension’ s

clientele.
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

demands f a c i n g

the

S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan have ne ver been g r e a t e r .

Regional
Regional

Extension
Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s a r e caught in t h e c r o s s f i r e o f t r y i n g t o r e p r e s e n t th e
s t a f f in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e re g i o n s and a t t h e same time t r y i n g t o do
what is " b e s t " f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

D i f f e r e n t people were bound to

have d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Regional S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e and of

9

its

importance w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n because o f t h e i r d i f f e r e n t

a s s o c i a t i o n s with Extension work.
caug ht

in t h e c r o s s

fire

Incumbents in t h i s p o s i t i o n were

of expectations

a s s o c i a t e d w ith them by

s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s and t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e j o b t h a t needs
to

be

done.

Gross,

Mason,

and

McEacher

(1958)

described

the

importance o f e x p e c t a t i o n s in a r o l e when t h e y wrote :
R eg a rd le s s o f t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n , e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e presumed by
most r o l e t h e o r i s t s t o be an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t in any
formula f o r p r e d i c t i n g s o c i a l b e h a v i o r .
Human conduct i s in
part a function of ex p ectations.
But some e x p e c t a t i o n s apply
t o c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s and no t t o o t h e r s . Whether a p a r t i c u l a r
e x p e c t a t i o n i s a s s ig n e d t o an i n d i v i d u a l depends upon h i s
i d e n t i t y . Whether a person i s i d e n t i f i e d as a male o r fem ale,
as a policeman o r a t e a c h e r , a s a l e s c l e r k o r a j a n i t o r , a
member o f one s o c i a l system o r a n o t h e r , makes a d i f f e r e n c e in
t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o t h e r s hold f o r him o r t h a t he ho ld s f o r
h i m s e l f , (p. 18)
The s i x groups in Michigan who hold e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g th e
r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r and who were i n f l u e n c i n g
h i s / h e r r o l e on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s were (a) Extension
P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , (b) County Extension Agents, (c) County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , (d) Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , (e) E x t e n s i o n ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team, and ( f ) t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t h e m s e lv e s .
E xpectations

held

by

others

and

an

incum bent’ s

e x p e c t a t i o n s were im por tant to t h e Regional

analysis

of

the

Regional

Extension

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in Michigan was e s s e n t i a l .

self­

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’

performance o f t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in Michigan.
current

own

Therefore,

a

S upervisor’s

10
Purposes o f t h e Study
The g e n e r a l
role

of

the

purp os es o f t h i s

Regional

Ex te ns ion

s tu dy were (a )

Supervisor

in

t o d e s c r i b e th e

Michigan

as

it

is

c u r r e n t l y being formed and as i t should be performed, as viewed by
Extension

Paraprofessionals,

Extension D ir e c to r s ,

Cou nty

Extension

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

A gents,

Cou nty

the A dm inistrative

Program Team, and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ; (b) t o o b t a i n
in f o r m a t io n t o help Extens ion pe rsonnel g a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s ta n d in g
of the perceived r e l a ti o n s h ip s
position

being

studied;

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and Regional

between t h e v a r i o u s groups and the

and

(c)

to

help

provide

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Extension

in Michigan with

i n f o r m a t io n with which t o improve t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e Regional
Ext ension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in t h e Exten sio n o r g a n i z a t i o n .
The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s tu d y were:
1.

To de te rm in e

the

adm inistrative

duties

of

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n , as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed
and

as

it

should

P araprofessionals,
D irectors,

be

perform ed,

Co un ty

as

Extension

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

perceived
Agents,

by

Extension

C ou n ty

Extension

the Administrative

Program Team,

and t h e Regional S u p e r v i s o r s t he m s el ve s .
2.

To d e t e r m i n e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

w ithin

and b e t w e e n

each

re sp o nd en t group in t h e i r r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s as t h e y are c u r r e n t l y performed
and as the y should be performed in Michigan.

11

3.

To de te rm in e whether t h e r e i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between age,

ge nder , formal e d u c a t i o n , region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n ,
staff,

tenure

in

amount o f normal

the

c o n t a c t with t h e

ty p e o f c o n t a c t with
amount

of

time

organization,

he/she

the

Regional

de vote s

to

tenure
Regional
Exten sio n

in

s i z e o f county

present

Ex te ns io n

position,
Supervisor,

Supervisor,

adm inistering

other

and

th e

Extension

employees o r programs, with r e s p e c t t o h i s / h e r p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan as i t was
being performed and as i t should be performed.
The s p e c i f i c hypothe ses t e s t e d in t h i s stud y were:
Hypothesis 1 : There a re s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e l e v e l s
o f importance o f th e e x p e c ta tio n s held f o r th e v a rio u s
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t shou ld be
performed, as p e r c e iv e d by t h e v a r i o u s re s p o n d e n t gro ups .
Hypothesis 2 :
There a re s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e
consensus w i t h i n each p o s i t i o n group on t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l s of
im portance held f o r th e a d m in i s t r a t iv e f u n c tio n s o f the
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y
performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan.
Hypothesis 3 :
There a re s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s group and each o f t h e o t h e r
re s po nden t groups on t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l s o f importance o f th e
e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed
and as i t should be performed.
Hypothesis 4 :
between:
a.

There i s

a s i g n i f i c a n t measu ra ble a s s o c i a t i o n

The amount o f normal c o n t a c t and t y p e o f c o n t a c t
re s p o n d e n ts have with a Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r and
t h e i r p e rc e p tio n s of th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o le of the
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed
and as i t should be performed in Michigan.

12

b.

The t e n u r e o f s t a f f w i t h i n t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n
and
w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extens ion S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t
should be performed in Michigan.

c.

The s i z e o f county s t a f f and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t shou ld be
performed in Michigan.

d.

The amount o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h i n
th e
r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p o s i t i o n and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e a d m in is ­
t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i ­
t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t should be
performed in Michigan.

e.

The ge nder o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t shou ld be
performed in Michigan.
Importance o f t h e Study

This

study

should

provide

useful

inform ation

for

(a)

i d e n t i f y i n g and c l a r i f y i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s r o l e s and
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o be performed by Regional
in Michigan,

(b)

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

identifying discrepancies th a t e x ist

r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e Regional

between th e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

held by v a r i o u s groups w i t h i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y , and (c ) adding t o the
body o f knowledge p e r t a i n i n g t o mid-management p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n th e
C oo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e .
Numerous s t u d i e s a c r o s s t h e United S t a t e s and in Michigan have
been unde rta ken in th e p a s t t o i n v e s t i g a t e v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n
t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

such as t h e r o l e o f P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

(Edwards, 1987; Munson & Pars ons, 1979; Parsons & Kiesow, 1975), the
r o l e of t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r (Abdullah, 1964; Black,

1969;

13
Caul,

1960;

Harrison,

1983; Rodgers,

1984;

Jones,

1969;

McNabb,

1977; Wheaton, 1971; W hit e si d e ,

1964;

1985),

Prosise,

the r o le of

County A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents, t h e r o l e o f t h e County 4-H Youth Agent,
t h e r o l e o f t h e Extension Home Economist, and t h e r o l e o f t h e S t a t e
Extension S p e c i a l i s t (Ge rber, 1985).
Mid-management p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n have
received

little

attention

in

p r e v io u s

studies.

Koskoko

(1980)

i n v e s t i g a t e d "The Role o f t h e Extension S u p e r v i s o r as P e rc e iv ed by
S e l e c t e d Extension P e r s o n n e l , " Bahram (1977) i n v e s t i g a t e d "The Role
o f t h e Extension S u p e r v i s o r as P er ce iv ed by Extension Personnel

in

A f g h a n i s t a n , " Pet ers on (1987) i n v e s t i g a t e d "The Role o f t h e S upe r­
visory

Pr ocess

Agents

Employed by t h e

(1984)

investigated

M anagers,"

as

Pe rceived

P orter

by Extension

C ooper ati ve

the
(1 9 8 7 )

Supervisors

Extension

"In-service

Needs

investigated

and

Service,"

of

County

H oelscher

Extension

Middle-

" C ou nty Agen t and S t a t e

Extension D i r e c t o r P e r c e p t i o n s o f D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s o f Co operativ e
Extension Programs as measured by t h e
Q uestionnaire,"

and

Barber

(1 9 8 9 )

Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n
investigated

"O ccupational

S t r e s s o r s and Work Behavior Types o f Co oper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e
Mid-Managers."
This

study

should

prospective

mid-managers

expectations

held

Extension

serve
in

by o t h e r s

Supervisor

as
the

a

resource

Extension

regarding

the

i n M ic h i g a n may v a r y

for

organization.
role

of

should

provide

the

current

the

according

pr e vi ou s a s s o c i a t i o n s wi th incumbents in t h i s p o s i t i o n .
investigation

current

and
The

Regional
to

th eir

Thus, t h i s

incumbents

in

th is

14

position,
valuable

as well

as

future

i n f o r m a t io n

organization

are

Regional

c on ce rn in g

perceiving

Extension

how o t h e r s

their

role.

Supervisors,

within
The

the

s tu d y

with

Extension

should

also

p ro v id e v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r f o r t h e v a r i o u s groups w i t h i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y
who come in c o n t a c t with t h i s mid-management p o s i t i o n .
Ever y

m iddle-m anager

wants

to

be

an

effectiv e

manager.

E f f e c t i v e managers, as d e s c r i b e d by Blanchard and Johnson (1982) in
The One Minute Manager, a r e t h o s e who "manage the m s el ve s and th e
peop le th e y work wit h so t h a t both t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e people
p r o f i t from t h e i r p r e s en c e" (p. 15) .

Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s

want t o be e f f e c t i v e managers, and t h i s s tu d y pro vid ed an i n - d e p t h
a n a l y s i s o f t h i s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n Michigan’ s Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n
du ri n g

a time

when

the

entire

Extension

organization

was

reviewed by a committee composed o f i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l

being

committee

members app oin te d by t h e V ic e- Pr ovo s t and Dean o f t h e C o lle g e of
A g r i c u l t u r e and Natural Resources.
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
The fo ll o w i n g terms and t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s
s tu dy and a r e being used f o r t h e purposes o f c l a r i t y

and c o n s i s ­

te n c y :
Administration.
action
giving

The

o f a group o f
guidance,

p ro c e ss

individuals

leadership,

of

bringing

through

and

about

social

control

to

coordinated

organization

by

the

of

effort

15
in d iv id u als

toward

the

maximum r e a l i z a t i o n

of

a common g o a l

( H a r r i s o n , 1984).
A dministrative

duties.

The

responsibilities

and

activities

norm al ly performed by t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r in t h e broad
a r e a s o f personnel

management,

program development,
accountability,
budgeting

and

s ta f f orientation

and development,

Extension programming, program e v a l u a t i o n

adm inistration
financing,

and
as

policy,

well

as

public

relations,

and
and

personal-professional

development and m i s c e l l a n e o u s a c t i v i t i e s ( G i l l e s p i e , 1988).
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (APT).

For t h e

purpose o f t h i s

s t u d y , t h e APT s t a f f o f Michigan’ s C oo per at i ve Extension S e r v i c e i s
defined

as

the

D irector,

Associate

D irector,

the

four

Assistant

D i r e c t o r s and t h e i r v a r i o u s Program Leaders, and s e l e c t e d members of
the

various

su p p o rt

units

within the

Extension

organization

that

have t h e c l o s e s t a s s o c i a t i o n w ith t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S upervisor,

such

as

ANR I n f o r m a t i o n

S ervices,

ANR P e r s o n n e l

S e r v i c e s , ANR Computer S e r v i c e s , t h e Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e and
E xt ens ion Education, and t h e O f f i c e o f ANR Budget and F in a n c es .
ANR.

The College o f A g r i c u l t u r e and Natural Resources a t Mich­

igan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
A s s o c i a t e Pi r e c t o r - - P r o g r a m s .
n u m b e r- tw o

person

w ithin

All

Regional

are

adm inistratively

The A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r

M ichigan’ s

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
accountable

Extension

the

person

th e

organization.

and County Extension
to

is

Directors

holding

th is

16
position.

The A s s o c i a t e

Director

assumes

responsibility

of

the

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n in t h e absence o f t h e D i r e c t o r .
County Extension A g e n ts .
a ppoin te d
levels.

field
They

staff
serve

at
in

County Exten sio n Agents a r e Board-

the

c ounty ,

m ulti-county,

one o r more o f

the

four

or

d istrict

program a r e a s :

A g r i c u l t u r e and M arketing, Natural Resources and P u b l i c P o l i c y , Home
Economics, and 4-H Youth.

(C o lle ge d e g r e e s a r e r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s e

positions.)
Countv Extension D i r e c t o r .
the

person

designated

to

The County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r

head

the

county

C o op er ativ e

is

Extension

S e r v i c e u n i t and i s ex pec te d t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e t o t a l
Extension S e r v i c e and i t s
1984).

program a t

the

county l e v e l

(Harrison,

The person h o ld in g t h i s p o s i t i o n works d i r e c t l y with h i s / h e r

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r r e g a r d i n g a l l

a d m in istra tiv e m atters

a t t h e county l e v e l .
Expectation.
a position.

An e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d t o an incumbent of

Such an e x p e c t a t i o n

direction

(it

is

either

intensity

(where i t

for

exists

c om ple tely p e r m i s s i v e ,

or

has

two di m e nsi o ns :

against

something)

on t h e continuum t h a t

through t h e p r e f e r e n t i a l ,

and

(a)

its

(b)

its

ran ge s from th e
t o t h e mandatory)

(Gross e t a l . , 1958).
Extension
gan’s

Paraprofessionals.

Extension

county l e v e l ,

system

are

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s w i t h i n Mich i­

non-Boa rd- ap po inted

employees

at

the

s u p e r v is e d by an Extension Agent, who he lp t h e agent

perform s e l e c t e d management f u n c t i o n s and who work with v o l u n t e e r s
to d e liv e r

programs

and

activities

that

do not

require

specific

17

s u b j e c t - m a t t e r e x p e r t i s e in r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e U n i v e r s i t y ( R i t c h i e &
S t i t s w o r t h , 1987).

They can be funded by Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

a n d / o r an i n d i v i d u a l c ou nt y .

(C oll eg e d e g r e e s a r e no t r e q u i r e d f o r

these p o sitio n s.)
Middle-management p o s i t i o n s .

For t h e purpose o f t h i s

s tu d y ,

t h e t e r m s " m i d - m a n a g e r , " " m i d d l e m a n a g e r , " and "mid -m a na ge me nt
p o s i t i o n in t h e C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e " a l l r e f e r t o a le v e l
of p o sitio n
Regional

w ithin

the

Extension

Extension

S upervisors,

organization
D istrict

referred

D irectors,

to

as

Regional

D i r e c t o r s , D i s t r i c t Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , o r Area D i r e c t o r s .
Perceive.

In t h i s s tu d y , t h e term " p e r c e i v e " i s d e f i n e d as "to

become aware through t h e s e n s e s , as o f s i g h t , h e a r i n g , e t c . ; a c q u i r e
a mental

impr ession o f , from t h e immediate p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f sens es

modified

by t h e r e a c t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d

by a t t e n t i o n ,

in terests,

pre v io u s e x p e r i e n c e , e t c . " ( The Winston D i c t i o n a r y . 1946, p. 719).
Position.

The l o c a t i o n o f an a c t o r o r c l a s s

of actors

in a

system o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t c o n t a i n one o r more r o l e s with
a s s o c i a t e d norms.
Regional
visor

Extension S u p e r v i s o r .

in Michigan

within

the

is

Extension

The Regional

Ex tens ion Su pe r­

a middle-management

adm inistrative

organization.

six

The

Regional

position
Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s a r e a c c o u n ta b le t o t h e A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r f o r Programs
and

are

Extension
regions.

adm inistratively
S e rv ic e

units

responsible
at

the

county

for

10

level

to
in

21

C ooper at i ve

their

respective

18
R o le .

A s e t o f e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d s a p p l i e d t o an incumbent o f

a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n (Gross e t a l . , 1958).
Role c o n f l i c t .

A l a c k o f consensus in t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s held

f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r by
o t h e r a c t o r s in t h e Exten sio n o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Role c o n s e n s u s .

Agreement on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s held by two or

more groups o f a c t o r s in t h e Exten sio n o r g a n i z a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o th e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
This st ud y was s u b j e c t t o t h e fo ll o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s :
1.

The study

was l i m i t e d

to the

adm inistrative

role

o f th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r and was not concerned w it h a d m i n i s t r a ­
tive

roles

performed by incumbents in o t h e r p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n

th e

organization.
2.

The study

was l i m i t e d

to the

adm inistrative

role

o f th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s and not t h e i r programming r o l e s .
3.

The study focused

Extension

Supervisor

and

o nly
not

on
on

the

the

roles

of

perceptions

the
held

Regional
regarding

middle-management p o s i t i o n s in o t h e r Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
4.

The re s p o n se s

judgments

r e c e i v e d were

and e x p e r i e n c e w i t h

the

lim ited

to

the

adm inistrative

respondents’
role

of

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan.
5.
to

any

The study had a time l i m i t a t i o n and was t h e r e f o r e
o c cu r re n c e s

taking

place

within

the

organization

subject
b e fo re

19
December 1988 or d u ri n g when t h e survey was taken (December 1988 to
March 1989).
6.

The l e n g t h

Regional

of the

survey

i n s tr u m e n t

used

todefine

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e

th e

in Michigan

as

i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t should be performed might
have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e l a r g e number o f nonresponse** in t h i s s t u d y .
7.

The Extension P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s

were two re sp ond en t groups who have l i m i t e d
Regional

Extension

Supervisor

position

in

association
Michigan.

w it h

the

Therefore,

t h e i r r e s p o n s e s might have been based more on g u e s s e s th a n a c t u a l
knowledge o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e
w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
8.

The p o p u l a t i o n

professional

used

in

th is

and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

study

was

lim ited

to

E x t e n s i o n e m p l o y e e s who had

programmatic r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and di d not t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f Extension s e c r e t a r i e s and o t h e r s u p p o r t s t a f f o r th e
p e r c e p t i o n s held by county a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and Extension c l i e n t e l e .
Overview
Chapter I d e a l t w it h p ro vi di ng a h i s t o r i c a l
supervisory p o sitio n
Michigan,

the

in

the

Cooperative

Extension

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e background f o r

s tu d y ,

a description

s tu d y ,

the

overview o f
Service

c on duc ti ng

the
in
th e

o f th e r e s e a r c h problem and purposes o f th e

importance o f t h e s tu dy ,

l i m i t a t i o n s o f th e s tu d y .

definition

o f te rm s ,

and th e

20

Chapter I I p ro v id e s a summary o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and con cep tua l
f o u n d a t i o n s ta ken from t h e l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o r o l e t h e o r y and
adm inistrative/organizational
review

of

the

literature

theory.

pertaining

The c h a p t e r a l s o p r o v i d e s a
to

related

studies

of

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f County Extension D i r e c t o r s , t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­
tive

r o l e o f middle managers,

and s t u d i e s r e l a t i n g

t o t h e middle

manager’ s r o l e in g e n e r a l .
The pro c e du res used in p la nnin g and con duc ting t h e s tu d y are
d e s c r i b e d in Chapter I I I .
Chapter IV c o n t a i n s t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e stu dy wit h r e f e r e n c e t o
t h e s p e c i f i c hypotheses being t e s t e d .
Chapter V p r e s e n t s t h e summary and c o n c l u s i o n s

based on th e

d a t a o b t a i n e d and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s s tu d y , with s u g g e s t i o n s
f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h in t h i s a r e a .

CHA PT E R II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This s tu d y involved an a n a l y s i s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f
the

Regional

f o u n d a ti o n

Extension

Supervisor

on which t h e

in

stud y was

Michigan.

conceptualized

The

theoretical

evolved

from a

review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e on r o l e t h e o r y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / o r g a n i z a ­
tio n al theory.
role

of

In a d d i t i o n , s t u d i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

County

middle managers,

Extension

D irectors,

and s t u d i e s

that

the

dealt

adm inistrative
with t h e

role

role

of

o f middle

managers in gener al were i n v e s t i g a t e d .
The review o f l i t e r a t u r e in t h i s c h a p t e r i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e
major c a t e g o r i e s :

(a)

role

theory,

(b)

adm inistrative/organiza­

t i o n a l t h e o r y , and (c) s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e problem being i n v e s t i ­
gated.

The f i r s t s t e p in r e s e a r c h i n g any problem i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e

t h e o r e t i c a l fo un d a ti o n on which t h e r e s e a r c h w i l l be ba sed .

Theory,

as d e f i n e d by t h e Winston D i c t i o n a r y (1946), i s :
(1) a t e n t a t i v e s t a t e m e n t o f a s u p p o s e d p r i n c i p l e o r
r e l a t i o n s h i p , as o f cause and e f f e c t , advanced t o e x p l a i n f a c t s
as ob ser ved ; a working h y p o t h e s i s ; a h y p o t h e s i s t h a t has been
p a r t l y or l a r g e l y v e r i f i e d by f a c t s ; (b) an a n a l y s i s o f a s e t
o f f a c t s , c o n d i t i o n s , e t c . , c o n s i d e r e d in an imaginary and
i d e a l l y s i m p l i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p t o each o t h e r ; (3) t h e a b s t r a c t
p r i n c i p l e s and e s t a b l i s h e d t r u t h s o f any body o f r e l a t e d f a c t s ;
e s p e c i a l l y , a c o l l e c t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e s g i v i n g a more o r l e s s
complete and rounded view o f an a r t o r s c i e n c e ; (4) a s p e c u l a ­
t i v e view o r o p i n i o n , not n e c e s s a r i l y founded on f a c t ; an
i n t e l l i g e n t , a f a n c i f u l , o r a s p e c u l a t i v e g u e ss , (p. 1031)

21

22

W ebster’ s

C ollegiate

Dictionary

(1946)

looked

at

theory

a

l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t l y when i t d e f i n e d t h e o r y as:
(1) Con templation ; s p e c u l a t i o n ; (2) t h e a n a l y s i s o f a s e t of
f a c t s in t h e i r i d e a l r e l a t i o n s t o one a n o t h e r ; (3) t h e g e ne r al
o r a b s t r a c t p r i n c i p l e s o f any body o f f a c t s ; p u r e , as
d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a p p l i e d , s c i e n c e o r a r t ; (4) a more o r l e s s
p la u sib le or s c i e n t i f i c a l l y acceptable general p rin c ip le
o f f e r e d t o e x p l a i n phenomena; (5) l o o s e l y , a h y p o t h e s i s ; a
g u e s s , (p. 1035)
Theories,
general

and

knowledge.
that

was

by d e f i n i t i o n ,

abstract

a r e not p r e c i s e ,

principles

relating

For t h e purpose o f t h i s
chosen

as

the

study,

cornerstones

for

to

concrete f a c ts
a

specific

but

body

of

t h e body o f knowledge
s tu d y in g

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan was l i t e r a t u r e

role

of

relating

t o t h e o r i e s o f r o l e s and t h e o r i e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n / o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Role Theory
Role t h e o r y ,

acc or din g t o Brous sine and G u e r r i e r (1983),

is

a

u s e f u l way o f p u t t i n g i n t o some s o r t o f framework t h e p r e s s u r e s t h a t
middle managers f r e q u e n t l y e x p e r i e n c e .

The purpose o f r o l e th e o r y

i<; t o examine t h e extent to which the situation that neonle find
the mselves i n - - t h e

" p a r t " th e y a r e p l a y i n g - - s h a p e s t h e i r b e h a v i o r ,

regardless

of individual

Situations

shape

p e r c e p t i o n o f th e way in which th e y e x p e c t people t o behave

in a

w ill

try ,

more

or

less

other

people

strongly,

will

or values.
some

and

because

attitu d es,

have

role

b e h a v io r

perso n alities,

to

impose

th eir

d e f i n i t i o n s upon them.
The co ncept
assumed

a

key

of ro le ,
p osition

acc or din g t o
in

the

Gross e t

field s

of

al.

(1958),

sociology,

has

social

23
psychology,

and

cultural

an thr op ol og y.

S tu d e n ts

of

the

social

s c i e n c e s f r e q u e n t l y use i t as a c e n t r a l term in co nceptual schemes
f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n i n g o f s o c i a l systems
and f o r th e e x p l a n a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l b e ha vio r .
Most o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g t o r o l e t h e o r y can be t r a c e d to
the

works

of

Linton,

Pa rs o ns ,

and Davis.

Linton’s

theoretical

framework s u b s c r i b e s t o d e f i n e r o l e s in terms o f normative c u l t u r a l
patterns

(Gross e t

a l .,

1958).

Parsons’s

framework s u b s c r i b e s t o d e f i n e a r o l e
o r i e n t a t i o n system o f an i n d i v i d u a l

as

(1 9 5 1 )

"a s e c t o r

theo retical
of the

total

a c t o r which i s o r ga ni z ed about

e x p e c t a t i o n s in r e l a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n c o n t e x t ,

that

i s i n t e g r a t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f v a l u e - s t a n d a r d s which govern
i n t e r a c t i o n with one or more a l t e r s in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e complementary
r o l e s " (pp. 38 -3 9) .
th e

theoretical

Davis (1949), on th e o t h e r hand, s u b s c r ib e d to

framework t h a t

defines

role

in terms

i n d i v i d u a l a c t u a l l y performs in a given p o s i t i o n ,

of

"how an

as d i s t i n c t

from

how he i s supposed t o perform in t h a t r o l e " (p. 90).
A f t e r an e x t e n s i v e review o f t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n

of role,

Neiman and Hughes (1951) concluded:
Hypotheses in v olv in g t h e concept r o l e a re extre mely r a r e in
literature.
This r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e u t i l i t y o f
co nce pt.
I f a concept i s usef ul in t h e f i e l d , i s i t
l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t one would f i n d varying hypotheses in
research l i t e r a t u r e p u ttin g the concept to the t e s t
e mp iri ca l re s e a r c h ? This i s not t r u e o f t h e concept r o l e .
149)

the
th e
not
th e
of
(p.

They a l s o observed t h a t :
The concept r o l e is a t p r e s e n t s t i l l r a t h e r vague.
F re que nt ly
in t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h e concept i s used w it h o u t any atte m pt on
th e p a r t o f th e w r i t e r t o d e f i n e or d e l i m i t t h e c o n c e p t, t h e

24
assumption being t h a t both t h e w r i t e r and r e a d e r w i l l
an immediate co m pa ti ble co ns e nsu s, (p. 149)
The

term

different

"role"

authors

sciences,

but

and

th ree

conceptualizations.
locations

(b)

has

been

used

by d i f f e r e n t
basic

in

groups

ideas

They a r e

th at

many

different
w ithin

appear

ways

the

in

individuals

a ch ie ve

social

most

(a)

in

behave (c) with r e f e r e n c e t o e x p e c t a t i o n s

by

role
social

(Gross e t

a l . , 1958).
Linton has been c r e d i t e d by many a u t h o r s in t h e l i t e r a t u r e on
role

theory

volumes:

fo r his

definition

of role

The Study o f Man (19361

P e r s o n a l i t v (1945).
and r o l e c o n c e p t s ,

and

status

and The C u l t u r a l

in

two major

Background o f

As a b a s i s f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s t a t u s
Linton (1936) s a i d t h a t t h r e e s e p a r a t e e lements

a r e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r th e e x i s t e n c e o f a s o c i e t y :
. . .
an a g g re g a te o f i n d i v i d u a l s , an o r g a n iz e d system o f
p a t t e r n s by which t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s e
i n d i v i d u a l s a r e c o n t r o l l e d , and t h e e s p r i t de c o rp s which
p ro v id e s motive power f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e p a t t e r n s , (p.
107)
I ^ M^ AM

^4n -4
T•! n ^ <
4

u n i A

L i i i c u n u c i i i i cu i u i c

looked

at

societal

iii

systems

b l u e p r i n t s f o r b e h a v io r .
w hic h c o n t r o l

«M

♦ Atnm n

n

t c i Hid u i

as

a

wA

n A -I . . n*

m • 1 A . I ,« W
1

i i u u u a L i v e t u i iui di

cultural

u n 4- X n i . » A

patterns

phenomenon,

a

set

nu J

emu

of

I t i s " th e sum t o t a l o f t h e i d e a l p a t t e r n s

the re c ip ro c a l

behavior

b e tw e e n

between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y " (p. 105).

individuals

and

According t o Lin ton:

S t a t u s and r o l e r e p r e s e n t a con cep tua l e l a b o r a t i o n o f th e
" i d e a l p a t t e r n s which c o n t r o l r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r . "
Statuses
a re " th e p o l a r p o s i t i o n s in . . . p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l
b e h a v i o r . . . . A s t a t u s , as d i s t i n c t from t h e i n d i v i d u a l who
may occupy i t , i s simply a c o l l e c t i o n o f r i g h t s and d u t i e s . " A
r o l e r e p r e s e n t s t h e dynamic a s p e c t o f s t a t u s . . . . When t h e
i n d i v i d u a l pu ts t h e r i g h t s and d u t i e s which c o n s t i t u t e th e
s t a t u s i n t o e f f e c t , he i s performing a r o l e . (pp. 113, 114)

25

In some d e f i n i t i o n s ,

a c c or di ng t o Gross e t a l . (1958), a r o l e

i s t r e a t e d as an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f h i s / h e r s i t u a t i o n with
r e f e r e n c e t o h i s / h e r and o t h e r s ’ s o c i a l p o s i t i o n s .
d e f i n e d a p e r s o n ’ s r o l e as

S a rg e nt

"a p a t t e r n o r type o f s o c i a l

(1951)

be h a v io r

which seems s i t u a t i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o him in terms o f t h e demands
and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h o s e in h i s group" (p. 360).
d e f i n e d r o l e s as "having i n g r e d i e n t s o f c u l t u r a l ,
of s itu a tio n a l determination.

S a rg e nt f u r t h e r
of personal,

and

But ne ver i s a r o l e wholly c u l t u r a l ,

wholly p e r s o n a l , or wholly s i t u a t i o n a l " (p. 359).
Da vis ’ s

(1949)

definition

of

role

dealt

w it h

role

as

the

be ha vio r o f a c t o r s occupying s o c i a l p o s i t i o n s :
How an i n d i v i d u a l a c t u a l l y performs in a give n p o s i t i o n , as
d i s t i n c t from how he i s supposed t o perform, we c a l l h i s r o l e .
The r o l e , t h e n , i s t h e manner in which a person a c t u a l l y
c a r r i e s ou t t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f h i s p o s i t i o n .
I t i s the
dynamic a s p e c t o f s t a t u s o r o f f i c e and as such i s always
i n f l u e n c e d by f a c t o r s o t h e r than t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s o f th e
p o s i t i o n i t s e l f , (p. 90)
According t o Parsons and S h i l s (1951):
Cnv*

I VI

m« r f

I I I V ^ lr

^ w ^ 1 w f <1 ^ ^ 1

O l l U t J V I W U I

p u i

Vlie

a »*41

HI Vi ? V

^ n n i ^

^ l ^ j l l l l

I V ttllb

im

i 41

U I I H

r\£

VI

s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s n ot t h e person but t h e r o l e .
The r o l e is
t h a t o r g a n i z e d s e c t o r o f an a c t o r ’ s o r i e n t a t i o n in an
i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s . I t in v ol v e s a s e t o f complementary e xpe c­
t a t i o n s conce rni ng h i s own a c t i o n s and t h o s e o f o t h e r s with
whom he i n t e r a c t s . But t h e a c t o r and th o s e with whom he i n t e r ­
acts possess these exp ec ta tio n s.
Roles a r e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d
when t h e y a re f u l l y congruous wit h t h e p r e v a i l i n g c u l t u r e
p a t t e r n s and a re o r g a n iz e d around e x p e c t a t i o n s o f conform it y
with m ora ll y s a n c t i o n e d p a t t e r n s o f value o r i e n t a t i o n s shared
by t h e members o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y in which t h e r o l e f u n c t i o n s ,
(p. 27)
In reviewing th e l i t e r a t u r e con cer nin g r o l e t h e o r y , i t i s c l e a r
t h a t t h e r e are many d i f f e r e n t vie w poi nts con cer nin g t h e co ncept of
role.

Gross e t a l .

(1958)

p o in te d o u t ,

however,

that

almost a l l

26

a u t h o r s have used t h e r o l e co ncept t o embrace t h e normative element
o f s o c i a l b e h a v io r .

People do no t behave in a random manner; t h e i r

be h a v io r i s in f l u e n c e d t o some e x t e n t by t h e i r own e x p e c t a t i o n s and
those

of

others

participants.

in

the

group

or

society

in

w hi c h

are

The l a c k o f consensus among a u t h o r s who have w r i t t e n

about r o l e s and r o l e t h e o r y i s s t r i c t l y d e f i n i t i o n a l .
hav e

they

included

the

idea

of

role

in

the

concept

Some a u t h o r s
of

statu s

or

p o s i t i o n s , o t h e r s have inc lu de d t h e idea o f r o l e in a d i s c u s s i o n o f
r o l e t h e o r y , but n e a r l y a l l have inc lud ed i t somewhere.

What Linton

and Newcomb d e f i n e d as r o l e , Davis e t a l . d e f i n e d as a s t a t u s .

What

Davis e t a l . d e f i n e d as a r o l e , Newcomb c a l l e d r o l e b e h a v i o r .
A p p l i c a t i o n s o f Role Theory
The Co operative Extension S e r v i c e ,

as a s o c i a l

system,

le nds

i t s e l f t o t h e stud y o f r o l e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s and p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n th e
o rganization.

There

are

many r o l e s

w ithin

the

system ,

ea c h

i n f l u e n c e d by many r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s held by key p l a y e r s both w i t h i n
and o u t s i d e

the

organization.

T he s e

a u t h o r i t y d e le g a te d through fe d e ra l

roles

and s t a t e

agreements wi th l o c a l county governmental u n i t s ,
whom Extension s e r v e s .
within

and

outside

the

are

supported

by

regulations,

by

and by t h e people

In a d d i t i o n , th e informal a r ra n ge m en ts , both
organization,

su pport

and

influence

the

e x p e c t a t i o n s held toward and co ns e que nt ly t h e b e h a v io r o f incumbents
in d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s .
The Regional
in

this

study,

Extension S u p e rv is o r (RS),
was

e xa m in ed

in

as t h e foc al

relationship

position
to

five

27

counter-positions.
Paraprofessionals

The c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s

(PA),

(b)

County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s

County
(CED),

w e re

Extens ion

(d)

th is

as

the

Extension

Agents

(CEA),

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

and (e) t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / P r o g r a m Team (APT).
described

(a)

p osition-centric

Gross e t a l .

model,

(c)
(ES),

(1958)

illu strated

in

F ig ur e 1.
When

studying

the

elem ents

of

the

c om ple x

positional

s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e fo c a l p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e v a r i o u s
counter-positions,

t h e con cep t o f p o s i t i o n a l

positional

acc or din g t o Gross e t a l . ,

sector,

sectors
is

is

used.

A

s p e c i f i e d by th e

r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a fo c a l p o s i t i o n t o a s i n g l e c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n and i s
d e f i n e d as an element o f t h e r e l a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f a p o s i t i o n .
In a d a p ti n g
Regional

the

position-centric

model

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n ,

concluded

that

th e

Regional

Extension

to

the

Gross e t

s tu d y

of

th e

a l . would have

Supervisor’s

position,

as

p e r c e iv e d by p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , may be c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t than
c+nrlv/inn
i' t ac rnprroivpH
hv thp
rmintv
Fvt.pnsinn
Aapnt.s
nr
hv
anv
nf
“■«/ •
—
„/
y
. - •■
v •
• •
-•
-y
v
"

t h e o t h e r c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s t h e y a r e a s s o c i a t e d wit h in Michi gan ’ s
Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

As a r e s u l t , i t i s more meaningful t o study

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e
o t h e r c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n in o r d e r t o a r r i v e
a t t h e b r o a d e r e x p e c t a t i o n s held by t h e t o t a l Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n
f o r th e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r and t o det er mi ne
the

degre e

of,

or

lack

of,

role

consensus

c o u n ter-p o sitio n s within the o rganization.

between

the

various

28

C o u n te r - P o s itio n
(CEA)
C o u n te r - P o s itio n
(PA)

C o u n te r - P o s itio n
(CED)

C o u n te r - P o s itio n
(ES)

Focal
P o s itio n
(RS)

C o u n te r-P o si t i on
(APT)

Figure 1:

P o s i t i o n - c e n t r i c model. (Adapted t o t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e from Gross e t a l . ,
1958, pp. 50- 56.)

29
The p o s i t i o n - c e n t r i c model
framework

for

fo c u s in g

on

as used in t h i s

one

position

and

stud y pro v id e s

examining

the

a

role

e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r i t by a s e r i e s o f f i v e c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s .
Bates (1956), in w r i t i n g about r o l e and p o s i t i o n ,

incorporated

t h e concept o f r o l e and p o s i t i o n as i t a p p l i e s t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f
"father."

He d e fi n e d p o s i t i o n as a l o c a t i o n in a s o c i a l

which i s a s s o c i a t e d with a s e t o f s o c i a l norms.
social p o sitio n c o n sistin g of a
subset of social

norms t h a t

be hav io r

Role i s a p a r t o f a

more or l e s s i n t e g r a t e d o r r e l a t e d

i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from o t h e r s e t s of

norms forming t h e same p o s i t i o n .
commonly held

structure

He d e f i n e d norm as a p a t t e r n e d or

expectation-^

learned

response,

held

in

common by members o f a group.
Figure 2 i l l u s t r a t e s B a t e s ’ s concept o f r o l e and p o s i t i o n as i t
applies

to

the

position

of

"fath er."

In

th is

study

of

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f Regional S u p e r v i s o r s , we a r e d e a l i n g with t h e
position

held by s i x

individuals

at

the

mid-management

level

in

Michigan.
I f one were to

describe

S up e rv is o r in Figure 2,
many r o l e s .

In

th is

the

position

of

Regional

Extension

one would f i n d t h e p o s i t i o n d i v i d e d
study,

we a r e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e of th e Regional

concerned
Extension

only

into

with

the

Supervisor,

and

conse que ntl y we must be concerned with t h e norms or commonly held
beh avior

expectations

for

their

administrative

role

and

not

norms a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r o t h e r r o l e s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

th e

30

Norm

Role 2

Norm
Norm
Role 1
Role 3

Norm
Norm

POSITION

Other Roles

Playmates

POSITION OF FATHER

Figure 2:

P o s i t i o n , r o l e s , and norms.
1956, p. 314. )

(Adapted from Bat es,

31
Role Consensus and C o n f l i c t
Determining

role

consensus

and/or

role

conflict

f a c t o r in most r o l e s t u d i e s .

Gross and

t h e i r work on r o l e a n a l y s i s ,

r e c og niz e d r o l e consensus

variable

in t h e st u dy o f r o l e s .

his

is

the

key

a s s o c i a t e s (195 8) ,

Many s o c i a l

in

as a major

anthropologists

and

s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have made t h e assumption t h a t consensus e x i s t s on
the

expectations

applied

to

incumbents

of

p a rtic u la r positions.

Gross e t a l . p o in te d o u t t h i s p o s t u l a t e in t h e f o ll o w i n g s t a t e m e n t :
Involved in many, but not a l l , f o r m u l a t i o n s o f t h e r o l e co ncept
in t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e l i t e r a t u r e i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
consensus e x i s t s on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s a p p l i e d t o t h e incumbents
o f p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n s , (p. 21)
Role c o n f l i c t was d e s c r i b e d by Bates (1956) as fo l l o w s :
Whatever th e typ e o f r o l e c o n f l i c t , i t a r i s e s out o f th e
p a t t e r n e d e x p e c t a t i o n s o r norms which form t h e c o n t e n t s of
roles.
As a c on c e p ti o n i t ex clu des c o n f l i c t s a r i s i n g from
p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s be tw e e n a c t o r s , c o n f l i c t due t o
im p e r f e c t or f a u l t y l e a r n i n g o f norms which comprise r o l e s , and
c o n f l i c t which i s s i t u a t i o n a l l y i n d u c e d a m o u n t i n g t o a
maladjustment between t h e c o n t e n t s o f a r o l e and t h e s i t u a t i o n
in which i t i s f u n c t i o n i n g as a b e h a v io r e x p e c t a t i o n , (p. 314)
According to Nix (1960), r o l e c o n f l i c t may a r i s e from what th e
a c t o r p e r c e i v e s as " l e g i t i m a t e " e x p e c t a t i o n s ( p e r c e i v e d o b l i g a t i o n s )
or

from " i l l e g i t i m a t e "

conflict

is

resulting

expectations

considered

from an

arising

a c to r’s

(perceived

pressures).

Role

from i n c o m p a t i b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

occupancy

of

"single"

as

w ell

as

" m u l t i p l e " r o l e s o r p o s i t i o n s ( i n t r a - r o l e and i n t e r - r o l e c o n f l i c t s ) .
Nix

further

d e fi n e d

role

conflict

as

a condition

in

which

th e

occupant o f a focal r o l e o r r o l e s ( p o s i t i o n o r p o s i t i o n s ) p e r c e i v e s
that

h e /s h e

i s c o n f r o n t e d with

in co m p a ti b le

expectations

and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s w i t h i n t h e s o c i o c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r e ) .

(strains

32

Role c o n f l i c t s ,
arise

when t h e

according

expectations

to

Broussine

about

and G u e r r i e r

a p articular

(1983),

position

are

d i f f e r e n t from th e viewpoint o f t h e incumbent o f t h e p o s i t i o n and
th e o t h e r

role

sende rs

a s s o c i a t e d with

the

position.

C onflicts

a r i s e when th e incumbent o f a p o s i t i o n sees h i s / h e r r o l e d i f f e r e n t l y
from th e way o t h e r s are d e f i n i n g i t f o r him/h er.
Another f a c t o r t h a t

is

likely

to a f f e c t th e e x t e n t to which

t h e r e w i l l be r o l e c o n f l i c t i s whether t h e r o l e in q u e s t i o n o p e r a t e s
a t th e top o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t or a t t h e bottom.

Broussine

and G u e r r i e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t , as a general r u l e , t h e h i g h e r one i s in
an o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

th e l a r g e r one’ s r o l e

set will

be and t h e

more

c o n f l i c t s t h e r e are l i k e l y to be between t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f h i s / h e r
d i f f e r e n t r o l e se nd e rs .
Because of

the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f

roles

and

role

sets, i t

is

p o s s i b l e f o r an in d iv id u a l to face a s i t u a t i o n o f t h e simultaneous
occurrence

of

two

or

more

role

requirem ents

for

which

nprformancp of one p re c lu des the performance o f t h e o t h e r s .

the
When

t h i s o c cu r s, the I n d iv id ua l fa c es a s i t u a t i o n o f r o l e c o n f l i c t .
Gibson, Ivancevlch, and Donnelly (1973) d e f i n e d t h r e e forms of
role c o n flic t:
1.

Person-role

conflict.

This c o n f l i c t oc cur s

requirem en ts v i o l a t e

the b a s ic v a lu e s , a t t i t u d e s ,

in d iv id u a l occupying

the p o s i t i o n .

2.

Intrarole c o n flic t.

and

when

role

needs o f

the

This c o n f l i c t occurs when d i f f e r e n t

i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s r o l e acc ord ing t o d i f f e r e n t s e t s

33
of expectations,

making i t

im po s si ble t o s a t i s f y

all.

Thus,

be h a v io r may be s a t i s f a c t o r y t o some bu t not t o o t h e r s .

his

Thi s

is

more l i k e l y t o occur when a given r o l e has a complex r o l e s e t ( t h a t
i s , many d i f f e r e n t r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) .
3.

Interrole c o n f lic t.

multiple ro le s .

This typ e o f c o n f l i c t i s t h e r e s u l t o f

I t oc cur s because i n d i v i d u a l s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y pla y

many r o l e s , some of which have c o n f l i c t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s (p. 274).
Behavioral s c i e n t i s t s agr ee t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l c o n f r o n t e d with
role

co n flict

w ill

act

d issatisfactio n ,

or o th e r

( F i n l e y & House,

1969).

conflict

w ith

indecision,

indications
While t h e r e

t h a t managers can do l i t t l e

emotional

strain ,

of psychological
are

certain

t o av oid ,

kinds

there

stress
of

role

a re c e r t a i n

t y p e s t h a t can be minimized (Gibson e t a l . , 1973).
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s are o f t e n caught in what Gibson
e t a l . r e f e r r e d t o as i n t e r r o l e c o n f l i c t in t h a t t h e y a r e ex pe c te d
t o behave in accordance wit h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f management as well
as t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Extension s t a f f they r e p r e s e n t in t h e i r
respective regions.
t h e Regional

A p o s s i b l e outcome from a stu dy o f t h e r o l e o f

Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan, t h e r e f o r e ,

i s t o be

a b l e t o d e f i n e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n , which
w i l l maximize r o l e consensus and minimize r o l e c o n f l i c t .
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory
To e s t a b l i s h
functions

that

an u n d e r s ta n d in g

may

be

applicable

S e r v i c e and, more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,

of

the

to

the

various

adm inistrative

Co op era ti ve

Extension

t o th e st u dy o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

34
r o l e o f t h e Regional

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan’ s Extension

o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t i s im p e r a t i v e t o review t h e l i t e r a t u r e on a d m in is ­
t r a t i v e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y .
One o f t h e e a r l i e s t a t t e m p t s t o a nal yz e a s p e c t s o f t h e problem
o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s ig n was conducted by Ta y lo r and h i s f o l l o w e r s .
The id e as and te c h n i q u e s t h a t r e s u l t e d from T a y l o r ’ s work a r e known
as s c i e n t i f i c management.
level

The focu s was t h e work done a t t h e low est

in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o a n a ly z e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e

ph y s ic a l n a t u r e o f work and t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e workers
t o de te r m in e j o b d e f i n i t i o n s .

The focus o f s c i e n t i f i c management,

acc o rd in g t o Gibson e t a l . (1973), was q u i t e narrow in t h a t i t di d
not propose s o l u t i o n s t o t h e br o a d e r and more a b s t r a c t problems o f
d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n , spans o f c o n t r o l , and d e l e g a t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y .
The m a j o r
p articu larly

theme

of

scien tific

b l u e - c o l l a r w ork ,

management

c an be s t u d i e d

is

th at

w ork ,

scien tifically .

T a y lo r b e l i e v e d t h a t o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s e s o f f a c t s and d a t a c o l l e c t e d
in t h e workplace could p ro vi de t h e bases o f d e te r m in in g t h e one b e s t
way t o o r g a n iz e work.
The e s s e n t i a l

ch aracteristics

of the

field

of

scien tific

management can be summarized from T a y l o r ’ s (1947) own w r i t i n g s :
First:

Develop a s c i e n c e f o r each element o f

a man’ s work

which r e p l a c e s th e o ld r u l e - o f - t h u m b method.
S e c ond :

S cien tifically

s e l e c t and t h e n t r a i n ,

teach,

and

develop t h e workman, whereas in t h e p a s t he chose h i s own work and
t r a i n e d h i m s e l f as b e s t he cou ld.

35
T hi rd:

H e a r t i l y c o o p e r a t e with t h e men so as t o i n s u r e a l l o f

t h e work being done in accordance with t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e s c i e n c e
which has been developed.
Fourth:

There

is

almost an equal

division

o f work and

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between management and t h e workmen.
takes

over

all

work f o r

which

th e y

are

workmen, w hi le in t h e p a s t , almost a l l o f

better

the

The management
fitted

tha n

the

t h e work and th e g r e a t e r

p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y were thrown upon t h e men (pp. 3 6 -3 7 ) .
Ta ylo r b e l i e v e d t h a t ,
o f work, t h e t o t a l

through t h e more e f f i c i e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n

supply could be in c r e a s e d and each p a r t i c i p a n t ’ s

s h a r e could i n c r e a s e w it h o u t red uci ng any o t h e r ’ s s h a r e .
if

Therefore,

both managers and workers perform t h e i r t a s k s more e f f i c i e n t l y ,

both p r o f i t s

( t h e concern o f managers)

and wages

( t h e concern o f

workers) could i n c r e a s e .
Classical

organizational

Taylor’s s c i e n t i f i c

th e o r y emerged d u r in g t h e

management philos oph y was g a i n i n g

The focus o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e

in c l a s s i c a l

organizational

time when
popularity.
th e o r y was

on t h e t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , not simply t h e work performed in one p a r t
of

the

organization.

organizational

The

main

th e o r y was t h e development o f

c a lle d p rin c ip le s of organization.
as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c t u a l
others

contribution

and were

int e nd e d

a set

classical

of guidelines

These p r i n c i p l e s were developed

experiences
to

of

help

as

other

managers o f F a y o l’ s

and

managers in s o l v i n g

the

problems o f o r g a n i z a t i o n d e s i g n .
Henri

Fayol,

one

ofthe

early

w riters

in

classical

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y , proposed a number o f p r i n c i p l e s t h a t he found

36

useful

in t h e management o f a l a r g e c o a l- m in in g company in Fr ance.

Gibson e t

al.

(1973)

atte m pt ed t o

interpret

and c l a s s i f y

Fayol’ s

p r i n c i p l e s , as shown in Table 1.
The items t h a t have been grouped under t h e heading S t r u c t u r a l
P r i n c i p l e s p ro v id e g u i d e l i n e s f o r c r e a t i n g a system of i n t e r r e l a t e d
t a s k s and a u t h o r i t y .
Principles

focu s

The items grouped under t h e heading Pr ocess

on t h e

actions

o f managers

as

th e y

direct

o r g a n i z a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y as managers r e l a t e t o s u b o r d i n a t e s .

the
The

items grouped under t h e heading End-Result P r i n c i p l e s a re t h o s e t h a t
define the d e s ir a b le c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the org an izatio n .

Table 1 .- - A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f F a y o l’ s p r i n c i p l e s .
Structural Principles

Process P r i n c i p l e s

D i v is io n o f work
Unity o f d i r e c t i o n
Centralization
A u t h o r i t y and

Equity
D iscipline
Remuneration of
personnel

1 C

r r> a m r
p V 11

k ^ 1 ^ + w
1 V 1 1 1 l»Jf

i

vm

S c a l a r chain

Source:

i b jr

vi

End-Result P r i n c i p l e s
Order
Stability
Initiative
E s p r i t de c orp s

wiiiiiioiiu

S u b o r d in a t io n t o
g e ner al i n t e r e s t s

Gibson e t a l . (1973), p. 70.

The m a j o r

contribution

made

by

the

various

s u b s c r ib e d t o

Fa y o l’ s philos oph y o f c l a s s i c a l

was t o

out

point

organization.

the

im portance

of

w riters

organization

a consciously

who

theory

preplanned

37
Weber’ s

(1947)

bureaucratic

organization

theory

describes

a

form, or d e s i g n , o f o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t a s s u r e s p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f the
be hav ior o f employees in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
benefits

of

the

bureaucratic

fo r m ,

To a ch ie v e t h e maximum

Weber

believed

o r g a n i z a t i o n must adopt c e r t a i n de si gn s t r a t e g i e s .

th at

the

Gibson e t

al.

of goals

are

(1973) o u t l i n e d t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s as fo l l o w s :
1.

All

tasks

necessary fo r

the

d i v id e d i n t o h ig h ly s p e c i a l i z e d j o b s .

accomplishment

This s t r a t e g y I s t h e f a m i l i a r

d i v i s i o n - o f - l a b o r p r i n c i p l e , and Weber argued I t s Importance 1n the
usual ways, namely t h a t j o b h o l d e r s could become e x p e r t In t h e i r job s
and could be held r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e performance o f t h e i r
responsibilities.
2.

Each t a s k i s performed acc ord ing t o a " c o n s t a n t system of

a b s t r a c t r u l e s " to a s s u r e u n i fo r m it y and c o o r d i n a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t
t a s k s (Weber, p. 330).

The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s p r a c t i c e 1s t h a t the

manager ca n e l i m i n a t e

uncertainty

in

task

perform ance

due

to

individual d iff e re n c e s .
3.

Each member or o f f i c e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a c c o u n t a b l e to

a superior for his
wielded

and h i s

by s u p e r i o r s

is

based

l e g i t i m a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t
hierarchy.
4.
h is

it

upon e x p e r t

The a u t h o r i t y

knowledge,

and

1t

1s

i s d e l e g a t e d from t h e top o f the

A chain o f command i s th e r e b y c r e a t e d .

Each o f f i c i a l

office

subordinates’ actions.

in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n conducts t h e b u s i n e s s of

in an impe rs ona l,

f o r m a l i s t i c manner.

s o c i a l d i s t a n c e between h i m s e l f and h i s

He m a i n t a i n s

subordinates

a

and c l i e n t s .

The purpose o f t h i s p r a c t i c e i s t o a s s u r e t h a t p e r s o n a l i t i e s do not

'

38

in terfere

w ith

objectives;

the

th ere

efficien t
should

be

accomplishment

of

the

o ffic e ’s

no

d ue

to

personal

favoritism

frien d s h ip s or acquaintances.
5.

"Employment in t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n

tech n ical

qualifications

dismissal"

(Blau,

p.

30).

s e n i o r i t y and achievement.
as a l i f e - l o n g c a r e e r ,

and

is

protected

Sim ilarly,

is

against

promotions

are

based

on

arb itrary
based

upon

Employment in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s viewed

and a high degre e o f l o y a l t y i s engendered

(p. 74).
In comparing t h e l i t e r a t u r e

of c la s s ic a l

and b u r e a u c r a t i c t h e o r y , a s i m i l a r i t y e x i s t s

organization

th e o r y

in t h e acknowledgment

o f d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r as an a p p r o p r i a t e means f o r accom plishing work.
Both

Fayol

and Weber

managerial s t r a t e g y .
of

organization

is

identified

specialization

as

an

im p o r ta n t

A major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two t h e o r i e s
the

amount

of

latitude

permitted

in

their

applications.

A c c o rding to Gulick and Urwick (1937).

Fayol

identified five

f u n c t i o n s t h a t he c o n s id e re d p a r t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b e h a v i o r .

They

are:
1.

To plan means t o study t h e f u t u r e and a r r a n g e t h e pla n of

operations.
2.

To o r g a n iz e means t o b u i l d up m a t e r i a l and human o r g a n i z a ­

t i o n s of t h e b u s i n e s s , o r g a n i z i n g both peo ple and m a t e r i a l s .

3.

To command means to make t h e s t a f f do t h e i r work.

39
4.

To c o o r d i n a t e means t o u n i t e and c o r r e l a t e a l l

activities

of the business.
5.

To co n tr o l means t o see t h a t e v e r y t h i n g i s done in a c c o r d ­

ance with t h e r o l e s which have been l a i d down and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s
which have been given (p. 119).
Most management te xt b o o k s r e f e r t o G u l i c k ’ s acronym POSDCoRB
when w r i t i n g
functions

of

about

G ulick’s in te r p r e ta tio n

an a d m i n i s t r a t o r / m a n a g e r .

o f t h e management

According

to

Gulick

and

Urwick, th e i n i t i a l s s ta n d f o r t h e f o ll o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s :
PLANNING--that i s , working out in broad o u t l i n e t h e t h i n g s t h a t
need t o be done and t h e methods f o r doing them t o

accomplish t h e

purposes s e t f o r t h e e n t e r p r i s e .
ORGANIZING--that i s ,

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e formal

s tru c tu re of

a u t h o r i t y through which work s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e a rr a n g e d , d e f i n e d , and
c o o rd in a te d f o r t h e d e fi n e d o b j e c t i v e .
STAFFING--that i s , t h e whole personnel f u n c t i o n o f b r i n g i n g in
and t r a i n i n g t h e s t a f f and m ain ta in in g f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s o f work.
DIRECTING--that i s , t h e continuous t a s k o f making d e c i s i o n s and
embodying them in s p e c i f i c and gener al o r d e r s and i n s t r u c t i o n s

and

s e r v in g as t h e l e a d e r o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e .
COORDINATING--that i s , th e a l l - i m p o r t a n t duty o f i n t e r r e l a t i n g
t h e v a ri o u s p a r t s o f t h e work.
REPORTING--that
responsible
keeping

is,

keeping

those

to

whom t h e

informed as t o what i s going on,

him s e lf

and

hi s

r e s e a r c h and i n s p e c t i o n .

subordinates

executive

which t h u s

informed

through

is

in c lu d e s
records,

40

BUDGETING, with a l l

t h a t goes on in bu dg e tin g in t h e form o f

f i s c a l p l a n n i n g , a c c o u n t i n g , and c o n t r o l .
Not

everyone,

however,

subscribes

POSDCoRB model o f management.
jobs

in v o lv e

specialized

adm inistration
subject

to

the

usefulness

of

the

Smith (1945) warned t h a t "w hile a l l
each i s

m atter.

We

bound up

think

of

w it h
an

more o r l e s s

individual

doing

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e work not as an a d m i n i s t r a t o r bu t as a businessman, an
army o f f i c e r , o r a c i v i l s e r v a n t " (p. 360).
The c l a s s i c a l

and b u r e a u c r a t i c

t h e o r i e s o f management have been

c l a s s i f i e d by some w r i t e r s as being t r a d i t i o n a l models o f management
theory.

Essentially,

the

traditional

models m a in ta in e d

that

the

c a p a b i l i t y f o r e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making was na rro w ly d i s t r i b u t e d in
o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and t h i s approach th u s l e g i t i m i z e d u n i l a t e r a l c o n t r o l
of organizational
model,

systems

by top management.

According

to that

a s e l e c t group o f owner-managers was a b l e t o d i r e c t

numbers

of

employees

by

carefully

standardizing

and

large

routinizing

t h e i r work and by p l a c i n g t h e p la nnin g f u n c t i o n s s o l e l y in t h e hands
o f top managers.
The
L itterer,

traditional

model

of

management,

a cc o rd in g

to

Jelinek,

and Miles (1986), began t o g i v e way in t h e 1920s t o t h e

human r e l a t i o n s model,

which acc e pte d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

notion t h a t

s u p e r v i s o r de c is io n -m a k in g competence was narrowly d i s t r i b u t e d among
t h e employee p o p u l a t i o n
needs

for

belonging

impersonal

treatment

but emphasized t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f s o c i a l

and

recognition.

was t h e

source o f

This

model

subordinate

argued

that

resistance

to

41
managerial d i r e c t i v e s , and a d h e r e n t s o f t h i s approach urged managers
to

employ

devices

to

enhance

organization

i n v o l v e m e n t and i m p o r t a n c e i n o r d e r t o

members’

feeling

of

im pr ov e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

performance.
Beginning in t h e mid-1950s, t h e human r e s o u r c e s model began to
emerge.

This model, acc ord in g t o J e l i n e k e t a l . , d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t

t h e c a p a c i t y f o r e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making in t h e p u r s u i t o f o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s was widely d i s p e r s e d and t h a t most o r g a n i z a t i o n
members r e p r e s e n t e d untapped r e s o u r c e s which,
c ould c o n s i d e r a b l y enhance o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

i f p r o p e r l y managed,

performance.

The human

r e s o u r c e s model viewed management’ s r o l e n o t as t h a t o f a c o n t r o l l e r
(however
constraints

be n e v o le n t) but
that

blo ck

as

that

organization

of

af a c i l i t a t o r , removing the

members’ s e a r c h

for

ways

to

c o n t r i b u t e m e a n i n g fu ll y in t h e i r work r o l e s .
The
F ollett

fundamental problem
(1924),

in a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

was in devel opin g

harmonious r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

and

a c c o r d in g

to

dynamic

and

maintaining

She a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t c o n f l i c t was not

n e c e s s a r i l y a w a st e fu l o ut br e a k o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s ,

but a normal

p ro c e s s by which s o c i a l l y v a l u a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s r e g i s t e r th em sel ve s
f o r enrichment of a l l concerned.
The s i g n i f i c a n c e
adm inistrative

of

management

t h e human
theory

is

that

r e l a t i o n s movement
it

pl a c e d

in

considerable

importance on "good l e a d e r s h i p , " with emphasis on de m o c r a ti c r a t h e r
th a n

authoritarian

and

em plo ye e-c en te red

c e n t e r e d management s t y l e s .

rather

th a n

production-

42
G e tz e ls

and Guba

(1957)

added t o

the

body o f

knowledge

in

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t h e o r y by de v elop in g t h e model o f b e h a v i o r in s o c i a l
organizations.

According t o them,

The p r o c e s s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d e a l s e s s e n t i a l l y w i t h t h e
c o n d u c t o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r in a h i e r a r c h i c a l s e t t i n g .
S t r u c t u r a l l y , we co nc e iv e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as a s e r i e s o f
s u p e r o r d i n a t e - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n a s o c i a l system.
Functionally, t h i s hierarchy o f r e la t i o n s h i p s is the locus for
a l l o c a t i n g and i n t e g r a t i n g r o l e s , p e r s o n n e l , and f a c i l i t i e s to
achiev e t h e g o a l s o f t h e system, (p. 424)
They conceived o f t h e s o c i a l
phenomena:
activity,

(a)

the

system as having two major c l a s s e s of

nomothetic

or

normative

dimension

of

th e

which i s made up o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s w it h c e r t a i n r o l e s

and e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t w i l l f u l f i l l

t h e g o a l s o f t h e system; and (b)

t h e i d i o g r a p h i c or pe rs on al dimension o f t h e a c t i v i t y , which i s made
up o f t h e

individuals

personalities

and

inhabiting

the

need-dispositions,

system
whose

wi th

their

interactions

certain
comprise

what are g e n e r a l l y c a l l e d " s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s . "
According to G e t z e l s and Guba, i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e d e f i n e d as th e
a g en c ie s e s t a b l i s h e d t o c a r r y out t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d f u n c t i o n s of
gov e rn in g, e d u c a t i n g , p o l i c i n g , and so on, f o r t h e s o c i a l system as
a whole.
defined

Roles, t h e most im por tan t s u b u n i t o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n , are
as t h e

"dynamic a s p e c t "
positions,

structural
of r o l e

offices,

or

elem ents

incumbents
statuses

defining
or

actors.

within

the

the

behavior,

Roles

institu tio n .

or

represent
Roles

w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a r e d e f i n e d in terms o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , and
th e y are i n t e r d e p e n d e n t in t h a t each r o l e d e r i v e s i t s meaning from
o th er re la te d roles within the i n s t i t u t i o n .

43
I n d i v i d u a l s occupying a given r o l e w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l
be c o n f r o n te d by both t h e nomothetic and t h e i d i o g r a p h i c a s p e c t s of
social behavior.
role

into

a discussion

Personality
individual
reactions

G e t z e l s and Guba broke t h e i d i o g r a p h i c a s p e c t o f a

is

defined

o f th o s e
to

the

of
as

personality
the

dynamic

need-dispositions

environment.

and

n eed-disposition.

organization

that

govern

Need-dispositions

within

his/her
are

th e

unique

defined

as

i n d i v i d u a l t e n d e n c i e s t o o r i e n t and a c t w it h r e s p e c t t o o b j e c t s in
certain

manners

and

to

e xp ect

certain

consequences

from

th o s e

to

given

actions.
Incumbents
situ atio n s

in

due

any p o s i t i o n

to

th eir

will

perceived

react
role

differently
expectations

p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s de te r m in in g t h e i r b e h a v i o r .
G e tz e ls and Guba’ s g e n e r a l model o f s o c i a l
that

some a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

their

and

the

F ig ur e 3 summarizes

b e h a v i o r , which im pli es

may be more nomothetic

or

norm ative

in

be h a v io r and o t h e r s may be more i d i o g r a p h i c or per so nal

in

t h e i r be h a v io r .

NOMOTHETIC DIMENSION
In s titu tio n
/

Role

^

Role Expectation

A

A

Social
System

Observed
Behavior
V

Individual -----> P e r s o n a lity ------ > Need-D isposition
IDIOGRAPHIC DIMENSION

Figure 3:

G e tz e ls and Guba’ s gener al model showing t h e nomothetic
and the i d i o g r a p h i c dimensions o f s o c i a l b e h a v io r .
(From G e t z e l s & Guba, 1957, p. 429.)

44

In s tu d y in g t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r in

Michigan, G e tz e ls and Guba’ s model h e lp s p u t i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e why
incumbents in t h e p o s i t i o n behave t h e way t h e y do.
is

based on both t h e r o l e

expectations

that

p o s i t i o n by t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s

are

T h e i r b e h av io r
pl a c e d on t h e i r

in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

as

well as t h e i r own unique n e e d - d i s p o s i t i o n s , which a r e gov erning how
th e y w i l l r e a c t t o t h e i r environment.
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n Versus D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n
One segment
delegation

of ad m in istra tiv e /o rg a n iza tio n

o f a u th o rity within

theory focuses

the organization.

d i v i d e s t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i n t o two a r e a s :

on

The l i t e r a t u r e

c e n t r a l i z e d and d e c e n t r a l ­

iz ed forms o f d e c i s i o n making in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t s .
Ear ly

w riters

in

organizational

theory

(Weber,

Fayol,

and

Tayl or) would have s a i d t h a t d e c i s i o n making should be " a t t h e t o p . "
In t h e i r view, o r g a n i z a t i o n s were c r e a t e d t o c a r r y o u t th e w i l l of
th o s e a t t h e t o p .

They make d e c i s i o n s , and t h e o t h e r peop le in th e

organization

e xecu te

decision

th e

for

the

decisions.

fo ll o wi n g

reasons,

They would
acc ord in g

to

have

made

Jelinek

et

this
a l.

(1986):
1*

Leg itimacy-- P e o p le a t t h e top o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s e i t h e r own

them or a r e app oin ted by t h o s e who do.
2.

E f f i c i e n c y - - I t i s more e f f i c i e n t f o r one o r a few people to

make d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e many.

D u p l i c a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n making could

be e l i m i n a t e d , and co nfu si on as t o which d e c i s i o n s t h a t were t o be
followed avoided.

45

3.

Competence- - I t was a b a s i c assumption o f t h e s e w r i t e r s t h a t

peop le a t t h e top o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n were b e t t e r p re p a re d because
of g reater

knowledge,

analytical

ability,

wisdom,

o r even s o c i a l

s t a t u s t o make d e c i s i o n s .
4.

Commitment-- A n o t h e r assumption was t h a t t h o s e a t t h e t o p of

an o r g a n i z a t i o n were most committed t o i t ,

and would t h e r e f o r e be

most r e s p o n s i b l e in promoting t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s w e l f a r e and s e e in g
t h a t i t accomplished i t s ends.
Most o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e in r e c e n t y e a r s has focused no t on th e
centralization
concept

of

of d e c i s i o n making

d ecentralizing

organization.
terms

as

It

typically

"dem ocratic,"

participation.

an o r g a n i z a t i o n

decision-m aking
associated

"autonomous,"

wit h
fewer

exists

in

organization

H
p r p n t r a l i 7 a t i nn r n n t i n m i m
--------------------. . . . . ---------------------- . . . .

all

ty p e s

would
as

the size of the o rg anization,

,

copn

of

fit

a

on t h e
of

the

value-laden

controls,

and

some d e g re e of

organizations.
on

but

needs

such

According to Gibson e t a l . (1973),

decentralization
p articu lar

is

the

in

Where

a

cen tralizatio n -

-in P i n u r p A
J~ w” wo -n l*H- HononH wn.n.

( ~%\/

\

(b) t h e c o n t r o l mechanisms a v a i l a b l e

w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and (c) t h e managerial c a p a b i l i t i e s w i t h i n
the o rg a n izatio n .

46

MOST ORGANIZATIONS

CENTRALIZED
(Completely)

DECENTRALIZED
(Completely)

Figure 4:

C entralization-decentralization of authority.
Gibson e t a l . , 1973, p. 136.)

Decision-making a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n
d i f f i c u l t as o r g a n i z a t i o n s

increase

in s i z e ,

and have more d e c i s i o n s needing t o be made.

(From

become more

become more complex,
According t o Gibson e t

a l . , when fi r m s need t o be a b le t o make r a p i d d e c i s i o n s , because of
com petitors,
necessary

c u s t o m e r de ma nds ,

to

resort

to

or

some

e m plo ye e g r i e v a n c e s ,

degree

of

it

is

decentralization.

D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , however, does not mean t h a t c o n t r o l i s n o t needed
as

the

decentralized

evaluated.

operations

must

be

able

to

be

properly

The l a r g e r o r more d e c e n t r a l i z e d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

is,

caus es t h e c o n t r o l mechanism t o s h i f t c l o s e r t o t h e p o i n t s o f a c t i o n
so feedback can be more r a p i d .

The key f a c t o r

in how s u c c e s s f u l

d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l be f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s t s wit h t h e a b i l i t y
o f i t s managerial work f o r c e t o make d i f f i c u l t and t i m e - c o n s t r a i n e d
decisions.
Advocates o f what might
cited

be c a l l e d

bottom-up management

th e concept o f democracy or m o t i v a t i o n a l

main reason

for

a noncentralized

principles

form o f d e c i s i o n

making.

as

have
th e
They

47

b e l i e v e t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e more l e g i t i m a t e l y c o n t r o l l e d by a l l
t h e i r members and no t j u s t a few a t t h e t o p .
to

the

need f o r

organization

members t o

They a l s o have p o in te d
have c o n t r o l

l i v e s a t work, and t o t h e importance o f such c o n t r o l

ove r t h e i r
fo r building

m o t i v a t i o n and commitment.
D ecentralization
subscribe to

shares

a centralized

in

the

c on ce pt s

both

those

who

form o f d e c i s i o n making and t h o s e who

s u b s c r i b e t o t h e bottom-up management s t y l e .
th a t real

of

D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n holds

d e c is io n -m a k in g a u t h o r i t y should r e s i d e a t

and t h e bottom o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

both t h e top

According t o J e l i n e k e t

al.

(1986), a v a r i e t y o f r e a s o n s e x i s t f o r ble ndin g t h e de cis io n -m ak in g
a u t h o r i t y between t h e s e two l e v e l s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
1.

As o r g a n i z a t i o n s

employees,

number

ge o g ra p h ic a l

of

grow in s i z e
products,

(a s measured

number

of

by number of

custom ers,

or

of

a r e a c o v e r e d ) , t h e work o f d e c i s i o n making becomes so

l a r g e and complex t h a t i t cannot be handled by one perso n o r a few
people a t t h e t o p .

These d e c i s i o n makers must d e l e g a t e o r become

overwhelmed.
2.

People lower in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

cu sto m ers ,

and t h e work i t s e l f ,

sooner what needs a t t e n t i o n ,

a r e c l o s e r t o problems,

and hence know more a c c u r a t e l y and

and, once th e y d e c i d e ,

t h e a c t i o n can

be ta ken more q u i c k l y .
3.

People are m ot iv a te d by having t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o make

d e c i s i o n s , and having autonomy (pp. 438-439).

48
To d e c e n t r a l i z e
practices,
the

and s t r u c t u r a l

decentralization

follow ing

decision

making,

of

policies,

arrangements has t o be p r ov id e d t o make

possible.

assum ptions:

a wide a r r a y

(a)

These need
the

central

t o be

based

au thority

on

the

w ithin

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n has c o n f id e n c e t h a t s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l make d e c i s i o n s in
a way t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n g o a l s and o b l i g a t i o n s ;
(b) t h e s u b o r d i n a t e d e c i s i o n makers know no t on ly t h e i r d e l e g a t e d
g o a l s , but how t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l go a ls f i t i n t o t h e o v e r a l l g o a l s o f
the

o r g a n i z a t i o n , and

how t h e s e

fit

into

an o v e r a l l

l o n g -r u n

s t r a t e g y ; and (c) s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l be rewarded when th e y perform as
d e s i r e d and c o r r e c t e d when th e y do not ( J e l i n e k e t a l . , 1986).
In t a l k i n g

about d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n

a t General

Motors

C o rp o ra ­

t i o n , Drucker (1986) wro te:
Centr al management has a twofold f u n c t i o n under a system of
decentralization.
I t i s a t th e same time t h e s e r v a n t o f th e
d i v i s i o n a l managers, h e lp in g them t o be more e f f i c i e n t and more
s u c c e s s f u l in t h e i r autonomy, and t h e boss o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
And in t h i s r o l e i t has t o weld s e v e r a l hundred a g g r e s s i v e ,
h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l , and v e r y i n d e p e n d e n t d i v i s i o n a l t o p
e x e c u t i v e s i n t o one team.
These two jo b s a r e a p p a r e n t l y
c o n t r a d i c t o r y but a c t u a l l y i n t e r d e p e n d e n t .
Their so lu tio n is
a tte mp ted in v a r i o u s ways: (a) through
t h e power o f c e n t r a l
management to s e t t h e g o a l s f o r each d i v i s i o n and f o r t h e whole
c o r p o r a t i o n , (b) through i t s power t o d e f i n e t h e l i m i t s o f
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e d i v i s i o n a l manager and through t h e power t o
a p p o i n t and remove d i v i s i o n a l m a n a g e r s , ( c ) t h r o u g h i t s
c o n s t a n t check on d i v i s i o n a l problems and p r o g r e s s , (d) through
r e l i e v i n g th e d i v i s i o n a l manager o f a l l concern wi th problems
t h a t a r e not s t r i c t l y p a r t o f t h e p ro c e s s o f p r o d u c t i o n and
s e l l i n g , and (e) through o f f e r i n g him t h e b e s t o b t a i n a b l e
a d v i c e and h e l p t h r o u g h t h e s e r v i c e s t a f f s o f c e n t r a l
management, (p. 474)
According t o Dale (1952), t h e degree o f d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n in an
o r g a n i z a t i o n i s th e g r e a t e s t when (a) t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r number o f
d e c i s i o n s made a t lower l e v e l s o f management, (b) t h e d e c i s i o n s made

49

lower

in

the

management

hierarchy

are

more

important,

(c)

the

v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n f u n c t i o n s a r e more i n f l u e n c e d by d e c i s i o n s made
at

lower managerial

decisions

levels,

and

made by m a n a g e r i a l

(d)

there

is

personnel.

less

m o n it o r in g

of

In D a l e ’ s a n a l y s i s ,

d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i s t h e downward d e l e g a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
latitude.
The

adm inistrative

and

Co op erati ve Extension S e r v i c e

organizational

structure

of

the

i s not as f a r removed as one might

t h i n k from t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s d i s c u s s e d
in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
of guiding

Extension a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e x i s t s f o r t h e purpose

and f a c i l i t a t i n g

the

organization

to

meet

through

nonformal e d u c a ti o n t h e needs o f t h e peop le i t s e r v e s , p r i m a r i l y in
t h e a r e a s o f a g r i c u l t u r e and ma rk e tin g, n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and p u b l i c
p o l i c y , home economics, and 4-H youth.
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n
S e rv ic e in Michigan would be c l a s s i f i e d as f a l l i n g somewhere on th e
rnnf

W V I I b i

U

I

I m

i n n . HVr4 iWrWoWnI I+WvI ' Ua lI 1I 47 . 5U +
1' An
W I V I I

V I V I I

rW nV InI W
f iI nI Im
im
U U I I I i

Ac*

I

a

U

vI *b o
cnl+
W U I W> y

m
arw
III W* I i j

n
f
W I

tVh
o
I I W»

c o s t s and b e n e f i t s t h a t were d i s c u s s e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to
the

centralization-decentralization

issue

would

be

applicable

to

s t r e n g t h e n i n g th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e in Michigan.
D i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s look a t i d e n t i c a l

p o s i t i o n s in d i f f e r e n t

ways, depending on t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n with t h e p o s i t i o n and t h e i r own
frame o f r e f e r e n c e a t t h e tim e.

Incumbents in t h e s e p o s i t i o n s a re

caught in t h e c r o s s f i r e o f e x p e c t a t i o n s o f pe rs ons a s s o c i a t e d with
them and t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e j o b t o be done.

What they

50
believe

the

expectations

of

th eir

associates

are

and

th eir

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r own r o l e w i l l g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e i r own r o l e
behavior.

Previous r e s e a r c h e r s have found r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e

a c t o r s and t h e i r a s s o c i a t e s t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l

in s tu d y in g

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y .
The l i t e r a t u r e on r o l e t h e o r y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
t h e o r y has poin te d ou t t h e need t o e x p l o r e t h e p e r c e p t i o n s he ld by
t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s most c l o s e l y a l i g n e d with t h e
p o s i t i o n being s t u d i e d .
the

s tu dy

of

the

role

Michigan,

as t h e fo c a l

th at

various

the

perceptions

Therefore,

th at

of

Regional

position

in t h i s

s tu d y ,

it

be

would

in d irectly

perform

or

o f Regional

c a r r y out t h e i r r o l e in Michigan.

literature

Extension

counter-positions

incumbents in t h e p o s i t i o n

effectiv ely

in a p ply in g t h e l i t e r a t u r e

the

d irectly

th eir

role

r e v e a l e d t h e need t o

foc al

Supervisor

to
in

was im p e r a t i v e

identified

wh ic h

hold

influence

how

Extension S u p e r v i s o r would

For incumbents in any p o s i t i o n to
w ithin

the

id e n tify areas

organization,
in which t h e r e

the
is

r o l e consensus and r o l e c o n f l i c t between t h o s e in t h e fo c a l p o s i t i o n
and th e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Related S tu d i e s
In

a stu dy

of

this

nature,

it

is

essential

to

review

the

l i t e r a t u r e and examine t h e r e s e a r c h t h a t may have a b e a r in g on th e
problem being i n v e s t i g a t e d :

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r in Michigan.
it

was

c o n s id e re d

desirable

to

For t h e purposes o f t h i s s tu d y ,
examine

the

f o ll o w i n g

types

of

51

literature:
County

(a) s t u d i e s d e a l i n g with t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f th e

Extension

D irector,

(b)

studies

dealing

w ith

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f middle managers, and (c) s t u d i e s d e a l i n g with
t h e middle manager’ s r o l e in g e n e r a l .
S t u d i e s Dealing With t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Role o f County Extension D i r e c t o r s
Caul (1960) conducted a s tu dy in Michigan t o de te r m in e t h e r o l e
expectations
The s tu dy

held

for

the

position

o f County Extens ion

involved a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e

Director.

from t h e o f f i c e

o f th e

Michigan Extension D i r e c t o r , which had been ad apted from one used by
Hemphill

in

which were

the

st ud y o f

divided

into

"executive
two broad

positions."
areas

(it em s

The 132
that

the

items ,
County

Extension D i r e c t o r must be invol ve d in and t h o s e t h a t t h e County
Extension

Director

might

be

involved

in)

were

de si gne d

to

(a)

measure r e s p o n d e n t s ’ e x p e c t a t i o n s toward t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e County
Extension

Director,

(b)

measure

the

extent

to

which

different

elements were p e rc e iv e d t o be a p a r t o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e County
Extension D i r e c t o r ,
differen t

types

of

(c) d i s c r i m i n a t e between e x p e c t a t i o n s h e ld f o r
resp o n sib ilities

and

activ ities,

and

(d)

d i s c r i m i n a t e between e x p e c t a t i o n s held by t h e d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n d e n t s .
Caul

asked

re s p o n d e n ts

who were County

Exten sio n

D irectors,

Co unty E x t e n s i o n A g e n t s , S u b j e c t - M a t t e r S p e c i a l i s t s ,

and S t a t e

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t a f f Members t o re c o r d t h e i r

judgments con cer nin g

t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e 132 p o s s i b l e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
p a r t o f t h e j o b of t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r .
provided

an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r each resp on den t

to

items were a

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e
comment about

th e

52

position
prim ary

of

Ex te ns ion

educational

Director,
prim ary

County

(b)

resp o n sib ilities

his/her

ad vantages

Director

w ith
of

respect

the

pr im ary

adm inistrative

having

the

of

position

to

C o u n ty

(a)

Extension

functions,
of

the

(c)

County

the

Exten sio n

D i r e c t o r in Michigan, and (d) t h e main d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f having one
person in each county d e s i g n a t e d as a County Extension D i r e c t o r .
C a u l’ s

findings

defined

the

role

of

the

County

Exten sio n

D i r e c t o r in Michigan on t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ r a n k - o r d e r e d
responses.
1.

They were:

The e d u c a t i o n a l

leadership

role

of

the

County

Extension

Dir' ect or was c o n s i d e r e d o f primary importance by t h e e n t i r e s t a f f .
2.
agement

The County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r ’ s f i n a n c e and b u s i n e s s man­
role,

facilities,

in c l u d i n g

the

procurement

of

ad eq ua te

funds

and

and t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e county budget was c o n s i d e r e d

most s i g n i f i c a n t .
3.
the

County Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n and p o l i c y ranked t h i r d among

eight

areas

studied.

importance o f th e

All

position

groups

agreed

on

County Extension D i r e c t o r ’ s concern ove r

the
broad

a s p e c t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and p o l i c y .
4.

Personnel management was th oug ht c o n s i d e r a b l y more impor­

t a n t by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e groups than n o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e grou ps .

I t was

concluded t h a t th e pers onn el r o l e o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r
was t o make f i n a l
training

county

s e l e c t i o n o f new workers in t h e c ounty ,
work ers,

e v a l u a t e t h e i r performance.

look

after

their

general

aid

welfare,

in
and

53
5.

County

Exten sio n d i r e c t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n .

I t was con­

clud ed t h a t g e n er al c o o r d i n a t i o n through development o f a harmonious
team e f f o r t i s an i m p o r ta n t p a r t o f t h e j o b .
6.
were:

County
(a)

g reater

Extension a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s .

that

persons

im portance

nonadm inistrators,
w ith

th eir

adm inistrative

the

(b)

Extension

adm inistrators

order

w h ic h t h e y

in

the

public

responsibility

in

and

publics

with

The c o n c l u s i o n s

in

relatio n s

role
are
are

see
than

concerned
perceived

im p o r ta n t t o e i t h e r t h e i r own o r t h e ag en c y ’ s s u r v i v a l .
7.

County

Extens ion pl a n n in g and programming.

It

was con­

cl ud ed t h a t w hil e t h e p la nn in g and programming r o l e i s re c o g n iz e d as
an im p o r ta n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , some co n fu s io n e x i s t s on t h e d e gr e e of
importance

of

related

activities

in

which

the

County

Extension

D i r e c t o r should engage.
8.

County

re s p o n d e n t

Exten sio n s u p e r v i s i o n

positions

as

the

least

was

p la ce d

im p o r ta n t

by most

of

all

the

of

th e

County

Extension D i r e c t o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e s .
The r e s u l t s o f C a u l ’ s a n a l y s i s o f d a t a f o r each o f t h e e i g h t
adm inistrative

areas

studied

clearly

d i f f e r e n c e s in importance e x i s t e d .
that

stu dy

co uld

have

direct

indicated

that

perceived

Many o f t h e items i d e n t i f i e d in

im plications

for

a

s tu d y

of

th e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f Regional Ex tens ion S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan.
H a rr is on
clearly

the

(1984)
role

conducted a st ud y in Michigan t o d e f i n e more
of

the

Cou nty

Extension

D irector.

The

q u e s t i o n n a i r e H a r r is o n used was s i m i l a r t o t h e one used by Caul
19 60.

However,

H arrison

included

additional

items

in

in
his

54

q uestionnaire

to

reflect

contem porary

issues

and

additional

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t t h e Michigan C ooper ati ve Ex te ns ion S e r v i c e was
facing

in t h e

1980s.

H a rr is o n i n t e r f a c e d

items d e s c r i b e d

in t h e

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and S u p e rv is o ry S ta n d a r d s , which were used as p a r t o f
t h e 1981-82 Performance A ppr ai sal System^ in Michigan, wi th t h e Caul
su rv e y

items

Extension

as

a means

D irector’s

of

role

expanding

the

expectations.

scope

of

The

the

County

questionnaire,

c o n s i s t i n g o f 172 p o s s i b l e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n it e m s , was mailed t o t h e
fo ll o w i n g sample p o p u l a t i o n s :
(b )

89

Cou nty

Administrators,

Extension
and (d)

scale,

77 County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s ,

A gents,

(c)

20

S tate

Extension

77 county government C oop er at i ve Extension

Service c o n tact persons.
eight-point

(a)

Respondents were asked t o r e c o r d ,

t h e i r evaluations of the

extent

on an

t o which they

p e r c e i v e d t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n item t o be a p a r t o f t h e County Exten­
sion D ir e c to r ’s p o s itio n .
Harri so n d i v i d e d t h e 172 p o s s i b l e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items

into

e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a s in o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
p r o c e s s e s a t t h e county l e v e l o f Extension work.

They were:

(a)

pla n n in g and programming, (b) o r g a n i z a t i o n and p o l i c y , (c) d i r e c t i o n
and c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
business

(d)

ma nag em en t,

educational lead e rsh ip .

personnel
(g)

management,

adm inistrative

(e)

supervision,

relatio n s,

and

(f )
(h)

H a r r i s o n ’ s f i n d i n g s were as f o ll o w s :

^All Boar d-a ppoin ted f i e l d s t a f f members who s u p e r v i s e d one or
more paid employees were r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
St an da rd s and th e Su p e rv is o ry Stan da rds s e c t i o n s o f t h e 1981-82
Performance A ppra is al System in Michigan.

55

1.

The b u s i n e s s management and f i n a n c e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s

was t h e most im po rt an t f u n c t i o n o f t h e County Extens ion D i r e c t o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n , f o l l o w e d by e d u c a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n and

policy,

and p r o g r a m m i n g ,

d irection

and c o o r d i n a t i o n ,

planning

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s , personnel management, and s u p e r v i s i o n .
2.

The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p ro c e s s with t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l

o f con­

s ensus appeared to be t h e b u s i n e s s management and f i n a n c e f u n c t i o n ,
w hil e t h e a r e a s with t h e g r e a t e s t number o f d i f f e r e n t r a n k in g s were
the

adm inistrative

relations

and

pe rsonnel

management

functions

(th ree each).
3.
within
County

There

were

no

each p o s i t i o n
Extension

significant

group on t h e

D irector’s

differences

in

the

consensus

perceived expectations

position.

However,

of

there

th e
were

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s group
and t h e o t h e r re sp onden t groups on f i v e ou t o f e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
processes.
a

W •

A g e n ts

T
ho
I I IW

U W M I I !•>J

fm m t

had

the

\t

C vWfWoMnWc Ii W
nI nI 1H/ iI v
'o r + av'C
* b V V W I wS

b n

a n rl

W IIW

g reatest d ifferences

+ho

V IIW

fAiintw

V / W V 4 I I SfJ

when

C vfoncin
n
I W II

b n

dealing

with

th e plan nin g and programming a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
b.

S t a t e A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and County Extension D i r e c t o r s had

th e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i r views o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and
policy adm inistrative function.
c.

County Extension D i r e c t o r s had t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s

with both the County Extension Agents and t h e S t a t e Extension

56
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n
adm inistrative function.
d.

County Extension D i r e c t o r s and S t a t e Extens ion Adminis­

trators

held

the

major

differences

in

their

views

of

the

pers onnel management a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
e.

County Extension D i r e c t o r s had t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e

with S t a t e Extension A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and County Extens ion Agents
on t h e importance o f th e s u p e r v i s i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
4.

There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found in i d e n t i c a l r o l e

items in H a r r i s o n ’ s stu dy and t h e Caul s tu dy completed in Michigan
in 1960.
H arrison’s
adm inistrative

study

would

functions

tend

studied

to

were

indicate

that

i m p o r ta n t.

all

eight

However,

the

b u s i n e s s management and f i n a n c e f u n c t i o n r e c e i v e d t h e most a t t e n t i o n
by

the

re s p o n d e n ts

in

d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t

his

s tu d y .

The

stu dy

pointed

ou t

that

in how County Extension D i r e c t o r s view t h e i r

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e s as compared t o t h e views o f County Extension
Agents and S t a t e Extension A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Bahram (1977)

investigated

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r in A fg h a n is ta n .

role

of the

local

government

The stu dy was de sig ne d a f t e r

s i m i l a r s t u d i e s conducted in t h e United S t a t e s (Caul, Abdullah)
in v estig ate
Director

and

supervisory
in s tr u m e n t

the

used

role
to

adm inistrative

in

also

by

Puerto

in c lu d e

roles

Ramirez
Rico.

in

of the
1961

Co unty
to

72 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items

that

r e p r e s e n t e d t h e s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n in A fg h a n is ta n .

Extension

investigate

Bahram modified

to

Caul’ s

th e

survey

more c l e a r l y

57

The sample p o p u l a t i o n used in t h e s tu dy inc lu de d one p r o v i n c e ,
wit h e i g h t t o t e n l o c a l governments ( c o u n t i e s ) p e r p r o v i n c e ,

being

randomly s e l e c t e d in each o f t h e seven major a g r i c u l t u r a l r e g i o n s in
Afghanistan.

The d a t a f o r t h e st ud y were c o l l e c t e d thro ug h f a c e - t o -

f a c e i n t e r v i e w s using a p r e t e s t e d i n t e r v i e w sc h e d u le t r a n s l a t e d i n t o
two

local

la n g u a g e s .

survey re p r e s e n te d

The

158 r e s p o n d e n t s

four p ro fessio n al

participating

groups:

D irectors

S u p e r v i s o r s (5 3) , S u b j e c t - M a t t e r S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 5) , and
The

interview

sections:
(c)

us ed

and

in-service

(14),

into

four

(b) p o s i t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y it e m s ,

and d i s a d v a n t a g e s
(d)

the

Agents (5 6) .

by Bahram was d i v i d e d

(a) background d a t a ,

advantages

position,

schedule

in

and

associated
formal

with

the

training

supervisory

needs

of

th e

supervisor.
In st ud y in g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in
A fg h a n is ta n , Bahram grouped t h e 72 i n d i v i d u a l

role-definition

items

acc ord ing t o t h e f o ll o w i n g e i g h t s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s used by Caul
and

others:

n! a n n i n n and nr o n ram!r,i n ri

d i r e c t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
adm inistrative re la tio n s ,

o r n a n i 2a t i o n

p e r s o n n e l m an ag em en t,

b u s i n e s s m an ag em en t,

and

c o l i c 1/

supervision,

and e d u c a t i o n a l

leadership.
According to

Bahram,

the

relative

impor tanc e,

in

decreasing

o r d e r o f importance, o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Extension
S u p e r v is o r s in Afg ha nis tan were as f o ll o w s :
1.
c o n s id e r e d

O rg a n i z a t i o n and p o l i c y - - A l l items under t h i s f u n c t i o n were
to

be

very

im port ant

by t h e

total

staff.

However,

58
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s and Agents p la ce d g r e a t e r w e ig h ts on most o f
t h e items as compared w it h D i r e c t o r s and S u b j e c t - M a t t e r S p e c i a l i s t s .
2.

Business management--Generally, S u p e r v i s o r s and Agents had

s i m i l a r views

on t h i s

supervisory

function

as

compared with

the

o t h e r res p on de nt gr oups .
3.

D i r e c t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n - - A l l t h e items under t h i s f u n c ­

t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d
w ere

lower

in

"very i m p o r t a n t , "

comparison

w ith

the

bu t t h e i r consensus s c o r e s
previous

two

supervisory

functions.
4.

S u p e r v i s i o n - - T h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e items under t h i s f u n c t i o n

r e c e i v e d equal weight from t h e r e s po nd en t gro up s .

However,

three

items r e c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s .
5.

Personnel management--Many o f t h e items under t h i s c a t e g o r y

i n v i t e d g r e a t e r c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e r e s p on de nt g ro u p s .
t o t h e o t h e r gro up s ,

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Compared

p la ce d more weight on

t h i s function.
6.
total

Administrative re la tio n s --T h is
staff

as

interm ediate

to

its

f u n c t i o n was viewed by t h e
impor tanc e.

The

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s and Agents had h i g h e r consensus s c o r e s f o r many o f t h e
items as compared with D i r e c t o r s and S u b j e c t - M a t t e r S p e c i a l i s t s .
7.

Educational

leadership--A ll

of the

a t t a c h e d l i g h t weight t o t h i s f u n c t i o n .
t h e items were re ga rd ed as a " s u b s t a n t i a l

re sp o n d e n t groups

However, more th a n h a l f of
p a r t " o f t h e p o s i t i o n by

the to ta l s t a f f .
8.

Planning and programming--This f u n c t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d th e

l e a s t imp ort an t by t h e t o t a l s t a f f .

Only one o f t h e items in cl ude d

59

as p a r t

of th is

s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n was c o n si d e re d

to

be "very

i m p o r ta n t" ; however, ap pro xi ma te ly t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h e items were
r a t e d as a " s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t " o f t h e p o s i t i o n .
The s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s s t u d i e d by Bahram t h a t r e c e i v e d t h e
hig h e r

average

consensus

personnel

management,

average

consensus

adm inistrative

scores

business
scores

relations

were

management,

for

were

organization

and

policies,

and s u p e r v i s i o n .

The

d i r e c t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n

co n si d e re d

interm ediate,

w hi le

and
th e

s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s o f pla nn in g and programming and e d u c a ti o n a l
leadership

received

resp onden t

groups.

S u p e rv is o rs

lower
The

average

degree

of

consensus

scores

consensus

between

from

the

Extension

and Extension Agents was h ig h e r on most o f t h e e i g h t

s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s as compared with t h e o t h e r two gro ups .

the

Bahram found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e

.05 l e v e l

respondent

of

groups

in

th eir

perceptions

importance o f t h e e i g h t s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s
I i l/ m .r l f n
i. I t \V * f I

four

o
V I

position

responses

n ^
f l >n
A •> + •*
n
o
t
1
VMV
U U b U
» g VW U I b U

groups.

from t h e

significant.

However,

Extension

p i mi 1
V I III I I U l

the

the

being

Supervisors

relativ e

investigated.

i p ^ p i i I +* «I W«>U I

differences

between

i.ti^ U in
n I WI I I I I

b e tw e e n

and A g e n t s

WIIC

the

were n o t

Eighteen o f t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items were found to be

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .
This

s tu dy,

although

not d i r e c t l y

involved with

the

problem

being i n v e s t i g a t e d , adapted t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used by Caul in o r d e r
to study th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r in
A fg ha nis ta n.

The i m p l i c a t i o n from Bahrain's study t o t h e one being

60

investigated

is

that

the

questionnaire

developed

by Caul

can

be

adapted t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f o t h e r p o s i t i o n s
in Exten sio n both in t h e United S t a t e s and abroad.
S t u d i e s R e l a t i n g t o t h e Adminis­
t r a t i v e Role o f Middle Managers

(a)

A s tu d y

by

identify

the

Martin

and

Abeysekera

(1987)

supervisory ro le s t h a t

was

d e si gne d

should be c a r r i e d

to

o u t by

Area Extens ion D i r e c t o r s ( t h e middle-management p o s i t i o n in Iowa) in
the

Iowa C ooper ati ve

Extension

Service

(ICES),

(b)

de te r m in e

the

e x t e n t t o which beg innin g p r o f e s s i o n a l s needed f u r t h e r a s s i s t a n c e in
selected

a r e a s o f t h e i r work,

and (c)

identify the potential

in-

s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g needs in s u p e r v i s i o n t h a t should be a d d r e s s e d .
population

for th e ir

study

consisted

p r o f e s s i o n a l s who had been working in
less.

of all
the

county

ICES f o r

The

Extension

36 months

or

T h e i r sample c o n s i s t e d o f 56 Extension p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
A

self-adm inistered,

fixed-response

m a il

questionnaire

c o n s i s t i n g o f 94 s u p e r v i s o r y t a s k s t a t e m e n t s was used in t h e study
as t h e d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n i n s t r u m e n t .

Martin and Abeysekera c o n s i d e r e d

six

the

major

areas

developm ent,

in

developing

leadership

questionnaire:

developm ent,

personnel

o r i e n t a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , and i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n .

p ro g r a m

ma nag em en t,

Respondents were

asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r l e v e l o f agreement with t h e r o l e - e x p e c t a t i o n
statement

and

to

identify

the

level

of

further

assistance

they

th ought th e y needed in th e p a r t i c u l a r a r e a being e v a l u a t e d .
M artin

and A b e y s e k e r a c o n c l u d e d

th at

beginning

Extension

p r o f e s s i o n a l s in f i e l d p o s i t i o n s agreed t h a t most o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r y

61

roles

identified

in t h e st udy were,

t h e i r supervisors.
selecting

However,

in stru ctio n al

relationships

with

in

responsibilities

and

organizations,

media,

estab lishing

using

parliam entary

p r o c e d u r e s , and r e c o g n i z i n g c l i e n t s ’ p o t e n t i a l s .
rated

role

Supervisors

expectations
in

iden tified

Iowa w e r e :

of

f o u r r o l e s t a t e m e n t s were r a t e d low:
m e th od s

other

fact,

in

discussing

The 14 most h ig h l y

th eir

study

problems

i d e n t i f y i n g a r e a s o f improvement, e s t a b l i s h i n g

for

in

Area

programs,

appropriate

raises,

e x p l a i n i n g p r i v i l e g e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , o f f e r i n g encouragement or
r e c o g n i t i o n , devel op in g good r e l a t i o n s h i p s with w o rk e rs , e v a l u a t i n g
p r o g r e s s , c o u n s e l i n g and a n a l y z i n g u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p e r f o r m a n c e ,
n o t i f y i n g me r e g a r d i n g my l e v e l o f performance, p la n n in g o r i e n t a t i o n
o f new p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

explaining

Extension p h ilo so p h y ,

m e t h o d s , and p o l i c i e s , making g u i d e b o o k s a v a i l a b l e ,
violatio n s

of procedures or r e g u la tio n s ,

rules,

correcting

and i n t e r p r e t i n g

and

fo ll o w i n g p r o c e d u re s .
Martin

and Abeysekera’ s stu dy pro vided

in f o r m a t io n

regarding

how new Extension p r o f e s s i o n a l s viewed t h e v a r i o u s r o l e s t a t e m e n t s
t h a t make up an Area Extension D i r e c t o r ’s p o s i t i o n

in Iowa.

The

h i g h e s t - r a t e d r o l e s t a t e m e n t s f o r each o f t h e s i x major a r e a s o f th e
Area

Extension

D irector’s position,

which

were

examined

s tu d y , were as fo ll o w s :
1.

Program Development
a.
b.
c.

Reviewing pla n o f work
Understanding o t h e r s ’ problems and i n t e r e s t s
Planning and working with committees

in

that

62

2.

Lea der shi p Development
a.
b.
c.

3.

Personnel Management
a.
b.
c.

4.

Correcting v io la tio n s of p ro cedures/regulations
I n t e r p r e t i n g and fo ll o wi n g pro c e du res
Making guidebooks a v a i l a b l e

Ev a lu a ti o n
a.
b.
c.

6.

N o t i f y i n g me r e g a r d i n g my l e v e l o f performance
Counseling and a n a l y z i n g u n s a t i s f a c t o r y performance
E v a lu a ti n g programs

Orientation
a.
b.
c.

5.

Recognizing my p o t e n t i a l
Developing good communications
Informing p u b l i c about Extension through p u b l i c
presentations

I d e n t i f y i n g e f f e c t i v e methods o f e v a l u a t i o n
S e l f - e v a l u a t i n g performance as an Exten sio n worker
Informing o t h e r s o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n p ro c e du re s

I n - s e r v i c e Education
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

S e t t i n g an example in keeping
Planning c r e d i t c o u r s e s f o r my
Helping update my knowledge o f
C l a r i f y i n g Extension g o a l s and
R eleas in g r e s e a r c h i n fo r m a t io n
possible

up t o d a t e
p r o f e s s i o n a l growth
subject matter
objectives
t o s t a f f as soon as

Martin and Abeysekera too k t h e stu dy o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r
t h e Area Extension D i r e c t o r p o s i t i o n
a l s o lookin g a t t h e a r e a s
further assistance.
better

and

more

the

need

Iowa one s t e p f u r t h e r by

in which new a g en ts th ou gh t the y needed

This knowledge should f a c i l i t a t e development of
effective

D i r e c t o r s in Iowa.
stu dy

in

for

supervision

from

the

Area

Extension

They a l s o atte m pt ed t o b r in g t o l i g h t in t h e i r
Extension

adm inistration

to

look

at

ways

pr o vi d i n g s u p e r v i s o r s with i n - s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t w i l l

of

help

63
match t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s

with t h e i r s u p e r v i s e e s ’ needs and e x pec ­

tatio n s.
Pe te rs on
b e tw e e n

the

(1987)

examined

perceptions

the

of

strengths

Extension

of

regard

to

orientations/leadership

styles

(nondirective,

The s u r v e y

respondent-administered

three

instrum ent

inventory,

relationships

S upervisors

E x te n s io n Agents w ith

d irectiv e).

the

and

supervisory

used

called

Co u nt y

behavioral

collaborative,

in
a

th at

study

S u p e r v is o r y

and

was

a

Beliefs

I n v e n t o r y , which was adapted t o t h e C oo pe ra ti ve E xt ens ion S e r v i c e
from an in s tr u m e n t used by Tamishiro and Glickman in lo oking a t th e
p o s i t i o n o f school p r i n c i p a l .
In

the

stu dy

relationships
professed
behavioral
directive;

Pe te rs on

between

(actual)

the

(b)

behavior

the

examining

perceptions

orientations
and

was

of

two

of

Exten sio n

o rien tatio n

versus

nondirective,

relationships

orientations.

consisted

of

all

between

the

Supervisors

Extension Agents p e r Extension S u p e r v i s o r

Idaho,

M on tana ,

Nevada,

desired

(35)

and

perceptions

of

and d e s i r e d

used by Pe te rs o n
and

five

Co un ty

(180) in 11 s t a t e s in th e

Western Extension Region of t h e United S t a t e s :
Colorado,

th e

supervisors’
the

(actual)

The sample p o p u l a t i o n

Extension

(a)

collaborative,

County Agents o f t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s ’ p r o f e s s e d
be h av io r al

things:

New M e xic o,

Alaska,

Ariz ona ,

Oregon,

Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming.
Peterson

developed

eight

research

questions,

wh ic h

were

design ed t o measure t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ and
County Extension A g e n ts ’ a ct u a l

and d e s i r e d

b e h a v io r o r i e n t a t i o n s

64

f o r 20 s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
were de sig ne d f o r re s p o n s e s
Extension Agents.

Research Que sti ons 1 th ro ugh 6

from Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Q ue stions 7 and 8 were d e si gne d f o r re s p o n s e s

from County Agents who he ld s u p e r v i s o r y
responsibilities,

and County

for

the

purpose

of

and p e r f o r m a n c e - a p p r a i s a l

comparing

their

perceptions

w it h t h o s e o f County Agents who d id not have t h e s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
P e t e r s o n ’ s s tu dy r e v e a l e d
related

to

how Exten sio n

some i n t e r e s t i n g

Supervisors’

findings

self-perceived

as

th e y

b e h a v io r a l

o r i e n t a t i o n ( l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ) compared t o t h a t which was p e r c e iv e d
by t h e County Extension Agents t h e y s u p e r v i s e d .

His f i n d i n g s were

as fo l l o w s :
1.

Of t h e

S upervisors,

20 s u p e r v i s o r y
16

were

Supervisors’ desired

found

approach

situations
to
to

be

completed

by Extension

sig n ifican t.

Extension

supervision

was

different

from

t h e i r s e l f - p e r c e i v e d a c t u a l approach t o s u p e r v i s i o n in a m a j o r i t y of
their

job

A^n o n t c

.

responsibilities

in v o lv in g

the

supervision

of

County

.

2.

The re s p o n se s o f County Agents r e g a r d i n g t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ’ s

a c t u a l and d e s i r e d b e h a v io r on a l l 20 o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r y s i t u a t i o n s
were

sig n ifican t.

The

Cou nty

Agents

desired

a

d ifferen t

r e l a t i o n s h i p than t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p they p e r c e iv e d c u r r e n t l y e x i s t e d .
They wanted a more open d i s c u s s i o n t o r e c o n c i l e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t may
e x i s t with t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s .
3.

County Agents b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s were c o l l a b o ­

r a t i v e 55% o f th e time and n o n d i r e c t i v e 40% o f t h e ti m e , w ith th e

65

a gen t performance c r i t e r i a being t h e o nly d i r e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n
The

Co un ty

o rientation

Agents

desired

(leadership

a

more

co llaborative

style)

than

they

(5%).

behavioral

perceived

currently

existed.
4.
tive

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y used a c o l l a b o r a ­

behavioral

o rien tatio n

sec ondary be h av io r al
the

behavioral

operating.

with

nondirective

orientation.

o rien tatio n

Cou nty

Supervisors d e sire d

under

Agents

behavior

w hic h

perceived

they

the

changes

w e re

actual

as

a
in

presently
behavioral

o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s t o be much more n o n d i r e c t i v e than
Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v e d th em sel ve s beh avin g.
Peterson’s
Extension

s tu d y

pro vid ed

Supervisor’s

the

b e h a v io r a l
is

vehicle

for

orientation

currently

lo ok in g

at

(leadership

from not only what

it

being p e r c e i v e d

l oo kin g a t what i t

sho uld p o s s i b l y be in t h e f u t u r e .

as,

the

style)

but

also

That study

a l s o pro vided a comparison f o r lo okin g a t t h e Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
b e h a v io r a l o r i e n t a t i o n s from t h e eyes o f both t h e

S u p e r v i s o r s and

t h e people th e y s u p e r v i s e .
P o r t e r (1 9 8 7 )

investigated

effective

leadership s ty le s

of

D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s in t h e C oo per ati ve Extens ion S e r v i c e as p e r c e i v e d
by County Agents
Directors

in

Oregon,

in t h e co n ti g u o u s

participation

of

the

State

Washington,

and

Idaho

and

by S t a t e

s t a t e s west o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i .
Directors

was

solicited

from t h e

The
22

c ontig uo us s t a t e s west o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i t o have a s u f f i c i e n t s i z e
p o p u l a t i o n o f S t a t e D i r e c t o r s t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
form o f t h e

Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n

significant.

Q uestionnaire,

A

originally

66

developed by Hemphill and Coons, was used t o c o l l e c t d a t a from 360
Agents

and

22

characteristics

State

Directors

on

t h a t would r e s u l t

their

perceptions

of

in t h e most e f f e c t i v e

leader
D istrict

D irector.
P o r t e r ’ s st udy c o n s i s t e d o f 40 d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t e m e n t s r e l a t i n g
to

the

behavior o f

leaders.

Fifteen

statements

related

to

the

c o n s i d e r a t i o n dimension (person o r i e n t e d ) , 15 s t a t e m e n t s r e l a t e d t o
initiating

structure

(system

unscored and used as a b u f f e r .

oriented),

and

10

statements

were

These two dimensions were d e f i n e d as

f o l 1ows:
SYSTEM ORIENTED
Pro duct io n em p h as is -- A p p li e s p r e s s u r e f o r p r o d u c t i v e o u t p u t .
I n i t i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e - - C l e a r l y d e f i n e s own r o l e and l e t s f o l l o w e r s
know what i s e x pec te d.
R e p r e s e n t a t i o n - - S p e a k s and a c t s as th e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e group.
Role a s s u m p t i o n - - A c t i v e l y e x e r c i s e s t h e l e a d e r s h i p r o l e r a t h e r than
surrendering leadership to others.
P e r s u a s i o n - - U s e s p e r s u a s i o n and a r g u m e n t e f f e c t i v e l y ;
strong convictions.
S u p e r i o r o r i e n t a t i o n - - M a i n t a i n s c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s w ith
has i n f l u e n c e with them, and s t r i v e s f o r h i g h e r s t a t u s .

exhibits
superiors,

PERSON ORIENTED
To le ra nc e o f freedom--Allows
d e c i s i o n , and a c t i o n .

s t a f f members

Tolerance of u n c e r t a i n t y - - I s able to
postponement w it h o u t a n x i e t y or up s e t.

scope

to lerate

C o n s i d e r a t i o n - - R e g a r d s t h e comfort, w e l l - b e i n g ,
d i s o r d e r t o system.

for

initiative,

uncertainty

status,

and

and reduc es

67

Demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n - - R e c o n c i l e s
d i s o r d e r t o system.

conflicting

demands

and

reduc es

P r e d i c t i v e a c c u r a c y - - E x h i b i t s f o r e s i g h t and a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t o u t ­
comes a c c u r a t e l y .
*

I n t e g r a t i o n - - M a i n t a i n s a c l o s e - k n i t o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e s o l v e s i n t e r - ,
member c o n f l i c t s .
The

findings

perceptions

held

reported

in

P orter’s

by County Agents

study

and S t a t e

concerning

Exten sio n

the

Directors

toward e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s in
t h e C ooper ati ve Extension S e rv ic e were as f o ll o w s :
1.
trato rs’

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in a g e n t s ’ and a d m in is ­
perceptions

of

the

factors

that

indicate

l e a d e r on 3 o f t h e 30 s cor ed items in t h e s tu d y .
Consideration subscale

an

effective

One item on th e

( # 4 - - t r y i n g out new id e a s w it h a g e n t s )

and

two items on t h e I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e s u b s c a l e ( # 3 8 - - g e t t i n g agent
approval
all

in impor tan t m a t t e r s b e f o r e going ahead and # 2 3 - - t r e a t i n g

ag en ts as e q u a l s ) were p e rc e iv e d as being more a p p r o p r i a t e by

C
+a +o
W W M W W

H iI vI ’fWlWr W
f Wf tIv ' -c*

W

2.

There

tV hI . a* *n. .

was

hw

a

flnont c

l i g w n w w .

significant

difference

between

males’

and

f e m a l e s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s ; more males than females th ought c o n s i d e r a t i o n
i s more im p o r ta n t f o r e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p .
3.

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in t h e i n f l u e n c e o f age

and s t a t e o f r e s i d e n c e on t h e Extension A ge nt s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f an
effective

leader.

Oregon th ought
style.

More te n u re d Agents and Agents from Idaho and

consideration

to

be t h e more im p o r ta n t

leadership

68

4.

Some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p were p e r c e iv e d

t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more im p or tant than o t h e r s .

The f o l l o w i n g items

were ranked by 75% o r more o f t h e Agents and S t a t e
always and o f t e n

being

a desirable

characteristic

D irectors
of

as

a D istrict

Director:
C o n s i d e r a t i o n Dimension (Person O r i e n t e d )
--Makes h i s / h e r a t t i t u d e s c l e a r t o t h e Agents
- - M a i n t a i n s d e f i n i t e s t a n d a r d s o f performance
--Encourages t h e use o f uniform p ro c e d ur es
--Makes s u r e t h a t h i s / h e r p a r t in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s u n d e r ­
stood by Agents
--Asks t h a t Agents fo ll o w s t a n d a r d r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
- - L e t s Agents know what i s expecte d o f them
- - S e e s t o i t t h a t Agents a r e working up t o c a p a c i t y
- - S e e s t o i t t h a t t h e work o f Agents i s c o o r d i n a t e d
- - T r i e s ou t h i s / h e r new id e a s with Agents ( i d e n t i f i e d only by
S t a t e D i r e c t o r s as being im po rt an t)
--Emphasizes t h e meeting o f d e a d l i n e s ( i d e n t i f i e d only by S t a t e
D i r e c t o r s as being im po r ta nt)
I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e Dimension (System O r i e n t e d )
- - I s easy t o unde rstan d
- - F i n d s time t o l i s t e n t o Agents
- - R e fu s e s t o e x p l a i n h i s / h e r a c t i o n s (seldom o r ne ver a d e s i r ­
a b le c h a r a c t e r i s t i c )
--Backs up t h e Agents in t h e i r a c t i o n s
- - I s w i l l i n g t o make changes
- - I s f r i e n d l y and ap proachable
--Makes Agents f e e l a t e a s e when t a l k i n g with them
--Keeps t o h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f ( i d e n t i f i e d as an u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t
by Extension Agents)
- - T r e a t s a l l Agents as h i s / h e r equal ( i d e n t i f i e d only by t h e
Extension Agents)
S tu d i e s R e l a t i n g t o t h e Middle
Manager’ s P o s i t i o n in General
A stu dy o f t e n quoted in t h e l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w it h t h e r o l e of
Extension S u p e r v is o r s

was conducted by Kosoko

University

Kosoko sought t o

in

1980.

describe

at

The Ohio
the

role

State
of

th e

69

Extension S u p e r v i s o r in t h e Washington C oo p e r a ti v e Extension S e r v i c e
in

terms

of

th eir

program -developm ent

function.

The

sample

p o p u l a t i o n used in t h e s tu d y c o n s i s t e d o f t h o s e p o s i t i o n s

in th e

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n who had d i r e c t c o n t a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n with
the

Extension

D irector).

S upervisors

They

Specialists

(6 5 ) ,

were:

(less
State

the
Program

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

D irector

and

A ssociate

Leaders

(4),

Extension

( 6 ) , Area Exten sio n Agents

( 4 6 ) , Department C h ai rp er so n s ( 1 2 ) , County/Area C h a i r p e r s o n s

(3 6) ,

and County Extension Agents (7 1 ) .
Kosoko used a surve y i n s tr u m e n t t h a t was d i v i d e d

into

three

parts:
1.

P a r t one i d e n t i f i e d

t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being held

regarding

t h e importance and t h e e x t e n t t o which Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s perform
various

program-development

tasks.

That

section

of

the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e looked a t 43 program-development t a s k s in t h e a r e a s of
program d e t e r m i n a t i o n , program s t r a t e g y , program im pl e m e nt a tio n, and
program e v a l u a t i o n .
2.

P a r t two c o n s i s t e d o f 14 q u e s t i o n s ,

developed by K e f f e r ,

t h a t measured t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ degree o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
3.

P a r t t h r e e r e l a t e d t o s p e c i f i c demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f t h e res p o n d en ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Kosoko’ s stu dy r e v e a l e d t h a t th e program-development f u n c t i o n
o f Extension S u p e r v i s o r s was c o n s id e re d t o be very im p o r ta n t o r most
important.
r e s po nden t

Although he found s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s being held by th e
groups

con cer nin g

the

importance

of

the

role

of

th e

70
D i s t r i c t S u p e r v i s o r in program development, Kosoko n ot e d t h a t S upe r­
visors,

Program Lea der s,

Department C h a i r p e r s o n s ,

consistently

rated

the

program-development

Supervisors

higher

in

importance

than

and S p e c i a l i s t s

function

did

Area

of

Extens ion

Agents,

County

Agents, o r County C h a i r p e r s o n s .
The re s p o n d e n ts
Supervisors
their

were

position

in

the

Kosoko st ud y

performing

fairly

well

the
(rated

th ought

that

program-development
three

Extens ion

function

on a f i v e - p o i n t

of

scale).

However, County C h a i r p e r s o n s , Department C h a i r p e r s o n s , S u p e r v i s o r s ,
and Program Leaders c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d t h e
performance

on t h e

tasks

slightly

higher

Exten sio n
than

did

Supervisor’s
Area

Agents,

County Agents, and Extension S p e c i a l i s t s .
Based on t h e f i n d i n g s in h i s s tu d y , Kosoko r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n
co ncerning how well t h e v a r i o u s re sp on de nt groups
r o l e of Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

really

knew th e

He recommended t h a t s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h

be conducted on t h e Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s o t h e r a r e a s o f r e s p o n s i ­
b ilities

(i.e .,

finance,

personnel,

and p u b l i c

relatio n s)

to

determine t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f Extension pe rsonnel r e g a r d i n g t h e t o t a l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .
Kosoko’ s study pro vided th e b a s i s f o r e x p l o r i n g not o nly t h e
importance

of

the

program-development

Supervisor’s position

function

of

the

Exten sio n

i n t h e W a s h in g to n C o o p e r a t i v e

Extension

S e r v i c e , but a l s o prov ide d in fo r m at io n con cer nin g how th o s e c l o s e s t
t o t h e Extension S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n

in t h a t

state

perceived

f u n c t i o n was being c a r r i e d ou t by t h e Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s .

the

71

As p a r t o f a stu dy le a v e from h i s p o s i t i o n as Regional D i r e c t o r
o f t h e I l l i n o i s Co op era ti ve Extension S e r v i c e , H oelscher (1983-1984)
i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e i n - s e r v i c e ed u ca ti o n needs o f middle managers
t h e Coo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e .

in

The stu dy involved conducting

f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s with s t a f f in 15 c o u n t i e s in seven o f th e
N o rt h C e n t r a l

E x t e n s i o n Regi on s t a t e s

(Iowa,

M innesota,

S ou th

Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio), as well as c o n t a c t i n g
by mail s e l e c t e d s t a f f in t h e remaining f i v e s t a t e s ( I l l i n o i s , North
Dakota, Wisconsin, M is s o u ri , and I n d i a n a ) .

The sample p o p u l a t i o n in

h i s stu dy included t h e fo ll ow in g groups:

middle managers

(by

perso nal

(4/1),

interview/by

m ail),

A ssociate D ire c to rs

Personnel

Officers

(2/1),

field

(6/1),

and S t a f f

staff

A ssistant

(4 4 / 2 9 ) ,

Directors

D irectors

Development

(15/17)

(15/2),

personnel

(4/0).

The q u e s t i o n s Hoelscher used were g e n e r a l l y open ended t o allow f o r
f r e e flow of th o u g h t.
was

needed

to

help

All q u e s t i o n s were designed t o de ter mi ne what
middle

managers

do

the

best

job

possible.

However, one q u e s t i o n was uniform f o r t h e t h r e e groups in h i s stu dy:
"What a r e th e f o u r most impor tant s k i l l s

a middle manager should

have?"
The f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d in H o e ls c h e r ’ s r e p o r t a re as f o ll o w s :
1.

The t h r e e re sp ond ent groups involved in t h e study showed a

high degree o f agreement on th e s k i l l s middle managers should have.
The fo ll ow in g s k i l l s ,
in

the

top

counseling,

te n

summarized in Table 2, were ranked somewhere

by a l l

listen in g ,

three

re sp onden t

groups:

communication,

c o n f l i c t management and team b u i l d i n g ,

72
l e a d e r s h i p , program development and management, and human r e l a t i o n s
and m o t i v a t i o n .

Table 2 . - - F o u r most im p o r ta n t s k i l l s a middle manager should have.
Field S ta f f

1 . Communications
2. Counseling

1. Communications
2. Counseling

3. L i s t e n i n g
4. Lea der shi p

3. L i s t e n i n g
4. Empathy

5. E v a l u a t i o n o f
staff
6. Prog, development
& management
7. C o n f l i c t m g t . /
team b u i l d i n g
8. Empathy
9. Human r e l a t i o n s
& motivation
10. O rg a n i z a t i o n a l

Source:

O th e r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s

Middle Managers

1 . Communications
2. P e r s . s e l e c t i o n &
training
3. Personnel mgt.
4. Prog, development
& management
5. L i s t e n i n g

5. C o n f l i c t m g t . /
team b u i l d i n g
6. Time management

6. Counseling

7. Leadership

7. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

8. Personnel mgt.
9. Human r e l a t i o n s
& m o ti v a ti o n
10. Prog, development
& management

8. L e ad er shi p
9. Human r e l a t i o n s
& motivation
10. C o n f l i c t m g t . /
team b u i l d i n g

H oelscher (1983-1984), p. 7.

2.

The

most

im port an t

tasks

middle

managers

perform

viewed s i m i l a r l y by f i e l d s t a f f and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s e i g h t time s
in t h e to p t e n .
personnel

selection

adm inistrators
manager.

The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g noted in t h i s s tu dy was t h a t

rated

showed
it

as

up

as

the

number

10,

number-one

whereas
task

of

the
the

other
middle

Table 3 summarizes t h e most im p o r ta n t t a s k s performed by

middle managers from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f f i e l d s t a f f and o t h e r s t a t e le v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

were

73

Table 3 . --Most im p o r ta n t t a s k s middle-managers pe rform, as p e r c e i v e d
by f i e l d s t a f f and o t h e r s t a t e - l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Other S t a t e - L e v e l
Administrators

Field S ta ff

1. P e rs . s e l e c t i o n , employment,
& orientation
2. Program development p r o c e s s
guidance
3. Performance a p p r a i s a l

1. F i n a n c i a l (county budgets &
s a la ry determination)
2. Performance e v a l u a t i o n
3. Provide s t a f f gu id an ce &
training
4. Counseling
5. Su p po rt in g f i e l d s t a f f
6. L i a is o n wit h s t a t e o f f i c e

4. P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
5. Counseling
6. D i r e c t i n g s t a f f development
& growth
7. County budget development
& m on ito ri ng
8. R ep r es e n ti n g D i r e c t o r
9. Program e v a l u a t i o n

7. O r i e n t a t i o n o f c o u n c i l s /
boards
8. P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
9. Program development
guida nce
10. Personnel s e l e c t i o n

Source:

3.

Hoelscher (1983-1984), Tables 5 and 6.

Middle manager? p e r c e iv e d t h e i r g reatest s t r e n g t h t o be in

working with s t a f f .
fied

as

10. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f i e l d
s t a f f & adm inistration
needs

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e fo ll o w i n g items were i d e n t i ­

being t h e i r

strengths:

peop le

skills,

understanding

of

f i e l d s t a f f p o s i t i o n , empathy, o r g a n i z a t i o n , communications, program
developm ent,

optimism,

dedication

to

Extension,

counseling/

l i s t e n i n g , and o b j e c t i v i t y .
4.
order)

The top
identified

ten

in-service

by middle

e d u c a ti o n

managers

program needs

c o in c i d e d

with

needed, as p e rc e iv e d by t h e t h r e e resp on de nt gro ups .

(in

the

rank

skills

The i n - s e r v i c e

74
needs t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d were han dl in g c o n f l i c t and team b u i l d i n g ;
s t a f f e v a l u a t i o n and e f f e c t i v e

use o f e v a l u a t i o n ;

program development; ti m e and s t r e s s management;
with

agencies,

local

government,

and

counseling;

public

key p e o p l e ;

relations

m otivation;

communications; l i s t e n i n g ; and personnel s e l e c t i o n and o r i e n t a t i o n .
5.

The most e f f e c t i v e i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n methods i d e n t i f i e d

t o a d d re s s t h e s e i n - s e r v i c e needs were sem in ars /w ork sh ops , d i r e c t e d
self-study,

and

internships.

Eighty-four

percent

of

the

middle

managers i n d i c a t e d t h a t seminars/workshops were t h e b e s t e d u c a t i o n a l
method f o r meeting t h e i r i n - s e r v i c e needs.
6.

The re s p o n se s o f middle managers when asked what th e y most

l i k e d and l e a s t l i k e d about t h e i r p o s i t i o n s a r e summarized in Table
4.

Dealing with low pe rfo rm er s was c i t e d by as many r e s p o n d e n ts as

t h e next two items combined.

H a lf th e re s p o n d e n ts mentioned se e in g

s t a f f grow and succeed as t h e most l i k e d p a r t o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n .

Table 4 . - - I t e m s most l i k e d and l e a s t l i k e d about t h e middlemananpmont n n < :itin n

Most Liked Items

Least Liked Items

1. Seeing s t a f f grow/succeed
2. Working with s t a f f
3. Program l e a d e r s h i p

1. Dealing wit h low pe rf or m er s
2. Personnel a p p r a i s a l
3. F i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s /
uncertainties
4. P o l i t i c a l problems
5. Vise e f f e c t ( s t a t e - c o u n t y )
6. C o n f l i c t management

4. Personnel management
5. F l e x i b i l i t y and freedom
6. I n f l u e n c e a t s t a t e and
d i s t r i c t levels
Source:

Hoelscher (1983-1984), Tables 14 and 15.

75

7.

The

perceptions

of

state-level

adm inistrators

(in

o r d e r ) r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e changes in t h e middle manager’ s p o s i t i o n can
be summarized as f o l l o w s :
a.

G r e a t e r need t o emphasize s t a f f development, e s p e c i a l l y

f o r new s t a f f with d i v e r s e backgrounds.
b.

I n t e g r a t i n g new te chn ol ogy i n t o program.

c.

Stronger

leadership

in

program

evaluation

and

accountability.
d.

Changing mix o f s t a f f w i l l r e q u i r e more peo ple s k i l l s .

e.

D i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s on s t a f f changes t o accommodate new

aud ience s w i t h i n c o n t e x t o f fund r e s t r a i n t s .
f.

More a t t e n t i o n t o c i v i l r i g h t s .

g.

More involvement in program development.

h.

More p r e s s u r e in t h e p o s i t i o n .

The items

identified

in H o e l s c h e r ’ s stu dy pr ovide d

i n f o r m a t io n f o r e x p l o r i n g not on ly t h e i n - s e r v i c e

excellent

needs o f middle

managers but a l s o t h e more g e n e r i c s tu dy o f t h e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
that

are

held

regarding

the

middle

C oop era ti ve Extension S e r v i c e .

manager’ s

position

in

the

That s tu dy i s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t

t o t h e problem being i n v e s t i g a t e d in t h a t H o e l s c h e r ’ s s tu dy inc lu de d
Michigan as p a r t o f h i s sample p o p u l a t i o n .
Barber
b e hav io r

ty p e s

Occupational
P rofile

(1989)
of

Stress

(MPPP).

studied

the

C oo per ati ve
In v e n to ry

o c c u p a ti o n a l
Extension

stressors

mid-managers

(OSI) and t h e Marcus Paul

One h u n d r e d

tw enty-four

and

work-

us in g

th e

Placement

mid-managers

in

the

rank

76
C oop er at iv e Extension S e r v i c e th ro u g h o u t t h e n a t i o n were randomly
s e l e c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s tu d y .

The p a r t i c i p a n t s used in t h e

sample p o p u l a t i o n were c o n t a c t e d through t h e mail by t h e Dean o f t h e
C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e in F l o r i d a ,

s ee kin g t h e i r p a r t i c i p a ­

t i o n in t h e s tu d y .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s tu d y showed l e s s
C ooperative
population.

Extension

Service

role difference

mid-managers

and

the

between
normal

The p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e Bar ber s tu d y showed l e s s r o l e -

boundary s t r e s s but more r o l e - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y s t r e s s th a n t h e normal
population.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between ge nde r and t h e OSI s c a l e s of

r o l e o ve rl o a d and r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y were found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant.

Females

showed

higher

stress

levels

on

these

two

s t r e s s s c a l e s than did males.
The mid-managers
even ly

divided

participating

among

the

inducers,

concentrators,

previous

studies.

producers,

in d u c e r s ,

four
and

in

Barber’s

w ork -behavior

p ro d u c e rs )

s tu d y

types

being

predom inated,

and e n e r g i z e r s .

Barber found

more

(energizers,

an aly ze d

C oncentrators

were

th a n

in

follow ed

by

a significant

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x i s t between e n e r g i z e r s and r o l e i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

As

e n e r g i z e r s ’ s c o r e s i n c r e a s e d , t h e s t r e s s s co r e on r o l e i n s u f f i c i e n c y
fo r those individuals a lso increased.
A stu dy i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o th e p r e s e n t one was conducted in
Texas by Asngari (1981).

Asngari i n v e s t i g a t e d , thr oug h t h e use o f a

w ritten

the

questionnaire,

perceptions

of

D istrict

Extension

D i r e c t o r s and County Extension Agent Chairmen (a p o s i t i o n s i m i l a r to
t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r in Michigan) r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e s

and

77

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Texas A g r i c u l t u r a l

Extension S e r v i c e .

That study

was de sig ne d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e s and
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Texas A g r i c u l t u r a l
other

studies

regarding
Service.

that

the

w ere

roles

of

Extension S e r v i c e ,

designed
a

given

to

investigate

position

within

unlike the
perceptions

the

Extension

The survey in s tr u m e n t used in t h e Asngari s tu d y c o n s i s t e d

o f 40 items t h a t were developed with r e f e r e n c e t o f o u r major t o p i c s :
Extension

ph ilo s op hy ,

Extension o b j e c t i v e s ,

Extension methodology.
stud y inc lud ed a l l

program c o n t e n t s ,

The survey p o p u la ti o n

and

used f o r A s n g a r i ’ s

o f t h e 27 D i s t r i c t Extension D i r e c t o r s and 238

County Extension Agent Chairmen ( i n c l u d i n g 14 County Extension Agent
Supervisors).
Most

of

the

D istrict

Extension

and

the

County

Extension Agent Chairmen had s i m i l a r views conce rni ng

all

of the

f o u r major a re a s being i n v e s t i g a t e d .
perception

differences

sig n ifican t,

regarding

existed,
the

roles

D irectors

A sng ar i, however,
although
and

not

functions

found firm

statistically
of

the

Texas

A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e .
In r e v i e w i n g

the

literatu re

regarding

studies

management p o s i t i o n s w it h in t h e C ooperative Extension
was e v i d e n t t h a t l i t t l e
investigate

the

organization.
investigated

role

of

Service,

it

had been done by pre vio us r e s e a r c h e r s

to

middle-management

Therefore,
in

te le p h o n e c a l l ,

this

o f m iddle-

s tu d y ,

to
a

prepare
letter

for
was

positions
the
sent,

within

problem
followed

the

being
by

a

to th e A s s o c ia te D i r e c t o r o f Extension in each of

78
t h e remaining 11 s t a t e s
Region, s o l i c i t i n g
p osition

in

th eir

(a)

t h a t make up t h e North C en t ra l
the job d e sc rip tio n

respective

state

Extension

f o r t h e mid-management

and

(b)

a

copy

of

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t f o r t h e C ooper ati ve Ex te ns ion S e r v i c e in t h e i r
state.

Responses

were

received

from

the

a d d i t i o n t o t h e m a t e r i a l s from Michigan:
Kansas,
D akota,

Minnesota,
and

descriptions

Missouri,

W isconsin.

Nebraska,
In

and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

Illinois,

the

the

states,

Indiana,

North Dakota,

review ing
charts,

following

Ohio,

various

following

in

Iowa,
South

position
is

summary

in f o r m a t io n about t h e mid-management p o s i t i o n s in t h e North C en tr al
Ext ension Region o f t h e United S t a t e s :
1.

The jo b t i t l e s

given t h e mid-management p o s i t i o n s

in t h e

North Cent ral Region a r e (a) D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s ( I n d i a n a , Minnesota,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and W isc on si n), (b) Regional D i r e c t o r s
( I l l i n o i s and M i s s o u r i ) ,

(c) Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s (Michi­

g a n ) , (d) Area D i r e c t o r s (Iowa and Kansas), and (e) D i s t r i c t Exten­
s io n S u p e r v i s o r s (South Dakota).
2.

Mid-management p o s i t i o n s

in th e

North

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y r e p o r t t o t h e f o ll o w i n g p e op le:
o f Extension ( I l l i n o i s ,

C entral

Regi on

(a ) t h e D i r e c t o r

Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,

and South Dakota), (b) t h e A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r o f Exten sio n ( I n d i a n a ,
Michigan, and Minn eso ta ), (c) t h e Dean o f Extens ion (W is co ns in ), and
(d) t h e A s s i s t a n t V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Exten sio n ( M i s s o u r i ) .
3.
C entral
required

P o s i t i o n p o s t i n g s f o r mid-management p o s i t i o n s in t h e North
Regi on r e q u i r e
(Missouri

and

the

follow ing

Nebraska),

(b)

degrees:
master’s

(a)
de gre e

doctorate
required/

79

doctorate preferred
d e g re e r e q u i r e d

(Illinois

(Indiana,

and South Dakota),

and

(c) m a s t e r ’ s

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,

North

Dakota, Ohio, and Wisc ons in) .
4.

P o s i t i o n p o s t i n g s f o r mid-management p o s i t i o n s in t h e North

C e n t ra l Region s t i p u l a t e (a) f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e i s r e q u i r e d

(Kansas),

(b)

Missouri,

field

North

experience

Dakota),

(c)

is

desirable/preferred

C oo pe ra ti ve

Extension

(Illinois,

Service

experience

is

r e q u i r e d ( I n d i a n a , Michigan, Ohio, South Dakota, and W is c o n s in ), (d)
C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e e x p e r i e n c e i s

preferred

(M inn eso ta ),

and (e) Extension e x p e r i e n c e o r i t s e q u i v a l e n t i s r e q u i r e d (Iowa and
Ne braska).
5.

C ooper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

c h a r t s in th e

North Central Region p l a c e t h e mid-management p o s i t i o n s (a) w it h th e
same d i r e c t

line

Directors/Program

of

authority

Leaders

positions ( I llin o is ,

and

to

th e

other

Director

as

the

adm inistrative

A ssistant

team/cabinet

I n d ia n a , Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota,

Ohio, and South Dakota), and (b) with an i n d i r e c t l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y
to

the

Director

organization

that

first

(Michigan,

passes

Minnesota,

through
M is s o u ri ,

another

level

in

and W is c ons in ).

th e
The

i s s u e r a i s e d in some o f t h e s t a t e s surveyed concerned a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
versus

program

authority

in

the

organization.

This

split

in

a u t h o r i t y was not c l e a r enough in t h e m a t e r i a l s reviewed from t h e 12
states
s tu d y .

in

the

North

C en tr al

Extension

Region

to

report

in

this

80

The s t u d i e s reviewed in t h i s s e c t i o n o f Chapter I I r e l a t e d t o
t h e t h e o r i e s on r o l e s and, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e t h e o r i e s d e a l i n g
wit h

role

consensus

and

role

conflict.

Incumbents

in

a

given

p o s i t i o n perform t h e i r r o l e s acc or din g t o t h e i r own e x p e c t a t i o n s as
well as t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e i r
organization.

The

investigate

a

identified

role

studies

particular

that

have

position

conflicts

been done

within

existing

the

in

Extens ion

organization

b e tw e e n

the

to

have

incum bents’

p e r c e p t i o n s and t h o s e o f t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e
organization.

This r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s as t o whether t h e r e

consensus o r r o l e
Supervisor’s
Likewise,

c o n f l i c t with re g a rd

position

within

to

Michigan’ s

the

Regional

Extension

is

role

Extension

organization.

t h e s t u d i e s t h a t have been under taken t o d a t e have been

able to define the p o sitio n s

being

perceptions

positions

held

fo r those

investigated

p o s itio n s within t h e i r o rg an izatio n s.

by t h e

acc or di ng
various

to

th e

counter­

This r a i s e d a q u e s t i o n f o r

t h e p r e s e n t study con cer nin g how t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r i s p e r c e iv e d t o be f u n c t i o n i n g c u r r e n t l y in Michigan by
t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , as well as how i t
i s p e r c e i v e d t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.
Summary
This c h a p t e r has been an at te m p t a t
the

literatu re

organizational
middle managers

in

the

theory,

areas

of

role

system atically
theory,

reviewing

adm inistrative/

and r e s e a r c h on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e s of

in t h e Coo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e .

The f i r s t

81

p o r t i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r d e a l t with a review o f r o l e
second

part

consisted

of

a

systematic

review

p e rta in in g to a d m in is tra tiv e /o rg a n iz a tio n a l
of

the

chapter

adm inistrative

dealt
role

of

with

related

County

theory.

studies

Exten sio n

of

that

D irectors,

theory.
the

The

literature

The l a s t p a r t
looked
the

at

the

a d m in is ­

t r a t i v e r o l e o f middle managers, and s t u d i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e middlemanagement r o l e in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n in g e n e r a l .

Clearly,

t h e r e was a l a c k o f r e l a t e d s t u d i e s a v a i l a b l e t h a t foc us ed on th e
p e r c e p t i o n s being he ld r e g a r d i n g t h e mid-manager’ s t o t a l r o l e e xpec ­
t a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

CHAPTER III
PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY
Planning t h e Study
In planning a study o f t h i s s i z e and scope, i t was c r i t i c a l

to

foll ow s p e c i f i c proce dures t h a t a re re co gni zed in t h e l i t e r a t u r e f o r
plan nin g

and conducting

the

s tu dy .

This

chapter

describes

the

procedures and a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out in pla nn in g and cond uct in g the
study.
Reviewing th e L i t e r a t u r e
A review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e was t h e f i r s t s t e p in p la nn in g t h i s
st udy.

(See Chapter I I ,

d e a l t with the

adm inistrative

S u p e rv is o r in Michigan,
pertaining
related

to

to

Review o f L i t e r a t u r e . )

(a)

role

of the

i t was e s s e n t i a l

research

related

to

Because t h e study
Regional

Extension

t o review t h e l i t e r a t u r e
role

adm inistrative/organizational

theory,

theory,

(b)

and

research

(c)

studies

r e l a t e d t o th e problem being i n v e s t i g a t e d .
Prepa ring th e Q u e s ti o n n a ir e
The survey in s tr um e nt used was s i m i l a r
used

in

M ich ig an

investigate
Director.

the

by b o t h

Caul

adm inistrative

(1960 )
role

in d e si gn t o t h e one

and H a r r i s o n
of

the

County

(19 8 4)

to

Extension

This q u e s t i o n n a i r e had been adapted t o Extension from one

82

83
used by Hemphill

(1959) in h i s stu dy o f e x e c u t i v e p o s i t i o n s .

Based

on t h e e x e c u t i v e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s made by Hemphill on a s i m i l a r s e t
o f q u e s t i o n s f o r measuring e x e c u t i v e p o s i t i o n s in i n d u s t r y ,
designed

th at

the

questions

would

(a)

measure

e x p e c t a t i o n s toward t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional

i t was

respondents’

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ,

(b) measure t h e e x t e n t t o which d i f f e r e n t elements were p e r c e iv e d to
be a p a r t

of the

d iscrim inate

position

o f Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ,

(c)

b e tw ee n e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d f o r d i f f e r e n t t y p e s

resp o n sib ilities

and a c t i v i t i e s ,

and

(d ) d i s c r i m i n a t e

of

b e tw ee n

e x p e c t a t i o n s held by d i f f e r e n t re s p o n d e n ts .
Many o f t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
(1960)

and H ar ris on

Regional

(1984)

Extension

responsibilities.

items in cl uded

studies

reflect

Supervisor

However,

in

additional

in

items

more

the

Su p e rv is o r in Michigan.

role

which

has

of

the

Caul
the

sim ilar

items were in clud ed

stu dy t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e

describe

for

Michigan

q u e s t i o n n a i r e used in t h i s
accurately

both t h e

in t h e

i n s tr u m e n t and

Regional

Extension

The a d d i t i o n a l items inc lu de d in t h e survey

ins tru me nt were ob ta in e d from (a) a handout d e s c r i b i n g the r o l e o f
Regional

S u p e rv is o rs

(G illespie,

1988a,

pp.

1-4),

(b)

suggestions

made by th o s e i n d i v i d u a l s f i e l d t e s t i n g t h e o r i g i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
(c)

questions

used

by

Hoelscher

(1983-1984)

Extension middle-management p o s i t i o n s ,

and (d)

when

investigating

items gle ane d

from

the p o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f middle managers in o t h e r s t a t e s in th e
North Cent ral Extension Region.
The

survey

questionnaire

was

divided

into

three

sections.

Sec tio n I focused on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f a c t i v i t i e s t h a t

84
may d e s c r i b e something w it h which a Regional
must

be

conce rne d,

be

responsible

for,

or

E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r
oversee

the

m atter

d e s c r i b e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t as t h e p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed and as i t s ho uld be performed.
information

was c o l l e c t e d

on t h e

In S e c t i o n I I , background

re s p o n d e n ts

in

the

study.

In

S e c t i o n I I I , a d d i t i o n a l comments were sought co n ce rn in g (a) t h e f o u r
most i m p o r ta n t s k i l l s needed by Regional

E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r ,

(b)

t h e f o u r most im p o r ta n t t a s k s t o be performed by Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s , and (c) o t h e r comments th e re s p o n d e n t s wanted t o make.
Respondents were asked t o r e c o r d ,
extent to

which th e y

perceived

r e s p o n s ib il ity of the

Regional

the

on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e ,

role-definition

item t o

Extension S u p e r v i s o r (a)

th e
be a

as i t

is

c u r r e n t l y performed in Michigan and (b) as i t should be performed in
t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
level

of

The f i v e l a b e l s used t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r

involvement w it h each

of the

114 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items

were:
None:

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r has no r e s p o n s i ­
b i l i t y fo r the a c ti v i t y .

Minor:

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r a minor p o r t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t y ; a n o t h e r p o s i ­
t i o n in t h e CES o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r th e
major s h a r e .

Shared:

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s h a r e s e q u a l l y
t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a c t i v i t y with a n o t h e r
p o s i t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Major:

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r has r e s p o n s i b i l ­
i t y f o r t h e a c t i v i t y w hil e a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n in th e
o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a minor s h a r e .

Complete:

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r i s t h e only
p o s i t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s
activity.

85

The o r i g i n a l

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p i l o t

tested

w ith

persons

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e s i x p o s i t i o n groups t o be surveyed in o r d e r to
t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t .
f i e l d - t e s t group in Appendix A.)

(See l e t t e r to

The i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from the.

f i e l d - t e s t group was used t o c l a r i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
items and e nsu re t h a t a l l
being a n a ly z e d .
w er e a s k e d t o
responded,

a s p e c t s o f t h e p o s i t i o n were a d e q u a te ly

F i f t y - s e v e n r e t i r e d and former Exten sio n employees
pretest

the

questionnaire.

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f o ll o w i n g r e s p on de nt grou ps :

p ro fe s sio n a l s,

7 C o unty E x t e n s i o n A g e n t s ,

D i r e c t o r s , 3 Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,
members,

and 2 R e g i o n a l

Extension

in

definition

i t e m s was made c l e a r e r ,
for

two

areas.

inclusion

in

The

the

(65%)

4 pa ra -

10 Co un ty E x t e n s i o n

11 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team

recommended

su gg est ed

T hirty-seven

S upervisors.

wording
and

Personnel

on

C han ge s were

some

of

additional
Management

the

role-

item s

were

part

of

the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o b e t t e r r e f l e c t t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
v'nlo
* w
w

in
•••

hanHlinn

••*•••«•••• 3

tho
~..w

norfnrmanrp-annrai
sal•
r w . . _ . ....... —
~ r r • - •—

nrnrp^s
r - ---------

anrl
-----

HPV^nnnpl
--------- -

r -

problem s/staff c o n flic t.
The f i n a l
possible

version

role-definition

of the
items

questionnaire
in S e c t i o n

I,

consisted
used

to

of

114

define

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed
in

Michigan

organization

and

as

it

should

(see Appendix B).

open-ended o p p o r t u n i t y ,

be p e r f o r m e d

in

the

Extension

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l s o pro vi de d an

in S e c t i o n I I I , f o r r e s p o n d e n ts t o i d e n t i f y

t h e f o u r most imp ort an t s k i l l s a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional

86
Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have, as well as t h e f o u r most im p o r ta n t
t a s k s h e / s h e should be pe rfo rm ing .

S e c ti o n I I I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

was c o n c e p t u a l i z e d from t h e Hoelscher

(1983-1984)

s tu dy o f middle

managers’ i n - s e r v i c e needs.
Cronbach’ s
reliability

alpha

test,

coefficients,

instrument.

one

of

the

most

commonly

was used t o t e s t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y

used
o f the

Each o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s used t o t e s t

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e in Michigan
as

the

position

was

should be performed,

perceived

to

be c u r r e n t l y

pe rformed,

as

and t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two,

it
had

Cronbach a lp h a s c o r e s o f a t l e a s t .8445, as seen in Appendix C.
S e l e c t i n g t h e Po pu la ti o n and
t h e Respondent Groups
The p o s i t i o n

of

Regional

Extension

Supervisor

is

a

middle-

management p o s i t i o n in Michigan’ s C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e t h a t
interacts

either

directly

or

indirectly

p o s i t i o n s in t h e Extens ion o r g a n i z a t i o n .

with

a variety

of

other

Because t h e problem being

i n v e s t i g a t e d was concerned with t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld by s i g n i f i c a n t
o t h e r s in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e of
t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ,

fol l o w i n g groups

in t h e

it

was de ci de d

study p o p u l a t i o n :

to

Extens ion

include

th e

paraprofes-

s i o n a l s , County Extension Agents, County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s , S t a t e
Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , t h e E x t e n s i o n ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team,
and th e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v is o r s t he m s el ve s .
I n d i v i d u a l s who had been employed fewer tha n

s i x months with

th e Michigan Coo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e were e l i m i n a t e d

before

87

s e l e c t i n g t h e sample.
171

Extension

County

The e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n was det erm ine d t o be

paraprofessionals,

Extension

D irectors,

186 County Exten sio n

152

State

Extension

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Pr ogr am Team members,
Supervisors.

Agents,

80

S pecialists,

42

and 6 R e g i o n a l

Extension

Because t h e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e Exten sio n o r g a n i z a t i o n

in Michigan were both e n t e r i n g a p e r io d o f u n c e r t a i n t y a t t h e time
o f t h i s s t u d y , which invol ve d t a k i n g an i n - d e p t h l oo k a t i t s e l f ,

a

d e c i s i o n was made t o in c lu d e t h e e n t i r e e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n in th e
sample.
The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n o f Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
created

somewhat

of

a

problem.

i n f o r m a t i o n on c o u n t y - f u n d e d

This

was

due

paraprofessional

to

the

lack

p o sitions.

of
The

Personnel S e r v i c e s o f f i c e in t h e College o f A g r i c u l t u r e and Natural
Resources

(ANR)

U niversity

dollars,

accurately

identify

county l e v e l ,
counties
titles
through

m aintains
but
the

records

not

on

individu als

coun ty-fun de d

Extension

To

more
the

(a) a COMNEl MAIL (C-Mail) message was s e n t t o

ail

1988,

of

employees.

with

employees a t

on October 18,

population

paid

requesting

the

names

and

position

o f any co unty-funded p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s who were no t funded
a

grant

to

the

U niversity;

(b)

the

Expanded

Food

and

N u t r i t i o n Education Program o f f i c e was c o n t a c t e d t o o b t a i n a l i s t of
t h e i r EFNEP employees a t t h e county l e v e l ,

and (c)

the

state

4-H

o f f i c e was c o n t a c t e d f o r a l i s t o f t h e i r cou nty -fu nde d 4-H Program
A ssistants.

The i n fo r m a t io n gain ed from t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l

so urc es

88

was pooled with t h e

in fo r m a t io n

received

from t h e

ANR Personnel

S e r v i c e s o f f i c e , t o a r r i v e a t t h e e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h e s tu d y .
Because t h e a c t i n g Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in t h e Upper
P e n in s u la Region was t h e p r i n c i p a l
decision

was

Supervisor

made

from

the

to

include

Upper

the

former

Peninsula,

p o s i t i o n f o r only n i n e months,
o f Regional

investigator

who

in

this

Regional
had

been

study,

a

Extension
out

of

th e

in t h e st ud y t o keep t h e p o p u l a t i o n

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s a t

six.

Because th e

principal

i n v e s t i g a t o r o f t h i s s tu dy d i r e c t l y s u p e r v i s e d t h e re s p o n d e n t s from
th e Upper P e n i n s u l a , the y were a dvi sed not t o respond t o any o f the
demographic

questions

th e y

th ought

co uld

clearly

identify

their

re s p o n s e s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r o f t h i s s tu d y .
Before t h e s tu d y was co nducted, approval t o conduct t h e study
was sought from the Extension a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in Michigan, as well as
t h e U n i v e r s i t y C omm itt ee on R e s e a r c h
(UCRIHS).

The l e t t e r o f approval

Involving

Human S u b j e c t s

from t h e UCRIHS i s

in c lu d e d

in

Appendix A.
Conducting t h e Study
Securing Responses t o
the Questionnaire
Two s e t s o f m a il in g l a b e l s f o r t h e U n i v e r s i t y - f u n d e d Extension
re s p o n d e n ts were o b ta in e d from t h e ANR Personnel S e r v i c e s o f f i c e at
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
coun ty-fun de d

positions,

as

re c e i v e d from t h e U n i v e r s i t y .
for

the

in itial

m ailing,

A d d it io na l

labels

were

were

labels

mi ssi ng

any

typed

for

from

the

th o s e

One complete s e t o f l a b e l s was used

whereas

the

second

set

was

used

for

89

n e c e s s a r y f oll o w- up m a i l i n g s .
the

particip atio n

Director for
Co unty

of respondents,

Programs,

Extension

L e t t e r s o f endorsement, encou ra gin g
w e re

sent

by t h e

Michigan C oo pe ra ti ve Ex te ns ion S e r v i c e ,

D irectors,

State

Extension

S pecialists,

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and program s t a f f (s e e Appendix A).
on t h e

D i r e c t o r ’ s s t a t i o n e r y was

r e s p o n d e n ts

from each

A ssociate

of

groups (s e e Appendix A).

the

sent

six

w it h

the

C oo pe r at i ve

to
and

A co ver l e t t e r
questionnaire

Exten sio n

to

Service

All re s p o n d e n ts were asked t o r e t u r n t h e

completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e in t h e p r e - a d d r e s s e d ,

stamped en velope t h a t

was pro v id e d .
The f i r s t m a il in g was s e n t t h e second week o f December 1988, to
reach the resp on d en ts b e fo re t h e i r w in te r e d u c a tio n a l
s ch e dule became heavy.
New Year’ s i s

66.3%

T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e time around Christmas and

a p e r i o d when many s t a f f members g e t caug ht

t h e i r pa pe r work.
Extension

up on

The re s p o n se t o t h e f i r s t m a il in g was 32.2% f o r

paraprofessionals,

for

meeting

County

55.9% f o r

Extension

County

D irectors,

Exten sio n

43.4%

for

Agents,

Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s , 47.6% f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team members, and 100%
f o r t h e Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s re s p o n d e n t group.
To p r o v i d e
established.

a method

for

follow -up,

a coding

system

was

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were coded us in g t h e f o l l o w i n g system:

numbers 001-199 f o r Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , numbers 201-399 f o r
County E x t e n s i o n A g e n t s ,
D irectors,

numbers 4 0 1 - 4 9 9 f o r Co un ty E x t e n s i o n

numbers 5 0 1 - 6 9 9 f o r

Extension

S p ecialists,

numbers

701-799 f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team members, and numbers 801-806

90
for

th e

Regional

de s tr o y e d

on

Extension

th e

Supervisors.

questionnaire

and

Respondent numbers were

a

new

identification

number

as s ig n e d as soon as t h e resp onden t p o s i t i o n was v e r i f i e d acc ord ing
t o t h e p r e - a s s i g n e d code number.
A foll ow- up message (s e e Appendix A) was s e n t t o a l l Extension
staff

using

C-Mail

questionnaire.
communication
Agriculture

in mid-January

to

This e l e c t r o n i c mail

remind

system p e r m i t s

among t h e M ic h i g a n S t a t e

and Natural

Resources

them t o

C ooperative Extension S e rv ic e o f f i c e s .

th e

instantaneous

U niversity

campus o f f i c e s

return

and

C ollege
all

of

county

The f o l l o w - u p m e ss a ge

m is ta ke nl y was s e n t to everyone a t l e a s t tw i c e , due t o a breakdown
in t h e system du rin g th e week t h e message was s e n t .

A fol lo w- up

l e t t e r (see Appendix A), wit h a second q u e s t i o n n a i r e , was mailed in
e a r l y February t o a l l non re spondents.
The d a t a in Table 5 show t h e cumulative number and p e rc en ta g e
o f res p on se s by s p e c i f i c respo nde nt p o s i t i o n s .

Regional S u p e r v is o r s

had t h e h i g h e s t pe rc en ta ge o f r e t u r n e d surveys (100%); however, only
five

(83.3%) were i d e n t i f i a b l e as being

after

the original

identification

in

with

90.5% o f

County

Extension

return

rate,

the

Directors

55.9%,

was

questionnaires
had

being

returned,
rate.

from E x t e n s i o n

group

removed.

identifiable

an 85% r e t u r n

received

resp on de nt

code number was

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team had t h e h i g h e s t
rate,

this

The

resp on se
whereas

The lowe st
S p ecialists,

followed by Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s with a 73.1% r e t u r n r a t e .

Table 5 . --N um b er o f r e s p o n d e n t s ay position:

P o s i t i o n Group

Number
Surveyed

M ic higan, 1989.

Response
1 s t M ai li n g

Cumulative
Response
Follow-Up

Cumulative
Response
2nd Mailing

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Paraprofessionals

171

55

32.2

57

33 .3

115

73.1

County E x t en s io n Agents

186

104

55.9

105

56 .5

152

81.7

80

53

66.3

57

71 .3

68

85 .0

152

66

43.4

66

43 .4

85

55.9

42

20

47 .6

21

50 .0

38

90.5

6

6

100.0

6

10 0.0

637

304

48 .3

312

4 9 .5

County Ex te ns io n D i r e c t o r s
Ext ens ion S p e c i a l i s t s
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team
Regional E x t e n s io n S u p e r v i s o r s
Total
Note:

6a
474

100.0
74.4

The o v e r a l l r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e f o u r r e s p o n d e n t gro ups (County E x t e n s io n Agents,
County E xt en s io n D i r e c t o r s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team members, and t h e Regional
E xt en s io n S u p e r v i s o r s ) most f a m i l i a r w it h t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional E x t e n s i o n S u p e r v i s o r
in Michigan was 84.1%.

a0 n ly f i v e o f t h e Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s ’ q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d as
t h i s r e s p o n d e n t group a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was removed.

92

The low r a t e s

of return

from Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

and

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s may have been due in p a r t t o t h e i r o v e r a l l
lack of
role

knowledge c once rn in g

in t h e

the

Regional

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Ex te ns ion

Supervisor’s

I t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, t h e
County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s , and t h e County Extens ion Agents a r e t h e
p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Exten sio n o r g a n i z a t i o n most f a m i l i a r w it h t h e
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in Michigan.

However, t h e

74.4% o v e r a l l

s ug ge s te d

re sp ons e

rate

was

within

the

levels

Wiersma (1975) as an a c c e p t a b l e minimum r a t e o f r e t u r n .
overall

by

The 84.1%

re s p o n se r a t e f o r t h e f o u r res p on de nt groups most f a m i l i a r

wit h t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e was w i t h i n t h e 80% to
90% l e v e l s su ggest ed by K e r l i n g e r (1973) f o r making v a l i d g e n e r a l i ­
zations.
P r o ce s si n g t h e Data
The d a t a on r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were keypunched and s t o r e d
onto a 5 . 2 5 - i n c h
(Walonick,

1986).

flo ppy

diskette

using

A n a ly si s o f t h e d a t a

S t a t p a c Gold program and by t r a n s f e r r i n g

the

S ta t P a c

Gold

was done usi ng

program
both t h e

t h e d a t a t o t h e Michigan

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y IBM 3090 computer and a n a l y z i n g t h e d a t a through
t h e use o f t h e S t a t i s t i c a l
computer program.

Package f o r t h e Soc ia l

Sc ie nc e s

(SPSS)

93
Analyzing t h e Data
In l i g h t o f t h e g e n e r a l purposes and b a s i c hypoth ese s o f t h i s
s t u d y , t h e f o ll o w i n g s t a t i s t i c a l

p ro c e du re s were used t o t e s t

the

s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s be ing i n v e s t i g a t e d in t h i s st ud y:
1.
test

The

Fr ie d m an

analysis

of

whether t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t

variance

test

differences

was

used

in t h e

to

p e r c e iv e d

e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e v a r i o u s

ad m in istra tiv e functions o f the

Regional

position

Extension

Supervisor’s

as

it

is

currently

performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan, as p e r c e i v e d by
t h e v a r i o u s r e s po nd en t gro ups.
2.

The B a r t l e t t homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was used t o t e s t

whether t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
each

position

various

group

on

the

adm inistrative

p e rc e iv e d

functions

in t h e consensus w i t h i n

expectations

of

the

held

Regional

for

th e

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and as i t should
be performed in Michigan.
3.
whether

The Friedman a n a l y s i s
there

were

significant

of variance t e s t
differences

was used t o

between

the

test

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each o f t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups
on t h e p e r c e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

is currently

being performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan.
4.

The p a i r e d

sig n ifican t

t-test

d ifferences

was

used

be tw e e n

to
how

test
the

whether
Regional

there

were

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r group and each o f t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups p e rc ei v e d
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s

94

p o s i t i o n a r e c u r r e n t l y being performed and how t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

should

be perform ing

the

adminis­

t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in Michigan.
5.

The Friedman a n a l y s i s

of variance t e s t

was used t o

test

whether t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t me asurable a s s o c i a t i o n between th e
p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
as

they

are

performed
education,

currently

in

Michigan,

years

being

performed

and t h e

employed

by

and a s

they

respondents’ gender,

the

Coop erati ve

should
age,

Extens ion

be

formal
Service,

y e a r s in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n , region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n , s i z e o f county
staff,

amount

of

normal

contact,

ty pe

of

normal

contact,

and

p e r c e n t a g e o f time s p en t on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Summary
This c h a p t e r d e a l t wit h t h e pro c e dure s
cond uctin g t h e s tu d y ,
the data.
results.

Chapter

used

in pla n n in g

and

up t o t h e p o i n t o f p r e s e n t i n g and a n a ly z in g
IV p r e s e n t s

the data

and an a n a l y s i s

o f th e

C H A PT E R IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s tu d y o f p e r c e p t i o n s
being held f o r th e 114 s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and
activities

c o n s id e r e d p o s s i b l e p a r t s

Extension

Supervisor

performed

(1988-89)

in

Michigan

and

as

it

of the

as

was

the

six

position

functions,

using

groups
a

and c l a s s i f i e d

five-point

of the

position

p e r c e iv e d

performed in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
by

role

that

is
it

Regional
currently
should

be

These d a t a were analyzed
into

scale:

eight

1 = "None,

adm inistrative
the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r has no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y " ;

2 =

Minor, th e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a minor
p o r t i o n of t h e a c t i v i t y , a n o th er p o s i t i o n in th e CES o r g a n i z a t i o n is
responsible
Extension

for

the

major

share";

3 = "Shared,

S u p e r v is o r

shares

equally

the

the

responsibility

Regional
for

th e

a c t i v i t y with a n o th e r p o s i t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n " ; 4 = "Major, th e
Regional
w hil e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

another

position

in t h e

organization

minor s h a r e " ; and 5 = "Complete, th e Regional
is

the

only

position

in

the

organization

activ ity ."

95

is

for

the

activity

responsible

for

a

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r
responsible

for

this

96
The s i x p o s i t i o n groups used f o r t h e a n a l y s i s and comparisons
were

Extension

paraprofessionals,

Extension D i r e c to r s ,

County Extension Agents,

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

County

the A d m in istrativ e

Program Team, and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s th e m s e lv e s .
Research Que stions and Releva nt Data
In l i g h t o f t h e g e ne r al purposes and b a s i c hypothe ses o f t h i s
s t u d y , t h e f o ll o w i n g s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and r e l e v a n t d a t a
a r e p e r t i n e n t and r e l a t i v e .
1.

Are

th ere

sig n ifican t

d ifferences

e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e v a r i o u s
Regional

Extension

in

adm inistrative

Supervisor’s

position

as

the

perceived

functions
it

is

o f th e

cu rrently

performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan, as p e r c e i v e d by
th e v a r i o u s res po nd en t groups?

The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h i s q u e s t i o n

were a c q u ir e d by c a l c u l a t i n g a mean re s p o n se s co r e f o r each o f th e
eight

adm inistrative

Supervisor’s position

functions
in Michigan,

of

the

Regional

r a nkin g them,

Extension

and app ly in g the

Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t .
2.
each

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

position

various

group

on

adm inistrative

the

p e rc e iv e d

functions

of

in t h e consensus w i t h i n

expectations
the

held

Regional

for

th e

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t
should be performed in Michigan?

The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h i s q u e s t i o n

were a cq u ir ed by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e mean re s ponse

s c o r e and s t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n o f t h e mean re s pon se s co r e on each r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

item,

97
c l a s s i f y i n g them i n t o e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s ,

and a pply ing

t h e B a r t l e t t homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e t e s t .
3.

Are

there

significant

differences

between

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each o f t h e o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t groups
on t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s h e ld f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

is currently

being performed and as i t should, be performed in Michigan?
relevant

to

this

re sp o ns e

scores

adm inistrative

q u e s t i o n were
of

each

functions

a c q u ir e d

position
and

by c a l c u l a t i n g

group

a p pl yi ng

for

the

each

Friedman

of

The d a ta
the
the

mean
eight

analysis

of

variance t e s t .
4.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between how t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each o f t h e o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t groups
p e rc e iv e d

the

adm inistrative

Supervisor’ s position
p e rc e iv e d t h e

Regional

functions

are c u rre n tly

of

the

being

performed

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in Michigan?

Regional

should

Extension

and how they
be performing

The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h i s

q u e s t i o n were a cq uir ed by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e resp ons e
s c o r e s ( t h e va lu e a r r i v e d a t by t a k i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e from t h e mean
resp onse s c o r e as th e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y performed and t h e mean
resp onse s c o r e as th e p o s i t i o n should be performed) o f each p o s i t i o n
group f o r each o f th e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s

and ap plying

t h e Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t .
5.

Is

there

a measurable

association

between

the

p e rc e iv e d

e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y are
currently

being

performed

and

as

th e y

should

be

performed

in

98

Michigan, and th e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ ge nder, age, formal e d u c a t i o n , y e a r s
employed

by

the

Co op erati ve

present p o sition,

Extension

Service

region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n ,

(CES),

years

in

s i z e o f county s t a f f ,

amount o f normal c o n t a c t , type o f normal c o n t a c t , and p e r c e n t a g e o f
time s p en t on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ?
were

a cq u ir ed

by c l u s t e r i n g

The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h i s
the

re s p o n d e n ts

into

question

reasonable

and

l o g i c a l group s i z e s by each demographic item, c a l c u l a t i n g t h e mean
re s p o n se s f o r th e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s ,

and a pply in g th e

Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t .
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondents in t h e
Six P o s i t i o n Groups
Nine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were s e l e c t e d as t h e indepen de nt v a r i a b l e s
t o d e s c r i b e t h e re s pond en ts in each of t h e s i x p o s i t i o n g ro u p s , and
one a d d i t i o n a l

independent

variable

was

used

to

re s p o n d e n ts who were in county Extension p o s i t i o n s .
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were ge nder,
by t h e CES,

y e ar s

age,

formal

in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n ,

normal amount of c o n t a c t with Regional
amount o f time s p en t
Tables 6 through 14.

on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

describe

the

The n in e common

e d u c a t i o n , y e a r s employed
region/campus

affiliation,

Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r s ,
These

are

and

presented

in

The one a d d i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r county-

based s t a f f was s i z e o f county s t a f f ; t h a t i s p r e s e n t e d in Table 15.
The

data

respondents,
female.

in

Table

6,

which

represents

the

i n d i c a t e t h a t more than 50% o f t h e

gender

of

re s p o n d e n ts

the
were

However, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n d e n ts by gender ranged

from 3.2% o f t h e Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s being male to 11.3% of

Table 6.--Gender of paraprofessionals. County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, Administra­
tive Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Gender

PA

CEA

No.

Ma le

Female

N.R.

Total

Note:

X

No.

SPEC

CED
X

No.

X

No.

APT
X

RS

No.

X

No.

N .R.
X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

4

3.2

66

43.4

48

77.4

66

79.5

17

44.7

4

80.0

1

11.1

206

43.5

118

94.4

77

50.7

7

11.3

17

20.5

21

55.3

1

20.0

2

22.2

243

51.3

3

2.4

9

5.9

7

11.3

0

0

0

0

0

6

66.7

25

5.2

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

N.R. = no response.

100.0

0

38

474

100.0

100

the

County

Extension

D irectors

S p e c i a l i s t s being fema le.
Supervisor

were

male,

and

20.5%

of

the

Extension

Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e Regional Extension

whereas

County

Extension

Agents

and

the

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team members were more e q u a l l y d i v i d e d .
The d a t a in Table 7 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e 474 r e s p o n d e n ts ranged in
age from 26 t o 55 y e a r s .

S l i g h t l y l e s s th a n 2% were 25 y e a r s

o f age

and younger; 8.6% were 56 y e a r s o f age and o l d e r .
There
gr ou ps .

was

a difference

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e

between 36 and 45 y e a r s ;

in

age make-up

Regional

of

the

six

position

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s

were

74.2% o f t h e County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s ,

69.4% of t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and 84.2% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team were between 36 and 55 y e a r s ;
Extension Agents were in

a younger grouping

whereas t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s were f a i r l y
age c a t e g o r i e s .
D irectors,

9.6% o f

F urther,
the

65.8% o f

o n l y 8.1% o f

Extension

of

well
the

the

26 t o

County

45 y e a r s ,

distributed

in a l l

Co un ty E x t e n s i o n

Specialists,

and

7.9% o f

th e

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team were 35 y e a r s o r younger, whereas 32.9%
o f t h e County Extension Agents and 21.6% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
were in t h i s age c a t e g o r y .
Forty p e r c e n t o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ,

43.5% of

th e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , 49.4% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,
and 47.4% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team were 46 y e a r s o r o l d e r ,
as compared t o only 27.2% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and 26.3% o f the
County Extension Agents being in t h i s age c a t e g o r y .

Table 7.--Age of paraprofessionals, County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, Administrative
Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Age

PA
No.

25 years & under

CEA
X

No.

SPEC

CED
X

No.

X

APT

No.

X

No.

RS
X

No.

N .R.
X

Total
X

No.

No.

X

6

4.8

2

1.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

1.7

26-35 years

21

16.8

48

31.6

5

8.1

8

9.6

3

7.9

0

0

0

0

85

17.9

36-45 years

30

24.0

52

34.2

23

37.1

29

34.9

16

42.1

3

60.0

1

11.1

154

32.5

46-55 years

20

16.0

31

20.4

23

37.1

29

34.9

16

42.1

2

40.0

1

11.1

122

25.7

56 years & over

14

11.2

9

5.9

4

6.4

12

14.5

2

5.3

0

0

0

0

41

8.6

Not given

34

27.2

10

6.6

7

11.3

5

6.0

1

2.6

0

0

7

77.8

64

13.5

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

474

100.0

Total

Note:

N.R. = no response.

102
The d a t a in Table 8 i n d i c a t e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e amount o f
formal e d u c a ti o n were a l s o e v i d e n t between t h e s i x p o s i t i o n groups
studied.
m aster’s

The

Regional

degrees;

Extension

one

had

a

Supervisors

doctorate.

all

Fifty

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s did not have a c o l l e g e d e g r e e ,

h e ld

at

percent

least
of

the

whereas 75.8% o f

t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , 96.4% o f t h e Extens ion S p e c i a l i s t s ,
and 86.8% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team held a t l e a s t m a s t e r ’ s
degrees.

F u r t h e r , only 1.6% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 3.9% o f th e

County Extension Agents, and 4.8% o f t h e County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s
he ld de gre es beyond t h e m a s t e r ’ s de gre e l e v e l , as compared t o 79.5%
o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s and 49.4% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team.

These d i f f e r e n c e s

t h e need f o r Regional

in t h e amount o f formal t r a i n i n g i n d i c a t e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t o p o s s e s s t h e a b i l i t y

t o communicate to i n d i v i d u a l s a t va ryi ng l e v e l s o f e d u c a t i o n .
The d a t a in Table 9 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y e a r s employed by t h e
C ooperative

Extension

Service

Extension D i r e c t o r r e s p o n d e n t s .

was

greatest

among

the

Cou nty

Whereas 50% o f t h e County Extension

D i r e c t o r s had worked in Extension f o r 16 y e a r s o r more, onl y 8% o f
t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 25% o f t h e County Extension Agents, 36.1% of
the

Extension

S p ecialists,

Program Team had t h i s

amount

County Extension Agents,

and

and
of

31.5%

of

the

experience.

Extension

A dm inistrative

Paraprofessionals,

Specialists

represent

the

t h r e e re sp onden t groups with t h e l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e s o f new s t a f f ,
with 36.8%,

37.6%, and 20.5%,

respectively,

being employed by th e

CES f o r f i v e y e a r s or l e s s as compared t o 8.1% f o r County Extension

Table 8. --Formal education of paraprofessiorals, County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists,
Administrative Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Highest Degree
Held

PA

CEA
X

No.

63

50.4

0

Bachelor's

20

16.0

Master's

5

4.0

Specialist

0

0

0

Doctorate

2

1.6

Not given

35

125

Note:

N.R. = no response.

X

No.

< Bachelor's

Total

CED
No.

SPEC
X

No.

APT
X

X

No.

0

0

0

0

0

0

53

34.9

12

19.3

1

1.2

5

87

37.2

44

71.0

14

16.9

0

1

1.6

1

6

3.9

2

3.2

28.0

6

3.9

3

100.0

152

1C0.0

62

N .R.

RS
No.

X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

63

13.3

93

19.6

0

0

0

13.2

0

0

2

18

47.4

4

80.0

0

0

172

36.3

1.2

1

2.6

0

0

0

0

3

0.6

65

78.3

14

36.8

1

20.0

0

0

90

19.0

4.8

2

2.4

0

0

0

0

7

77.8

53

11.2

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

474

100.0

0

0
22.2

Table 9. --Years employed by CES of paraprofessionals. County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Special­
ists, Administrative Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan, 1989.

Respondent Group
Years Employed
by CES

PA
No.

CEA
X

No.

CED
X

No

X

6

4.8

2

1.3

0

0

1-5 years

AO

32.0

40

26.3

5

6-10 years

24

19.2

38

25.0

11-15 years

12

9.6

24

16-20 years

9

7.2

Over 20 years

1

Year or less

Not given

Total

Note:

APT

SPEC
No.

X

No

N .R.

RS
X

No

X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

11.1

9

1.9

8.1

17

20.5

5

13.2

0

0

1

11.1

108

22.8

10

16.1

15

18.1

11

28.9

0

0

0

0

98

20.7

15.8

12

19.4

18

21.7

9

23.7

2

40.0

1

11.1

78

16.5

20

13.2

13

21.0

7

8.4

4

10.5

2

40.0

1

11.1

56

11.8

0.8

18

11.8

18

29.0

23

27.7

8

21.0

1

20.0

0

0

69

14.6

33

26.4

10

6.6

4

6.4

3

3.6

1

2.6

0

0

5

55.6

56

11.8

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

474

100.0

N.R. = no response.

105

D irectors

and

13.2%

O rganizationally,

for

the

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Prog ram

43.5% o f t h e s t a f f resp ond ing t o t h i s

Team.

st ud y had

been employed 10 y e a r s o r l e s s , as compared t o 26.4% being employed
16 y e a r s o r more.

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s had been employed,

by t h e CES f o r a minimum o f 11 y e a r s .
The d a t a

in Table

Extension s t a f f ,

10

indicate

t h a t the

m ajorityof

with t h e e x c e p ti o n o f Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

been employed in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n f o r 10 y e a r s o r l e s s .
percent

of

the

the

A dm inistrative

Program

Team,

39.2%

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 37.8% o f t h e County Extension Agents,

had
Fifty

of

the

and 33.9%

o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s i n d i c a t e d the y had been employed
in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n f o r f i v e y e a r s o r l e s s ,

as compared with

54.2% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t i n g they had been in t h e i r
c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n f o r 11 y e a r s
Table 11 shows t h a t th e
res p o n d en ts
Most

of

was

the

u n e q u a ll y

o r more.
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f county p o s i t i o n

scattered

paraprofessionals

th r ougho ut

were

found

in

the
the

six

group

regions.

Southeast;

Southwest, and West C en tr al r e g i o n s , which r e p r e s e n t e d 52.8% o f th e
resp onden t
re s po nden ts

group,

as

compared

to

23.2% o f

in t h e remaining t h r e e r e g i o n s .

the

paraprofessional

The d i s t r i b u t i o n

of

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r c e n t a g e s ranged from 4.8% from t h e East Cent ral
reg io n t o 24% from t h e S o u th e a s t r e g i o n .

The County Extension Agent

res p o n d en ts were more e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d
57.9% r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e S o u t h e a s t ,
re g io n s

as

compared

to

36.8%

among t h e r e g i o n s ,

Southw est,

representing

the

with

and West C e n t r a l
remaining

three

Table 10.--Years in present position of paraprofessionals. County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension
Specialists, Administrative Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan, 1989.

Respondent Group
Years in Present
Position

PA
No.

Year or less

CEA
X

7

5.6

1-5 years

42

33.6

6-10 years

21

11-15 years

No.

CED
X

No.

X

No.

No.

X

No.

X

No.

X

0

0

1

10.0

27

5.7

21

25.3

15

39.5

2

40.0

1

10.0

144

30.4

30.6

13

15.7

10

26.3

3

60.0

0

113

23.8

11

17.7

17

20.5

5

13.2

0

0

1

69

14.6

8.6

3

4.8

8

9.6

2

5.3

0

0

0

0

35

7.4

4

2.6

3

4.8

20

24.1

1

2.6

0

0

0

0

30

6.3

24.8

8

5.3

5

8.1

4

4.8

1

2.6

0

0

7

70.0

56

11.8

100.0

151

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

5

100.0

10

100.0

474

100.0

0

50-

33.1

13

21.0

16.8

47

31.1

19

13

10.4

22

14.6

16-20 years

9

7.2

13

Over 20 years

2

1.6

31

125

N.R. = no response.

X

10.5

12.9

Note:

No

Total

N .R.

4

8

Total

X

RS

0

4.6

Not given

APT

SPEC

7

0
10.0

Table 11.--Region/campus affiliation of paraprofessionals. County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension
Specialists, Administrative Program Team, and Regional Extension Supervisors in this study:

Michigan, 1989.

Respondent Group
PA

Regi on/Campus
Aff iIi at ion
No.

Upper Peninsula

CEA
X

CED

No.

X

No.

SPEC
X

Nci.

APT
X

No

N .R.

RS
X

No.

X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

9

7.2

13

8.6

9

14.5

0

0

0

0

1

20.0

1

11.1

33

7.0

14

11.2

18

11.8

12

19.4

0

0

0

0

1

20.0

1

11.1

46

9.7

6

4.8

25

16.4

14

22.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

22.2

47

9.9

Southeast

30

24.0

32

21.1

6

9.7

0

0

1

2.6

1

20.0

0

0

70

14.8

Southwest

15

12.0

31

20.4

9

14.5

0

0

1

2.6

1

20.0

0

0

57

12.0

Uest Central

21

16.8

25

16.4

9

14.5

0

0

1

2.6

1

20.0

0

0

57

12.0

Campus based

2

1.6

0

0

0

0

92.1

0

0

0

0

114

24.1

28

22.4

8

5.3

3

0

0

0

5

55.6

50

10.5

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

474

100.0

North
East Central

Not given

Total

Note:

N.R. = no response.

77

92.8

35

4.8

6

7.2

0

100.0

83

100.0

38

108

regions.
ranged

The d i s t r i b u t i o n

o f County Extension Agent

from 8.6% from t h e

Upper P e n i n s u l a

to

r e s p o n d e n ts

21.1% fr o m

the

S o u th e a s t r e g i o n .
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r r e s p o n d e n t s came
from t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a ,

North,

and East C en tr al

regions,

t h e r e a r e fewer County Extension Agents and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
percentages

f o r County Extension D i r e c t o r r e s p o n d e n ts

22.6% in t h e East Cent ral
with

56.5% o f

North,

th e

The
from

re g io n t o 9.7% in t h e S o u t h e a s t r e g i o n ,

re s p o n d en ts

and East Cent ral

ranged

where

representing

the

Upper

Peninsula,

re g i o n s as compared t o 38.7% r e p r e s e n t i n g

t h e remaining t h r e e r e g i o n s .

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t s r e p r e s e n t e d

t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e campus-based s t a f f ,

which made up 24% o f th e

t o t a l respo nde nt group.
Table 12 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e among
the

re sp onden t

groups

in

the

amount

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
P v ~t o n c~ i. nwn. .

nw i. v. 'wo wr +wnwv. ' ^c

ar»H

6« 0w . 6°/

of

contact

least

1-2

times

per

have

with

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e County
n~ f•

fwh. . ow

f l H......................w
m i n i cw t. r a fw i. v./ ow

«

i n d i c a t e d the y were in c o n t a c t with Regional
at

th e y

month

as

P r n n r a«m
...

. . w 3 .

T. os. a m

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s

comp ared

to

71.2%

of

the

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 59.3% o f t h e County Extension Agents, and 88% of
the

Extension

Specialists

indicating

contact

with

Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r s 1-2 times p e r q u a r t e r o r l e s s .

The

majority

of paraprofessionals

and

the y

Extension

were

in

Specialists

indicated

th e y were in c o n t a c t with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s 1-2 times
pe r y e a r ,

whereas

County

Extension

Agents

were

in

contact

with

Table 12.--Normal amount of contact with Regional Extension Supervisors of paraprofessionals. County Extension Agents, County
Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, and Administrative Program Team in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Amount of Contact
With Regional
Supervi sors

PA
No.

CEA
X

No.

No contact

26

20.8

0

1-2 times/year

44

3!i.2

20

1-2 times/quarter

19

115.2

1-2 times/month

8

6.4

1-2 times/week

0

More than 2 times/week

0

Not given

Total

Note:

N.R. = no response.

CED
X

No.

APT

SPEC
X

N .R.

No.

X

No.

X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

0

0

14

16.9

2

5.3

2

22.2

44

9.4

13.2

3

4.8

34

41.0

3

7.9

1

11.1

105

22.4

70

46.1

12

19.4

25

30.1

10

26.3

2

22.2

138

29.4

53

34.9

38

61.3

6

7.2

11

28.9

0

0

116

24.7

0

2

1.3

7

11.3

2

2.4

7

18.4

0

0

18

3.8

I)

3

2.0

1

1.6

0

0

5

13.2

0

0

9

1.9

28

22.4

4

2.6

1

1.6

2

2.4

0

0

4

44.4

39

8.3

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

9

100.0

469

100.0

0

110

Regional

Extension

Extension

Supervisors

Directors

and t h e

1-2 time s p e r q u a r t e r ,

Administrative

and County

Program Team were

c o n t a c t wit h Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r 1-2 ti m e s p e r month.

in
It

i s n o t i c e a b l e t h a t 20.8% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and 16.9% o f th e
Extension

Specialists

indicated

th e y had no c o n t a c t

at

all

with

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
Table 13 i n d i c a t e s t h a t

a considerable d iffe re n c e e x iste d

in

t h e type o f c o n t a c t t h e v a r i o u s re sp ond ent groups had with Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

F a c e - t o - f a c e m e et in gs,

letters,

and t e l e ­

phone c a l l s th r o ug ho ut t h e y e a r were r e p o r t e d by 80.3% o f t h e County
Extension Agents, 83.9% o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and 60.5%
of

the

Administrative

Program Team as

being

the

normal

c o n t a c t the y had with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

type

of

In c o n t r a s t ,

56% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and 42.4% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
indicated

th e y

had l i t t l e

or

no

contact

with Regional

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s o t h e r than o c c a s io n a l

c o n t a c t a t m e e t in g s .

Interest­

ingly.

Program

th e y

29% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Team i n d i c a t e d

had

l i t t l e o r no c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n o t h e r t h a n o c c a s io n a l c o n t a c t
a t meet ing s.
The d a t a

in Table

14 i n d i c a t e

that

all

position

groups

had

i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n t h e i r group who devoted a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r time
in a d m i n i s t e r i n g o t h e r Extension s t a f f o r programs.

The m a j o r i t y of

paraprofessionals,

and

S pecialists
reflected

indicated

Co un ty
they

Extension
sp en t

no

A gents,

time

in

by 20.8% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

Extension

adm inistration,
17.8% o f t h e

as

County

Table 13.--Type of contact with Regional Extension Supervisors of paraprofessionals, County Extension Agents, County
Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, and Administrative Program Team in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Type of Contact
With Regional
Supervi sors

PA

CEA

No.

X

No.

CEO
X

APT

SPEC
X

No.

No.

X

N .R.

No.

X

Total
X

No.

No.

X

Face-to-face meetings, letters
and telephone calls throughout
the year

15

12.0

122

80.3

52

83.9

20

24.1

23

60.5

2

22.2

Letters and telephone calls
only

3

2.4

9

5.9

7

11.3

5

6.0

3

7.9

0

Letters only

6

4.8

2

1.3

0

0

2

2.4

0

0

Telephone calls only

0

0

0

0

1

1.6

0

0

0

0

7.2

1

1.6

31

37.3

9

24

5.1

234

49.9

0

27

5.8

0

0

10

2.1

0

0

1

0.2

23.7

1

11.1

91

19.4

2

5.3

2

22.2

60

12.8

Occasional contact at meetings

38

30.4

11

Little or no contact with
pos it ion

32

25.6

0

0

0

0

Not given

31

24.8

8

5.3

1

1.6

1

0.2

1

2.6

4

44.4

46

9.8

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

9

100.0

469

100.0

Total

Note:

N.R. = no response.

Table 14.--Percentage of time spent in administration of Extension staff or programs of paraprofessionals. County Extension
Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, Administrative Program Team, and Regional Extension
Supervisors in this study:

Michigan,

1989.

Respondent Group
Time Spent on
Administration of

CE/t

PA

CED

SPEC

APT

N .R.

RS

Total

Staff/Programs
No.

None

%

No.

X

No.

26

20.8

27

I7.8

0

Less than 20X

6

4.8

36

23.7

11

21-40%

4

3.2

13

8.6

41-60%

0

0

3

Over 60%

1

0.8

88

125

Not given

Total

Note:

N.R. = no response.

%

0

No.

%

No.

%

No

%

%

No.

No.

%

24

28.9

4

10.5

0

0

0

0

81

17.1

17.7

15

18.2

8

21.1

0

0

0

0

76

16.0

35

56.5

1

1.2

4

10.5

0

0

1

11.1

58

12.2

2.0

8

12.9

0

0

5

13.2

1

20.0

0

0

17

3.6

9

5.9

6

9.7

1

1.2

11

28.9

4

80.0

0

0

32

6.8

70.4

64

42.1

2

3.2

42

50.6

6

15.8

0

0

8

88.9

210

44.3

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

83

100.0

38

100.0

5

100.0

9

100.0

474

100.0

113

Extension Agents, and 28.9% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t i n g
none o f t h e i r

time was s p e n t

in

adm inistration.

This

was

also

r e f l e c t e d by t h e 70.4% nonresponse r a t e by p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 42.1%
nonresponse r a t e by County Extension Agents,
r a t e by Extension S p e c i a l i s t s .
D irectors

indicated

adm inistration,
Program

as

Team and

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e County Extension

they

spent

41-60%

c om par ed w i t h
100% o f

and 50.6% nonresponse

the

of

th eir

42.1% o f t h e

Regional

time

on

A dm inistrative

Extension

Supervisors

i n d i c a t i n g t h e y sp en t a t l e a s t 60% o f t h e i r time on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
o f Extension s t a f f or programs.
The

size

of

total

paraprofessional
paraprofessional

county

positions,
re sp ond ent

staff,
is

group

including

presented
was

in

equally

r e p r e s e n t i n g c o u n t i e s with nine o r fewer s t a f f

professional

and

Table

The

15.

divided,

with

36%

members and 35.2%

r e p r e s e n t i n g c o u n t i e s with t e n o r more s t a f f members.

The m a j o r i t y

o f t h e County Extension Agents and County Extension D i r e c t o r s , with
CA
V 7

CO/

t V/0

UIIU

71
t I

0 0 / v*rt c r*r»

• C /P )

|

A \tr > 1 w

t

t « V i jr )

v 'n n v ' n c n n f oH
i w|^i

r n im f i o c
v w u m

v <

ii

K

i wii

n>no
ii i ii

nv*
wi

fewer s t a f f members as compared with 35.2% and 38.2%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
r e p r e s e n t i n g c o u n t i e s wit h t e n o r more s t a f f members.

The c a te g o r y

r e p r e s e n t i n g f o u r t o n in e s t a f f members was t h e most common f o r a l l
t h r e e r e s pon de nt grou ps ,

and t h e c a t e g o r y r e p r e s e n t i n g

s t a f f members was l e a s t common among a l l t h r e e gro ups.

16 or more

Table 15.--Size of county staff of paraprofessionals, County Extension Agents, and County Extension Directors in this study:
Michigan, 1989.

Respondent Group
Number of Professional
and Paraprofessional
Staff in the County

PA
No.

CED

CEA
X

No.

X

No.

N ■R.
X

No.

Total
X

No.

X

11

8.8

14

9.2

16

25.8

2

22.2

43

12.4

4-9 persons

34

27.2

69

45.4

28

45.4

1

11.1

132

37.9

10-15 persons

20

16.0

14

9.2

8

12.9

0

0

42

12.1

16-21 persons

11

8.8

18

11.8

1

1.6

1

11.1

31

8.9

Over 22 persons

13

10.4

11

7.2

6

9.7

0

0

30

8.6

Mot given

36

28.8

26

17.1

3

4.8

5

55.6

70

125

100.0

152

100.0

62

100.0

9

100.0

348

Total

Mote:

N.R. = no response.

o
Cd

1-3 persons

100.0

115

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fun ctions in t h e CES a t t h e Regional
Level as They Are C u r r e n t l y Performed
The

eight

adm inistrative

areas

identified

to

describe

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s a t t h e r e g io n a l l e v e l o f Extension work in
M ic hi gan

were

development,
evaluation

personnel

program
and

management,

development,

accountability,

staff

Extension

orientation

programming,

administration

and

and

program

policy,

public

r e l a t i o n s , and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g .
The d a t a in t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r have been grouped i n t o
the

eight

adm inistrative-function

areas

listed

above

in o r d e r

to

f a c i l i t a t e a n a l y s i s o f t h e items a s s o c i a t e d with t h e p o s i t i o n o f th e
Regional Extension S u p e rv is o r in Michigan as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed.

The d a t a were based on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f 125 Extension

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 152 County Extension Agents, 68 County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , 85 Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , 38 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team
members,
based

and 5 Regional

on

S upe rv is or s

the

degree

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
of

involvement

c u r r e n t l y were pe rc ei ve d

to

o r g a n i z a t i o n toward t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

that

The a n a l y s i s
Regional

p o s se ss

in t h e

and a c t i v i t i e s

was

Extension
Extension
associated

with the e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a s .
Personnel Management
Personnel management f u n c t i o n s

ser ve as a c o o r d i n a t i n g mecha­

nism t o help f a c i l i t a t e a harmonious workplace, en sur e t h a t employee
planning is not l e f t to chance, and a s s i s t management in i d e n t i f y i n g
and c l a r i f y i n g the numerous personnel p o l i c i e s t h a t w i l l a f f e c t both

116
workers

and

supervisors

alike

(B rinckloe

& Coughlin,

1977).

Personnel management can be viewed from a systems p e r s p e c t i v e with
four

interacting

evaluation,
personnel

and dependent

and

motivation

subsystems:

( B r in c k lo e

management f u n c t i o n

fo c u s es

selection,

& Coughlin,

training,

1977).

on a t t a i n i n g

The

organizational

e ffe c tiv e n e s s without n eglecting the o r g a n iz a tio n ’ s o b lig a tio n s
i t s employees.

to

In g e n e r a l , pers onnel management i s t h e management

o f t h e human r e s o u r c e component o f t h e workplace.
The

re s p o n se s

Regional

to

Extension

18

possible

S upervisor,

role-definition

judged

to

be

pe rsonnel management f u n c t i o n s a t t h e r e g i o n a l

items

of

th e

examples

of

the

level,

a re shown in

Table 16.
Conducting
re g i o n a l

periodic

appraisals

s t a f f was ranked as t h e

role

of

county,

d istrict,

and

item in which t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r has t h e most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as t h e p o s i t i o n is
c u r r e n t l y performed when t h e 3. 64 mean s c o r e (a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of

the

position)

of

all

402

re s p o n d e n ts

was

considered.

The

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r r e s po nd en t group was t h e only one not
t o have t h i s

item ranked number one.

The S u p e r v i s o r s th ou ght the y

had more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r e s e n t i n g new Extens ion
County

Board

of

Commissioners

(4.00)

and

staff

handling

to

th e

personnel

p r o b l e m s / c o n f l i c t (3 .6 0 ) in t h e re g io n th a n th e y d id f o r cond uct in g
periodic appraisals

(3.40).

However, t h e i r mean s c o r e s would a l s o

i n d i c a t e th e y had a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in c a r r y i n g out th o s e r o l e
i te m s .
was

I n s u r i n g f a i r t r e a t m e n t o f a l l Extension s t a f f in t h e re g io n

considered

by

paraprofessionals

(2nd)

and

County

Extension

Table 16.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 18 items
pertaining to the personnel management function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tots I

PA

CEA

(N=4C5)

(N=77)

(N=149)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

CEO

SPEC

Rank

Mean

APT

<M=71)

(N=62)
Rank

Mean

RS

(N=37)

Rank

Mean

<N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Conduct periodic appraisals of
county, district and regional
staff in the region.

3.64

1

3.65

1

3.67

1

3.39

1

3.70

1

3.76

1

3.40

3

Insure compliance with County,
Michigan State University and
Extension personnel policies
and procedures.

3.26

2

3.09

5

3.15

3

3.31

3

3.54

4

3.35

4

3.00

8

3.25

3

2.77

10

3.23

2

3.23

5

3.69

2

3.43

3

3.40

4

3.21

4

2.93

6

3.04

6

3.34

2

3.57

3

3.50

2

3.00

9

3.14

5

3.20

2

2.97

9

3.18

6

3.36

10

3.05

9

3.00

10

3.14

6

3.16

3

3.07

4

3.05

10

3.39

7

3.00

11

3.20

5

Identify individual strengths
and weaknesses of Extension
staff in the region.
Know the attitudes of Extension
staff in the region towards the
CES organization.
Insure fair treatment of all
Extension staff in the region.
Administer CES policies and
procedures relating to contin­
uing employment of Extension
field staff in the region.

Table 16.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS
(N=405)
<N=77)
(N=149)
(N=62)
(N=71)
<N=37)
(N=5)

For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

----------

----------

----------

----------

-------

Mean

Rank

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

13

3.05

5

3.26

4

3.37

9

3.32

5

3.60

2

2.87

8

2.98

8

3.10

8

3.39

8

3.32

6

2.80

14

Rank

Mean

3.11

7

2.68

3.09

8

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Handle personnel problems/
conflict in the region.
Administer University and
Extension Service policies and
procedures for handling staff
disciplinary problems with
the Region.
Provide information and proce­
dures to staff for filing
grievances and appeals.

3.07

9

2.70

12

3.01

7

3.12

7

3.41

5

3.24

7

2.80

15

3.01

10

3.11

4

2.95

11

3.00

11

3.07

14

2.92

16

3.00

11

2.94

11

2.72

11

2.97

10

2.90

14

3.09

13

2.95

15

3.20

6

12

2.55

2.69

13

6

3.05

Maintain a competent staff
within the region.
Interview prospective candidates
for open positions within the
Region.
Maintain staff solidarity,
morale, and esprit de corps
in the region.

2.90

14

3.10

9

3.41

10

3.20

7

Table 16.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Tota I
(N=405)

PA
(N=77)

CEA
(N=149)

CED

SPEC
(N=71)

(N=62)

APT
(N=37)

RS
<N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

positions within the region.

2.88

13

2.81

Develop staffing alternatives
for county(ies) and the region.

2.82

14

Assist staff in the region in
developing their Extension roles.

2.79

Commissioners.
Recruit candidates for open field
staff positions within the region.

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

9

2.88

12

2.90

15

2.97

15

2.81

13

2.60

16

2.91

7

2.69

14

2.64

16

3.11

12

2.81

14

3.00

12

15

2.41

16

2.58

16

2.98

12

3.31

11

3.00

12

3.00

13

2.69

16

2.03

18

2.61

15

2.92

13

2.96

16

3.11

8

4.00

1

2.56

17

2.48

15

2.48

17

2.57

17

2.87

17

2.43

17

2.40

17

2.40

18

2.32

17

2.22

18

2.37

18

2.81

18

2.41

18

2.20

18

Select staff for vacant county,
district and regional Extension

Present new Extension field
staff to the County Board of

Provide staff with policies and
procedures relating to staff
benef its.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

120

Directors

( 6 th )

to

be a h i g h e r

level

responsibility

of

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ p o s i t i o n as compared t o t h e 9 t h -

Regional
and 10th-

p l a c e r a n k in g s given t h a t r o l e item by t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t gro ups .
Although t h i s

item was seen by t h e t o t a l

resp o n sib ility ,
Regional

the

Extension

mean r e s p o n s e

Supervisors

have

group as r a nk in g 5t h

s c o r e s would i n d i c a t e
a

s har ed

in

th at

responsibility

in

c a r r y i n g ou t t h e t a s k .
Identifying
staff

was

individual

seen by

County

strengths

and weaknesses

Extension

Agents

(2nd)

of

Extension

and

Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s (2nd) as being a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y r o l e item f o r Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

than was observed by t h e

lOth-place

County

ra n k in g .

Extension D i r e c t o r s

t r a t i v e Program Team th ought Regional
major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
toward t h e

in

knowing t h e

CES o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

paraprofessionals’
and t h e Adminis­

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have a
attitudes

as observed

of

Ex te ns ion

staff

by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

2nd

pla c e ra n k in g s on t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
Regional

Extension

items h i g h e r than a l l
the

other

five

definition

items

group.

A ll

Supervisors
policies
Regional

and

respondent
higher

little

pr oc ed ure s

Extension

ranked

three

t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t gro ups,

respondent
have

Supervisor ?

than

groups
the

groups

ra n k in g seven
Regional

agreed

responsibility
relating

Supervisors

to

role-definit.ion
as compared to
of

role-

E xt ens ion

Supervisor

Regional

Extension

that
for

providing

staff

benefits.

w e re

the

seen

to

staff

with

Likewise,
hav e

little

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e c r u i t i n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r open p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n

121
the

re g io n

by a l l re sp onden t

groups

ex cep t

the

paraprofessional

group.
In summary,
re sp ond ent
periodic

Regional

groups

to

Extension S u p e r v is o r s were seen by a l l

have

appraisals of

a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

field

staff

and

for

conducting

i n s u r i n g compliance

with

County, Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and Extension pe rsonnel p o l i c i e s
and proce dures w hile a t t h e same time i n d i c a t i n g th e y have a minor
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e c r u i t i n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r open p o s i t i o n s and f o r
pro vid i n g

staff

with

policies

and

proce dures

relating

to

staff

benefits.
S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development
Orientation

is the

guided adju stment o f t h e employee t o

o r g a n i z a t i o n and h i s / h e r work environment (Beach, 1980).

th e

The f i r s t

s t e p in an employee’ s development pr oc e ss i s t o g e t him/ he r o f f t o a
good s t a r t (Chruden & Sherman, 1976).

The s u p e r v i s o r pl ay s a major

r o l e in hel pin g th e new employee g e t o f f t o a good s t a r t

in any

o r g a n i z a t i o n by making th e employee f e e l h e /s h e i s wanted and needed
(Beach, 1980).
create
and

its

In c a r r y i n g out such a program, management seeks to

fa v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s

toward t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

its

policies,

p e r s o n n e l. For t h e o r i e n t a t i o n program t o be s u c c e s s f u l ,

t h e personnel s t a f f and t h e s u p e r v i s o r s must not work in d e pe nd e nt ly .
Cooperation between l i n e

and s t a f f

is

essential

in t h e

employee-

development pro ce ss (Chruden & Sherman, 1976).

Both t h e personnel

office

key

and

the

em ployee’ s

supervisor

o r i e n t a t i o n pro ce ss (Beach, 1980).

play

roles

in

the

122
F i f t e e n r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n it e m s , as shown in Tabl e 17, were used
as e x a m p l e s t o
Exten sio n

identify

Supervisors

the

level

currently

of re sp o n sib ility

have

with

regard

to

Regional
the

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n a t t h e r e g i o n a l l e v e l .
Pro vid ing

Equal

Employment

O p p o rt u n it y

in f o r m a t i o n was p e r c e i v e d t o be t h e r o l e

(EEO)

and

T itle

IX

item f o r which Regional

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s c u r r e n t l y have t h e most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t h e
r e g i o n a l l e v e l , when t h e 2.78 mean re s p o n se s c o r e from t h e t o t a l o f
387 re s p o n d e n ts

is

indicates

Regional

having

that

less

than

considered.

a

However,

Extension

t h e mean re s p o n se

Supervisors

s ha r ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

but

were
more

s co r e

perceived
tha n

as

a minor

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item.
The

paraprofessionals,

Extens ion D i r e c t o r s ,

County

Extens ion

Agents,

and

with mean re s p o n se s c o r e s o f 2. 7 3 ,

County

2 .7 4 ,

and

2 . 8 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , viewed Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having
more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y wit h r e s p e c t t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item than
th e y did f o r o t h e r r o l e items in t h i s
number-one r a n k i n g s .
2.71

mean

s co r e

Supervisors

held

Although Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

on
a

f u n c t i o n as viewed by t h e i r

t h i s item,
higher level

they
of

th oug ht

had a s i m i l a r

Regional

responsibility

on

Extension
13

other

f u n c t i o n s , as seen by t h e 3.22 mean re s pon se s co r e f o r t h e i r numberone-ranked
c on ducti ng

role

item

effective

of providing

self-appraisals.

staff

with

procedures

The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

for

Program

Team had a h i g h e r mean s c o r e than t h e o t h e r f o u r groups on t h i s item
(2.94);

however, t h e y th o ug ht Regional

higher

level

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s had a

o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t h e re g i o n a l l e v e l

for

h e lp in g

Table 17.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 15 items
pertaining to the staff orientation and development function of the position, classified by mean score and rank
order.

Respondent Group

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total

PA

CEA

(N=405)

(N=80)

<N=147)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

CED

SPEC

<N=62)

Rank

Mean

APT

<N=70)

Rank

RS

<N=37)

Mean

Rank

Mean

(N=5>

Rank

Mean

Rank

Provide field staff with EEO
and Title IX information.

2.78

1

2.73

1

2.74

1

2.83

1

2.71

14

2.94

2

3.20

3

2.74

2

2.63

2

2.56

4

2.71

5

3.10

3

2.89

3

3.60

1

2.73

3

2.45

4

2.57

2

2.74

4

3.22

1

2.86

5

3.20

4

2.68

4

2.44

5

2.57

3

2.75

3

2.98

7

2.81

8

2.80

8

2.63

5

2.46

3

2.41

6

2.81

2

2.91

9

2.89

4

2.80

9

Assist staff in interpreting,
accepting and implementing the
Extension philosophy of public
service as an integral dimension
of the land grant university
system.
Provide staff with procedures
for conducting effective selfappraisals.
Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­
ment in educationaI competence.
Organize staff in-service
opportunities when needed in
the region.

Table 17.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=405)

PA
(N=80)

CEA
(N=147)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

2.60

6

2.16

12

2.41

ment in technical competencies

2.58

7

2.25

9

Assist field staff in develop­
ing personal plans and long­
term personal goals.

2.54

8

2.36

2.54

9

2.53

10

CED
(N=62)

Rank

SPEC
(N=70)

APT
(N=37)

Rank

Mean

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

7

2.65

9

3.16

2

2.95

1

3.40

2

2.44

5

2.71

6

2.91

10

2.86

6

2.60

11

6

2.34

9

2.56

11

3.06

4

2.71

12

2.40

13

2.23

10

2.40

8

2.67

8

2.85

11

2.81

9

2.80

10

2.31

7

2.31

10

2.57

10

3.00

6

2.83

7

3.00

6

Help staff to meet the expec­
tations of colleagues, admin­
istrators and clientele groups
to be served.
Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­

Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­
ment in administrative compe­
tencies.
Assist field staff in becoming
familiar with CES/MSU/USDA
policies and procedures.

PO

Table 17.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tote I
(N=4C5)

PA

CEA

(N=80)

(N=147)

CEO

SPEC
(N=70)

(N=62)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

2.50

11

2.10

14

2.31

11

2.69

7

2.94

2.49

12

2.28

8

2.27

12

2.51

12

2.38

13

2.21

11

2.21

13

2.44

2.36

14

2.14

13

2.12

14

1.95

15

1.69

15

1.75

15

APT
(N=37)

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

8

2.73

10

3.00

7

3.04

5

2.72

11

2.60

12

13

2.75

13

2.54

14

2.00

15

2.42

14

2.82

12

2.66

13

3.20

5

1.97

15

2.46

15

2.15

15

2.40

14

Rank

Mean

Rank

Rank

Provide orientation for new
employees to their Extension
roles.
Assist field staff in developing
professional plans and long-term
career goals.
Conduct staff in-service oppor­
tunities when needed in the
region.
Assist field staff in becoming
familiar with the CES Adminis­
trative handbook
Assist new staff in becoming
acquainted with the community.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

126

staff

meet

clientele,

the
as

expectations
seen

by t h e i r

of

colleagues,

mean s c o r e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and

of

2 .9 5 .

The

Regional

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s i n d i c a t e d t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for

this

item,

with

assisting

staff

in

a

3.20

mean

interpreting,

score;

however, th e y

accepting,

and

implementing

Extens ion ph ilo s ophy o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e as an i n t e g r a l
land

grant

univ ersity

system

was

th eir

th o ug ht
the

p a rt of the

mo st

im portant

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as seen by t h e i r 3.60 mean s c o r e .
The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e in a s s i s t i n g new s t a f f
in becoming a c q u a in te d wit h t h e community was ranked 15th by a l l
re s p o n d e n t grou ps , ex cep t Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , as being a
minor

responsibility

Supervisors

th ough t

of

they

the

p osition.

currently

have

Regional
less

Extension

responsibility

for

c on du ct in g s t a f f i n - s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n t h e re g io n (ranked
15th)

than the y do f o r a s s i s t i n g

new s t a f f

with t h e community (ranked 1 4 t h ) .

Regional

ranked

assisting

field

staff

in

becoming

in g e t t i n g

acquainted

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
fam iliar

with

the

CES

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Handbook (ranked 5th)

much h i g h e r than t h e o t h e r f i v e

re s p o n d e n t groups (ranked from

to 14th).

12th

shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e Regional

This was seen as a

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

and a

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f th e p o s i t i o n by t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t g ro ups .
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

w ere

vi ew ed

to

have

more

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o r g a n i z i n g s t a f f i n - s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s in th e
region

by t h e

paraprofessionals,

County

Extension

Agents,

County

Extension D i r e c t o r s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team than by t h e

127
Extension
th e m s e lv e s ,

S p ecialists

and t h e

Regional

Extension

as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r a n k i n g s :

Supervisors

5th,

3rd,

6th,

2nd, 4 t h , 9 t h , and 9 t h .
In summary,

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d

have more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,
fo r those

as t h e p o s i t i o n

items t h a t a s s i s t

staff

in

is

to

c u r r e n t l y performed,

becoming more aware o f th e

p o l i c i e s and pro c e d u re s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g

to

EEO

and T i t l e IX, t h e land g r a n t ph il o s o p h y , and what t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s
ar e o f t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s ,
the

adm inistrators,

and c l i e n t e l e ,

h i g h e r mean s c o r e r a n k in g s than t h o s e

as seen by

items t h a t were p u r e l y

p o l i c y o r i e n t e d or t h a t d i r e c t e d them in d e ve lo pi ng s h o r t - and l o n g ­
term per so nal
scores

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

fo r the

Regional

role

items

goals.

in t h i s

However,

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

performed

indicated

that

Regional

t h e mean re s ponse

as

it

is

f u n c t i o n o f th e
currently

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

being

have

less

than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in
handl ing t h o s e r o l e items .
Program Development
The word "program" has f o u r d i s t i n c t meanings
D i c t i o n a r y (1946).
plan

of action,

details

of

in t h e Winston

When used by an o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t means a r e g u l a r
a prospectus,

projected

action,

or
or

a preliminary
a

statement

statement
issued

to

g iv i n g
promote

u n d e rs ta n d in g and i n t e r e s t in an e n t e r p r i s e (Kelsey & Hearne, 1963).
An Extension program, l i k e t h a t o f any p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
giv e not only what i s needed, but why.

should

I t should be an e l a b o r a t i o n

128
o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s p u b l i c p o l i c y in such a way t h a t anyone can
f i n d out j u s t how t h e p o l i c y a f f e c t s him /he r.
a r e a s ta t e m e n t o f s i t u a t i o n ,

objectives,

Extension programs

problems, and s o l u t i o n s .

The program i s b u i l t through a p ro c e ss t h a t has come t o be known as
program development o r program p r o j e c t i o n .

In t h i s p r o c e s s ,

facts

concerning t h e s i t u a t i o n a r e c o l l e c t e d and an al yz e d, u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
elements

a re

determ ined

identified,
and

stated,

desired

objectives

and a l t e r n a t i v e

or

improvements

ways

of

o b j e c t i v e s a re co n si d e re d (Kelsey & Hearne, 1963).

reaching

are
the

C oord in a tio n and

s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e program-development proc ess a t t h e re g io n a l l e v e l
is

one

function

that

has

been

as s ig ne d

to

Regional

Extension

Supervisors.
Six te e n items were used t o d e f i n e th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e of
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

as

it

relates

development f u n c t i o n a t t h e reg io n a l l e v e l .

to

the

program-

The mean resp ons e s co r e

and rank f o r each item a re shown in Table 18.

All groups,

e xce pt

t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , i d e n t i f i e d Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s as
having a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
work and making s u g g e s ti o n s

f o r reviewing f i e l d
for

improvement.

s t a f f p la n s

Regional

of

Extension

S upe rv is or s were seen to have more than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
t h a t r o l e item, but i t was not seen as being a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of

the

position

paraprofessionals
Regional

as

it

thought

is

currently

the

primary

being

a re a

of

perform ed.
responsibility

The
for

Extension S upe rv is or s in t h e program-development f u n c t i o n

was t o be f a m i l i a r with program development in t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r
a r e a s of Extension programs.

However, t h e r e were a d i f f e r e n c e of

Table 18.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 16 items
pertaining to the program development function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=39?)
Mean

PA
(N=76)

Tank

Mean

CEA
(N=147)

Rank

Mean

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=67)

Rank

Mean

APT
(N=37)

Rank

Mean

RS
(N=5 )

Rank

Mean

Rank

Review field staff plans of work
and make suggestions for improve­
ment .

3.33

1

3.03

2

3.31

1

3.37

1

3.54

1

3.51

1

3.80

1

Be familiar with program develop­
ment in the subject matter areas
of Extension programs.

2.76

2

3.04

1

2.55

4

2.82

2

2.85

8

2.60

11

3.60

2

Assist field staff in implement­
ing the long-range objectives of
the Cooperative Extension Service
in their Region.

2.76

3

2.78

4

2.56

2

2.64

5

3.19

3

2.87

5

2.80

7

2.74

4

2.45

10

2.56

3

2.71

4

3.21

2

3.11

2

3.40

3

2.69

5

2.61

9

2.53

5

2.79

3

2.94

5

2.89

4

2.50

12

Assist field staff in the devel­
opment of relevant, useful and
functional plans of work.
Identify field staff and clientele
from the region to serve on state­
wide programming committees.

Table 18.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=399)
(N=76)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean Rank
Mean Rank

(N=147)
---------Mean Rank

(N=62)
---------Mean Rank

<N=67)
---------Mean Rank

(N=37)
---------Mean Rank

<N=5)
------Mean Rank

Assist field staff in establish­
ing long-range and short-term
program priorities for their
county, district or regional
activities.

2.64

6

2.78

5

2.34

7

2.57

7

3.08

4

2.87

6

3.20

4

Implement effective methods of
reaching Extension's goals
within the region.

2.62

7

2.71

7

2.37

6

2.60

6

2.90

7

2.92

3

2.60

10

2.59

8

2.85

3

2.32

8

2.50

8

2.85

9

2.81

8

2.60

11

2.47

9

2.40

11

2.29

9

2.40

11

2.79

10

2.83

7

3.00

6

2.40

10

1.96

15

2.25

10

2.44

10

2.93

6

2.70

9

3.20

5

2.39

11

2.69

8

2.20

11

2.40

12

2.52

14

2.19

15

2.40

13

Be familiar with population and
employment trends of the coun­
ties in the region.
Assist field staff in effec­
tively using support organiza­
tions and audiences in Extension
programming.
Assist field staff in effec­
tively using advisory councils.
Forecast future trends or needs
of the Extension Service.

Table 18.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tota I
(N=39?)

PA

CEA

(N=76)

(N=147)

Mean

Rank

Mean

2.38

12

2.77

sion Educational activities.

2.26

13

Assist field staff in effectively
using volunteer leaders in Exten­
sion programs.

2.26

Meet with local advisory groups
to identify Extension program­
ming priorities for the region.

Rank

CEO

SPEC

(N=62)

Mean

Rank

Mean

6

2.17

12

2.48

2.12

14

2.08

13

14

2.21

12

2.08

2.06

15

2.14

13

2.01

16

1.94

16

APT

(N=67)

Rank

RS

(N=37)

(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

9

2.22

16

2.61

10

2.00

16

2.16

14

2.67

11

2.58

12

2.80

8

14

2.21

13

2.61

12

2.46

13

2.80

9

1.83

16

1.94

15

2.59

13

2.06

16

2.40

14

1.87

15

1.92

16

2.32

15

2.25

14

2.20

15

Assist state specialists in
identifying programming needs
for the region.
Assist field staff in getting
increased participation in Exten­

Assist field staff in data col­
lection and analysis procedures
for assessing local situations
and educational needs.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

132

only

.01

in t h e mean re s po ns e s c o r e s between t h e i r number-one and

number-two-ranked r o l e it e m s .
Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
w it h

the

The County Exten sio n Agents,

and Regional

paraprofessionals

in

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s a l l

their

asse ssm en t

of

the

County
agreed

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in d e a l i n g w it h t h i s
a c t i v i t y , as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean s c o r e ra n k i n g s o f 4 t h ,
2nd,

and 2nd.

Program

The

Team,

Extens ion

however,

Specialists

ranked

and t h e

being

fam iliar

A dministrative
with

program

development in t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r e a s o f Extension programs much
lower, as seen in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean s co r e ra n k in g s o f 8 th and
11th

for

th is

specific

item .

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and Regional
Regional

Extension

responsibility

on

role

response

scores

for

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t

Supervisors
that

The mean

currently
item,

have more than

whereas

the

g r o u p s ’ mean res p on se s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d t h e l e v e l

other

a shared
r e s po nden t

of re s p o n s ib il ity

being l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Paraprofessionals
development o f r e l e v a n t ,

ranked
usef ul

assisting

and f u n c t i o n a l

lower than

any o f t h e o t h e r gro ups,

ranking f o r

t h i s item as compared t o t h e o t h e r

place

rankings.

The

Regional

as seen

Extension

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional
have a h i g h e r le v el

field

staff

in

the

p l a n s o f work much
by t h e i r

lO th-place

g r o u p s ’ 2nd- t o 4 th Supervisors

and

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in

effectively

using a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l s than

d id t h e o t h e r re sp onden t

gro up s,

seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 5 th -

and 6 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s as

as

133
compared

to

the

other

respondent

groups’ 9th-

to

15th-place

ra n k in g s .
A s s i s t i n g s t a t e s p e c i a l i s t s in i d e n t i f y i n g programming needs in
the

region

was

Supervisors

and

ranked
the

much

lower

Extension

by t h e

S p ecialists

Regional
than

Extension

by t h e

other

re sp ond ent gro ups, as viewed by t h e i r 1 6 t h - p l a c e r a nkin g as compared
t o th e o t h e r resp onden t g ro u p s ’ 6 th - t o 1 2 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r t h i s
adm inistrative
assisting

item.

field

staff

Extension ed u ca tio n a l
effectively

using

The
in

Regional
getting

activ ities

volunteer

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
increased

particip atio n

and a s s i s t i n g

leaders

in

ranked

Extension

field

in

staff

programs

in

much

hi g h e r with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 8 t h - and 9 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s as compared
t o th e r e s p e c t i v e 11th- t o

1 4 t h - p l a c e ra nki ngs f o r t h e i n c r e a s i n g

participation

12th- to 14 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r

item and t h e

using

v o l u n t e e r l e a d e r s in Extension programs.
In

summary,

f a m i l i a r with

reviewing

field

program development

staff
in t h e

pl a n s o f

work and

being

subject-m atter areas

of

t x t e n s i o n programs were t h e a r e a s seen t o have t h e most involvement
by

Regional

Extension

Supervisors.

However,

Regional

Extension

Su p e rv is o rs were seen to have more than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as
t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y performed f o r t h e number-one-ranked r o l e
item by th e t o t a l

respondent group (reviewing f i e l d s t a f f pla n s of

work . . .) but l e s s than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e numbertwo-ranked r o l e item (be f a m i l i a r with program development . . . ) .
Meeting with lo c al ad v is o r y groups and a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in d a t a
c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s were t h e two a r e a s in which most re sp onden t

134

groups

thoug ht

that

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s

have

a minor

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or l e s s as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
Extension Programming
I t would be unusual i f a l l t h e people in a give n community were
i n t e r e s t e d in one t o p i c .

Th e re fo re , a good Extension program should

be broad

enough

to cover th e m a j o r i t y

Extension

program must be comprehensive enough t o embrace a l l

groups, c r e e d s ,
county,

state,

Hearne, 1963).
responsibility

and r a c e s a t a l l
national,

of t h e i r

interests.

The
age

l e v e l s , and t o a d d re s s community,

and i n t e r n a t i o n a l

problems

(Kelsey &

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have been given the
t o monitor on-going programming e f f o r t s

area/d istrict staff;

to f a c i l i t a t e cross-county,

o f co un ty /

multi-county,

and

r e gi o na l programming; and to counsel with s t a f f and c l i e n t e l e groups
in th e

regio n

program might

in o r d e r t o deter mine ways
be

improved,

have

in which t h e

a greater

influence,

Extension
and

serve

a d d i t i o n a l au diences ( G i l l e s p i e , 1988a).
Six te e n items were used t o d e f i n e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e of
Regional

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s

as

it

programming f u n c t i o n a t t h e reg io n a l

relates

level

to

the

Extension

in Michigan.

The mean

response s co r e and rank o r d e r f o r each r o l e item in t h i s study are
shown in Table 19.
Using

monthly

accomplishments
Extension
staff

staff

in

reports
th e

regi on

to

keep

informed

by county,

district,

and using monthly n a r r a t i v e s

accomplishments

toward

their

of

program

to

keep

goals

programming
and

reg io na l

informed
were

the

of
two

Table 19.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 16 items
pertaining to the Extension programming function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Specific Items That Regional

Respondent Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=392)
(N=76)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

CEA
(N=147)
----------

CED
(N=64)
----------

SPEC
<N=65)
----------

APT
(N=37)
----------

RS
(N=5)
----------

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Use monthly reports to keep
informed of programming accomp­
lishments in the region by
county, district and regional
Extension staff.

3.54

1

3.40

1

3.71

1

3.51

1

3.33

2

3.42

2

4.00

1

Use monthly reports to keep
informed of staff accomplish­
ments toward their program goals.

3.44

2

3.26

2

3.58

2

3.38

2

3.25

4

3.49

1

4.00

2

3.17

3

3.04

4

3.08

4

3.28

4

3.23

5

3.41

3

3.75

4

3.13

4

3.21

3

3.13

3

3.37

3

2.83

9

3.11

7

3.00

11

Maintain an awareness of on-going
programming in the region by
county, district and regional
Extension staff.
Maintain a liaison with University
administrators. Extension special­
ists and field staff in order to
provide effective Extension pro­
grams.

Table 19.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total

PA

CEA

Concerned With, Responsible
<N=392)
(N=76>
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean Hank
Mean Rank

<N=147)
---------Mean Rank

CED

SPEC

APT

(N=64)
---------Mean Rank

(N=65)
---------Mean Rank

RS

<N=37)
---------Mean Rank

(N=5)
------Mean Rank

Provide regular written and/or
verbal feedback on programming
accomplishment to county, district
and regional staff in theregion.

3.09

5

3.00

6

2.92

6

3.14

7

3.30

3

3.32

4

3.80

Identify current and potential
program successes and failures
of field staff in the region.

3.08

6

2.80

10

3.05

5

3.19

5

3.23

6

3.27

6

3.60

3.02

7

3.01

5

2.71

10

3.08

8

3.40

1

3.32

5

3.50

2.98

8

2.91

9

2.82

7

3.16

6

3.21

7

3.00

8

3.60

Periodically visit field staff to
observe and become familiar with
their programming efforts and
progress.
Encourage educational programming
efforts across all program areas
by county, district and regional
staff in the region.

Table 19. -Continued.

Specific Items That Regional

Respondent Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=392)
(N=76)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ----------------------Mean Rank
Mean Rank

CEA
<N=147)
---------Mean Rank

CED
(N=64)
---------Mean Rank

SPEC
<N=65)
---------Mean Rank

APT
<N=37)
---------Mean Rank

RS
<N=5)
------Mean Rank

2.72

2.97

2.69

2.95

2.50

Maintain an awareness of on-going
programming in the region by
campus based Extension special­
ists.

2.82

9

2.96

8

9

9

13

10

14
OJ

Use monthly reports to keep
informed of programming accomp­
lishments in the region by campus
based Extension specialists.

2.78

10

3.00

7

2.82

8

2.86

10

2.45

15

2.68

14

2.25

15

Insure that priorities are given
to educational program needs at
the local level.

2.70

11

2.71

11

2.54

11

2.82

11

2.83

10

2.78

12

3.40

9

2.65

12

2.52

14

2.48

13

2.60

13

2.97

8

2.97

9

3.00

12

Assist field staff in incorpo­
rating cross county, multi-county
and regional programming into
Extension program plans.

Table 19.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tota L
(N=39l>)

PA
(N=76)

CEA
<N=147)

CED
<N=64)

SPEC

APT

(N=65)

RS

(N=37)

(N=5)

Mean

Hank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

2.61

13

2.60

12

2.51

12

2.62

12

2.80

11

2.61

15

3.25

10

efforts of the county.

2.49

14

2.39

16

2.34

14

2.50

14

2.70

12

2.84

11

2.75

13

Participate in Extension programs
within the region.

2.46

15

2.59

13

2.27

15

2.37

15

2.59

14

2.69

13

3.60

7

1.86

16

2.12

16

1.63

16

1.66

16

2.19

16

1.97

16

1.80

16

Involve Extension staff and
clientele in identifying ways in
which Extension programs can be
improved, have greater impacts
and serve additional audiences.
Assist field staff when approp­
riate in effectively using para­
professionals as a means of
extending the total programming

Conduct some educational programs
within the region.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

139

functions

identified

Specialists)

as

by

being

all

the

r e s po nd en t

number-one

groups

(except

Extension

and number-two-ranked

items

when t h e r e s p e c t i v e 3.5 4 and 3. 44 mean re s p on se s c o r e s o f t h e 386
respondents
Extension

of the

total

Supervisors

responsibility

for

responsibility.

group

w ere

were p e rc e iv e d

these

two

Extension

role

compared.

to

The

Regional

have more th a n

a sh ared

items

Specialists

but

less

tha n

a

agreed

that

usin g

major

monthly

r e p o r t s t o keep informed o f programming accomplishments was o f high
priority,

as

score

that

item.

field

staff

on

visiting

viewed by t h e i r

programming e f f o r t s

2 nd -p la c e

However,
to

ra nk in g w it h

th e y

observe

and

was a g r e a t e r

th ou gh t
become

a 3.3 3 mean

that

periodically

fam iliar

responsibility

wit h

of the

their

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r , as observed by t h e i r 3. 40 mean s c o r e .
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ,

Extens ion S p e c i a l i s t s ,

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Prog ram Team vi ew ed m a i n t a i n i n g

and th e

a liaison

with

U n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and f i e l d s t a f f in
o r d e r to pr ovide e f f e c t i v e
priority,
ran k in g s

Extension programs t o be o f much lower

as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 1 1 t h - , 9 t h - ,
as

compared with

the 3rd-place

o t h e r t h r e e res po nd en t gr oups .
group was t h e

only r e s pond en t

However,
group

that

ra nkin g
the

for

and 7 t h - p l a c e
each o f th e

Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t

perceived

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t o have l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n j item.

All t h e o t h e r s p e r c e i v e d th e

l e v e l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o be g r e a t e r th a n a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

ranked

participating

in

Extension

140
programs

within

the

re s p o n d e n t

g ro ups ,

particular

role

ra n k in g s

of

all

vie w ed R e g i o n a l
potential

region
as

item
the

as

by

higher
their

compared

other

Extension

did

7th-place

w ith

r e s pon de nt

th a n

the

13 th -

gro ups .

Supervisors

all

to

other

on

that

15th-place

Paraprofessionals

id en tifying

as observed by t h e i r

the

r a nkin g

program s u c c e s s e s and f a i l u r e s o f f i e l d

lower ranked a c t i v i t y ,
th is

seen

much

current

and

s t a f f as a much

l O t h - p l a c e ra n k in g on

item as compared wit h t h e 5 t h - t o 6 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s on t h a t

item by a l l t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t gro ups .
E xtension Agents,

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County

and Co unty E x t e n s i o n D i r e c t o r s

ranked

using

monthly r e p o r t s t o keep informed o f programming accomplishments o f
c a m p u s - b a s e d E x t e n s i o n S p e c i a l i s t s much h i g h e r t h a n t h e
gr o up s ,

as viewed by t h e i r

ra n k in g s

respective

as compared t o t h e N t h -

7th-,

8th-,

other

and l O t h - p l a c e

and 1 5 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s

by th e

o t h e r t h r e e U n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d re sp ond ent grou ps .
In

summary,

all

re s p o n d e n t

groups

expressed

that

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s p la y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e in keeping informed of
t h e programming accomplishments o f th e f i e l d s t a f f in t h e i r r e g i o n .
County-based s t a f f th o u g h t t h a t Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s have
a much h i g h e r l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in m o n it o r in g t h e programming
e f f o r t s o f Extension S p e c i a l i s t s in t h e re g i o n th a n did t h e campusbased

re s p o n d e n t

Regional

gro up s .

All

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

res p on de nt

groups

e x p re s s e d

have a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

that

as the

p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y performed f o r c on duc ti ng Extens ion programs in
the region.

Likewise, only t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group

viewed p a r t i c i p a t i n g in Extension programs in t h e re g io n as being a

141

major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n .

The t o t a l

r e s p o n d e n t group

p e r c e i v e d t h a t Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s have a t l e a s t a shared
responsibility

on

7

of

the

16

role

items

as

the

position

is

c u r r e n t l y performed and a t l e a s t a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on a l l

but

one o f t h e r o l e items as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean re sp on se
scores.
Program Ev a lu a ti o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
Program e v a l u a t i o n i s t h e p ro c e ss o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t to
which t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e programs o f t h e C oo pe ra ti ve Extension
S e r v i c e a re a t t a i n e d (Boone, 1970).
responsible

for

evaluating

their

All Extens ion s t a f f members a re
programming

accomplishments

s u b m i t t i n g p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s o f t h e i r programming r e s u l t s .

and

Program

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y r e f e r s t o t h e r e p o r t i n g p r o c e s s in terms o f matching
program r e s u l t s w ith how well

t h e program accomplished

its

stated

o b j e c t i v e s , as well as i d e n t i f y i n g what impact was made as a r e s u l t
o f t h e programming e f f o r t .

Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s have been

given t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a id s t a f f in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f r e p o r t s
that

reflect

de gr e es

of

e d u c a ti o n a l

accomplishment;

to

encourage

s t a f f to r e p o r t program r e s u l t s in terms o f b e h a v io r change; and to
encourage s t a f f t o a na ly z e program e f f e c t i v e n e s s in terms o f c o s t ,
tim e , and a p p r o p r i a t e use of funds ( G i l l e s p i e , 1988a).
Twelve r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Regional

items were used t o

test

the

level

of

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have f o r th e program

e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y

142
performed, as p e r c e iv e d by t h e v a r i o u s re s p o n d e n t gro ups .
p r o v id e s t h e mean s c o r e and ran k o r d e r f o r each r o l e

Table 20

item in t h i s

s tu d y .
Conducting

on-site

Civil

Rights

re g io n was i d e n t i f i e d by t h e t o t a l
scores
this

f o r t h e 383 r e s p o n d e n t s ,

category,

compliance

reviews

in

the

grou p, when comparing t h e mean

as t h e

number-one-ranked

with a mean s co r e o f 3 . 3 0 .

The t o t a l

item

in

r e s po nd en t

group p e r c e i v e d Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having more than a
s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item but l e s s th a n a
major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

However, t h e mean re s po ns e s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e number-one-ranked and t h e n u m be r- th r ee -r a n ke d items was
onl y

.08.

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

pla ced a much lower emphasis on

t h i s item, as observed by t h e i r 2.81 mean s c o r e ,

which r e c e i v e d a

lOth-place ranking.

The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team agreed t h a t i t

was

responsibility

a

sig n ifican t

of

the

Regional

S u p e r v i s o r , as viewed by t h e i r 3.27 mean re s ponse s c o r e .

Extension
However,

th e y agreed with t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e
program review and pla nn in g p ro c e ss was a g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

of

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , as seen in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean
s c o r e s o f 3.32 and 3. 4 1 .
Conducting p e r i o d i c
and re g i o n a l
Regional

informal e v a l u a t i o n s o f co unt y,

district,

programs was seen as a much h i g h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r

Extension

paraprofessionals,

Supervisors
as i n d i c a t e d

by

the

by t h e i r

Extension

Specialists

and

r e s p e c t i v e 2nd- and 4 th -

pl ace d r a n k in g s as compared with t h e 6 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s o f t h e o t h e r
resp on den t

gro ups.

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

viewed

their

Table 20.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 12 items
pertaining to the program evaluation and accountability function of the position, classified by mean score and rank
order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Total

PA

CEA

(N=392)

(N=76)

(N=146)

CED

SPEC

(N=62)

APT

<N=64)

RS

<N=37)

(N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Conduct on-site Civil Rights
compliance reviews in the region.

3.30

1

3.26

1

3.42

1

3.43

1

2.81

10

3.27

3

4.40

1

3.29

2

3.03

3

3.36

2

3.24

3

3.41

1

3.32

1

3.80

2

3.22

3

3.09

2

3.21

3

3.26

2

3.27

3

3.28

2

3.80

3

2.90

4

2.75

6

2.81

5

2.95

4

3.20

4

3.03

4

3.20

4

Participate in the Program Review
and Planning Process for counties
in the region.

-P i

Monitor progress being made by
county, district and regional
staffs towards their Affirmative
Action plans.
Encourage field staff to partici­
pate in in-service education and
other activities which will help
to provide skills needed for
evaluating programs in terms of
behavior change.

u>

Table 20.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=392>
<N=76>
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Identify and select individuals
to participate in the County Pro­
gram Review and Planning Process
for counties in the region.

F:ank

Mean

Rank

<N=146)
----------

(N=62)
----------

(N=64)
----------

(N=37)
----------

(H=5>
-------

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

2.87

5

2.51

7

2.85

4

2.89

5

3.17

5

3.03

5

3.20

5

regional Extension programs.

2.86

6

2.89

4

2.72

6

2.64

7

3.28

2

2.92

6

3.00

6

Conduct periodic indepth evalua­
tions of county, district and
regional Extension programs.

2.65

7

2.89

5

2.52

7

2.32

11

3.17

6

2.42

11

2.20

12

2.25

8

2.31

10

2.32

9

2.68

6

3.08

7

2.68

8

2.40

10

Conduct periodic informal evalua­
tions of county, district and

Assist field staff in conducting
evaluations of county programs.

Table 20.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned Uith, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tota I
(N=392)
Mean

PA
(N=76)

Rank

Mean

CEA
(N=146)

Rank

Mean

CEO
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
<N=64)

Rank

Mean

RS

APT
(N=37)

Rank

Mean

(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Oversee that program results
which are being measured by
field staff reflect behavior
change.

2.51

9

2.38

9

2.33

8

2.60

8

2.82

9

2.76

7

2.80

7

2.42

10

2.51

8

2.19

10

2.40

9

2.80

11

2.51

10

2.40

11

accomplishment.

2.37

11

2.31

11

2.16

11

2.37

10

2.84

8

2.54

9

2.80

8

Assist field staff in prepar­
ing their Annual Reports.

2.17

12

2.16

12

1.98

12

2.00

12

2.69

12

2.32

12

2.50

9

Oversee that program effective­
ness is measured in terms of
cost, time and appropriate use
of funds.
Assist field staff in the
preparation of reports which
reflect degrees of educational

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

146

involvement

in

assisting

field

staff

in

preparing

their

annual

r e p o r t s d i f f e r e n t l y than d id any o f t h e o t h e r resp onden t gro ups , as
observed by t h e i r 9 t h - p l a c e rankin g as compared t o t h e 1 2 t h - p l a c e
ra nki ng f o r t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t gro ups.
In summary,
have

more

Regional

than

a

resp o n sib ility
reviews
with

s har ed

Extension S u p e r v is o r s were p e r c e iv e d
responsibility

fo r conducting o n - s i t e

in t h e region as well

regard

to

the

but

less

C ivil

th a n

Rights

as m onit or ing f i e l d

A ffirm ative

Action

a

to

major

com pliance

s t a f f p ro g r e s s

pro gra m

in

general.

P a r t i c i p a t i n g in th e program review and planning p ro c e s s was a l s o
viewed as a s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i v i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y
performed.

A s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f r e p o r t s was

viewed by campus-based s t a f f t o be a much g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
th e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s than was p e rc ei v e d by f i e l d - b a s e d
staff.

However,

all

groups viewed t h e

Regional

Extension Super­

v i s o r ’ s l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h a t r o l e item as being l e s s than
a

shared

Extension

responsibility
Specialists

and

but

more

than

a

minor

paraprofessionals

held

responsibility.
sim ilar

views,

which were much h ig h e r in ranking than t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups,
concerning th e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e in conducting formal

and informal

evaluations

However,

Extension

of

Extension

Specialists

programs

viewed

th e

in

the

Regional

region.
Extension

the

Supervisor’s

involvement as being g r e a t e r than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

whereas

th e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s viewed th e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement as being
l e s s than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

147
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and P o l i c y
Administration,

as d e f i n e d by Fayol,

in v o lv e s f i v e f u n c t i o n s :

t o p l a n , t o or ga ni z e (b oth men and m a t e r i a l s ) , t o command ( t h a t i s ,
to

tell

(Dale,

s u b o r d i n a t e s what
1965).

management.

to do),

Administration

is

to

coordinate,

and t o

control

sometimes used as a synonym f o r

Dale d e f i n e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

as " d i r e c t i n g

operations

w i t h i n t h e framework o f p o l i c y l a i d down by h i g h e r managers in th e
o r g a n i z a t i o n or s e t by p r e d e c e s s o r s "
McFarland,
leadership,

1964)

defined

and c o n t r o l

(p.

adm inistration

o f the e f f o r t s

toward some common g o a l s "

767).

(p. 9 ) .

Newman ( c i t e d

as

"the

in

guidance,

o f a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s

According t o McFarland, p o l i c i e s

a re gu id e s t o the a c t i o n s o r d e c i s i o n s o f peop le in an o r g a n i z a t i o n .
They a r e t h e planned e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e company’ s o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e s
toward t h e range o f b e h a v io r w i t h i n which i t w i l l

p e rm it o r d e s i r e

i t s employees to a c t .
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

have

been

delegated

the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p ro v id e t i m e l y in f o r m a t io n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r
CES p o l i c i e s with r e s p e c t t o such items as a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n ,
of p e n a lt y m a il, equipment in v e n to r y ,
reports,

travel

to

s t a f f m a in ta in

help

relatio n s

with

adm inistration;

requests,

bu dg e tin g,
open

program
and

to

lines

staff,

s u p p o rt

use

p ublication a llo c a tio n s,

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r fu nds ;
of

communication

sp ecialists,
staff

as

they

and

and

internal

CES

central

negotiate

bu d ge ts ,

s t a f f i n g , and o f f i c e arrangements with county o f f i c i a l s .
Twenty items a Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r must be concerned
w it h ,

be

responsible

for,

or

ove rs ee

the

activity

were

used

to

148
obtain
and

the

policy

respondents’ perceptions
function

of

this

co ncer nin g t h e

position.

The

a c c ord in g t o t h e i r mean s c o r e by t o t a l

adm inistrative

items

were

ranked

r e s p o n d e n ts and by t h e s i x

p o s i t i o n gr o u p s , as shown in Table 21.
The t o t a l re s p o n d e n t group viewed p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e monthly
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e meetings
Regional

on campus as

ExtensionS u p e rv iso rs

responsibility,
respondents.
identified

as

indicated

However,

3.71

Regional

four other a c t i v i t i e s

activity

currently

by t h e

the

the

for

have

mean

s co r e

Extension

which
the

most

of the

S u p e r v is o r

m o ni to ri ng

subm itted

on

appropriate

to

reports

from

f o r which t h e i r mean s c o r e s

field

staff

tim e, p a r t i c i p a t i n g
th e

adm inistrative

in

role

to

assure

375

group
were

g r e a t e r th a n t h e 3. 6 0 mean s c o r e given t h i s p a r t i c u l a r item.
were:

th e

They

they

are

in -serv ice a c tiv itie s

o f the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r , s c h e d u li n g r e g i o n a l s t a f f c o n f e r e n c e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s
f o r f i e l d s t a f f i n t e r a c t i o n , and p ro v id i n g l e a d e r s h i p and in p u t f o r
re g i o n a l
lay

and s t a t e w i d e a c t i v i t i e s such as r e g i o n a l

leader

visits/leg islativ e

mean s c o r e s o f 4 .2 0 ,

4 .0 0 ,

group ranked p a r t i c i p a t i n g

tours,

4.00,
in

as

slightly

higher

resp on den t group,

tha n

the

seen by t h e i r

and 4 . 0 0 .

appropriate

to

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r j u s t

number-one-ranked

as observed by t h e i r

respective

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

in -se rv ic e education

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional

c o n fe re n c e s and

item

for

the

total

r e s p e c t i v e mean s c o r e s

of

3.53 and 3 .5 1 .
The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

group i d e n t i f i e d m onit or in g r e p o r t s

from

f i e l d s t a f f t o a s s u r e th e y a r e su bmitted on time t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y

Table 2 1 -Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on 20 items
pertaining to the administration and policy function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Total

PA

CEA

(N=390)

(N=77)

(N=145)

CED

APT
CN=37)

SPEC

CN=62)

<N=64)

RS

(11=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Participate in the monthly Admin­
istrative meetings on campus.

3.71

1

3.51

2

3.73

1

3.95

1

3.61

1

3.73

1

3.60

5

3.63

2

3.53

1

3.61

2

3.89

2

3.52

3

3.59

3

4.00

2

3.41

3

3.01

5

3.38

4

3.61

3

3.54

2

3.68

2

4.00

3

3.27

4

3.08

3

3.25

7

3.58

4

3.31

6

3.16

8

3.60

6

3.24

5

2.80

11

3.31

5

3.37

6

3.20

8

3.54

4

4.20

1

Participate in in-service educa­
tion appropriate to the adminis­
trative role of the Regional
Extension Supervisor.

4k

Schedule regional staff confer­
ences and opportunities for field
staff interaction when appropriate.
Represent central CES administra­
tion in discussions with field
staff, program staff, specialists,
and HSU colleges or units which
relate to Extension work.
Monitor reports from field staff
to assure they are submitted on
t im e .

VO

Table 21 .--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS
(N=390)

(N=77)

(N=145)

(N=62)

<N=64>

(N=37)

----------

----------

----------

----------

-------

Rank

Mean

Mean

Rank

Mean

Mean

Rank

Mean

For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- -------------

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Rank

<N=5)

Rank

Provide leadership and input for
regional and state-wide activities
such as regional conferences, lay
leader visits/legislative
tours.

3.23

6

2.81

10

3.27

6

3.42

5

3.30

7

3.40

5

4.00

4

Approve out-of-state travel
requests and leaves of absence
for staff in the region.

3.18

7

3.07

4

3.42

3

3.24

8

2.82

15

3.00

12

3.00

15

3.12

8

2.89

7

3.05

9

3.08

11

3.35

5

3.40

6

3.40

8

3.06

9

2.87

8

3.09

8

3.05

14

3.16

9

3.11

10

3.40

9

3.05

10

2.96

6

3.03

10

3.26

7

2.92

12

3.08

11

3.40

10

Provide timely information and
interpretation of CES policies
and procedures as they relate to
county field staff and programs.
Serve on state-wide committees
concerned with Extension policy
and/or programming.
Represent field staff in discus­
sions with program staff, special­
ists, central CES administration,
and HSU colleges or units which
relate to Extension work.

Table 21 - -Cont inued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=3V0)

CEA

PA
(N=77)

Mean

Rank

Mean

tration, and MSU colleges or units
which relate to Extension work.

3.01

11

2.87

Handle staff and program conflicts
within the region.

2.96

12

dures relating to penalty mail
allocations for the region.

2.87

Encourage program and staff
cooperation between county Exten­
sion offices.

<N=145>

Rank

SPEC
<N=64)

CED
CN=62)

Mean

Rank

Mean

9

2.99

11

3.19

2.34

16

2.94

13

13

2.53

13

2.99

2.85

14

2.58

12

2.70

15

2.33

17

Rank

APT
<N=37>

RS
<N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

9

3.09

11

2.92

14

3.00

16

3.06

12

3.47

4

3.19

7

3.00

17

12

3.11

10

2.82

16

2.56

18

3.60

7

2.68

14

3.06

13

3.14

10

3.13

9

3.40

11

2.61

15

2.95

15

2.92

13

2.97

13

3.20

12

Maintain the lines of communica­
tions and internal relationships
between field staff, program staff,
specialists, central CES adminis­

Administer the policies and proce­

Encourage program and staff
cooperation within county Exten­
sion offices.

Table 2 1 .--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Total
(N=390)

PA
(N=77)

CEA
<N=145)

CEO
<N=62)

SPEC
(N=64)

APT
(N=37)

RS
(N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

ming, and Affirmative Action.

2.52

16

2.40

15

2.37

16

2.42

17

2.81

17

2.86

16

3.20

13

Meet with county board members
in areas such as staffing, pro­
gramming, and Affirmative Action.

2.36

17

2.16

20

2.23

17

2.26

18

2.60

18

2.89

15

3.20

14

2.33

18

2.26

19

2.17

18

2.45

16

2.55

19

2.40

19

3.00

18

2.30

19

2.29

18

2.11

19

1.90

20

2.85

14

2.72

17

3.00

19

1.99

20

2.46

14

1.80

20

1.97

19

1.85

20

2.08

20

1.80

20

Handle clientele concerns in
areas such as staffing, program­

Develop and maintain relation­
ships with key clientele within
the region.
Assist County Extension Directors
in negotiating budgets, staffing
and office space arrangements
with county officials.
Coordinate specialists visits
to the region.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

153

lower in importance than d id any o f t h e o t h e r gro ups , as ob s er ved by
their

llth-place

rankings

ra nki ng

as

compared

to

the

f o r th e o t h e r fo u r non-Regional

r e s po nd en t gr oups .

4 th -

to

8th-place

Extension S u p e rv is o r

However, none o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t groups ranked

t h i s item as high as t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group.
Regional

Extension

responsibility

Supervisors

on t h i s

p e r c e iv e d

particular

role

their

item t o

current

level

The
of

be g r e a t e r th a n a

major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s viewed t h e S u p e r v i s o r s ’
c u r r e n t l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o be l e s s th a n s h a r e d , and a l l
o t h e r re sp o n d en t groups p e rc e iv e d S u p e rv is o rs
responsibility

on

th is

item .

having

Paraprofessionals

th e

a shared

ranked

the

c o o r d i n a t i o n o f s p e c i a l i s t s ’ v i s i t s t o t h e r e g i o n h i g h e r t h a n did
all

the o t h e r re sp ond ent gro ups ,

ranking as compared to t h e 19th o t h e r gro ups.
co un ty -b ase d
Regional

as observed

by t h e i r

14th-place

and 2 0 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s

f o r th e

Approving o u t - o f - s t a t e t r a v e l vouchers was viewed by
staff

to

be

a much g r e a t e r

responsibility

E x t e n s i o n S u p e r v i s o r s t h a n by t h e

resp on den t gr oup s,

as i n d i c a t e d by th e 4 t h -

three

for

th e

campus-based

to 8th-place

r a n k in g s

f o r the c ou nty -b a se d resp on de nt groups and t h e 12th- t o 1 5 t h - p l a c e
ranking s

for

the

r e s po nd en t groups
Regional

campus-based
e xce pt

Extension

the

re sp ond ent
Extension

Supervisors

as

gro up s .

S pecialists

having

more

However,

all

perceived

th e

than

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r item as compared to t h e Extension
S p e c i a l i s t s ’ p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having a l e s s than s har ed
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r approving o u t - o f - s t a t e t r a v e l r e q u e s t s .

Regional

154
Extension

Supervisors

ranked

adm inistering

the

p o licies

and

pr oc ed ures r e l a t i n g t o t h e p e n a l t y mail a l l o c a t i o n s much h i g h e r th a n
d id t h e o t h e r res po nd en t gro ups , as seen by t h e i r 7 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g
as

compared

to

the

1 2 th -

to

17th-place

r a n k in g s

of

the

other

res pon de nt gro up s.
In

summary,

the

items

pertaining

to

the

adm inistration

and

p o l i c y f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n tended
to

receive

position

higher
is

mean

scores

for

currently

being

the

performed

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s being s t u d i e d .
as

well

as

each

of

the

individual

individual

than

items

did

as

the

the

other

The t o t a l re s p o n d e n t group ,
gro u p s ,

perceived

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having a g r e a t e r tha n s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for

representing

representing

central

field

CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

staff

in

discussions

than

with

they

do f o r

program

staff,

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and MSU c o l l e g e s ,
observed

by

the

adm inistration
staff

and t h e

in t h e s e

perceived

4th-place

lOth-place

discussions.

by

the

ranking

total

for

ra nk ing

Regional
respondent

for

representing
representing

to

ha ve

a

CES
field

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s
group

as

were

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or g r e a t e r on 11 o f th e 20 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items used
t o e x p l a i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in Michigan.
P ubli c R e l a t i o n s
The Co operative Extension S e rv ic e has o f t e n been r e f e r r e d t o as
the

best-kept

secret

in

town.

Speakers

at

management

meetings

155
have c o n s t a n t l y harped on t h e theme:

"B usiness i s doing a good j o b ,

but we haven’t t o l d t h e peop le about i t in t h e r i g h t way; we hav en’ t
so ld

our employees o r t h e g e n e r a l

(Dale, 1980, p. 510).

public

on what we a r e

doing"

P u b l i c r e l a t i o n s i s an o r g a n i z e d endeavor on

t h e p a r t o f any o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s management t o c r e a t e good w i l l toward
i t s p r o d u c t s , s e r v i c e s and o p e r a t i o n s among groups o f people who can
a f f e c t i t s welfare ( B i t t e l ,
and

maintaining

favorable

1974).

It

is the process of building

organization

images

among

its

various

c l i e n t e l e groups through t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n ab out t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s p r o d u c t s , s e r v i c e s , and p o l i c i e s (McFarland, 1964).
Eight r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
relations
area.

function

of

the

items were used t o d e s c r i b e t h e p u b l i c
Regional

Extension

Supervisor

in

this

Table 22 d i s p l a y s t h e mean s cor e and rank o r d e r f o r each item

a cco rdi ng t o t h e s i x re sp on de nt groups.
Developing

a

public

relatio n s

plan

for

the

county

in

c o n j u n c t i o n w it h t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r was i d e n t i f i e d by t h e
total

group

However,

as

the

number-one-ranked

paraprofessionals

and

County

item

in

Extension

th is

D irectors

develo pin g and m a i n t a i n i n g a l i a i s o n with o t h e r s t a t e ,
community a g en c ie s t o be o f h i g h e r p r i o r i t y ,
lst-place

rank ing

ranking

on

County

Extension

un d e rs ta n d in g

the

on

and

this

item

as

number-one-ranked
Agents
s u p p o rt

ranked
for

compared
item

for

viewed

co unty,

or

as obser ved by t h e i r
to
the

m aintaining

Extension

category.

programs

their

3rd-place

total
the
in

group.
p u b lic’s

the

re g io n

s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than t h e number-one-ranked t o t a l group r e s p o n s e , but
only by a mean s cor e d i f f e r e n c e o f .02.

Table 22.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on eight items
pertaining to the public relations function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=38V)
(N=74)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

(lank

Mean

Rank

CEA

CEO

SPEC

APT

RS

(N=145>

(N=61)

(N=63)

(N=37>

----------

----------

----------

----------

-------

Mean

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

(N=5>

Develop in conjunction with the
County Extension Directors a CES
public relations plan for the
counties which will address the
needs of the general public, key
leaders, and elected officials
in the region.

2.52

1

2.57

3

2.37

2

2.25

3

2.90

1

2.68

1

2.80

2.51

2

2.69

2

2.39

1

2.33

2

2.79

2

2.43

3

2.80

2.47

3

2.72

1

2.28

3

2.43

1

2.73

5

2.30

5

2.60

2.35

4

2.50

5

2.12

5

2.20

5

2.75

3

2.51

2

2.00

Maintain the public's understand­
ing and support for Extension
programs in the region.
Develop and maintain a liaison
with other state, county or
community agencies in the
region.
Assist field staff in develop­
ing a marketing plan for
increasing Extension's visi­
bility in the region.

Rank

Table 22. -Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Tot* I

PA

CEA

(N=3£7)

(N=74)

(N=145)

CED

SPEC

(N=61)

APT

(N=63)

RS

(N=37)

(N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Represent MSU/CES on various
committees within the region.

2.35

5

2.50

4

2.17

4

2.21

4

2.74

4

2.31

4

2.80

3

2.01

6

2.15

8

1.80

6

1.88

6

2.39

6

1.97

6

2.60

5

1.93

7

2.21

7

1.70

7

1.80

7

2.33

7

1.83

7

2.00

7

1.91

8

2.34

6

1.69

8

1.67

8

2.29

8

1.73

8

1.60

8

Represent MSU/CES in nonExtension community events
within the region.
Participate in HSU Alumni
Association activities in
the region.
Prepare news and other Exten­
sion information releases
appropriate to the region.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

158

All

re s p o n d e n t

groups

viewed

representing

Extension community e v e n t s w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n ,
Alumni

Association

activities

in

the

MSU/CES

in

participating

region,

and

nonin MSU

preparing

news

r e l e a s e s and o t h e r Extension i n fo r m a t io n r e l e a s e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o th e
region

to

be o f

Supervisor’s

little

position

im portance

as

it

is

to

the

currently

Regional

Extension

performed.

Thi s

was

de mo nst rat ed by t h e v a r i o u s 6 t h - , 7 t h - , and 8 t h - p l a c e ra n k i n g s given
to these three

it e m s .

The Regional

Extens ion

Supervisors

viewed

a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in d e ve lo pi ng a mark eting pl a n t o be o f lower
p r i o r i t y than r e p r e s e n t i n g MSU/CES in no n- E xte ns ion community e v e n ts
within the region,

as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 5 th - and 6 th -

p l a c e ran k in g s on t h e s e two ite m s .
The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team and t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
ranked a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in de vel opi ng a m a rke tin g plan f o r th e
re g i o n much h i g h e r than d id t h e o t h e r r e s po nden t gr o u p s , as observed
by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 2nd- and 3 r d - p l a c e ra n k i n g s as compared with th e
5 th - and 6 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s o f t h e o t h e r r e s pond en t gro ups.
In summary,

the public r e la ti o n s

function

was viewed by a l l

re sp o nd en t groups t o be o f r e l a t i v e l y low importance t o t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
All e i g h t o f t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items used t o d e s c r i b e t h e p u b l i c
r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
were

p e rc e iv e d

Supervisor’s
conjunction

to

be

less

position.
wit h

County

than

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
a

Developing
Extension

s har ed
a

responsibility

public

Directors

relations
and

of
plan

maintaining

th e
in
the

159
p u b l i c ’ s u n d e rs ta n d in g

and s u p p o r t

for

Exten sio n

programs

in

the

re g i o n were t h e to p two ranked items in t h i s c a t e g o r y by t h e t o t a l
re s p o n d e n t group.
appropriate

to

P r e p a ri n g news and o t h e r

the

region

was

ranked

information

eighth

by

all

releases

re s p o n d e n t

gro u p s , with a t o t a l group mean s c o r e o f 1 .9 1 .
Budgeting and Financing
Budgets a r e a fo r m al , f i n a n c i a l e x p r e s s i o n o f a manager’ s pl an s
(Dessler,

1982).

executives

of

A budget

is

an o r g a n i z a t i o n

a

p l a n n in g

are

instrument

creating

it,

w h il e

and

it

th e

is

of

c o n t i n u i n g a id as pl a n s unfo ld and a r e c a r r i e d o u t because i t s e r v e s
as

a reference

point

s u c c e s s o f t h e plan
the

standards

controlled.

for

comparing

(McFarland,

against

which

1964).

actual

Each m a n a g e r ,

progress

and

evaluating

the

These planned t a r g e t s

a re

performance

from f i r s t - l i n e

is

compared

supervisor

and

to

top

management, u s u a l l y has h i s / h e r own budget t o use as a s t a n d a r d o f
comparison

(Dessler,

executive

is

planning

and

give n

1982).
the

control

Usua lly

opportunity
by s u b m i t t i n g

a de par tm en t
to

head

participate
his/her

own

in

or

other

b udg et ary

budget

plans

(McFarland, 1964).
The c o o p e r a t i v e f e a t u r e o f Extension work i s well
in t h e way i t
funds

are

is financed.

all

Hearne, 1963).

a part

of

Federal, s t a t e ,
the

total

co unty, and i n d i v i d u a l

Extension

budget

start

(Kelsey

F i n a n c i a l p la nnin g and c o n t r o l exten d t o a l l

o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n through t h e p r o c e s s o f b u d g e ti n g .
echelons

illustrated

the

process

by

deciding

what

they

&

parts

The lower
expect

to

160
accomplish in t h e en sui ng y e a r and how much more w i l l be expecte d o f
them tha n was t h e ca s e d u r in g t h e c u r r e n t y e a r (McFarland,

1964).

Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s in Michigan a r e not d i r e c t l y invol ve d
in t h e bud ge ta ry p r o c e s s as t h i s f u n c t i o n has been d e l e g a t e d t o t h e
f o u r A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r s o f E x t e n s io n .

However, th e y a r e i n d i r e c t l y

involved

financing

in

both

the

budgeting

and

Ext ens ion o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t h e c ou nt y , s t a t e ,

aspects

and f e d e r a l

of

the

l e v e l s as

well as through t h e g r a n t - w r i t i n g p r o c e s s .
Nine items were used t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e
Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r w it h

financing function of the p o s itio n .

respect

to

the

budg eting

and

The mean s c o r e and rank o r d e r

f o r each item by t h e s i x re s p o n d e n t groups a r e p r e s e n t e d in Table
23.
Overseeing

that

counties

file

their

annual

Ex pe nd itu re

and

A p p ro p ri a te d Funds r e p o r t on time was i d e n t i f i e d as t h e number-oneranked

activity

of

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

by

the

total

group, as observed by t h e 2.7 6 mean s co r e f o r t h e 374 r e s p o n d e n t s .
Cou nty

Extension

Supervisors

D irectors

p la y a g r e a t e r

indicated
role

that

Regional

in o v e r s e e in g

t h e i r n o n a p p r o p r ia te d funds a u d i t e d a n n u a l l y ,

that

Extension

counties

have

as obser ved by t h e i r

3.07 mean s c o r e f o r t h a t item in comparison t o t h e i r 2. 92 mean s co r e
for

the

total

respondent

g ro u p ’ s num ber-one-ranked

activ ity .

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s
have

the

mo st

respo n sib ility

for

assisting

C o un ty

Extension

D i r e c t o r s in s e c u r i n g a deq ua te county funds f o r a l l phases o f county
Extension work, as observed by t h e i r 2.87 mean s c o r e on t h a t item as

Table 23.--Responses by six groups regarding the current role of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan on nine items
pertaining to the budgeting and financing function of the position, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Total
(N=385)

PA
(N=74)

CEA
<N=144)

CED
(N=62)

SPEC
(N=62)

APT
(N=37)

RS
(N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

2.76

1

2.80

1

2.47

1

2.92

2

2.74

3

2.55

2

2.49

3

2.11

2

3.07

1

2.63

2.44

3

2.43

5

2.28

3

2.11

3

2.36

4

2.69

2

2.08

4

1.90

2.24

5

2.30

7

2.07

5

2.05

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

3.20

1

4.20

1

7

3.00

2

4.00

2

2.87

1

2.78

3

3.00

5

2.70

4

2.78

4

3.00

4

2.68

5

2.22

7

2.80

Oversee that counties file their
annual Expenditure and Appropri­
ated Funds reports on time.
Oversee that counties have their
nonappropriated funds audited
annually by an auditor independent

of the Extension organization.
Assist County Extension Directors
in securing adequate county funds
for all phases of county Exten­
sion work.
Monitor county Extension budgets
for the region.
Assist staff in developing pro­
posals for outside funding of
Extension programs.

Table 23.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total

PA
<N=74)

<N=385)
Mean

Rank

Mean

CEA
(N=166)

Rank

Mean

CED

SPEC
(N=62)

(N=62)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

RS

APT
<N=37)

Rank

Mean

(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Seek financial support in addi­
tion to county appropriated funds
to develop/expand county Exten­
sion programs.

2.22

6

2.36

6

2.01

6

1.88

6

2.81

2

2.28

6

2.60

6

2.10

7

2.68

6

1.68

7

1.79

7

2.66

6

2.51

5

2.60

7

1.85

8

2.22

8

1.59

8

1.61

8

2.62

8

1.92

8

1.80

8

1.53

9

1.95

9

1.28

9

1.20

9

1.88

9

1.67

9

1.60

9

Oversee that county appropriated
monies are equitably divided so
that all staff have reasonable
support to carry out their
Extension programs.
Develop annual Cooperative Exten­
sion Service budget requests for
counties in the region.
Present annual county Extension
budgets to the County Board of
Commissioners.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 6 = Major, 5 = Complete.

163

compared t o t h e i r 2.74 mean s co r e on t h e number-one-ranked item by
the

total

financial

group.

Extension

S pecialists

support

in a d d i t i o n

also

ranked

to c o u n ty -a p p ro p ria te d

seeking
funds

to

develop /exp and county Extension programs much h i g h e r than d i d any of
t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t gro ups, as seen by t h e i r 2 n d -p la c e ra n k in g on
this

item as compared t o a l l

t h i s item 6 t h .

t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups

rank ing

Overseeing t h a t c o u n t i e s have t h e i r n o n a p p r o p r ia te d

funds a u d i t e d a n n u a ll y was seen by Extension S p e c i a l i s t s t o be of
much lower p r i o r i t y , as w it n e s s e d by t h e i r 7 t h - p l a c e ra nking o f t h i s
item in comparison t o t h e 1 s t -

to 3rd-place

r a n k in g s

of all

th e

o t h e r r e s po nd en t gro ups.
A s s i s t i n g s t a f f in devel opi ng p r o p o s a l s f o r o u t s i d e funding was
seen by p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team t o be
a lower l e v e l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed, as observed by t h e i r
respective

7 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s

in comparison t o

the

p l a c e r a n k in g s o f t h e o t h e r respondent gro ups.
and

the

A dm inistrative

Program

4th-

and

5th-

Paraprofessionals

Team p e r c e i v e d

that

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have a h i g h e r l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y th a n did
t h e County Extension Agents, t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and th e
Regional

Extension

Supervisor

group

for

overseeing

a p p r o p r i a t e d monies a re e q u i t a b l y di v id e d so t h a t
reasonable
w itnessed

support
by t h e i r

compared with th e

to

carry

respective

out

th eir

4th-

and

that

all

county-

staff

have

Extension

program,

as

5th-place

rankings

as

7 t h - p l a c e ra nking given t h i s

item by t h e o t h e r

164
t h r e e gr ou ps .

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t group ranked t h e

item o f

lower p r i o r i t y than d id t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team but o f h i g h e r p r i o r i t y th a n t h e o t h e r t h r e e groups as
viewed by t h e i r 6 t h - p l a c e ra nk in g on t h i s item.
In

summary,

overseeing

th at

counties

file

th eir

annual

Expen ditur e and A ppro pr ia te d Funds r e p o r t on time was judged t o be
the

number-one a c t i v i t y

of the

Regional

Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r s

in

t h e i r budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y
being performed.

However, t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e among

t h e groups as t o t h e l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t Regional Extension
S u p e r v is o r s have f o r t h i s item.

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l group ( 2 . 8 0 ) ,

t h e County Extension Agents ( 2 . 4 7 ) , t h e County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s
(2.92),

and

the

Supervisors

Extension

having

less

p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item.
the

other

hand,

resp o n sib ility
p e rc ei v e d

the

S pecialists

than

a shared

perceived

themsel ve s

S u p e r v i s o r s 5 involvement

Supervisor’s role
adequate
in

in

resp o n sib ility

on t h a t

having

more

than

a

on

major

on

that

item

as

being

a

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s pla ce d a much h i g h e r

assistin g

county

addition

develop/expand th e
Regional

perceived

( 4 . 2 0 ) , w h e r e a s t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Prog ram Team

va lu e than t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups

support

all

The Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r group,

s hared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

s e c u ri n g

(2.74)

to

county

funding

on t h e

Regional

Co un ty E x t e n s i o n
and

also

in

county-appropriated
Extension programs.

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group viewed t h i s

D irectors

s ee ki n g
funds

Extension

in

However,

in

financial
order

to

only

th e

as being a shared

165

responsibility,

as

compared wit h

all

t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s c u r r e n t l y have l e s s
f o r t h a t r o l e item.
Extension

annual

presenting

the

Commissioners,

o t h e r groups

indicating

tha n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

All s i x r e s pon de nt groups ag re ed t h a t Regional

S upervisors

developing

the

ha v e

little

CES b u d g e t

county

or

requests

Extension

budget

no

resp o n sib ility

for
to

the
the

county
County

as obser ved by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 8 t h -

for

or

for

Board

of

and 9 t h - p l a c e

r a n k in g s on th o s e two ite m s .
R e l a t i v e Importance o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns
as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed
The

null

hypothesis

was

established

that

"There

are

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r th e
v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
position

as

re s p o n d e n t

it

is c u rre n tly

groups."

re s p on se s c o r e

This

being performed,
was

tested

f o r each o f t h e

eight

by

as p e r c e i v e d by t h e
calculating

adm inistrative

th e y a re c u r r e n t l y being performed f o r t h e t o t a l
and f o r each

position

functions

Regional

for

group.

Supervisors,

mean

functions

as

re s p o n d e n t group

Table 24 shows t h e

Extension

the

adm inistrative

classified

by mean

s c o r e and rank o r d e r .
By o bs er vi ng t h e mean s c o r e and t h e rank f o r each a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i v e f u n c t i o n , i t was noted t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d .

The pe rsonnel

management

of

function

had

the

highest

mean

score

2.99

and

Table 24.--Mean response scores and rank order for eight administrative functions as they are currently being performed by
Regional Extension Supervisors, by each of six respondent groups.

Respondent Group
Administrative Function

Total
(N=369)
Mean

CEA
(N=149)

PA
(N=78)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

CEO
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=71)

Rank

Mean

APT
(N=37)

Rank

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Personnel management CMI = 18)

2.99

1

2.79

2

2.90

1

3.02

2

3.29

1

3.08

1.5

3.04

4

Administration and policy (NI=20)

2.95

2

2.71

3

2.89

2

3.04

1

3.04

3

3.08

1.5

3.35

1

Extension programming (NI=16)

2.87

3

2.85

1

2.76

3

2.90

3

2.94

5

2.99

3

3.25

2

Program evaluation and
accountability (NI=12)

2.76

4

2.66

4

2.65

4

2.73

4

3.05

2

2.83

4

3.05

3

(Nl = 15)

2.55

5

2.30

8

2.36

5

2.59

5

2.95

4

2.75

5

2.87

5

Program development (NI=16)

2.54

6

2.52

5

2.33

6

2.50

6

2.83

6

2.70

6

2.83

7

Public relations (NI=8)

2.26

7

2.44

6

2.06

7

2.10

7

2.62

7

2.23

8

2.40

8

Budgeting and financing (NI=9)

2.24

8

2.39

7

1.94

8

2.03

8

2.60

8

2.48

7

2.84

6

Staff orientation and development

Note:

NI = number of items.

167

c o n s e q u e n tl y was ranked f i r s t .

The o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s

c o n ti n u e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g r a nk o r d e r , as de te r m in e d by d e c r e a s i n g
mean

scores:

adm inistration

program e v a l u a t i o n
development,

and

and

policy,

Ex te ns ion

accountability,

program development,

staff

public

programming,

o rientation

relations,

and

and bu dge tin g

and f i n a n c i n g .
To d e t e r m i n e

the

significance

Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t
1977),

of

these

(M a ra s c u il o ,

a form o f r a n k - o r d e r a n a l y s i s

all

McSweeky,

of variance,

Table 25, t h e observed s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l
de g re e s o f freedom f o r

differences,

is

& Kirk,

was us ed .

l e s s th a n

resp onden t groups e x c e p t

the

null

hypothesis

responsibility

related

to

of the e ig h t

differences

level

between

adm inistrative

of

the

functions

In

.01 w it h 7
Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r gro up , which had a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l
Having e s t a b l i s h e d a pr e d e te r m in ed s i g n i f i c a n c e

the

of

.02.

.01,

th e

lev els

of

was r e j e c t e d

f o r a l l groups ex cep t t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group.
The d a t a
Friedman

mean

showed
rank

the

of

personnel

6.29

and

management

the

f u n c t i o n had a mean ra n k o f 6 .0 4 .

function

adm inistration

and

had

a

policy

Ex te ns ion programming had t h e

g r e a t e s t number o f d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s , with f o u r d i f f e r e n t r a n k in g s
for that

item.

However, t h e seven o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

functions

all

had t h r e e d i f f e r e n t r a n k in g s each.

The s i x re sp ond en t groups

d id

not

the

functions.

come

to

consensus

However,

the

on

any

pe rsonnel

of

eight

management

adm inistrative

function

and

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked h i g h e r

168
than t h e o t h e r f u n c t i o n s , and t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n and th e
budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked lower than
t h e o t h e r f u n c t i o n s by a l l r e s p on de nt gro up s .

Table 2 5 . --Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n
means by ra nk .
Administrative
Function

Rank Order o f Respondent Groups
Mean Rank*

PA*

CEA*

CED*

SPEC*

APT*

RS

Personnel management

6.29

2

1

2

1

1.5

4

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy

6.04

3

2

1

3

1.5

1

Extension programming

5.70

1

3

3

5

3

2

Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

5.01

4

4

4

2

4

3

S taff orientation
and development

3.83

8

5

5

4

5

5

Program development

3.75

5

6

6

6

6

7

Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s

2.74

6

7

7

7

8

8

Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g

2.65

7

8

8

8

7

6

♦ S i g n i f i c a n c e < .01.

Consensus Within Each P o s i t i o n Group
D ifferences
e xa mi ne d

in c o n s e n s u s w i t h i n

by t e s t i n g

the

null

each p o s i t i o n

hypothesis

th at

g r o u p were

"There

are

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e consensus w i t h i n each p o s i t i o n group
on t h e p e rc e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s of

169
the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’ s position

as

it

is

currently

being performed."
This h y p o t h e s i s was f i r s t

tested

by c a l c u l a t i n g

the standard

d e v i a t i o n s on each r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n item f o r each p o s i t i o n group and
t h e t o t a l resp on de nt group.
of dispersion
H u ll ,

St an da rd d e v i a t i o n i s used as a measure

about t h e mean o f an i n t e r v a l - l e v e l

Jenkins,

Steinbrenner,

& B re n t,

1975)

variable

and

is

(Nie,

useful

in

i n d i c a t i n g consensus o r l a c k o f consensus w i t h i n a p o s i t i o n group.
Appendix D pro vid e s t h e mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r each o f th e
individual
Extension
Regional

role-definition
S u p e r v is o r

as

items

for

is

currently

being

performed.

had t e n

items

with

it

Extension S u p e rv iso rs

the

position

of

Regional
The

a standard

d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r and e i g h t items with complete consensus
( . 0 0 s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ) .
54),

"use

monthly

accomplishments
S p ecialists,"

in

had

The Extension programming r o l e item (Item

reports
the
the

to

keep

region

highest

by

informed
campus

standard

of

progr ammi ng

based

deviation

Extension
(1.50),

for

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

group had t h e g r e a t e s t

number o f

items

with s ta n d a rd d e v i a t i o n s o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r (85 o f t h e 114 i t e m s ) .
The l a r g e s t v a r i a n c e with Program A s s i s t a n t s was a s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n
and development r o l e item, " p ro v id in g f i e l d s t a f f w it h EE0 and T i t l e
IX inf or m at io n"
The item t h a t

(No. 3 1 ) , which had a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.35.
received

th e

highest

level

o f co nsensus

among th e

Program A s s i s t a n t group was a l s o a s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development

170
item ,

"assistin g

new

staff

in

becomi ng

acquainted

w ith

the

community" (No. 30 ), which had a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f .84.
The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, t h e County Ex te ns ion Agents,
and t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t groups a l l showed t h e g r e a t e s t v a r i a n c e
on

a

pe rs onn el

management

Exten sio n f i e l d
14),

s t a f f to

role

item,

that

of

"presenting

new

t h e County Board o f Commissioners"

as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 1 . 3 7 ,

1 . 1 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t h i s

item.

(No.

1 .1 6 ,

and

The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team

had f i v e r o l e items with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 or g r e a t e r ,
whereas

the

Specialists

County

Exten sio n

had nin e r o l e

Agents

had

11

items over 1. 0 0 .

and

the

Extension

The County Extension

D i r e c t o r group showed t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f c o n se n s u s, wit h a l l r o l e
items having a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n l e s s than 1.0 0.
The County Extension Agents and t h e County E xt ens ion D i r e c t o r
groups

had

financing

the

highest

role

item,

level

that

of

of

consensus

"presenting

on

annual

a

b ud ge tin g

county

and

Extension

budgets t o t h e County Board o f Commissioners" (No. 114), with t h e i r
re s p e c tiv e standard d ev iatio n s
The

Extension

Specialist

personnel

management

candidates

for

of

group

item ,

.56 and
showed

that

open p o s i t i o n s

within

t h e i r s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f .58.
deviation

for

the

management item,
and

the

variance

region."
on

an

of

Administrative

Extension

the

most

re g io n "

item.

co nsensus

"interview ing
the

role

on

a

prospective

(No.

10) ,

with

The item with t h e low est s t a n d a r d
Program

"developing s t a f f i n g
County

.44 on t h a t

Extension

Team was

alternatives
D irectors

pro gramming

role

a

pe rsonnel

for county(ies)
showed
item ,

the
th at

most
of

171

"periodically v is itin g

field

s t a f f t o o bs er ve and become f a m i l i a r

with t h e i r programming e f f o r t s and p r o g r e s s "

(No. 5 7 ) , which had a

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f .99.
The d a t a p r e s e n t e d in Appendix D seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e
were d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e consensus w i t h i n each p o s i t i o n group on t h e
p e r c e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
and a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t
i s c u r r e n t l y being performed in Michigan.
However, i t was de ci de d t o t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s f u r t h e r .

The

B a r t l e t t homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was performed f o r t h e p o s i t i o n
groups on each o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .

This t e s t is

used t o de ter mi ne whether t h e samples o r groups being reviewed come
from p o p u l a t i o n s with equal v a r i a n c e ( K e r l i n g e r , 1964).

The r e s u l t s

o f t h e B a r t l e t t t e s t a r e p r e s e n t e d in Table 26 f o r each o f t h e e i g h t
adm inistrative

functions.

The n u ll

hypothesis

that

there

is

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in t h e consensus w i t h i n each p o s i t i o n group
« •»

ui i

A U *

uic

.« « ij.

« 4 i•n

4

pciv*civeu C A p c c ta n u iid

^ f

ui

♦

U a

wuc i x c t j i v i i a i

r

4

l a i c i i ^ i ui i

Ct i n

n Wti>

^ va ^ r

v i ^ wi

o

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed was r e j e c t e d
for

all

the

function,

adm inistrative

which

did

significance le v e l.

not

functions
meet

the

except

the

previously

public

relations

established

.01

172
Table 2 6 . - - B a r t l e t t homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e t e s t by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y pe rformed , f o r t h e s i x
r e s po nd en t gr ou ps .
S i g n i f i c a n c e Level
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fun ction

p = *

.000
.000
.000
.005
.000
.000
.026
.000

Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g
*p < .01.

D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r
Group and Each o f t h e Other P o s i t i o n Groups
The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was pre p a re d t h a t "There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each
o f t h e o t h e r r e s ponden t groups on t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s

held

f o r th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
position

as

previously
response

it
in

is c u r r e n t l y
Table

scores

of

24
the

being

indicated
six

p e rfo rm ed ."
that

O b s e r v a ti o n s

differences

respondent

groups

in

for

the
the

made
mean
eight

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s d id e x i s t .
To de te rm in e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e , t h e a n a l y s i s
of

variance

partitions

statistical

the

variation

technique
of

the

was

total

used.
sample

w i t h i n t h e t r e a t m e n t groups and t h e v a r i a n c e

This
into

technique

the

between t h e

variance
grou ps ,

each p a r t a s s i g n a b l e t o a d i f f e r e n t cause o r c a u s e s (Choa, 1969).

A

173

comparison o f between-column v a r i a t i o n and within -co lum n v a r i a t i o n
yields

i n f o r m a t i o n c on ce rn in g d i f f e r e n c e s

which i s t h e c e n t r a l

among t h e

column means,

i n s i g h t pro vided by t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e

te c h n i q u e (Hamburg, 1970).
The r e s u l t s

of

this

analysis

of the

eight

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t
c u r r e n t l y being performed i n d i c a t e d t h a t
differences

existed

statistically

between t h e p o s i t i o n gro ups.

t h e s e a n a l y s e s a re d i s p l a y e d in Table 27.

is

significant

The r e s u l t s

of

A pre de term in ed l e v e l of

s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d a t the
.01 l e v e l .
The d a t a

in

Table

27

reveal

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as i t
the

.00 l e v e l

of

th a t the

pers onn el

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed was a t

significance.

Thus, t h e r e

was

a

d i f f e r e n c e between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
five

respondent

function.

groups

on

all

management

except

the

significant

and t h e o t h e r

Extension

programming

The major d i f f e r e n c e was wit h t h e Program A s s i s t a n t s a t

2.79 and t h e

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

at

3.29,

whereas t h e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s had a mean s c o r e o f 3 . 0 4 .

Regional

County Extension

A ge nt s’ mean s c o r e o f 2.90 a l s o i n d i c a t e d a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e .

174

Table 2 7 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Ex tens ion Su pe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan between Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s , P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Exten sio n Agents,
County Extension D i r e c t o r s , Extens ion S p e c i a l i s t s , and
t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team.
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

Sum o f
Squares

P*

df

Mean
Square

F

Source
Between

11.2769

5

2.2554

9.1896

.0000

Between
Between
Between

23.2398
13.4926
3.4365

5
5
5

4.6480
2.6985
.6873

12.0487
7.9913
2.1499

.0000
.0000
.0589

Between

8.5204

5

1.7041

4.6907

.0004

Between
Between

7.2214
18.2787

5
5

1.4443
3.6557

4.9488
8.8141

.0002
.0000

Between

29.2064

5

5.8413

13.8253

.0000

*p < .01.

The d a t a in Table 27 show t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional
and development

function

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n
as

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .00 l e v e l .
.01,

the

is

currently

significance

s ig n ific a n t d ifference existed

be tw e e n t h e

group

and

the

be ing

performed

was

With a r e q u i r e d s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of

calculated

Supervisor

resu ltin g

it

other

five

level

indicated

Regional

a

Extension

respondent

groups.

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and County Extension Agents had t h e l a r g e s t mean
s co r e d i f f e r e n c e from t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group mean

o f 2.87 wit h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e group means o f 2.30 and 2 .3 6 .

County

175
Extension D i r e c t o r s d i s p l a y e d a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e with t h e i r
group mean.
to

2.59

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r r o l e

be n e a r i n g

th at

of a shared

o r i e n t a t i o n development f u n c t i o n ,

resp o n sib ility

for

the

the paraprofessionals

staff

and County

Extension Agents th o u g h t t h e S u p e r v i s o r s c u r r e n t l y have a minor r o l e
in c a r r y i n g ou t t h a t f u n c t i o n ,

and t h e County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s

p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s t o have more t h a n a minor r o l e bu t l e s s
tha n a s har ed r o l e as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
The r e p o r t e d va lu e from Table 27 f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
o f t h e Regional
developm ent

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e program

function

perceptions

of

the

of

th eir

other

position

re sp on de nt

sig n ific a n t difference existed.

as

groups

co mp ared
was

w ith

.00.

Thus,

the
a

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s and

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s viewed t h i s f u n c t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed as being n e a r l y a sh ar ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
County

Extension

A gents,

County

Extension

(2.83),

whereas

D irectors,

and

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n d i c a t e d S u p e r v i s o r s c u r r e n t l y have a m in o r
responsibility

with

respect

to

this

adm inistrative

function

as

viewed by t h e i r lower mean re s ponse s c o r e s o f 2. 3 3 , 2 .5 0 , and 2. 5 2 ,
respectively.
The d a t a

presented

in

Table

27

indicate

the

calculated

s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .0589 on t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r t h e
Extension

pro gramming

Supervisor’s position

as

function
it

is

of

currently

the

Regional

being

Extension

performed was not

s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e prede ter min ed .01 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .

Therefore,

i t was determined t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e Regional

176

Extension

Supervisors’

groups

related

as

views

to

the

and

those

extension

of

the

other

programming

r e s pon de nt

function

did

not

exist.
The d a t a in Table 27 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s and t h e o t h e r
r e s po nden t groups a t t h e

.00 l e v e l

f o r t h e program e v a l u a t i o n and

a cc o u n ta b ility adm inistrative function.

This d i f f e r e n c e was l o c a t e d

between t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s

and Extension

p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t Regional
responsibility
th eir

on

that

Extension S u p e rv is o rs

adm inistrative

3 . 0 5 mean r e s p o n s e

scores

as

Specialists’

ha ve a s h a r e d

function,

as

indicated

c om par ed

with

the

by

Cou nty

E x t e n s i o n A g e n ts and Program A s s i s t a n t s p e r c e i v i n g S u p e r v i s o r s
having l e s s th a n a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
mean re s ponse s c o r e s o f 2.65 and 2.6 6.
The in f o r m a t io n from th e d a t a in t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e
(Table

27)

shows

a

sig n ific a n t difference

significance

is

currently

p e rc e iv e d
function

their

.00,

performed.

level

of

being more than

Regional

responsibility

adm inistration

Extension

for

this

a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

and County

indicating

a
and

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as

being

Program A s s i s t a n t s

of

in t h e re s p o n se s t o t h e

p o l i c y f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
it

level

Extension Agents

Supervisors

adm inistrative
(3.35),

whereas

p e r c e iv e d

them as

having l e s s tha n a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
mean re sp onse s c o r e s o f 2.71 and 2.89.

177
The

data

in

Table

27

reveal

th at

the

public

relatio n s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was a t t h e .00 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
t h e r e was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e seen on t h i s

Thus,

item between

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s and t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t gr oup s .
The major d i f f e r e n c e was w it h t h e County Extension Agents and County
Extension D i r e c t o r s
responsibility

for

perceiving
this

the

particular

Supervisors
role

as

having a minor

item as

viewed

by t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e 2.0 6 and 2.10 mean re sp onse s c o r e s in comparison w it h t h e
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v i n g th em sel ve s as having more
th a n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
(2.40).

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

on t h e

other

hand,

perceived

the

S u p e r v i s o r s as having even a h i g h e r l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y tha n th e
Regional

Extension

S u p e rv is o r group,

res po ns e s c o r e of 2 .6 2 .
Regional

Extension

as

vi ew ed

by t h e i r

mean

However, a l l r e s po nd en t groups agreed t h a t
Supervisors

ha ve

less

than

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y
being performed.
The r e p o r t e d val ue from Table 27 f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ and t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t
g r o u p s ’ budge ting
Thus,

a

and

significant

adm inistrative

financing
difference

function.

adm inistrative
was

Regional

seen

function

was

.00.

respect

to

this

with

Ex te ns ion

Supervisors

viewed

the mselves as having n e a r l y a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (2 .8 4) f o r t h i s
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , whereas County Extension Agents and County
Extension D i r e c t o r s p e r c e iv e d them as having a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
in c a r r y i n g out t h i s

function

as t h e p o s i t i o n

is

currently

being

178

performed,

as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean r e s p o n s e

scores

of

1.94 and 2.03.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e on each o f t h e e i g h t
adm inistrative

functions

position

is

were

as i t

significant

T herefore,

of

the

Regional

Ex tens ion

c u r r e n t l y being performed
differences

the null

in

seven

hypothesis

that

Supervisor’s

indicated

of

the

there

that

eight

are

there

functions.

no s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each
of

the

other

responsibility

respondent

groups

on

the

perceived

being he ld f o r t h e Regional

Ex te ns ion

level

of

S u p erv iso r’s

p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed was r e j e c t e d .
Resp ond en ts’ Views Based on Gender. Aoe. Formal Edu ca tio n.
Years Employed bv t h e CES. Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n .
Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n . Size o f County S t a f f .
Amount o f Normal C on ta ct . Type o f C o n ta c t, and
P e rc e nta ge o f Time Spent on A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
The

null

hypothesis

was

established

that

"There

is

no

measurable a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e p e r c e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r
the

adm inistrative

duties

of

the

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisor’s

p o s i t i o n as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y being performed and t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’
ge nd er , age, formal e d u c a t i o n , y e a r s employed by t h e CES, y e a r s in
present p o sition,

region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n ,

amount o f normal c o n t a c t ,

ty pe o f c o n t a c t ,

s i z e o f county s t a f f ,
and p e r c e n t a g e o f time

s p en t on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Gender o f
differences

in

re s p o n d e n ts
the

was

the

first

way

respondents’ perceptions

used

to

de ter mi ne

of

the

Regional

179
Extension

Supervisor’ s

adm inistrative

functions

as

they

are

c u r r e n t l y being performed.
The

data

in

Table

28

show t h e

mean

scores

for

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s by t h e gender o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .
scores

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

functions

were

eight

The mean

consistently

ranked lower by t h e female r e s p o n d e n t s , as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
mean r e s p o n s e s c o r e s .

Table 2 8 . -- R e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as the y a r e c u r r e n t l y being performed in Michigan, c l a s ­
s i f i e d by ge nder.
Males
(N=l95)

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function
Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Rudaetino and f i n a n c i n a

Females
(N=191)

3.0 9
2.66
2.58
2.89
2.83
3.01
2.29
2.25

2.89
2.41
2.49
2.84
2.69
2.84
2.21
2.18

An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , a t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between means,
was

used

on

each

adm inistrative

function

to

de te r m in e

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between t h e two g ro u p s .

whether

The d a t a in

Table 29 i n d i c a t e t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e .01 l e v e l
significance
functions.

w er e f ou nd

in

three

o f the

eight

of

adm inistrative

180

Table 2 9 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Ex te ns ion S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by gender o f r e s p o n d e n ts
in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F

P*

df

Between

3.7085

1

3.7085

14.0395

.0002

Between
Between
Between

6.9406
.7234
.2275

1
1
1

6.9406
.7234
.2275

16.4073
2.0202
.7298

.0001
.1560
.3935

Between

1.6994

1

1.6994

4.5561

.0335

Between
Between

2.6154
.7190

1
1

2.6154
.7190

9.0989
1.6193

.0027
.2040

Between

.5160

1

.5160

1.0739

.3007

Source

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c i n g
*p < .01.

Male

and

perceptions

female

regarding

respondents
the

level

had

of

sig n ifican tly

responsibility

d ifferen t

that

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have f o r t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s - - s t a f f
o rientation

and

adm inistration

and p o l i c y - - a s

.0002,

developm ent,

personnel

m a na ge m e nt,

observed by t h e i r

and .0027 l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .

respective

and
.0001,

The female r e s p o n d e n t s ,

however, c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s
had

less

than

adm inistrative
that

a

functions,

S u p e rv is o rs

functions.

shared

responsibility
whereas

the

male

on

all

eight

r e s p o n d e n ts

of

the

indicated

had a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on two o f t h e e i g h t

None o f

the

other

adm inistrative

functions

met

the

181
p red eter mi ned .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
accountability

adm inistrative

function

difference

the

of

at

.05

level

The program e v a l u a t i o n and
also

showed

significance

a

between

significant
males’

and

females’ perceptions.
To p ro v id e meaningful group s i z e s on t h e b a s i s o f age f o r t h e
analysis

of

variance

test,

the

fo ll o w i n g t h r e e age grou ps :
y e a r s and o l d e r .

r e s p o n d e n ts

under 35 y e a r s ,

were

p la c e d

36-45 y e a r s ,

in

the

and 46

Table 30 shows t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r

t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s by t h e o r i g i n a l f i v e age gro u p s .

Table 3 0 . - - R e s p o n d e n ts ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as th e y a re c u r r e n t l y being performed in Michigan, c l a s ­
s i f i e d by f i v e age gro up s .

Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and
development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and fi n a n c i n g

An a n a l y s i s

Under 26
Years
(N-7)

26-35
Years
(N=80)

2.87

2.96

2.88

3. 10

3.09

2.31
2.78
2.95

2.54
2.52
2.90

2.37
2.39
2.74

2.67
2.61
2.94

2.81
2.79
2.96

2.72

2.82

2.64

2.81

2.90

3.02
2.90
2.70

2.96
2.25
2.24

2.85
2.14
2.13

2.96
2.32
2.27

3.01
2.33
2.22

of variance

was u s e d

36-45
Years
(N=l44)

on

each

46-55
Years
(N=119)

56+
Years
(N-39)

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n to deter mine t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means f o r

182

t h e t h r e e condensed age c a t e g o r i e s .
that

four of the eig h t

The d a t a in Table 31 i n d i c a t e

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

functions

of

the

Regional

i s c u r r e n t l y be ing performed

had a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
four adm inistrative

a r e a s meeting t h e

significance

were

o rien tatio n

and d e v e l o p m e n t f u n c t i o n ,

function,

and t h e

the

pe rsonnel

Extension

pr e d e te r m in ed

management

function,

level
the

of

staff

t h e program developm ent

programming f u n c t i o n ,

t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s o f .00.

.01

The

as

observed

by

The re s p o n d e n ts o v e r t h e age o f

46 c o n s i s t e n t l y p e rc e iv e d Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having a
h i g h e r l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e pers onnel management,
orientation

and development,

and program development f u n c t i o n s

t h e i r p o s i t i o n than did t h e younger age grou ps .
group

perceived

responsibility

Supervisors

than did t h e

staff

as

other

having
resp on de nt

of

The 36-45 y e a r age
a

lower

level

age groups

for

of
th e

program development f u n c t i o n as compared t o t h e under-26 age group,
which p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having a much h i g h e r l e v e l

of

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and budgetin g and f i n a n c i n g
f u n c t i o n s than did t h e o t h e r age grou ps .

183
Table 3 1 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Exten sio n S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by age o f r e s p o n d e n ts
in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F

df

P*

Between

3.6482

2

1.8421

7.0973

.0009

Between
Between
Between

8.5927
5.1849
3.3584

2
2
2

4.2964
2.5924
1.6792

10.1841
7.4144
5.3949

.0000
.0007
.0049

Between

2.9808

2

1.4904

3.9964

.0192

Between
Between

1.1463
2.6054

2
2

.5731
1.3027

1.9505
2.9654

.1437
.0528

Between

1.5674

2

.7837

1.6090

.2015

Source

Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing
*p < .01.

A significant

difference

was

found

in

the

v ie w s

of

the

re s p o n d en ts in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i r formal e d u c a t i o n wit h r e s p e c t
t o f i v e o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being perform ed.

The f i v e

adm inistrative

functions

s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s a t t h e pr ed et erm ine d .01 le v e l
were t h e personnel

management f u n c t i o n ,

development f u n c t i o n ,

th at

had

of significance

the s t a f f o r ie n ta tio n

t h e program development f u n c t i o n ,

and

the public

r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n , and t h e budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n .
in Tables 32 and 33 show t h e r e s u l t s t o s u p p o rt t h i s a n a l y s i s .

Data

184
Table 32.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently performed
in Michigan, classified by formal education.

Less Than
Specialist's

Doctor's

Administrative

B.S.

Bachelor's

Master's

Function

(N=52)

(N=88)

(N=169)

(N=3)

(N=80)

2.77

2.92

2.97

3.30

3.24
2.87

Personnel management
Staff orientation and

2.29

2.42

2.51

2.78

Program development

2.54

2.44

2.45

2.85

2.75

Extension programming

2.79

2.87

2.85

2.91

2.90

Program evaluation and
accountabiIi ty

2.61

2.75

2.71

3.04

2.95

development

Administration and
2.70

2.92

2.97

3.28

2.99

Public relations

2.50

2.23

2.04

2.46

2.55

Budgeting and financing

2.43

2.02

2.09

2.93

2.49

policy

Table 3 3 . -- A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by formal e d u c a t i o n of
res pondent s in t h i s st udy .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Public r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
f i n a n c in g

*p < .01.

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

P*

Source
Between

8.2519

3

2.7500

11.4538

.0000

Between
Between
Between

13.3559
5.8699
.3942

3
3
3

4.4520
1.8699
.1314

10.9127
5.2731
.4065

.0000
.0014
.7484

Between

4.2192

3

1.4064

3.7694

.0109

Between
Between

3.1967
16.7492

3
3

1.0656
5.5831

3.5401
14.1417

.0148
.0000

Between

4.2603

3

4.2603

9.3447

.0000

185

To run

a more a c c u r a t e

analysis

o f variance

test,

the

five

c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d in Table 32 were regrouped i n t o t h e fo ll o w i n g f o u r
g ro u p i n g s :
and

l e s s th a n B . S . ,

D octor’s degree.

Bachelor’s,

Examination

M a s t e r ’ s and S p e c i a l i s t ’ s,
of

Table

32

reveals

th at

i n d i v i d u a l s wi th B a c h e l o r ’ s d e g r e e s o r l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y p e r c e i v e d
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

re s p o n sib ility for all

as

having

less

than

a shared

e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , whereas t h e

respond en ts holding D octor’ s degrees perceiv ed th e Su perviso rs
having

nearly

a

s har ed

adm inistrative functions.

responsibility

for

The d i f f e r e n c e

all

but

two

in mean s c o r e s

of

the

for

th e

l e s s than B.S. group and t h e D o c t o r ’ s d e gre e group was .47 f o r t h e
pe rson ne l management f u n c t i o n and .58 f o r t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and
development f u n c t i o n , as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 2.77 and 3.24
mean s c o r e s f o r t h e personnel management f u n c t i o n and t h e i r 2.29 and
2.87 mean s c o r e s f o r t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n .
The B a c h e l o r ’ s degre e group and t h e D o c t o r ’ s d e gr e e group had a mean
s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e o f .31 f o r t h e program development f u n c t i o n and a
.47 mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e on t h e budg etin g and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n ,
as

viewed by t h e i r

respective

2.44 and

2.75

mean

scores

on t h e

program development f u n c t i o n and t h e i r 2.02 and 2.49 mean s c o r e s on
t h e budg etin g and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n .
Length o f s e r v i c e with t h e C ooper ati ve Exten sio n S e r v i c e was
the

f o u r t h way used t o de te rm in e d i f f e r e n c e s

perceptions

of

the

Regional

Extension

in

the

respondents’

Supervisor’s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y a re c u r r e n t l y

various

being performed

in

186
Michigan.

Table 34 d i s p l a y s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r t h e s i x o r i g i n a l

years-employed-by-CES c a t e g o r i e s , which a r e :

l e s s th a n 12 months,

I - 5 y e a r s , 6-10 y e a r s , 11-15 y e a r s , 16-20 y e a r s , and ove r 20 y e a r s .
Fo r a n a l y s i s

of variance

purposes,

these

six

categories

w ere

regrouped i n t o f o u r gro up in gs t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
test.

The f o u r new gr oupin gs were:

5 years or le s s ,

6-10 y e a r s ,

I I - 1 5 y e a r s , and 16 or more y e a r s .

Table 34.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently being
performed in Michigan, classified by length of service with the CES.

6-10

11-15

16-20

Over 20

Years

1-5

Years

Years

Years

Years

Administrative

less Than
1 Year

Function

<N=5)

(N=97)

(N=92)

(N=74)

(N=53)

(N=69)

Personnel management
Staff orientation and

3.14

2.93

2.93

2.95

2.93

3.19

2.59

2.39

2.49

2.46

Program development

2.74

2.55

2.45

2.43

2.53
2.42

2.77

Extension programming

3.00

2.86

2.78

2.85

2.79

3.01

2.70

2.72

2.74

2.71

2.65

2.95

3.12

2.85

2.91

2.95

2.83

3.12

Public relations

2.78

2.40

2.20

2.10

2.06

2.39

Budgeting and financing

2.73

2.23

2.19

2.15

2.12

2.35

development

2.88

Program evaluation and
accountabiIi ty
Administration and
policy

The d a t a

in Table 35 i n d i c a t e

that

a significant

difference

e x i s t e d a t t h e .01 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l on t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and
development f u n c t i o n ,
on t h a t item.

as observed by t h e .00 l e v e l

of significance

The p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n was a l s o c l o s e to being

s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e pr ed et erm ine d .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , as seen

187
by t h e

.0161

function.
years

of

sig n ific a n c e level

on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Table 34 r e v e a l e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s w it h l e s s th a n f i v e
experience

wit h

the

CES viewed

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement with t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
function

as being a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

of the

whereas t h o s e with 16-20 y e a r s o f s e r v i c e

position

(2.39),

and t h o s e w it h over 20

y e a r s viewed S u p e r v i s o r s as having more th a n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
bu t l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

mean re s ponse s c o r e s o f 2.53 and 2.88.

Table 3 5 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Exten sio n Su pe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e with
t h e CES o f re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ub li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

*p < .01.

Source

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

1.6569

3

Between
Between
Between

6.8714
2.3862
.9315

Between

F

P*

.5523

2.0736

.1032

3
3
3

2.2905
.7954
.3105

5.3705
2.2205
.9610

.0012
.0853
.4112

.7260

3

.2420

.6376

.5912

Between
Between

1.0176
4.5522

3
3

.3392
1.5174

1.1491
3.4816

.3291
.0161

Between

.6732

3

.2244

.4583

.7116

188
No

significant

difference

was

found

in

the

views

of

the

re s p o n d e n ts and t h e number o f y e a r s th e y had been in t h e i r p r e s e n t
positions.

Data in Table s 36 and 37 show t h e r e s u l t s

to

s u p p o rt

th is analysis.

However, two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s b e a r f u r t h e r

investigation.

The s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n had a

p -v a lu e o f

.0173.

Review o f Table 36 i n d i c a t e s

t h a t r e s p o n d e n ts

with over 20 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n judged
the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s

involvement

w it h

the

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n t o be a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of the

position

viewed t h e i r

(3.00),

whereas

involvement being

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

all

the

other

less

tha n

s har ed b u t more t h a n

a

Likewise, t h e r e s pond en t group with over 20

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n
E xtension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvem ent
to

groups

as viewed by t h e o t h e r g r o u p s ’ mean re s p o n se

s c o r e s o f 2.49 t o 2 .5 9 .

function

re s p o n d e n t

be a sh ared

viewed t h e Regional

in t h e program developm ent

responsibility

of the

position

(2.93),

whereas t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t g r o u p s ’ mean re s p o n se s c o r e s

( 2 .4 0 to

2.64) i n d i c a t e d they had l e s s than a sh are d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h a t
function.

The program development f u n c t i o n was no t s i g n i f i c a n t a t

t h e .01 l e v e l , as t h e .0135 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l observed in Table 37
shows.

189
Table 36.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently being
performed in Michigan, classified by years in present position.

Administrative

Less Than

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

Over 20

1 Year

Years

Years

Years

Years

Years

(H=132)

01=109)

(N=64)

(N=32)

(N=30)

2.94

3.34
3.00

Function

(N=24)

Personnel management

3.01

2.92

2.98

2.98

Staff orientation and
2.59

2.46

2.51

2.51

2.58

Program development

development

2.64

2.55

2.45

2.40

2.50

2.93

Extension programming

2.94

2.86

2.83

2.84

2.77

3.03

2.79

2.78

2.68

2.71

2.76

3.03
3.07

Program evaluation and
accountabiIity
Administration and
3.10

2.89

2.93

2.95

2.79

Public relations

2.30

2.29

2.17

2.16

2.20

2.60

Budgeting and financing

2.37

2.22

2.15

2.14

2.16

2.55

policy

Table 3 7 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S upe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by y e a r s in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n
o f res p o n d en ts in t h i s st udy .
Administrative
Function

Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

*p < .01.

Source

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

P*

Between

1.7561

3

.5854

2.1941

.0883

Between
Between
Between

4.4496
3.2304
.2304

3
3
3

1.4832
1.2771
.0768

3.4254
3.6115
.2405

.0173
.0135
.8681

Between

2.4247

3

.8082

2.1491

.0936

Between
Between

.0299
2.7684

3
3

.0100
.9228

.0336
2.0911

.9917
.1010

Between

2.1378

3

.7126

1.4810

.2193

190
Region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n was t h e n e x t way used t o deter mine
d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being held by t h e re s p o n d en ts toward
th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed in Michigan.
displays

the

r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s

seven c a t e g o r i e s :

acc ording

to the

Table 38
fo ll ow in g

Upper P e n in s u la , North, East C e n t r a l , S o u t h e a s t ,

Southwest, West C e n t r a l , and campus.

Table 38.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently being
performed in Michigan, classified by region/campus affiliation.

Upper
Administrative

East

Personnel management
Staff orientation and

South­

West

North

Central

east

west

Central

Campus

(N=33)

(N=44)

(N=44)

(N=63)

<N=56)

(N=53)

(N=103)

3.01

2.87

2.95

2.85

2.80

2.99

Peninsula

Function

South­

3.23

2.47

2.30

2.35

2.38

2.30

2.67

2.91

Program development

2.49

2.32

2.49

2.45

2.25

2.56

2.81

Extension programming

2.94

2.73

2.82

2.77

2.80

2.97

2.97

2.69

2.31

2.67

2.79

2.68

2.86

2.98

3.04

2.83

2.92

2.87

2.79

2.91

3.06

2.50

2.23

2.20

2.28

1.95

2.04

2.49

2.19

1.99

2.11

2.32

1.93

2.06

2.54

development

Program evaluation
and accountability
Administration and
poli cy
Public relations
Budgeting and
financing

Table 39 i n d i c a t e s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found a t
the

.00 le vel

of sign ifican ce for six of the eight adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

c u r r e n t l y being performed.

The s i x a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

significance

than

levels

greater

the

predeterm ined

is

f u n c t i o n s with
.01

level

of

191
s i g n i f i c a n c e were personnel management, s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and d e v e l ­
opment, program development, program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,
p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s , and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g .

A review o f Table 38

i n d i c a t e s t h a t campus-based re s p o n d e n ts

and t h e re s p o n d e n ts

( 3. 23 )

from t h e Upper P e n in s u la (3 .01 ) and t h e West C en tr al r e g i o n s (2.99)
p e r c e iv e d

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

as

having

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y wit h r e g a rd t o t h e personnel management a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i v e f u n c t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed, as compared t o t h e
o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups p e r c e i v i n g them as having l e s s than a shared
responsibility.
the

low est

level

The re s p o n d e n ts from t h e Southwest r e g i o n i n d i c a t e d
of Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisor

involvement on

t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e item, as observed by t h e i r 2.80 mean s c o r e .

Table 3 9 . - - A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Exten sio n S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by region/campus a f f i l i a ­
t i o n o f re s pond en ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c i n g

*p < .01.

Sum o f
Squares

P*

df

Mean
Square

F

Source
Between

9.8602

6

1.6434

6.6058

.0000

Between
Between
Between

23.4323
14.2963
3.5702

6
6
6

3.9054
2.3827
.5950

10.0476
7.0746
1.8776

.0000
.0000
.0836

Between

14.6264

6

2.4377

6.9870

.0000

Between
Between-

3.6995
14.5085

6
6

.6166
2.4181

2.0354
5.8545

.0602
.0000

Between

18.3676

6

3.0613

6.7347

.0000

192

The campus-based

re s p o n d e n t

group

(2 .91)

perceived

Regional

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s as having a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h e s t a f f
o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n , t h e r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e West
C en tr al

re g i o n

(2 .6 7)

p e r c e i v e d them as having more than a minor

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w hil e a l l

the

o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t groups i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e Regional Exten sio n Su pe r­
visors’

level

of

involvement

f u n c t i o n was c l o s e r t o

on

that

a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

mean re s po ns e s c o r e s (2 .3 0 t o 2 . 4 7 ) .
and t h e Southwest r e g i o n s
Extension

Supervisor

particular

as viewed by t h e i r

The r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e North

indicated the

involvement

adm inistrative

low est

on t h i s

level

o f Regional

adm inistrative

item,

as

observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 2.30 mean s c o r e s in Table 38.
The re s p o n d e n ts
regions

p e rc e iv e d

from t h e

the

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
compared t o
P v t onciI WAn
II
t .< t

th a n

a

function

all

the

(2.32)

and

(2 .25 )

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

as

for

p ro g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t

function

the

o t h e r r e s po nden t gr oups ,

Cnnov*\M
cov^c MhMa fwWo> I m
nro
■ I W W I a)
IIV I W

responsibility

than

W M U M

for

a I Imi
nnn
I I IIM I

M

that

indicating

I

I V

particular

as viewed by t h e i r mean response s c o r e s

The re s p o n d e n ts

Southwest

Regional

V U ^ W I

s har ed

North

from t h e

Southwest re gio n

I

I

|

having

a
as

Regional

+WJ f Uhut
U V

Inc**

| C J J

adm inistrative
(2 .4 5 t o 2 . 8 1 ) .

indicated

the g r e a te s t

mean s co re d i f f e r e n c e from t h a t o f th e campus-based and West Cent ral
groups with t h e i r mean s co r e o f 2.25.
The campus-based re s p o n d e n t group
from t h e

West

involvement

Central

by th e

re g io n

Regional

also

(2 .9 7)

indicated

and t h e
a

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

res p o n d en ts

higher
on t h e

level

of

program

193
e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n than d i d t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t
gro ups .

The mean re s po nse s c o r e f o r t h e North r e g i o n r e s p o n d e n t s

(2 .3 1 ) showed t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e from t h e campus-based and t h e
West C en tr al re g io n re s p o n d e n t gr o up s .
( 2 .3 1 ) p e r c e i v e d Regional
responsibility

for

the

The North r e g i o n re s p o n d e n ts

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s as having a minor
p ro g r a m

evaluation

and

accountability

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as compared t o t h e West C e n t ra l and campusbased

groups

perceiving

the

Supervisor’ s

involvement

as

being

a

s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
The h i g h e s t l e v e l

of r e s p o n s ib i l ity fo r the public r e la ti o n s

f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ' s p o s i t i o n

as

it

is

c u r r e n t l y being performed was seen in t h e campus-based r e s po nden t
group

( 2.4 9)

(2.50).

and t h e r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e

Upper P e n in s u la

re g io n

Both groups p e rc e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having more tha n a

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h a t
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as compared t o t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups
p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t
adm inistrative function.

Table 38 i n d i c a t e s t h a t

t h e re s p o n d e n ts

from t h e Southwest (1 .9 5)

and West Cent ral

re g i o n s had th e

( 2. 04 )

low est mean s c o r e s f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed

in Michigan.
The f i n a l

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n with r e s p e c t t o t h e r e g i o n /

cam pus-affiliation

criteria

of

the

r e s po nd en t

groups

that

had

a

s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l g r e a t e r than .01 was t h e budg eting and f i n a n c i n g
function.

The campus-based res p o n d en ts

(2.54)

and th o s e

from th e

194

S o u th e a s t

re g io n

(2 .3 2)

p e r c e iv e d

the Supervisors

as having more

tha n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n but l e s s
th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as compared t o a l l t h e o t h e r r e s ponden t
groups i n d i c a t i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was minor f o r t h i s
function.

The r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e

indicatedth a t

Regional

Extension

im port an t r o l e on t h i s

Southwest and

Supervisors

particular

North

pla y

a

re g i o n s

much

adm inistrative function,

less

as was

observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean re s pon se s c o r e s o f 1.93 and 1. 9 9 .
Size

of

county

s t a f f was

another

way u s e d

to

identify

d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being he ld by t h e r e s p o n d e n ts toward
the

Regional

Extension

being performed

Supervisor’s

in Michigan.

position

Tables

as

40 and 41

it

is

currently

de m o n st ra t e

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e v a r i o u s
sizes

of counties

Regional
and

for

the

eight

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .

financing

function

came

close

functions

However,

with

a

the

.0 14 3

of

the

budgeting
level

of

significance.

Examination o f Table 40 r e v e a l s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s from

counties

10

wit h

to

15

professional

and

paraprofessional

staff

(2 .4 4) i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have a h ig h e r
le v e l

of

responsibility

f o r t h e budge ting

and f i n a n c i n g

than did any o f t h e o t h e r r e s po nden t g ro u p s ,

as

function

viewed by t h e i r

lower (1 .9 8 t o 2.04) mean s c o r e s f o r t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .

195
Table 40.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently performed
in Michigan, classified by size of county staff (professional and paraprofessional).

Administrative
Function

Personnel management
Staff orientation and
development

22 or More

3 or Less

4-9

Persons

Persons

10-15
Persons

Persons

16-21

<N=43)

(N*126)

(N*38)

(N=28)

(N=29)

Persons

2.91

2.94

2.98

2.78

2.65

2.35

2.41

2.53

2.27

2.31

Program development

2.32

2.41

2.66

2.38

2.32

Extension programming

2.84

2.85

2.97

2.73

2.72

2.60

2.71

2.79

2.58

2.68

Program evaluation and
accountabiIi ty
Administration and
2.94

2.89

2.96

2.73

2.75

Public relations

2.35

2.14

2.37

1.93

Budgeting and financing

1.99

2.04

2.44

1.98

2.11
2.00

policy

Table 4 1 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S u p e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as the y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by s i z e o f county s t a f f o f
re s po nden ts in t h i s s tu d y .
A/lmi

nym m i

Cum

y v I it.

yum

r\P
u i

M oan

1IWUI 1

r
i

n *

r

Function

Source

Squares

df

Square

Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

Between

2.5571

4

.6393

2.5516

.0396

Between
Between
Between

1.4299
2.8762
1.3489

4
4
4

.3575
.7190
.3372

.8468
2.0678
1.0520

.4966
.0855
.3809

Between

1.0755

4

.2689

.7286

.5732

Between
Between

1.4591
4.5612

4
4

.3648
1.1403

1.2075
2.5711

.3081
.0385

Between

5.9416

4

1.4854

3.1797

.0143

*p < .01.

196
The normal amount o f c o n t a c t t h e re s p o n d e n ts had w it h Regional
E x t e n s i o n S u p e r v i s o r s was a n o t h e r c r i t e r i o n
s ig n ific a n t differences

in t h e

used t o d e te rm in e

views o f t h e v a r i o u s

respondents.

Table 42 l i s t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r t h e o r i g i n a l s i x c a t e g o r i e s :

no

c o n t a c t , 1-2 time s p e r y e a r , 1-2 p e r q u a r t e r , 1-2 ti m e s p e r month,
1-2 tim e s p e r week, and more tha n 2 time s p e r week.

For a n a l y s i s o f

v a r i a n c e p u r p o s e s , c a t e g o r i e s 5 and 6 in Table 42 were combined.

Table 42.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently being
performed in Michigan, classified by the normal amount of contact they
have with the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.

1-2

1-2

1-2

1-2

> 2

Administrative

No

Times/

T imes/

Times/

T imes/

T imes/

Function

Contact
(N=24)

Year
(N=90)

Quarter

Month
(N=117)

Week

Week

(N=18)

(N=11)

2.77

2.93

3.04

2.97

3.07

3.20

2.36

2.44

2.36

2.51

2.63

2.89

Program development

2.55

2.49

2.56

2.44

2.58

2.82

Extension programming

2.64

2.71

2.89

2.93

3.01

3.09

2.52

2.74

2.81

2.73

2.77

2.88

Personnel management
Staff orientation and
development

(N=138)

Program evaluation and
accountability
Administration and
2.67

2.77

2.98

2.96

3.19

3.19

Public relations

policy

2.37

2.43

2.22

2.12

2.42

2.15

Budgeting and financing

2.47

2.34

2.16

2.06

2.46

2.36

Table

43

indicates

that

significant

differences

at

the

.01

l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e o c cu r re d on t h r e e o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions:

Extension programming,

budge ting and f i n a n c i n g .

adm inistration

Examination o f Table 42

and p o l i c y ,
indicates

and
that

197
re s p o n d e n ts who were in c o n t a c t w it h Regional Ex tens ion S u p e r v i s o r s
1-2 times p e r week ( 3 .0 1 ) and t h o s e who were in c o n t a c t more than
tw ic e a week (3 .0 9) p e r c e i v e d t h e Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s as
having

a shared

responsibility

for

the

Extension

pro gr am mi ng

f u n c t i o n , whereas t h e o t h e r r e s po nden t groups who were in c o n t a c t
w ith t h e S u p e r v i s o r s l e s s o f t e n p e r c e iv e d them as having l e s s th a n a
sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more th a n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t
p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , as viewed by t h e i r mean re s p on se
s c o r e s (2 .6 4 t o 2 . 9 3 ) .

Table 4 3 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S u p e r ­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by amount o f normal c o n t a c t
t h e re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s stu dy have w ith t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

*p < .01.

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Source

P*

Between

2.2645

4

.5661

2.1145

.0783

Between
Between
Between

3.0757
1.6424
4.8064

4
4
4

.7689
.4106
1.2016

1.7489
1.1166
3.8284

.1385
! 3482
.0046

Between

1.7844

4

.4461

1.1792

.3195

Between
Between

6.1559
5.3993

4
4

1.5390
1.3498

5.2884
3.0577

.0004
.0169

Between

7.3532

4

1.8383

3.8355

.0045

198
The

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

having a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for the

were

also

perceived

adm inistration

as

and p o l i c y

f u n c t i o n , which had a .00 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , by t h e r e s p o n d e n ts
who were in c o n t a c t wit h Regional
once

a week

(3 .19)

resp o n sib ility

as

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

compared with

b u t more t h a n

re s p o n d e n ts who were not

in

having

less

than

a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

contact

with

the

Regional

at
a

least
s har ed

by t h o s e
Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n (2. 67) o r who communicated onl y once o r twic e
a year (2.77).
A l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .00 l e v e l was observed f o r th e
budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
Respondents who had no c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n

(2 .4 7)

and th o s e

who had c o n t a c t a t l e a s t once a week (2 .4 6) i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s have more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s
than

a shared

responsibility

for

the

budgeting

and f i n a n c i n g

fu n c t i o n as compared with t h e res p o n d en ts who i n d i c a t e d
were in c o n t a c t wit h t h e Regional

that

they

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

1-2 times a month (2 .0 6) p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as being minor.
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount o f c o n t a c t t h e r e s p o n d e n ts had with
t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
to t e s t
the

for differences

basis

Regional
va lu es

of th e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r , i t was de ci de d a l s o
in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s t h e r e s p o n d e n ts had on

typ e o f c o n t a c t

Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
for

the

respondents’

th e y

had wit h

Table 44 d i s p l a y s
re s p o n se s

a cc ord in g

c o n t a c t t h e y normally had with t h e p o s i t i o n

the

position

of

t h e mean s co re
to

the

o f Regional

ty p e

of

Extension

199

Supervisor.

The

six

categories

were:

everything

(face-to-face

m e et in gs, l e t t e r s , and t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s th r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r ) ,
letters

and t e l e p h o n e

c o n v e r s a t i o n s on ly ,

conversations,

occasional

le tte rs

only,

telephone

c o n t a c t a t meetings o r e v e n t s ,

and

l i t t l e o r no c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n .

Table 44.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they are currently being
performed in Michigan, classified by the normal type of contact they
have with the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.

Administrative

Letters

Letters

Contact at

Little

Meetings/

or No

thing0

& Phone

Only

Phone
Only

Events

Contact

(N=237)

(N=26)

(N=10)

<N=1)

<N=83)

<N=36)

Personnel management
Staff orientation and

3.03

2.79

2.97

2.67

2.96

2.97

development
Program development

2.55

2.38

2.37

2.07

2.56

2.57

2.48

2.47

2.98

Extension programming

2.91

2.85

2.91

2.19
2.56

2.58
2.89

2.55
2.69

2.52

3.01

2.67

2.81

2.60

Function

Every­

Program evaluation and
accountabiIity

2.77

Administration and
nrt1
r irw
~t

3.00

2.82

3.25

3.00

2.83

2.65

Public relations

2.17

2.07

2.79

2.63

2.44

2.42

Budgeting and financing

2.11

2.09

3.14

2.56

2.34

2.44

A

Face-to-face meetings, letters, and telephone conversations throughout the
year.

As

seen

in

Table

45,

three

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s had s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e pre de ter mi ned .01 l e v e l
of

significance.

They

are:

adm inistration

and

policy,

public

200

relations,

and budg etin g and f i n a n c i n g .

For a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e

pu rp o s e s , c a t e g o r i e s 3 and 4 in Table 44 were combined.

Table 4 5 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extens ion S up e r­
v i s o r ’s a d m in istra tiv e functions as they are c u r re n tly
being performed in Michigan, by typ e o f normal c o n t a c t
t h e r e s p o n d e n ts in t h i s stu dy have with t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
Pu bl i c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c i n g

Source

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

P*

Between

1.4997

4

.3749

1.3937

.2354

Between
Between
Between

1.1707
2.3715
2.0050

4
4
4

.2927
.5929
.5013

.6597
1.6317
1.5656

.6203
.1655
.1828

Between

3.1763

4

.7941

2.1055

.0795

Between
Between

5.8538
9.1681

4
4

1.4635
2.2920

4.9750
5.2609

.0006
.0004

Between

14.5321

4

3.6330

7.9384

.0000

*p < .01.

An examination o f Table 44 r e v e a l s
c o n t a c t w ith

th e

position

of

Regional

that

r e s p o n d e n ts

Extension

who had

Supervisor

in

a

v a r i e t y o f ways p e r c e iv e d Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having a
sh ared

responsibility

for

the

adm inistration

and

policy

function

(3.0 0) as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts who i n d i c a t e d th e y had l i t t l e
o r no c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n
having

less

than

a

sh ared

(2 .65 )

perceiving

responsibility

but

more

Supervisors
than

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n .

as

a minor

201

I n d i v i d u a l s who came in c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n in a v a r i e t y
o f ways (2 .17 ) and t h o s e who r e c e i v e d l e t t e r s
from

Supervisors

(2.07)

perceived

the

and t e l e p h o n e c a l l s
Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s ’ involvement in t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n as being a
minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

as compared t o t h e

r e s p o n d e n ts

who came

in

c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n o c c a s i o n a l l y a t meetings o r e v e n t s (2. 34 )
and th o s e who had l i t t l e
perceiving

the

responsibility

o r no c o n t a c t with

Supervisors

but

less

tha n

as
a

having
s har ed

the

position

(2. 44)

than

minor

more

responsibility

a
for

that

adm inistrative function.
The

Regional

budgeting

Extension

and f i n a n c i n g

S upervisors’

function

was

seen

involvem ent
by t h o s e

in

the

who r e c e i v e d

l e t t e r s only (3. 14) as being a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h o s e who had
little

or

no c o n t a c t

S u p e r v is o r s

with

as having l e s s

the

position

than a sh ared

(2.44)

perceived

responsibility

the

but more

than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w hil e re s p o n d en ts who came in c o n t a c t
with th e p o s i t i o n

in a v a r i e t y o f ways

(2 .11 )

and t h o s e who had

c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n p r i m a r i l y through l e t t e r s
calls

(2.09)

saw

the

Supervisors

as

having

and t e le p h o n e
only

a

minor

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with r e g a r d t o t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
The f i n a l

item used to

identify

possible

differences

in

th e

r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s of
the

Regional

Extension

S upervisor’s

position

as

it

is

currently

being performed in Michigan was t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f time s p en t in th e
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Extension s t a f f or programs.

Five c a t e g o r i e s were

202
o r i g i n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d and can be seen in Table 46:
20%,

21-40%,

41-60%,

and

ove r

60%.

For

none, l e s s th a n

analysis

of

variance

p urp os es, c a t e g o r i e s 4 and 5 in Table 46 were combined t o run a more
accurate s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t .

Table 4 6 . -- R e s po nden ts ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as the y a re c u r r e n t l y being performed in Michigan, c l a s ­
s i f i e d by t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f time s p e n t a d m i n i s t e r i n g
Extension s t a f f o r programs.
Administrative
Function

None
(N=72)

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
f i n a n c in g

An a n a l y s i s

20% & Under
(N=74)

21-40%
(N=58)

41-60%
(N=17)

Over 60%
(N=32)

2.91

3.05

3.06

2.92

3.00

2.56
2.65
2.89

2.63
2.58
2.90

2.58
2.48
2.88

2.55
2.57
2.91

2.57
2.51
2.88

2.92

2.82

2.72

2.70

2.80

2.93
2.37

3.05
2.28

3.00
2.11

2.94
2.17

3.01
2.15

2.32

2.19

2.18

2.19

2.21

of variance

test

o f mean

scores

(Table

47)

i n d i c a t e d t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d a t t h e .01 l e v e l of
significance.

None

of

the

adm inistrative

functions

had

a

s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l even c l o s e t o t h e pred et erm ine d .01 s i g n i f i c a n c e
level.

T h e re fo re , no f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n was conducted.

203
Table 4 7 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed in Michigan, by p e r c e n ta g e o f time s p en t
a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension s t a f f o r programs.
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

P*

Between

.9863

3

.3288

1.2715

.2847

Between
Between
Between

.2303
.9891
.0093

3
3
3

.0768
.3297
.0031

.1928
1.0035
.0099

.9013
.3919
.9986

Between

1.3323

3

.4441

1.1873

.3152

Between
Between

.5197
2.5325

3
3

.1732
.8442

.6292
1.9638

.5968
.1200

Between

.7616

3

.2539

.5293

.6626

Source

Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
Pu bl ic r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
f in a n c i n g
*p < .01.

The n u l l

h y p o th esis concerning the m easurable a s s o c i a t i o n

between t h e importance o f th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s was r e j e c t e d
f o r seven out o f th e t e n c r i t e r i a

because s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

were found in t h e mean s c o r e s f o r f o u r o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o gender o f th e r e s p o n d e n t,

in f o u r o f t h e

e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o age o f r e s p o n d e n t s ,
in f i v e o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o formal
e d u ca ti o n o f th e re s p o n d e n ts ,

in one o f t h e e i g h t

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o th e le n g th o f s e r v i c e with t h e CES o f th e
r e s p o n d e n ts ,
respect

to

in
th e

s ix

of

th e

region/campus

eight

adm inistrative

affiliation

of

the

functions
respondents,

with
in

204
three

o f the

eight

adm inistrative

functions

wit h

respect

to

the

amount o f c o n t a c t t h e r e s p o n d e n ts had wit h t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Extens ion

Supervisor,

and

in

three

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o t h e ty p e o f c o n t a c t re s p o n d e n t s had with
the

position

hypothesis

of

Regional

for

these

Extension

items

performed was r e j e c t e d .

as

Supervisor.

Thus,

position

currently

the

Although t h e

is

the

null
being

r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean re s p o n se

s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s d i f f e r e d with r e s p e c t
t o t h e i r l e n g t h o f time in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n ,
and p e r c e n t a g e

o f time

s t a f f o r programs,

spent

t h e n u ll

in

the

s i z e o f county s t a f f ,

adm inistration

of

Extension

h y p o th e s i s was not r e j e c t e d f o r t h e s e

three categories.
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Func tio ns in th e CES a t t h e Regional
Level as They Should Be Performed
In t h e l i t e r a t u r e ,

i t was o r d i n a r i l y s a i d t h a t " s o c i e t y " o r t h e

"group" d e f i n e s t h e o b l i g a t i o n s a t t a c h e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n .
To de m on st rate what " s o c i e t y " or a "group" e x p e c t s , i t i s im p o r ta n t
to

ask i t s

members what they ex pec t

(Gross e t a l . ,

1958).

This

s e c t i o n o f Chapter IV i s de signed t o a na lyz e t h e p e r c e p t i o n s he ld by
t h e s i x re sp onden t groups co ncerning how t h e p o s i t i o n

o f Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r should be performed in Michigan.
The same e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d to
describe
currently
position
functions

the

position

of

Regional

being performed
as

it
w er e

should

be

personnel

Extension

in Michigan were
performed.
manag em en t,

The

Supervisor
used

to

eight

staff

as

it

describe

is
the

adm inistrative

orientation

and

205

development,
evaluation

program
and

development,

accountability,

Extension

programming,

adm inistration

and

program

policy,

public

r e l a t i o n s , and budgetin g and f i n a n c i n g .
The d a t a in t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r were grouped i n t o t h e
eight adm inistrative
facilitate

function

analysis of the

areas

listed

ab ov e

items a s s o c i a t e d with

in

the

order

to

position

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan as t h e p o s i t i o n should be
performed.

The d a t a a r e based on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f 125 Extension

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 152 County Extension Agents, 68 County Extension
D i r e c t o r s , 85 Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , 38 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team
members,
based

and 5 Regional

on t h e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

p e r c e iv e d

de gre e

of

The a n a l y s i s

involvement

Regional

was

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s should p o s s e s s in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n toward t h e
resp o n sib ilities
adm inistrative

and

activ ities

function

areas.

associated

The f i v e

w ith

levels

of

the

eight

involvement,

which were pl ace d along a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e , were as f o l l o w s :

1 =

"None." th e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r has no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
the

activity;

2 = "Minor,"

the

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisor

is

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a minor p o r t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t y , a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n in
the

CES o r g a n i z a t i o n

"Share d,"

the

responsibility
organization;
responsibility

Regional
f o r th e

is

responsible
Extension

the

the

Supervisor

a c t i v i t y with a n o t h e r

4 = "Major,"
for

for

the

activity

Regional
while

major
shares
position

Extension
another

share;
equally
in

3

=

th e

the

CES

Supervisor

has

position

in

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a minor s h a r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y ;

and

206

5 =

"Complete."

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor

is

the

only

p o s i t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y .
Personnel Management
The

re s p o n s e s

Regional

to

18

possible

role-definition

items

of

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n judged t o be examples o f

t h e pers onn el management f u n c t i o n a t t h e r e g i o n a l l e v e l a r e shown in
Table 48.
Insuring f a i r treatm ent o f a ll
(3 .7 3)

was

ranked

as

the

role

Extension s t a f f

item

in

which

in t h e

Regional

re g io n

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s should have t h e most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y when t h e mean s c o r e
of a l l 410 re s p o n d e n ts was c o n s i d e r e d .

S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d

t o have more than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e
item

but

less

campus-based
responsibility
S pecialists
level

of

than

a major

respondent
on

other

th oug ht

responsibility.
groups

placed

higher

ro le-d efin itio n

item s.

Regional

responsibility

However,

Extension

on t h r e e

viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean s c o r e s .

three

levels

of

Extension

Supervisors

other

the

had

role-definition

a

higher

items

as

Knowing t h e a t t i t u d e s o f

Extension s t a f f in t h e re g io n toward t h e CES o r g a n i z a t i o n ( 3 .5 7 ) was
t h e r o l e item the Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t e d Regional Extension
S u p e r v is o r s

have t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l

category.

They a l s o

morale,

and e s p r i t

periodic
staff

in

appraisals

thoug ht

de corps
of

that
in

c oun ty,

the

of re sp o n sib ility
m a in t a i n i n g
re g i o n

district,

staff

(3 .53 )
and

for

in

this

solidarity,

and c on ducti ng

regional

t h e re gi on (3. 50) were im por tan t r o l e items

of

Extension
Regional

Table 48.--Eighteen items pertaining to the personnel management function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as the
position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
<N=4I0)
Mean

Ensure fair treatment of all
Extension staff in the region.

PA
<N=80)

Rank

Mean

CEA
(N=149)

Rank

Mean

SPEC

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

APT

Rank

Mean

RS
(N=5)

(N=37)

(N=73)
Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

3.73

1

3.81

1

3.81

1

3.79

1

3.50

4

3.65

2

3.80

3

3.61

2

3.76

2

3.60

2

3.49

4

3.50

3

3.68

1

3.80

4

staff in the region towards the
CES organization.

3.51

3

3.45

7

3.50

4

3.55

2

3.57

1

3.54

4

3.54

10

Maintain staff solidarity, morale
and esprit de corps in the region.

3.48

4

3.32

9

3.55

3

3.51

3

3.53

2

3.39

10

3.20

14

Maintain a competent staff within
the region.

3.47

5

3.58

3

3.49

5

3.35

9

3.37

10

3.49

6

4.00

1

3.46

6

3.48

6

3.44

6

3.46

6

3.40

9

3.54

5

3.40

13

Conduct periodic appraisals of
county, district and regional
staff in the region.
Know the attitudes of Extension

Insure compliance with county,
Michigan State University and
Extension personnel policies and
procedures.

Table 48.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Hust Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS
<N=413)

(N=80)

For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Rank

(N=149>

(N=62)

<N=73>

<N=37)

----------

----------

----------

----------

-------

Mean

Mean

Rank

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

<N=5>

Rank

Mean

Rank

Rank

3.43

7

3.55

4

3.39

8

3.43

7

3.43

8

3.36

11

2.80

17

3.41

8

3.13

11

3.44

7

3.48

5

3.46

5

3.60

3

3.80

5

3.36

9

3.35

8

3.36

9

3.39

8

3.25

12

3.43

8

3.40

12

3.31

10

3.53

5

3.28

10

3.23

12

3.34

11

3.03

12

3.40

11

3.29

11

3.11

12

3.23

11

3.32

10

3.46

6

3.40

9

3.00

16

3.04

14

3.20

12

3.25

11

3.44

7

3.47

7

Provide information and proce­
dures to staff for filing
grievances and appeals.
Handle personnel problems/
conflict in the region.
Administer University and Exten­
sion service policies and pro­
cedures for handling staff
disciplinary problems with the
Region.
Administer CES policies and pro­
cedures relating to continuing
employment of Extension field
staff in the region.
Assist staff in the region in
developing their Extension roles.
Identify individual strengths and
weaknesses of Extension staff in
the region.

3.26

12

3.60

8

Table 48.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=410)

PA
(N=80)

CEA
(N=149)

CED
(N=62)

SPEC
(N=73)

APT
<N=37)

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Develop staffing alternatives for
county(ies) and the region.

3.16

13

3.06

13

3.17

13

3.10

13

3.23

13

3.19

12

3.60

9

Interview prospective candidates
for open positions within the
region.

3.09

14

2.94

15

3.12

14

3.06

15

3.11

14

3.16

13

3.60

6

Select staff for vacant county,
district and regional Extension
positions within the region.

2.98

15

2.87

16

2.94

15

3.08

14

2.95

17

3.00

17

3.60

7

Recruit candidates for open field
staff positions within the region.

2.90

16

2.78

17

2.88

16

2.89

17

2.96

16

3.11

14

3.00

15

2.86

17

2.65

18

2.72

18

2.97

16

2.97

15

3.08

15

4.00

2

2.82

18

3.15

10

2.73

17

2.74

18

2.72

18

2.68

18

2.40

18

Present new Extension field staff
to the County Board of Commis­
sioners.
Provide staff with policies and
procedures relating to staff
benefi ts.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

210

Extension S u p e rv is o rs ,
Extension
Program

staff

in

as was

the

Team thoug ht

insuring

region

conducting

fair

(3.50).

treatm ent

The

periodic

of

all

A dm inistrative

appraisals

of

c ounty ,

d i s t r i c t , and r e g io n a l Extension s t a f f in t h e re g io n (3.68) was t h e
role

item

Regional

responsibility for

Extension

Supervisors

in t h i s c a t e g o r y .

Insuring

hav e
fair

the

most

treatment

s t a f f was ranked number two, with a mean s co r e o f 3 .6 5 .

All were

items t h a t

Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r s were p e r c e iv e d t o

more t h a n

a shared

resp o n sib ility

for

but

less

of

than

have

a major

re s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p o sitio n .
Regional Extension Su p e rv is o rs p e r c e iv e d t h a t th e y should have
a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

f o r m a in ta in in g

a competent

staff

in

the

regio n (4 .00 ) and p r e s e n t i n g new Extension f i e l d s t a f f t o t h e County
Board o f Commissioners ( 4 . 0 0 ) , both o f which th e y ranked h i g h e r than
the y

did

insuring

region

(3.80).

r k rtn 1 *4

nave

j i i v u i u

*
1ii r

fair

treatment

The Regional
4-

•»r

ad

ii iu^ii

of

all

Extension

i cdpuiu

11

Extension
S u p e r v is o r s

/ it i t j

£av»

iui

U

staff

in

th oug ht

J 1 4« «

nanu I m y

the
they

pci duimc I

p r o b l e m s / c o n f l i c t in t h e re g io n (3 .80 ) as t h e y do f o r i n s u r i n g f a i r
tr e a t m e n t o f a l l s t a f f in th e r e g i o n .
The Regional

Extension S u p e rv is o rs

(3. 54)

and t h e p a r a p r o f e s -

s i o n a l s (3.45) placed a lower p r i o r i t y on knowing t h e a t t i t u d e s o f
Extension

staff

in

the

regio n -toward

the

CES o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

as

i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 10th- and 7 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s on t h a t
item in comparison with t h e o t h e r resp on den t g r o u p s ’ 1 s t - t o 4 t h p lace ranking s (means o f 3.45 t o 3.57) on t h a t item.

However, a l l

211
resp on den t groups agre ed t h a t t h i s r o l e item should be more th a n a
shared

resp o n sib ility

responsibility.
Extension
th o u g h t

higher level
mora le ,

The County

Directors

that

of the

(3.51),

Regional
of

position

Extension
and t h e

Extension

responsibility

and e s p r i t

de

corps

but

less

Agents

(3.55),

Extension

Supervisors

the

County

S pecialists

(3 .5 3)

should

region,

a major

the

f o r maintaining

in

than

have

staff

as

a

much

solidarity,

viewed

by

their

r e s p e c t i v e 3 r d - , 3 r d - , and 2nd-p la c e r a n k in g s in comparison with th e
9 t h - , 1 0 t h - , and 1 4 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s on t h i s item by t h e o t h e r t h r e e
r e s po nden t

groups

(means

of

3.2 0

to

3.48).

However,

all

th e

re s p on de nt groups agr eed t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s should have more t h a n

a

s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item.
The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s (3.13) and County Extension Agents (3 .44)
pl a c e d a much lower v a l u e on t h e
involvement in h a nd lin g personnel

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s

p r o b l e m s / c o n f l i c t in t h e r e g i o n ,

as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 11th- and 7 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s on t h a t
item in comparison with t h e 3rd- t o 5 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r t h e o t h e r
res pon de nt groups (means o f 3.46 t o 3 . 8 0 ) .

However, a l l t h e groups

perceived

more

the

Supervisors

as

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t r o l e item.
a much

higher

Program Team

level
(3 .03 )

of
did

having

the

a

shared

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s (3 .5 3) pla ced

responsibility
on

than

Regional

than

the

Administrative

Extension

Sup e rv iso r’s

involvement in a d m i n i s t e r i n g CES p o l i c i e s and pr oc ed ures r e l a t i n g to
c o n ti n u in g employment o f Extension f i e l d

staff

in

the

region,

as

seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 5 th - and 1 6 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r t h i s r o l e
item.

The

other

r e s po nd en t

groups

gave

this

item

a

10 th -

to

212

12 t h - p l a c e

ranking

(means o f 3.23

to

3.40).

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d by t h e campus-based re s p o n d e n t groups t o
have a h i g h e r l e v e l

o f involvement

in

identifying

the

individual

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f Extension s t a f f in t h e re g i o n th a n was
p e rc e iv e d by t h e co un ty -b ase d gro ups,

as observed by t h e 7 t h - and

8 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s by t h e campus-based groups and t h e 1 1 t h - ,
and 1 4 t h - p l a c e rankin gs by t h e c oun ty- ba sed gr oups .
t h e groups agreed t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s

12th-,

However,

all

should have more th a n a sh ared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t r o l e item.
The R e g i o n a l

E xten sio n S u p e r v is o r group

(3.60)

in t e r v i e w i n g o f p r o s p e c t i v e c a n d i d a t e s f o r open p o s i t i o n s

perceived
in t h e i r

re g io n to be a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y o f th e p o s i t i o n th a n d id t h e o t h e r
resp on den t gro ups, as observed by t h e S u p e r v i s o r s ’ 6 t h - p l a c e ra nki ng
in comparison t o t h e 13th- t o 1 5 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s on t h a t item by
t h e o t h e r re sp ond ent groups (means o f 2.94
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group

to 3.16).

Likewise, th e

( 4.0 0) i n d i c a t e d p r e s e n t i n g new

Extension f i e l d s t a f f t o th e County Board o f Commissioners t o be a
much h i g h e r

level

of

involvem ent

for

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n than di d t h e o t h e r resp on de nt gro up s , as viewed
by t h e i r 2nd-pl ac e ra nki ng on t h a t item in comparison t o t h e 15tht o 1 8 t h - p l a c e ra nki ngs o f t h e o t h e r res p o n d en ts
3.08).

The

Regional

Extension. S u p e r v is o r s

(means o f 2 .6 5 to

perceived

that

they

should have a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t r o l e item in comparison
t o th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team’ s p e r c e p t i o n t h a t i t should be a
shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The o t h e r re sp onden t groups p e r c e i v e d th e

213
Supervisors

as having l e s s

th a n a sh ared

responsibility

b u t more

tha n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g ou t t h a t r o l e item.
In summary, i n s u r i n g f a i r t r e a t m e n t o f a l l
the region;
region;

co nd uct in g p e r i o d i c

knowing t h e

organization;

Ex te ns ion s t a f f in

appraisals of f ie ld

attitu d es

of

m a in t a i n i n g s t a f f

field

staff

solidarity,

staff

toward

m or al e,

in

the

the

CES

and e s p r i t

de

corps in t h e r e g i o n ; and m a i n t a i n i n g a competent s t a f f in t h e re g io n
were seen t o

be t h e t o p f i v e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

Extension S u p e rv iso rs
carrying

out

in t h e

items t h a t

Regional

s h o u l d h a v e t h e mo st r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

r e c r u i t i n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r open p o s i t i o n s

On t h e

other

in t h e r e g i o n ,

for
hand,

presenting

new s t a f f t o t h e County Board o f Commissioners, and p r o v i d i n g s t a f f
with p o l i c i e s
role

and pr oc ed ure s

relating

to

staff

items seen t o be o f t h e low est p r i o r i t y

benefits

were th e

f o r t h e p o s i t i o n of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r as i t should be performed in Michigan.
The number

of

role-definition

items

in

this

category

that

were

p e rc e iv e d t o be a t l e a s t a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n
(mean s c o r e s o f 3.00 o r g r e a t e r ) as i t should be performed in c r e a s e d
t o 14 as compared with t h e t e n items r e c e i v i n g

a 3. 0 0 o r g r e a t e r

mean s cor e as t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed,
as p r e v i o u s l y observed in Table 16.
S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development
F i f t e e n r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n it e m s , as shown in Table 49, were used
as e x a m p l e s t o

identify

the

level

of re sp o n sib ility

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should have in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n with

Table 49.--Fifteen items pertaining to the staff orientation and development function of Regional Extension Supervisors in
Michigan as the position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=410)
Mean

PA
(N=81)

Flank

Mean

Rank

CEA
(N=148)
Mean

CED
<N=62)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=72)

Rank

Mean

APT
<N=37)

Rank

Mean

RS
(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Provide staff with procedures
for conducting effective selfapprai sals.

3.30

1

3.18

3

3.33

1

3.34

1

3.22

6

3.40

4

3.60

5

Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­
ment in educational competencies.

3.24

2

3.20

2

3.19

2

3.18

3

3.31

2

3.44

3

3.80

1

3.16

3

2.99

8

3.11

10

3.19

2

3.38

1

3.19

11

3.40

8

3.15

4

2.99

7

3.16

5

3.00

12

3.25

5

3.44

2

3.80

2

3.14

5

3.06

5

3.09

11

3.10

6

3.26

4

3.28

9

3.60

4

Organize staff in-service oppor­
tunities when needed in the
regi on.
Assist field staff in develop­
ing professional plans and
long-term career goals.
Assist staff in interpreting,
accepting and implementing the
Extension philosophy of public
service as an integral dimen­
sion of the land grant univer­
sity system.

Table 49 . --Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total

PA

CEA

(N=413)

(N=81)

(N=148)

CED

SPEC

(N=62)

APT

<N=72)

RS

<N=37)

<N=5)

Mean

Hank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

3.13

6

2.97

10

3.12

9

3.03

10

3.28

3

3.28

8

3.20

9

3.13

7

2.99

6

3.17

3

3.12

4

3.01

12

3.47

1

3.20

10

3.12

8

2.91

11

3.16

4

3.07

8

3.20

8

3.31

7

3.00

13

3.11

9

2.82

13

3.13

7

3.10

5

3.22

7

3.32

6

3.80

3

3.11

10

3.34

1

3.13

8

3.06

9

2.78

14

3.17

12

3.20

12

3.08

11

2.90

12

3.13

6

3.00

11

3.12

10

3.19 . 10

3.40

6

Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­
ment in technical competencies.
Encourage field staff to develop
and pursue professional develop­
ment in administrative compe­
tencies.
Assist field staff in developing
personal plans and long-term
personal goals.
Help staff to meet the expecta­
tions of colleagues, administra­
tors and clientele groups to be
served.
Provide field staff with EEO and
Title IX information.
Provide orientation for new
employees to their Extension
roles.

Table 49.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=41C)

PA
(N=81)

Mean

Rank

Mean

policies and procedures.

3.07

12

3.10

Conduct staff in-service oppor­
tunities when needed in the
region.

2.93

13

2.85

2.18

CEA
(N=148)

Rank

SPEC
(N=72)

CEO
(N=62)

Mean

Rank

Mean

4

2.93

12

3.08

2.99

9

2.86

13

14

2.71

14

2.80

15

2.06

15

2.02

RS
(N=5)

APT
(N=37)

Mean

Rank

Mean

7

3.08

11

3.32

5

3.40

7

2.85

14

3.14

9

2.73

14

3.00

14

14

2.95

13

2.79

13

3.16

13

3.20

11

15

2.06

15

2.45

15

2.57

15

2.80

15

Rank

Rank

Mean

Rank

Assist field staff in becoming
familiar with CES/MSU/USDA

Assist field staff in becoming
familiar with the CES Adminis­
trative handbook.
Assist new staff in becoming
acquainted with the community.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

217

regard

to

the

staff

orientation

and development

function

at

th e

regional le v e l.
P r ovid in g s t a f f w it h pr oc e dure s f o r c ond uctin g e f f e c t i v e s e l f ­
appraisals

was p e r c e i v e d t o

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s
regional

be t h e

role

item f o r which Regional.

should have t h e most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

at

th e

level,

when t h e 3.30 mean s c o r e from t h e 410 res p o n d en ts

was c o n s i d e r e d .

However, only t h e County Extension Agent ( 3 .3 3) and

the

County

Extension

definition

item

as

Director
the

one

(3 .34 )
for

which

groups

pla c e d

this

the

Regional

role-

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n should have t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
All groups agreed t h a t

Regional

more

resp o n sib ility

than

a

shared

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
but

less

should have

than

a

major

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t r o l e item.
Paraprofessionals

th ough t t h a t

should hold a g r e a t e r l e v e l

Regional

Extens ion S u p e r v is o r s

of resp o n sib ility

f o r p ro v id i n g

field

s t a f f with EEO and T i t l e IX i n fo r m a t io n ( 3 .3 4 ) and en couraging f i e l d
s t a f f t o develop and p u r s u i t p r o f e s s i o n a l development in e d u c a t i o n a l
competencies (3 .24 ) th a n th e y should f o r t h e number-one-ranked item
by t h e t o t a l

group as seen by t h e i r 3.30 mean s c o r e on t h a t

item.

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s th oug ht t h a t o r g a n i z i n g s t a f f i n - s e r v i c e s f o r
th e re g i o n

(3.38),

professional
encouraging

en couraging f i e l d

development
field

staff

staff

in

educational

to

develop

and

development in t e c h n i c a l competencies ( 3 . 2 8 ) ,

to

develop and pursue

com petencies
pursue

(3.31),

professional

assisting field s ta ff

in i n t e r p r e t i n g , a c c e p t i n g and implementing t h e Extension philo so phy

218
(3.26),

and a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in de ve lo pi n g p r o f e s s i o n a l

and lo n g -t e rm c a r e e r
that

w arranted

g o a ls (3 .2 5)

more

of

the

were f i v e

Regional

pla n s

role-definition

Extension

items

S upervisor’s

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than t h e t o t a l g ro u p ’ s number-one-ranked it e m , which
the

Extension

S p ecialist

g r o u p had

given

a 3.22

mean

score.

However, a l l were c o n s id e r e d t o be a t l e a s t a s ha re d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of the p o s itio n .
Extension
(3.19)

S p e c i a l i s t s (3 .3 8)

perceived

Supervisor

a

and

County Extens ion

much h i g h e r l e v e l

involvement

in o rg a n i z i n g

of

Regional

in-service

D irectors
Extension

opportunities

for

t h e re gi on th a n did t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group (3.40)
o r any o f t h e o t h e r re sp onden t gro ups,

as seen by t h e r e s p e c t i v e

1st-

item f o r

and

2nd-place

rankings

on t h i s

the

Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s and t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s as compared w it h the
8 t h - to l l t h - p l a c e ran k in g s f o r t h e o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t groups

(means

of

shared

2.99

to

3.40).

However,

all

were

perceived

to

be

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed.
County Extension D i r e c t o r s (3.00) th o u g h t t h a t a s s i s t i n g f i e l d
s t a f f in de vel opi ng p r o f e s s i o n a l

pla n s and lo n g - t e r m c a r e e r g o a ls

was

the

o f much l e s s

priority

(3 .4 4) or t h e Regional

th a n

Administrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

( 3 .8 0 )

Program

Team

had p la c e d on

t h a t r o l e item, as observed by t h e i r 1 2 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g on t h e item
as compared t o t h e 2n d- pla ce ra nk in gs f o r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
groups

had

identified

(means of 2.99 t o 3 . 2 5 ) .

this

item

as

a 5th-

The o t h e r r e s po nd en t
to

7th-place

ra nki ng

219

County

Extension

Agents

(3.09)

and

the

A dm inistrative

Program Team ( 3. 28 ) a s s i g n e d a much lower va lu e on a s s i s t i n g s t a f f
in

interpreting,

accepting,

ph ilo s op hy th a n d id

the

other

and

implementing

re s p o n d e n t

the

gr o u p s ,

as

Extension
obser ved

by

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 1 1 th - and 9 t h - p l a c e ra n k i n g s in comparison w it h t h e
4 t h - t o 6 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s f o r t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups (means of
3.0 6 t o 3 . 6 0 ) .
Supervisors
position.
more

However, a l l

agreed

that

The Regional

than

a

shared

it

groups e x c e p t t h e Regional
was

(3.28)

responsibility

resp o n sib ility

but

perceived
less

than

of

the

it

to

be

a

major

Encouraging f i e l d s t a f f t o develop

competencies was i d e n t i f i e d by t h e Ex te ns ion S p e c i a l i s t s

as

a h igh-priority

res pon de nt gro ups,
as

sh are d

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

r e s p o n s ib il ity of the p o sitio n .
technical

a

Extension

compared with

item

in

comparison

w ith

the

other

as seen by t h e i r 3 r d - p l a c e ra n k in g on t h a t item
the

8th-

to

lOth-place

r a n k in g s

for

the

other

re s p on de nt groups (means o f 2.97 t o 3 . 2 8 ) .
Encouraging s t a f f

t o develop

adm inistrative

co mpetencies was

seen by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (3 .4 7) t o be t h e r o l e item
for

which

Regional

responsibility.

Extension

Supervisors

should

County E x t e n s i o n D i r e c t o r s

have

(3.12)

the

most

and County

Extension Agents (3 .1 7 ) agreed t h a t t h i s was an im p o r ta n t a c t i v i t y
o f th e

Regional

Exten sio n

t h e i r re sp ec tiv e 4thSupervisors

and 3 r d - p l a c e r a n k i n g s .

(3.20),

paraprofessionals

Supervisor’ s p o s itio n ,

( 2. 99)

Extension

as w i t n e s s e d

Regional

S p ecialists

pl ace d a much lower l e v e l

by

Extension

(3.01),
of p r io r ity

and
on

220
this

role-definition

gro up s ,

as

item

seen by t h e i r

tha n

d id

the

respective

other

10th-,

three

12th-,

re s p o n d e n t

and 6 t h - p l a c e

rankings.
P araprofessionals

(2.82)

thought

S u p e r v i s o r s have a much lower l e v e l

th at

of responsibility

s t a f f t o meet t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f c o l l e a g u e s ,
clientele

groups

th a n

was

S u p e r v i s o r group ( 3 . 8 0 ) ,

Regional

identified

by

the

Extension
f o r helping

adm inistrators,
Regional

item.

The o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups had

ranked t h e item 5th t o 7th p l a c e (means o f 3. 10 t o 3 . 3 2 ) .
staff

in

becoming

Extension

as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 13 th - and

3 r d - p l a c e ra nk in gs on t h a t

field

and

fam iliar

with

A ssisting

CES/MSU/USDA p o l i c i e s

pro c e dure s was ranked much lower by County Extension Agents

and

(2.93)

and Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 . 0 8 ) , as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 12thand

llth -p lace

rankings

ran k in g s

in

comparison

fo r the p a ra p ro fe ss io n a ls

to

the

(3 .1 0 ),

4th-

to

7th-place

the A dm inistrative

Program Team ( 3 . 3 2 ) , t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s ( 3 . 0 8 ) , and th e
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ( 3 . 4 0 ) .

All r e s pon de nt groups agreed

t h a t a s s i s t i n g new s t a f f in becoming f a m i l i a r with t h e community was
t h e lo w e st - ra nked item in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
In summary, t h e to p - r a n k e d item a c c o rd in g t o t h e t o t a l g r o u p ’ s
mean s c o r e was p ro v id i n g f i e l d s t a f f with p ro c e dure s f o r c o ndu cti ng
effective self-ap p raisals.

The R e g i o n a l

Extension S u p e rv iso rs

p e r c e i v e d t h a t th e y should have more th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for that
least

item, whereas t h e o t h e r groups viewed them as having a t

a sh ared

responsibility.

That was t h e

3r d - ra n k e d

item

in

Table 17, as th e p o s i t i o n was p e rc ei v e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed.

221

However, only two o f t h e r e s po nd en t groups i d e n t i f i e d t h i s
t h e i r top c ho ic e as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.
field

staff

to

develop

and

pursue

professional

item as

Encouraging

development

in

e d u c a t i o n a l comp eten cie s; o r g a n i z i n g s t a f f i n - s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
when needed

in

professional

p la n s and lo n g - t e r m c a r e e r g o a l s ;

in

the

interpreting,

region;

assisting

accepting,

and

field

group

to

be t h e

role

items

for

which

f o r performing in t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n
staff

d e v el op i ng

the

dimension o f t h e land

the

position

re s p o n d e n t
of

Regional

a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

and development f u n c t i o n .

in becoming f a m i l i a r with
in

staff

Extension

p e r c e i v e d by t h e t o t a l

Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have a t l e a s t

A ssisting

in

and a s s i s t i n g

im plem enting

ph ilo s op hy o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e as an i n t e g r a l
g r a n t u n i v e r s i t y system were a l l

staff

the

becoming

CES A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Handbook and a s s i s t i n g

staff

acquainted

community were two r o l e

items f o r which t h e p o s i t i o n

w ith

the

o f Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have l e s s tha n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r s were p e r c e i v e d t o

have a t

least

a

sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e s o f 3.00 o r g r e a t e r ) on 12 o f th e
r o l e items in t h i s c a t e g o r y as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed in
Michigan, as compared t o none o f t h e r o l e items r e c e i v i n g a t o t a l
group mean resp ons e

score of a t

least

3 .0 0

as

the

position

was

p e rc e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed, as observed in Table 17.
Program Development
Si x t ee n items were used t o d e f i n e t h e
th e Regional

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

relates

role
to

of
th e

222

program development f u n c t i o n a t t h e re g i o n a l l e v e l .

Table 50 shows

t h e mean s co r e and rank f o r each item.
The

role

item

ranked

number

one

by a l l

groups

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l group was t h a t o f reviewing f i e l d
work and making s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement,

e xc e pt

the

s t a f f pl a n s o f

as seen by t h e t o t a l

group mean s co r e o f 3.43 on t h a t item ( c o n s id e r e d t o be more th a n a
sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n ) .

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s th ought

t h a t Regional Extension S u p e rv is o rs should have more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r being f a m i l i a r with p o p u la ti o n and employment t r e n d s

for

counties

program

in

the

re g io n

(3.45),

for

being

fam iliar

with

development in t h e s u b j e c t a r e a o f Extension programs

(3.41),

the

for

f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e t r e n d s or needs o f t h e Extension S e rv ic e ( 3 . 3 7 ) ,
and f o r a s s i s t i n g Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

in i d e n t i f y i n g programming

needs

for

should

field

s t a f f pl an s o f work ( 3 . 3 0 ) .

the

re gi o n

(3.34)

than they
All

have f o r

reviewing

were items f o r which t h e

S u p e rv is o rs should have more than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
A s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in implementing t h e lo n g -r an g e o b j e c t i v e s
of t h e CES was viewed by t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s (3. 20)
and

the

paraprofessionals

(3.29)

as

being

a

lower

p rio rity

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r , as
w itn e ss e d

by

their

compared

with

th e

respective
other

9 th -

respondent

and

6th-place

groups’

rankin gs on t h a t item (means o f 3.11 t o 3 . 4 1 ) .
agreed t h a t

it

2nd-

rankings,
and

as

3rd-place

However, th e y a l l

should be a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n .

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

(3.02)

thought a s s i s t i n g

field

staff

in t h e

Table 50.--Sixteen items pertaining to the program development function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as the
position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total.
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=410)
(N=81)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Review field staff plans of
work and make suggestions for
improvement.
Assist field staff in implement­
ing the long-range objectives of
the Cooperative Extension Service
in their region.

Rank

3.43

1

Mean

3.30

CEA
(N=148>
----------

CEO
(N=62)
----------

SPEC
(N=72)
----------

APT
(N=37)
----------

RS
<N=5)
----------

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

5

3.45

1

3.39

1

1

3.46

1

3.52

3.80

Rank

1

no

ro

co
3.25

3.17

3.29

3.11

3.41

3.35

3.20

Assist field staff in the devel­
opment of relevant, useful and
functional plans of work.

3.20

3

3.02

9

3.18

2

3.13

2

3.42

2

3.32

4

3.80

2

3.14

4

3.41

2

3.03

4

3.10

4

3.13

7

3.00

11

3.60

3

2.93

6

3.00

6

Be familiar with program develop­
ment in the subject matter areas
of Extension programs.
Implement effective methods of
reaching Extension's goals
within the region.

3.09

5

3.22

7

3.21

5

3.33

3

3.40

7

Table 50.- -Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=41(i)
(N=81)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Hean

Tank

Mean

Rank

(N=148)
----------

(N=62)
----------

(N=72)
----------

(N=37)
----------

(N=5)
-------

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Assist field staff in establish­
ing long-range and short-term
program priorities for their
county, district or regional
activities.

3.07

6

3.20

8

2.90

7

2.98

7

3.25

4

3.19

7

3.60

4

3.07

7

3.34

4

2.85

9

3.05

5

3.13

8

3.24

5

3.20

11

2.98

8

3.45

1

2.68

12

2.77

11

3.11

9

3.22

6

3.20

10

of the Extension Service.

2.97

9

3.37

3

2.99

5

2.74

12

2.76

14

2.81

15

3.20

12

Assist field staff in effec­
tively using advisory councils.

2.97

10

2.81

13

2.86

8

2.97

8

3.18

6

3.16

9

3.60

5

2.92

11

3.00

10

2.77

10

2.92

9

3.00

10

3.16

8

3.50

6

Assist state specialists in
identifying programming needs
for the region.
Be familiar with population and
employment trends of the coun­
ties in the region.
Forecast future trends or needs

Identify field staff and clientele
from the region to serve on state­
wide programming committees.

Table 50.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Total

Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

(N=410)

PA
(N=81)

CEA
(N=148)

CEO
<N=62>

SPEC
(N=72)

RS

APT
(N=37)

(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

2.85

12

2.93

11

2.70

11

2.79

10

2.96

11

3.08

10

3.40

8

2.72

13

2.81

12

2.60

13

2.63

13

2.86

12

2.94

12

2.80

15

2.63

14

2.62

16

2.57

14

2.56

14

2.63

15

2.89

13

3.20

13

2.48

15

2.64

15

2.34

15

2.32

15

2.52

16

2.81

14

2.80

16

2.45

16

2.72

14

2.24

16

2.27

16

2.80

13

2.27

16

3.20

14

Rank

Assist field staff in effectively
using support organizations and
audiences in Extension programming.
Assist field staff in getting
increased participation in Exten­
sion educational activities.
Assist field staff in effectively
using volunteer leaders in Exten­
sion programs.
Assist field staff in data collec­
tion and analysis procedures for
assessing local situations and
educational needs.
Meet with local advisory groups
to identify Extension programming
priorities for the region.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

226

development o f r e l e v a n t , u s e f u l , and f u n c t i o n a l p l a n s o f work was a
lower p r i o r i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n ( 9 t h ) as compared t o t h e 2nd- t o 4 th place

ran k in g s

of the

3.80).

The Regional

nearing

a major

o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups
Extension

Supervisors

responsibility

to

be

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e r c e i v e d i t as onl y a s h a r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The

and t h e

p osition,

this

the

( 3.1 3)

the

perceived

to

whereas

Ext ension S p e c i a l i s t s

of

(means o f 3.13

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team

( 3 .0 0 ) ranked being f a m i l i a r wi th program development in t h e s u b j e c t
m atter

areas

of

paraprofessionals

Extension
(3.41),

Extension D ire c to rs

programs

County

(3.10),

lower

Extension

and R e g i o n a l

than

Agents

did

(3.03),

the
County

Extension S u p erv iso rs

( 3 . 6 0 ) , as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 7 t h - and 11t h - p l a c e ran k in g s
in comparison t o t h e 2nd- t o 4 t h - p l a c e ra n k i n g s o f t h e o t h e r gr oup s.
The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team ( 3 . 3 3 )

iden tified

implementing

e f f e c t i v e methods o f re a c h in g E x t e n s i o n ’ s g o a l s w i t h i n t h e re g i o n to
be a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y tha n t h e o t h e r r e s pond en t g ro ups , as observed
by t h e i r 3 r d - p l a c e ra n k in g on t h i s

item as compared t o t h e 5 th - to

7 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r t h e o t h e r r e s po nden t groups (means o f 2.93 to
3 .4 0 ).

However,

the

level

of

perceived

involvem ent

of

the

S u p e r v is o r s on t h a t r o l e item ranged from County Agents ( 2 .9 3 ) and
County

Extension

having

a s har ed

(3.22),

Extension

D irectors

( 3.0 0)

perceiving

responsibility

or

less

Specialists

(3.21),

to

the

the

Supervisors

as

paraprofessionals

A dministrative

Program Team

( 3 . 3 3 ) , and Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v i n g t h e r o l e t o be
performed a t l e a s t a t t h e sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l e v e l .

227

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
(3.05),

(3.34),

C ou n ty E x t e n s i o n

and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Prog ram Team ( 3 . 2 4 )

D irectors

expressed

th at

a s s i s t i n g Extension S p e c i a l i s t s in i d e n t i f y i n g programming needs in
the

region

was

a

higher

p rio rity

of

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n tha n was p e rc e iv e d by County Extens ion Agents
(2.85),

Extension

S pecialists

S u p e r v i s o r s thems elve s

(3.20),

(3.13),

and

Regional

Extension

as seen by t h e r e s p e c t i v e 4 t h -

and

5 t h - p l a c e ra nk in gs f o r t h e f i r s t group and t h e 8 t h - t o l l t h - p l a c e
r a n k in g s
( 3 .6 0)

for

the

second

group.

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisors

p e r c e iv e d t h a t th e y had a g r e a t e r r o l e in i d e n t i f y i n g f i e l d

s t a f f and c l i e n t e l e t o s e r v e on s t a t e - w i d e committees tha n d i d t h e
other

res po nd en t

gr ou ps ,

as

observed

by

S u p e r v i s o r s ’ 6 t h - p l a c e ra nki ng on t h i s

the

Regional

item as

8 t h - t o l O t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s by t h e o t h e r groups

Exten sio n

compared w it h

the

(means o f 2.81 t o

3.18).
In summary,

review ing

field

staff

plans

o f work and making

s u g g e s t i o n s f o r t h e i r improvement was i d e n t i f i e d as being t h e r o l e
item f o r which t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should
have t h e most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

Regional

S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d

t o have more than a s ha r ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s r o l e item bu t not
a major

resp o n sib ility .

In

addition,

it

was

perceived

th at

a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in implementing t h e l o n g - r a n g e o b j e c t i v e s of
CES in

the

region;

assisting

field

staff

in

the

development

of

r e l e v a n t , u s e f u l , and f u n c t i o n a l pl an s o f work; being f a m i l i a r with
p ro g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t

in t h e

subject

m atter

areas

of

Extension

228
programs; and implementing e f f e c t i v e methods o f r e a c h i n g E x t e n s i o n ’ s
g o a ls in t h e re g io n a re among t h e to p f i v e r o l e items f o r which t h i s
p o s i t i o n should be r e s p o n s i b l e .

All o f t h e s e were c o n s i d e r e d t o be

shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p o s i t i o n .
All s i x respo nd ent groups agreed t h a t a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in
e f f e c t i v e l y using v o l u n t e e r l e a d e r s in Extension programs, a s s i s t i n g
f i e l d s t a f f in d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s pro c e du res f o r a s s e s s i n g
lo c a l

situations

and

e d u c a ti o n a l

needs,

and

meeting

with

local

a d v is o r y groups t o i d e n t i f y Extension programming p r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e
reg io n ranked among t h e lowe st p r i o r i t y

items

in t h e p o s i t i o n

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r as i t should be performed in Michigan
(13th- t o 1 6 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s ) .

However,

t h e Regional

S u p e r v is o r

p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed was p e rc ei v e d t o have more th a n a
m in o r

responsibility

responsibility

for

on

those

carrying

role

them

items
out.

but

not

Regional

a

shared

Extension

Su p e rv is o rs were pe rc ei ve d to have a t l e a s t a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
(mean response s c o r e s o f a t l e a s t 3.00)

fo r ten r o le

items in th e

program development f u n c t i o n as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed in
Michigan, as compared with one r o l e item r e c e i v i n g a 3. 00 or g r e a t e r
mean response s co re as th e p o s i t i o n

is

p e rc ei v e d t o

be c u r r e n t l y

performed.
Extension Programming
Sixteen

role-definition

items

w ere

us ed

to

define

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r as i t
to

the

Extension

programming

function

at

the

regional

the

relates
level

in

229
Michigan.

Table 51 shows t h e mean re s po nse s c o r e and rank f o r each

o f t h e r o l e items in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
P eriodically

v isitin g

field

staff

to

observe

and

become

f a m i l i a r with t h e i r programming e f f o r t s and p r o g r e s s was i d e n t i f i e d
as

the

number-one-ranked

role

item

for

which

the

position

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan should be r e s p o n s i b l e when
the t o t a l

group mean was c o n s i d e r e d .

The S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement

on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item was p e rc e iv e d as being n e a r l y a major
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e p o s i t i o n when t h e mean s c o r e o f 3.6 8 f o r t h e
t o t a l re s p o n d e n t group was c o n s i d e r e d .
The

three

co un ty -b ase d

res p on de nt

groups

(means

of

3.62

to

3.70) agreed t h a t r o l e item was i m p o r t a n t , as viewed by t h e i r 2ndto

4th-place

rankings;

ho w e v e r,

they

indicated

th at

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should have more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o t h e r r o l e
items in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
p o s i t i o n o f Regional
level

Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have th e h i g h e s t

of re sp o n sib ility

adm inistrators,

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( 3 .6 5 ) p e r c e i v e d t h e

f o r m a in ta in in g

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

a l i a i s o n w it h U n i v e r s i t y

and f i e l d

staff

in o r d e r to

provid e e f f e c t i v e Extension programs, as viewed by t h e i r number-one
ranking
(3. 50 )
4th-

on

that

role

ranked t h a t
and

5th-place

item.

The

p a rtic u la r role
ra n k in g s

(means o f 3.4 7 to 3 . 6 5 ) .

of

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisors

item 8th as compared wit h t h e

th e

remaining

r e s ponden t

groups

However, a l l r e s pond en t groups agreed t h a t

Regional S u p e r v i s o r s should have more th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r c a r r y i n g out t h a t r o l e item.

Table 51.--Sixteen items pertaining to the Extension programming function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as the
position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total

PA

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=402)
<N=81)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

<N=147)
----------

(N=70)
----------

(N=70)
----------

(N=37)
----------

<N=5>
-------

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

Rank

RS

Rank

Rank

Periodically visit field staff
to observe and become familiar
with their programming efforts
and progress.

3.68

1

3.62

2

3.70

4

3.62

2

3.66

1

3.78

1

4.00

1

ro

OJ

o

Provide regular written and/or
verbal feedback on programming
accomplishments to county,
district and regional staff
in the region.

3.64

2

3.60

3

3.72

3

3.56

3

3.54

3

3.73

2

3.60

5

3.61

3

3.56

4

3.83

1

3.70

1

3.13

10

3.57

6

3.75

2

3.60

4

3.65

1

3.65

5

3.53

6

3.47

5

3.58

5

3.50

8

Use monthly reports to keep
informed of programming accomp­
lishments in the region by
county, district and regional
Extension staff.
Maintain a liaison with Univer­
sity administrators, Extension
specialists and field staff in
order to provide effective
Extension programs.

Table 51.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=402)
<N=81)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

Tank

Mean

3.56

5

3.45

Rank

CEA
<N=147)
----------

CED
(N=70)
----------

SPEC
<N=70)
----------

APT
<N=37)
----------

RS
(N=5)
-------

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Maintain an awareness of on-going
programming in the region by
county, district and regional
Extension staff-.

6

3.58

6

3.55

4

3.59

2

3.62

4

3.75

3

ro

oo

Use monthly reports to keep
informed of staff accomplishments

■

3.56

6

3.52

5

3.77

2

3.53

5

3.13

11

3.65

3

3.75

4

staff in the region.

3.40

7

3.45

7

3.39

7

3.29

8

3.46

6

3.35

9

3.40

11

Identify current and potential
program successes and failures
of field staff in the region.

3.33

8

3.22

12

3.36

8

3.37

7

3.31

8

3.40

8

3.60

6

towards their program goals.
Encourage educational programming
efforts across all program areas
by county, district and regional

J

Table 51.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Hust Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=40>>
(N=81)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean lank
Mean Rank

(N=147)
---------Mean Rank

(N=70)
---------Mean Rank

(N=70)
---------Mean Rank

CN=37)
---------Mean Rank

<N=5)
------Mean Rank

3.28

3.29

3.34

3.32

3.25

Maintain an awareness of on­
going programming in the region
by campus based Extension
specialists.

3.31

9

3.32

9

9

9

7

10

13

ro

co

Assist field staff in incorpo­
rating cross-county, multi county and regional programming
into Extension program plans.

PO

3.27

10

3.11

14

3.26

10

3.10

11

3.49

4

3.47

7

3.50

9

3.15

11

3.35

8

3.10

12

2.98

13

3.19

9

3.06

14

3.50

10

3.12

12

3.29

10

3.25

11

3.15

10

2.57

15

3.22

11

3.00

15

Involve Extension staff and
clientele in identifying ways in
which Extension programs can be
improved, have greater impacts
and serve additional audiences.
Use monthly reports to keep
informed of programming accomp­
lishments in the region by campusbased Extension specialists.

Table 5 1 -Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Tota.

PA

CEA

(N=38!i)

(N=74)

(N=144)

SPEC

CEO

(N=62)

APT

(N=62>

RS

(N=37)

(N=5)

For, or Oversee the Activity
Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

3.09

13

3.25

11

3.04

13

3.05

12

2.97

12

3.13

12

3.60

7

2.89

14

3.13

13

2.83

14

2.69

15

2.81

14

3.00

15

3.40

12

2.85

15

2.87

16

2.78

15

2.75

14

2.85

13

3.13

13

3.25

14

2.33

16

2.94

15

2.06

16

2.02

16

2.52

16

2.27

16

2.60

16

Insure that priorities are
given to educational program
needs at the local

level.

Participate in Extension pro­
grams within the region.
Assist field staff when approp­
riate in effectively using para­
professionals as a means of
extending the total programming
efforts of the county.
Conduct some educational pro­
grams within the region.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

234

The County Extension Agents
Directors

( 3 .7 0 )

( 3. 83 )

and t h e County Extension

both th o u g h t t h a t usi ng monthly r e p o r t s

to

keep

informed o f t h e programming accomplishments in t h e r e g i o n by f i e l d
s t a f f was t h e number-one-ranked item f o r t h e p o s i t i o n
Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r as i t should be performed.

o f Regional

Regional Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s (3 .75) agre ed t h i s was an im p o r ta n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,
seen

by t h e i r

2nd-place

ranking,

whereas

the

as

A dm inistrative

Program Team ( 3. 57) and t h e Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 .1 3 ) both ranked
t h e item much lower in importance as compared w ith t h e o t h e r r o l e definition

items

in t h i s

category,

6 t h - and l O t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s .
role

item t o

be

a s ha re d

as viewed by t h e i r

respective

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s p e r c e i v e d t h a t

responsibility,

whereas

all

the

other

groups p e r c e i v e d t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t o be n e a r i n g a
major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out t h a t r o l e ite m.

Using monthly

reports

toward

to

keep

program goal

informed

of

staff

accomplishments

was a l s o ranked much lower by Exten sio n

their

Specialists

J\ 3.131.
as
viewed hv t h e i r l l t h - n• l a c e r a n k i n a*» as comoared
w it h the
- t *
•
2nd- to 5 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s of- t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups (means of
3.52 to 3 . 7 7 ) .
The Regional
tive

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Program Team (3 .3 5)

indicated

( 3 .4 0 ) and t h e A d m i n i s t r a ­

lower

rankings,

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 11 th - and 9 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s ,
resp o n d en t groups

fo r the

role

as

viewed

by

th a n d i d t h e o t h e r

item d e a li n g

with

encouraging

e d u c a t i o n a l programming e f f o r t s a c r o s s a l l program a r e a s by county,
d istrict,

and

r e g io n a l

staff

in

the

region,

as

observed

by the

235
Program A s s i s t a n t s ’ ( 3 . 4 5 ) , County Extension A ge nts ’ ( 3 . 3 9 ) , County
Extension D i r e c t o r s ’ (3 .2 9)
to

8th-place

rankings.

and Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ’ ( 3 .4 6 ) 6 th The

paraprofessionals

(3.22)

ranked

i d e n t i f y i n g c u r r e n t and p o t e n t i a l program s u c c e s s e s and f a i l u r e s in
12th p l a c e ,
the

other

3.60).

lower than t h e o t h e r re sp on den t gr o u p s , as obser ved by
groups’ 6th-

to

8th-place

r a n k in g s

(means

of

3.3 6

to

However, a l l groups a g re ed i t was a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of

the p o s itio n .

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

Program Team ( 3 . 4 7 ) ,

( 3.4 9)

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

4th-

and 7t h-

p l a c e r a n k i n g s , ranked a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in i n c o r p o r a t i n g c r o s s ­
county,

m ulti-county,

program

plans

than

did

pro gr am mi n g

Extension
County

Extension Agents ( 3 . 2 6 ) , County Extension D i r e c t o r s ( 3 . 1 0 ) ,

and th e

Extension S u p e r v is o r s

paraprofessionals

into

(3.11),

Regional

hi g h e r

and r e g i o n a l

(3.50),

as seen in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

1 4 t h - , 1 0 t h - , 1 1 t h - , and 9 t h - p l a c e ra nkin gs on t h a t r o l e item.
I n s u r i n g t h a t p r i o r i t i e s a r e given t o e d u c a t i o n a l program needs
at

the

local

le ve l

was

ranked

hi g h e r

by t h e

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r group (3.60) than by any o f t h e o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t gro ups,
as viewed by t h e i r 11th- and 1 2 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s
3.2 5 ).

A ll

groups

paraprofessionals
programs w i t h i n

(2.94)
the

(means
agreed

of
that

re g io n was th e

2.02

to

(means o f 2.97 to

2.60)

co ndu ctin g
lo w e st

ranked

some

except

the

educational

role-definition

item of t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t should be
performed.

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s thought t h a t a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f

when a p p r o p r i a t e in e f f e c t i v e l y using p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s as a means

236

o f e xt e n d i n g t h e t o t a l

programming e f f o r t s

o f t h e county was th e

lo w e st p r i o r i t y r o l e ite m.
In summary, p e r i o d i c a l l y v i s i t i n g
become f a m i l i a r

with t h e i r

f i e l d s t a f f t o observe

programming e f f o r t s

and

and

progress

was

viewed t o be t h e r o l e item f o r which Regional E xt en s io n S u p e r v is o r s
should

have t h e

most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

groups agreed t h a t r o l e
the

Regional

performed.
particular
performed

Extension

at

the

regional

level.

item was n e a r l y a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
S upervisor’ s p o sitio n

as

it

should

role
in

item r e c e i v e d as th e

Michigan,

programming

informed
region;

be

That was up from t h e p e r c e iv e d 7 t h - p l a c e ra nki ng t h a t

as

observed

position
in

Table

is

currently

19.

In

of

accomplishments;

programming

m aintaining

usi ng

monthly

accomplishments

a liaison

by

with U n i v e r s i t y

s t a f f on

reports

field

being

addition,

p ro v id i n g r e g u l a r w r i t t e n a n d / o r ve rbal feedback t o f i e l d
their

All

to

staff

keep

in

th e

adm inistrators,

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and f i e l d s t a f f in o r d e r t o pro v id e e f f e c t i v e
Extension

programs;

and m a i n t a i n i n g

programming in t h e r e g i o n by f i e l d

an a w a r e n e s s

s t a f f were t h e t o p f i v e r o l e -

d e f i n i t i o n items i d e n t i f i e d by t h e t o t a l

r e s p o n d e n t group as being

key items f o r which t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
should be r e s p o n s i b l e .

All

of on-going

Ex te ns io n S u p e r v is o r

o f t h e s e were c o n s i d e r e d to be n e a r l y

major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed in
Michigan.

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d t o have at

l e a s t a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e s g r e a t e r tha n 3.00 ) f o r 13
role-definition

items

in t h i s

c a t e g o r y as

th e

position

should

be

performed, as compared with seven r o l e items r e c e i v i n g a mean s cor e

237

o f 3. 00 o r g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n

is

currently

perceived

to

be

level

of

performed.
Program E v a lu a ti o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
Twelve r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
responsibility
program
level.

Regional

evaluation

items were used t o

test

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should have f o r

and

accountability

function

at

the

th e

r e g io n a l

Table 52 p ro v id e s mean re s ponse s c o r e s and ra nks f o r a l l s ix

r e s po nd en t groups as they p e r t a i n t o t h e 12 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items in
t h i s category.
Participation
counties

in t h e program review and pla n n in g p r o c e s s

in t h e regio n was judged to be t h e number-one r o l e

making up t h e program e v a l u a t i o n
t h e 3.42 mean s co r e o f t h e t o t a l

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

the

only

two

groups

M onitoring

progress

A ffirm ative

Action

to

being
plans

re sp on den t group was viewed.

rank

made
was

this

by

role

field

judged

item

staff

by

the

as being t h e number-one-ranked

that

function.

The

Extension

number
toward

The
(3. 43)
one.
th eir

A dm inistrative

Program Team (3. 58 )
adm inistrative

item

f u n c t i o n when

County Exten sio n Agents (3 .45 ) and t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
were

for

role

item f o r

Specialists

(3.21)

ranked t h a t p a r t i c u l a r item 5 t h , and

t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups a l l

ranked

3.60).

it

Directors

3rd

(means o f 3.23

(3 .4 5)

to

and t h e Regional Extension

The

County Extension

Supervisors

(3. 80)

t ho ugh t t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n should have th e
h i g h e s t l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r co nducting o n - s i t e C i v i l Rights
compliance

reviews

in t h e r e g i o n ,

as observed

by t h e i r

Ist-place

Table 52.--Twelve items pertaining to the program evaluation and accountability function of Regional Extension Supervisors in
Michigan as the position should bo performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total.

(N=40'l )
Mean

Rank

PA
(N=79)
Mean

CEA
(N=147)

Rank

Mean

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

APT

SPEC

Rank

Mean

RS

<N=37)

<N=69)
Rank

Mean

(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Participate in the Program Review
and Planning Process for counties
3.42

1

3.35

5

3.45

1

3.34

2

3.43

1

3.51

2

3.60

2

Conduct on-site Civil Rights com­
pliance reviews in the region.

3.34

2

3.52

2

3.40

2

3.45

1

2.77

11

3.49

3

3.80

1

Monitor progress being made by
county, district and regional
staffs towards their Affirmative
Action plans.

3.33

3

3.52

3

3.23

3

3.29

3

3.21

5

3.58

1

3.60

3

3.29

4

3.49

4

3.23

4

3.05

5

3.38

4

3.30

5

3.20

6

238

in the region.

Conduct periodic informal evalua­
tions of county, district and
regional Extension programs.

Table 52.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total

PA

Concerned With, Responsible
(N=401)
(N=79>
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean

lank

Mean

Rank

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

(N=147)
----------

(N=62)
----------

<N=69)
----------

(N=37)
----------

<N=5)
-------

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Rank

Rank

Rank

RS

Rank

Rank

Encourage field staff to par­
ticipate in in-service education
and other activities which will
help to provide skills needed
for evaluating programs in terms
of behavior change.

ro

3.25

3.25

3.14

3.21

3.43

3.39

3.40

3.16

3.56

2.94

2.90

3.42

3.05

3.40

2.96

2.88

2.90

2.97

3.06

3.17

3.20

2.90

2.86

2 .8 8

2.89

2.88

3.08

3.20

to
to

Conduct periodic indepth evalua­
tions of county, district and
regional Extension programs.
Identify and select individuals
to participate in the County
Program Review and Planning
Process for counties in the
region.
Oversee that program results
which are being measured by
field staff reflect behavior
change.

10

10

Table 52.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Assist field staff in conduct­
ing evaluations of county
programs.

Total

PA

CEA

(N=401)

(N=79)

(N=147)

CEO

SPEC
<N=69)

(N=62)

RS

APT

(N=5)

<N=37)

Mean

Flank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

2.90

9

2.78

11

2.80

10

3.00

6

3.06

7

3.03

9

3.40

7

2.86

10

2.80

11

2.84

9

2.93

8

2.84

10

3.03

10

3.00

11

2.77

11

2.87

8

2.63

11

2.74

11

2.85

9

2.92

11

3.60

4

2.17

12

2.16

12

1.98

12

2.00

12

2.69

12

2.32

12

2.50

9

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Assist field staff in the prepa­
ration of reports which reflect
degrees of educational accomp­
lishment.
Oversee that program effective­
ness is measured in terms of
cost, time and appropriate use
of funds.
Assist field staff in preparing
their Annual Reports.

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

241

ran k in g s on t h a t r o l e item.
Extension
agreed

Agents

that

(3.40),

was an

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

and

Administrative

im portant

S upervisor’ s p o sitio n ,

role

a s viewed

of

the

by t h e i r

(3.52),

County

Program Team

( 3 .4 9 )

Regional
2n d-

Extension

and 3 r d - p l a c e

r a n k i n g s , while t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ’ (2 .7 7) l l t h - p l a c e r a nkin g
i n d i c a t e d they were in dis agr eem en t with t h e l e v e l o f importance t h e
o t h e r re sp onden t groups pla ced on t h a t r o l e item.

The S p e c i a l i s t s

group

than

p e rc ei v e d

responsibility
groups,

th e

S u p e rv is o rs

for that role

but t h e Regional

as

having

less

item as compared with a l l

S u p e rv is o rs p e rc e iv e d t h i s

tha n a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

a

s h ar ed

the other

as being more

The S u p e rv is o rs group thoug ht the y

should have n e a r l y a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out t h a t r o l e
item as th e p o s i t i o n should be performed.
The

paraprofessionals

responsibility
should

for

(3.56)

th e

position

be t o c o n d u c t

periodic

of

th oug ht
Regional

indepth

d i s t r i c t , and r e g io n a l Extension programs.
group (3. 42) agreed t h i s

the

Extension

evaluations

Supervisor
of county,

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t

should be an i m p o r ta n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n ,
3 r d - p l a c e r a nkin g.

number-one-ranked

of

as observed by t h e i r

The County Extension Agents ( 2 . 9 4 ) ,

th e County

Extension D i r e c t o r s ( 2 . 9 0 ) , t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team ( 3 . 0 5 ) ,
and t h e Regional

Extension Su p e rv is o rs

(3. 40)

all

rated th is

role

item much lower in importance than many o f t h e o t h e r r o l e items in
t h i s c a te g o r y , as viewed by t h e i r 6 th - t o 9 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s .

The

County Extension Agents and t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s viewed

242
Regional S u p e r v i s o r s as having l e s s than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
that

role

having

ite m,

at

whereas

least

paraprofessionals

a

all

shared

(2.78),

the

other

groups

responsibility

perceived

if

not

them as

more.

t h e County Extens ion Agents

The

(2.80),

and

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (3 .0 3) i n d i c a t e d S u p e r v i s o r s should
have a lower l e v e l
co nduct in g

of re sp o n sib ility for a ssistin g

evaluations

of

county

programs,

as

field s ta ff

viewed

by

in

their

r e s p e c t i v e 1 1 t h - , 1 0 t h - , and 9 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s , th a n d id t h e County
Extens ion D i r e c t o r s
the

Regional

(3.00),

Extension

the

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

Supervisors

(3.40),

(3.06),

as w i t n e s s e d

and

by t h e i r

6 t h - and 7 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s .
Overseeing t h a t program e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s measured in terms of
c o s t , tim e, and a p p r o p r i a t e use o f funds was c o n s i d e r e d t o be a much
higher level
Extension

of responsibility

S u p e r v i s o r group

for

(3.60),

the
as

position

by t h e

Regional

viewed by

their

4th-place

r a n k i n g , th a n any o f t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups as obs erved by t h e
paraprofessionals’

8th-place

9 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g , and a l l
that

role

ranking,

the

Extension

t h e o t h e r g r o u p s ’ l l t h - p l a c e ra n k in g on

item (means o f 2.63 t o

S u p e r v i s o r group had p e r c e i v e d

2.87).

their

The Regional

role

on t h a t

n e a r l y a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n ,
o t h e r groups

perceiving

resp o n sib ility .

All

S pecialists’

their
groups

involvement
agreed

as

th at

Extension

item as

being

as compared t o th e
less

than

Regional

a

shared

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s p la y a minor r o l e in h e l p i n g f i e l d s t a f f p r e p a r e t h e i r
annual r e p o r t s .

243

In summary, p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in t h e program review and p la nn in g

p ro c e s s f o r c o u n t i e s in t h e r e g i o n was seen as t h e number-one r o l e definition

item

as

it

pertains

to

the

program

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f u n c t io n o f th e Regional
p o s i t i o n as i t

evaluation

and

Extension S u p e r v is o r ’ s

should be performed in Michigan.

S u p e r v i s o r s were

p e r c e i v e d t o have more t h a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out
t h a t r o l e but l e s s than a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

Conducting o n - s i t e

C i v i l Rig hts compliance re v ie w s ; m onit or ing p r o g r e s s being made by
field

s t a f f toward t h e i r A f f i r m a t i v e A ctio n

periodic

informal

evaluations

of

c oun ty,

Ext ension programs; and en couraging f i e l d
in-service

e d u c a ti o n

and o t h e r

plans;

d istrict,

conducting
and

re g i o n a l

s t a f f to p a r tic ip a te

activities

th a t will

he lp

in

p ro vid e

s k i l l s needed f o r e v a l u a t i n g programs in terms o f b e h a v io r change
were th e o t h e r r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
items in t h i s c a t e g o r y .

items ra n k in g as t h e top f i v e r o l e

Overseeing t h a t

program e f f e c t i v e n e s s

is

measured in terms o f c o s t , ti m e , and a p p r o p r i a t e use o f fu nd s ; and
a s s i s t i n g s t a f f in p r e p a r i n g t h e i r annual r e p o r t s were i d e n t i f i e d as
the

two

Extension

low est

priority

Supervisors

role

were

items

p e r c e iv e d

in
to

this
have

category.
at

Regional

least

a

sh ared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e s g r e a t e r than 3 .0 0 ) on s i x o f t h e r o l e d e f i n i t i o n items as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed in Michigan, as
compared t o

only t h r e e

items

receiving

a mean s c o r e

of

3. 00

or

g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n was p e rc e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed in
Michigan, as observed in Table 20.

244
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Po li cy
Twenty items a Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r must be concerned
with,
obtain

be

responsible

the

for,

or

o v e rs e e

respondents’ perceptions

the

co nc er ni ng

and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t
Michigan.

activity

were

the

used

to

adm inistration

should be performed in

The items were ranked acc or din g t o t h e i r mean s c o r e s f o r

t h e t o t a l r e s po nd en t group and a l s o by t h e s i x p o s i t i o n gr o u p s , as
shown

in

Table

appropriate

to

53.

the

P articipation

adm inistrative

in

in-service

ro le o f the

Regional

education
Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n was ranked as t h e number-one r o l e item in t h i s
c a t e g o r y when th e mean s c o r e (3 .8 6) f o r t h e t o t a l
was c o n s i d e r e d .

r e s p o n d e n t group

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group ( 3.8 0) was

t h e only res p on de nt group not i d e n t i f y i n g t h i s r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
as b e i n g t h e n u m b e r - o n e - r a n k e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

of the

item

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed
in

Michigan

(means

of

3.69

to

4.03).

S u p e r v is o r group i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional
should

exercise

regional

staff

a higher

level

conferences

of

The

Regional

Extension

Extension S u p e rv iso rs

responsibility

and o p p o r t u n i t i e s

for

for

sch e d u li n g

field

i n t e r a c t i o n and a l s o f o r approving o u t - o f - s t a t e t r a v e l

staff

r e q u e s t s and

l e a v e s o f absence f o r s t a f f in t h e r e g i o n , as observed by t h e i r 4.00
mean s c o r e s on t h o s e r o l e

ite m s ,

as compared t o

their

s co r e on t h e t o t a l g r o u p ’ s number-one-ranked r o l e item.

3 .8 0 mean
The o t h e r

resp on den t groups (means o f 3.49 t o 3.83) agreed with t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v is o r s t h a t sch ed u lin g re g i o n a l s t a f f c o n f e r e n c e s was
an impor tan t a s p e c t of t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n ,

Table 53.--Twenty items pertaining to the adninistration and policy function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as
the position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Bi
Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total.
(N=400)
Mean

PA
(N=80)

Rank

Mean

CEA
(N=146)

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=69)

Rank

Mean

APT
(N=37)

Rank

Mean

RS
(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Participate in in-service edu­
cation appropriate to the admin­
istrative role of the Regional
Extension Supervisor.

3.86

1

3.85

1

3.83

1

4.02

1

3.69

1

4.03

1

3.80

3

Participate in the monthly Admin­
istrative meetings oncampus.

3.70

2

3.74

2

3.75

2

3.81

2

3.42

7

3.65

4

3.60

8

3.66

3

3.49

4

3.64

3

3.77

3

3.65

2

3.83

2

4.00

1

3.47

4

3.38

6

3.57

4

3.56

5

3.21

9

3.50

7

3.60

9

3.46

5

3.43

5

3.42

6

3.46

7

3.46

5

3.73

3

3.40

14

Schedule regional staff confer­
ences and opportunities for
field staff interaction when
appropriate.
Represent field staff in dis­
cussions with program staff,
specialists, central CES
administration, and MSU colleges
or units which relate to Exten­
sion work.
Provide timely information and
interpretation of CES policies
and procedures as they relate to
county field staff andprograms.

Table 53.--Continued.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
PA
CEA
CED
SPEC
APT
RS

Concerned With, Responsible
CM=A0C>>
(N=80)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean F ank
Mean Rank

(N=146)
---------Mean Rank

(N=62)
---------Mean Rank

(N=69)
---------Mean Rank

(N=37>
---------Mean Rank

<N=5>
------Mean Rank

3.41

3.42

3.43

3.38

3.20

15

3.44

3.48

3.36

3.49

3.60

10

3.61

3.16

3.39

3.80

3.40

3.49

3.57

3.80

3.54

3.51

3.80

Maintain the lines of communica­
tions and internal relationships
between field staff, program
staff, specialists, central CES
administration, and MSU colleges
or units which relate to Exten­
sion work.

3.44

3.57

3.40

3.20

3.34

3.33

flicts within the region.

3.33

2.92

Encourage program and staff
cooperation between county
Extension offices.

3.30

11

Provide leadership and input for
regional and state-wide activities
such as regional conferences, lay
leader visits/legislative tours.

11

Represent central CES administra­
tion in discussions with field
staff, program staff, special­
ists, and MSU colleges or units
which relate to Extension work.

3.29

10

10

Handle staff and program con­

10

3.24

15

3.37

3.16

13

3.27

12

Table 53.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Tota I
(N=400>

PA
(N=80)

Mean

Rank

Mean

and/or programming.

3.19

11

3.30

Approve out-of-state travel
requests and leaves'of absence
for staff in the region.

3.19

12

3.16

cooperation within county Exten­
sion offices.
Administer the policies and
procedures relating to penalty
mail allocations for the
region.

CEA
(N=146)

Rank

CED
(N=62)

SPEC
(N=69)

APT
<N=37)

RS
<N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

8

3.20

11

3.06

15

3.14

11

3.16

13

3.60

11

3.23

10

3.39

8

3.31

11

2.61

18

3.00

17

4.00

2

13

3.05

12

3.19

12

3.39

10

2.82

13

3.39

10

3.80

7

3.05

14

2.94

14

3.10

14

3.08

13

2.90

12

3.24

12

3.60

12

2.88

15

2.73

17

2.99

15

3.08

14

2.64

17

2.68

18

3.00

18

Serve on state-wide committees
concerned with Extension policy

ro
4k

Monitor reports from field staff
to assure they are submitted on
t ime .
Encourage program and staff

Table 53.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=400)

I»A
(N:=80)

CEA
(N=146)

CED
(N=62)

SPEC
<N=69)

APT
(N=37)

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

ming, and Affirmative Action.

2.76

16

2.86

18

2.69

16

2.63

16

2.72

15

3.03

15

3.20

16

Assist County Extension Directors
in negotiating budgets, staffing
and office space arrangements
with county officials.

2.64

17

2.70

19

2.58

17

2.32

19

2.77

14

3.03

16

3.00

19

Meet with county board members in
areas such as staffing, program­
ming, and Affirmative Action.

2.61

18

2.67

20

2.52

18

2.53

18

2.48

19

3.05

14

3.20

17

ships with key clientele within
the region.

2.59

19

2.74

16

2.42

19

2.55

17

2.72

16

2.57

19

3.60

13

Coordinate specialists visits
to the region.

2.32

20

3.00

13

2.06

20

2.21

20

2.18

20

2.42

20

2.20

20

Handle clientele concerns in
areas such as staffing, program­

Develop and maintain relation­

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

249

as w itn e ss e d by t h e i r 2nd- t o 4 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r
r o l e item.
Agents

However, t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( 3 . 2 3 ) , County Extension

(3 .3 9 ),

Specialists
disagreed

C o u n ty

(2.61),
w ith

perceptions

of

Extension

D irectors

(3.31),

Extension

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team ( 3 .0 0 )

the
the

Regional

Extension

importance

of

all

Supervisors’

(4.00)

out-of-state

travel

approving

r e q u e s t s and le a v e s o f absence f o r f i e l d s t a f f in t h e r e g i o n .

This

can be seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 1 0 t h - , 8 t h - , 1 1 t h - , 1 8 t h - , and 17thp l a c e mean s c o r e r a n k in g s f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e ite m.

The t h r e e

c ounty -ba sed

Extension

re s p o n d e n t

groups p e r c e i v e d t h e

Regional

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n t o have a t l e a s t a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

if

n o t more, f o r t h a t r o l e item as compared w ith t h e two campus-based
groups

indicating

s har ed or l e s s .

the

Supervisors’

level

of

responsibility

was

None o f t h e groups agreed w ith t h e S u p e r v i s o r s t h a t

t h i s should be a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n .
P a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e monthly a d m i n i s t r a t i v e meetings on campus
l,l*> <*

b n rl

I UMINWU

1 n i . i r t v»

Uw

I WWW I

LSjr

1

^

lU llttl L A b C lld

C i m ^ v»« * 4

I VII

w u p c i

n u<

V l d V I d

i O

C f\ \

( J . U W )

** *» J

ailU

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 . 4 2 ) , as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 8 t h - and
7 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s , as compared w it h t h e 2 nd -p la c e r a nk in g give n by
t h e t h r e e c o u nt y-b a se d re sp ond ent groups (means o f 3.74 t o 3 .8 2 ) and
the

4th-place

(3.65).

ra n k in g

However, a l l

responsibility

of

given

by

the

Administrative

Program

Team

groups agreed t h a t t h i s was n e a r i n g a major

the

County Extension Agents

position.

The

paraprofessionals

( 3 . 5 7 ) , Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

(3.38),

( 3 . 2 1 ) , and

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team ( 3 .5 0 ) a l l ranked r e p r e s e n t i n g f i e l d

250
s t a f f in d i s c u s s i o n s w it h program s t a f f ,
adm inistration,

specialists,

central

CES

and MSU c o l l e g e s o r u n i t s t h a t r e l a t e t o Extension

work h i g h e r tha n r e p r e s e n t i n g c e n t r a l

CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in t h e s e

same d i s c u s s i o n s , as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 6 t h - , 4 t h - , 9 t h - ,
and 7 t h - p l a c e ra n k in g s f o r t h e r o l e item r e f e r r i n g t o r e p r e s e n t i n g
f i e l d s t a f f in t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s ( t h e 4 th - r a n k e d t o t a l

group item)

and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 7 t h - , 1 0 t h - , 1 0 t h - , and 9 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s f o r
t h e r o l e item r e f e r r i n g t o r e p r e s e n t i n g c e n t r a l

CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s ( t h e 8 t h - r a n k e d t o t a l group i t e m ) .

The County

Ext ension D i r e c t o r s and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s d i s a g r e e d
w it h

the

Regional

other

re sp onden t

Extension

representing

groups

Supervisor

central

by

has

indicating

a

greater

CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in

the

position

of

responsibility

these

for

discussions,

as

observed by t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s ’ r e s p e c t i v e 5 th - and 4 th p l a c e ra nk in gs and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ 9th and 4 th p l a c e ra nk in gs on t h e s e two r o l e it e m s .
that

Regional

Supervisors

have

to

However, a l l groups agreed

perform

both

role

items

with

g r e a t e r than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Pro viding t im e ly i n fo r m a t io n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f CES p o l i c i e s
and

procedures

was

ranked

lower

by

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s ( 3 . 4 0 ) , as seen by t h e i r 1 4 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g , th a n by t h e
paraprofessionals

(3.43),

Extension D i r e c t o r s
Administrative

(3.46),

County

Extension

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

Program Team ( 3 . 7 3 ) ,

6th-place rankings.

Agents

as observed

(3.42),
(3.46),

by t h e i r

County
and the
3 rd -

to

The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (3 .3 8) and the

251
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s (3 .2 0) i n d i c a t e d t h a t m a i n t a i n i n g t h e
l i n e s o f communications and i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w it h f i e l d s t a f f ,
program s t a f f ,

specialists,

and c e n t r a l

CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was a

lower l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r as i t should be performed, as viewed by t h e i r 11 th - and
1 5 t h - p l a c e r a n k i n g s , as compared w it h t h e 3 r d - t o 8 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s
by t h e

paraprofessionals

(3.57),

County

Extens ion

Agents

(3.41),

County Extension D i r e c t o r s ( 3 . 4 2 ) , and Extens ion S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 . 4 3 ) .
However,

all

groups viewed t h e

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

as

having more than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
The t h r e e c ou nty -b a se d re sp onden t groups p e r c e i v e d t h e Regional
Extension

Supervisor’s

involvement

in

h a n d li n g

staff

c o n f l i c t s in t h e re g io n t o be a lower p r i o r i t y r o l e

and

program

item ( 9 t h - t o

1 5 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s ) th a n was p e rc e iv e d by t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
(3.49),

the Administrative

Program Team ( 3 . 5 7 ) ,

and t h e

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ( 3 . 8 0 ) , as viewed by t h e i r 4 t h - and 5 t h - p l a c e
rankings.

However,

perceived

the

responsibility

all

groups

Supervisors
for th at

role

as

except

the

having

more

paraprofessionals

item (means o f 3.37

than

a

shared

to

3.80).

The

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e r c e i v e d Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having
less

than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

The Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s group

r e p o r t s from f i e l d
being

s t a f f to

a higher level

p e r c e iv e d

for th a t

by th e

(3 .8 0)

role

item.

viewed m onit or in g

i n s u r e the y a r e s u bm itt e d on time as

of responsibility

other

particular

re sp ond ent

of the

gr ou ps ,

as

position

th a n was

obser ved

by

their

252
7th-place

ra nking

on t h a t

role

item,

as compared w it h t h e

re s p o n d e n t g r o u p s ’ 10 th - t o 1 3 t h - p l a c e
(means o f 2.82 to 3 . 3 9 ) .

other

r a n k in g s on t h a t r o l e

item

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t group was th e

only one t o i n d i c a t e t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s should have l e s s th a n a s har ed
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item.
In

summary,

the

top

five

ro le-d efin itio n

item s

in

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n a r e a ,

as p e r c e i v e d by t h e t o t a l

r e s p o n d e n t g r o u p , w er e t o p a r t i c i p a t e

in

appropriate

to

the

adm inistrative

role

in-service

of the

education

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ; t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e monthly a d m i n i s t r a t i v e meet ings on
campus; t o sch ed ul e r e g i o n a l s t a f f c o n f e r e n c e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r
field

staff

interaction;

to

represent

field

staff

in d i s c u s s i o n s

with program s t a f f , s p e c i a l i s t s , c e n t r a l CES a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and MSU
colleges

or

units

that

relate

to

Extension work;

and t o

pr ovi de

t i m e l y in f o r m a t io n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f CES p o l i c i e s and p ro c e du re s
as they r e l a t e to county f i e l d

s t a f f and programs.

All

of these

were p e rc e iv e d to be n e a r i n g a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in Michigan.

Ob ser va tio n

o f t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d in Table 53 c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o n f l i c t s
existed

between

the

perceptions

held

by

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r group and t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e
of the

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisor’s

position

as

it

shou ld

be

performed.

Three o f t h e to p f i v e r o l e items t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d by

the

g r o u p mean s c o r e s

to tal

were

identified

by t h e

Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r group as being lower r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r o l e items
of the p o s itio n .

253

Regional Extension S u p e rv is o rs were p e rc ei v e d t o have a t l e a s t
a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e s g r e a t e r tha n 3.0 0) f o r 14 r o l e d efin itio n

items

in t h i s

category

as

the

position

should

be

performed, as compared w it h 11 items r e c e i v i n g a 3.0 0 mean s c o r e or
g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n was p e rc ei ve d t o be performed c u r r e n t l y , as
observed in t h e p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d Table 21.
Publi c R e l a t i o n s
Eight r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items were used t o d e s c r i b e t h e p u b l i c

r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

as i t should be performed in Michigan.

Table 54 d i s p l a y s t h e mean

response s c o r e s and rank o r d e r f o r each r o l e item acc ord ing t o t h e
s i x respo ndent groups.
Assisting

field

staff

in

i n c r e a s i n g E xt en s io n’ s v i s i b i l i t y

devel opin g

a

mark eting

plan

in t h e reg io n was i d e n t i f i e d

a l l respo ndent groups e xce pt th e Regional

for
by

Extension S u p e r v is o r s as

being th e r o l e item f o r which t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s

p o s i t i o n should be most r e s p o n s i b l e when t h e 3 . 0 8 mean s co r e o f t h e
398 re s po nd en ts was c o n s i d e r e d .
group

thoug ht

five

other

The Regional

role-definition

Extension S u p e r v i s o r

items

of

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n w ar rante d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than
assisting

field

staff

in

developing

a marketing p l a n .

The f i v e

items th e y i d e n t i f i e d , in d e c r e a s i n g mean o r d e r , were t o develop and
ma in ta in a l i a i s o n with o t h e r s t a t e , county or community ag en c ie s in
th e

region

Extension

(3.20);
Directors

to

develop

in

c o n ju n c t io n

with

a CES p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s plan f o r

the
the

County
counties

Table 54.--Eight items pertaining to the public relations function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as the
position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Specific Items That Regional

Respondent Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension Supervisors Must Be
Total
PA
Concerned With, Responsible
(N=39»)
(N=78)
For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean Rank
Mean Rank

CEA
(N=146)
---------Mean Rank

CEO
(N=61)
---------Mean Rank

SPEC
(N=69)
---------Mean Rank

APT
(N=37)
---------Mean Rank

RS
(N=5)
------Mean Rank

Assist field staff in developing
a marketing plan for increasing
Extension's visibility in the
region.

3.08

Develop in conjunction with the
County Extension Directors a CES
public relations plan for the
counties which will address the
needs of the general public, key
leaders, and elected officials
in the region.

1

3.26

1

3.03

1

2.90

1

3.10

1

3.11

1

2.60

ro
on
-ffc

2.99

2

3.21

4

2.96

2

2.69

2

3.01

2

3.03

2

3.00

2.88

3

3.26

2

2.83

3

2.62

4

2.85

4

2.73

3

3.00

2.81

4

3.22

3

2.63

4

2.64

3

2.91

3

2.68

4

3.20

Maintain the public's understand­
ing and support for Extension
programs in the region.
Develop and maintain a liaison
with other state, county or
community agencies

inthe region.

Table 54.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total
(N=398)
Mean

Represent MSU/CES on various
committees within the region.

PA
(N=78)

Rank

Mean

CED

CEA
<N = 146)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=69)

(N=61)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

APT

RS

<N=37)

Rank

Mean

(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

2.56

5

2.91

6

2.35

5

2.39

5

2.77

5

2.46

5

3.00

4

to the region.

2.32

6

2.94

5

2.20

6

2.07

6

2.36

7

1.92

8

2.00

8

Represent MSU/CES in nonExtension community events
within the region.

2.23

7

2.64

7

1.99

7

2.00

7

2.42

6

2.22

6

3.00

5

Participate in MSU Alumni Asso­
ciation activities in the
regi on.

2.07

8

2.47

8

1.83

8

1.95

8

2.27

8

1.97

7

2.60

7

Prepare news and other Extension
information releases appropriate

Note:

Response categories were:

1 = None,

Z

-

Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

256

(3.00);

to

m a in ta in

the

public’s

Extension programs in t h e r e g io n

u n d e rs ta n d in g
(3.00);

to

and

support

for

r e p r e s e n t MSU/CES on

v a r i o u s committees in t h e re g io n ( 3 . 0 0 ) ; and t o r e p r e s e n t MSU/CES in
non-E xtension community e v e n ts w i t h i n t h e re g io n ( 3 . 0 0 ) , as compared
with t h e 2.60 mean s c o r e given t o t h e number-one-ranked r o l e item of
t h e o t h e r re sp ond en t gr oups .
With

the

e x c e p ti o n

of

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisors’

number-one-ranked item r e c e i v i n g 3 rd - and 4 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s by th e
o t h e r f i v e re s p o n d e n t gr oup s,

all

sim ilarity

for

describe

in

the

their

ran k in g s

public

relations

s i x groups e xp re ss ed remarkable
the

eight

role

function of the

items

Regional

used

to

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed in Michigan.

Minor

v a r i a t i o n in re s p o n s e s was observed with r e s p e c t to i n d i v i d u a l

role

it e m s , such as p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s (5 th ) i n d i c a t i n g a h i g h e r l e v e l

of

involvement by Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of
news and o t h e r
fcyiuil

m ic m i

wa b

Extension
p e r

t c i vcu

in fo r m a t io n
u y

tuc

releases

uliici

yiuupd)

appropriate
ao

n ad

to

th e

v icncu

u j

t h e i r 6 t h - and 7 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e item.
In summary, t h e s i x re sp ond ent groups e x pr e ss ed s i m i l a r views
r e g a r d i n g t h e i r mean s c o r e ran k in g s f o r t h e e i g h t r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
items used t o d e f i n e t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
Extension
performed.

Supervisor’s position
The Regional

in

M ic h i g a n

as

it

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group th ought

de velop in g and m a i n t a i n i n g a l i a i s o n with o t h e r s t a t e ,
community

agencies

in

should

the

region

should

w arrant

be
that

c ounty ,
the

or

most

257
responsibility

in t h i s

category,

as

compared wit h

all

the

other

r e s po nden t groups i d e n t i f y i n g a s s i s t i n g f i e l d s t a f f in de v e lo p i n g a
ma rketing plan f o r i n c r e a s i n g E x t e n s i o n ’ s v i s i b i l i t y
as

the

number-one

item

in

th is

category.

in t h e r e g io n
However,

th is

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was viewed as being o f lower p r i o r i t y in the
overall

role

of the

Regional

viewed by only one r o l e

Extension

item r e c e i v i n g

Supervisor’s p o sitio n ,

as

a mean s c o r e

or

g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.
d efin ite

d ifferences

in

the

level

o f 3.0 0

However, t h e r e were

of resp o n sib ility

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e iv e d t o hold f o r some o f t h e r o l e
item s.

The County

D irectors

(2.00),

Extension
and t h e

Agents

(1.99),

A dm inistrative

Co un ty

Prog ram Team ( 2 . 2 2 )

perceived the Supervisors

as having a minor r o l e

in

MSU-CES in

community e v e n t s

the

non-Extension

compared wit h t h e Program A s s i s t a n t s
(2.42),

and Regional

within

(2.64),

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

Extension

representing
region,

as

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

(3 .0 0) p e r c e i v i n g th o s e

in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r as having n e a r l y a
sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t r o l e item.
Budgeting and Financing
Nine

ro le-d efin itio n

item s

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e Regional

were

used

to

investigate

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r with r e s p e c t

t o t h e budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t should
be performed in Michigan.
Table 55 p r e s e n t s t h e mean re sp onse s c o r e s and ra nk o r d e r f o r
each

role

item

by

the

six

re sp onden t

gro ups .

Overseeing

that

Table 55.--Nine items pertaining to the budgeting and financing function of Regional Extension Supervisors in Michigan as the
position should be performed, classified by mean score and rank order.

Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible

Respondent Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total

PA

CEA

(N=39{.)

(N=79)

(M=145)

For, or Oversee the A c t i v i t y ---------- ------------Mean Fank
Mean Rank

CEO

SPEC

APT

RS

<H=61)

<N=69>

<N=37)

(N=5)

---------Mean Rank

---------Mean Rank

---------Mean Rank

---------Mean Rank

------Mean Rank

2.79

3.02

2.69

3.42

Oversee that counties file their
annual Expenditure and Appropri­
ated Funds reports on time.

2.98

1

3.22

1

3

2

4

1

4.00

1

Assist staff in developing pro­
posals for outside funding of
Extension programs.

ro

cn
2.94

2

3.02

7

2.92

1

2.77

3

3.03

1

2.84

6

3.20

3

2.87

3

3.09

4

2.61

5

3.07

1

2.54

7

3.35

2

4.00

2

2.87

4

3.17

3

2.82

2

2.48

4

2.84

3

3.08

3

3.20

4

2.82

5

3.18

2

2.74

4

2.44

5

2.93

2

2.81

7

3.00

5

Oversee that counties have their
nonappropriated funds audited
annually by an auditor inde­
pendent of the Extension
organi zat ion.
Assist County Extension Direc­
tors in securing adequate
county funds for all phases of
county Extension work.
Seek financial support in addi­
tion to county appropriated
funds to develop/expand county
Extension programs.

00

Table 55.--Continued.

Respondent Group
Specific Items That Regional
Extension Supervisors Must Be
Concerned With, Responsible
For, or Oversee the Activity

Total

PA

CEA

(N=398)

(N=79)

(N=145)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

CED

SPEC

<N=61)

Rank

Mean

APT

(N=69)

Rank

Mean

RS

(N=37)

Rank

Mean

(N=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Monitor county Extension budgets
for the region.

2.55

6

3.04

6

2.32

7

2.10

6

2.65

5

2.95

4

3.00

6

2.55

7

3.08

5

2.37

6

1.97

7

2.59

6

2.86

5

2.80

7

2.11

8

2.76

8

1.86

8

1.67

8

2.26

8

2.19

8

2.00

8

1.67

9

2.29

9

1.41

9

1.34

9

1.76

9

1.75

9

1.60

9

Oversee that county appropriated
monies are equitably divided so
that all staff have reasonable
support to carry out their
Extension programs.
Develop annual Cooperative Exten­
sion Service budget requests for
counties in the region.
Present annual county Extension
budgets to the County Board of
Commi ssi oners.

Mote:

Response categories were:

1 = None, 2 = Minor, 3 = Shared, 4 = Major, 5 = Complete.

260

counties f i l e

t h e i r annual

E x p e n d i t u r e and A p p r o p r i a t e d

Funds

r e p o r t s on time was i d e n t i f i e d as t h e number-one r o l e item in t h i s
c a t e g o r y f o r which t h e

position

should

when t h e

be

responsible

re s po nden ts

was

Administrative

considered.
Program

Team

o f Regional
2.98

The

Extension

mean

score

for

paraprofessionals

(3.42),

and

the

Supervisor
the

398

(3.22),

the

Regional

S u p e r v is o r s (4 .00 ) agreed wit h t h i s f i r s t - p l a c e ra n k in g .

Extension
The County

Extension Agents (2 .92 ) and t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s (3 .0 3) thought
t h a t a s s i s t i n g s t a f f in dev elop ing p ro p o s a ls f o r o u t s i d e funding o f
Extension programs should be t h e number-one r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f
th is position.

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s (3.02) and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Program Team (2.84) d i s a g r e e d with t h e Extension Agents ( 2 .9 2 ) and
t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
role

item,

as

r a n k in g s .

observed

County

(3.03) on t h e r a nkin g o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r
by

Extension

their

respective

Directors

7t h -

(2 .7 7)

and

and

6th-place

the

Regional

Extension Su p e rv is o rs (3. 20) agreed i t was an impor tan t r o l e o f th e
p o s i t i o n , as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e 3 r d - p l a c e ra n k i n g s .
Extension

Directors

(3. 07)

indicated

the

County

number-one-ranked

item

should be ov e rs ee in g t h a t c o u n t i e s have t h e i r n o n a p p ro p ri a te d funds
audited

annually

organization.
Specialists
viewed

by

by an

auditor

independent

the

Extension

The County Extension Agents ( 2 .6 1 ) and t h e Extension
(2. 54)

their

pl ace d a lower p r i o r i t y on t h i s
respective

5 th -

and

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team ( 3 . 3 5 )
S u p e rv is o rs

of

(4.00)

were

in

agreement

7th-place

and t h e
with

role

rankings.

Regional
the

item,

County

as
The

Extension
Extension

261
D i r e c t o r s about t h e importance o f t h a t r o l e item, as viewed by t h e i r
respective

2 nd-p la c e

rankings.

However,

the

various

re sp onden t

groups p e r c e i v e d t h e l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t item as being
different.
having

a

Regional
major

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v e d the m s el ve s as

responsibility

paraprofessionals,

Cou nty

for

that

role

Extension

ite m,

t h e County Extension Agents,

the

and

the

D irectors,

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team th ought t h e S u p e r v i s o r s
s hared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e r o l e item.

whereas

should have a

Thi s was in c o n t r a s t with

who p e r c e iv e d t h e Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r as having l e s s than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g
out t h e r o l e .
Seeking f i n a n c i a l
funding

was

seen

by

s u p p o rt
the

in

addition

paraprofessionals

to

county-appropriated

(3 .18 )

and

Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s ( 2 . 9 3 ) , as viewed by t h e i r 2 nd -p la c e r a n k i n g s , as being
a higher p r i o r i t y r o le

item in t h i s c a t e g o r y o f t h e p o s i t i o n than

was seen by t h e County Extension Agents
Directors

(2.44),

the Administrative

(2.74),

County Extension

Program Team ( 2 . 8 1 ) ,

or

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s the mselves ( 3 . 0 0 ) , as viewed by t h e i r
4 th - t o 7 t h - p l a c e r a n k in g s on t h a t r o l e item.
In summary, t h e budg etin g and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n was t h e only
one o f t h e e i g h t f u n c t i o n s used t o d e s c r i b e t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed t h a t did
not have any o f th e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items r e c e i v i n g a mean s c o r e of
3.00

or

greater.

Overseeing

that

counties

file

their

annual

Expen ditur e and A p pro p ri at e d Funds r e p o r t s was seen as t h e r o l e item
f o r which t h e

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

should' be

262

most r e s p o n s i b l e

in t h i s

category.

However,

not

all

r e s po nd en t

groups agreed with t h e mean ra nk in g f o r t h e t o t a l gro up.

A ssisting

s t a f f in de v elop in g p r o p o s a l s f o r o u t s i d e funding was i d e n t i f i e d as
t h e number-one-ranked item by t h e County Extension Agents and t h e
Extension

S pecialists,

and

o v e r s e e in g

that

counties

have

their

n o n a p p r o p r i a t e d funds a u d i t e d a n n u a ll y was seen as being t h e numberone-ranked
agreed

item by t h e

that

County

Regional

responsibility

for

Extension

Extension

preparing

and/or

D irectors.

Supervisors
presenting

budgets t o t h e County Board o f Commissioners,

All
have

cou nty

groups
little

Extension

as viewed by t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e 8 t h - and 9 t h - p l a c e ran k in g s on t h e s e two r o l e ite m s .
R e l a t i v e Importance o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Fu nctions as They Should Be Performed
The

null

hypothesis

was

established

that

"There

are

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y he ld f o r th e
various

adm inistrative

functions

of

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ' s p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed, as p e r c e i v e d by th e
re sp ond ent

g r o u p s ."

This

was

re s po nse s c o r e f o r each o f t h e

tested
eight

by

calculating

adm inistrative

the

mean

functions

as

t h e y should be performed f o r t h e t o t a l re sp ond ent group and f o r each
o f t h e s i x p o s i t i o n gr ou ps .
the

Regional

Extension

The e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s f o r

Supervisor’ s position,

classified

by mean

resp onse s c o r e and rank o r d e r , a re p r e s e n te d in Table 56.
By ob ser vin g

t h e mean re s po ns e s co r e

and t h e

rank f o r

each

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , i t was noted t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d .

The

Table 56.--Mean response scores and rank order for eight administrative functions as they should be performed by Regional
Extension Supervisors, by each of six respondent groups.

Respondent Group
Administrative Function

Total
(N=382)
Mean

PA
(N=81)

Rank

Mean

Rank

CEA
(N=149)
Mean

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

SPEC
(N=73)

Rank

Mean

APT
(N=37)

Rank

RS
(N=5)

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Personnel management (NI=18)

3.28

1

3.25

2

3.27

2

3.28

1

3.29

1

3.33

1.5

3.43

3

Extension programming (NI=16)

3.27

2

3.34

1

3.29

1

3.20

1.5

3.19

2

3.33

1.5

3.48

2

3.17

3

3.17

3

3.15

3

3.20

1.5

3.07

5

3.29

3

3.49

1

3.07

4

2.94

8

3.01

4

3.01

4

3.11

3

3.21

4

3.36

4

accountability (N 1=12)

3.05

5

3.12

4

2.99

5

3.00

5

3.08

4

3.19

5

3.34

5.5

Program development (NI=16)

2.95

6

3.07

5

2.83

6

2.86

6

3.06

6

3.08

6

3.34

5.5

Public relations (NI=8)

2.61

7

2.99

6.5

2.48

7

2.41

7

2.72

7

2.51

8

2.80

8

Budgeting and financing (NI=9)

2.59

8

2.99

6.5

2.43

8

2.32

8

2.59

8

2.81

7

2.98

7

Administration and policy
(Nl=20)
Staff orientation and develop­
ment CNI=15)
Program evaluation and

Note:

NI = number of items.

264
pe rsonnel management f u n c t i o n had t h e h i g h e s t mean s c o r e o f 3 .2 8 and
c o n s e q u e n t l y was ranked f i r s t .

The o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s

co n ti n u e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g rank o r d e r ,

as det ermi ne d by d e c r e a s i n g

mean

(3.27),

scores:

policy

Extension

(3.17),

evaluation
public

staff

orientation

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

relatio n s

Regional

(2.61 ),

adm inistration

and development

(3.05),

eight

program

program development

(2.95),

and b u d g e t i n g

and f i n a n c i n g

functions

as

the

significance

of

these

(2.59).

have a t

(mean s c o r e s g r e a t e r than 3 .0 0 )

adm inistrative

and

(3.07),

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d t o

s ha re d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
the

programming

least

a

f o r f i v e of

position

should

be

performed.
To d e t e r m i n e

the

differences,

the

Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t (M arascuilo e t a l . , 1977), a form
of rank-order analysis
observed

of variance,

significance

freedom f o r

all

level

r e s ponden t

is

was used .

less

groups

th a n
e xc e p t

In Table

.00 w it h
the

57,

7 degrees

Regional

a pr ed et ermi ned

significance

level

of

.01,

of

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r group, which had a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .0191.
established

the

Having
the

null

h y p o t h e s i s r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s
held

for

Extension
rejected
group.

the

eight

adm inistrative

Supervisor’s
for

all

position

as

groups e xce pt t h e

functions
it

should

Regional

of
be

the

Regional

performed

Extens ion

was

Supervisor

265

Table 5 7 . --Friedman a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n
means by rank.
Administrative
Function

Rank Order o f Respondent Groups
Mean Rank*

PA*

CEA*

CED*

SPEC*

APT*

RS

Personnel management

6.01

2

2

1

1

1 .5

3

Extension programming

5.98

1

1

1 .5

2

1 .5

2

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy

5.37

3

3

1.5

5

3

1

S taff orientation
and development

4.60

8

4

4

3

4

4

Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

4.59

4

5

5

4

5

5.5

Program development

4.01

5

6

6

6

6

5.5

P u b li c r e l a t i o n s

2.73

6 .5

7

7

7

8

8

Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g

2.72

6.5

8

8

8

7

7

♦ S i g n i f i c a n c e < .001.

The d a t a

showed t h e

personnel

Friedman mean rank o f 6.01 and t h e
had a mean rank o f 5. 9 8 .

management

function

had

a

Extension programming f u n c t i o n

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n had

t h e g r e a t e s t number o f d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s , with f o u r f o r t h a t item.
The personnel management f u n c t i o n ,
the

public

relations

function,

the s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n fu n c tio n ,

and

the

f u n c t i o n a l l had t h r e e d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s .
the

Extension

accountability

p ro gr am m i ng ,
functions

and

the

budge ting

and

financing

The program development,
program

showed t h e most p e r c e iv e d

evaluation
role

and

consensus

266

among t h e gro ups, with two d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s .

The s i x r e s po nd en t

groups di d not come t o consensus on any o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions

as

they

should

management f u n c t i o n ,

the

be

performed.

Extension

However,

the

personnel

programming f u n c t i o n ,

and t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked h i g h e r
than t h e o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s ,

and t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

and budgeting and fi n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked lower
than t h e o t h e r f u n c t i o n s by a l l

resp on den t gr ou ps .

The Regional

Extension S u p e rv is o rs were pe rc ei ve d by t h e t o t a l

r e s po nd en t group

to

the

have

more

than

a

sh ared

responsibility

for

first

three

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and l e s s than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
t h e l a s t two, as seen by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean res p on se s c o r e s

in

Table 56.
Consensus Within Each P o s i t i o n Group
D ifferences
examined

in c o n s e n s u s w i t h i n e a c h p o s i t i o n

by t e s t i n g

the

null

hypothesis

that

g r o u p were

"There

are

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e consensus w i t h i n each p o s i t i o n group
on th e pe rc eive d e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s of
th e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

as

it

should

be

performed in Michigan."
This h y p o th e si s was f i r s t

tested

by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e s t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n s on each r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n item f o r each p o s i t i o n group and
t h e t o t a l res pondent group.

Standard d e v i a t i o n i s used as a measure

of d i s p e r s i o n about t h e mean of an i n t e r v a l - l e v e l
a l .,

1975)

and

is

useful

in

indicating

variable

consensus

or

(Nie e t
lack

of

267

consensus w i t h i n a p o s i t i o n group.

Appendix D p r o v i d e s t h e means

and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r each o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l
items as t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional

Extension

role-definition

S u p e r v i s o r sh ould

be

performed.

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s had t h r e e items with

a

deviation

standard

of

1.00

or

greater

and

complete consensus ( .0 0 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ) .
r o l e item

(No. 101),

releases

appropriate

the reg io n ,"

items

with

The p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

" p r e p a r e news and o t h e r
to

eight

had

Extension in f o r m a t io n
the

highest

standard

d e v i a t i o n o f 1.22 f o r t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
The Extension S p e c i a l i s t s
had

the

greatest

number

of

(31) and t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
the

114

role-definition

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 1.00 or g r e a t e r .

(30)

items

with

The l a r g e s t v a r i a n c e with

Ext ension

Specialists

(No. 8 0 ) ,

t h a t of " a d m i n i s t e r t h e p o l i c i e s and pr o c e d u re s r e l a t i n g

t o p e n a l t y mail

was an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

and p o l i c y

role

item

a l l o c a t i o n s f o r t h e r e g i o n , " which had a s t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n o f 1.1 8.

The r o l e item t h a t had t h e l a r g e s t v a r i a n c e f o r

both t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team was a
personnel

management r o l e

staff

the

to

respective

item,

t h a t o f " p r e s e n t i n g new Extension

County Board o f Commissioners"

standard

deviations

of 1.28

(No.

and

14 ),

1.32.

which
The

had

role-

d e f i n i t i o n item t h a t had t h e most consensus by t h e County Extension
Agents, t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , t h e Exten sio n

Specialists,

and th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team was a pe rs onnel management r o l e
item,

that

r e g io n a l

of

"selecting

staff

for

va c a n t

c oun ty,

Extension p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n th e re g io n "

district

(No. 1 ) ,

and

as viewed

268
by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 0 . 6 0 ,
0.48.

Paraprofessionals

showed t h e

most

0.49,

co nsensus

0.60,

and

on a program

development r o l e item, t h a t o f " f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e t r e n d s o r needs
o f t h e Extension S e r v i c e "

(No. 3 8 ) , which had a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

o f 0 .7 0 .
County Extension Agents showed t h e most v a r i a n c e on a bu dg eting
and f i n a n c i n g

role

item ,

that

of

"overseeing

a p p r o p r i a t e d monies a r e e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d so t h a t

th at
all

county-

staff

have

r e a s o n a b l e su pp or t t o c a r r y out t h e i r Exten sio n program" (No. 109),
which had a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.1 1 .
also

showed t h e most

item ,

th at

of

County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s

v a r i a n c e on a bu dget ing

"overseeing

th at

counties

and f i n a n c i n g
file

th eir

role

annual

Expe nditu re and Ap pro pr ia te d Funds r e p o r t s on time" (No. I l l ) , which
had a 1.07 s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .
The d a t a
differences

presented

in

the

in

Appendix

consensus

D indicate

within

each

that

position

there

group

on

were
the

p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
and a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t
should be performed in Michigan.
consensus
Regional
be

as

in

th e

perceptions

However, t h e r e seemed t o be more
of

the

paraprofessionals

and

the

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s co ncerning what t h e p o s i t i o n should
compared

with t h e i r

c u r r e n t l y being performed,

perceptions

of

how t h e

position

as observed by 55 fewer items

is

fo r the

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and seven fewer items f o r t h e Regional

Exten sio n

S u p e r v i s o r s having a 1.00 or g r e a t e r s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .

The o t h e r

r e s po nd en t

groups

all

showed

less

consensus

c oncer nin g

how t h e

269

p o s i t i o n should be performed, as obs erved by t h e i n c r e a s e d number o f
r o l e items r e c e i v i n g s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r .
However, i t was de ci de d t o t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s f u r t h e r .
B artlett

homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e

test

was c a l c u l a t e d

for

p o s i t i o n groups on each o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
test

is

used

reviewed

come

1964).

to

de te rm in e

from

whether

populations

the

w ith

samples

equal

or

groups

variance

The
the
This
being

(Kerlinger,

Table 58 c o n t a i n s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e B a r t l e t t t e s t f o r each

of the e ig h t a d m in istra tiv e fu n ctio n s.

A pre d e te r m in e d .01 l e v e l o f

s i g n i f i c a n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as i t
should be performed.
no s i g n i f i c a n t

Therefore, th e null hypothesis t h a t th e re is

difference

in

the

consensus

within

each

position

group on t h e p e rc e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e Regional Extension
Supervisor’ s

adm inistrative

role

as

it

should

be

performed

was

r e j e c t e d f o r f o u r out o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f th e
p osition.

The

predeterm ined
management

four

.01

adm inistrative

level

function,

the

of

functions

significance

Extension

were

pro gr am mi ng

that
the

met

the

personnel

function,

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n , and t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g
function.

270

Table 5 8 . - - B a r t l e t t homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e t e s t by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s as t h e y should be performed, f o r t h e s i x
r e s po nden t gro up s.
S i g n i f i c a n c e Level
p = *

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function

.000
.034
.142
.005
.427
.009
.351
.002

Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
Program development
Ext ens ion programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y
Public r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g
*p < .01.

D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r
Group and Each o f t h e Other P o s i t i o n Groups
The n u ll h y p o t h e s i s was p re pa re d t h a t "There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and each
o f t h e o t h e r re sp onden t groups on t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s

held

f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s o f t h e Regional Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
position

as

it

should

be pe rfo rm ed ."

O bse rv a ti o n

e s t a b l i s h e d Table 56 i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s

of

previously

in mean s c o r e s o f

t h e s i x resp on den t groups f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s did
exist.
To d e t e r m i n e
analysis
te c h n i q u e

of

the

variance

partitions

significance
statistical

the

variation

of

these

technique
of

the

was
total

differences,
employed.
sample

into

the
This
th e

v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n t h e t r e a t m e n t groups and t h e v a r i a t i o n between the

271

groups , each p a r t a s s i g n a b l e t o a d i f f e r e n t caus e o r ca us e s (Choa,
1969).

A comparison o f between-column v a r i a t i o n s and within-column

v a r i a t i o n s y i e l d s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e
column means, which i s t h e c e n t r a l i n s i g h t provided by t h e a n a l y s i s
o f v a r i a n c e te ch n i q u e (Hamburg, 1970).
The
functions

results
of the

of

this

Regional

analysis
Extension

of

the

eight

Supervisor’s

adm inistrative
position

as

it

should be performed i n d i c a t e d t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between th e
p o s i t i o n groups.
Table 59.

The r e s u l t s

o f t h e s e a n a ly s e s a r e d i s p l a y e d

in

A predeterm ined l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r each ad m in is ­

t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e .01 l e v e l .

Table 5 9 . -- A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan between Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r s , P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extension Agents,
County Extension D i r e c t o r s , Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and
th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team.
Administrative
Funct i on
Personnel management
Staff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Public r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
f in a n c in g

*p < .01.

Sum of
^nnarpc
~ *1—~*--

df

Between

.3050

5

.0610

.2817

.9231

Between
Between
Between

2.9156
5.8935
1.5801

5
5
5

.5831
1.1787
.3160

1.9671
4.5499
1.1920

.0826
.0005
.3123

Between

2.3459

5

.4692

1.5567

.1713

Between
Between

1.8349
17.6549

5
5

.3670
3.5310

1.2924
7.8326

.2662
.0000

Between

23.5379

5

4.7076

9.1461

.0000

Source

Mean

F

P*

272

The d a t a

in Table 59 r e v e a l e d

adm inistrative
level

f u n c t i o n as i t

of significance.

that

the

program development

should be performed was a t t h e

Thus,

.00

t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s and t h e o t h e r resp onden t,
g rou ps .

The major d i f f e r e n c e was with t h e County Extension Agents

(2 .8 3)

and t h e

Regional

County Extension

Extension

responsibility

for

Directors

Supervisors
that

to

function,

( 2.8 6)

have

as

perceiving

less

compared

than
to

a

the

a

shared

responsibility

for

that

shared
Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ (3 .3 4) p e r c e p t i o n t h a t they should
than

the

have more

function.

The

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( 3 . 0 7 ) , t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ( 3 . 0 6 ) , and th e
Administrative

Program Team

(3. 08)

were

all

in

agreement

that

Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s should have a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for carrying

out t h a t

function

in

th e

Extension

organization

in

Michigan.
The r e s u l t o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t , shown in Table 59,
I U l

* U «

« 11 U 1

4 «

C M C

p U k / l

1C

M^ 1

I C I O t

^

f

I U I I P

im

<■>4* 4 a

I UI I WV

m

IUII

r\ f

^

V I

C M C

IT v / ^ n

| V I I U

I

r

4 n m

U A C C H ' d l V I I

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed was a t t h e .00 l e v e l
of significance.
having

been

With a p redetermined

established,

the

data

.01

indicated

d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between th e Regional
and

the

other

five

respondent

level
that

of

significance
a

significant

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group

groups

w ith

respect

to

th eir

p e r c e p t i o n s re g a rd in g t h e le v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Regional Extension
S u p e rv is o rs should have f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
County

Extension

Agents

(2.41),

the

County

Extension

Directors

273
(2.48),

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (2 .51 ) had t h e l a r g e s t

mean s co r e d i f f e r e n c e s from t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group
mean ( 2 . 8 0 ) .

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s d i s p l a y e d a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e

from t h e Regional Extension S u p e rv is o rs with t h e i r 2.99 mean s c o r e .
However,

their

mean s co r e

helped

to

widen t h e

gap even

further

between t h e s i x re sp onden t g r o u p s ’ mean s c o r e s on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r
adm inistrative function.
The r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e v a l u e ,

from Table 59, f o r

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e budgeting and
f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed, as
compared with t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r resp onden t gro ups ,
.00.

Thus,

a sig n ific a n t difference existed.

Regional

was

Extension

S u p e rv is o rs (2. 98) and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s (2. 99) viewed t h a t f u n c t i o n
as i t

should be performed s i m i l a r l y as a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of

th e p o s i t i o n .

On th e o t h e r hand, County Extension D i r e c t o r s ( 2 . 3 2 ) ,

County Extension Agents

(2.43),

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team (2.81)

indicated

that

(2.59),

and

S u p e rv is o rs

should have l e s s than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more than a minor
r e s p o n s ib ility fo r carrying out th a t p a r ti c u l a r a d m in is tra tiv e
function.
The r e s u l t s
eight

of t h e a n a l y s i s

adm inistrative

of v a r i a n c e t e s t

functions

of

the

on each o f t h e

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed i n d i c a t e d t h e r e were
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h r e e o f th e e i g h t f u n c t i o n s .
the

null

h ypo th e si s

between t h e

Regional

that

there

Extension

a re

no

S up e rv is or

significant
group

Therefore,
differences

and each

of

th e

274

o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups on t h e p e r c e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r t h e
adm inistrative

duties

of the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’ s

p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed was r e j e c t e d .
Respon de nts ’ Views Based on Gender. Age. Formal Edu ca tio n.
Years Employed bv t h e CES. Years in P r e s e n t P o s i t i o n .
Region/Campus A f f i l i a t i o n . S iz e o f Countv S t a f f .
Amount o f Normal C o n t a c t . Type o f C o n ta c t, and
Pe rce nta ge o f Time Spent on A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
The

null

hypothesis

was

established

that

"There

is

no

measur ab le a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e p e rc e iv e d e x p e c t a t i o n s he ld f o r
the

adm inistrative

duties

of the

Regional

Ex te ns ion

Supervisor’s

p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed and t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ ge n d e r , age,
formal

education,

years

employed

by

the

CES,

years

in

present

p o s i t i o n , region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n , s i z e o f county s t a f f , amount o f
normal

contact,

typ e o f c o n t a c t ,

and p e r c e n ta g e o f time s p e n t on

adm inistration.
Gender o f th e re s p o n d e n ts was t h e f i r s t way used t o de te rm in e
differences

in r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y sho uld be performed.
The

data

in

adm inistrative

Table

60

functions

show mean
of

the

resp ons e
Regional

p o s i t i o n , c l a s s i f i e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ’ ge nde r.

scores

for

Ex te ns ion

the

eight

Supervisor’s

275
Tabl e 6 0 . - - R e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as th e y should be performed in Michigan, c l a s s i f i e d by
gen der.

3.31
3 .1 0
2.93
3.21
3.03
3.14
2.57
2.48

Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
Program development
Ext ension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y
Public r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g

The

mean

response

Females
(N=l95)

Males
(N*196)

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function

scores for

six

out

3.2 4
2.97
2. 98
3.34
3. 0 8
3.17
2.64
2.70

of

the

eight

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s were h i g h e r f o r t h e female th a n t h e male
r e s p o n d e n t s , which was a d i r e c t r e v e r s a l o f how t h e y p e r c e i v e d th e
p o s i t i o n t o be c u r r e n t l y performed in Michigan, as p r e v i o u s l y shown
in Table 28.

The male re s p o n d e n ts p e rc e iv e d S u p e r v i s o r s as having a

higher

of

staff

level

responsibility

orientation

for

the

personnel

and development f u n c t i o n s than

management
did the

and

female

respondents.
An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t , a t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in means,
was

used

on

each

adm in istrativ e function

to

de te r m in e

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between t h e two gro u p s .

whether

The d a t a in

Table 61 i n d i c a t e t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e .01 l e v e l was
found between m a l e s ’ and f e m a l e s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e budgeting and
f i n a n c i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n ; s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o
found

to

exist

at

the

.05

l e v e l of

significance

f o r the

staff

276

o r i e n t a t i o n and development and t h e Extension programming f u n c t i o n s .
The o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

f u n c t i o n s did no t meet t h e pre de te rm in ed

.01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .

Table 6 1 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by ge nder o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts in
t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S ta ff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c i n g

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

P*

Between

.3918

1

.3918

1.8192

.1782

Between
Between
Between

1.5157
.2315
1.6895

1
1
1

1.5157
.2315
1.6893

5.0822
.8657
6.4402

.0247
.3527
.0116

Between

3.2394

1

.3239

1.0854

.2982

Between
Between

.0438
.4791

1
1

.0438
.4791

.1546
.9768

.6944
.3236

Between

4.4481

1

4.4481

8.0473

.0048

Source

*p < .01.

To pro vid e meaningful group s i z e s f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
t e s t as i t r e l a t e d t o age o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e r e s p o n d e n ts were
pla ce d in t h e fo ll o w i n g t h r e e age groups:
y e a r s , and 46 y e a r s and o l d e r .

under 35 y e a r s ,

Table 62 shows t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean

s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s by t h e o r i g i n a l
age gro ups.

36-45

five

277
Table 6 2 . -- R e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as th e y should be performed in Michigan, c l a s s i f i e d by
f i v e age gr ou ps .

Administrative
Function

Under 26
Years
(N=7)

26-35
Years
(N=82)

3 .05

3. 3 0

3.18

3.35

3 .34

2.52
3. 05
3.10

3.03
2.97
3.36

2.99
2.87
3.20

3.0 8
2.98
3.29

3 .15
3.11
3.34

2.92

3.13

2.97

3 .0 8

3. 1 8

3.33
2.98
3.11

3. 20
2.65
2.64

3.09
2.52
2.56

3.17
2.63
2.60

3.24
2.67
2.48

Personnel management
S t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and
development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and f i n a n c i n g

An a n a l y s i s

of variance

was u s e d

36-45
Years
(N=145)

on

each

46-55
Years
(N-118)

56+
Years
(N=40)

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n t o de te r m in e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means f o r
t h e t h r e e condensed age c a t e g o r i e s .

The d a t a in Table 63 i n d i c a t e

t h a t t h e pe rsonnel management f u n c t i o n was t h e only a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
function

to

pre de term in ed

hav e
.01

a

sig n ifican t

level

of

difference

significance,

as

observed
seen

p-value fo r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m in is tra tiv e function.

by

at

the

the
.0050

This was down

from t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s showing a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
a t the

.01 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l

as t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e i v e d t o be

c u r r e n t l y performed, as shown in t h e p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d Table 31.

278
Table 6 3 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y should be
performed in Michigan, by t h r e e age groups o f t h e
re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F

P*

df

Between

2.2429

2

1.1214

5.3644

.0050

Between
Between
Between

1.0625
1.6016
1.2438

2
2
2

.5312
.8008
.6219

1.7687
3.0083
2.3728

.1718
.0505
.0946

Between

1.7385

2

.8692

2.9202

.0551

Between
Between

.8990
1.4919

2
2

.4495
.7460

1.5975
1.5141

.2038
.2214

Between

.7926

2

.3963

.7005

.4970

Source

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing
*p < .01.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was
found
formal

in

the

views

of

the

re sp onden ts

in

relationship

e d u c a ti o n with r e s p e c t to two o f t h e e i g h t

functions;

an a d d i t i o n a l

administrative

that

significance

had

were

p-values
public

at

th e

relations

adm inistrative
be

The two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

pred eter min ed
and

their

f u n c t i o n was found t o

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .
functions

to

budge ting

.01
and

level

of

financing.

Data in Tables 64 and 65 show t h e r e s u l t s t o su p p o rt t h i s a n a l y s i s .
To ru n

a more

accurate

analysis

of

variance

test,

the

five

c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d in Table 64 were regrouped i n t o t h e fo ll o w i n g fo u r
gro up in gs :

l e s s than B .S . ,

and D o c t o r ’s deg re e.

B a c h e lo r’ s , M a s te r’ s and S p e c i a l i s t ’ s,

279
Table 64.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by formal education.

Less Than
Administrative
Function

Personnel management

Bachelor's
(N-89)

Master's
(N=170)

Specialist's

Doctor's

(N=55)

(N=3>

(N=81)

3.24

3.29

3.28

3.39

3.28

2.88

3.06

3.04

2.91

3.12

B.S.

Staff orientation and
development
Program development

3.08

2.94

2.87

3.06

Extension programming

3.25

3.36

3.29

3.23

3.05
3.17

3.08

3.12

3.00

3.33

3.07
3.03

Program evaluation and
accountability
Administration and

3.20

3.20

3.18

3.35

Public relations

3.07

2.61

2.45

2.83

2.63

Budgeting and financing

3.11

2.49

2.51

3.08

2.49

policy

Table 6 5 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y should be
performed in Michigan, by formal e d u c a t i o n o f t h e
re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing
*p < . 0 1.

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

.1148

3

.0383

.1813

.9091

Between
Between
Between

2.0240
2.7204
1.4831

3
3
3

.6747
.9068
.4944

2.2425
3.3934
1.8843

.0829
.0180
.1317

Between

.7058

3

.2353

.7674

.5128

Between
Between

1.6500
15.2574

3
3

.5500
5.0858

1.9317
11.3779

.1239
.0000

Between

16.9462

3

5.6487

10.7866

.0000

Source

F

P*

280
Examination o f Table 64 r e v e a l s much s i m i l a r i t y in mean s cor e
re s p o n s e s f o r t h e s i x p o s i t i o n gr oups .

The f i r s t s i x a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

f u n c t i o n s e x h i b i t e d a mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e o f .33 o r l e s s .
was

a

greater

difference,

however,

among

p e r c e p t i o n s co nc ern in g t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

the

There

respondents’

and t h e bu dge tin g and

f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s , as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e .62 mean s co r e
differences.
function

The

was

Supervisors

greatest

difference

shown between t h e

on

the

M a s t e r ’ s group

public
( 2 .4 5 )

relations
perceiving

t o have more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y bu t l e s s than

a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n
as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts wit h l e s s th a n a B.S. d e gr e e (3.07)
perceiving

Supervisors

position.

The r e s p o n d e n ts w ith B a c h e l o r ’ s de g re e s ( 2 .4 9 ) and th o s e

with

D octor’ s

as

degrees

having

(2.49)

a s ha r ed

v ie w ed

responsibility

the

Regional

for

th e

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e in t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n as being
more

than

a

minor

resp o n sib ility

but

less

than

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts with l e s s than a B.S.
degre e (3 .1 1) and t h o s e with a S p e c i a l i s t ’ s de gre e ( 3 .0 8 ) p e r c e i v i n g
th e S u p e r v i s o r s as having a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out
th a t function of t h e i r p o sitio n .
Length o f s e r v i c e with t h e C ooper ati ve Extens ion S e r v i c e was
t h e f o u r t h way used t o de te r m in e d i f f e r e n c e s
perceptions

of

the

Regional

Extension

in

the

Supervisor’ s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be performed
Table

66

displays

the

mean

employed-by-CES c a t e g o r i e s ,

scores

for

which were

the
less

respondents’

six
than

various

in Michigan.

original

years-

12 months,

1-5

281

y e a r s , 6-10 y e a r s , 11-15 y e a r s , 16-20 y e a r s , and over 20 y e a r s .

For

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e p u rp os e s, th o s e s i x c a t e g o r i e s were regrouped
i n t o f o u r gro upi ngs in o r d e r t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
test.

The f o u r new group ings were 5 y e a r s o f l e s s ,

6-10 y e a r s ,

11-15 y e a r s , and 16 o r more y e a r s .

Table 66.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by length of service with the CES.

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

Over 20

Administrative

1 Year

Years

Years

Years

Years

Years

Function

(N=6)

<N=100)

(N=92)

(M=75)

<N=53)

(N=69)

Personnel management

3.51

3.24

3.25

3.29

3.21

3.37
3.21
3.09

Less Than

Staff orientation and
3.08

2.91

3.13

2.96

3.00

Program development

development

3.23
3.47

2.96
3.30

2.89

Extension programming

2.98
3.27

3.27

2.81
3.20

3.33

Program evaluation and
accountabiIi ty

3.03

3.05

3.08

3.00

3.04

3.12

3.33

3.15

3.16

3.12

3.13

3.25

3.04
3.30

2.76
2.71

2.54
2.53

2.55
2.56

2.51
2.60

2.61
2.53

Administration and
policy
Public relations
R n r i g p t i n a nnri f i n a n c i n g

The d a t a

in Table 67 i n d i c a t e t h a t

existed a t the

.01 l e v e l

and d e v e l o p m e n t

(2. 96 )

that

function,

of

res p o n d en ts

service

with

difference

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n
as

observed

sig nificance for th a t p a r tic u la r function.
reveals

a significant

with
th e

1-5

years

Coop erati ve

by t h e

.0 0 6 5

level

of

Examination o f Table 66
(2 .91 )

and

Extension

11-15
Service

years
both

282
p e r c e iv e d
shared

Regional

Extension

responsibility

orientation
performed,

and

Supervisors

(means

development

less

as

than

function

as

having

3.00)
the

less

for

th a n

the

position

a

staff

should

be

as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts wi th l e s s th a n one y e a r

( 3 . 0 8 ) , t h o s e with 6-10 y e a r s ( 3 . 1 3 ) , t h o s e w ith 16-20 y e a r s ( 3 . 0 0 ) ,
and

those

with

over

20 y e a r s

of

service

( 3 .2 1 )

perceiving

S u p e r v i s o r s t o have more than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

the

(means over

3 .0 0) f o r t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .

Table 6 7 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extens ion S upe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e y should be
performed in Michigan, by l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e wi th t h e CES
o f th e res p o n d en ts in t h i s s tu d y .
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Proaram e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

.2168

3

.0723

.3348

.8002

Between
Between
Between

3.6512
.5446
.0477

3
3
3

1.2172
.1815
.0159

4.1479
.6721
.0593

.0065
.5696
.9811

Between

.3795

3

.1265

.4205

.7384

Between
Between

.2833
3.5868

3
3

.0944
1.1956

.3279
2.4514

.8052
.0631

Between

2.8105

3

.9368

1.6655

.1740

Source

F

P*

*p < .01.

No

significant

difference

was

found

in

the

views

of

th e

re s p on de nt s and th e number o f y e a r s they had been in t h e i r p r e s e n t
positions.

Data in Tables 68 and 69 show t h e r e s u l t s

to

su pport

283

th is analysis.

This was t h e same c o n c l u s i o n drawn c on ce rn in g th e

p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.

However, t h e p - v a l u e s

r e f l e c t e d in Table 69 a r e much l a r g e r th a n t h o s e in t h e p r e v i o u s l y
d i s c u s s e d Table 37.

Table 68.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by years in present position.

Less Than
Administrative

1 Year

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

Over 20

Years

Years

Years

Years

Years

Function

(N=25)

<N=135 >

(N=109)

(N=65)

(N=32)

(N=30)

Personnel management

3.44

3.24

3.21

3.25

3.25

3.34

Staff orientation and
3.11

2.95

3.08

3.18

3.09

2.98

3.12
2.94

2.98

Program development

2.85

2.88

3.14

Extension programming

3.34

2.2 7

3.31

3.22

3.28

3.26

3.14

3.08

3.03

2.96

3.12

3.12
3.07

development

Program evaluation and
accountabiIity
Administration and
3.30

3.15

3.20

3.12

3.13

Public relations

2.61

2.66

2.52

2.59

2.68

2.71

Budgeting and financing

2.79

2.65

2.51

2.53

2.73

2.55

policy

284
Table 6 9 . -- A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by y e a r s in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n o f
th e res po nd en ts in t h i s stu dy.
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

.0809

3

.0270

.1234

.9457

Between
Between
Between

2.0536
1.1450
.3280

3
3
3

.6845
.3817
.1093

2.3072
1.4220
.4076

.0762
.2359
.7476

Between

1.1086

3

.3695

1.2302

.2984

Between
Between

.4804
1.6522

3
3

.1601
.5507

.5661
1.1161

.6377
.3424

Between

2.2124

3

.7375

1.3000

.2741

Source

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c in g

F

P*

*p < .01.

Region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n was t h e nex t way used t o de term in e
d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being held by t h e re s p o n d e n ts toward
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed in Michigan.
th e

respondents’

categories:

mean

scores

Upper P e n i n s u l a ,

according
North,

Southwest, West C e n t r a l , and Campus.
that

sig n ifican t

differences

to

Table 70 d i s p l a y s

the

f o ll o w i n g

East C e n tra l,

seven

Southeast,

The d a t a in Table 71 i n d i c a t e

were f ound

at

the

.01

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h r e e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as compared
with s i x as t h e p o s i t i o n

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed,

th e p r e v i o u s l y d is c u s s e d Table 39.

as seen in

285
Table 70.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by region/campus affiliation.

Administrative

Upper
Peninsula

Function

East
Central

South­

North

east

South­
west

Uest
Central

Campus

(N=33)

(N=45)

(N=44)

(N=66)

(N=54)

(N=52)

CN=105 >

3.55

3.36

3.33

3.20

3.13

3.18

3.31

Personnel management
Staff orientation and

3.20

3.05

2.99

2.92

2.95

2.97

3.14

Program development

3.08

3.05

2.96

2.83

2.81

2.85

3.08

Extension programming

3.48

3.34

3.23

3.24

3.28

3.27

3.25

3.18

2.92

2.95

3.06

3.02

3.07

3.13

3.39

3.24

3.13

3.17

3.07

3.09

3.15

2.85

2.83

2.51

2.66

2.38

2.42

2.65

2.76

2.50

2.48

2.78

2.41

2.47

2.66

development

Program evaluation
and accountability
Administration and
policy
Public relations
Budgeting and
financing

Table 7 1 . -- A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n of
t h e res pon den ts in t h i s st udy.
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
f in a n c in g

*p < .01.

Source

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

5.1286

6

Between
Between
Between

3.5868
5.2583
1.7812

Between

F

P*

.8548

4.1400

.0005

6
6
6

.5978
.8764
.2969

1.9960
3.3191
1.1298

.0653
.0034
.3441

2.4875

6

.4146

1.3638

.2281

Between
Between

2.8697
9.1724

6
6

.4783
1.5287

1.6870
3.2286

.1229
.0042

Between

7.0720

6

1.1787

2.0949

.0530

286

The t h r e e
greater

than

adm inistrative
the

functions

pred etermined

.01

with

level

significance

of

levels

significance

were

personnel management, program development, and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s .
review

of

Table

70

shows

that

th e

resp on den ts

from

Pen in s u la (3. 55) regio n i n d i c a t e d t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l
o f the Regional

the

personnel

res pondent s

management

from t h e

management

The lowe st mean re s p o n se s c o r e s

function

Southwest

Upper

o f involvement

Extension S up e rv is o rs on t h e pers onnel

fu n c t i o n as i t should be performed.
on

the

A

r e g io n

were
(3.13),

regio n ( 3 . 1 8 ) , and t h e So u th e a st r e g io n ( 3 . 2 0 ) .

provided

by

the

Central

West

the

However, th e y a l l

agreed t h a t Regional Extension S up e rv is or s should have more than a
shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t f u n c t i o n (means g r e a t e r than 3 . 0 0 ) .
The o t h e r

respondent

groups

were

fairly

consistent

in

th eir

re sp ons es r e l a t i v e t o t h i s f u n c t i o n , wit h mean s c o r e s rangin g from
3.31 to 3.3 6 .
The campus-based respo ndent group (3 .08)
from

the

Upper

Peninsula

region

(3.08)

and t h e

re s p o n d en ts

indicated

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e rv is o rs in t h e program
development
(2.81)

function,

and t h e

whereas

S outhe ast

th e

(2.83)

re s p on de nt s
r e g io n s

from t h e

indicated

that

Southwest
Regional

Extension S u p e rv is o rs should have l e s s than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for

carrying

observed

out

by t h e i r

that

particular

respective

mean

adm inistrative
response

scores

function,
in

Table

as
70.

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ’ involvement in t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s
fu n c t i o n had the h i g h e s t mean s cor es from th e Upper Pe n in s u la (2.85)

287
and North ( 2.83) r e g i o n r e s p o n d e n t s .
the

Supervisors

carrying

as having

out th a t

re s p o n d e n ts

from

nearly

adm inistrative
the

Southwest

Those re s p o n d e n ts p e r c e i v e d
a shared

resp o n sib ility

function

(2 .38)

as

and

co m par ed

West

to

Central

for
the

(2. 42)

r e g i o n s i n d i c a t i n g Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s should have l i t t l e
more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with r e s p e c t

to

that

particular

adm inistrative function.
Size

of

county

staff

was

another

way

used

to

identify

d i f f e r e n c e s in th e p e r c e p t i o n s being he ld by t h e re s p o n d e n t s toward
the

Regional

Extension

performed in Michigan.
sig n ifican t

S upervisor’ s p o sitio n

as

it

should

be

The d a t a found in Table s 72 and 73 show t h a t

d ifferences

at

the

predeterm ined

.01

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e e x i s t e d between r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e v a r i o u s s i z e s o f
counties

on t h e

development,
public

and

relations

observed
function.

by t h e

pe rs onnel
the

adm inistration

the

and

significant

.0140

on t h a t

p-value

staff

policy

f u n c t i o n was

at

orientation
functions.

the

particular

.05

level,

and
The
as

adm inistrative

Respondents from c o u n t i e s wit h more than t e n p r o f e s s i o n a l

and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l
Regional

management,

s t a f f members c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

should have l e s s

responsibility

on

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s th a n did t h e re s p o n d e n ts from c o u n t i e s
with fewer th a n ten s t a f f members.

288
Table 72.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed in
Michigan, classified by size of county staff (professional and paraprofessional).

Administrative
Function

Personnel management

3 or Less

4-9

10-15

16-21

Persons

Persons

Persons

(N=43>

(N=128)

<N*39)

Persons
(N=28)

22 or More
Persons
(N*30)

3.37

3.32

3.16

3.07

2.98

3.03

3.09

2.76

2.80

2.76
2.72

Staff orientation and
development
Program development

2.92

2.95

2.87

2.76

Extension programming

3.38

3.33

3.20

3.19

3.12

3.04

3.10

2.91

2.88

2.95

Program evaluation and
accountabiIity
Administration and
3.30

3.25

3.08

Public relations

poIicy

2.82

2.62

2.56

2.92
2.21

2.50

2.94

Budgeting and financing

2.55

2.61

2.64

2.32

2.49

Table 7 3 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S upe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by s i z e o f county s t a f f o f t h e
re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s s tu dy.
Administrative
Function
Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

*p < . 01 .

Sum o f
Squares

P*

df

Mean
Square

F

Source
Between

4.6667

4

1.1667

5.8657

.0002

Between
Between
Between

5.9744
1.9065
1.9863

4
4
4

1.4939
.4766
.4966

5.1224
1.8912
2.0619

.0005
.1124
.0862

Between

2.1534

4

.5383

1.9086

.1094

Between
Between

4.9855
6.1679

4
4

1.2464
1.5420

4.8515
3.1913

.0009
.0140

Between

2.2009

4

.5502

.8881

.4715

289

Examination o f Table 72 r e v e a l s t h a t re s p o n d e n t s from c o u n t i e s
with t h r e e o r l e s s p r o f e s s i o n a l
(3 .3 7)

and

those

with

4-9

and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

staff

members

( 3 .3 2 )

s t a f f members
perceived

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having more t h a n a s har ed bu t l e s s
than a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e pers onnel management f u n c t i o n o f
t h e p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed, as compared w it h re s p o n d e n ts
from l a r g e r - s i z e c o u n t i e s p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
as a s har ed one.

Respondents from c o u n t i e s wit h 22 o r more s t a f f

members and th o s e from c o u n t i e s wit h 16-21 s t a f f members i n d i c a t e d
t h e low est l e v e l o f Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r involvement with

respect to th a t p a r t ic u la r ad m in istrativ e function.
Regional

Extension

Supervisor

responsibility

for

the

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n as i t should be performed was
seen t o be t h e g r e a t e s t by re s p o n d e n ts from c o u n t i e s with 4-9 s t a f f
members (3 .0 9) and c o u n t i e s with t h r e e o r l e s s s t a f f members ( 3 . 0 3 ) .
Respondents from c o u n t i e s with 22 o r more s t a f f members ( 2 .7 6 ) and
in

i c

I V IJ

^ 4- ^

rr

dial I

IIICHIUCf d

/ o

n c\

\ t . • t \J J

k^+k

UUlll

~ ~~~ ~ a

~

pci C C I V C U

a

«~-»i

l\Cl| lUlia I

LAtClld IUII

S u p e r v i s o r involvement with r e s p e c t t o t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n
as being l e s s than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
r e s p o n s ib il ity of the p o sitio n .

but more than a minor

Likewise, re s p o n d e n t s from c o u n t i e s

with 16-21 s t a f f members (2 .92 ) and 21 o r more s t a f f members (2. 94)
p e r c e iv e d t h e Regional Extension -Su pervisors as having l e s s th a n a
sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n as
compared with re s p o n d e n ts from c o u n t i e s with fewer th a n t h r e e s t a f f
members

(3. 30)

and with 4-6 s t a f f members

(3 .2 5)

perceiving

that

290
Supervisors

should

have

more

th a n

a

s ha re d

responsibility

for

carrying out t h a t a d m in is tra tiv e function.
The p u b l i c

relatio n s

function

of

the

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n , which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e
l e v e l , was p e r c e i v e d t o be a h i g h e r l e v e l

a c t i v i t y of the position

by t h e re s p o n d e n t s from c o u n t i e s wit h t h r e e o r fewer s t a f f members
( 2 .8 2 ) t h a n i t was by t h o s e from c o u n t i e s with 16-21 s t a f f members
( 2 . 21).

The normal amount o f c o n t a c t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s have with Regional
E x t e n s i o n S u p e r v i s o r s was a n o t h e r c r i t e r i o n
significant

differences

in t h e

views o f t h e

used t o d e te r m in e
various

respondents.

Table 74 shows t h e mean s c o r e s f o r t h e o r i g i n a l s i x c a t e g o r i e s o f no
contact,

1-2 times p e r y e a r ,

month, 1-2 times p e r week,

1-2 time s p e r q u a r t e r ,

1-2 ti m e s per

and more th a n 2 time s p e r week.

For

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e p u r p o s e s , c a t e g o r i e s 5 and 6 in Table 74 were
combined.

Table 75 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t th e

.01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e oc cu r re d with t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g
f u n c t i o n , as observed by t h e .0026 p - v a l u e .

291
Table 74.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by the normal amount of contact they have with
the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.

1-2

1-2

1-2

> 2

Times/

Administrative

No

Function

Contact

Times/
Year

Quarter

Month

Times/
Ueek

T imes/
Ueek

(N=25)

(N=96)

(N=136)

(N*117)

(N=18>

(N=10)

3.16

3.20

3.34

3.26

3.35

3.41

2.89

Personnel management

Times/

1-2

Staff orientation and
2.99

3.08

3.20

3.03

2.98
2.98

3.13

Program development

2.99

2.84

2.98

3.03

Extension programming

3.23

3.20

3.35

3.25

3.29

3.44

2.89

3.07

3.10

3.17

3.11

3.04

3.23

3.02
3.16

3.05

Administration and policy

3.39

Public relations

2.82
2.98

2.79
2.71

2.57

2.47
2.41

2.59
2.75

3.33
2.58

development

Program evaluation and
accountability

Budgeting and financing

2.60

2.70

Table 7 5 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Supe r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as they should be
performed in Michigan, by t h e amount o f normal c o n t a c t
t h e res pondent s in t h i s stu dy have with t h e p o s i t i o n of
Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r .

Function

Source

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
fi n a n c in g

Between

1.6807

4

Between
Between
Between

2.5098
1.8994
1.3803

Between

F

P*

.4202

1.9713

.0981

4
4
4

.6274
.4749
.3451

2.0988
1.7615
1.3037

.0803
.1358
.2680

1.0627

4

.2657

.8754

.4787

Between.
Between

3.1331
6.0409

4
4

.7833
1.5102

2.7568
3.1654

.0277
.0141

Between

9.1953

4

2.2988

4.1512

.0026

AHmini5t.rat.ivp

*p < .01 .

292
Examination o f Table 74 f u r t h e r r e v e a l s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s who
were in c o n t a c t with Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

1-2 t i m e s per

month (2. 41 ) and t h o s e in c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n 1-2 ti m e s per
quarter

(2.57)

Supervisor
respondents

indicated

lower

levels

of

involvement w it h r e g a r d t o t h i s
who had

no

contact

wit h

Regional

function

the

position

Extension

th a n d i d

th e

(2.98).

The

re s p o n d e n t groups who came in c o n t a c t with t h e Regional

Exten sio n

S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n 1-2 tim e s p e r y e a r ( 2 . 7 1 ) ,

1-2 ti m e s p e r week

(2.75),

were c o n s i s t e n t

and more th a n 2 tim e s p e r week (2 .7 0)

t h e i r views o f th e p o s i t i o n with r e s p e c t t o

its

in

public r e la tio n s

f u n c t i o n , as viewed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean s c o r e s .
Two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l
of sig n ifican ce:

the ad m inistration

public

function.

relations

predeterm ined
investigation.

.01

Although

significance

The

and p o l i c y

r e s p o n d e n ts

they

level,
who

they

were

in

function

did

not

and the
me et

deserve
contact

the

further
with

th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n 1-2 time s p e r week ( 3 .3 9 ) or
more (3.33) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should
have

more

than

respo n sib ility

a

s ha re d

responsibility

fo r the a d m in is tra tio n

but

less

and p o l i c y

than

a

major

function,

as

compared w ith t h e r e s p o n d e n ts who came in c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n
1-2 times p e r y e a r ( 3 . 0 4 ) o r l e s s ( 3.1 1) p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as being a sh ared one.

However, t h e re s p o n d e n t s who

came in c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n 1-2 tim e s p e r y e a r ( 2 .7 9 ) o r l e s s
( 2 .8 2 ) th oug ht the p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should
have

a higher

level

of

involvement

w it h

respect

to

the

public

293

r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n than d id t h e re s p o n d e n ts who came
in c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n 1-2 times p e r q u a r t e r ( 2 . 6 0 ) , p e r month
( 2 . 4 7 ) , p e r week ( 2 . 5 9 ) , o r 2 o r more tim e s p e r week ( 2 . 5 8 ) .
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount o f c o n t a c t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had with
t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ,
to t e s t
the

for differences

basis

Regional

o f the

respondents’

in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s t h e re s p o n d e n ts had on

type o f contact

Extension

Supervisor.

responses,

t h e y had with
The

acc ord ing

mean

to

the

normally had with t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
are

displayed

(face-to-face

in Table
m eetings,

thr o u g h o u t t h e y e a r ) ,
only,

o c c a s io n a l

i t was de cid e d a l s o

76.

The

letters,

six
and

the

score
typ e

position

values
of

for

contact

th e
they

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s ,

categories

were

telephone

everything

conversations

l e t t e r s and t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,

contact

of

a t meetings o r e v e n t s ,

letters

and l i t t l e

o r no

contact.
Two o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , as seen in Table 77, had
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e pre de te rm in ed
can ce .

.01 l e v e l

of s i g n i f i ­

They were p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and budge tin g and f i n a n c i n g .

For

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e p u rp o s e s , c a t e g o r i e s 3 and 4 in Table 76 were
combined.

294
Table 76.--Respondents' mean scores for the eight administrative functions of the
Regional Extension Supervisor's position as they should be performed
in Michigan, classified by the normal type of contact they have with
the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.

Administrative
Function

Every­

Letters

Letters

Phone

Contact at

Little

Meetings/

or No

thing8

& Phone

Only

Events

Contact

(N=236)

(N=26)

(N=10)

(N*1)

(N=86)

(N=40)

3.30

3.26

3.30

3.06

3.23

3.31

3.04

Personnel management

Only

Staff orientation and
3.00

3.23

3.00

3.10
3.00

3.05

2.90

3.01
3.03

2.54

Program development
Extension programming

3.29

3.37

3.37

3.00

3.24

3.25

3.05

2.97

3.20

3.00

3.11

3.03

3.20

3.13

3.39

3.70

3.05

3.16

2.49

2.59

2.47

2.51

2.99
3.41

2.38
3.67

2.77
2.64

3.08

development

3.07

Program evaluation and
accountability
Administration and
policy
Public relations
Budgeting and financing

2.97

Face-to-face meetings, letters, and telephone conversations throughout the
year.

An examination o f Table 76 a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t

re s p o n d e n ts who

had c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in a
v a r i e t y o f ways (2.49) and by l e t t e r s and te le p h o n e c a l l s t h r o u g h o u t
the

year

(2.59)

rated

the

Regional

Extension

S upervisor’ s

involvement with t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n lower
than did

those

res p o n d en ts who had c o n t a c t wit h

the

l e t t e r s only ( 2 . 9 9 ) , by te le p h o n e c a l l s only ( 3 . 3 8 ) ,

position

by

by c o n t a c t a t

meetings or e v en ts ( 2 . 7 7 ) , or by th o s e re s p o n d e n ts who had l i t t l e or
no c o n t a c t wit h the p o s i t i o n ( 2 . 9 7 ) , as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
mean s c o r e s .

Likewise,

t h e res pon de nts who had c o n t a c t with th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r p o s i t i o n through a v a r i e t y o f methods

295

( 2 .4 7 ) and by l e t t e r s and t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r ( 2. 51 )
perceived

the

Regional

Exten sio n

Supervisor’ s

involvement

in

the

bu dge tin g and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n t o be one whole c a t e g o r y lower than
the

respondents

who had

contact

wit h

the

l e t t e r s ( 3. 4 1) o r t e l e p h o n e c a l l s ( 3 . 6 7 ) .

position

only

thr oug h

The f i r s t group p e r c e i v e d

t h i s as being l e s s th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , whereas t h e second
group c o n s i d e r e d

the Supervisor’s

involvement t o

be more t h a n

a

s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

Table 7 7 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension S up e r­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by t h e t y p e o f normal c o n t a c t t h e
re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s stu dy have wit h t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
Administrative
Function

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

.4767

4

.1192

.5538

.6963

Between
Between
Between

2.6018
2.3265
.4581

4
4
4

.6505
.5816
.1145

2.2010
2.1570
.4254

.0682
.0732
.7903

Between

.6897

4

.1724

.5637

.6891

Between
Between

2.0341
11.8813

4
4

.5085
2.9703

1.7602
6.3763

.1361
.0001

Between

20.6184

4

5.1546

9.8281

.0000

Source

F

P*

*p < .01.

The f i n a l

item used to

identify

possible

differences

in

the

respondents’ perceptions for the eight a d m in istrativ e functions of

296

th e

Regional

performed

in

Extension S u p e rv is o r’ s p o s itio n
Michigan

was

the

percentage

of

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Extens ion s t a f f o r programs.

as
time

should

spent

in

be
th e

Five c a t e g o r i e s were

o r i g i n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d and can be seen in Table 78:
20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, and over 60%.

it

none, l e s s than

For t h e a n a l y s i s

of variance

p u r p o s e s , c a t e g o r i e s 4 and 5 in Table 78 were combined in o r d e r to
run a more a c c u r a t e s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t .

Table 7 8 . - - R e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n
as t h e y should be performed in Michigan, c l a s s i f i e d by
t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f time s p en t a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension
s t a f f o r programs.
A dministrative
Function

None
(N=74)

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
policy
Public r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

20% & Under
(N=74)

21-40%
(N-57)

41-60%
(N-17)

Over 60%
(N=32)

3.25

3.29

3.29

3.14

3.25

3.00
3.06
3.30

3.05
2.86
3.27

3.02
2.84
3.15

3.00
2.89
3.23

3.13
3.03
3.39

3.16

3.00

2.99

3.00

3.19

3.20
2.75

3.17
2.51

3.20
2.43

3 .0 8
2.49

3.18
2.53

2.70

2.48

2.50

2.55

2.56

An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t o f t h e mean re s ponse s c o r e s (Table
79)
le v e l

indicated th a t

no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

of s ig n ific a n ce .

However,

existed

at

the

.01

t h e program development f u n c t i o n

297
and the public relations function both w er e significant at the .05
level of significance and therefore warrant more investigation.

Table 7 9 . - - A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h e Regional Extension Super­
v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y should be
performed in Michigan, by t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f time sp en t
a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension s t a f f o r programs.
Administrative
Function

Sum o f
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Between

.2227

3

.0742

.3254

.8070

Between
Between
Between

.2374
2.2071
1.0633

3
3
3

.0791
.7357
.3544

.2333
2.7730
1.3412

.8731
.0421
.2615

Between

1.5699

3

.5233

1.5539

.2012

Between
Between

.1231
3.9783

3
3

.0410
1.3261

.1411
2.8044

.9353
.0404

Between

2.0918

3

.6973

1.3154

.2699

Source

Personnel management
S taff orientation
and development
Program development
Extension programming
Program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
A d m in is tr a ti o n and
policy
Pub lic r e l a t i o n s
Budgeting and
financing

F

P*

*p < .01.

The res po nd en ts with
and t h o s e

with

61% o r

involvement o f Regional

no a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

more

responsibility

responsibility
(3.03)

(3.06)

p e rc e iv e d

the

Extension S u p e r v is o r s wit h r e s p e c t t o t h e

program development fu n c t i o n to be a t l e a s t a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
(means g r e a t e r than 3 . 0 0 ) , whereas t h e re s p o n d en ts with l e s s

than

20% o f t h e i r time spent a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension s t a f f o r programs
( 2 . 8 6 ) , th e respo nden ts with 21-40% a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( 2 . 8 4 ) , and th o s e
with

41-60%

pe rceiv ed

th e

of

their

time

spen t

on

adm inistration

Supervisor’s re s p o n s ib ility

for that

(2. 89 )

all

adm inistrative

298

f u n c t i o n t o be l e s s than s h a r e d .

The r e s p o n d e n ts who had 21-40% o f

t h e i r time sp en t on a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension s t a f f or programs (2 .4 3)
p e rc e iv e d t h e involvement o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r with
re g a rd t o t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n t o be lower
than

did

the

re s p o n d e n ts

adm inistration

(2.75).

none

The o t h e r

agreement as t o t h e l e v e l
Supervisor,

who had

of

their

respondent

time

spent

on

groups

w ere

in

o f involvement o f t h e Regional Extension

as observed by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e mean s c o r e s

(2 .4 9

to

2.53).
The n u l l
between

the

functions
should

be

hypothesis
p e rc e iv e d

of the

expectations

Regional

performed

concerning th e measurable a s s o c i a ti o n

was

he ld

for

th e

adm inistrative

Extension

Supervisor’s position

rejected

for

eight

out

of

as

the

it
ten

independent v a r i a b l e s because s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in
t h e mean s c o r e s f o r one o f th e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with
r e s p e c t t o each o f t h e f o ll o w i n g c r i t e r i a o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts :

their

gender, t h e i r a g e . t.he number o f ye a r ? t h e y had been employed by t h e
CES, and t h e amount o f normal c o n t a c t th e y had with t h e p o s i t i o n of
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found

in two o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with r e s p e c t

to the

fol lo w in g c r i t e r i a :

t h e i r formal e d uc a tio n and th e ty p e o f c o n t a c t

they

with

norm ally

Supervisor.
eight

had

Significant

adm inistrative

criteria:

the

position

d i f f e r e n c e s were

functions

with

of

Regional

found

respect

t h e i r region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n

in
to

and the

Extension

three
the
size

of

th e

follow ing
of th eir

299
county s t a f f .
respect

to

percentage

Although t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s d i f f e r e d with
th eir

of

time

length
the y

o f tim e
s p en t

in

present

administering

position
Exten sio n

and
staff

the
or

programs, t h e n u ll h y p o t h e s i s was no t r e j e c t e d f o r t h o s e indep enden t
variables

but

was

rejected

for

the

other

eight

independent

variables.
Comparison o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nc tio ns a t t h e Regional
Level as They Are C u r r e n t l y Being Performed and
as They Should Be Performed in Michigan
This s e c t i o n o f Chapter IV was desi gne d t o p r e s e n t t h e a n a l y s i s
of

the

mean

respondents’

s cor e

differences

perceptions

p o s i t i o n as i t

of

that

the

were

Regional

observed
Extension

between

the

Supervisor’s

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed, as shown in Table 24,

and as i t should be performed, as shown in Table 56.

Table 80 shows

t h e mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s and ra nk o r d e r o f r e s p o n s e s f o r t h e e i g h t
adm inistrative
position,

functions

of

the

which were c a l c u l a t e d

Regional

Extension

by s u b t r a c t i n g

Supervisor’s

t h e mean resp on se

s c o r e s f o r each o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y are
c u r r e n t l y being performed from t h e mean re s po ns e s c o r e s f o r how i t
was p e rc e iv e d the y should be performed in Michigan.
Examination o f Table 80 r e v e a l s t h a t t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and
development f u n c t i o n was t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n
greatest

difference

that

had the

between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e i v e d

to

c u r r e n t l y performed and how i t should be performed in Michigan.
th e

re sp onden t groups

Specialists

(means o f

( .1 6 ) and t h e Regional

.42 t o

.65)

e xce pt t h e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

be
All

Extension
(.49)

had

Table 80.--Mean response score differences for eight administrative functions as they are currently being performed and as
they should be performed by Regional Extension Supervisors, by each of six respondent groups.

Respondent Group
Administrative Function

Total

Mean

CEA
(N=149)

PA
(N=81>

(N=382)
Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

CED
(N=62)

Rank

Mean

APT
(N=37)

SPEC
(N=73)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

RS
CN=5)

Rank

Mean

Rank

Staff orientation and develop­
ment (NI=15)

0.52

1

0.64

1

0.65

1

0.42

1

0.16

3

0.46

1

0.49

2

Program development (NI=16)

0.41

2

0.55

3.5

0.50

3

0.36

2

0.23

2

0.38

2

0.51

1

Extension programming (NI=16)

0.40

3

0.49

5

0.53

2

0.30

4

0.25

1

0.34

4

0.23

6

Public relations (NI=8)

0.35

4.5

0.55

3.5

0.42

5

0.31

3

0.10

4

0.28

6

0.40

3

Budgeting and financing (NI=9)

0.35

4.5

0.60

2

0.49

4

0.29

5

-0.01

8

0.33

5

0.14

7.5

Program evaluation and
accountability (NI=12)

0.29

6.5

0.46

7

0.34

7

0.27

6

0.03

5.5

0.36

3

0.29

5

Personnel management (NI=18)

0.29

6.5

0.46

7

0.37

6

0.26

7

0.00

7

0.25

7

0.37

4

Administration and policy
(NI=20)

0.22

8

0.46

7

0.26

8

0.16

8

0.03

5.5

0.21

8

0.14

7.5

Note:

NI = number of items.

301

th eir

larg est

adm inistrative

mean

score

function.

difference

The

on

Extension

th is

p articu lar

Specialists

showed

g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e i v e d

the

to

be

c u r r e n t l y performed and how i t should be performed on t h e Extens ion
programming f u n c t i o n ,

foll owed by t h e program development f u n c t i o n

and then t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n , as seen by
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e .25,
p articu lar

.23, and .16 mean d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s f o r t h o s e

adm inistrative

Supervisors

functions.

had t h e g r e a t e s t

The R e g i o n a l

difference

Extension

shown on t h e

p ro g r a m

development f u n c t i o n and th e n t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development
f u n c t i o n , as observed by t h e i r .51 and .49 mean d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s .
The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n had t h e

s m a l l e s t mean

s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e va lu e f o r t h e County Extension Agents
County Extension
Team ( . 2 1 ) .
values

for

the
anH

function,

as

scores

(.16),

and t h e

A dministrative

the

Program

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s had equal mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e

oi/aluatinn

scores.

Directors

(.26),

adm inistration

and

policy

a r r n i m t ahi 1 i + v f i m r t i n n

observed

by

their

function,

and t h o

respective

the

nopcnnnol

.46

mean

program

mananomont

difference

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t s had t h e i r l e a s t mean d i f f e r e n c e
on

personnel

the

budgeting

and

financing

management f u n c t i o n

(.0 0 ).

function

(-.01)

The R e g i o n a l

and

the

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s a l s o had a t i e f o r t h e i r s m a l l e s t mean d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e ,
as observed by t h e .14 mean d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n and t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n .

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISOR’ S ROLE
IN MICHIGAN’ S COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
VOLUME II

By
Raymond John C la rk

A DISSERTATION
Submitted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts
f o r t h e degre e o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l and Extension Education

302

D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e P o s i t i o n as I t Is C u r r e n t l y
Performed and as I t Should Be Performed
The n u l l hy p o th e si s was pre pared t h a t "There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
differences

between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e

expectations

held

for

the

administrative

duties

of

pe rc ei ve d

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in Michigan as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s concerning t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y being held f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

of

f u n c t i o n s o f th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t shou ld be performed
in

Michigan."

indicates

that

Observ ation
differences

of

previously

in mean s c o r e s

established
of

the

six

Table

80

respo nde nt

groups f o r t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
being performed and as t h e y should be performed d i d e x i s t .
To deter mine t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e p a i r e d
t - t e s t form of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was s e l e c t e d .

This te c h n i q u e is

used when two samples c o n s i s t of p a i r s o f o b s e r v a t i o n s on t h e same
i n d i v i d u a l , o b j e c t , o r , more g e n e r a l l y , t h e same s e l e c t e d p o p u la ti o n
olompntc

~ —

(Hamhurn.
10701
if t
. - ■
\ ■■

— ■

-

/

-

Thp nurnnsp o f
. . . _

r

— • r

-

-

-

-

nairina
,

w

is

to

reduce

ex tra ne ous i n f l u e n c e s on t h e v a r i a b l e being measured and t o reduce
t h e e f f e c t o f s u b j e c t - t o - s u b j e c t v a r i a b i l i t y (Nie e t a l . , 1975).
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s p a i r e d t - t e s t form o f a n a l y s i s on t h e mean
sco re

difference

Regional

for

the

eight

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

as

it

functions

of

th e

i s c u r r e n t l y being

performed and as i t should be performed a re p r e s e n t e d in Table 81.
A predeterm ined level

of significance

f o r each

f u n c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e .01 l e v e l .

adm inistrative

The d a t a

in Table 81

Table 81 .-'Comparison of mean scores by position for the Regional Extension Supervisor's administrative functions as they are
currently performed (AI) and as th»y should be performed (SB), using paired t-tests.

Respondent Group
Administrative Function

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
CNI=18)

STAFF ORIENTATION AND
DEVELOPMENT (HI=15)

PA
(N=75)

CEA
(N=149)

CED
(N=62>

SPEC
(N=70>

APT
(N=37)

RS
(N=5)

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

2.99

3.29

2.76

3.26

2.90

3.27

3.02

3.29

3.28

3.29

3.08

3.33

3.35

3.49

t = -12.16
p = .00

t = -7.01
p = .00

t = -10.39
p = .00

t = -4.96

t = -0.16

t = -3.95

p = .00

p = .87

p = .00

t = -1.16
p = .31

2.53

2.26

2.36

2.59

2.95

2.76

2.40

3.04

2.93

3.02

3.10

t = -15.67
p = .00

t = -7.01
p = .00

p = .00

t = -6.48
p = .00

p - .03

2.52

2.49

2.33

2.50

2.83

2.71

3.10

2.83

2.86

t = -2.21

3.04

3.21

t = -5.89
O
O

2.95

t = -12.85

3.01

II
a

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Sample
(N=404)

3.08

2.80

t = -2.19
p = .09

2.84

2.98

(NI = 16 )

EXTENSION PROGRAMMING

t = -15.39

t = -6.92

t = -11.91

t = -6.31

t = -0.88

p = .00

p = .00

t = -5.88
p = .00

t = -3.21

p = .00

p = .00

p = .00

p = .43

2.86

2.83

2.76

2.91

2.94

2.99

3.25

3.29

3.38

3.29

3.20

3.20

3.33

3.48

(NI =16)

t = -15.10

t = -6.34

p = .00

p = .00

t = -11.96
p = .00

t = -6.27
p = .00

t = -3.69
p = .00

t = -5.22
p = .00

t = -2.41
p = .07

Table 81 . --Continued.

Respondent Group
Administrative Function

PROGRAM EVALUATION AND

Sample
(N=404)

PA
(N=75)

CEA
(N=149)

CEO
(N=62)

SPEC
<N=70)

APT

RS

(N=37)

(N=5 )

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

AI

SB

2.75

3.06

2.63

3.13

2.65

2.99

2.73

3.00

3.05

3.10

2.84

3.19

3.05

3.34

ACCOUNTABILITY CN1=12)

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

t = -11.45
p = .00

t = -5.98
p = .00

t = -8.83
p = .00

t = -4.76
p = .00

t = -0.77
p = .04

t = -5.51
p = .00

t = -1.31
p = .26

2.93

2.69

2.89

3.04

3.04

3.08

3.04

3.17

3.16

3.15

3.20

3.08

3.29

3.43

CNI=20)

PUBLIC RELATIONS (NI=8)

t = -10.26

t = -6.17

p = .00

p = .00

t = -8.90
p = .00

t = -3.46
p = .00

p * .59

t = -4.61
p = .00

t = -2.32
p = .08

2.25

2.43

2.06

2.10

2.62

2.23

2.87

2.61

(NI=9)

2.41

2.75

2.51

3.36

t = -6.26
p = .00

t = -9.91
p = .00

t = -4.22

t = -1.89

t = -3.43

t = -4.45

p = .00

p = .06

p = .00

p = .01

2.21

2.35

1.94

2.04

2.60

2.48

2.83

2.58

t = -12.51
p = .00

p < .01.

2.48

p = .00

t = -12.18

BUDGETING AND FINANCING

2.95

t * -0.55

2.93

t = -6.92
p = .00

2.43

t = -10.13
p = .00

2.32

t = -5.56
p = .00

2.60

t = -0.02
p = .99

2.81

t = -5.72
p = .00

3.34

t = -2.78
p = .05

305

revealed t h a t the perceived cu rre n t level
perceived

"should

adm inistrative

be"

level

functions

were

of

o f performance and th e

performance

significantly

for

different

l e v e l when t h e mean re s p o n se s c o r e s f o r t h e t o t a l
were compared.
that

only

at

eight
the

.00

re s p o n d e n t group

In f u r t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n o f Table 81 i t was d i s c o v e r e d

two

significance

all

of

that

the

six

res p on de nt

were g r e a t e r

than t h e

groups

had

levels

pre de te r m in ed

.01

of

level.

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t group had f o u r o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions
p-values

of

the

Regional

g reater

than

s ig n if ic a n t a t the
with

p-values

Extension

.01.

However,

.05 l e v e l .

greater

tha n

Supervisor’s
two

of

position

these

would

The f o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

.01

were

pers onnel

with
be

functions

management,

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development, program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,
and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y .

The Regional

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r

group had p - v a l u e s g r e a t e r than t h e pre de te rm in ed
level

on a l l

eight

of

the

adm inistrative

.01 s i g n i f i c a n c e

functions

of

th eir

the

eight

position.
The r e s u l t s
adm inistrative
position

of the

functions

in M ic h i g a n

paired
of

the

indicated

t-test

for

each

of

Regional

Extension

that

eight

all

Supervisor’s

functions

were

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e when t h e mean re sp ons e
scores of the t o t a l
the

nu ll

h y p o th e s i s

r e s po nd en t group were c o n s i d e r e d .
that

there

a re

b e tw ee n t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s
expectations

being

held

for

the

no

significant

concerning

adm inistrative

Therefore,
differences

the perceived
duties

of

the

306
Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s

currently

being

performed

perceived

expectations

Supervisor’s position
four

of

the

six

as

and

their

being
it

position

held

in

Michigan

perceptions
for

the

as

it

co n ce rn in g

Regional

gro ups:

the

Extension

should be performed was r e j e c t e d

respondent

is

paraprofessionals,

for

County

Extension Agents, County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team.

The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d on f o u r o f t h e e i g h t

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s w it h

re g a r d

to

the

Ex te ns ion

Specialist

group and no t r e j e c t e d a t a l l with re g a r d t o t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r group.
Most Important S k i l l s Needed bv Those in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan
M id d le -m a n a g e m e n t
Service

pr o v id e

University.

a

vital

positions
link

in

the

between

the

Cooperative
field

staff

Extension
and

the

S e l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o f i l l t h e s e key p o s i t i o n s in

th e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n in t h e p a s t has not been u n l i k e t h a t of
f i l l i n g s i m i l a r middle-management p o s i t i o n s in b u s i n e s s o r i n d u s t r y .
In t h e p a s t , t h e j o b o f s u p e r v i s i n g work and people has been th oug ht
o f as a r a t h e r sim ple , d i r e c t o p e r a t i o n in which i n d i v i d u a l s have
been e l e v a t e d t o t h e p o s i t i o n based on t h e i r p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s in th e
organization.

Not

everyone

c a p a b i l i t y t o be a good manager.

who i s

a good

e m p lo y e e

has

the

Middle managers in Extension have

been s e l e c t e d and pla ce d in t h e p o s i t i o n based on t h e i r having had a
p r o g r e s s i o n o f s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i e n c e s , g e n e r a l l y in t h e Co op er ati ve
Extension S e rv ic e ( H oe ls ch e r, 1983-1984).

307

In

an

at te m p t

to

investigate

further

the

perceptions

held

r e g a r d i n g t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in Michigan,
the

r e s p o n d e n ts

skills

were

most

i m p o r ta n t

th e y p e r c e iv e d a person in t h e r o l e o f Regional

Exten sio n

S u p e r v i s o r should
re s p o n d e n t

have.

groups

comparison

asked

are

purposes,

Supervisors
Program Team.

were

to

the

four

The summary o f r e s p o n s e s
p rov ide d
the

in

T ab le s

responses

co mb ine d

The

identify

with

82

of the

those

th ro u g h

the

five

86.

Regional

of

items have been ranked

from t h e

For

Extension

A dm inistrative

from 1 t o

10 on t h e

b a s i s o f t h e number o f time s t h e y were mentioned as being among t h e
four

most

Regional

im po rt an t
Extension

skills

needed

Supervisor.

by

The

those

in

remaining

mentioned by each r e s ponden t group have been
further

the

skills

p e r c e iv e d

to

be

needed

the

position

items

that

in c lu d e d
by

those

to

of
were

clarify

individuals

occupying t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
A summary of t h e t e n s k i l l s t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d by each o f th e
resp on den t groups (Tables 82 through 86) i s found in Table 87.

Six

s k i l l s were i d e n t i f i e d by a l l f i v e grou ps .

They were communication

skills

skills

( w r i t t e n and o r a l ) , human r e l a t i o n s

listening

skills,

pe rsonnel

management,

(peo ple s k i l l s ) ,

and knowledge o f t h e CES.

C o n f l i c t management and pr ob le m -s o lv in g s k i l l s

were

identified

by

t h e t h r e e re sp ond ent groups housed in t h e county ( p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
County Extension Agents, and County Extension D i r e c t o r s ) .

S k i l l s in

program development were i d e n t i f i e d

Extension

as

i m p o r ta n t by t h e

308

T able 8 2 . --Four most important skills a person in the position of
Regional Extension Supervisor should have, as perceived
by Extension paraprofessionals.
Skill

Rank O rde r3

Communications-’W r it te n and o ra l

1

Human r e l a t i o n s / p e o p l e s k i l l s

2

Leadership/administrative s k i l l s

3

Knowledge o f t h e CES

4

C o n f l i c t management/problem-solving s k i l l s

5

Listening s k i l l s

6

Personnel m an ag e m e n t- -s e le ct io n , o r i e n t a t i o n ,
and a p p r a i s a l

7

Honesty/fairness

8

O r g a n iz a ti o n a l s k i l l s

9

Counseling and empathy s k i l l s

10

A d d it io na l S k i l l s Mentioned
Time management
C oordination/facilitating s k ills
S ta ff -d e ve lo pm e nt s k i l l s
Program-development s k i l l s
Role model
Pe rc e p ti o n
Technical s k i l l s
P o l i t i c a l l y smart
P r o f e s s i o n a l ism
N e g o ti a t io n s k i l l s
aThe
number o f
important
Extension

B u d g e t in g /f in a n c i n g s k i l l s
V isibility
F i e l d e x p e r ie n c e
Pu bl i c r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s
M ot iv a ti o n a l s k i l l s
A b i l i t y t o be open minded
Problem -solv ing s k i l l s
V is io n ar y s k i l l s
Ev a lu a ti o n s k i l l s

items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
times th e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
s k i l l s needed by th o s e in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
S u p e rv is o r.

309
Table 8 3 . - - F o u r most im p or tant s k i l l s a perso n in t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have, as p e r c e i v e d
by County Exten sio n Agents.
Skill

Rank O rd e r3

C om m uni cat ion s- -w rit te n and o ra l

1

Human r e l a t i o n s / p e o p l e s k i l l s

2

Honesty/fairness

3

Listening s k i l l s

4

Personnel m a n a g e m e n t- - s e le c ti o n , o r i e n t a t i o n
and a p p r a i s a l

5

Knowledge o f t h e CES

6

Leadership/adm inistrative s k i l l s

7

M otivational/staff-development s k i l l s

8

C o n f l i c t management/problem-solving s k i l l s

9

V is io n a r y s k i l l s

10
A d d it io na l S k i l l s Mentioned

Organizational s k i l l s
11iii0 management
C oordination/facilitating s k ills
Negotiation s k i l l s
Program-development s k i l l s
Role model
E v a lu a ti o n s k i l l s
P o l i t i c a l l y smart
A ccessibility
Educa tiona l s k i l l s
Team-building s k i l l s

aThe
number o f
im port an t
Extension

Counseling and empathy s k i l l s
Budget mg/f'sriaricirig s k i l l s
V isibility
F i e l d e x p e r ie n c e
Public r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s
Perception
To le ra nc e
Professionalism
Rapid r e a d e r
Positive self-esteem
A b i l i t y t o be open minded

items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
time s they were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
s k i l l s needed by t h o s e in th e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Supervisor.

310

T able 8 4 . --Four most important skills a per so n in the p osition o f
Regional E xt ension Sup er v is o r should have, as p e r ce i ve d
by County Extension Directors.
Skill

Rank O rd e r3

Commu nic at ion s- -wr itt en and o r a l

1

Listening s k i l l s

2

Leadership/administrative s k i l l s

3

Honesty/fairness

4

Human r e l a t i o n s / p e o p l e s k i l l s

5

M otivational/staff-development s k i l l s

6

Personnel m a n a g e m e n t- - s e le c ti o n , o r i e n t a t i o n
and a p p r a i s a l

7

C o n f l i c t management/problem-solving s k i l l s

8

Knowledge o f t h e CES

9

F i e l d e x p er ie n c e

10
A d d it io n a l S k i l l s Mentioned

O rg a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s
Time management
A b i l i t y t o be open minded
Negotiation s k i l l s
O bs e rv a tio na l s k i l l s
Resourceful
Ev a lu a ti o n s k i l l s
Rapid r e a d e r
Positive self-esteem

aThe
number o f
impo rtan t
Extension

Counseling and empathy s k i l l s
V is io n a r y s k i l l s
V isibility
Visionary s k i l l s
Public r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s
P e r c e p ti o n
P r o f e s s i o n a l ism
Educa tiona l s k i l l s
Team-building s k i l l s

items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
times th e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
s k i l l s needed by th o s e in th e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
S u p e r v is o r .

311

T able 8 5 . --Four most important skills a person in the position of
Regional Extension S up ervisor should have, as p erceived
by Extension Specialists.
Rank O rde r3

Skill
C om mu nic at ion s- -w rit te n and o ra l

1

Human r e l a t i o n s / p e o p l e s k i l l s

2

Knowledge o f t h e CES

3

Personnel m a n a g e m e n t- - s e le c ti o n , o r i e n t a t i o n ,
and a p p r a i s a l

4

Leadership/adm inistrative s k i l l s

5

Listening s k i l l s

6

F i e l d e x p e r ie n c e

7

Organizational s k i l l s

8

M otivational/staff-development s k i l l s

9

Program-development s k i l l s

10

A d d iti on a l S k i l l s Mentioned
Honesty/fairness
Time management
C oordination/facilitating s k ills
Negotiation s k i l l s
C o n flict mgt./problem-solving s k i l l s
Role model
Ev a lu a ti o n s k i l l s
A b i l i t y t o t r a n s f e r in fo r m a t io n
Educational s k i l l s

aThe
number o f
im port an t
Extension

Counseling and empathy s k i l l s
Bud ge ti ng /F in an ci ng s k i l l s
V isibility
V is io n a r y s k i l l s
Public-relations s k ills
P e rc e p ti o n
Technical s k i l l s
Professionalism

items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
time s the y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
s k i l l s needed by th o s e in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Supervisor.

312

Table 8 6 . - - F o u r most im po rt an t s k i l l s a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should have, as p e r c e i v e d
by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team and t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
Skill

Rank O rd e r3

Human r e l a t i o n s / p e o p l e s k i l l s

1

Listening s k i l l s

2

M otivational/staff-development s k i l l s

3

Com mu nic at ion s--wr itt en and o r a l

4

Program-development s k i l l s

5

Personnel m a n a g e m e n t- -s e le c ti o n , o r i e n t a t i o n ,
and a p p r a i s a l

6

Organizational s k i l l s

7

Leadership/adm inistrative s k i l l s

8

Knowledge o f t h e CES

9

Honesty/fairness

10
A dd it io n a l S k i l l s Mentioned

V is io n ar y s k i l l s
Time management
C oordination/facilitating s k ills
Negotiation s k i l l s
C onflic t mgt./problem-solving s k i l l s
Resourceful
E va lu a ti o n s k i l l s
P o l i t i c a l l y smart
A ccessibility

aThe
number o f
im por tan t
Extension

Counseling and empathy s k i l l s
Budgeting/financing s k i l l s
Technical s k i l l s
Field experience
Public-relations s k ills
Perception
To le ran ce
P r o f e s s i o n a l ism
Team-building s k i l l s

items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f th e
times they were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
s k i l l s needed by t h o s e in th e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Supervisor.

Table 87.--Host important skills9 needed by those in the position of Regional Extension Supervisor, as perceived by Parapro­
fessionals, County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, and the Administrative
Program Team/Regional Extension Supervisors.

Paraprofessionals

Extension Agents

Extension Directors

Extension Specialists

APT/Reg. Supervisors

Communications

Communication

Communications

Communications

Human relations

Human relations

Human relations

Listening

Human relations

Listening

Leadership/

Honesty

Leadership/

Knowledge of CES

Hotivation/staff

administrative

administrative

development

Knowledge of CES

Listening

Honesty

Personnel management

Communications

Conflict management/
problem solving

Personnel management

Human relations

Leadership/
administrative

Program development

Listening

Knowledge of CES

Motivation/staff
development

Listening

Personnel management

Personnel management

Leadership/
administrative

Personnel management

Field experience

Organizational

Honesty

Hot ivat ion/staf f

Conflict management/
problem solving

Organizational

Leadership/

Conflict management/
problem solving

Knowledge of CES

Hotivat ion/staff

Visionary

Field experience

development
Organizational

Counseling/empathy

administrative
Knowledge of CES

development
Program development

Honesty

The items have been ranked from 1 to ‘10 on the basis of the number of times they were mentioned as being among the four
most important skills needed by those in the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.

314
S p e c i a l i s t s and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/Regional
Supervisors.

Four o f t h e

individuals

in

possess

good

honest

in

the

of

re s p o n d e n t groups

Regional

Extension

perceived

dealing

as b e i n g

Extension Agents

with

im portant

staff.

that

Supervisor

m otivational/staff-developm ent s k i l l s

th eir

identified

role

five

Extension

should

as well

Counseling

as

sk ills

by P ro gra m A s s i s t a n t s .

be
w ere

Cou nty

th o u g h t t h a t Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should

be v i s i o n a r y t h i n k e r s .

F i e l d e x p e r i e n c e was i d e n t i f i e d

by County

Ext ension D i r e c t o r s and Extension S p e c i a l i s t s as being an im p o r ta n t
sk ill

that

Ext ension

is

needed

Supervisor.

by i n d i v i d u a l s

in

Organizational

the

skills

role
were

of

Regional

seen

as

being

im por ta nt by t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t h e Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s ,

and

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
A d d it io n a l s k i l l s t h a t were mentioned t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t by th e
m a j o r i t y o f t h e re s p o n d e n t groups inc lud ed budgeting and f i n a n c i n g
skills,

coordinating/facilitating

skills,

public r e la ti o n s

skills,

n e g o t i a t i o n s k i l l s , and p o l i t i c a l s m a r tn e s s , to name a few.
These f i n d i n g s corre spo nded with t h o s e from H o e l s c n e r ' s (19831984) s t u d y .

The t h r e e r e s p on de nt groups he surveyed i n d i c a t e d t h a t

mid-managers

should

co n flict

management

po s s e s s
and

development

and

skills,

o f which were

st u d y .

all

management,

communication, c o u n s e l i n g ,

te am
and

building,
human

identified

leadership,

relations

by t h e

listening,

and

p ro g r a m
motivation

re s p o n d e n ts

in t h i s

315

Most Important Tasks t o Be Performed bv Those in t h e P o s i t i o n
o f Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r in Michigan
The middle-management
Extension
visors.

Service

is

position

performed

within

by s i x

Michigan’ s C oo per ati ve

Regional

Extension

Super­

To u nde rs ta nd b e t t e r what t a s k s i n d i v i d u a l s who occupy t h i s

p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e Co operative Extension S e r v i c e

should perform,

t h e f i v e re sp ond ent groups in t h i s study were asked t o i d e n t i f y th e
f o u r most im p o r ta n t t a s k s t h a t th o s e in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Extension S u p e rv is o r should perform .

The r e s p o n s e s

from t h e

Regional Extension S u p e rv is o r group were combined w it h t h e re sp ons es
from th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team f o r a n a l y s i s p u rp o s e s.

Tables

88 through 92 l i s t ,

in rank o r d e r , t h e t e n most impo rtan t t a s k s t h a t

Regional

Su p e rv is o rs

Extension

should

perform,

as

viewed

by

th e

number of times t h e t a s k was mentioned by t h e v a r i o u s respo nde nt
groups.
Table

93 p r e s e n t s

the

ten

tasks,

in

ra nk o r d e r ,

that

were

i d e n t i f i e d by each o f th e respo nde nt groups in Tables 88 through 92.
Seven t a s k s were
Tables

identified

88 t h r o u g h

92.

by each o f t h e

They were

re sp ond ent groups

liaison

w ith

campus,

a p p r a i s a l and e v a l u a t i o n , s t a f f development and t r a i n i n g ,

in

staff

personnel

management, program-development a s s i s t a n c e , m o t i v a t o r / m o r a l e b u i l d e r
in th e re g io n ,
region.

and promote cross-programming and teamwork in th e

Staff

Regional

su pp ort was

identified

as

an

im port ant

Extension S upe rv is or s to perform by f o u r o f t h e

task

for

gro ups.

Guidance/counseling and c o n f l i c t management/problem s o lv in g a r e two
tasks

that

were

identified

as

being

impor tan t

aspects

of

the

316

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n by t h r e e o f t h e gr ou ps , as
observed

in

Tables

88

thro ugh

92.

The

paraprofessionals

and

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s th ought re g io n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n was an impor tant
task,

whereas

the

Administrative

Program Team/Regional

Extension

S u p e r v is o r s th oug ht program e v a l u a t i o n was an im p o r ta n t t a s k o f th e
Regional

Extension

Supervisor p o s itio n .

groups i d e n t i f i e d t h a t Regional
more time in t h e c o u n t i e s .

Four o f

the

re sp onden t

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should spend

However,

th e County Extension Agents

were t h e only resp onden t group t o rank t h i s item in t h e to p t e n .
The items appearing in Table 93 a r e q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e topte n t a s k s mid-managers perform, as found by H oelscher (1983-1984).
The. t a s k s
(selection,
process

id en tified

in

em plo ym en t,

guidance,

his

study

were

personnel

and o r i e n t a t i o n ) ,

performance

management

program development

appraisal,

public

relations,

c o u n s e lin g , d i r e c t i n g s t a f f development (growth, county budget
d e v e l o p m e n t and m o n i t o r i n g , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e D i r e c t o r ,
evaluation,

and

interpretation

of

Field

Staff

pro gr am

and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

needs.
Summary
This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t e d and analyzed t h e r e s u l t s

of the

d a ta

g a t h e r e d by a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o the
six ro le-d efin in g

p o s i t i o n groups w i t h i n t h e Michigan Cooperative

Extension S e r v ic e .

The d a t a were pre s e n te d and a nalyz ed in terms of

t h e major re s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d in Chapter I .

Mean responses

317

T a b le 8 8 . --Four most important tasks a person in the pos it i on of
Regional Extension S up ervisor should perform, as p e r ­
ceived by the Extension paraprofessionals.
Rank O rd e r3

Task
Li ai s o n with campus

1

S ta ff appraisal/evaluation

2

S t a f f su p p o rt

3

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p f o r t h e regio n

4

S ta f f development/training

5

Regional c o o r d i n a t i o n

6

Personnel management

7

Program-development a s s i s t a n c e

8

M o ti v a to r/ m o ra le b u i l d e r in re g io n

9

Promote cross-programming/teamwork in r e g io n

10

A d d it io na l Tasks Mentioned
Budgeting/financial assistan c e
S t a f f su p p o rt
Knowledge base f o r CES
Role model
Represent a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
F a m i l i a r wit h region
V ision/priority setting

G u i d a nce /c ou ns e li ng
P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Program e v a l u a t i o n
C o n f l i c t m g t. /p r o b le m s o l v e r
Spend more time in county
R e p o r t i n g / r e c o r d keeping
Salary adm inistration

aThe items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
number o f times th e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
im por tan t t a s k s t h a t a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extens ion
S u p e r v i s o r should perform.

318

T able 8 9 . --Four most important tasks a person in the p osition of
Regional Extension S up ervisor should perform, as p e r ­
ceived by the C o u nt y Extension Agents.
Rank O rde r3

Task
S ta ff appraisal/evaluation

1

Li ais on with campus

2

Program-development a s s i s t a n c e

3

Personnel management

4

S ta f f development/training

5

M o ti v a to r/ m o ra le b u i l d e r in re g io n

6

C o n f l i c t management/problem s o l v e r

7

Spend more time in c o u n t i e s

8

Promote cross-programming/teamwork in re g io n

9

G uid an ce/ co unsel ing

10
A dd it io n a l Tasks Mentioned

Budgeting/financing a ss is ta n c e
Pu bl i c r e l a t i o n s
Program e v a l u a t i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p f o r re g io n
R e p o r t i n g / r e c o r d keeping
Salary ad m inistration

S t a f f s u p p o rt
Knowledge base f o r CES
Regional c o o r d i n a t i o n
Repres en t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
F a m i l i a r w ith r e g io n
V ision/priority setting

aThe items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f th e
number o f time s they were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
impo rtan t t a s k s t h a t a person in t h e p o s i t i o n of Regional Extension
S u p e r v is o r should perform.

319

T able 9 0 . --Four most important tasks a person in the p osition of
Regional Extension S up ervisor should perform, as p e r ­
ceived by the Cou nt y Extension Directors.
Rank O rd e r3

Task
L i a is o n w it h campus

1

S ta ff appraisal/evaluation

2

Personnel management

3

S t a f f su p p o rt

4

Program-development a s s i s t a n c e

5

S t a f f development/training

6

M o ti v a to r /m o r a le b u i l d e r in re g io n

7

C o n f l i c t management/problem s o l v e r

8

G uid a nc e /c ou ns e lin g

9

Promote cross-programming/teamwork in re g io n

10

A dd it io n a l Tasks Mentioned
Budgeting/financing a s s is ta n c e
Working with a d v is o r y groups
Program e v a l u a t i o n
Regional c o o r d i n a t i o n
Repr ese nt a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
F a m i l i a r wi th re gi on
R e p o r t i n g / r e c o r d keeping
Salary ad m inistration

P ubli c r e l a t i o n s
Knowledge base f o r CES
Role model
Administrative lead ersh ip fo r
t h e re g io n
Spend more time in c o u n t i e s
V ision/priority setting

aThe items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
number o f time s th e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
im p o r ta n t t a s k s t h a t a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extens ion
S u p e r v i s o r should perform.

320

Table 9 1 . --Four most important tasks a person in the position of
Regional Extension Supervisor should perform, as p e r ­
ceived by the Extension Specialists.
Task

Rank O rder3

S taff appraisal/evaluation

1

Li ais on wit h campus

2

Regional c o o r d i n a t i o n

3

Personnel management

4

C o n f l i c t management/problem s o l v e r

5

Promote cross-programming/teamwork in re g io n

6

S t a f f su pport

7

Program-development a s s i s t a n c e

8

S t a f f development/training

9

M oti va to r/m or a le b u i l d e r in reg io n

10

A d d iti on a l Tasks Mentioned
B u d g e t in g /f in a n c i n g a s s i s t a n c e
Knowledge base f o r CFS
Role model
V ision/priority setting
R e p o r t i n g / r e c o r d keeping

P u b li c r e l a t i o n s
Pronram e v a l u a t i o n
Administrative leadership for
t h e re gio n

aThe items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e
number o f times t h e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
impor tant t a s k s t h a t a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
Su p e r v is o r should perform.

321

Table 9 2 . -- Fo ur most im por tan t t a s k s a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r should pe rform, as p e r ­
c eiv ed by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
Task

Rank Order3

S t a f f sup por t

1

L ia is on with campus

2

S ta ff appraisal/evaluation

3

Promote cross-programming/teamwork in re g io n

4

Personnel management

5

S t a f f development/training

6

Program-development a s s i s t a n c e

7

M o ti v a to r/ m or a le b u i l d e r in re g io n

8

Program e v a l u a t i o n

9

Guidan ce/ co unsel ing

10
A d d it io na l Tasks Mentioned

B u d g e t in g /f in a n c i n g a s s i s t a n c e
Knowledge base f o r CES
C o n f l i c t mg t./problem s o l v e r
Spend more time in t h e county
V ision/priority setting
R e p o r t i n g / r e c o r d keeping

Pu bli c r e l a t i o n s
Regional c o o r d i n a t i o n
Represent a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Administrative leadership fo r
t h e reg ion

aThe items have been ranked from 1 t o 10 on t h e b a s i s of t h e
number of times th e y were mentioned as being among t h e f o u r most
imp or tant t a s k s t h a t a person in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension
S u p e r v is o r should perform.

Table 93.--Most important tasks3 to be performed by those in the position of Regional Extension Supervisor, as perceived by
Paraprofessionals, County Extension Agents, County Extension Directors, Extension Specialists, and the Administra­
tive Program Team/Regional Extension Supervisors.

Paraprofessi onals

Extension Agents

Extension Directors

Extension Specialists

APT/Reg. Supervisors

Liaison with campus

Staff appraisal/eval.

Liaison with campus

Staff appraisal/eval.

Staff support

Staff appraisal/eval.

Liaison with campus

Staff appraisal/eval.

Liaison with campus

Liaison with campus

Staff support

Program dev. assist.

Personnel management

Regional coordination

Staff appraisal/eval.

Adm. leadership for
the region

Personnel management

Staff support

Personnel management

Promote cross-prog./
teamwork in region

Staff dev./training

Staff dev./training

Program dev. assist.

Conflict mgt./problem
solver

Personnel management

Regional coordination

Mot ivator/morale
builder in region

Staff dev./training

Promote cross-prog./
teamwork in region

Staff dev./training

Personnel management

Conflict mgt./problem
solver

Motivator/moraIe

Staff support

Program dev. assist.

Spend more time in
counties

Conflict mgt./problem i
solver

Program dev. assist.

Motivator/morale

Promote cross-prog./
teamwork in region

Guidance/counseling

Staff dev./training

Program evaluation

Guidance/counseling

Promote cross-prog./
teamwork in region

Motivator/morale
builder in region

Gui dance/counseIi ng

Program dev. assist.

Motivator/morale
builder in region
Promote cross-prog./
teamwork in region

builder in region

builder in region

a
The items have been ranked from 1 to 10 on the basis of the number of times they were mentioned as being among the four
most important tasks that a person in the position of Regional Extension Supervisor should perform.

323

to ro le -d e fin itio n
analyze d
gr o up s .
as

a

as

items c l a s s i f i e d by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s were

a measure

of expectations

h e ld

by t h e

six

position

A v a r i e t y o f ty p e s o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were used
measure

of

variability

in

the

expectations

held

for

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r as i t

th e
is

c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan.
The summary, c o n c l u s i o n s , and recommendations o f t h e st ud y are
p r e s e n t e d in Chapter V.

C H A PT E R V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o review t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f th e
st udy

and

the

method

of

investigation,

to

summarize

the

major

f i n d i n g s , t o p r e s e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , and t o make recommendations.
Summary o f t h e Study
Need f o r t h e Study
The

Michigan

C oo per ati ve

Extension

Service

established

th e

p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r , as i t i s known t o d a y ,
t h e e a r l y 1980s.
employed

in

However, t h e f i r s t s u p e r v i s o r s in t h e s t a t e were

1947 with

the

fa m il y , g e t a job done,
Da

^ it

n

u c u a u < ) c

r%•£

VI

throughout

+^a

a a A n v« a

the

state,

V M b

adm inistrative
county-level

in

^ V W ^ I

decision

mandate

to

keep

a p e ac e fu l

Extension

and develop a team w i t h i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t .
r\

k ? /■*

u p i l

I V

the

Vi I

need

I VII

for

making by th o s e

ri f

V I

fv tn n p i aa

i UM

effective
most

in

nov'C A A nnl

i

d ecentralized
touch

with

the

problems w i t h i n t h e re g io n was and remains c r i t i c a l .

Competition f o r budget d o l l a r s , a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r program r e s u l t s ,
and personnel management w i t h i n t h e re g io n demand sound a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i v e l e a d e r s h i p by t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
The Michigan Coo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e has been fa c ed with
d e c l i n i n g revenues in terms o f both r e a l

324

and nominal d o l l a r s

from

325
f e d e r a l and county s o u rc e s ove r t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s .

This d e c l i n e

in reve nue , along wit h an i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e a t t h e f e d e r a l ,

state,

and county l e v e l s f o r Extension t o be more a c c o u n t a b l e , has fo r c e d
Extension

adm inistration

in

Michigan

to

begin

a

process

of

r e a l l o c a t i n g E x t e n s i o n ’ s l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s t o programs and pe rsonnel
t h a t w i l l most e f f e c t i v e l y s er v e E x t e n s i o n ’ s c l i e n t e l e in Michigan.
In r e c e n t y e a r s t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n in Michigan has come
under f i r e

f o r being a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y to p heavy as compared with

o t h e r Extension p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

The fo r eg o in g

concerns f o r re duc in g t h e Extension budget and a l s o examining th e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f i n g l e v e l w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n were
some o f t h e f a c t o r s p o i n t i n g t o a need f o r a comprehensive stud y to
de te rm in e

the

perceptions

about

the

adm inistrative

role

of

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan.
Purposes o f t h e Study
The g e n e r a l purposes o f t h e stu dy were (a) t o d e s c r i b e t h e r o l e
o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan as i t i s c u r r e n t l y
being performed and as i t should be performed in Michigan, as viewed
by

Extension

paraprofessionals,

Extension D i r e c t o r s ,
Team,

and

the

County

Exten sio n

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

Regional

Extension

Agents,

County

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program

Supervisors;

(b )

to

obtain

i n fo r m a t io n t o help Extension personnel g a in a b e t t e r u n d e rs ta n d in g
of

the

position

p e r c e iv e d
being

relationships
studied;

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and Regional

and

between
(c)

to

various
help

groups

provide

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

and

the

Extension

in Michigan with

326

i n f o r m a t i o n on which t o improve t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Study
The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s tu dy were:
1.

To de te r m in e

the

adm inistrative

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

duties

of

the

Regional

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed

and as i t should be performed in Michigan, as p e r c e i v e d by Extension
paraprofessionals,
D irectors,

Co unty

Extension

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

A gents,

C o u n ty

Extension

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team,

and t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v is o r s th e m s e lv e s .
2.

To d e t e r m i n e

the d iff e r e n c e s w ithin

and b e t w e e n

each

re s p o n d e n t group in t h e i r r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension
Supervisor’s adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e

currently

being

performed and as t h e y should be performed in Michigan.
3.

To de ter mi ne

whether

there

is

a measurable

association

between age, ge nde r, formal e d u c a t i o n , r e g i o n o r campus a f f i l i a t i o n ,
s i z e o f county s t a f f , t e n u r e in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t e n u r e in p r e s e n t
p o s i t i o n , t h e amount o f normal c o n t a c t with t h e Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r , ty pe o f c o n t a c t w ith t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ,
and

the

amount

of

time

h e /s h e

de vo te s

to

administering

other

Extension employees or programs, with r e s p e c t t o h i s / h e r p e r c e p t i o n s
r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan
as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and as i t should be performed.

327

Procedure
The d a t a were o b t a i n e d from a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n e d by
474 Michigan Extension workers on t h e j o b

in December 1988.

The

u s a b l e r a t e y i e l d e d an o v e r a l l average o f 74.4%, w it h 84.1% f o r th e
f o u r p o s i t i o n s most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
Ext ens ion

Supervisor

D irectors,
Extension

(County

Extens ion

the A dm inistrative
Supervisors)

and

Pr ogr am Team,

65% f o r

a s s o c ia te d w ith th e p o s i t i o n

Agents,

the

County

Exten sio n

and t h e

Regional

two

o f Regional

positions

least

Extension S u p erv iso r

( p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s ) .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e pro vid ed an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n ts
to

re c o r d

their

judgments

possible

role-definition

Regional

Extension

performed

and

questionnaire

c on cer nin g

items

Supervisor

as

it

was

as

should

sim ilar

to

were

a

the

be

the

extent

part

of

position

perform ed

the

one

used

is

to

the

which
job

114

of

th e

currently

being

in

M ichigan.

The

by

Caul

and

(1960)

H a rr is o n (1984) t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e o f t h e County
Extension

D irector

in M ichigan,

but

w ith

additional

item s

to

s t r e n g t h e n t h e i n s tr u m e n t and d e s c r i b e more a c c u r a t e l y t h e r o l e of
t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in Michigan.
The

survey

instrum ent

was

divided

S e c t i o n I d e s c r i b e d something a Regional
be

concerned

with,

be

responsible

d e s c r i b e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t .
was

collected

on

the

into

for,

In

sections.

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r must
or

In S e c ti o n I I ,

respondents.

three

oversee

the

matter

background i n f o r m a t i o n

Section

III,

additional

328
comments were sou ght, co ncerning (a) t h e f o u r most im port an t s k i l l s
ne e d e d

by R e g i o n a l

Extension

Supervisors,

(b)

th e four

most

im por tan t t a s k s performed by Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s , and (c)
any a d d i t i o n a l comments t h e re s p o n d e n ts wanted t o s h a r e .
Each re sp ond ent was asked t o re c o rd on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e t h e
e x t e n t t o which h e /s h e p e rc ei v e d t h e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Regional

item t o be a

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

(a)

as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed and (b) as i t should be performed
in t h e

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

respondents’

le v el

of

The f i v e l a b e l s

involvement

with

each

of

used t o d e s c r i b e
t h e 114 r o l e -

d e f i n i t i o n items were:
1.

"None." t h e Regional Extension S u p e rv is o r has no r e s p o n s i ­

b i l i t y fo r the a c t i v i t y .
2.

"Minor."

t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r a minor p o r t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t y ; a no th er p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e CES
o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e major s h a r e .
3.

"Sha red." t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s h a r e s e q u a l l v

t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a c t i v i t y with a n o th er p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e
organization.
4.

"Major." t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r has r e s p o n s i b i l ­

i t y f o r t h e a c t i v i t y w hile a n o th e r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a minor s h ar e.
5.

"Complete. 11 t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r i s t h e only

p o s i t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y .
The
purposes

res pon den ts
of

the

were d i v i d e d

basic

analysis

of

into
th e

six

p o s i t i o n groups

d a t a . The

groups

for
were

329

Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , who a r e program a s s i s t a n t s , a s s o c i a t e s ,
or

aides

at

the

county

level;

County

Extension

Agents,

which

in c lu d e s a g e n t s ( A g r i c u l t u r e and Marketing, Home Economics, Natural
Resources and Pu bl ic P o l i c y ,

and 4-H Youth) who a r e a s s i g n e d t o a

county o r group o f c o u n t i e s ; County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s , who a r e the
d e s i g n a t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e heads a t t h e county l e v e l o f t h e Michigan
Co oper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e ;
staff

assigned

to

either

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

a dep artme nt

or

campus-based

program a r e a

who have

s p e c i f i c programming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in one o f t h e f o u r program a re a s
o f E x t en s io n; t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, which c o n s i s t s o f th e
D i r e c t o r , A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , t h e f o u r A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r s and t h e i r
i m m e d ia te

staff,

Fin an cin g,

Staff

and

a few key

Development,

and

support

staff

Personnel);

(Budgeting

and

and

the

Regional

were

fem ale.

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
Summary o f Findings
The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s stud y were as f o l l o w s :
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondentsin t h e Six P o s i t i o n Groups
Gender.

More t h a n

50% o f

the

respondents

However, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f re s p o n d e n ts by ge nder ranged from 3.2%
o f t h e Extension p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s being male t o 11.3% o f t h e County
Extension D i r e c t o r s
female.

and 20.5% o f th e

Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e Regional

Extension

Specialists

being

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were

male, whereas County Extension Agents and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program

330
Team were more e q u a l l y d i v i d e d , wit h 50.7% and 55.3%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
being female.
Age.

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were

between 36 and 45 y e a r s ; 74.2% o f t h e County Ex te ns io n D i r e c t o r s ,
69.4% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s , and 84.2% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Program Team were between 36 and 55 y e a r s ;

65.8% o f t h e

County

Extension Agents were in a younger grouping o f 26 t o 45 y e a r s ; and
the

paraprofessionals

categories.

were

fairly

well

distributed

in

all

age

F u r t h e r , on ly 8.1% o f t h e County E xt ens ion D i r e c t o r s ,

9.6% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

and 7.9% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Program Team were 35 y e a r s o r younger, whereas 32.9% o f t h e County
Extension Agents and 21.6% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s were in t h i s age
category.

Forty

43.5% o f t h e
Specialists,

percent

of

the

County Extension

Regional

D irectors,

Extension
49.4% o f

Supervisors,
the

Extension

and 47.4% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team were 46

y e a r s o r o l d e r , as compared t o onl y 27.2% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
and 26.3% o f t h e County Extension Agents being in t h a t age c a t e g o r y .
Education.

The Regional

Extension

Supervisors

l e a s t a M a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e ; one had a d o c t o r a t e .

all

held

at

F i f t y p e r c e n t o f the

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s d id no t have a c o l l e g e d e g re e ,

whereas 75.8% of

t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , 96.4% o f t h e Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s ,
and

86.8% o f

th e

M a s te r ’ s d e g r e e .

Administrative

Program

Team he ld

at

least

F u r t h e r , only 1.6% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

o f t h e County Extension Agents,

a

3.9%

and 4.8% o f t h e County Extension

D i r e c t o r s held degre es beyond t h e M a s t e r ’ s degre e l e v e l , as compared

331
t o 79.5% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s and 49.4% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a ­
t i v e Program Team.
Years in t h e C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e .
the

Cooperative

Extension

Service

was

Years employed by

greatest

among

Cou nty

Ex te ns ion D i r e c t o r s , with 50% having worked in Ex te ns io n f o r 16 or
more y e a r s ,

as compared wit h only 8% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

25%

o f t h e County Extension Agents, 36.1% o f t h e Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s ,
and 31.5% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team having had t h a t amount
o f experience.
(37.6%),

and

re s p o n d e n t

Paraprofessionals
Extension

groups

(36.8%), County Ex te ns ion Agents

Specialists

with

the

(20.5%)

largest

percentages

employed by t h e CES f o r f i v e y e a r s o r l e s s ,
the

County

Extension

Program Team.

Directors

and

represent
of

the

three

staff

being

as compared t o 8.1% of

13.2% o f

the

Administrative

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s had been employed

f o r a t l e a s t 11 y e a r s .
Time in p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n .

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e

w ith t h e e x c e p ti o n o f Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,
their

present

position

for

ten y e a r s

or

respondents,

had been employed in

less,

w it h

50% o f

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team, 39.2% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

th e

37.8%

o f t h e County Extension Agents, and 33.9% o f t h e County Extension
Directors

all

indicating

position

for

five

Extension

Specialists

years

th e y had been employed
or

less.

indicated

they

in

F ifty-four
had

been

their

present

percent

employed

of
in

the
their

p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n f o r 11 y e a r s o r more.
Geographic

location.

D istribution

of

county-position-group

re s p o n d e n ts thro ugh ou t t h e s i x re g i o n s was une qual, wi th most o f the

332

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s being found in t h e S o u t h e a s t , Southwest, and West
Central
group ,

regions,

50% o f t h e

resp on de nt

as compared t o 23.2% coming from t h e o t h e r t h r e e r e g i o n s .

Likewise,
these

which r e p r e s e n t more t h a n

t h e m a j o r i t y o f Extension Agents (57.9%)

same t h r e e r e g i o n s ,

a l s o came from

as compared w it h 36.8% coming from th e

Upper P e n i n s u l a , North, and Eas t C en tr al r e g i o n s .

The m a j o r i t y of

County Extension D i r e c t o r r e s p o n d e n ts came from t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a ,
North,

and Eas t C en t ra l

regions,

where t h e r e

are

fewer

Extension

a g e n t s and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
Amount

of

contact

with

Regional

Extension

S upervisors.

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s and 60.5% of
the A dministrative

Program

Team i n d i c a t e d th e y were in c o n t a c t with

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

compared

to

at

least

1-2

71.2% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

Extension Agents,

and 88% o f t h e

th e y were in c o n t a c t with t h e
tim e s pe r g u a r t e r o r l e s s .

time s p e r month,
59.3% o f t h e

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

Regional

Extension

as

County

indicating

Supervisors

1-2

More than 20% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

and 17% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s i n d i c a t e d t h e y had no c o n t a c t
a t a l l wit h Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .
Type o f c o n t a c t with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

Face-to-

fa c e m e e t in g s, l e t t e r s , and te le p h o n e c a l l s th ro u g h o u t t h e y e a r were
reported

by 80.3% o f

t h e County

Extension Agents,

83.9% o f

the

County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and 60.5% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team as being t h e normal
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s .

type o f c o n t a c t

they

had with

Regional

F i f t y - s i x percent o f the p a ra p ro fe ss io n a ls,

333
42.4% o f t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

and 29% o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Program Team i n d i c a t e d th e y had l i t t l e o r no c o n t a c t wi th Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r s o t h e r tha n by o c c a s i o n a l c o n t a c t a t m e e t i n g s .
Administrative
sionals,

Cou nty

indicated

they

programs,

as

responsibility.
Extension

spent
v ie w e d

no

Agents,

time
by

The
and

m ajority

Extension

administering

the

70.4%

of

paraprofes­
S p ecialists

Ex te ns ion

nonresponse

staff

or

rate

for

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 42.1% n o n r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r C o un ty E x t e n s i o n
Agents, and 50.6% nonresponse r a t e f o r Exten sio n S p e c i a l i s t s .

The

m a j o r i t y o f t h e County Extens ion D i r e c t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h e y s p e n t 4160% o f t h e i r time on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
Administrative
Supervisors

Program Team and

indicating

they

as compared t o 42.1% o f th e

100% o f

s p en t

at

the

least

Regional
60% o f

Exten sio n
their

time

a d m i n i s t e r i n g Extension s t a f f o r programs.
Siz e o f countv s t a f f .

P a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d

between c o u n t i e s with n in e o r fewer s t a f f

and t e n o r more s t a f f .

The m a j o r i t y o f County Extension Agents (54.6%) and County Extension
D irectors

(71.2%)

represented

counties

of ten

or

fewer

staff

members, with f o u r t o n i n e s t a f f members being most common and 16 or
more s t a f f members l e a s t common among a l l t h r e e re s p o n d e n t g ro u p s .
Findi ngs R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly si s o f
t h e D i f f e r e n t E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role
as I t Is C u r r e n t l y Being Performed
1.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l

o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y held f o r t h e v a r io u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s p o sitio n

as

it

is

in

currently

334

b e i n g p e r f o r m e d by a l l

re sp o n d en t groups

except

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r group.
a.

The

total

respondent

group

considered the

personnel

management f u n c t i o n ( 2.9 9) as having t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l

o f Regional

Extension S u p e r v is o r involvement as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed.

The o t h e r

adm inistrative

functions

co n ti n u e d

in

the

follo wing rank o r d e r , as determined by t h e i r d e c r e a s i n g mean s c o r e s :
administration

and

policy

(2.95),

Extension

program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ( 2 . 7 6 ) ,
development
(2.26),

(2.55),

and

management,
functions
Regional

program development

budgeting

and

adm inistration
were

p e rc ei v e d

financing

and
to

policy,
be

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

performed.

Regional

less

a

than

(2.87),

s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and

(2.54),

public

(2.24).

The

and

sh ared

programming

Extension

relations
personnel
programming

responsibilities
as i t

is

of

th e

c u r r e n t l y being

Extension S up e rv is ors were p e r c e i v e d t o have

shared

responsibility

but

more

than

a

m in o r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , s t a f f
o r i e n t a t i o n and development, and program development f u n c t i o n s .

The

pu b li c r e l a t i o n s and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s were seen to
be a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed.
b.

Although t h e r e

was no consensus w i t h i n

the

six

position

groups, e xce pt f o r t h e S u p e r v i s o r s , with r e s p e c t t o t h e importance
o f the

eight

Supervisor’s

adm inistrative
position

as

it

functions
is

of the

currently

Regional

being

Extension

performed,

the

335
Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were c o n s i s t e n t l y p e r c e i v e d

re s p o n d e n t
carrying
policy

groups

out

to

the

have

pe rs onn el

functions

th a n

a

of

responsibility

for

management and t h e

adm inistration

and

th e y

higher

di d

for

level

by a l l

carrying

out

the

other

six

adm inistrative functions.
2.

The E x t e n s i o n pro gramming f u n c t i o n had f o u r d i f f e r e n t

r a n k in g s by t h e s i x re s p o n d e n t gro ups.

Thi s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e number

o f d i f f e r e n t r a n k in g s f o r any o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
Each o f t h e seven o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

functions

of the

Regional

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed

had t h r e e d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s .
3.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in t h e consensus w i t h i n

each p o s i t i o n group on t h e p e rc ei v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s

o f t h e Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being
performed f o r a l l o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s e xc e pt t h e p u b l i c
r e la tio n s function.
a.

The Cou nty

Extension

D irector

group

showed

the

most

co nse ns us, alth ough t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t , w i t h i n t h e i r
group as seen by none o f t h e

114 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items

having

a

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r .
b.
conflict

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l g r o u p d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e mo st r o l e
within

their

group,

as

viewed

by 85

of

the

114

role-

d e f i n i t i o n items having s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r .
c.

County E xt ens ion Agents (11 o f t h e 114 r o l e i t e m s ) ,

s io n S p e c i a l i s t s

(9 o f t h e 114 r o l e i t e m s ) ,

Ex ten­

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Program Team (5 o f t h e 114 r o l e items) de mo nst rat ed more consensus

336

within
were

their

respective

observed

gr o up s ,

w ithin

paraprofessional

each

group,

group,

significant

t h a n was

seen

differences
w ithin

as viewed by t h e i r fewer number o f

with s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s
4.

altho ugh

the
items

o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r .

Significant

differences

were

found

between

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and t h e o t h e r r e s po nd en t groups on seven
o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as th e y a r e c u r r e n t l y
perform ed.

The

adm inistrative

Extension

function

programming

that

did

not

function

meet t h e

was

being

the

only

pre d e te r m in ed

.01

level of sig n ific a n c e .
a.

The

Regional

Extension

Supervisors

d i f f e r e n c e s with p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
the

program e v a l u a t i o n

orientation
them selves

as

having

adm inistrative functions,

function.

a

the

g reatest

and County Ex tens ion Agents

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

and development

had

shared

function

and t h e

The S u p e r v i s o r s
respo n sib ility

on

staff

perceived

for

those

whereas t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and County

Extension Agents p e r c e i v e d them as performing t h e

functions

with

differences

with

l e s s than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
b.

Extension

Specialists

had t h e

greatest

County Extension Agents on t h e program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
function,

the

program development

function,

the

public

function,

and t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n .

relations

The Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s p e rc e iv e d t h e S u p e rv is o rs as having l e s s than a sh ared
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more tha n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h o s e it e m s ,
as comp ared t o t h e

Cou nty

Extension

A gents’ p e rc e p tio n s

that

337
Supervisors

have l i t t l e

more tha n

a minor

responsibility

as

the

p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
c.

County

Extension

Directors

had

the

greatest

differences

w ith Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y
f u n c t i o n , t h e Extension programming f u n c t i o n , t h e program e v a l u a t i o n
and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n ,

t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development

f u n c t i o n , and t h e program development f u n c t i o n .

They a l s o had th e

g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s wit h t h e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s on t h r e e o f t h e
eight

adm inistrative

functions.

The

County

Exten sio n

D irectors

p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as performing t h e f u n c t i o n s wi th a lower
l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than d id t h e S u p e r v i s o r s and t h e Extension
Specialists.
d.

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s had t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s wi th th e

Ext ension
p ro g r a m

Specialists
evaluation

on
and

the

pe rsonnel

management

accountability

orientation

and development f u n c t i o n ,

function.

They a l s o

showed g r e a t

function,

function,

and t h e

differences

the

th e
staff

program development
w ith

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s on f o u r o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s
functions

with

p e r c e i v e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as performing

a lower

level

of

responsibility

S u p e r v i s o r s o r th e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s .

than

did

th e
the

338
Fi nd in gs R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly s is
o f Ten Independent V a r i a b l e s o f t h e
Respondent Groups as t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s P o s i t i o n Is
C u r r e n t l y Being Performed in Michigan
1.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

ge nder

and

Regional

three

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

performed in Michigan.

as

it

functions

of

is currently

the
being

Male and female re s p o n d e n ts h e ld d i f f e r e n t

p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e f o ll o w i n g t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s :
staff

o rien tatio n

and d e v e l o p m e n t ,

personnel

m an ag em en t,

and

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y .

The female r e s p o n d e n t s ’ mean s c o r e s f o r

the

functions

eight

adm inistrative

Supervisor’s

position

as

it

is

of the

currently

Regional
being

Extension

performed

were

c o n s i s t e n t l y lower than th o s e o f t h e male r e s p o n d e n t s .
2.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

age and f o u r o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
R e s p o n d e n t s ’ age was

a factor

in

the

perceptions

r e g a r d i n g t h e fo ll o w i n g f o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

being

functions:

held

personnel

management, s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development, program development,
and

Extension

p ro gr am m i ng.

Respondents

over

the

age

of

46

c o n s i s t e n t l y p e rc e iv e d t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having
a h i g h e r l e v e l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e pers onnel management, s t a f f
orientation

and development,

and program development f u n c t i o n s

t h e i r p o s i t i o n than d id t h e younger age gr ou ps .
group

perceived

responsibility

than

Supervisors
the

other

as

having

resp onden t

of

The 36-45 y e a r age
a

groups

lower
for

level
the

of

program

339

development f u n c t i o n as compared t o t h e under-26 age group,
perceived

the

Supervisors

as

having

a much

higher

which

level

of

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g
functions.
3.

A significant

d i f f e r e n c e was found

in

the

views

of the

resp on den ts in r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r formal e d u c a ti o n with r e s p e c t
to

five

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

functions

of

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
The f i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with a measurable a s s o c i a t i o n were
personnel

management,

development,

public

staff

orientation

relations,

and development,

program

and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g .

The

res pondent s with B ac he lo r’ s degre es or l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y p e rc e iv e d
Regional

Extension

Supervisors

responsibility for all

as

having

less

than

a shared

e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , whereas t h e

res pon de nts holding D o c to r’ s de g re es pe rceiv ed t h e S u p e r v i s o r s
having

a shared

resp o n sib ility

for

a l l but

two o f

as

the eig h t

adm inistrative functions.
4.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

l e n g th o f s e r v i c e in t h e C ooperative Extension S e rv ic e and t h e s t a f f
orientation

and

development

performed in Michigan.

function

as i t

is

currently

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between

th e r e s p o n d e n t s ’ le n g t h o f s e r v i c e in

th e CES

other

o f t h e Regional

seven

being

adm inistrative

functions

w ith r e s p e c t t o t h e
Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
Respondents

with

less

than

five

years

with

the

CES viewed

the

340
Regional

Extension

Supervisor’ s

involvem ent

w ith

the

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n as be ing a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
o f t h e p o s i t i o n , whereas th o s e w it h 16-20 y e a r s o f s e r v i c e and th o s e
w it h more th a n 20 y e a r s viewed S u p e r v i s o r s as having more th a n a
minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s tha n a s h a r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
5.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in r e s p o n d e n t s ’ views

w it h r e s p e c t t o t h e number o f y e a r s in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n and
the

eight

adm inistrative

S upervisor’s

position

functions

as

it

is

o f the

Regional

currently

being

Extension

perform ed

in

Michigan.
6.

A measu rab le a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

re g io n a l/ c a m p u s

affiliation

and

six

of

th e

eight

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t
currently

being

performed

in

Michigan.

The

six

is

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n s with a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l g r e a t e r than .01 were pers onnel
management, s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development, program development,
program e v a l u a t i o n

and

bu dget ing

and f i n a n c i n g .

from t h e

Upper P e n i n s u l a

Regional

Extension

accountability,

public

relatio n s,

The campus-based re s p o n d e n t s
and West C e n t ra l

Supervisors

as

having

regions
a s har ed

and

and t h o s e

perceived

th e

responsibility

w it h re g a r d t o t h e pers onn el management a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n as
i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed, as compared t o t h e o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t
groups,

who

perceived

them

as

having

less

responsibility.

The campus-based

r e s po nd en t

Supervisors

having

resp o n sib ility

as

a

shared

than

group

a

shared

perceived
on

the

th e

staff

o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n , t h e re s p o n d e n ts from t h e West

341

Central

region

perceived

them

as

having

more

than

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,
other

respondent

groups

indicated

the

a

minor

and a l l

Regional

the

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n was c l o s e r t o a
minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e North and Southwest

r e g i o n s p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r t h e program development f u n c t i o n , as compared t o a l l

the other

re s p o n d e n t groups p e r c e i v i n g t h e i r involvement t o be more t h a n minor
b u t l e s s tha n s h a r e d .
the

West

C ent ral

The campus-based r e s p o n d e n t s and t h o s e from

re g i o n

indicated

a

higher

level

of

Supervisor

involvement on t h e program e v a l u a t i o n

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

function

t h a n did t h e o t h e r re sp on de nt gro up s .

The campus-based re s p o n d e n ts

and th o s e from t h e Upper P e n in s u la re g io n p e r c e i v e d S u p e r v i s o r s as
having more than

a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

but

less

than

a sh ared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n , as compared t o the
minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y viewed by t h e o t h e r

r e s p o n d e n t gro u p s .

The

ca m n i j s - h a s e d r e s p o n d e n t s and t h o s e fr o m t h e S o u t h e a s t r e g i o n
p e r c e i v e d S u p e r v i s o r s as having more t h a n a minor bu t l e s s th a n a
s h a r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n ,

as

compared with t h e o t h e r g r o u p s ’ p e r c e p t i o n t h a t th e y have a minor
re s p o n sib ility for th a t function.
7.
of

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were observed between t h e s i z e

county

Regional

staff

and

the

eight

adm inistrative

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

performed

in M i c h i g a n .

However,

the

as

it

functions
is

budgeting

currently
and

of

the
being

financing

342
function

came c l o s e t o

significance.

being

significant,

with

a

.0143 l e v e l

of

Respondents from c o u n t i e s w it h 10-15 s t a f f members

p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as performing t h e bu dge tin g and f i n a n c i n g
f u n c t i o n w it h more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as compared t o th e
o t h e r f i v e r e s po nd en t g r o u p s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s

have a

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g o u t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n .
8.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found on t h r e e

adm inistrative

functions

of

the

Regional

Extension

p o s i t i o n as i t

i s c u r r e n t l y being performed as

it

of the eight

Supervisor’s

relates

to

the

normal amount o f c o n t a c t t h e re s p o n d e n ts had with Regional Extension
Supervisors.

The

three

adm inistrative

functions

showing

a

measurable a s s o c i a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o t h e normal amount o f c o n t a c t
with t h e

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’ s

position

were

Extension

programming, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y , and budge ting and f i n a n c i n g .
Respondents who were in c o n t a c t with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s
1-2 times p e r week and t h o s e who were in c o n t a c t more tha n tw i c e a
week p e r c e iv e d

the

Supervisors

as

having

a sh ared

responsibility

f o r t h e Extension programming f u n c t i o n , whereas t h e o t h e r r e s po nden t
groups who were l e s s o f t e n in c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n p e r c e iv e d
t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more
than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t f u n c t i o n .
also

perceived

as

having

a

shared

The S u p e r v i s o r s were

resp o n sib ility

for

the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n by t h o s e re s p o n d e n ts who were in
c o n t a c t w ith t h e p o s i t i o n a t
having

less

than

responsibility

a s har ed

l e a s t once a week,
responsibility

by t h o s e who had

less

but

contact

as compared with

more th a n
w it h

the

a minor
position.

343

R espondents who had no contact with the p osition and tho se
contact

w h o had

a t l e a s t once a week i n d i c a t e d t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s have more

th a n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y bu t l e s s th a n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r t h e budget ing and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n , as compared with t h e o t h e r
r e s p o n d e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t t h e y have a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with
respect to th a t adm inistrative function.
9.

A

measurable a s s o c i a t i o n

was

found

between t h e

ty p e

of

c o n t a c t t h e re s p o n d e n ts had with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s with
respect

to

three

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

performed.

o f the

eight

adm inistrative
as

it

is

of

th e

c u r r e n t l y being

The t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with a .01 l e v e l o f

s i g n i f i c a n c e were a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y ,
budg eting and f i n a n c i n g .
Regional

functions

public r e l a t i o n s ,

and

Respondents who were in c o n t a c t w it h th e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s in a v a r i e t y o f ways p e r c e i v e d t h e

S u p e r v i s o r s as having a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n , as compared with t h e r e s p o n d e n t s who i n d i c a t e d
th e y had l i t t l e

or no c o n t a c t w ith t h e p o s i t i o n

perceiving t h e i r

involvement being l e s s than sh ared but more tha n minor with r e s p e c t
to th at p a rtic u la r function.

I n d i v i d u a l s who came in c o n t a c t with

t h e S u p e r v i s o r s in a v a r i e t y o f ways and th o s e who r e c e i v e d l e t t e r s
and

telephone

perceived
function

the
as

calls

from

Supervisors’
being

a

minor

the

Regional

involvement

Extension
in

responsibility

the
of

Supervisors

public
the

relations

position,

as

compared t o t h e re s p o n d en ts who came in c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n
o c c a s i o n a l l y a t meetings o r e v e n ts and t h o s e who had l i t t l e

o r no

344
c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having more
th a n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but l e s s th a n a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for

th at

adm inistrative

function.

The

Regional

Extension

S u p e r v i s o r s ’ involvement wi th t h e budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n
was

seen

by th o s e

who r e c e i v e d

letters

only

as

being a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h o s e who had l i t t l e o r no c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n
perceived

the

Supervisors

as

having

less

than

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and r e s p o n d e n ts
who came in c o n t a c t wit h t h e p o s i t i o n in a v a r i e t y o f ways and th o s e
who had c o n t a c t with

the

position

prim arily

through

letters

and

te le p h o n e c a l l s saw t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having only a minor r o l e with
respect to th a t adm inistrative function.
10.
of

time

programs

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between t h e p e r c e n t a g e
t h e re s p o n d e n ts sp en t
and th e

administering

eight adm inistrative

Extension

functions

of

the

staff

or

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t c u r r e n t l y being performed in
Michigan.
Findings R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly si s o f
t h e D i f f e r e n t E x p e c ta t io n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role
as I t Should Be Performed in Michigan
1.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l

o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y held f o r t h e v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
the

Regional

ExtensionS u p e rv is o r’ s p o s it io n

performed in Michigan by a l l

as

it

should

in
be

t h e res po nd en t groups e xce pt f o r th e

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r group.

345
a.

The t o t a l group c o n s i d e r e d t h e pe rsonnel management ( 3.2 8)

and Extens ion
level

programming

the

f o ll o w i n g

scores:

as having t h e

highest

The o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s c o n ti n u e d

ra nk

order,

adm inistration

development

(3.07),

financing

programming,

determine d
(3.17),

program e v a l u a t i o n

(2 .5 9 ).

The

program

(2.61),

staff

mean

orientation

and

(3.05),

and bu dge tin g

m a na ge m e nt ,

and p o l i c y ,
and

decreasing

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

personnel

evaluation

by

staff

public r e la tio n s

adm inistration

development,

as

and p o l i c y

program development ( 2 . 9 5 ) ,
and

functions

o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r involvement as t h e p o s i t i o n

should be performed.
in

( 3 .2 7)

Extension

orientation

accountability,

and

and

program

development f u n c t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d t o be s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
of the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s

performed.

Regional

less

a

than

position

as

it

sho uld

be

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were p e r c e i v e d t o have

shared

resp o n sib ility

but

more

than

a

minor

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and budget ing and f i n a n c i n g
functions of t h e i r position.
b.
groups

Although
w it h

there

respect

adm inistrative

to

functions,

was
the

no

consensus

levels

the

within

the

re s p o n d e n t

of

importance

of

the

eight

personnel

management

function,

th e

Extension programming f u n c t i o n ,

and t h e

adm inistration

and p o l i c y

function

ranked

higher

the

w e re

co n sisten tly

than

other

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , and t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n and th e
budge ting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked lower.
2.

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y f u n c t i o n had f o u r d i f f e r e n t

ran k in g s by t h e s i x resp on den t gro ups .

This r e p r e s e n t e d t h e number

346

o f d i f f e r e n t r a n k in g s f o r any o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
Each

of

four

of

the

eight

adm inistrative

functions

had

three

d i f f e r e n t rankings.
3.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in t h e co nsensus w i t h i n

each p o s i t i o n group on t h e p e r c e i v e d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e as i t sho uld be performed
fo r four o f the e ig h t a d m in istra tiv e functions.

The f o u r f u n c t i o n s

meeting t h e pr e d e te r m in ed .01 l e v e l

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were pers onnel

management,

adm inistration

Extens ion

programming,

and p o l i c y ,

and

bu dge tin g and f i n a n c i n g .
a.
sional

The Exten sio n

Specialist

(31

items )

and t h e

paraprofes-

(30 items) groups had t h e g r e a t e s t number o f r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n

items with s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r .
b.

There

was more

consensus

in

the

perceptions

of

the

p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s c on cer nin g
what th e p o s i t i o n should be as compared wit h t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of
how t h e p o s i t i o n
fewer items

is

fo r the

c u r r e n t l y being performed,
paraprofessionals

(85

as observed by 55

items

with

a

standard

d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e i v e d t o

be

c u r r e n t l y ) and 7 fewer items f o r t h e Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s
(10 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 o r g r e a t e r as t h e p o s i t i o n was
p e r c e i v e d t o be c u r r e n t l y )

having a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.00 or

greater.
c.
how t h e

The o t h e r r e s pon de nt groups a l l showed l e s s consensus as to
position

should

be performed

as

compared with

how th e y

3 47
p e r c e i v e d t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed, as i n d i c a t e d by
t h e i n c r e a s e d number o f r o l e items wit h a 1.00 o r g r e a t e r s t a n d a r d
deviation.
4.

Significant

differences

were

found

between

the

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r group and t h e o t h e r re s p o n d e n t groups on t h r e e
of the

eight

adm inistrative

functions

as

the

position

shou ld

be

performed.
a.

Regional E xt ens ion S u p e r v i s o r s had t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s

w ith County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s on t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n and
the

budge ting

and

financing

function

and

Agents on t h e program development f u n c t i o n .
Supervisors

v ie w ed

th eir

position

as

with

County

Extens ion

The Regional Extens ion

having

nearly

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r both t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and t h e bu dg e tin g and
f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s , as compared t o t h e County E xt ens ion D i r e c t o r s ’
p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t t h e y should have more th a n a minor r o l e b u t l e s s
th a n

a s h ar ed

Regional

role

for

th o s e

two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

functions.

The

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e i v e d th em sel ve s as having more

than a s h ar ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e program development f u n c t i o n ,
as compared t o t h e County Extension Agents p e r c e i v i n g them as having
l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n .
b.

The County Extension Agents,

Ext ension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

County Exten sio n D i r e c t o r s ,

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team a l l

th e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s with p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s

on t h e

had

public

r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n and t h e budg etin g and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n and with
th e Regional
function.

E x t e n s i o n S u p e r v i s o r s on t h e p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e r c e iv e d t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s

should

348

have a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r both t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and t h e
budgeting

and

financing

functions,

as

c om p ar ed

to

the

other

r e s p o n d e n t groups p e r c e i v i n g t h a t t h e S u p e r v i s o r s should have l e s s
th a n a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h o s e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .
The

County

perceived

Extension
that

resp o n sib ility

Agents

and

the

Supervisors

for

the

the

County

should

have

Ex te ns ion
less

pro gr am d e v e l o p m e n t

than

function,

Directors
a

s har ed
and t h e

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team p e r c e i v e d
they

should

Regional
more

have

a

Extension

than

a

s har ed

responsibility,

Supervisors’ perception

shared

responsibility

as

compared

that

for

they

wit h

the

should

have

out

th at

carrying

a dm inistrative function.
Findi ngs R e s u lt in g From t h e A nal ysis
o f Ten Independent V a r i a b l e s o f th e
Respondent Groups as t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s P o s i t i o n
Should Be Performed in Michigan
1.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

ge nde r and t h e

budge tin g

and

financing

Extension S u p e rv is o r’ s p o s itio n
Michigan.
having more
respondents.

The

female

res p o n d en ts

responsibility

for

it

should

p e rc e iv e d

that

function

of

the

Regional

be p e r f o r m e d

the

Supervisors

than

did

the

in
as

male

However, t h e mean resp ons e s c o r e s f o r s i x o f t h e e i g h t

adm inistrative functions
higher fo r

as

function

the

female

female res po nd en ts

as t h e p o s i t i o n
than

for the

held d i f f e r e n t

should be performed were

male r e s p o n d e n t s .

perceptions

as

to

the

Male

and

level

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r involvement with r e s p e c t t o onl y one

349

o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e p o s i t i o n shou ld be performed,
as

compared

to

adm inistrative

having

significant

functions

as

the

differences
position

on

is

three

of

cu rren tly

the

being

performed.
2.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s '

age and t h e pers onn el management f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t

should be performed in Michigan.

The

26-35 y e a r age group, t h e 46-55 y e a r age group, and t h e 56 y e a r and
o l d e r age group p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s t o have a h i g h e r l e v e l of
involvement wit h

respect

to

the

personnel

management f u n c t i o n

of

t h e i r p o s i t i o n than d id t h e under-26 y e a r age group and t h e 36-45
y e a r age group.

However, a l l groups p e r c e i v e d them t o have a sh ared

r e s p o n sib ility for th a t function.

Res pondents’ age was a f a c t o r in

t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being he ld r e g a r d i n g o nly one o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed, as compared t o being
a

significant

factor

adm inistrative

with r e s p e c t

functions

as

the

to

position

four
is

of

the

eight

currently

being

performed.
3.

A significant

d i f f e r e n c e was found

re s p o n d e n ts in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i r formal

in

the

views

of

th e

e d u c a t i o n with r e s p e c t

t o t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s and t h e budgeting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n s of
the

Regional

Extension

performed

in

Michigan.

relations

function

was

S upervisor’s p o sitio n
The g r e a t e s t
found between

as

difference
the

Master’ s

it

should

be

on

the public

group (2 .45 )

p e r c e i v i n g t h e p o s i t i o n t o have more than a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but

350
l e s s than a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
function,

and t h e re s p o n d e n ts wit h l e s s th a n a 8 . S. d e g re e

(3.07)

p e r c e i v i n g S u p e r v i s o r s as having a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in c a r r y i n g
ou t t h a t f u n c t i o n .

The r e s p o n d e n ts wi th B a c h e l o r ’ s d e g r e e s

(2.49)

and th o s e w it h D o c t o r ’ s d e g r e e s (2 .4 9) viewed t h e Regional Extension
S u p e r v i s o r ’ s r o l e in t h e bu dg eting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n as being
more

than

a

minor

responsibility

but

less

than

a

shared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts wit h l e s s th a n a B.S.
d e gre e ( 3 .1 1 ) and t h o s e with a S p e c i a l i s t ’ s de gre e p e r c e i v i n g them
as having a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
Resp ond en ts’ l e v e l
he ld

regarding

position

o f e d u c a ti o n was a f a c t o r in p e r c e p t i o n s

two o f t h e

eight

should be performed,

adm inistrative

as compared t o

functions

being

being
as

the

a significant

f a c t o r wit h r e s p e c t t o f i v e o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as
t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
4.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e in t h e Co op erati ve Extension S e r v i c e and t h e s t a f f
orientation

and

development

performed in Michigan.

function

as

the

(2 .9 1)

should

be

This was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e observed outcome

as t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
years

position

and 11-15 y e a r s

Respondents w it h 1-5

(2 .9 6) o f s e r v i c e w ith t h e Extension

S e r v i c e both p e r c e iv e d Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s as having l e s s
than

a

shared

responsibility

for

the

staff

orientation

and

development f u n c t i o n , as compared t o t h e re s p o n d e n ts with l e s s than
1 year

( 3 . 0 8 ) , t h o s e with 6-10 y e a r s ( 3 . 1 3 ) , and t h o s e w it h 16-20

351
years

(3 .21 ) o f s e r v i c e p e r c e i v i n g t h e S u p e r v i s o r s

as having more

than a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t a d m in is tra tiv e function.
5.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in t h e views o f t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s w it h r e s p e c t t o t h e number o f y e a r s

in t h e i r p r e s e n t

position

of

and t h e

eight

adm inistrative
as

functions
it

should

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s p o sition

be p e r f o r m e d

in

Michigan.

This outcome was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t observed when lo oking

a t t h e p o s i t i o n as i t i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
6.

A measurable a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ’

region/campus

affiliation

functions

the

of

and

Regional

three

Extension

should be performed in Michigan.
w ith

a

significance

level

program development,

down

six

of

the

significant

as

r e s p o n d e n ts

from t h e

highest

level

the

of

eight

position

the

eight

position

as

it

The t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
than

.01

and p u b l i c

currently

w e re

personnel

relations.

adm inistrative

is

being

Upper P e n in s u la re g i o n

Supervisor

adm inistrative

Supervisor’ s

g reater

management,
from

of

involvem ent

This

functions

being

performed.

(3 .5 5 )
with

The

indicated

respect

was

to

th e
the

pe rsonnel management f u n c t i o n , as compared t o t h e lo w e st l e v e l being
perceived

by re s p o n d e n ts

from t h e

Southwest

(3.13),

(3.18),

and Southwest (3 .2 0) r e g i o n s .

However, a l l

groups

p e r c e iv e d

having

the

Supervisors

r e s p o n s ib ility for th a t function.
(3 .0 8)

as

at

West C en t ra l
s i x re s p o n d e n t

least

a

s har ed

The campus-based r e s p o n d e n t group

and t h e re s p o n d e n ts from t h e Upper P e n in s u la r e g io n

( 3.0 8)

i n d i c a t e d t h a t Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s should have a sh ared
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with

respect

to

the

program development

function,

352

whereas resp on den ts from t h e Southwest (2. 81) and S o u th e a s t
re g i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s should have l e s s
responsibility

for

that

particular

adm inistrative

(2 .83)

th a n a sh ared
function.

The

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement in t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s
f u n c t i o n was p e r c e iv e d t o be n e a r l y a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e
Upper Pe n in s u la (2. 85) and t h e North (2 .83 ) re g i o n r e s p o n d e n t s ,
compared t o
Central

the

res p o n d en ts

from t h e

Southwest

( 2.3 8)

and

as

West

(2.42) r e g io n s i n d i c a t i n g th e y should have l i t t l e more than

a minor r o l e with r e s p e c t t o t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
7.

Significant

differences

were

found

between

the

size

county s t a f f and t h r e e o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t
in Michigan.

should be performed

The t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with a s i g n i f i c a n c e

l e v e l g r e a t e r than .01 were pe rsonnel management, s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n
and development,
none

of

the

and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

adm inistrative

and p o l i c y .

functions

being

p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.
with more than 10 p r o f e s s i o n a l
consistently

indicated

that

have l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
respondents

significant

and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

Regional

with

as

the

Respondents from c o u n t i e s
s t a f f members

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s

on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

from c o u n t i e s

This was up from

fewer

than

Counties with 3 or fewer s t a f f members (3. 37)

should

f u n c t i o n s th a n di d
10 s t a f f

members.

and t h o s e wit h 4-9

s t a f f members (3.32) p e rc e iv e d t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s as
having more th a n
responsibility

a sh ared

responsibility

f o r t h e personnel

but

less

management f u n c t i o n ,

tha n

a major

as compared

of

353
with

the

larg er-size

resp o n sib ility
S upervisors’
development

as

counties

being

a

shared

resp o n sib ility

function

was

perceiving

seen

for

one.
the

to

be

the

Regional

staff

a

S upervisors’
Extension

orientation

shared

and

responsibility

by

r e s p o n d e n t s from c o u n t i e s w ith 4 - 9 s t a f f members ( 3 . 0 9 ) and c o u n t i e s
with 3 o r fewer s t a f f members
counties

with

22

or

more

(3.03),

staff

as compared t o t h o s e

members

( 2 .9 2 )

and

10-15

from
staff

members (2. 76) p e r c e i v i n g t h e i r involvement t o be l e s s th a n a sh ared
responsibility.

Likewise,

respondents

from c o u n t i e s

w it h

16-21

s t a f f members ( 2 . 9 2 ) and t h o s e wit h 21 o r more s t a f f members (2. 94)
perceived

the

resp o n sib ility

S upervisors

as

having

fo r the a d m in istra tio n

less

than

and p o l i c y

a

shared

function,

as

compared with t h o s e from c o u n t i e s with fewer th a n 3 s t a f f members
(3.30)

and

with

involvement

to

4-6

be

staff

more

than

members
a

(3.25)

s har ed

perceiving

responsibility

th eir

for

that

p a r tic u la r adm inistrative function.
8.
amount

A measurable
of

contact

the

association

respondents

was

had

found

with

between

Regional

the

normal

Exten sio n

S u p e r v i s o r s and t h e budg eting and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n o f t h e Regional
Extension

Supervisor’s p o sitio n

Michigan.

This was down from t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s being

significant

as

the

position

as

is

it

should

cu rren tly

be p e r f o r m e d

being

in

perform ed.

Respondents who were in c o n t a c t wit h Regional Ex tens ion S u p e r v i s o r s
1-2 ti m e s per month ( 2 . 4 1 ) and t h o s e in c o n t a c t wit h S u p e r v i s o r s 1-2
tim e s p e r q u a r t e r (2 .5 7 ) i n d i c a t e d t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s should have more
tha n a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

but l e s s th a n a s h a r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

354

for

the

budg eting

and

financing

function,

r e s p o n d e n ts who had no c o n t a c t wit h

the

as

compared

position

to

the

perceiving

the

S u p e r v i s o r s ’ r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as being c l o s e r t o a s ha re d r e s p o n s i b i l ­
i t y f o r c a r r y i n g out t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
9.

A measu rable

association

was

found

between

the

ty p e

c o n t a c t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had with Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s with
r e s p e c t t o two o f t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension

S upervisor’s position

Michigan.

The two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

significance
This

as

were

public

sig n ifican t

as

the

of

and

the

position

should

functions

relations

was down from t h r e e

it

be p e r f o r m e d

wit h

bu dget ing

adm inistrative

is

a

currently

.01

and

level

of

financing.

functions

being

in

being

perform ed.

Respondents who had c o n t a c t with t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extens ion
S u p e r v i s o r in a v a r i e t y o f ways (2. 49) and by l e t t e r s and t e l e p h o n e
calls

th ro u g h o u t

the

year

(2.59)

rated

the

Regional

S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement with t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s
position

to

be l e s s

Extension

f u n c t i o n o f th e

than a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

as compared to

t h o s e re s p o n d e n t groups who had c o n t a c t by l e t t e r s only ( 2 . 9 9 ) ,
telephone

calls

only

(3.38),

by

(2.77),

and t h o s e who had l i t t l e

(2 .9 7 )

perceiving

responsibility.
Regional

the

contact

at

meetings

or

by

e v e n ts

o r no c o n t a c t w it h t h e p o s i t i o n

Supervisor’ s

involvement

to

be

a

sh ared

Likewise, t h e re s p o n d e n ts who had c o n t a c t w ith th e

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n thro ugh a v a r i e t y o f ways

(2 .4 7) and by l e t t e r s and te le p h o n e c a l l s t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r (2 .5 1)
p e r c e iv e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s involvement w it h r e s p e c t t o t h e bu dge tin g

of

355
and f i n a n c i n g f u n c t i o n t o be one whole c a t e g o r y lower th a n t h e o t h e r
r e s po nden t groups who had c o n t a c t with t h e

position

o nly thro ugh

l e t t e r s ( 3 .4 1 ) or t e l e p h o n e c a l l s ( 3 . 6 7 ) .
10.
of

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between t h e p e r c e n t a g e

time

the

programs

re s p o n d e n ts

and t h e

eight

spent

administering

adm inistrative

functions
it

should

of

the

staff

or

Regional

Extension

S upervisor’s p o sitio n

Michigan.

This was in agreement with t h e f i n d i n g s c once rn in g t h e

Regional

as

Extension

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n

as i t

be p e r f o r m e d

is

currently

in

being

performed.
Findings R e s u l t i n g From t h e A n a ly s is o f
t h e D i f f e r e n t E x p e c ta t io n s o f t h e Regional
Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role
as I t I s C u r r e n t l y Being Performed and as
I t Should Be Performed in Michigan
1.

The

staff

orientation

and

development

function

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n was seen by f o u r o f t h e s i x
re s p o n d e n t groups ( p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

Cou nty E x t e n s i o n A g e n t s ,

County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i vs Program Team) as
being t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n t h a t had t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e
between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed and
how i t should be performed in Michigan.

The r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d

t h a t S u p e r v is o r s should have a t l e a s t a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for

c a r r y i n g ou t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , as compared t o
their

perceptions

f u n c t i o n with

that

less

minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

than

Supervisors
a s har ed

are

currently

responsibility

performing

th e

but more than

a

the

356
a.

The Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

showed t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e

between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e rc e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed and
how i t

should be performed on t h e

They p e r c e i v e d

the

Supervisors

Extension programming f u n c t i o n .

currently

performing

the

function

wit h l e s s than a s h a r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e l e s s than 3 . 0 0 ) ,
as compared

to

perform ing

the

function

w it h more

tha n

a sh ared

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e g r e a t e r than 3 .0 0 ) as t h e p o s i t i o n should
be performed.
b.

The Regional

Extension

Supervisors

showed

d i f f e r e n c e between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d t o
performed

and

how i t

financing function.

should

be

performed

on

the

the

greatest

be c u r r e n t l y
budg eting

and

They p e r c e iv e d th e y were c u r r e n t l y performing

t h e f u n c t i o n with l e s s tha n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (mean s c o r e l e s s
th a n

3 . 0 0 ) , as

compared

to

their

perceptions

should have more tha n a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

that

the

position

(mean s c o r e g r e a t e r

th a n 3 .0 0) f o r c a r r y i n g ou t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
2.

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

and

policy

function

of

the

Regional

Ext ension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n was seen by t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
t h e County Extension Agents, t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s , and th e
Administrative

Program Team as

being

the

adm inistrative

function

w it h t h e l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d to
be c u r r e n t l y performed and how i t should be performed in Michigan.
However,

the

viewed t h e
less

than

D irectors

paraprofessionals

Supervisors
a shared
and t h e

as

and

currently

responsibility,
A dministrative

the

County

performing
whereas

the

Extens ion
the

Agents

function

County

Program Team p e r c e i v e d

with

Extension
them

as

357

c u r r e n t l y performing t h e f u n c t i o n as a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

All

a g re ed , however, t h a t S u p e r v i s o r s should be perf orm ing t h e f u n c t i o n
w ith a t l e a s t a s har ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
a.

Extension S p e c i a l i s t s

showed t h e l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e between

how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed and how i t
should be performed on t h e budgeting and f i n a n c i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
function.
less

In both c a s e s th e y p e r c e i v e d t h e S u p e r v i s o r s as having

than

a

shared

responsibility

but

more

than

a

minor

r e s p o n s ib il ity for carrying out t h a t p a r t i c u l a r function.
b.

The

Regional

Extension

Supervisors,

on

the

other

hand,

showed t h e l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e between how t h e p o s i t i o n was p e r c e iv e d
t o be c u r r e n t l y performed and how i t should be performed on both t h e
personnel management and program development f u n c t i o n s .
of

their

involvement

p e r c e iv e d t h e

in

the

personnel

p o s i t i o n as having more

but l e s s than a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

management

In t h e case

function,

the y

th a n a s ha r ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
as t h e

position is currently

being performed and as i t should be performed.

They p e r c e i v e d t h a t

t h e p o s i t i o n had n e a r l y a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g o u t th e
program development f u n c t i o n , both as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed and
as i t should be performed.
6.
adm inistrative

Significant
functions

differences
of

the

were found

Regional

for all

Exten sio n

eight

o f the

S up e rv iso r’s

p o s i t i o n when t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e t o t a l

r e s p o n d e n t group were

analyzed with

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r ’ s

r e s p e c t t o what t h e Regional

p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y as compared t o what t h e p o s i t i o n should be.

358
a.

Only two o f t h e s i x re sp ond en t groups d i d no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y

i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Regional Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s
sho uld have f o r c a r r y i n g o u t t h e e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f
t h e i r p o s i t i o n as compared with how th e y p e r c e i v e d t h e p o s i t i o n t o
be

currently

performed.

Specialist

group had

(pe rs on ne l

management,

They were

four

of

staff

the

.01,

follows:

eight

orientation

e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,
p - v a l u e s g r e a t e r th a n

as

the

Exten sio n

adm inistrative

functions

and development,

program

and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y ) with

and t h e Regional

Exten sio n S u p e r v i s o r s

had p - v a l u e s g r e a t e r th a n t h e pr e d e te r m in ed .01 l e v e l

on a l l

eight

adm inistrative functions.
Findi ngs Regarding t h e Most Important
S k i l l s That I n d i v i d u a l s in t h e P o s i ­
t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r
Should Po ss ess and t h e Most Important
Tasks They Should Perform
1.
being

Six
im portant

skills
for

identified

individuals

Extension

Supervisor to

(w ritten

and

o ral),

were

possess.

in

the

skills,

respondent

position

of

sk ills

(people

knowledge o f t h e

CES,

groups

Regional

They were communication

human . r e l a t i o n s

leadership/adm inistrative

by a l l

skills

sk ills),
listening

s k i l l s (empathy f o r o t h e r s ) , and good personnel-management s k i l l s .
a.

County

Extension

Agents

th oug ht

that

Regional

Extens ion

S u p e r v i s o r s should be v i s i o n a r y t h i n k e r s f o r t h e r e g i o n .
b.
D irectors

F ield
and

experience
Extension

was

identified

S pecialists

as

by

Co unty

being

Extension

essential

for

as

359
individuals

in

the

Regional

Extension

Supervisor’s

position

to

possess.
c.

P araprofessionals*

Administrative

th e Extension S p e c i a l i s t s ,

Program Team a l l

th oug ht

that

Regional

and t h e

Exten sio n

S u p e r v i s o r s need t o p o s s e s s good o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s .
2.
being

Seven t a s k s were
important ta sk s

identified

for

the

by a l l

re s p o n d e n t groups

Regional Ex te ns io n

perform.

They were l i a i s o n

appraisal

and e v a l u a t i o n w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n ,

training,

personnel

Supervisors

between campus and t h e r e g i o n ,

management

in t h e

as
to

staff

s t a f f development and

region,

program-development

a s s i s t a n c e , m o t i v a t o r / m o r a l e b u i l d e r f o r t h e r e g i o n , and promoter of
c r o s s - d i s c i p l i n e programming and teamwork in t h e r e g i o n .
a.

Paraprofessionals,

County

Extension

D irectors,

Extension

S p e c i a l i s t s , and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/Regional Extension
Supervisors

identified

staff

su p p o rt as an i m p o r ta n t

task

o f the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .
b.

County Extension

Agents,

County Ex tens ion

D irectors,

and

t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program Team/Regional Ex te ns ion S u p e r v i s o r s i d e n ­
tified

guidance

and c o u n s e l i n g

of

staff

in

the

region

as

an

im po rt an t t a s k o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .
c.
the

County Extension

Extens ion

S pecialists

Agents,

County Ex te ns ion

identified

conflict

D irectors,

and

management/problem

s o l v i n g w i t h i n t h e re g i o n as an impor tan t a s p e c t o f t h e

Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n .
d.
that

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and the Extension S p e c i a l i s t s th ought

regional

c o o r d i n a t i o n was an imp or tan t

task

of the

Regional

360

Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n , whereas t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Program
Team/Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s e x p r e s s e d program e v a l u a t i o n as
be in g i m p o r ta n t.
e.

Four

Extension

of

Supervisors

the

re s p o n d e n t

need

to

spend

groups
more

identified
time

in

the

that

Regional

region.

However, t h e County E xt ens ion Agents were t h e only re s p o n d e n t group
t o rank t h i s in t h e top t e n .
Conclusions
The c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t fo ll o w a r e based on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s
s tu d y and t h e review o f l i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h .
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e Respondents
1.
County

More than 70% o f t h e Regional
Extension

D irectors,

and

the

Extens ion S u p e r v i s o r s ,
Extens ion

Specialists

the
were

male, whereas only 3.2% o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts from t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l
level

within

the

Extension

organization

were

male.

The

i n d i c a t e t h e l a c k o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l

data

staff

at

t h e county l e v e l t h a t i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n being s e r v e d .
This was in agreement wit h H a r r i s o n ’s (1984)
the

study o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r

findings
position

relative

to

in Michigan.

Likewise, t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f Extension S p e c i a l i s t s who a r e male was
not r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n being s e r v e d .
2.

More than t h r e e - f i f t h s o f t h e County E x t en s io n Agents and

t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h e County Extension D i r e c t o r s p o s s e s s e d a M a s t e r ’ s
d e g r e e , whereas only 20% o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s he ld a t l e a s t

a

361
Bachelor’s degree.

The d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f

E xt ens ion employees ( p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , County Extension Agents, and
County Extension D i r e c t o r s ) in Michigan had not a t t a i n e d a M a s t e r ’ s
d e g r e e , which i s t h e e n t r y - l e v e l degree r e q u i r e d by t h e m a j o r i t y of
the

other

states

in

the

North

Cent ral

r e g io n

(A rt a b a sy ,

1991).

These d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e l e v e l o f formal e d u c a t i o n a l s o i n d i c a t e t h e
need f o r Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t o be a b l e t o

communicate

w ith i n d i v i d u a l s wi th v a ry in g l e v e l s o f formal e d u c a t i o n .
3.

Most

of

the

respondents

had

b e en

e m plo ye d

C oo per at i ve Extension S e r v i c e f o r f i v e y e a r s o r more.

w ith

the

A significant

number, more than o n e - t h i r d o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , o n e - f o u r t h of
the

County

S pecialists,
indicate

the

Extension

Agents,

and o n e - f i f t h

had been employed fewer tha n
need

for

Regional

Extension

of

the

Extension

five years.

The d a t a

Supervisors

to

pl a ce

i n c r e a s e d emphasis on t h e s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n and development f u n c t i o n
of

their

positions,

as

seen

by

that

particular

adm inistrative

f u n c t i o n be ing i d e n t i f i e d as t h e f u n c t i o n f o r which t h e S u p e r v i s o r s
should i n c r e a s e t h e i r l e v e l o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h e most from what i t
was p e r c e i v e d t o be c u r r e n t l y .
4.

The

amount

and

type

of

contact

groups had w ith t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional
quite varied.

the

various

r e s po nden t

Extension S u p e r v i s o r was

The m a j o r i t y o f p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

County Extension

Agents, and Extension S p e c i a l i s t s r e p o r t e d th e y were in c o n t a c t with
Regional Extension S u p e r v is o r s one t o two tim e s p e r q u a r t e r o r l e s s ,
with a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f t h e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e Extension
Specialists

indicating

the y

had

little

or

no

contact

w it h

the

362

p o s i t i o n o t h e r than a t o c c a s i o n a l

m e e t in g s.

The d a t a

indicate

a

need f o r Regional

Extension S u p e r v i s o r s t o spend more time in t h e

counties v i s itin g

f i e l d s t a f f t o obser ve and become f a m i l i a r with

th eir

prog ramm in g

d efinition

items)

in teracting

and

efforts

(4th-ranked

and a l s o

to

establish

communicating

with

item

out

of

an o r g a n i z e d

the

114

role-

method

paraprofessional

for
and

Extension S p e c i a l i s t p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Ext ension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role
1.
least

The Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r s were seen as having a t
a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

functions

for

five

and a minor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

performed,

in

all

eight

of the

of the

as

the

adm inistrative

position

adm inistrative

should

functions

be

studied.

This was i n c r e a s e d from none o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s being
considered
currently

a shared
perceived

resp o n sib ility
to

of

be f u n c t i o n i n g

the

position

as

in M ichigan.

it

is

However,

emphasis was pla ced on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional
Extension

Supervisor’s

follow ing order:
adm inistration

role,

as

it

should

be

performed,

in

th e

p e r s o n n e l manag em en t, E x t e n s i o n p ro g r a m m i n g ,

and p o l i c y ,

s ta ff orientation

program e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,

and d e v e l o p m e n t ,

program development,

public

r e l a t i o n s , and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g .
2.

The p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

one showing r o l e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was t h e only

consensus w i t h i n

c u r r e n t l y being performed.

th e groups

as

the

position

is

There was l a c k o f consensus w i t h i n th e

363

r e s ponden t groups f o r t h e o t h e r seven a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
the

position

was

currently

being

performed.

In

functions

contrast,

as

role

consensus w i t h i n t h e s i x p o s i t i o n groups was p r e s e n t on f o u r o f t h e
e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e p o s i t i o n sho uld be performed.
The f o u r f u n c t i o n s showing r o l e consensus were pers onn el management,
program e v a l u a t i o n
and bud ge ting

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ,

and f i n a n c i n g .

adm inistration

The f u n c t i o n s

that

and p o l i c y ,

had a l a c k

consensus w i t h i n t h e r e s po nd en t groups were s t a f f o r i e n t a t i o n

of
and

development, Extension programming, program development, and p u b l i c
relations.

The d a t a i n d i c a t e a h i g h e r l e v e l o f co nsensus w i t h i n th e

p o s i t i o n groups as t h e S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n should be performed, as
compared wit h

how i t

was

p e r c e iv e d

the

role

is

currently

being

performed.
3.

The Extension programming a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n was t h e

only one showing r o l e consensus among t h e r e s po nden t groups as th e
p o s i t i o n was c u r r e n t l y being performed.
among t h e

re sp onden t

groups

for

the

There was l a c k o f consensus
other

seven

f u n c t i o n s as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.

adm inistrative

In c o n t r a s t ,

role

consensus among t h e s i x p o s i t i o n groups was p r e s e n t on f i v e o f t h e
e i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as t h e p o s i t i o n should be performed.
The

five

functions

sh owing

pe rsonnel management,

role

consensus

s ta f f orientation

programming,

pro g r am

administration

and

evaluation

policy.

The

among g r o u p s

and development,
and

functions

were

Extension

accountability,
that

had

a

lack

and
of

consensus among groups were program development, p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s ,

364
and budge tin g and f i n a n c i n g .
role

c o n s e n s u s among t h e

The d a t a i n d i c a t e a h i g h e r l e v e l
position

groups

as t h e

of

S upervisor’ s

p o s i t i o n should be performed as compared w it h how i t was p e r c e i v e d
t h e p o s i t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y being performed.

However, t h e r e was s t i l l

a l a c k o f consensus among t h e groups w it h r e g a r d t o t h r e e o f t h e
eight adm inistrative functions.
4.
and

The l a c k o f r o l e consensus t h a t was obs er ved both w i t h i n

among g r o u p s , a s

it

related

to

the

position

of

Regional

Ext ens ion S u p e r v i s o r as i t was p e r c e i v e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed,
may have been a s s o c i a t e d with t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t were
seen w it h r e s p e c t t o t h e ge n de r o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e i r ag e, t h e i r
l e v e l o f formal e d u c a t i o n , t h e l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e t h e y had w it h th e
C oo pe r at i ve Extension S e r v i c e , t h e i r region/campus a f f i l i a t i o n , and/
o r t h e amount and ty p e o f c o n t a c t th e y had with t h e

position

of

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r .
5.
and

The l a c k o f r o l e consensus t h a t was obser ved both w i t h i n

among g r o u p s , a s

Ext ension

it

S u p e r v i s o r as

related
it

to

the

was p e r c e iv e d

position
the

of

position

Regional
shou ld

be

performed, may have been a s s o c i a t e d wit h t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
that

were seen with r e s p e c t

t o t h e gender o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e i r

age,

t h e i r l e v e l o f formal e d u c a t i o n , t h e l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e th e y had

w ith t h e Co op era ti ve Extension S e r v i c e , t h e i r region/campus a f f i l i a ­
t i o n , t h e amount and typ e o f c o n t a c t t h e y had w it h t h e p o s i t i o n of
Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r , and t h e s i z e o f t h e i r county s t a f f .
6.

The m a j o r i t y

of

the

adm inistrative

functions

of

the

Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n (67 o f t h e 114 r o l e i t e m s ) ,

365

as

it

should

be

perform ed,

w ere

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p o s itio n .

perceived

to

be

a

shared

The d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t incumbents

in t h e p o s i t i o n o f Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r in Michigan have a
b u i l t - i n r o l e c o n f l i c t as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e o t h e r c o u n t e r - p o s i t i o n s
w i t h i n t h e Extens ion o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t a r e a l s o p e r c e i v e d t o have a
s i m i l a r l y s ha r ed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g ou t t h e v a r i o u s
items

inv olv ed

perceived

in

lack

this

of

s tu d y .

Likewise,

d ecentralized

the

decision

data

ma king

role

indicate
w ithin

a
the

o r g a n i z a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o t h e 114 r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items in volve d
in t h i s s t u d y , as viewed by t h e number o f r o l e items p e r c e i v e d t o be
a sh ared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e

position.

the o rganizational theory th a t

p r e s c r i b e s l e t t i n g d e c i s i o n s be made

a t the level

This was in c o n f l i c t

with

in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e

problems, c l i e n t e l e , and t h e work i t s e l f in o r d e r t h a t a c t i o n can be
ta k e n more q u i c k l y .
Recommendations
The

findings

and

conclusions

already

reported

pro v id e d

th e

b a s i s f o r s e v e r a l recommendations.
1.

The Michigan C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e should c o n t i n u e

t o plan and conduct an a c t i v e A f f i r m a t i v e Action program t o p ro v id e
the

opportunity

f o r women t o

Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t h e
Likew ise,

efforts

imbalance

between

should
the

assume
c ounty ,

continue

number

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e s in

of

regional,
to

women

be made
h o ld in g

the

and s t a t e l e v e l s .
to

im p r o v e

the

paraprofessional

366
p o s i t i o n s as compared t o men ho ld in g t h i s same s t a t u s l e v e l

in th e

organization.
2.

To i n c r e a s e

the

level

of

role

consensus

w ithin

the

E x te n s io n o r g a n i z a t i o n in M ichigan, t h e c u r r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
structure
Co un ty

should

be e v a l u a t e d

Extension

D irectors,

A ssistant D irectors,
in

order

to

and t h e

position

Regional

descriptions

Extension

for

S upervisors,

and A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r s should be r e e v a l u a t e d

elim inate

the

duplication

of

tasks,

as

well

as

to

c l e a r l y p ro vid e a u t h o r i t y with t h e d e l e g a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the
v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
This

in fo r m a t io n

must

th e n

be

communicated e f f e c t i v e l y

p o sitio n s within

t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .

study perceived

the

definition

item s

as

responsibility
being

shared

for

Respondents
the

to

all

in

this

m ajority

equally.

of

When e v e r y o n e

roleis

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a t a s k , no one i s r e a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e .
3.

In c re a s e d e f f o r t s

need t o

be made by Regional

S u p e r v i s o r s t o keep in c o n t a c t w it h pe rs on ne l

in a l l

the counter­

p o s i t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Regional
more time

Extension
in

the

appo int ed " s t a f f ,

Supervisors
counties

need t o

with

all

identify

staff

Likewise,

ways o f

and

no t

Extension

just

spending
"board-

in o r d e r t o minimize t h e e x t e n t o f r o l e c o n f l i c t

c u r r e n t l y e x i s t i n g w i t h i n t h o s e two p o s i t i o n s .
4.
Extension

Special

consideration

Supervisors

for

the

fu n c t i o n o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n .
this

was

the

adm inistrative

needs
staff

to

be g i v e n

orientation

by R e g i o n a l

and

development

The re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s st ud y th oug ht
function

of

the

Regional

Extension

367

S upervisor’s

position

th at

deserved

the

most

change

in

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from what was p e rc e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed t o
what should be performed in Michigan.

However, t h e S u p e r v i s o r s were

p e rc e iv e d t o have more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e pe rs onn el management,
Extension programming,

and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

and p o l i c y

functions

of

t h e i r p o s i t i o n as i t should be performed.
5.

A system

should

be

developed

w ithin

the

Extension

o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t would c o n t i n u a l l y h i g h l i g h t and acknowledge t h e
role

resp o n sib ilities

organization.

of

the

various

positions

w ithin

the

This would pro vid e a mechanism f o r a s s i s t i n g s t a f f in

b e t t e r u n d e rs ta n d in g t h e r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e pe rsonnel
in t h e v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s t h a t make up t h e E xt ens ion o r g a n i z a t i o n in
M ic h i g a n

and

also

provide

a favorable

clim ate

for

resolving

d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t might e x i s t between t h e p e r c e p t i o n s being h e ld f o r
t h e v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
6.

A t r a i n i n g program should be developed f o r p r o s p e c t i v e and

new middle managers in Michigan t h a t would in c l u d e t r a i n i n g in th e
fo ll ow in g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s :
pr o g r a m m i n g ,

adm inistration

developm ent,

p ro g r am

pe rs onn el management, Extension

and p o l i c y ,

evaluation

and

staff

o rien tatio n

accountability,

and

program

development, p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s , and budgeting and f i n a n c i n g .
7.

A system

development

should

be

developed

program t h a t would pr ovi de

as

a part

Extension

of

the

staff-

s t a f f w it h

easy

a c c e ss to g r a d u a t e and u nd e rg ra du at e c o u r s e s a p p l i c a b l e t o a formal
e d u c a ti o n a l program in o r d e r t o brin g Michigan E xt ens ion workers up

368
t o t h e e n t r y - l e v e l formal e d u c a ti o n req u ir e m e n ts o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f
t h e o t h e r s t a t e s in t h e North C en t ra l r e g i o n .
Recommendations f o r
A dd it io n a l Research
1.

Research should be conducted, t o i d e n t i f y t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

position

within

t h e Michigan Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n

that

is

most

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r each o f t h e 114 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e - d e f i n i t i o n items
i n v e s t i g a t e d in t h i s s tu d y .
2.

Research should be conducted in Michigan t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e

p e r c e p t i o n s held by p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s wit h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r s p e c i f i c
p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n .
3.
being

Research should be conducted t o
held

by t h e

Extension

staff

identify

with

the

respect

to

perceptions
the

other

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n in Michigan.
4.

Research should be conducted t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e advan tag es

and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s c u r r e n t l y
in

p la c e

in

other

Extension

organizations

Cent ral r e g io n a n d /o r t h e United S t a t e s .
investigation

of

the

adm inistrative

throughout

the

North

Thi s would a l s o i n c l u d e an

reporting

process

for

which

Extension i s r e s p o n s i b l e in t h e v a r io u s u n i v e r s i t i e s .
5.

F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h needs t o be conducted in Michigan on each

of the various
S u p erv iso r’s

adm inistrative
position

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional

(especially

the

staff

Extension

o rien tatio n

and

development f u n c t i o n ) .
6.

Research should be conducted in Michigan t o de te r m in e the

l e v e l of s t r e s s and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s in th e

369

Extension o rg a n iz a tio n

( e s p e c i a l l y as i t

pertains

to

staffing

changes).
7.

Research should be conducted on t h e e f f e c t s o f i n t e r i m and

a c t i n g p o s i t i o n s in t h e Extension o r g a n i z a t i o n from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e
o f Extens ion s t a f f ,

Extension c l i e n t e l e ,

and key community l e a d e r s

( e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , commodity grou ps , and so on ).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE

370

M I C H I G A N S T AT E U N I V E R S I T Y
U N IV E R SIT Y C O M M IT T E E O N R E S E A R C H IN V O L V IN G

E A S T L A N S IN G • M IC H IG A N • 4*824-1111

H U M A N S U B JE C T S (U C R JH S)
206 BERK EY H A LL
(517) 3 5 3 -9 7 3 8

IRB# 88-494

December 9,1988

Raymond J. Clark
Cooperative Extension Service
48 Ag Hall
Dear Mr. Clark:
Subject:

"AN ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISOR'S
ROLE IN MICHIGAN'S COOPERATIVE IRB# 88-494"

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed
the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of
human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the
research.
You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If
you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions
for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to December
8.1989

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by
the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be
notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints,
etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work.
Thank you for bringing this project to our attention, if we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Sincere]

Jqhn K. Hudzik, Ph.D.
Chair, UCRIHS
JKH/sar
cc: D. Meaders

M SU is am A f / ir m a tw t A c tio n E qual O p p o r tu n ity In s titu tio n

371

C ooperative E xtension S ervice

Director** Office

Michigan State University

Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, Michigan

November 18, 1988
TO:

Select Extension Retirees and Former Extension Employees

FROM:

Raymond J. Clark
Acting Regional Extension Supervisor

RE:

Field Testing Doctoral Questionnaire

The Cooperative Extension Service has throughout the years
been noted -for opening its doors to both internal and external
evaluations. The Regional Extension Supervisor's position
within the Michigan Extension organization has received little
attention by previous researchers. As part of my doctorate
program in the Department of Agriculture and Extension Education
at Michigan State University, I'm conducting a current analysis
of the Regional Extension Supervisor's administrative role in
Michigan. This study is designed to help reduce the ambiguity
of the Regional Extension Supervisor's position in order to
improve the effectiveness of this middle management position
within the Extension organization.
You have been selected to participate in the field testing
of this study because you are either a retiree of the
organization or a former employee who has recently left the
organization. You undoubtedly hold some important opinions
regarding the role of the Regional Extension Supervisor as it is
currently performed as well as how you perceive it should be
performed.
Please take a few minutes to express your opinions regarding
the role of the Regional Extension Supervisor by completing the
enclosed questionnaire.
I would appreciate you recording how
long it takes you to complete the survey instrument. Likewise,
I would appreciate you indicating any areas of the survey
instrument that you feel are unclear as well as identify any
responsibilities of the Regional Supervisors position that you
feel I have overlooked in the questionnaire.

372

Thank you in advance for your assistance in -field testing my
survey instrument. The Regional Extension Supervisor's position
is an important administrative position within the Extension
organization. Your input will aid in insuring the final survey
instrument is as accurate as passible. I would appreciate a
speedy reply in the enclosed self-addressed envelope as I hope
to send the finished questionnaire out sometime in early
December or early January.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me at
517/355-0112.
If I am not in the office at the time leave a
message and I will return your telephone call.
cci J. Ray Gillespie
0. Donald Meaders

373

C o o p e r a t iv e E x t e n s io n S

e r v ic e

Director’s Office

Michigan State University

Agriculture Hall
L*n,lnfl' Michigan 46624-1039

December 8, 1988
TO:

County Extension Directors

FROM:

J. Ray Gillespie, Associate Director/Programs

RE:

Ray Clark's Survey of the Regional Supervisor's Role

During the next few days you will be receiving in the mail a
questionnaire from Ray Clark which will be soliciting your
perceptions of the Regional Supervisor's administrative role within
our organization. Although 1 freguently attempt to keep surveys from
your desk, this is not the case with this one. Ray's study happens
to address a very important topic in our organization and your
responses are critical to a useful outcome. Please encourage the
rest of your staff to also share their opinions regarding the role of
the Regional Supervisor in our organization by completing their
respective questionnaires.
A comprehensive study of this nature, looking at the role of the
Regional Supervisor, has not been conducted in Michigan. It is
important that we gain a knowledge of the perceptions currently held
within our organization regarding the Regional Supervisor's
position. Please find the time to give Ray your best response in a
timely way. In this case you'll not only be helping Ray but the
whole organization. I believe you will expand your understanding of
the role considerably in the process. Thanks for a quick response.
cc: Regional Supervisors
Raymond Clark

374

C o o p e r a t iv e E

x t e n s io n

S

e r v ic e

Director's Office

Michigan State University

Agriculture Hall
^

t-“n,ln9- Michigan 48824-1039

December 8 , 1988
TO:

Extension Specialists

FROM:

J. Ray Gillespie, Associate Director/Programs

RE:

Ray Clark's Survey of the Regional Supervisor's Role

During the next few days you will be receiving in the mail a
questionnaire from Ray Clark which will be soliciting your
perceptions of the Regional Supervisor's administrative role within
our organization. Although I freguently attempt to keep surveys from
your desk, this is not the case with this one. Ray's study happens
to address a very important topic in our organization and your
responses are critical to a useful outcome.
A comprehensive study of this nature, looking at the role of the
Regional Supervisor, has not been conducted in Michigan. It is
important that we gain a knowledge of the perceptions currently held
within our organization regarding the Regional Supervisor's
position. Please find the time to give Ray your best response in a
timely way. In this case you'll not only be helping Ray but the
whole organization. I believe you will expand your understanding of
the role considerably in the process. Thanks for a quick response.
cc: Regional Supervisors

375

C o o p e r a t iv e E

x t e n s io n

S

e r v ic e

Director’s Office

Michigan State University

Agriculture Hall
Lansing, Michigan 48824-1039

December 8, 1988
TO:

Administrative and Program staff

FROM:

J. Ray Gillespie, Associate Director/Programs

RE:

Ray Clark's Survey of the Regional Supervisor's Role

During the next few days you will be receiving in the mail a
questionnaire from Ray Clark which will be soliciting your
perceptions of the Regional Supervisor's administrative role within
our organization. Although I freguently attempt to keep surveys from
your desk, this is not the case with this one. Ray's study happens
to address a very important topic in our organization and your
responses are critical to a useful outcome.
A comprehensive study of this nature, looking at the role of the
Regional Supervisor, has not been conducted in Michigan. It is
important that we gain a knowledge of the perceptions currently held
within our organization regarding the Regional Supervisor's
position. Please find the time to give Ray your best response in a
timely way. In this case you'll not only be helping Ray but the
whole organization. I believe you will expand your understanding of
the role considerably in the process. Thanks for a quick response.
cc: Regional Supervisors
Raymond Clark

376

C o o p e r a t iv e E x t e n s io n S

e r v ic e

Director's Office

Agriculture Hall

Michigan Slate University

D ecem b er 8 ,

Uiulnfl, Mlchlaan 44824.1039

1988

TO:

E x te n sio n P a ra p ro fessio n a ls (p rogram assistan ts, E F N E P a id e s, e tc )
C o u n ty /D is tr ic t/R e g io n a l E x te n sio n A g en ts
C o u n ty E x te n sio n D irecto rs
E x te n sio n S p ecia lists
C .E .S . A d m in ista tiv e /P r o g r a m S ta ff
R e g io n a l E x te n sio n S u p erv iso rs

FR O M :

R a y m o n d J. C lark
A c tin g R e g io n a l E x te n sio n S u p erv iso r

T h e C o o p e r a tiv e E x te n sio n S e r v ic e h as, th rou gh ou t th e y e a r s, b e e n n o te d fo r
o p e n in g its d o o rs to b o th in tern al a n d e x tern a l ev a lu a tio n s.
T h e R eg io n a l
S u p erv iso r’s p o sitio n w ith in M ic h ig a n ’s E x te n sio n sy stem has r e c e iv e d little
a tten tio n b y p r e v io u s research ers.
A s part o f m y d o ctorate p rogram in the
D ep a rtm e n t o f A g ricu ltu re and E x te n sio n E d u c a tio n , T m
c o n d u c tin g a cu rren t
a n a ly sis o f th e R e g io n a l S u p ervisor’s a d m in istra tiv e role in M ic h ig a n .
T h is
stu d y is d e s ig n e d to h elp red u ce th e a m b ig u ity o f the R e g io n a l S u p erv iso r’s
p o sitio n in o r d e r to im p r o v e the e f fe c tiv e n e s s o f th is m id d le m a n a g em en t
p o sitio n w it h in ou r o rg a n iza tio n .
Y o u h a v e b een se le c te d to p a rticip a te in th is stu d y b eca u se y o u c u r r e n tly
h old an im p o r ta n t p o sitio n w ith in M ic h ig a n ’s E x ten sio n o rg a n iza tio n that is
eith er d ir e c tly or in d ir e c tly c o n n e c te d to the R e g io n a l S u p erv iso r’s p o sitio n .
In a d d itio n , as a m em b er o f the E x te n sio n org a n iza tio n h ere in M ich ig a n , you
u n d o u b te d ly h o ld so m e im portan t o p in io n s reg a rd in g the role o f the R e g io n a l
S u p erv iso r as it is r n r r e n r l y p erfo rm ed as w e ll as h o w y o u p e r c e iv e it sh o u ld
be p e r fo r m e d .
P lea se tak e a sh ort break fro m you r b u sy sc h e d u le to ex p ress you r o p in io n s
regard in g th e r o le o f the R eg io n a l S u p e r v iso r in o u r o rg a n iza tio n .
It is
e stim a te d th a t it w ill take you a p p r o x im a te ly o n e hour to c o m p le te the
q u e stio n n a ir e .
Y ou w ill fin d in stru ctio n s w ith in each s e c tio n o f the
q u estio n n a ir e to aid y o u in c o m p le tin g the su r v e y in stru m en t. T h e
q u e stio n n a ir e h as an id e n tific a tio n n u m b er f o r sta tistica l p u rp o ses on ly. Y ou r
n am e w ill n e v e r be p la ced o n the q u e stio n n a ir e .
C o m p le tio n o f the su r v e y
is
v o lu n ta ry w ith no p en a lty for n o n -p a r tic ip a tio n .
By retu rn in g the c o m p le te d
q u e stio n n a ir e , y o u are in d ica tin g y o u r v o lu n ta ry agreem en t to p articip ate in
the stu d y .
T h a n k y o u in a d v a n ce for you r im m ed ia te atten tion an d c o o p era tio n in
sh arin g y o u r o p in io n s regard in g the R eg io n a l S u p erv iso r’s ad m in istra tiv e role
w ith in o u r o rg a n iza tio n . If you sh o u ld h ave a n y q u estio n s regard in g this
su r v e y , f e e l fr e e to co n ta ct m e at 5 1 7 /3 5 5 - 0 1 1 2 .
Please return the
q u estio n n a ir e in the en clo sed o re-a d d ressed e n v e lo p e b y January 11. I 9 R9 .
E nc.

377

To:
Everyone
From: Ray Clark
Deliver To: Progam Assistants/Aides
Deliver To: County and District Agents
Deliver To: County Extension Directors
Deliver To: Extension Specialists
Deliver To: Extension Administrative/Program Staff
Deliver To: Regional Supervisors

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*

*

* REMINDER

REMINDER

REMINDER

REMINDER

REMINDER

REMINDER

*

*
*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In mid December a questionnaire seeking your perceptions regarding the
role of the Regional Supervisor as it is currently performed and as it
should be performed in Michigan was mailed to you. As a current Extension
employee you were selected to participate in the study because of your
direct or indirect knowledge and experience of the Regional Supervisor's
position. Your perceptions of this position are important and are needed
in order to insure the position is adequately meeting the needs of our
organization.
If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire please
accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. The survey was
sent to all Extension employees because each of you can provide essential
information as to how this position in our organization is currently being
perceived and also how it is perceived the position should be performed.
If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire or it got
misplaced, please call me at (517/355-0112) and I will get another one in
the mail to you today. Your perceptions of the Regional Supervisor's
position are needed in order to make this survey complete.
Thank you for your assistance in completing this survey.

3 78

C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e m s io k S
Michigan Stole Oniveraity

e r v ic e
~

Director** Office

Agriculture Hall
& “ • u "^nA' MWilgan 48824

February 1, 1989

Dear :
In mid-December I wrote to you seeking your perceptions regarding
the role of the Regional Supervisor as it is currently performed and
as it should be performed in our Extension organization. Since I
have not received your completed questionnaire, I am enclosing
another copy in case the original one got lost in the Christmas mail.
This study has been undertaken to investigate how various groups
within our organization perceive the Regional Supervisor's role in
the. areas of Personnel Management, Staff Orientation and Development,
Program Development, Extension Programming, Program Evaluation and
Accountability, Administration and Policy, Public Relations and
Budgeting and Finance.
The CES programs in Michigan, and other states, are undergoing
change. This study of the role of the Regional Supervisor is seen as
one of several studies which may be useful in planning for the
future. In order for the results of the study to be truely
representative of the perceptions being held by Paraprofessionals,
County/District Extension Agents, County Extension Directors,
Extension Specialists, and Administrative/Program Staff regarding the
role of Regional Supervisors in Michigan, it is essential that each
person return the questionnaire.
You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The
questionnaire has an identification number for statistical purposes
only. Your name will never be placed on tne questionnaire.
Completion is voluntary with no penalty for non-participation.
Return constitutes your consent. This is a Ph.D. research project.
Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire is appreciated.
It will take about an hour to complete.
Sincerely,

Raymond J. Clark
Acting Regional Extension Supervisor
enc.

APPENDIX B
THE ROLE EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

379

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF REGIONAL SUPERVISORS
IN MICHIGAN'S COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
This questionnaire is designed to determine the perceptions being
held by six groups in the Cooperative Extension Service in Michigan
regarding the role of the Regional Extension Supervisor. The
information gained in this study will be very helpful for
strengthening and improving the Regional Supervisor's position within
Michigan's Extension organization. All information is confidential
and will be used for professional purposes only. Participation in
the study is voluntary, however, your cooperation in completing the
survey will be greatly appreciated.
The purposes of the study are:
1. to describe the role of the Regional Extension Supervisor in
Michigan as viewed by six Extension groups: Extension
Paraprofessionals (program assistants, EFNEP aides, etc.),
County/District and Regional Extension Agents, County Extension
Directors, State Extension Specialists, the Administrative
Professional Team, and the Regional Extension Supervisors.
2. to obtain information to help Extension personnel gain a
better understanding of similarities and differences in role
perceptions between and within the various groups and the position
being studied.
3. to provide Extension administrators and Regional Extension
Supervisors in Michigan with information on which to improve the
effectiveness of the Regional Supervisor's position in the Extension
organization.

380

"An A nalysis of the Role of Regional S«4>ervlsors
in M ichigan's Cooperative Extension Service*
SECTION I - This s e c tio n of th e q u e stio n n a ire focuses on your perceptions o f a c t i v i t i e s which may d e sc rib e something with which
a Regional Extension Supervisor (RES) o u st be concerned w ith, be responsible f o r , o r oversee th e m atter d escrib ed in the
statem en t. F i r s t , in d ic a te U iether you consider th e lis te d items as "None", "Minor", "Shared", "M ajor", o r "Complete"
re s p o n s ib ilitie s o f a Regional Extension Supervisor a s you perceive the p o s itio n is c u rre n tly performed in Michigan. Second,
in d ic a te whether you consider th e l i s t e d items a s "None", "Minor", "Shared", H a jo r " , "Ccnplete" re s p o n s ib iltie s of the Regional
Extension S u p e rv iso r's p o s itio n a s you p erceiv e th e p o s itio n should be w ithin th e Extension O rganization. ( Remeefaer. you a re to
consider how you p e rc eiv e th e p o s itio n o f Reoional Extension Supervisor is performed in th e CES o rg a n iz a tio n and not your,
perceptions o f how a p a r tic u la r in d iv id u al i s performing the ro le ) .
1. • "None” , th e Regional Extension Supervisor has no re s p o n s ib ility fo r the a c t iv ity
2 . * "Minor", th e Regional Extension Supervisor i s responsible fo r a minor p o rtio n of th e a c t iv ity , another
p o s itio n in th e CES o rg a n iz a tio n is responsible fo r th e m ajor s h are.
3 . « "Shared", th e Regional Extension Supervisor shares equally the re s p o n s ib ility fo r th e a c t iv ity w ith another p o s itio n in
th e o rg a n izatio n "
4 . • 'W ajor”, th e Regional Extension Supervisor has re s p o n sib ility for th e a c t iv ity w hile another p o s itio n in the
o rg a n iz a tio n is re sp o n sib le fo r a minor share.
5 . • "C onplete", th e Regional Extension Supervisor is the only p o sitio n in the o rg a n iz a tio n re sp o n sib le fo r th is
a c t iv ity .

PART A: PERSONNEL MANACEMENT

1.

S elect s ta f f fo r vacant county,
d i s t r i c t and reg io n al Extension
p o sitio n s w ith in th e region.

2.

Id e n tify ind iv id u al stre n g th s and
weaknesses of Extension s ta f f in th e
region.

3.

MIM ihe euuiuuucs uT EAueViaiCa'i a ta 'T

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS (C irc le one)

AS IT SHOULD BE (C irc le one)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

in th e region towards th e CES
o rg an izatio n .
4.

M aintain s t a f f s o lid a r ity , morale and
e s p r it da corps in th e reg io n .

5.

Provide inform ation and procedures to
s ta f f fo r f i l i n g grievances and appeals.

6.

Develop s ta f f in g a lte rn a tiv e s fo r
c ounty(ies) and th e reg io n .

7.

A dninister CES p o lic ie s and procedures
re la tin g to co ntinuing employment of
Extension f ie ld s t a f f in th e reg io n .
GO TO PAGE 12)

381

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS (C irc le one)

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C i r c l e on e)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

12. In su re f a i r treatm en t o f a l l Extension
s t a f f w ith in th e reg io n .

1

2

3

4

5

13. M aintain a c o ap eten t s t a f f w ith in th e
reg io n .

1

2

3

4

5

14. P resen t new Extension f ie ld s t a f f to

1

2

3

4

5

15. A ss is t s ta f f in th e reg io n in developing
a p o s itiv e working re la tio n s h ip with
o th e r Extension s t a f f .

1

2

3

4

5

16. Provide s ta f f w ith p o lic ie s and
procedures re la tin g to s t a f f b e n e f its .

1

2

3

17. A d n in ister U n iv e rsity and Extension
Service p o lic ie s and procedures fo r
handling s t a f f d is c ip lin a r y problems

1

2

3

1

2

3

8.

Handle personnel p ro b le m s/c o n flic t in
th e reg io n .

9.

Conduct p e rio d ic a p p ra is a ls o f c o u ity ,
d i s t r i c t and re g io n a l s t a f f in th e
reg io n .

10. Interview p ro sp e c tiv e candidates fo r
open p o s itio n s w ith in th e region.
11. R ecru it c an d id ates f o r open f i e l d s t a f f
p o s itio n s w ith in th e region.

th e County Board o f C onnissioners.

w ith in the reg io n .
18. In su re conpliance w ith C o trty , Michigan
S ta tv

w n iV C rS ity

OHM k n t C P i g i v n

p C T S C fV a C t

p o lic ie s and procedures w ith in th e re g io n .

PART 2 - STAFF ORIENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
19. Provide o rie n ta tio n fo r new eaployees to
th e ir Extension ro le s .

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

20. Help s ta f f to sieet th e ex p ectatio n s of

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

co lleag u es, a d n in is tr a to r s and c lie n te l e
g ro ip s to be serv ed .
GO TO PAGE [3]

382

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS (C irc le one)

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C i r c l e o n e )

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE
1

2

3

4

5

22. Provide s t a f f w ith procedures fo r
conducting e f f e c tiv e s e lf - a p p r a is a ls .

1

2

3

23. A s s is t f i e l d s t a f f in developing personal
p la n s and long-term personal g o a ls.

1

2

3

24. Encourage f i e l d s t a f f to develop and

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

26. Encourage f i e l d s t a f f to develop and
pursue p ro fessio n al development in
a d m in is tra tiv e competencies.

1

2

3

4

5

27. A s s is t f ie ld s t a f f in becoming fa m ilia r
w ith th e CES A dm inistrative handbook

1

2

3

4

5

28. A ss is t f ie ld s t a f f in becoming fa m ilia r
w ith CES/MSU/USOA p o lic ie s and procedures.

1

2

3

29. A ss is t f ie ld s t a f f in developing
p ro fessio n al plans and long-term c a re e r

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

32. O rganize s t a f f in -s e rv ic e o p p o rtu n itie s
ninen needed in th e region.

1

2

3

4

5

33. Conduct s t a f f in -s e rv ic e o p p o rtu n itie s

1

2

3

1

2

3

21. A ss is t s t a f f In in te rp r e tin g , accep tin g
and implementing th e Extension

1

2

3

4

5

philosophy o f p ib lic serv ic e as an
in te g ra l dimension of th e land g rs n t
u n iv e rsity -sy stem .

p ursue p ro fessio n al development in
te c h n ica l competencies
25. Encourage f i e l d s t a f f to develop and
p ursue p ro fessio n al development in
ed u catio nal com petencies.

g o a ls.
30. A ss is t new s t a f f in becoming aq u ain ted
w ith th e community.
31. Provide f i e l d s t a f f with EEO and T itle
IX inform ation.

when needed in th e region.

PART 3: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
34. A s s is t f ie ld s ta f f In e ffe c tiv e ly using
ad visory c o u n cils.
GO TO PAGE (41

383

AS IT SHOULD BE (C irc le one)

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS (C irc le one)
NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE
1

2

3

4

5

36. A ss is t f ie ld s t a f f in ia p le n en tln g th e
long-range o b je c tiv e s o f th e Cooperative
Extension S erv ice in t h e i r Region.

1

2

3

4

5

37. Inplement e ffe c tiv e methods of reaching
E x ten sio n 's goals w ith in th e reg io n .

1

2

3

4

5

38. Forecast fu tu re tre n d s o r needs o f th e
Extension S erv ice.

1

2

3

4

5

39. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in g e ttin g in creased
p a rtic ip a tio n in E xtension educational

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

41. Review f ie ld s t a f f p lan s o f work and
make suggestions fo r improvement.

1

2

3

4

5

42. Be fa m ilia r w ith p o p u latio n and
eeployment tren d s o f th e c o tn tie s in
th e region.

1

2

3

4

5

43. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in e sta b lis h in g

1

2

3

4

5

44. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in e f fe c tiv e ly using
v o lin te e r lead ers in Extension programs.

1

2

3

4

5

45. Be fa m ilia r w ith program development
in th e su b ject m atter a re a s of
Extension programs.

i

2

3

4

5

46. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in e ffe c tiv e ly
using s ip p o rt o rg a n iz a tio n s and
audiences in Extension p ro g ram in g .

1

2

3

4

5

47. A ssist s ta te s p e c ia lis ts in id e n tify in g

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

35. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in th e development of
re le v a n t, u sefu l and fu n ctio n al p la n s of

1

2

3

4

5

work.

a c tiv itie s .
AO. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in d a ta c o lle c tio n
end a n aly sis procedures fo r a sse ssin g
lo cal s itu a tio n s and ed u catio n al needs.

long-range and s h o rt-te rm program
p r io r itie s fo r t h e ir c o u ity , d i s t r i c t
o r regional re s p o n s ib ility .

programming needs fo r th e region.
48. Meet with lo cal ad v iso ry groups to
id e n tify Extension program ing p r i o r i t i e s
fo r th e region.
GO TO PAGE [5]

384

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS ( C i r c l e o n e)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE
49.

Id e n tify f ie ld s t a f f and c lie n te l e
from the reg io n to se rv e on state* w id e
programming c a m itte e s .

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C ir c le one)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

PART 4: EXTENSION PROGRAMMING
50.

M aintain an awareness o f on-going
program))!ng in th e reg io n by county,
d i s t r i c t and re g io n al Extension s t a f f .

51. M aintain an awareness o f on-going

1

2

3

4

5

pro g ram in g in th e reg io n by carpus
based Extension s p e c ia lis ts .
52. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f In in co rp o ratin g c ro ss

1

2

3

4

5

county, m ulti-co u n ty and regional
programming in to E xtension program p la n s.
53.

Use monthly re p o rts to keep informed of

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

programming acccrplishm ents in th e
region by county, d i s t r i c t and regional
Extension s t a f f .
54.

Use monthly re p o rts to keep informed of
program ing acconplishm ents in th e
region by campus based Extension
s p e c ia lis ts .

55.

Use monthly re p o rts to keep informed of
s t a f f accomplishments towards t h e ir
program g o a ls.

56.

Involve Extension s t a f f and c l i e n t e l e in
id e n tify in g ways in which Extension
programs can be improved, have g re a te r
ie p e c le

57.

w u

j* c i

« d u itic r« * l

■m J I c t c p .

P e rio d ic a lly v i s i t f i e l d s t a f f to observe
and become fa m ilia r w ith th e ir pro g ram in g
e f f o r ts and p ro g ress.

58.

M aintain a lia is o n with U n iv e rsity

1

2

3

4

5

e d n in is tra to rs , Extension s p e c ia lis ts and
f ie ld s ta f f in o rd e r to provide e f f e c tiv e
Extension programs.
59.

A ssist f ie ld s t a f f th en a p p ro p ria te in

1

2

3

4

5

e ffe c tiv e ly using p a ra -p ro fe s sio n a ls as
a means o f extending th e to ta l pro g ram in g
e f f o r ts of th e county.
GO TO PAGE 16)

385

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS ( C i r c l e o n e)

HONE HINOP

SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C i r c l e one)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

60. Id e n tify c u rre n t and p o te n tia l program
successes and f a ilu r e s o f f i e l d s t a f f In
th e region.

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

61. P a rtic ip a te In Extension programs w ith in

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

th e reg io n .
62. Conduct some ed u catio n al programs w ith in

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

63. Provide re g u la r w ritte n an d /o r v erb al
feedback on progranvning accomplishments
to county, d i s t r i c t and reg io n al s t a f f in
th e region.

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

66.

Encourage ed u catio n al p ro g ram in g
e f f o r ts acro ss a l l program a re a s by
eounty, d i s t r i c t and regional s t a f f
in th e re g io n ..

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

In su re th a t p r i o r i t i e s a re given to

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

3

6

5

th e Region.

65.

educational program needs a t th e
lo cal le v e l.

PART 5: PROGRAM EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
66. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in th e p re p a ra tio n of
re p o rts which r e f le c t degrees o f
educational accomplishment.
67. Oversee th a t program re s u lts which a re
being measured by f i e l d s t a f f r e f le c t
behavior change.
68. Oversee th a t program e ffe c tiv e n e s s is
measured in terms o f c o s t, time and
ap p ro p ria te use o f funds.
69. Id e n tify and s e le c t in d iv id u a ls to
p a r tic ip a te in th e C ouity Program Review
and Planning Process fo r c o ir t i e s in th e
reg io n .
70. P a rtic ip a te in th e Program Review and
Planning Process fo r c o u n ties in the
reg io n .
71. A ssist f ie ld s t a f f in conducting
ev alu atio n s of c o u ity programs.
00 TO PAGE C7]

386

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS ( C i r c l e o n e)

NONE HINOR
72. Monitor p ro g ress being node by c o u ity ,

SHARED MAJOR

COMPLETE

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C ir c le one)

NONE MINOR

SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

75. Conduct p e rio d ic inform al e v alu a tio n s
o f c o u ity , d i s t r i c t and reg io n al
Extension programs.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

76. Conduct on s i t e C iv il R ights co n p lian ce
reviews in th e reg io n .

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

77. A ss is t f ie ld s t a f f in p rep arin g t h e i r

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

78. Provide
tim ely inform ation and
1
in te rp r e ta tio n of CES p o lic ie s and
procedures as they r e la te to co u ity
f i e l d s ta f f and programs.
79. Approve
o u t- o f - s ta te tra v e l re q u e sts 1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

1

2

d i s t r i c t and re g io n a l s t a f f towards
th e ir A ffirm ative A ction p la n s.
73. Encourage f i e l d s t a f f t o p a r tic ip a te in
in -s e rv ic e ed u catio n and o th e r
a c t i v i t i e s which w ill h e lp to provide
s k i l l s needed fo r e v alu atin g p ro g ram
in terms o f b ehavior change.
74. Conduct p e rio d ic indeoth e v alu atio n s
o f c o u ity , d i s t r i c t and reg io n al
Extension programs.

Amual R eports.

PART 6: ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

and leaves of absense fo r s ta f f in
th e region.
80.

A d a in ister th e p o lic ie s and procedures

1

2

3

4

5

re la tin g to p e n a lty ami I a llo c a tio n s
fo r th e reg io n .
81. M aintain th e lin e s of communications and

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

in te rn a l re la tio n s h ip s between f i e l d
s t a f f , program s t a f f , s p e c i a l i s t s , c e n tra l
CES e d n in is tre tfo n , and MSU c o lle g e s or
w i t s which r e l a t e to Extension work.
82. Represent f i e l d s t a f f in d isc u ssio n s with

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

program s t a f f , s p e c i a l i s t s , c e n tra l CES
a d n in is tra tio n , and MSU c o lle g e s o r w i t s
which r e la te to Extension work.
00 TO PAGE [81

387

AS IT SHOULD BE (Circle one)

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS (C irc le one)

NOME MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE

NOME MINOR

SHARED MAJOR

COMPLETE

1

2

3

4

5

BA. Schedule re g io n al s t a f f conferences and
o p p o rtu n itie s fo r f i e l d s t a f f in te ra c tio n
when a p p ro p ria te .

1

2

3

4

5

85. Coordinate s p e c ia lis ts v i s i t s t o th e
reg io n .

1

2

3

4

8

86. A ss is t County E xtension D ire c to rs in
n e g o tia tin g b udgets, s ta f f in g and o f f ic e

1

2

3

4

5

83.

Represent c e n tra l CES a d n in is tra tio n in
d is c u s s isn s w ith f i e l d s t a f f , program
s t a f f , s p e c ia lis ts , and MSU c o lle g e s o r
u n its which r e l a t e to Extension work .

1

2

3

4

5

space arrangem ents w ith county o f f i c i a l s
87. Handle c lie n te l e concerns in a re a s such
a s s ta f f in g , p ro g ram in g , and A ffirm a tiv e
A ction.

1

88. Meet with county board meebers in a re a s
a re as such as s ta f f in g , programming, and

1

2

2

3

3

4

A ffirm ative A ction.
89. Encourage program and s t a f f co o p eratio n
between c o u ity Extension o f f ic e s .

1

2

3

90. Encourage program and s t a f f co o p eratio n
w ith in co u ity Extension o f f ic e s .

1

2

3

91. Develop and m aintain re la tio n s h ip s with

1

2

3

4

w ith key c lie n te l e w ith in th e re g io n .
92. Handle s ta f f and program c o n flic ts
w ith in the reg io n .

1

2

3

93. Monitor re p o rts from f i e l d s t a f f to
a ssu re they a re siP m itte d on tim e.

1

2

3

9A. Serve on s ta te -w id e committees concerned
w ith Extension p o lic y an d /o r p ro g ram in g .

1

2

3

4

95. P a rtic ip a te in th e monthly A d a in is tra tiv e

1

2

3

4

meetings on campus.
96. P a rtic ip a te in -s e rv ic e education

1

2

3

a p p ro p ria te to th e a d a in is tr a tiv e ro le
o f th e Regional Extension S tp e rv iso r.
CO TO PACE 19)

388

RESPONSIBILITY AS IS ( C i r c l e o n e )

NONE HIKOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE
97.

Provide le a d e rsh ip and input fo r re g io n al
and s ta te - u id e a c t i v i t i e s such as

1

2

3

4

5

AS IT SHOULD BE ( C i r c l e one)

NONE MINOR SHARED MAJOR COMPLETE
1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

reg io n al c o n fe re n ce s, lay lead er v i s i t s /
le g is la ti v e to u rs .

PART 7: PUBLIC RELATIONS
98.

Develop in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e County
Extension D ire c to rs a CES p u b lic
r e la tio n s p la n f o r th e c o u n tie s which
w ill ad d ress th e needs o f th e general
p u b lic , key le a d e rs , and e le c te d
o f f i c i a l s in th e reg io n .

1

99.

M aintain th e p u b lic 's understanding and
support fo r Extension programs in th e
reg io n .

1

100. Develop and m in t a i n a lia is o n w ith
o th e r s t a t e , c o u ity o r co m u n ity
agencies in th e reg io n .

1

101. Prepare news and o th e r E xtension
inform ation re le a s e s a p p ro p ria te to th e

1

2

3

4

5

reg io n .
102. A ssist f i e l d s t a f f in developing a

1

m arketing p lan fo r in creasin g
E x ten sio n 's v i s a b i l i t y in th e reg io n .
103. P a rtic ip a te in MSU A lum i A sso ciatio n
a c t i v i t i e s in th e reg io n .

1

104. Represent MSU/CES on v ario u s c o m itte e s

1

w ith in th e re g io n .
105. R epresent MSU/CES in non-Extension
c o m m ity ev en ts w ith in th e reg io n .

1

PART B * Budgeting and Financing
106. A ssist Couity Extension D ire c to rs in
securing adequate co u ity fu id s fo r a l l
phases o f county Extension work.
107. Seek fin a n c ia l s ip p o rt in a d d itio n to
co u ity a p p ro p ria te d funds to d evelop/
expand county E xtension programs.
GO TO PAGE [10]

389

108. Develop annual Cooperative Extension
Service budgets re q u e sts fo r co u n tie s
in th e reg io n .

1

109. O versea th a t county a p p ro p ria te d monies

1

a re e q u ita b ly d iv id e d so th a t a l l s t a f f
have reasonable support to c a rry out
th e ir Extension programs.
110. Oversee
th a t c o u n tie s
have t h e ir non-1
ap p ro p riated fends au d ite d a m u a lly by
an a u d ito r independent o f th e Extension
o rg a n iz a tio n .
111. Oversee

th a t c o u n tie s

f i l e t h e i r a m ual 1

Expenditure end A ppropriated Funds
re p o rts on tim e.
112. A ssist s t a f f In developing pro p o sals fo r
o u tsid e funding o f Extension programs.
113. H onitor
reg io n .

county E xtension budgets

114. P resen t

annual county

1

fo r the 1

Extension budgets 1

to th e County Board o f Commissioners.
GO TO PAGE [11]

390

SECTION 2 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
115.

Which category most closely describes your type of position?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

116 .

(one response for each item)

Extension Paraprofessional (prog, asst, EFNEP Aide, etc)
County/District/Regional Extension Agent
County Extension Director
Extension Specialist
Extension Administrative/Program Staff
Regional Supervisor

Sex
1. Male
2. Female

117.

Age
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

25 years or under
2 6 - 3 5 years
3 6 - 4 5 years
4 6 - 5 5 years
56 years and over

118.Indicate your highest academic degree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
119.

Less than a Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Specialist's degree
Doctor's Degree

Indicate the number of years employed by the Cooperative Extension
Service
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

120.

earned:

Less than 12 months
1 - 5 years
6 - 1 0 years
1 1 - 1 5 years
1 6 - 2 0 years
Over 20 years

Indicate the number of years of experience in your present position:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Less than 12 months
1 - 5 years
6 - 1 0 years
1 1 - 1 5 years
1 6 - 2 0 years
Over 20 years
GO TO PAGE [ 1 2 ]

391

121.

Indicate the category that best describes your region if you are
considered county staff or your college if you are considered campus
staff:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

122.

If you are a county Cooperative Extension Service staff person,
indicate which category best describes the size of your county staff
(professional and paraprofessional):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

123.

Upper Peninsula
North
East Central
Southeast
Southwest
West Central
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
College of Human Ecology
College of Natural Science
College of Veterinary Medicine
Other ____________________________________

Three or less staff persons
4-9
staff persons
1 0 - 1 5 staff persons
1 6 - 2 1 staff persons
22 or more staff persons

Indicate which category best describes the normal amount of
professional contact you have with Regional Extension Supervisors
during the year (either personal face to face, by telephone or by
mail):
1. No contact
2 . 1 - 2 times per
3. 1 - 2 times per
4 . 1 - 2 times per
5. 1 - 2 times per
6. More than twice

124.

year
quarter
month
week
per week

Indicate which category best describes the type of contact you
normally have with the position of Regional Extension Supervisor.
1. Face to face meetings, letters and telephone conversations
throughout the year.
2. Letters and telephone conversations
3. Letters only
4. Telephone conversations only
5. Occassional contact at meetings or events
6. Little or no contact with the position.
GO TO PAGE [13]

392

125.

Indicate which category best describes the percentage of your time
spent on administration of Extension staff and programs (complete
this section if you supervise one or more paid Extension employees):

____

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

None
Less than 20 percent
2 1 - 4 0 percent
4 1 - 6 0 percent
Over 60 percent

SECTION 3 - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Now that you have completed the questionnaire and placed a weight on
each of the responsibilities that might be expected of a Regional
Extension Supervisor, I would appreciate any additional comments you have
about the position. You might use the following questions as a quide.
A.

What are the four most important skills you perceive a person in the
position of Regional Extension Supervisor should have?
1

.

2

. ___________________________________________________

3. ________________________________________________________
4. ________________________________________________________
B.

What are the four most important tasks you perceive a person in the
position of Regional Extension Supervisor should perform?
1 . ________________________________________________________________________
2.

3.
4.
C.

Other comments:

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. Return the
survey to: Raymond J. Clark, 48 Agriculture Hall, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

APPENDIX C
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

393
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTSa
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Fu nc tio ns --" A s Is"
Alpha

S ta n d a rd iz e d
Item Alpha

Personnel Management (QA 1-18)

.89

.89

S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development
(QA 19-33)

.93

.94

Program Development (QA 34-49)

.92

.92

Extension Programming (QA 50-65)

.90

.90

Program Ev al ua tio n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
(QA 66-77)

.88

.88

A d m in is tr a ti o n and Po li cy (QA 78-97)

.90

.90

Pu blic R e l a t i o n s (QA 98-105)

.89

.89

Budgeting and Financing (QA 106-114)

.89

.89

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F u nc tio ns --" S ho ul d Be"
Alpha

S ta n d a rd iz e d
Item Alpha

Personnel Management (QB 1-18)

.88

.89

S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development
(QB 19-33)

.89

.89

Program Development (QB 34-49)

.89

.90

Extension Programming (QB 50-65)

.89

.89

Program Eval ua tio n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
(QB 66-77)

.84

.85

A d m in is tr a ti o n and Po li cy (QB 78-97)

.90

.90

Public R e l a ti o n s (QB 98-105)

.88

.88

Budgeting and Financing (QB 106-114)

.89

.89

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function

394
Administrative Functions--"Difference"
Standardized
Item Alpha

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Function

Alpha

Personnel Management (D 1-18)

.88

.88

S t a f f O r i e n t a t i o n and Development
(D 19-33)

.94

.94

Program Development (D 34-49)

.93

.93

Ex te ns ion Programming (D 50-65)

.91

.91

Program Ev a lu a ti o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
(D 66-77)

.89

.89

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and P o l i c y (D 78-97)

.90

.90

P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s (D 98-105)

.88

.88

Budgeting and Financing (D 106-114)

.88

.88

aThe
r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f fic ie n ts fo r the eight adm inistrative
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Regional Extension S u p e r v i s o r ’ s p o s i t i o n as i t is
p e r c e iv e d t o be c u r r e n t l y performed in Michigan (AS I S ) , as i t
should be performed (SHOULD BE), and t h e mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e from
what i s t o what should be (DIFFERENCE) were c a l c u l a t e d u s in g th e
Cronbach alpha t e s t .
The items in p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t th e
questions
used t o make up t h e mean r e s p o n s e sc o r e s f o r t h e e i g h t
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in cl uded in t h i s s tu d y .

APPENDIX D
MEAN RESPONSES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEAN RESPONSES
FOR ITEMS IN THE ROLE EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

395
Table D1.--Hean responses, standard deviations of mean responses, and number of
respondents for the 114 role-definition items of the Regional Extension
Supervisor position as it is currently being performed in Michigan.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

(.69)

2.81
(.93)

2.88
(.69)

2.90
(.47)

2.97
(.59)

2.81
(.57)

2.60
(.55)

N=403

N=77

N=148

N=61

N*69

N=37

N=5

3.25

2.77

3.23

3.23

3.69

3.43

3.40

(.77)

(.89)

(.75)

(.56)

(.60)

N=403

N=75

N=149

N=61

N=70

(.65)
N=37

(.55)
N=5

3.21

2.93

3.04

3.34

3.57

3.50

3.00

TOTAL

Number of Respondents

1. Select staff__

2. Identify individual...

3. Know the attitudes...

4. Main staff...

5. Provide information__

6. Developing staffing...

7. Adininisiei CcS...

8. Handle personnel...

9. Conduct periodic__

10. Interview prospective__

11. Recruit candidates...

2.88

(.86)

(1.02) (.84)

(.73)

(.77)

(.65)

(.71)

N=400

N=76

N=146

N=61

N=70

N=36

N=5

2.90

2.55

2.69

3.10

3.41

3.05

3.20

(.90)
N=405

(.90)

(.93)

(.83)

(.73)

N=76

N=149

N=61

N=71

(.78)
N=37

N=5

(.45)

3.07
(.97)

2.70

3.01
(1.13) (.96)

3.12
(.90)

3.41
(.84)

3.24
(.83)

2.80
(.45)

N=400

N=74

N=148

N=60

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.82

2.91

2.69

2.64

3.11

2.81

3.00

(.77)

(.97)

(.74)

(.68)

(.67)

(.52)

(.71)

N=405

N=78

N=146

N=61

N=73

N=37

N=5

T
W i

y

3.20

T
•J

4

/

m 1«
*

n?

3.05

3.3?

3.00

(.84)

(1.00) (.86)

(.69)

(.73)

(.88)

(.45)

N=396

N=73

N=145

N=61

N=69

N=37

N=5

3.11

2.68

3.50

3.25

3.37

3.32

3.60

(.83)

(.97)

(.81)

(.65)

(.64)

N=405

N=77

N=148

N=62

N=70

(.85)
N=37

N=5

3.64

3.65

3.67

3.39

3.70

3.76

3.40

(.81)

(1.07) (.79)

(.64)

(.62)

(.83)

(.55)

IV

(.55)

N=402. N=76

N=147

N=61

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.94

2.72

2.97

2.90

3.09

2.95

3.20

(.68)

(.97)

(.57)

(.59)

(.58)

(.62)

(.45)

N=404

N=76

N=148

N=62

N=70

N=3 7

N=5

2.56

2.48

2.48

2.57

2.87

2.43

2.40

(.84)

(1.03) (.75)

(-72)

(.89)

N=399

N=73

N=62

N=69

(.73)
N=37

N=5

N=147

(.55)

396
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

3.14

3.20

2.97

3.18

3.36

3.05

3.00

(.92)

(1.15) (.93)

(.78)

(.74)

(.78)

(1.00)

N=401

N=74

N=147

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

3.01

3.11

2.95

3.00

3.07

2.92

3.00

(.80)

(.99)

(.79)

(.70)

(.75)

(.68)

(.71)

N=397

N=73

N-145

N-62

N=69

N=37

N=5

2.69

2.03

2.61

2.92

2.96

3.11

4.00

(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

12. Insure fair treatment...

13. Maintain a competent...

14. Present new Extension...

(1.20) (1.12) (1.16) (.87)

15. Assist staff in the.

16. Provide staff with...

17. Administer University.

18. Insure compliance.,

19. Provide orientation__

20. Help staff to meet.

21. Assist staff in...

22. Provide staff with...

N=398

N=76

N=147

N=62

(1.15) (1.37) (.00)
N*67
N=36
N=5

2.79

2.41

2.58

2.98

3.31

3.00

(.93)

(1.05) (.90)

(.69)

(.81)

(.85)

( . 00)

N=403

N=76

N=148

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.40

2.32

2.22

2.37

2.81

2.41

2.20

(.94)

( 1. 11) ( . 88)

(.85)

(.89)

(.80)

(.45)

N=404

N=76

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

3.09

2.87
2.98
(1.05) (.85)

3.10
(.80)

3.39
(.79)

3.32

2.80

( . 88 )

(.78)

(.45)

N=404

N=76

N=148

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

3.26

3.09

3.15

3.31

3.54

3.35

3.00

( . 86)

(1.05) (.81)

(.76)

(.74)

( . 86 )

(.71)

N=402

N=75

N=147

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.50

2.1 0

2.31

2.69

2.94

2.73

3.00

(.82)

(.91)

(.71)

(.62)

(.81)

(.87)

(.71)

N=405

N=78

N=147

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.60

2.16

2.41

2.65

3.16

2.95

3.40

(.83)

(.90)

(.77)

(.60)

(.65)

(.78)

(.55)

N=404

N=77

N=148

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.74

2.63

2.56

2.71

3.10

2.89

3.60

(.81)

(1.01) (.79)

(.64)

(.74)

(.57)

(.55)

N=396

N=75

N=147

N=61

N=67

M=36

N=5

2.73

2.45

2.57

2.74

3.22

2.86

3.20

(.96)

(1.19) (.89)

(.77)

(.86)

(.83)

(.84)

N=396

N=74

N=61

N=68

N=36

N=5

N=148

N=147

3.00

397
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

2.34

2.56

3.06

2.71

2.40

(.74)

(.81)

N=61

N-67

(.89)
N-35

N=5

2.71

2.91

2.86

2.60

(.66)

(.84)

(.76)

(.55)

N=147

N=62

N=68

N=36

N=5

2.57

2.75

2.98

2.81

2.80

(.65)

(.76)

(.75)

(.84)

N=147

N=61

N=68

N=36

N=5

2.40

2.67

2.85

2.81

2.80

(.79)

(.76)

(.82)

N=146

N=60

N=68

N=36

(.45)
N=5

2.12

2.42

2.82

2.66

3.20

(.86)

(.90)

(.94)

(.45)

N=62

N=68

N=35

N=5

2.57

3.00

2.83

3.00

(.80)

(.83)

(.81)

(.71)

N=146

N=62

N=68

N=36

N=5

2.27

2.51

3.04
(.84)

2.72

2.60

(.72)
N=61

N=68

(=81 >
N=36

N=5

1.75
(.70)

1.97

2.46
(.90)

2.16

2.40

(.72)

N=147

N-62

N=68

(.83)
N=37

N=5

2.74

2.83

2.71

2.94

3.20

(.91)

(.76)

(1.03) (.45)

N=62

N=66

N=35

N=5

2.81

2.91

2.89

2.80

(.79)

(.86)

(1.02) (.84)

M=145

N=62

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.21
(1.07) (.99)

2.44

2.75

2.54

2.00

(.98)

(.88)

(.89)

(.93)

(.00)

N=397

N=76

N=62

N=67

N=37

N=5

TOTAL

PA

2.54

2.36

(.95)
N=394

(1.21) (.86)
N=75
N=146

2.58

2.25

(.86)

(1.02) (.79)

N=396

N=73

2.68

2.44

(.86)

(1.10) (.82)

N=395

N=73

2.54

2.23

(.89)

(1.20) (.81)

N=393

N=73

2.36

2.14

(.97)
N=395

(1.25) (.78)
N=80
N=147

2.53

2.31

(.97)

(1.32) (.81)

N=396

N=74

2.49

2.28

(. 94 )
N=396

(1.19) (.85)
N=74
N=147

1.95

1.69

(.82)
N=399

(.84)
N=75

2.78

2.73

RS

Number of Respondents

23. Assist field staff...

24. Encourage field__

25. Encourage field__

26. Encourage field...

27. Assist field staff...

28. Assist field staff__

29. Assist field staff...

30. Assist new staff...

31. Provide field staff...

2.44

2.31

(1.01) (1.35) (.99)
N=387 N=67
N=147
32. Organize staff...

33. Conduct staff...

2.41

2.63

2.46

(.93)

(1.00) (.92)

N=398

N=76

2.38

2.21

M=145

(.55)

(=55)

(.55)

398
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.40

1.96

2.25

2.44

2.93

2.70

3.20

(.89)
N=394

(.96)

(.80)

(.45)

N-146

(.84)
N=67

( . 88)

M=73

(.72)
N«61

N=37

N=5

2.74

2.45

2.56

2.71

(1.13) (.86)

(.82)

3.21
(.80)

3.11
(.81)

3.40

(.94)
N=399

N=75

N*147

Ne62

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.76

2.78

2.56

2.64

3.19

2.87

2.80

(.91)

( 1 . 12 ) ( . 8 8 )

(.84)

(.76)

(.71)

(.45)

N-396

N=74

N=147

N=61

N=67

N=37

N=5

2.62

2.71

2.37

2.60

2.90

2.92

2.60

(.91)
N=397

(1.02) (.85)
N=75

N=147

(.90)
N=62

(.84)
N=67

(.87)
N=36

(.55)
N=5

2.39

2.69

2.20

2.40

2.52

2.19

2.40

(.91)
N=394

(1.07) (.88)

(.84)

( . 88 )

N=72

N=146

N=62

N=67

(.70)
N=37

(.55)
N=5

2.26

2.12

2.08

2.16

2.67

2.58

2.80

( . 86)

(.94)

(.77)

(.83)

(.96)

(.60)

(.45)

N=395

N=75

N=145

N=62

N=67

N=36

N=5

2. 0 1
(.81)

1.94
f .92)

1.87
f .71)

1.92
(.71)

2.32
(.91)

2.25
(.87)

2.20

N=392

N=72

N=146

N=62

N=66

N=36

N=5

3.33
(.85)

3.03

3.31

3.37

3.54

3.51

3.80

(1.22) (.77)

( . 66)

(.70)

(.73)

(.45)

N=396

N=74

N=146

N=62

N=67

N=37

N=5

2.59

2.85

2.32

2.50

2.85

2.81

2.60

(.94)

(1.21) (.83)

(.80)

(.91)

(.75)

(.55)

N=392

N=71

N=146

N=62

N=67

N=36

N=5

2.64

2.78

2.34

2.57

3.08

2.87

3.20

( . 88)

(1.19) (.74)

(.67)

(.77)

(.78)

(.84)

N=393

N=72

N=147

N=61

N=66

N=37

N=5

2.26

2.21

2.08

2. 2 1

2.61

2.46

2.80

(.81)

(.99)

(.74)

( . 68)

(.76)

(.73)

(.45)

N=396

N=75

N-146

N=62

N=66

N=37

N=5

Number of Respondents

34. Assist field staff...

35. Assist field staff...

36. Assist field staff...

37. Implement effective...

38. Forecast future.

39. Assist field staff...

40. Assist field staff...

41. Review field staff...

42. Be familiar with...

43. Assist field staff.

44. Assist field staff...

(.89)

(.45)

399
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

2.76

3.04

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.55

2.82

2.85

2.60

3.60

(.76)

(.55)

Number of Respondents

45. Be familiar with...

46. Assist field staff...

47. Assist state...

( . 88)

(1.13) (.82)

(.76)

(.75)

N=393

N=74

N=145

N-62

N=66

N=37

N=5

2.47

2.40

2.29

2.40

2.79

2.83

3.00

(.82)
N=396

(1.03) (.74)

(.73)

(.73)

(.61)

(.71)

N=76

N=62

N=66

N=36

N=5

2.77
2.17
(1.17) (.85)

2.48
(.79)

2.22
2.61
(1.02) (.96)

2. 00
( . 00)

N=73

N=144

N=61

N=65

N=36

N=5

2.14

1.83

1.94

2.59

2.06

2.40

(.95)

( . 86 )

(.55)

2.38
(.97)
N=388

48. Meet with local...

49. Identify field staff...

2.06
(.90)

(1.05) (.80)

(.67)

N=390

N=73

N=146

N=62

N=64

N=36

N=5

2.69

2.61
2.53
(1.17) (.79)

2.79

2.94

2.89

2.50

(.70)
N=65

( . 88 )
N=37

(.58)
N=4

(.87)
N=389
50. Maintain an awareness...

51. Maintain an awareness.

52. Assist field staff...

53. Use monthly reports...

54. Use monthly reports...

55. Use monthly reports...

N=147

N=74

N=145

(.73)
N=61

3.17

3.04

3.08

3.28

3.23

3.41

(.87)
N=390

(1.12) (.81)
N=75
N=146

(.82)
N*60

(.77)
N=65

(.72)
N=37

2.72

3.75
(.50)
N=4

2.82

2.96

2.97

2.69

2.95

2.50

(.91)

(1.09) (.82)

(.86)

(.92)

(.74)

(.56)

N=388

N=74

N=144

N=61

N=65

N=37

N=4
3.00

2.65

2.52

2.48

2.60

2.97

2.97

(.85)

(.99)

(.76)

(.81)

(.85)

(.70)

( . 00)

N=385

N=73

N=145

N=60

N=64

N=36

N=4

3.54

3.40

3.71

3.51

3.33

3.42

4.00

(.85)

(1.13) (.85)

(.70)

(.93)

(.77)

N=386

N=73

N=61

N=63

N=36

(.82)
N=4

2.78

3.00

N=146
2.82

2.86

2.45

2.68

2.25

(1:05)

(1.11) (1.04) (.89) (1.11)

(.85) (1.50)

N=374

N=71

N=37

3.44

3.26

3.38

3.25

3.49

4.00

(.92)

(1.12) (.88)

(.76)

(.98)

(.73)

(.82)

N=386

N=73

N=60

N=63

N=37

N=4

N=139
3.58
N=146

N=58

N=62

N=4

400
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

56. Involve Extension staff...

2.61
(.85)
N=389

57. Periodically visit...

58. Maintain a liaison...

59. Assist field staff..,

60. Identify current...

61. Participate in..,

62. Conduct some...

3.02

64. Encourage educational...

65. Insure that__

66. Assist field staff__

CEA

CEO

SPEC

APT

RS

2.60

2.51

2.62

2.80

2.61

3.25

(.97)

(.85)

(.73)

(.87)

(.69)

(.50)

N=73

N=147

N=61

N=65

N=36

N=4

3.40

3.32

3.50

(.93)

(.94)

(.58)

N=65

N=37

N=4

3.11

3.00

3.01

2.71

(1.04)

(1.18) (.99)

N=391

N=75

3.08
(.99)

N=146 N=61

3.13

3.21

3.13

3.37

(.98)

(1.14)

(.97)

(.71) (.99)

(.95) (.00)

N=384

N=72

N=144

N=60

N=36

2.49

2.39

2.34

2.50

2.70

2.84

(.82)
N=385

(.94)
N=72

(.79)

(.73)
N=64

(.80)

(.50)

N=145

(.75)
N=60

N=37

N=4

3.08

2.80

3.05

3.19

3.23

3.27

3.60

(.77)

(.86)

(.78)

(.65)

(.74)

(.65)

(.55)

N=390

N=73

M=145

N=62

N=65

N=37

N=5

2.46

2.59

2.27

2.37

2.59

2.69

3.60

(.87)

(.96)

(.81)

(.81)

(.90)

(.75)

(.55)

N=392

N=75

N=146

N=62

N=65

N=36

N=5

1.86
2.12
1.63
r.flP) <1.03) (.72)

1.66
(.60)

2.19
(.87)

1.97
(.65)

1.80
(.45)

N=64

N=36

N=5

3.30

3.32

3.80

(.79)

(.82)

(1.09)

N=64

N=37

N=5

N=389
63. Provide regular...

PA

N=75

N=145 N=61

3.09

3.00

2.92

(1.03)

(1.24)

N=392

N=75

3.14

(1.09) (.90)

N=146
2.82

N=64

N=65

N=4
2.75

2.98

2.91

3.21

3.00

3.60

(.88)
N=390

(1.02) (.93) (.73)
N=76
N=145 N=62

(.77)
N=62

(.71)
N=37

(.55)
N=5

2.70

2.71

2.82

2.83

2.78

3.40

(.86)

(1.03) (.89)

(.69)

(.79)

(.71)

(.55)

N=391

N=76

N=145 N=61

N=64

N=37

N=5

2.37

2.31

2.16

2.37

2.84

2.54

2.80

(.92)

(1.05) (.84)

(.85)

(.89)

(.87)

(.84)

N=392

N=75

N=62

N=64

N=37

N=5

2.54

N=146

3.16

2.83

401
Table D1 .--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.51
(.87)

2.38
(.96)

2.33
(.84)

2.60

2.82

2.76

2.80

(.76)

( . 88)

( . 86 )

(.45)

N=386

N=74

N=145

N*64

Ns61

N=37

N=5

Number of Respondents

67. Oversee that program...

68. Oversee that program..

69. Identify and select__

70. Participate in the__

71. Assist field staff...

72. Monitor progress...

73. Encourage field..

74. Conduct periodic..

75. Conduct periodic...

76. Conduct on site__

77. Assist field staff__

2.42

2.51

2.80

2.51

2.40

(.90)

(1.06) (.84) (.86)

2.19

2.40

(.84)

(.77)

(.55)

N=388

N=73

N=64

N=37

N=5
3.20

N=145 N=62

2.87

2.51

(1.02)

(1.17)

2.85

2.89

3.17

3.03

(.81)

(.88)

N=384

N=71

N=144

(.45)

N=64

N=36

N=5

3.29

3.03

3.36

(.90)

(1.10) (.90) (.80)

3.41

3.32

3.80

(.71)

(.88)

N=387

N=73

(.84)

N=144 N=62

N=64

N=37

N=5

2.54

2.31

(.95)

2.32

2.68

3.08

2.68

2.40

(1.03) (.90)

(.82)

(.86)

(.94) (.55)

N=390

N=74

N=62

N=64

N=37

N=5
3.80

(1.06) (.96)

N=145
3.21

N=62
3.24

3.22

3.09

3.26

3.27

3.28

(.88)

(1.21) (.84)

(.72)

(.72)

(.74)

(.45)

N=390

N=76

N=145

N=62

N=63

N=36

N=5

2.90

2.75

2.81

2.95

3.20

3.03

3.20

N=392

N=76

N=146

N=62

N=64

N=36

N=5

2.52

2.20

2.65

2.89

2.32

3.17

2.42

(1.08)

(1.21) (1.09) (.95)

(.90)

(.94)

(.45)

N=389

N=75

N=145

N=64

N=36

N=5

2.86

2.89

2.72

N=62
2.64

3.28

2.92

3.00

(.99)

(1.18) (1.04) (.81)

(.79)

(.79)

(.71)

N=388

N=73

N=145

N=64

N=37

N=5

3.30

3.26

3.42

3.27

4.40

(1.05)

(1.15) (1.02) (.98)

(.84)

(1.10) (.89)

N=383

N=73

N=145

N=59

N=37

2.17

2.16

1.98

2.69

2.32

2.50

(.93)

(1.15) (.80) (.72)

(.94)

(.94)

(1.00)

N=390

N=74

N=64

N=37

N=5

N=62
3.43
N=62
2.00

N=146 N=62

2.81

N=5

4 02
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

PA

78. Provide timely...

3.12

2.89

(.90)
N=388

(1.16) (.84)
N=75 N=145

3.18

3.07

3.42

3.24

2.82

3.00

(.99)
N=378

(1.15) (.93)
N=72
N=141

(.92)
N=62

(1.02)
N=60

(.79) (1.00)
N=36 N=5

2.87

2.53

3.11

2.82

2.56

3.60

(1.07)

(1.19) (1.02) (.96)

(1.09)

(.88)

(.55)

N=383

N-75

N=61

N=36

N=5

3.01
(.94)

2.87
2.99
(1.14) (.95)

3.19
(.70)

3.09
(.97)

2.92
(.79)

3.00
(.71)

N=389

N=75

N=144

N=62

N=64

N=37

N=5

3.05

2.96

3.03

2.92

3.08

3.40

(1.01)

(1,22) (1.01) (.87)

(1.00)

(.77) (.89)

N=386

N=73

N=145

N=63

N=36

N=5

3.27

3.08

3.25

(.89)

(1.03) (.88)

N=386

N=74

3.41
(.0 4 )

3.01
3.38
(1.10) (.95)

3.61
(=8?)

3.54
(76)

3.68 4.00
(.75) (00 )

N=389

N=76

N=144

N=62

N=63

N=37

N=5

1.99
(.90)

2.46
1.80
(1.05) (.83)

1.97
(.77)

1.85
(.88)

2.08
(.77)

1.80
(.45)

N=387

N=76

N=144 N=62

N=62

N=36

N=5

2.30

2.29

2.11

1.90

2.85

2.72

3.00

(.96)

(1.06) (.84)

(.67)

(1.09)

(.78)

(1.00)

N=387

N=77

N=62

N=61

N=36

N=5

79. Approve out-of-state...

80. Administer the...

81. Maintain the lines...

82. Represent field staff...

83. Represent central CES...

84. Schedule regional..

85. Coordinate specialists...

86. Assist County Extension...

87. Handle clientele...

88. Meet with county board...

CEA

3.05

2.99

CED

APT

RS

3.08

3.35

3.40

(.74)
N=61

(.83)
N-63

(.83) (.55)
N-37 N=5

N=142 N=62

3.26
N=62

3.40

3.00

3.58

3.31

3.16

3.60

(.78)

(.84)

(.76)

(.55)

N=62

N=37

N=5

N=144 N=62

N=144

SPEC

2.52

2.40

2.37

2.42

2.81

2.86

(.91)

(.96)

( . 88 )

(.84)

( . 86 )

(.98)

(.45)

N=388

N=75

N=144

N=62

N=63

N=37

N=5

2.23

2.26

3.20

2.36

2.16

2.60

2.89

3.20

(.90)

(1.01) (.82) (.81)

(.83)

(.97)

(.84)

N=388

N=75

N=63

N=37

N=5

N=144 N=62

403
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

Number of Respondents

89. Encourage program and.

90. Encourage program and...

91. Develop and maintain...

92. Handle staff and.

93. Monitor reports from__

94. Serve on state-wide...

95. Participate in the...

96. Participate in-service.

97. Provide leadership and.

98. Develop in conjunction.,

99. Maintain the public's...

2.85

2.58

2.68

3.13

(.89)

(.84)

3.06
(.74)

3.14

(.86)

(.82)

(.89)

3.40
(.89)

N=390

N=77

N-144

N*62

N=63

N-37

N=5

2.70

2.33

2.61

2.95

2.92

2.97

(.87)

(.94)

(.81)

(.72)

(.87)

(.87)

3.20
(.84)

N=389

N=76

N=145

N=61

N=63

N=37

N=5

2.33

2.26

2.17

2.45

2.55

2.40

3.00

(.84)

(.93)

(.75)

(.82)

(.81)

N=386

N=73

N=145

N=62

N=62

(.76)
N=37

N=5

( 1. 0 0 )

2.96

2.34

2.94

3.06

3.47

3.19

3.00

(.94)
N=388

(1.00) (.91)
N=76
N=144

(.74)
N-62

(.72)
N-62

(.94)
N=37

(.71)
N=5

3.24
(1.01)

2.80 3.31
3.37
(1.06) (1.02) (.85)

3.20
(.93)

3.54 4.20
(.93) (.45)

N=385

N=75

N=60

N=37

N=144

N=5

3.06

2.87

3.05

3.16

3.11

(.85)
N-386

(1.00) (.82)

(.76)

(.89)

(.70)

(.55)

N=75

N=142

N=61

N=64

N=37

N=5

3.71

3.51

3.73

3.95

3.61

3.73

3.60

(.94)

(i.io) (.86)

(.84)

(.92)

(.87)

(.55)

N=375

N=72

N=136

N=62

N=61

N=37

N=5

3.63

3.53

3.61

3.89

3.52

3.59

4.00

(.99)

(1.10) (.95)

(.91)

(1.01)

(.98)

(.71)

N=381

N-72

N=140

N=62

N=63

N=37

N=5

3.23

2.81

3.27

3.42

3.30

3.40

(.83)

(.91)

(.84)

(.72)

(.73)

(.69)

(.71)

N=388

N=75

N=145

N=60

N=64

N=37

N=5

2.52

2.57

2.37

2.25

2.90

2 . 68

2.80

(.90)

(.98)

(.83)

(.74)

(.92)

(.91)

(.84)

N=384

N=73

N=144

N=61

N=62

N=37

N=5

2.39

2.33

2.79

2.43

2.80

2.51

2.69

3.09

N=62

3.40

4.00

(.89)

(1.02) (.86)

(.75)

(.94)

(.80)

(.45)

N=387

N=74

N=61

N=63

N=37

N=5

N=145

404
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.47

2.72

2.28

2.43

2.73

2.30

2.60

(.91)

(1.00) (.91)

(.90)

(.81)

(.74)

(.89)

N=384

N=74

N=143

N=61

N=62

N=37

N=5

1.91

1.67

2.29

1.72

1.60

(.90)

2.34
1.69
(1.14) (.73)

(.65)

(.93)

(.69)

(1.34)

N=385

N=74

N=144

N=61

N=62

N=37

N=5

2.35

2.50

2.12

2. 2 0

2.75

2.51

2.00

(.91)
N=387

(1.02) (.81)
N=74
N=145

(.79)

(.91)

N=61

N=63

(.84)
N=37

(.71)
N=5

Number of Respondents

100. Develop and maintain...

101. Prepare news and.

102. Assist field staff...

103. Participate in MSU...

104. Represent MSU/CES.

105. Represent MSU/CES...

106. Assist County.

107. Seek financial__

108. Develop annual CES...

109. Oversee that county...

110. Oversee that...

1.93

2.21

1.70

2.33

1.83

(.89)

(.95)

(.83) (.79)

1.80

(1.00)

(.61) (1.00)

2.00

N=377

N=72

N=141 N=61

N=60

N=36

N=5

2.35

2.50

2.31

2.80

(1.03) (.93)

2.21
( . 86)

2.74

(.94)

(.89)

(.75)

(.84)

N=380

N=72

N=143

N=61

N=61

N=36

N=5

2.01

2.15

2.39

1.97

2.60

(.92)

1.80
(.87)

1.88

( . 88 )

(.78)

(.87)

(.65)

(1.14)

N=377

N=73

N=141

N=61

N=59

N=36

N=5

2.44

2.43

2.28

2.11

2.87

2.78

3.00

(.yj)

(1.03) (.06)

(.60)

( . y 7)

(.83)

(.71)

N=385

N=75

N=144

N=61

N=62

N=36

N=5

2.22

2.36

2.01

1.88

2.81

2.28

2.60

(.91)

(1.00) (.84)

(.75)

( . 86 )

(.85)

(.89)

N=383

N=73

N=144

N=61

N=62

N=36

N=5

1.85
(.90)

2.22
1.59
(1.05) (.78)

1.41
(.62)

2.42
(.81)

1.92
(.73)

1.80
(.84)

N=380

N=72

N=62

N=60

N=36

N=5

2.17

N=144

2.10

2.48

2.64

2.51

2.40

(1.00)

(1.21) (.80) (.71)

1.68

(.94)

(.84)

(.55)

N=382

N=73

N=142 N=61

N=62

N=37

N=5

2.55

2.49

2.11

3.07

2.63

3.00

4.20

(1.10)

(1.16) (.99)

(.98)

(.93)

(.99)

(.45)

N=379

N=73

N=61

N=59

N=36

N=5

N=143

1.79

405
Table D1.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.80

2.47

2.92

2.74

3.20

4.20

(.96)

(.80)

(.84)

N=61

N=35

N=5

Number of Respondents

111.

Oversee

that...

2.76
(1.06)
N=374

112.

Assist staff in...

2.24

114.

Monitor

Present

county...

annual...

N=74

2.68

2.22

2.60

(.86)
N=63

(.67)
N=37

(.45)
N=5

2.36 2.69
2.08
1.90
(1.02) (1.08) (.91) (.87)

2.70
(.98)

2.78
3.00
(1.03) (.71)

N*385

N=62

N=37

1.53

2.30

N=137 N=60

(.81) (.74)
N=143 N=61

(.85)
N=385
113.

(1.11) (1.06) (.98)

(.95)
N=74

N=74
1.95

2.07

2.05

N=144 N=61
1.28

1.20

N=5

1.88

1.67

1.60

(.82)

(1.10)

(.56) (.44)

(.95)

(.76)

(.55)

N=384

N=74

N=145 N=61

N=61

N=36

N=5

406
Table D2.--Mean responses, standard deviations of mean responses, and number of
respondents for the 114 role-definition items of the Regional Extension
Supervisor position as it should be performed in Hichigan.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

2.97
(.64)

2.87

2.94
(.60)

3.08
(.49)

2.96

3.00

(.87)

(.60)

(.48)

(.55)

N=402

N=78

N*140

N*6l

N=71

N=35

N=5

3.25

3.04

3.20

3.25

3.44

3.47

3.60

(.71)

(.90)

(.68)

(.51)

(.56)

(.55)

N=408

N=79

N-149

N=60

(.73)
N=73

N=36

N=5

3.51

3.45

3.50

3.55

3.57

3.54

3.50

(.75)
N=400

(.82)

(.70)

(.75)

(.56)

(.55)

N=80

(.77)
N=148

N=60

N=72

N=35

N=5

3.47

3.32

3.55

3.51

3.53

3.39

3.20

(.80)

(.89)

(.83)

(.77)

(.71)

(.73)

(.45)

N-406

N®78

N“148

N*61

N“72

N=36

N=5

3.42

3.54

3.39

3.43

3.42

3.36

2.80

(.90)

(1.01) (.91)

(.85)

N-405

N=77

N=6Q

(.93)
N=73

(.72)
N=36

N=5

3.16

3.06

3.17

3.10

3.23

3.19

3.60

(.71)

(.84)

(.68)

(.60)

(.74)

(.57)

(.55)

N=405

N=78

N-146

N=61

N=73

N=37

N=5

3.31

3.53

3.28

3.23

3.34

3.03

3.40

(.79)

(.77)

(.69)

(.84)

(.84)

(.55)

N=404

N=78

(.79)
N=145

N=61

N=73

N=36

N=5

3.41

3.13

3.44

3.48

3.46

3.59

3.80

(.78)

(.97)

(.78)

(.56)

(.71)

(.69)

(.45)

N=409

N=78

N=149

N=62

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.61

3.60

(.75)

3.68
(.67)

3.80

(.76)

3.49
(.67)

3.50

(.72)

3.76
(.64)

N=407

N=80

N=146

N=61

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.09

2.94

3.12

3.06

3.11

3.16

3.60

(.67)
N=410

(.90)
N=80

(.60)
N = 149

(.54)
N=62

(.64)
N=71

(.55)
N=37

N=5

2.90

2.78

2.88

2.89

2.96

3.11

3.00

(.83)

(.98)

(.75)

(.77)

(.89)

(.74)

(.00)

N=406

N=78

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

RS

Number of Respondents

1. Select staff...

2. Identify individual...

3. Know the attitudes__

4. Main staff...

5. Provide information...

6. Developing staffing...

7. A d m i n i s t e r CES...

8. Handle personnel...

9. Conduct periodic...

10. Interview prospective...

11. Recruit candidates__

148

3.60

(.45)

(.45)

(.55)

II

GO

n*

407
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean

(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

12. Insure fair treatment...

3.73
(.72)

13. Maintain a competent...

14. Present new Extension...

15. Assist staff in the...

16. Provide staff with.

17. Administer University.

18. Insure compliance...

19. Provide orientation__

20. Help staff to meet__

21. Assist staff in__

22. Provide staff with...

PA

RS

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

3.81

3.81

3.79

3.50

3.65

(.75)
N=79

(.74)
N=147

(.60)

(.71)

(.59)

(.45)

N=408

N*62

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.47

3.58

3.49

3.35

3.37

3.49

4.00

(.73)

(.73)

(.79)

(.63)

(.74)

(.61)

(.00)

N=408

N=78

Ns148

N-62

N=72

N=37

N=5

2.86

2.65

2.72

2.97

2.97

3.08

4.00

3.80

(1.17) (1.32) (.00)

(1.16) (1.28) (1.08) (.97)
N=407 N=78
N=148 N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.29

3.11

(.82)

3.23

3.32

3.46

3.40

3.00

( . 86)

(.84)

(.67)

(.85)

( . 00)

N=410

N=79

N=149

N=62

N=72

(.76)
N=37

2.82

3.15
2.73
(1.06) (.95)

2.74
(.90)

2.72
2.68
(1.05) (.88)

2.40

(.99)
N=408

N=78

N=148

N=62

N=72

N=5

3.36

3.35

3.36

(.93)

(.82)

3.39
(.69)

3.25
3.43
(1.00) (.73)

3.40

(.85)
N=409

N=79

N=148

N=62

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.46

3.48

3.44

3.46

3.40

3.54

3.40

N=37

N=5

(.55)

(.55)

(.79)

(.83)

(.76)

(.76)

(.90)

N=408

N=79

N=148

N=61

N=72

(.73)
N=37

N=5

(.55)

3.08

2.90

3.13

3.00

3.12

3.19

3.40

(.80)

(.94)

(.79)

(.70)

(.75)

(.78)

(.55)

N=410

N=80

N=148

N=62

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.11

2.82

3.13

3.10

3.22

( . 88)

(.56)

(.75)

N=410

N=80

(.79)
N=149

3.32
(.71)

3.80

(.77)

N=62

N=72

N=37

N=5

3.14

3.06

3.09

3.10

3.26

3.28

3.60

(.74)

(.80)

(.77)

(.70)

(.74)

(.57)

(.55)

N=405

N=80

N-148

N=61

N=70

N=36

N=5

3.30

3.18

3.33

3.34

3.22

3.40

3.60

(.80)

(.97)

(.71)

(.68)

(.86)

(.80)

(.55)

N=405

N=79

N=147

N=61

N=71

N=37

N=5

(.45)

408
Table D 2 . - - C o n t i n u e d .

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

3.16

3.07

3.20

3.31

RS

Number of Respondents

23. Assist field staff.

24. Encourage field.

25. Encourage field.

26. Encourage field...

27. Assist field staff...

28. Assist field staff...

29. Assist field staff__

30. Assist new staff__

31. Provide field staff.

32. Organize staff__

33. Conduct staff...

3.12

2.91

3.00

(.90)

(1.00) (.92)

(.75)

(.90)

(.79)

(.71)

N=404

N=80

N=146

N=61

N=71

N=36

N=5

3.13

2.97

3.12

3.03

3.28

3.28

3.20

(.79)

(.95)

(.74)

( . 86)

( . 66 )

(.45)

N=405

N=80

N=147

(.60)
N=61

N=71

N*36

N=5

3.24

3.20

3.19

3.18

3.31

3.44

3.80

(.74)

( . 86)

(.74)

(.67)

N=405

N=80

N=147

N=61

(.73)
N=71

(.56)
N=36

N=5

3.13

2.99

3.17

3.47

3.20

(.75)

(.56)

(.45)

N=401

(1.11) (.76)
N=80
N=144

3.12
(.67)

3.01

(.81)

N=60

N=71

N=36

N=5

2.85

2.71

2.95

2.79

3.16

3.20

(.97)

(1.13) (.96)

(.91)

(1.03) (.93)

(.45)

N=407

N=80

N=147

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.07

3.10

2.93

3.08

3.08

3.32

3.40

(.89)
N=407

(1.04) (.84)

(.79)

(.94)

(.71)

(.55)

N=81

N=146

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.15

2.99

3.16

3.00

3.25

3.44

3.80

N=405

N=81

N=146

N=61

N=71

N=36

N=5

2.18

2.06

2. 02

2.06

2.45

2.57

2.80

(.91)

(.97)

( . 86)

(.72)

(1.01) (.83)

(.84)

N=408

N=80

N=148

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.11

3.34

3.13

3.06

2.78

(.90)
N=62

(.87)

N=395

(1.12) (.97)
N=71
N=147

3.17
(.94)

3.20

(.97)

N=69

N=36

N=5

3.16

2.99

3.11

3.19

3.38

3.19

3.40

( . 00)

(.91)

(.94)

(.85)

(1.02) (.55)

N=407

N=80

N=147

N=62

(.82)
N=71

2.86

2.85

2.80

N=37

(.45)

(.45)

N=5

2.93

2.99

3.14

2.73

3.00

(1.01)

(1.09) (1.04) (.90)

(.98)

(.96)

(.71)

N=407

N=81

N=70

N=37

N=5

N=147 N=62

409
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.97

3.18

3.16
(.76)

3.60
(.55)

N=37

N=5
3.80

Number of Respondents

34. Assist field staff...

35. Assist field staff...

36. Assist field staff...

37. Implement effective...

38. Forecast future...

39. Assist field staff__

40. Assist field staff.

2.97
(.87)

2.81
2.86
(1.01) (.83)

N=406

N=79

N=147

(.75)
N=62

(.87)
N=71

3.20

3.02

3.18

3.13

3.42

3.32

(.76)

(.89)

(.73)

(.71)

(.73)

(.71)

(.45)

N=407

N=80

N*147

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.25

3.29

3.17

3.11

3.41

3.35

3.20

(.77)

(.89)

(.78)

(.77)

(.73)

(.54)

(.45)

N=407

N=80

N=147

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.09

3.22

3.21

3.33

3.40

(.78)

2.93
(.82)

3.00

(.83)

(.83)

(.83)

(.89)

(.55)

N=406

N=80

N=147

N=62

N=71

N=36

N=5

2.97

3.37

2.99

2.74

2.76

2.81

3.20

( . 86)

(.70)

(.85)

(.90)

(.92)

N=405

N=79

N = 146

N=62

N=71

(.81)
N=37

(.84)
N=5

2.72

2.81

2.60

2.63

2.86

2.94

2.80

(.84)

(.84)

(.81)

(.77)

(.97)

(.75)

(.45)

N=405

N=80

N=146

N=62

N=71

N=36

N=5

2.48

2.64

2.34

2.32

2.51

2.81

2.80

t *

41. Review field staff...

42. Be familiar with...

43. Assist field staff__

44. Assist field staff...

N=403

N=78

N=146

N=62

N=71

N=36

N=5

3.43
(.81)

3.30
3.45
(1.04) (.77)

3.39

( . 66)

3.52
(.79)

3.46
(.77)

3.80
(.45)

N=409

N=81

N=148

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

2.98

3.45

2.68

2.77

3.11

3.22

3.20

(.90)

(.91)

(.83)

(.82)

(.92)

(.79)

(.45)

N=406

N=80

N=146

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.07

3.20

2.90

2.98

3.25

3.19

3.60

(.79)

(.87)

(.76)

(.84)

(.66)

(.55)

N=405

N=79

N=147

(.72)
N=61

N=71

N=37

N=5

2.63

2.62

2.57

2.56

2.63

2.89

3.20

(.81)

( . 86)

(.78)

(.69)

(.90)

(.81)

(.84)

N=407

N=81

N=146

N=62

N=71

N*37

N=5

410
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

3.14
(.83)

3.41

3.03

3.10

3.13

3.00

3.60

(.94)

(.77)

(.82)

(.84)

(.74)

(.55)

N=403

N=80

N-144

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

2.85

2.93

2.70

2.79

2.96

3.08

3.40

(.81)

(.72)

(.77)

(.80)

(.68)

(.89)

N=407

(.98)
N=81

N=147

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

3.07

3.34

2.85

3.05

3.13

3.24

3.20

Number of Respondents

45. Be familiar with__

46. Assist field staff__

47. Assist state...

48. Meet with local...

49. Identify field staff__

50. Maintain an awareness.

51. Maintain an awareness...

52. Assist field staff...

53. Use monthly reports...

54. Use monthly reports__

55. Use monthly reports__

(.91)

(.93)

(.91)

(.89)

(.91)

(.80)

(.84)

N=403

N=80

N=144

N=62

N=71

N=37

N=5

2.27

2.80

2.27

3.20

2.45

2.72

(.96)

(.96) (.92)

2.24

(.77) (1.02) (1.02) (.84)

N=406

N=81

N=147

N=62

2.92

3.00

2.77

2.92

( . 86)

(.96)

(.84)

(.74)

N=400

N=79

N = 146

3.56

3.45

3.58

N=70

N=37

N=5

3.00

3.16

3.50

(.87)

N=61

(.83)
N=70

N=37

(.58)
N=4

3.55

3.59

3.62

3.75

(.77)

(.90)

(.76)

(.67)

(.75)

( . 68)

N=401

N=80

N=147

N=60

N=70

N=37

(.50)
N=4

3.31

3.32

3.28

3.29

3.34

3.32

3.25

(.87)
N-398

(1.01) (.83)

(.82)

(.96)

(.67)

(.50)

N=78

N=145

N=61

N=70

N=37

N=4

3.27

3.11

3.26

3.10

3.49

3.47

3.50

(.82)
N=399

(.89)

(.82)

(.72)

( . 86)

(.61)

(.58)

N=79

N=146

N=61

N=70

N=36

N=4

3.61

3.56

3.83

3.70

3.13

3.57

3.75

( . 88)

(.94)

(.79)

(1.08) (.76)

N=396

N=79

N=144

(.53)
N=60

N=69

N=37

(.50)
N=4

3.12

3.29

3.25

3.15

2.57

3.22

3.00

(.97)

(.99)

(.93)

(.78)

(1.05) (.89)

(.82)

N=391

M=79

N=141

N=59

N=68

N=37

N=4

3.56

3.52

3.77

3.53

3.13

3.65

3.75

(.87)

(.89)

(.84)

( . 68 )

(1.04) (.68)

(.50)

N=398

N=79

N=146

N=60

N=69

N=4

N=37

411
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

3.50

Number of Respondents

56. Involve Extension staff...

57. Periodically visit...

58. Maintain a liaison__

59. Assist field staff...

60. Identify current.

61. Participate in...

62. Conduct some...

63. Provide regular...

64. Encourage educational...

65. Insure that...

66. Assist field staff.,

3.15

3.35

3.10

2.98

3.19

3.06

(.84)

(.89)

(.87)

(.72)

(.84)

(.83)

(.58)

N=399

N=80

N*146

N*61

N=69

N=36

N=4

3.68

3.62

3.70

3.62

3.66

3.78

4.00

(.78)

(.90)

(.74)

(.76)

(.81)

(.63)

( . 00)

N*402

N*81

N=146

Ns61

N»70

N=37

N=4

3.60

3.65

3.65

3.53

3.47

3.58

3.50

(.82)

( . 88 )
N»144

(.72)
N-60

( . 88)

N=396

(.83)
N*79

N*70

(.65)
N*36

(.58)
N=4

2.85

2.87

2.78

2.75

2.85

3.13

3.25

(.80)
N=397

( . 88)

(.77)

(.81)

(.82)

(.50)

N=79

N=145

(.75)
N=60

N*69

N=37

N=4

3.33

3.22

3.36

3.37

3.31

3.40

3.60

(.72)

(.71)

(.74)

( . 66)

(.83)

(.60)

(.55)

N=400

N=78

N=145

N=62

N=70

N=37

N=5

2.89

3.13
(.94)

2.83

2.81
(.95)

3.40

N=392

N=75

(.92)
N=146

2.69
(.82)

3.00

(.92)

N=62

N=65

(.83)
N=36

N=5

2.33

2.94

2.06

2. 02

2.52

2.27

2.60

(.96)

(.99)

(.6i)

(.93)

(.93)

(.6y)

N=398

N=79

(.91)
N-144

N=61

N=69

N=37

N=5

3.64

3.60

3.72

3.56

3.54

3.73

3.60

(.79)

(.90)

(.76)

(.74)

(.82)

(.65)

(.89)

N=398

N=78

N=146

N*62

N=67

N=37

N=5

3.40

3.45

3.39

3.29

3.46

(.78)

(.85)

(.71)

(.74)

3.35
(.59)

3.40

(.77)
N=397

N-80

N=144

N=61

N=67

N=37

N=5

3.09

3.25

3.04

3.05

2.97

3.13

3.60

(.83)

(.85)

(.85)

(.78)

(.90)

(.63)

(.55)

N=399

N=80

N=145

N=61

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.8 6

2.80

2.84

2.93

2.84

3.03

3.00

(.87)

(.91)

(.83)

(.83)

(.92)

(.96)

(.71)

N=401

N=79

N=146

N=62

N=69

N=37

N=5

(.55)

(.55)

412
Table D2.-*Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

67. Oversee that program...

2.90

68. Oversee that program...

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

Identify and select...

Participate in the...

Assist field

staff...

Monitor progress...

Encourage field...

Conduct periodic

Conduct periodic...

Conduct on site...

Assist field staff...

PA

2.86

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.88

2.89

2.88

3.08

3.20

(.89)

(.92)

(.87)

(.81)

(1.01) (.86)

(.45)

N=396

N*79

N*145

N«62

N=66

N*37

N=5

2.77

2.87

2.63

2.74

2.85

2.92

3.60

(.89)

(.88)

(.87)

(.87)

(.99)

(.86)

(.55)

N=399

N=79

N*145

N*62

N=69

N=37

N=5

2.96

2.88

2.90

2.97

3.06

3.17

( 1 . 01 ) (1.09) (1.09) (.99)

(.89)

(.77)

3.20
(.45)

N=398

N=78

N=145

N=62

N=69

N=36

N=5

3.42
(.87)

3.45
3.35
(.890) (.93)

3.34

3.43

3.51

3.60

(.85)

(.76)

(.87)

(.55)

N=400

N=79

N=145

N=62

N=69

N=37

N=5

2.90

2.78

2.80

3.00

3.06

3.03

3.40

(.90)

(.94)
N=79

(.79)
N=62

(.91)
N=69

(.93)

N=399

(.92)
N=144

(.55)
N=5

3.33
(.82)

3.52

3.23
(.79)

3.29
(.78)

3.21
(.78)

3.58
(.81)

3.60

(.92)

N=400

N=79

N=147

N=62

N=68

N=36

N=5

3.25

3.14

3.21

3.40

(.76)

(.66)

3.43
(.76)

3.39

(.75)

3.25
(.78)

(.77)

(.55)

N=401

N=79

N=147

N=62

N=69

N=36

N=5

3.16

3.56

2.94

2.90

3.40

N=37

(.55)

3.42

3.05

( 1 . 00 ) (.87)

(1.03) (.95)

(.95)

(.97)

(.89)

N=400

N=79

N=146

N=62

N=69

N=37

N=5

3.29

3.49

3.23

3.05

3.38

3.30

3.20

( . 86)

(.82)

(.91)

(.82)

(.81)

(.91)

(.45)

N=398

N=77

N=146

N=62

N=69

N=37

N=5

3.34

3.52

3.40

3.80

3.45

2.77

3.49

( 1 . 0 0 ) (1.01) (.98)

(.97)

(.96)

(.96)

(.45)

N=395

N=77

N=146

N=62

N=66

N=37

N=5

2.49

2.56

2.42

2.19

2.61

2.84

2.50

(.95)
N=399

(1.03) (.88)

(.74)

N=78

N=62

(1.07) (1.07) (.58)
N=69
N=37
N=4

N=146

413
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

3.46
(.79)

3.43

3.42

3.46

3.46

3.73

3.40

(.80)

(.79)

(.94)

(.56)

(.55)

N*398

N=79

N»146

(.76)
N«61

N>68

N*37

N=5

3.19

3.23

3.39

3.31

2.61

3.00

4.00

Number of Respondents

78. Provide timely...

79. Approve out-of-state...

80. Administer the...

81. Maintain the lines...

82. Represent field staff__

83. Represent central CES..

84. Schedule regional...

85. Coordinate specialists...

86. Assist County Extension..

87. Handle clientele.

88. Meet with county board...

(1.05) (1.13) (.96)

(.95)

(1.11) (.97)

(1.00)

N=394

N=143

N*62

N=66

N*37

N-5

2.99

3.08

N»78

2.98

2.73

2.68

3.00

(1.10)

(1.11) (1.09) (1.04) (1.18)

(.91)

(.71)

N-398

N=79

N=37

N=5

N=145 N-62

2.64
N=67

3.44

3.57

3.41

3.38

3.20

(.80)

(.95)

3.42
(.71)

3.43

(.85)

(.95)

N=400

N=79

N=145

N=62

N=69

(.64)
N=37

(.45)
N=5

3.47

3.38

3.57

3.56

3.21

3.50

3.60

(.93)

(.96) (.93)

(.82)

(1.11)

(.61)

(.55)

N=399

N=79

N=62

N=68

N=36

N=5

3.34

3.33

3.29

3.61

3.39

3.80

(.86)

(.81)

(.88)

(.82) (1.01)

(.64) (.45)

N=394

N=79

N=143

N=62

N=36

N=146

3.16
N=67

N=5

3.66
/ 7B1

3.49

3.64

3.77

3.65

(. 84)

(.82)

(.64)

3.83
( .74 )

4.00
( .00)

N=397

N=80

N-144

N=62

(.75)
N-68

N=36

N=5

2.32
3.00
2.06
2.21
(1.06) (1.02) (1.05) (.99)

2.18

2.42

2.20

(1.08) (.84)

(.84)

N=398

N=79

N=146

N=62

N=68

N=36

N=5

2.64

2.70

2.58

2.32

2.77

3.03

3.00

(1.00) (.95)

( 1. 00) ( . 8 8)

(1.11) (.96)

(.71)

N=396

N=79

N=145

N=62

N=66

N=37

N=5

2.76

2.86

2.69

2.63

2.72

3.03

3.20

(.91)

(.87)

(.87)

(.98)

(.99)

(.93)

(.45)

N=398

N=80

N=144

N=62

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.61

2.67

2.52

2.53

2.48

3.05

3.20

(,95)

(1.00) (.93)

(.97) (.92)

(.94)

(.45)

N=399

N=80

N=62

N=37

N=5

N=145

N=68

414
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

TOTAL

89. Encourage program and...

3.30

90. Encourage program and...

91. Develop and maintain...

92. Handle staff and...

93. Monitor reports from__

94. Serve on state-wide...

95. Participate in the...

97. Provide leadership and...

98. Develop in conjunction__

99. Maintain the public's...

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

3.24

3.16

3.27

3.54

3.51

3.80

(.79)

(.73)

(.81)

(.75)

(.80)

(.77)

(.45)

N=400

N=80

Ns146

N*62

N=68

N=37

N=5

3.05

2.94

3.10

3.08

2.90

3.24

3.60

(.88)

(.97)

(.82)

(.76)

(1.02) (.80)

(.55)

N*399

N*80

N«146

N*61

N=68

N*37

N=5

2.59

2.74

2.42

2.55

2.72

2.57

3.60

(.97)

(.97)

(.91)

(.97)

(1.06) (.99)

(.55)

N=397

N=78

N-146

N=62

N=67

N=37

N=5

3.33

2.92

3.37

3.40

3.49

3.57

3.80

(.91)

(1.06) (.89)

(.71)

(.86)

(.80)

(.45)

N=396

N=80

N=143

N=62

N=67

N=37

N=5

3.16

3.05

3.19

3.39

2.82

3.39

3.80

(1.02) (.98)

(1.02) (.93)

(1.12) (.96)

(.45)

N=397

N=80

N=146

N=62

N=66

N=36

N=5

3.19

3.30
(.91)

3.20

3.16

3.60

(.88)

3.05
(.84)

3.14

(.89)

(.99)

(.80)

(.55)

N=398

N=80

N=143

N=61

N=69

N=37

N=5

3.70
(.96)

3.74
(.97)

3.75
(.87)

3.81
(.95)

3.42

3.65

3.60

N=393

N*78

N-142

N=62

N=67

N=37

N=5

3.86

3.85

3.83

4.02

3.69

4.03

3.80

(.91)

(.98)

(.91)

(.91)

(.92)

N=397

N=80

N=143

N=62

N=68

(.69)
N=37

N=5

3.40

3.20

3.44

3.48

3.36

3.49

3.60

(.79)

(.81)

(.82)

(.75)

(.80)

N=397

N=78

N=146

N-60

N=69

(.65)
N=37

N=5

2.99

3.21

2.96

2.69

3.01

(.82)

(.92)

(.88)

3.03
(1.00) (.93)

3.00

(.92)
N=394

N=77

N-144

N=61

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.88
(.91)

3.26
(.86)

2.83
(.90)

2.62
(.84)

2.85

2.73
(.87)

3.00

(.96)

N=397

N=78

N=145

N=61

N=69

N=37

N=5

(1.13)

CO
04

96. Participate in-service__

PA

(.55)

(.45)

(.55)

(.71)

(.71)

4 15
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)

TOTAL

PA

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

Number of Respondents

100. Develop and maintain.

101. Prepare news and...

102. Assist field staff.

103. Participate in MSU.

104. Represent MSU/CES...

105. Represent MSU/CES...

106. Assist County...

107. Seek financial...

108. Develop annual CES__

109. Oversee that county...

110. Oversee that__

2.81

3.22

2.63

2.64

2.91

2.68

(.94)

(.90)

(.92)

(.93)

(.94)

(.45)

N=395

N=77

N=145

N*61

(.93)
N=68

N=37

N=5

2.32

2.94

2.20

2.07

2.36

1.92

2.00

(1.05)
N-398

(1.13) (.98) (.89)
N=78
N*146 N*61

3.20

(1.10) (.72)
N=69
N=37

(1.22)
N=5
2.60

3.08

3.26

3.03

2.90

3.10

(.89)

(.92)

(.84)

(.89)

(1.02) (.62)

3.11

(.55)

N=396

N=78

Ns145

N=61

N=69

N=36

N=5

2.07

2.47

1.83

1.95

2.27

1.97

2.60

(.95)

(1.09) (.84)

(.90)

(1.02) (.76)

(.55)

N=392

N=76

N=144

N=61

N=67

N=37

N 5
3.00

2.56

2.91

2.35

2.39

2.77

2.46

(.94)

(.97)

(.84)

(.71)

N=78

(.91)
N=69

(.80)

N=398

(.95)
N=146

N=37

N=5

2.23

2.64

N=61

2.42
(.94)

2. 2 2

3.00

(.92)

( 1. 00)

(.99)

(.97)

1.99
2.00
(1.00) (.89)

N=393

N=77

N=144

N=61

N=67

N=37

N=5

2.87

3.17

2.82

2.48

2.84

3.08

3.20

(.96)

(.96)

(.81)

(1,01) (=83)

(=84}

N=396

(-99)
N=77

N=144

N=61

N=69

N=37

N=5

2.82

3.18

2.74

2.44

2.93

2.81

3.00

(1.02)

(1.03) (1.05) (.92)

(.97)

(.91)

(.71)

N=395

N=77

N=145 N=61

N=68

N*37

N=5

1.86

2 . 11

2.76

1.67

2.26

2.19

(1.03

(1.15) (.95)

(.93)

(.85)

(.74)

2. 0 0
( 1. 00)

N=392

N=78

N=61

N=65

N=37

N=5
2.80

N=144

2.55

3.08

2.59

2.86

(1.13)

(1.24) (1.11) (.84)

2.37 1.97

(1.03)

(.98) (.84)

N=395

N=79

N=68

N=37

N=5

2.87

3.09

2.54

3.35

4.00

(1.09)

(1.09) (1.06) (1.00) (1.10)

(.92)

(.00)

N=395

N=79

N=37

N=5

N=142 N=61
2.61

N=145

3.07

N=61

N=66

416
Table D2.--Continued.

Mean
(Standard Deviation)
Number of Respondents

111. Oversee that...

TOTAL

PA

2.98

3.22

CEA

CED

SPEC

APT

RS

2.79

3.02

2.69

3.42

4.00

(1.07) (1.08) (1.03) (1.07)

112. Assist staff in...

113. Monitor county...

114. Present annual...

(1.10) (.81)

N=389

N=78

N=141

N=60

2.94

3.02

2.92

2.77

(.91)
N=397

(1.07) (.85)
N=79
N«145

(.90)
N-61

2.55

3.04

2.10

2.65

2.32

N=67

(.71)

N=36

N=5

3.03

2.84

3.20

(.93)
N=68

(.80)
N=37

(.45)
N=5

2.95

3.00

(1.08) (1.05) (1.04) (.98)

(1.06) (1.00) (.71)

N=398

N=79

N=145

N=61

N=68

N=37

N=5

1.41

1.75

1.60

1.67

2.29

1.34

1.76

(.96)

(1.27) (.70)

(.65)

(1.02) (.77)

(.55)

N=396

N=78

N=61

N=68

N=5

N-145

N=36

APPENDIX E
ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS OF THE REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISORS
IN MICHIGAN AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED AND
AS THEY SHOULD BE PERFORMED

417

AHINISTRATIVE TASKS OF REGIONAL SUPERVISORS IN HICHIGAN AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY PERFORNED (based upon lean scores of the
total population in this study)
HEAN SCORES (3.707 - 3.130)
1. Participate in the ■onthiy Administrative meetings on canpus (3.707).

(AP)

2. Conduct periodic appraisals of county, district and regional staff in the region (3.637).

(PH)

3. Participate in in-service education appropriate to the administrative role of the Regional
Extension Supervisor (3.630).

(AP)

4. Use aonthly reports to keep informed of programming accomplishments in the region by county,
district and regional Extension staff (3.536).

(EP)

5. Use aonthly reports to keep inforaeo of effectively using paraprofessionals as a aeans of
extending the total programming efforts of the county (3.435).

(EP)

6. Scnedule regional staff conferences and opportunities for field staff interaction
when appropriate (3.409).

(AP)

7. Review fieid staff plans of work and aake suggestions for iaproveaent (3.331).

(PD)

8. Conduct on site Civil Rights compliance reviews in the region (3.30S).

(PEA)

9. Participate in the Program Review and Planning Process for counties in the region (3.289).

(PEA)

10. Represent centrai CES administration in discussions with field staff, program staff,
specialists, ano HSU coiieges or units whicn relate to Extension work (3.275).

(AP)

11. Insure compliance with County, Nicnigan State University and Extension personnel policies and
proceoures within tne region (3.259).

(PH)

12. Identify individual strengths and weaknesses of Extension staff in the region (3.246).

(PH)

13. Honitor reports from fieid staff to assure they are subaitted on tiae (3.242).

(AP)

14. Provide ieaaersnip ano input for regional and statewide activities such as regional
conferences, lay leaner visits/legislative tours (3.235).

(AP)

15. Honitor progress being aade by county, district and regional staff towards their Affiraative
Action plans (5.223).

(PEA)

16. Know the attitudes of Extension staff in the region towards the CE5 organization (3.210).

(PH)

17. Approve out-of-state travei requests ana leaves of aosense for staff in the region (3.183).

(AP)

18. Haintain an awareness of on-going programming in the region Dy county, district and regional
Extension staff (3.174).

(EP)

19. Administer CES policies ano proceoures relating to continuing employment of Extension fieid
staff in the region (3.141).

(PH)

20. Insure fair treatment of ail Extension staff witnin the region (3.137).

(PH)

418

MEAN SCORES (3.130 - 2.870)
21. Maintain a liaison with University administrators, Extension specialists and field staff in
order to provide effective Extension prograis (3.130).

(EP)

22. Provide tiiely information and interpretation of CES policies and procedures as they relate to
county field staff and programs (3.116).

(AP)

23. Handle personnel problems/conflict in the region (3.109).

(PM)

24. Administer University and Extension Service policies and procedures for handling staff
disciplinary problems within the region (3.089).

(PM)

25. Provide regular written and/or verbal feedback on programming accomplishments to county,
district and regional staff in the region (3.089).

(EP)

26. Identify current and potential program successes and failures of field staff in the region
(3.082).

(EP)

27. Provide information and procedures to staff for filing grievances and appeals (3.072).

(PM)

28. Serve on statewide c o n i t t e e s concerned with Extension policy and/or progra n i n g (3.060).

(AP)

29. Represent field staff in discussions with prograi staff, specialists, central CES
aasinistration, and HSU colleges or units which relate to Extension work (3.047).

(AP)

30. Periodically visit field staff to observe ano becoie fatiiiar witn their programing efforts
(3.015).

(EP)

31. Maintain a competent staff within tne region (3.010).

(PM)

32. Maintain tne lines of coimunications ana internal relationships between field staff, prograi
staff, specialists, central CES administration, ana HSU colleges or units whicn relate to
Extension work (3.010).

(AP)

33. Encourage educational p r o g r a n i n g efforts across aii prograi areas by county, district and
regional staff in the region (2.982).

(EP)

34. Handle staff and prograi conflicts within the region (2.959).

(AP)

35. I n U r v U " prospective candidates fu) vpeii positions within the region (2.541).

(Ph)

36. Encourage field staff to participate in in-service education and other activities which will
heip to provide skilis needed for evaluating programs in t e n s of behavior change (2.903).

(PEA)

37. Maintain staff solidarity, morale ana esprit ae corps in tne region (2.901).

(PM)

38. Select staff for vacant county, district and regional Extension positions within the region
(2.881).

(PM)

39. Identify and select individuals to participate in the County Prograi Review and Planning Process
for counties in the region (2.870).

(PEA)

419

KEAN SCORES (2.869 - 2.653)
40. Adiinister the policies and procedures relating to penalty aail allocations for the region
(2.869).

(AP)

41. Conduct periodic inforial evaluations of county, district ana regional Extension prograis
(2.856).

(PEA)

42. Encourage prograi and staff cooperation between county Extension offices (2.851).

(AP)

43. Oeveiop staffing alternatives for county(ies) and the region (2.822).

(PH)

44. Haintain an awareness of on-going p r o g r a n i n g in the region by caipus based Extension
specialists (2.820).

(EP)

45. Assist staff in the region in developing a positive wonting relationship with other Extension
staff (2.789).

(PH)

46. Provide field staff with EEO and Title IX inforiation (2.783).

(SOD)

47. Use lonthly reports to keep i n f o n e d of p r o g r a u i n g accoapiisnaents in the region by caipus
based Extension specialists (2.783).

(EP))

48. Assist field staff in iipieienting the long-range objectives of tne Cooperative Extension
Service in tneir Region (2.763).

(PD)

49. Oversee tnat counties file tneir annuai Expenoiture ana Appropriated Punas reports on tiie
(2.757).

(3F)

50. Be faiiliar witn prograi developaent in the subject latter areas of Extension prograis (2.756).

(PD!

51. Assist field staff in the aevelopient of relevant, useful and functional plans of work (2.742).

(PC)

52. Assist staff in interpreting, accepting and iipieienting the Extension phiiosopny of public
service as an integral dimension of the land grant university-systei (2.737!.

(SOD)

53. Provide staff with procedures for conducting effective self-appraisais (2.727!.

(SOD)

54. Encourage prograi ano staff cooperation within county Extension offices (2.704).

(AP)

55. Insure that priorities are given to educational prograi neecs at the local level (2.703).

(EP)

56. Identify field staff and clientele froi the region to serve on statewide prograuing conittees
(2.669).

(PD)

57. Present new Extension field staff to the County Board of Conissioners (2.686).

(°H)

58. Encourage field staff to develop ana pursue professional deveiopient in eaucational conpetencies
(2.678).

(SCD!

59. Conauct perioaic in-depth evaluations of county, district arc regional Extension prograis (2.653).

(PEA)

420

DEAN SCORES (2.649 - 2.492)
60. Assist field staff in incorporating cross county, lulti-county and regional p r o g r a u i n g into
Extension prograi plans (2.649).

(EP)

61. Assist field staff in establishing long-range ano short-teri prograi priorities for their
county, district or regional responsibility (2.644).

(PD)

62. Organize staff in-service opportunities sahen needed in the region (2.628).

(500)

63. Iipleient effective lethoos of reacning Extension's goais within the region (2.620).

( PO)

64. Involve Extension staff ano clientele in identifying ways in which Extension prograis can be
improved, have greater iipacts and serve additional auaiences (2.614).

(EP)

65. Heip staff to leet the expectations of colleagues, aoiiristrators and clientele groups to be
served (2.597).

(500)

66. Be faiiliar with population and eipioyient trends of tr.e counties in the region ( 2.587).

( P O)

67. Encourage field staff to oeveiop ano pursue professional oeveiopient in technical coipetencies
(2.578).

(SOD!

68. Recruit canoicates for open :ieio star* positions witr.;- tne region (2.556).

(PH)

69. Oversee tnat counties nave tneir non-appropriated funos audited annually by an auditor
independent or tne Extension organization (2.546).

(BE)

70. Assist field staff in, developing persona, plans and lor.g-n.erm personal goais (2.541).

(SOD)

71. Encourage field staff to oeveiop ano pur sue professions, peveiopient in adiinistrative
coipetencies (2.537).

(SOD)

72. Assist field staff in conducting evaluations of county prograis (2.536).

(PEA)

73. Assist field staff in oecoiing •‘aniliar uitr. CES/KSJ/iiSCA ooiicies ano procedures (2.533).

(SOD)

74. Handle clientele concerns in areas suer, as staffing, prograuing, and Affiriative Action
(2.521).

(AP)

75. Oeveiop in conjunction, witn the C o u n y Extension Directors a CES public relations pian for the
counties enicn «iii uadi ess tne neeos of the geneiei p.c.ic, tey leaders, ano elected officials
in the region (2.518).

(PR)

76. Maintain tne puDiic's understanding ano support for Extension prograis in tne region (2.514).
77. Oversee that program resuits unicn are oeing leasureo :* -ieio staff reflect oenavior change
(2.508 ).
78. Provide orientation for nee employees to their Extension roies (2.496).

(SOD)

79. Assist field staff in developing professional Pians arc long-term career goais (2.492).

(SOC)

421

KEAN SCORES (2.491 - 2.258)
80. Assist field staff when appropriate in effectively using paraprofessionals as a leans of
extending the total prograuing efforts of the county (2.491).

(EP)

61. Assist field staff In effectively using support organizations and audiences in Extension
progr a u i n g (2.472).

(PD)

82. Develop and laintain a liaison with other state, county or coiiunity agencies in the region
(2.469).

(PR)

83. Participate in Extension prograis uithin the region (2.462).

(EP)

84. Assist County Extension Directors in securing adequate county funds for all phases of county
Extension work (2.439).

(6F)

85. Oversee that prograi effectiveness is teasured in t e n s of cost, tiie and appropriate use of funds
(2.420).

(PEA)

86. Assist field staff in effectively using advisory councils (2.398).

(PD)

87. Provide staff with policies and procedures relating to staff benefits (2.396).

(PM)

88. Forecast future trends or needs of the Extension Service (2.393).

(PD)

89. Assist state specialists in identifying programing needs for the region (2.379).

(PD)

90. Conduct staff in-service opportunities when needed in the region (2.378).

(SOD)

91. Assist field staff in the preparation of reports which reflect degrees of educational
accoipiisnient (2.378).

(PEA)

92. Meet with county Doard aethers in areas such as staffing, prograuing, and Affinative
Action (2.361).

(AP)

93. Assist field staff in becoaing faeiiiar with the CES Adainistrative hanobook (2.359).

(SOD)

94. Monitor county Extension budgets for the region (2.356).

(BFj

95. Assist fieid staff in developing a larketing plan for increasing Extension’s visibility in the
region (2.354).

(PR)

96. Represent MSU/CE5 on various conittees within the region (2.353).

(PR)

97. Oeveiop ano maintain relationships with key clientele within the region (2.334).

(AP)

98. Assist County Extension Directors in negotiating oudgets, staffing and office space arrangeaents
with county officials (2.297).

(AP)

99. Assist fieio staff in effectively using volunteer leaoers in Extension programs (2.263).

(PD)

100. Assist fieid staff in getting increaseo participation in Extension eoucationai activities (2.258).

(PD)

422

KEAN SCORES (2.242 - 1.531)
101. Assist staff in developing proposals for outside funding of Extension prograis (2.242).

(BF)

102. Seek financial support in addition to county appropriated funds to develop/expand county Extension
prograis (2.219).

(BF)

103. Assist field staff in preparing their Annual Reports (2.169).

(PEA)

104. Oversee that county appropriated lonies are equitably divided so that all staff have reasonable
support to carry out their Extension prograis (2.105).

(BF)

105. Heet with local advisory groups to identify Extension programing priorities for the region (2.062).

(PO)

106. Represent HSU/CES in non-Extension c o i m n i t y events uithin the region (2.011).

(PR)

107. Assist field staff in data collection and analysis procedures for assessing local situations and
educational needs (2.010).

(PO)

108. Coordinate specialists visits to the region (1.992),

(AP)

109. Assist new staff in becoiing acquainted with the c o n u n i t y (1.947).

(S O D )

110. Participate in HSU Aluini Association activities in the region (1.934).

(PR)

111. Prepare news and other Extension inforiation releases appropriate to the region (1.914).

(PR)

112. Conouct soie educational prograis within the Region (1.856).

(EP)

113. Oeveiop annual Cooperative Extension Service

(BF)

budget requests for counties in the region (1.850).

114. Present annual county Extension budgets to the County Board of Coiiissioners
PH = Personnel Hanageient
SOD = Staff Orientation and Developient
PO = Prograa Developient
EP = Extension Prograaiing
PEA = Prograi Evaluation ano Accountability
AP = Adiinistration and Policy
PR = Public Relations
BF : Buogeting and Financing

(1.531).

(BF)

423

ADMINISTRATIVE TftSKS OF REGIONAL SUPERVISORS IN MICHIGAN AS THEY SHOULD BE PERFORMED (based upon lean scores of the
total population in this study)
MEAN SCORES (3.861 - 3.403)
1. Participate in in-service education appropriate to the adainistrative roie of the Regional
Ertension Supervisor (3.861).

(AP)

2. Insure fair treatient of all Extension staff within the region (3.735).

(PM)

3. Participate in the lonthly Adainistrative leetings on caapus (3.695).

(AP)

4. Periodically visit fieid staff to observe and becoie faiiiiar with their prograuing efforts
(3.679).

(EP)

5. Schedule -egionai staff conferences ano opportunities for fieid staff interaction when
appropriate (3.657).

(AP)

6. Provide regular written and/or verbal feeoback on prograuing accoaplishients to county,
district and regional staff in the region (3.643).

(EP)

7. Conduct periodic appraisals of county, aistrict and regional staff in tne region (3.614).

(PM)

8. Use lonthly reports to keep inforaed of p r o g r a u i n g accoipiishients in the region by county,
district ana 'egionai Extension staff (3.614).

(EP)

9. Maintain a liaison with University aoninistrators, Extension soecialists and fielo staff in
oroer to ? rovice effective Extension prograss (3.596).

(EP)

10. Use oontniy reoorls to teen inforaeo of effectively using oaraprofessionais as a leans of
extenoing the totai progra m i n g s n o r t s of tne county (3.565 ).

(EP)

11. Maintain an awareness of on-going p r o g r a m i n g ir. the region by county, district and regional
Extension staff (3.564).

(E?)

12. Know tne attituoes of Extension star' in the 'egion towards the CES organization (3.512).

(PM)

13. Maintain staff solidarity, moraie and esprit ae corps in the region (3.475).

(PM)

14. Maintain a coipetent staff «ithin the region (2.471).

(PM)

15. Represent fieid staff in ciscussions witr. program staff, specialists, central CES
aoiinistration, ano MSU colleges or units wnicn reiate to Extension work (3.469).

(AP)

•6. Provioe timely inforsatior ana interpretation of CES Policies ano procedures as they reiate
to county fieid staff and prograis (3.465).

(AP)

17. Insure conpiiance with County, Mic.nigan State University ano Extension personnel poiicies and
proceoures within tne region (3.461).

(PH)

18. Maintain the lines of communications ana internal reiationsnips between fieid staff, program
staff, specialists, central CES aoiinistration, ano MSU coileges or units wnicn reiate to
Extension work (3.440),

(AP)

19.

Review £ ieid staff pians of worx ano saxe suggestions for iaptoveaent (3.430 ).

424

MEAN SCORES (3.427 - 3.252)
20. Provide intonation and procedures to staff for filing grievances and appeals (3.427).

(PM)

21. Participate in the Prograi Review and Planning Process for counties in the region (3.420).

(PEA)

22. Handle personnel probleis/conflict in the region (3.406).

(PM)

23. Encourage educational p r o g r a u i n g efforts across all prograi areas by county, district and
regional staff in the region (3.399).

(EP)

24. Provide leadership and input for regional and statewide activities such as regional
conferences, lay leader visits/legislative tours (3.398).

(AP)

25. Adeinister University and Extension Service policies and procedures for handling staff
disciplinary probleis within the region (3.357).

(PM)

26. Represent central CE5 adiinistration in discussions with field staff, prograi staff,
specialists, and MSU colleges or units which relate to Extension work (3.345).

(AP)

27. Conduct on site Civil Rights coipliance reviews in the region (3.344).

(PEA)

28. identify current and potential program successes and failures of fieid staff in the region
(3.335).

(EP)

29. Monitor progress Deing laoe oy c ounty, Distri ct ana regional staff towards tneir Affinative
Action plans (3.332).

(PEA)

30. Handle staff ano prograi conflicts within the region (3.331).

(AP)

31. Adiinister CES policies and proceaures relating to continuing eiployient of Extension field
staff in the region (3.312).

(PM)

32. Maintain an awareness of on-going p r o g r a u i n g in the region by caipus Dased Extension
specialists (3.309).

(EP)

33. Provide staff with proceaures for conaucting effective self-appraisals (3.299).

(SOD)

34. Encourage prograi ano staff cooperation between county Extension offices (3.297).

(AP)

35. Assist staff in the 'egion in developing a positive working relationship witn other Extension
staff (3.288).

(PM)

36. Conouct oeriodic irt'onai evaluations of county, district ano regional Extension prograis (3.286).

(PEA)

37. Assist field staff in incorporating cross county, auiti-county and regional prograuing into
Extension program oiars ;3.271).

(E?)

38. loentify inoiviaual strengths and weaxr.esses of Extension staff in the region (3.255).

(PM)

39. Encourage r ie;d staff to participate in in-service eaucation and other activities wnicn will
help to provide S kills r.eeceo 'or eva.-ating prograis in t e n s of behavior change ( 3.252).

(PEA)

425

MEAN SCORES (3.246 - 3.088)
40. Assist field staff in iipieienting the long-range objectives of the Cooperative Extension
Service in their Region (3.246).

(PO)

41. Encourage field staff to develop and pursue professional developient in eoucational coipetencies
(3.244 ).

(SOD)

42. Assist field staff in the developient of relevant, useful and functional plans of work (3.204).

(PD)

43. Serve on statewide c o n i t t e e s concerned with Extension policy and/or prograuing (3.191).

(AP)

44. Approve out-of-state travel requests and leaves of aosense for staff in the region (3.190).

(AP)

45. Organize staff in-service opportunities wnen needed in the region (3.165).

(SOD)

46. Monitor reports froi field staff to assure they are subiitted on tiie (3.164).

(AP)

47. Oeveiop staffing alternatives for county(ies) and the region (3.160).

(PM)

48. Conouct periodic in-depth evaluations of county, district ano regional Extension prograss (3.157).

(PEA)

49. Assist field staff in developing professional plans ano long-ten career goals (3.153).

(530)

50. Involve Extension staff and clientele in identifying ways in which Extension programs can oe
improved, have greater iipacts ano serve additional audiences (3.150).

(E: ,

51. Assist staff in interpreting, accepting and iipieienting the Extension pniiosopny of puDiic
service as an integral diiension of the land grant university-systei (3.141).

1 SCO

52. 3e faiiiiar with prograi developient in the subject latter areas of Extension programs (3.139).

(PD)

53. Encourage fieio staff to develop ano pursue professional developient in aoiinistrative
coipetencies (3.132).

(SOD)

54. Encourage r ieid staff to develop and pursue professional developient in technical coipetencies
(3.126).

(SOD)

55. use lonthly reports to keep informed of programing accoipiishients in the region by carpus
baseo Extension specialists (3.120).

IE?)

5 6. A s s i s t f i e l d s t a f f in d e v e l o p i n g o e r s o n a l p l a n s a n d l o n q - t e r i p e r s o n a l o o a i s ( 3 . 1 1 9 ) .

(SOD)

57. Provice fieio staff with EE0 ano Title IX information (3.109).

(SOD)

58. Help staff to meet the expectations of colleagues, aciinistrators and clientele groups tc De
served (3.107).

(SOD)

59. lipieient effective lethoos of reaching Extension’s goais within tne region (3.091).

(?D)

60. Interview prospective candidates for open positions within the region (3.088).

(PM)

61. Insure that priorities are given to eoucational prograi neeos at tne local level (3.088).

(5?)

426

KEAN SCORES (3.000 - 2.882)
62. Provide orientation for nen eeployees to their Extension roles (3.080).

(SOD)

63. Assist field staff in developing a aarketing plan for increasing Extension’s visibility in the
region (3.076).

(PR)

64. Assist state specialists in identifying p r ogra u i n g neeos for tne region (3.074).

(PD)

65. Assist fieid staff in establishing iong-range and short-ten prograi priorities for their county,
district or regional responsibility (3.069).

(PO)

66. Assist fieid staff in becoaing faailiar aith CES/MSU/USDA policies and procedures (3.066).

(SOD)

67. Encourage prograi ana staff cooperation aitnin county Extension offices (3.048).

(AP)

68. Oeveiop in conjunction with the County Extension Directors a CES public relations plan for the
counties ahicn will address the needs of the generai puoiic, key ieaaers, ano elected officials
in the region (2.987).

(PR)

69. 3e faiiiiar with population and e a p i o y s e m rrercs of the counties in tne region (2.980).

(PD)

70. Oversee tnat counties file their annual Expenaiture m e Asprooriateo runes 'eoorts on tiae
(2.977).

(BE)

71. Select staff 'or vacant county, oistrict ano -egionai Extension positions aitnin the region
( 2.375 ;.

(PR)

72. :orecast 'utvre trends or neeos of tne Extension Service ,2.3'2).

(PD)

73. Assist fieio staff in effectively using acvisory councils ’2. * 6 8 ) .

(PD)

74. identify ano select individuals to participate in tne iour.ty :rograi Review ana Planning Process
for counties in tne region (2.957).

(PEA)

75. Assist staff in oeveioping proposals 'or outs ice 'uncirg of Extension progress 1 2.937).

(BF)

76. Concoct staff m-service opportunities wnen neeoec :n tne -egion (2.934).

(SOD)

77. (cert :: 1 'ieic staff ano Clientele 'rein tne region to se've or state.ioe prograwing
cocxittees (2.922).

(PD)

78. Assist fieio staff in conoucting evaluations of county prograas (2.902).

(PEA)

79. Rec-uit candiaates for open fieio staff positions u u n i n tne region (2.399 ).

(PH)

80. Oversee that program results «nicr are oeing neasureo :y 'ie.c staf' reflect oenavior cnange
(2.895).

(PEA)

81. Participate in Extension programs .ltnin the region (2.895).

(EP)

82. .lai'tain tne public’s unoerstanoing ano support for Extension progress in the region (2.882).

(PR)

4 27

MEAN SCORES (2.879)
83. Adiinister the policies and procedures relating to penalty lail allocations for the region
(2.879).

(AP)

84. Assist County Extension Directors in securing adequate county funds for all phases of county
Extension work (2.871).

(BF)

85. Oversee that counties have their non-appropriated funds audited annually by an auditor
independent of the Extension organization (2.866).

(3F)

86. Assist field staff in the preparation of reports which reflect degrees of educational
accoiplisnient (2.865).

(PEA)

87. Present nee Extension

(PM)

field staff to the County Boaro of Couissioners (2.862).

88. Assist field staff when appropriate in effectively using paraprofessionals as a leans of
extending the total p r o g r a u i n g efforts of the county (2.851).

(EP)

89. Assist field staff in beconing faeiiiar with tne CES Adainistrative handbook (2.848)

(SOD)

90. Assist field staff in effectively using support organizations and audiences in Extension
progra u i n g (2.848).

(PD)

91. Seex financial support in addition to county appropriated funds to oeveiop/expano county
Extension prograss (2.825).

(BF)

92. Provide staff witn policies ana procedures reiating to staff Benefits (2.819).

l?h)

93. Develop and aaintain a liaison with otner state, county or coaiunity agencies in the region
(2.81C).

(PR)

94.

Oversee that prograi effectiveness is leasureo in teras of cost, tiie and appropriate use of
funas (2.774),

(PEA)

95.

Hanoie clientele concerns in areas sucn as staffing, prograaiing, and Affiriative Action
(2.761).

(AP)

96.

Assist fieid star'1 in getting ircreaseo participation in Extension eoucational activities
(2.721).

(PD)

97.

Assist County Extension Directors in negotiating oudgets, staffing ano office space arrangeients
county officials (2.639).

(A?)

Assist fieio staff in effectively using voiunteer ieaaers in Extension prograis (2.631).

(?D)

wi t h

98.
99.

Meet witn county board leioers in. areas sucn as staffing, prograuing, and A f f i r m i v e
Action. (2.607'.

(AP)

100.

Oeveiop ana jaintain -eiaiionsnics witn <ey clientele within the region (2.589).

(AP)

101.

Represent ItSU/CES on v a n o „ s c o n i t t e e s witnir. tne region (2.560 ).

(PR)

428

MEAN SCORES (2.555 -1.669)
102. Monitor county Extension budgets for the region (2.555).

(BF)

103. Oversee that county appropriated lonies are equitably divided so that all staff have reasonable
support to carry out their Extension prograis (2.554).

(BF)

104. Assist field staff in preparing their Annual Reports (2.489).

(PEA)

105. Assist field staff in data collection and analysis procedures for assessing local situations and
educational needs (2.479).

(PD)

106. Meet with local advisory groups to identify Extension p r o g rauing priorities for the region (2.453).

(PD)

107. Conduct soie educational prograis within the Region (2.334).

(EP)

108. Coordinate specialists visits to the region (2.324).

(AP)

109. Prepare news and other Extension inforiation releases appropriate to the region (2.324).

(PR)

110. Represent HSU/CES in non-Extension c o u u n i t y events within the region (2.232).

(PR)

111. Assist new staff in beconing acquainted with the c o u u n i t y (2.179).

(SOD)

112. Develop annual Cooperative Extension Service budget requests for counties in the region (2,122).

(BF)

113. Participate in HSU Aluini Association activities in the region (2.074).

(PR)

114. Present annual county Extension oudgets to the County 3oard of Couissioners (1.669).

(BF)

PH = Personnel Hanageeent
SOD : Staff Orientation and Deveiopnent
PD = Prograi Developient
EP = Extension P r o g r a u i n g
PEA = Prograi Evaluation ana Accountability
AP = Adiinistration and Policy
PR = Puolic Relations
BF = Budgeting and Financing

APPENDIX F
COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS, BY POSITION GROUP

429

COMMENTS FROM THE PARAPROFESSIONALS
Because of my very limited knowledge of the role and responsibility
of this position, I would feel uncomfortable completing this survey.
I hope this is of minor inconvenience to you. (27)
I have only seen the Regional Extension Supervisor (RES)about three
times. Once was a civil rights meeting.
I hope that I will see more
of our supervisor and be able to learn more about their roles and
responsibilities.
The survey under the category "Responsibility as is" was not
completed due to the reason that I'm unfamiliar with what the
Regional Extension Supervisor's responsibilities are currently.
If we have a full staff in each county, I don't see a need for the
Regional Supervisor unless I don't see his or her job duties
clarified or unless I'm not dealing with him or her directly and
understand their roles. With everything
listed as their
responsibility, I don't see how they can
get their job done in each
of the counties they work in.
I haven't worked that closely with our Regional Supervisor, but have
enjoyed sharing my programs with them.
If a RES has to do all the work I just assigned to him/her - the day
needs more than 24 hours.
As a county-funded program assistant I have met the Regional
Supervisor, but our contact is limited to only a verbal greeting and
reading his/her C-Mail messages when they're circulated among staff.
I know only two things about the position - monthly reports are sent
to him/her and he/she does the annual review for board appointed
staff. That is not enough information for me to be able to
intelligently answer the first ten pages.
I guessed at most of my answers as I know "nothing" about the
position. Question #5 - Procedures for filing Grievences has never
been brought to my attention (in four years) - and I wouia really
like to know it.
Questions left blank are those for which I have no personal
knowledge. (4)
Our Regional Supervisor leaves little to be desired!
Our Regional Supervisor should be used as a role model!

This position appears to be ineffective.
In our region the Regional Supervisor needs to take time to at least
talk with and listen to paraprofessionals. Also need to be more
aware of the fact that P/A's are having to do far more than what they
are paid for. They need to monitor 4-H agents and how much time they
spend in the counties in which they have 4-H responsibility.

430

Paraprofessional Comments
Page two
As a P.A. I don't get much contact with our Regional Supervisor so my
comments are based purely on my limited experience.
I have answered
the questions the best I could. (6)
My feelings are, as with most area positions, that its quite
ineffective in any type of supervisory role - I would be very
surprised if the Regional Supervisor found the time to read the
monthly narratives - we have to turn in.
#74 - Once indepth evaluations are made, poor performance and
non-productive administrators should be honestly dealt with. Now
evaluations take place and nothing ever comes of it. Public needs to
see effective programming!
Never quite understood the role of the Regional Supervisor.
EFNEP Staff are not familiar with Regional Supervisors. It would be
of value for us to have input on management staff for which we have
direct contact, such as a questionnaire. (2)
I have met the Regional Supervisor, but I have
what his/her position is all about. (2)

never seen

orread

I have no knowledge of what the Regional Extension Supervisor's role
involves.
Not being a University employee, I don't know what the
responsibilities of the Regional Supervisor are at the present time,
therefore, it's difficult for me to say what they should be. I'm
county-employed, 30% horticulture technician (homeowner related
problems) and 70% secretarial. I don't get evaluated by our Regional
Supervisor, or sit in on meetings with him.
Have taken our Regional Supervisor on home visits.

That is about my

u n i y c u n La c L .

I am not an appointed M.S.U. staff person. I am hired through the
county - therefore I do not have that much contact with the Regional
Supervisor to give a true evaluation.
I have been employed as a program assistant for over ten years. Dur­
ing that time the Reginal Supervisor would say Hello when he/she came
to the county to meet with the Board-appointed
staff or when we were
at social events. While in the county the Supervisor would want to
know what clientele were thinking about issues facing the community
or about CES in general. Never has the Supervisor asked me what I
think clientele are thinking. Who am I hired to work with? I am
sorry I could not answer your survey. However, I appreciate having
the opportunity to share something that has been bothering me for
many years.

431

COMMENTS FROM COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS

Regional Supervisor are tied closer to Administrators and therefore
many agents skeptical of what can be told in confidence.
Regional Supervisors place too much weight on reports vs what
actually is accomplished by a given agent. Visits to the field more
often may help.
A few Regional Supervisors are very good at thier job and the rest so so.
I feel that County Directors should also be evaluated by their
staff. As professionals I believe this would be constructive
evaluations.
In my opinion the job of Rgional Spervisor is the least attractive in
CES - it's impossible to do what is expected of them considering the
size of regions they have and demands on them by administration.
I
still prefer to be evaluated by program staff who have a much better
base of knowledge on what I do. I see the Regional Supervisor to
talk about my work for less than an hour a year and he/she is a hard
worker. In my opinion he/she does not have a grasp of the
programming methods being used in all of the four program areas .
Most of the functions these questions relate to could be performed by
an enhanced CED position, requiring fewer Regional Supervisors in a
time of short budgets. These are my perception of Regional
Supervisors generally. My own Regional Supervisor is considerably
better than average, I would score 4 or 5 on nearly all questions.
I really don't have a firm knowledge of what a Regional Supervisor
does in general.
In 14 years with the Extension service, I can remember one time when
a Regional Supervisor actually attended one of my programs.
I have
worked under four Regional Supervisors and only one actually helped
ms solve on the ">ob nrohl ems.
Must have had field experience; should be rotated at least every 10
years. Concern: many items on the survey are not covered by anyone
at the present time; if Regional Supervisors don't take on that
responsibility - I'm not sure who will; could of had a blank line for
who's responsibility is it.
Regional Supervisors should have a major role in hiring personell and
developing programs in their regions after thorough discussions with
the people involved. The region should be a unit with more autonomy
since each region understands the problems and solutions better than
state administrators. Strong Regional Supervisors are a key to
successful Extension programs if they are allowed to make critical
decisions.
Respected by field and campus staffs and administration realistic
expectations.

432

C ou n ty E x t e n s i o n
P a g e Two

A gent

C om m ents

Would be nice to see Regional Supervisor in counties - to conduct
programs, oversee office, etc. but we also understand the Regional
Supervisor is only one full time person and time is limited.
Regional Supervisors should also coordinate training for CEDs who
should take a significant role in performance evaluation or personal
communication skills and using that tool in a positive way.
We need to jealously guard the time of our RES's so they can spend it
developing staff, not planning state meetings, dragging legislative
aides around, representing the director onn committees, etc., etc.,
etc.
Awful lot of questions that imply Supervisor should be active in CED
or personnel staff decisions, therefore, I marked most minor because
they should be done only at the request of staff never as an
initiative of the Supervisor.
I have never been certain of the role of the Regional Supervisor and
get little response from the position outside of evaluation. My
perception is that if he/she likes you, you are well represented and
if not, there is no way to be very successful. It's basically a
bureaucratic, non-position.
Additional activity: help colleagues identify projects to be
submitted for awards. It was difficult to rank "responsibilities as
is" - thats got clouded with individual and many times (activities
listed) I didn't know the answer - did he/she position do activity.
Evaluation and programming assistance are incompatable. Regional
Supervisors are Administrative Assistants - leave one or two in that
role if truely needed and hire in the best program development, PR
and evaluation specialist the organization can find and redesign the
state into three areas by longitude then have the central
administration of CES support their and the field staff efforts.
The Regional supervisor must know how to manage human icsources.
Staff need to feel confident that this individual is honesty,
trustworthy and sincerely works at staff building and development.
Knowledge of all program areas is essential.
Regional Supervisors have a tough position because they are
responsible to agents and campus staff. It is unreasonable therefore
to merely promote an agent who is doing their job well. They should
meet the aforementioned criteria for the position.
Extremely important position. Particularly the further away you get
from campus. Look to this position for answers to questions, someone
to bounce ideas off of. Someone to assist you when having problems.
Serves as our main representative on campus.
My Regional Supervisor is an inspiration! He/she encourages each of
us to reach for our potential and do a better job each day.

4 33

C ou n ty E x t e n s i o n
Page T hree

A gent

C om m en ts

Spend equal time with all staff (4-H, EHE, AG, NRPP).
Key: Regional Supervisors need to be able to discuss when they
should be involved and when they should let agents work out solutions
to problems. They must see agent staff as being capable
professionals in order to be effective.
A Regional Supervisor is caught in the middlle of field staff,
independent CED's, district (subject specific) agents, and four
separate Campus Program Directors.
I have heard it said that a
former Regional Supervisor once said that a Regional Supervisor is
like being a septic tank? They must taking it from everybody and
then they are expected to turn out a palatable end product that
pleases everyone.
Prom a performance appraisal or program evaluation standpoint the
Regional Supervisor has so little contact with county situation it is
almost dangerous for them to have imput into evaluations of quality
of performance or people. We should either have more Regional
Supervisors or (preferred solution) none.
Regional Supervisors should have less responsibility for evaluation
and more staff development concern. They should be careful to not do
CED's job or program director's job.
I'm not sure at this time the Regional Supervisor can accomplish the
above (ASB). The position isn't set up to accomplish those goals.
Staff, other than the C.E.D., needs a better mechanism or more
convienent method of discussing concerns with the Regional
Supervisor. Regional Supervisors need to accept the fact that maybe
the C.E.D. is not always correct.
It's just possible that another
staff member may be.
Should be available for field staff on a more imprompt basis. Once a
year at evaluation time is not enough. There needs to be more
feedback on a monthly or bimonthly basis.
Many areas listed in this survey are jobs that, whether or not
Regional Supervisor should do, are done by C.E.D.
I believe the Supervisor has a very delicate and sensitive
responsibility to be there for county staff when issues arise that
put the staff person at risk with the organization.
It is not their
role to blindly support the staff person but to be very mature and
professional in helping resolve situations that affect staff both
negative and positive.
It would be wonderful if Regional Supervisors could be more involved
in county programming and with advisory committees but realistically
it's not likely with one Regional Supervisor per 12-13 counties.
C.E.D.'s must free selves from some other responsibilities and accept
administrative responsibilities.

C ou n ty E x t e n s io n
P age Four

A gent

C om m en ts

Regional Supervisors should be located in their regions not on
campus. A lot of dollars used for salaries and support that could be
used more successfully.
A true professional.
Work with county staffs to evaluate performance of the C.E.D. More
input into candidates hired. Our present personnel policy and
procedure sucks! We turn more good ones off than we hire.
I have been a C.E.D. for many years - a 4-H youth agent in the earl
sixties and an Ag. Agent covering a multi-county assignment. Our
Regional Supervisor system during the 60's was much stronger in my
opinion (smaller territory - active in recruiting agents).
Need to rotate Regional Supervisors every 5 years or so. It's
difficult to get to know Regional Supervisor when they may come to
county 2-3 times a year (for appraisals and evaluations). It appears
that Regional Supervisors are spending more time on campus and less
in the regions.
Agent staff must be perceived as creative and knowledgeable and
capable of a convergence of programming and creative linkages to
legislative trends and funding sources. To promote the status of
agent staff with state-wide marketing promoting professionalism and
wealth of information/education resources.
The position of Extension Supervisor combines duties best allocated
to C.E.D.'s and Assistant Directors,
This is a "left brain" organization, that has lost the educational
philosophical base for it's mission. Regional Supervisors could
serve to rebuild a renewal phase, or the present decline will
continue.
I've always thought the Regional Supervisor had a tremendous job to
handle. This survey only confirms those feelings.
Since my "perception" of how the regional supervision role "is" being
carried out is based on experience with what I know -- there is "no
way" it can be separated from the person doing the job!.
I feel that the Regional
mine does a great job!

Extension Supervisors know theirroles and

If a local Extension program is in danger of being eliminated a
Regional Supervisor should do more'than just give verbal support.
If
one local extension program is eliminated by a county government, why
should it exist anywhere in the United States.
Liaison between County's Agents across program lines or county lines.

435

C ou n ty E x t e n s io n
Page F iv e

A gent

C om m ents

Stronger role in long range county and regional planning. Organized,
progressive approach needed to make C.E.S. more productive, locally
valuable, reflecting needs of county and region. Stronger role in
staff development, including skill building. More visible with
regional leaders - Regional Supervisor should be well known by
agencies, government officials, business people, and key clientele.
I ’m not concerned with what the Regional Supervisor's
responsibilities are at this time, just as long as he/she is
consistent.
I have not been happy with the little amount of input/feedback I get
from my Regional Supervisor. If I knew more about what his/her job
is I might not feel so badly about the lack of contact he/she has
with me/staff.
I believe Supervisors should spend more time out in region and less
time at the university.
We probably have the best Regional Supervisor in the state -- warm,
caring, knowledgeable, highly skilled, a people person.
Regional Supervisors must be as fair and unbiased as humanly
possible. Without this character trait they will be unable to
supervise/evaluate properly and will not be trusted or respected by
staff. They must also care about people and show interest in their
programs.
Since I have received this survey I have thought a lot about what a
Regional Supervisor does that is beneficial to me or our office that
the C.E.D. couldn't do, I would say nothing.
I do think Regional
Supervisors should be eliminated or definately rotated every 3 years
to a different region.

436

COMMENTS FROM COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS

Should R.E.S. have a greater involvement in program development,
specialist coordination, regional programs, etc.? Should R.E.S. be
housed in a regional office with district agents, etc. like the U.P.
model?
Regional Extension Supervisors are doing the job that 3 people worked
on 15 years ago.
It is easy to design a nine-day workload for a 5 or 6 day week.
Administration and Campus based specialists need to better understand
what a supervisor does now.
Much of a Supervisor's task is intangible. The person must have the
ability to lead by example, and must be respected by staff. Hard
work and long hours mean nothing if the staff does not respect the
leader. Honest communication and strict confidentiality are critical
aspects of the position.
Program areas have the budget so they develop staffing plans - I am
not sure program leaders have the total C.E.S. program interest.
Program leaders are set up to be in competition for budget. Probably
not as cooperative as it might be. I am not sure anyone cares about
the total county staffing plan.
Quite frankly, I believe that C.E.S. has made a major investment in
Middle Managers (probably $500,000 for regional supervision total
costs) to facilitate "communication" among intelligent
professionals. With tight budgets, its probably time to apply
creative thinking and find a way to save some dollars while
fulfilling the most important aspects of this role.
Regional Supervisors spend too much time on campus.
Regional Supervisors should be housed in the region. Attend more
functions within counties. Regional supervisors get too many
hand-me-down jobs, "go-fors" to allow them to be as effective as they
could be.
Note: In many of these guestions, the answer has and should be
shared (3), because so much in our system is/should be shared with
C.E.D.'s. However, if you had asked the questions in a form to
exclude C.E.D.'s and only compare with-other state staff, answers
would have jumped to major (4) and complete (5). There is too little
other C.E.S. Administration and programming staff presence in the
field on a spot basis at this time. Should not be only Regional
Supervisor out in field. More of others needs to be seen once in a
while. Also, can a regional supervisor perform all these expected
tasks? There also needs to be some sense of priority for things to
be done. Not all of the above roles were very important. On the
whole. I'm quite satisfied by present Regional Supervisor role
(either because of his/her skill and/or our county's lack of
problems.

437

C ou n ty E x t e n s i o n
P a g e tw o

D ir e c to r

C om m ents

Most of the time spent on "evaluation" of staff could be more
effectively be used for programming and coordination - the system is
ineffective and in many instances counterproductive.
It is an awesome responsibility!
everyone.

It would be impossible to please

Too much of their job is to redo what C.E.D. have already done. Can
the process be streamlined to reduce the duplication? Can the C.E.D.
role be expanded? Will Administration believe C.E.D.'s rather than
R.S.?
Conflict exists between message (leadership) from Assistant Directors
and Regional Supervisors; more coordination at campus level could be
helpful; Regional Supervisors primary role should be administrative
support of local staff to fulfill C.E.S. mission!
The supervision system in our organization tends to make a messenger
of the Regional Supervisor rather than an informed leader. Example:
Regional Supervisors lack of information about final staff appraisals
and where staff members stand in the final ranking and reasons why!
If a supervisor is to fulfill my expectations we will need to triple
the number of supervisors currently on staff.
Experience as a field agent is essential for a Regional Supervisor.
Field staff are very reluctant to discuss their true feelings with
C.E.S. Administration and most believe that the people who administer
the evaluation system do not know what really happens in a county. A
number of my co-workers besides myself are now thinking that each
position (at least C.E.D.'s) should be classified with a base wage
level and then each individuals raise could be based on an
evaluation.
Individual selected for these positions should be well founded in
Extension Philosophy in all program areas.
The present evaluation system which lists publically those agents who
get outstanding ratings is a "kick in the pants" for Regional
Supervisors. Agents are identified as supervisor "pets" and the
system is breaking down within.
A person with a wide range of capabilities is required - Do they
receive training?
Seems if supervisor didn't have appraisal responsibilities they could
serve in a more counselor-type role.
Position appears to be impossible with all of the on campus demands.
Position would be more helpful to the field if Regional Supervisor
lived in region.

438

County Extension Directors
Page three
In addition to the must do roles of a supervisor (reports,
administration, etc.), I believe the supervisors major role and
benefit to the organization is to "build people" within the
organization or if they are not suitable in the position they have
taken to counsel them into a position they can be successful in.
Take a look at what desirable experience(s) one must have to perform
effectively in the role. Provide some way for feedback about
supervisor's performance from the local and area (district) staff.

439

COMMENTS FROM EXTENSION S P E C I A L I S T S

I believe the Cooperative Extension higher administration should
elevate this position to a higher status and give more authority or
responsibilities.
Regional Supervisors will never have maximum effectiveness until they
are located in regional office in areas for which they are
responsible. They seemed to be primarily evaluators with little
personal knowledge of the individual and his/her program they they
are evaluating. Often do not even know if job description is
accurate.
My contact with R.S.'s has been limited to campus-oriented
interactions and requests. Field staff have commented to me on R.S.
functions - some positive and some negative, but I have attempted to
separate myself from that and only comment on areas
about which I had
direct experience. Some of the suggested responsibilities have the
tone of policing. Is that an intended responsibility of R.S.'s?
Existing responsibilities are not well known as I have had very
little interaction with Regional Supervisors. Therefore, I do not
feel comfortable completing a survey on a position for which I know
nothing about. (10)
As a specialist I have little interaction with the Regional
Supervisors and found it very difficult to complete this survey - and
therefore I didn't answer most of the questions, as I didn't feel
capable of giving an adequate evaluation.
Many specialists have very little contact with Regional Supervisors.
Many of my answers were made on a very general basis and may not be
helpful because of my ignorance and lack of contact with Regional
Supervisors.
Because I am not very familiar with the role of Regional Supervisors
my responses to their "Responsiblities as is" were only guesses.
Extension Administration needs to be R3 by 25 to 30 % (1st year).
This would be a good position to start with!
I have not had much exposure to Regional Extension Supervisors since
working as a specialist. My contacts have been with Assistant
Extension Directors, other Departments at MSU, etc. It made it hard
for me to answer the question.
I have had little opportunity — and did not seek more -- to
interface with Regional Extension Supervisors in my professional
activities and have little incentive -- other than being of a
responsible nature -- to reflect on what the role of persons in this
position should be!
I have no contact with Regional Supervisors except occasionally at
extension social events. I don’t see their activities in
programming, hiring, etc. and have no first-hand knowledge of their
duties.

440

Specialist Comments
Page Two
The link to specialists is minimal.
Contact is non-existant except for one Regional Supervisor or
Regional Livestock Specialists.
I do not work in C.E.S. administration, but from my perspective as a
Specialist, the Regional Supervisor level of administration is not
particularly necessary. Their responsibilities appear to be similar
to the C.E.D. The C.E.D. is a primary administrative unit that has
the responsibility and they should be granted the authority to go
along with it. Regional Supervisors are nice to have and I am sure
they keep busy but can we afford them.
Regional Supervisors spend too much time on things that don't make
much difference - focus more on opportunity and helpfulness and less
on evaluation - too many dollars are being spent on administration
and too little on rural and urban needs - we are doing business the
same way we did 20 years ago, but the needs for today have changed!
C.E.S. needs to re-define why it exists, who it is serving, and how
can this best be done!
I have doubt about the value of this survey. Does it indicate
uncertainty about role or perceptions ahout Regional Supervisors.
In times of financial difficulties (and probably when budgets are not
limiting), this middle management position seems unnecessary and
"fat" that should be trimmed off. Based on your questions, I do not
see why county staff would want "Big Brother" or "Big Sister" making
sure they file the correct reports, or overseeing their county
budgets, etc. For 15 years, I have wondered what purpose they serve
other than to drain resources away from the rest of us. Some
evaluation of this administrative structure is long over-due!!
Most Regional Supervisors are almost invisible to Specialists. They
should make more of an effort to attend meetings in their regions and
get to know Specialists so that we all have a good understanding of
each other.
It seems like a position that could be eliminated with little or no
detrimental effects accept increasing workload at "state" office.
As a Specialist, I have had little or no interaction with Regional
Extension Supervisors and see their role largely as a means of
"personnel" or broad program administrative management.
This made me realize how little I know and understand about the
Regional Supervisor's position.
I question the need for these positions in the perceived CES system.
Regional Supervisors should not be hatchet people for the
administration. Supervisors should help solve major problems -- the
rest of the time be supportive and mainly stay out of the way.

441

Specialist Comments
Page Three
All Regional Supervisors should be: (1) housed in their respective
regions, (2) be 25% appointments, with the other 75% as a C.E.D. (in
order to compensate for the 25%, the State program would fund a 50%
Administrative Assistant), and (3) the region's senior C.E.D. with
outstanding administrative skills (if at all possible). The comments
1-3 should be in the spirit of R3 and enhancement of C.E.S.. The
current system has far too many broken linkages for an age of
information and technology!!
I believe that we have a good set of field supervisors now.
know how to find ways to help without offending staff.

They

I believe that the position should be eliminated. Middle Management
should be shifted to county jobs or top management jobs - Read the
book "Thriving on Chaos" by Tom Peters. In industry middle
management is being eliminated to compete. With our budget cuts, the
county Extension directors should assume the functions of the
regional supervisor.
I have the very highest regard for the Regional Supervisors, and the
importance of the position and its functions. Frankly, I would like
to see arrangements for specialists and Regional Supervisors to meet
on occasion -- I see and visit with the NRPP program director several
times a month, but there is no similar systematic way of interacting
even occasionally with the Regional Supervisors. Further, the
questionnaire reminds me of the fact that the Regional Supervisors
are doing a good job; their positions/systems are working well.
Therefore, I can spend my energies and time interacting directly with
the NRPP director and County C.E.D.s and agents on program planning
and conduct.
Guess I really don't know what these people do --- maybe I'd better
learn.
In my 4 1/2 years I have had little contact with Regional Supervisors
- I really don't know what they do. I would welcome interaction and
see them as a way to both get my programs implemented in their
Regions and also as feedback as to what the needs are in their
Regions with respect to my specialty area.
The appropriate question is probably not what they should do but how
many would it take to do what they used to do for the whole state.
The reason I put "minor" on so many of the "As should be" is not that
it should be "minor!' so much as they should be able to do the job
with a third as many. i.e. 2 regional supervisors for the state or
1ess.
I perceive that Regional Extension Supervisor's place low priority in
staff development and encouraging staff to enhance programmatic
skills and subject content skills; need to place more emphasis on
encouraging field staff to teach versus just broker specialist
services into county.
In-ordinate amount of time appears to be
involved in "paper stuffing" - reports/evaluation forms vs. staff
development and supervision.

442

COMMENTS FROM THE A D M IN IS T R A T IV E PROGRAM TEAM

The Regional Supervisor should not be a policeman, but a key to good
relations with other factions within C.E.S.
More of Regional Supervisor's time should be spent acting as liaison
between program areas and between field and state staff.
In fact,
that is the only real justification I see for having Regional
Supervisors at all. Much more contact is needed between program
staff and Regional Supervisors if we are to work together
effectively.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the Regional Supervisor is the amount
of time they can spend in a county. As a county agent I was lucky to
see my regional superviosor once or twice a year and I was in a close
to MSU county. Another thing was that I never knew if they read the
monthly narratives - no feedback. A Regional Supervisors job is a
"Jack of all trades" type job and some are good at it and others
aren't.
I interact with Regional Supervisors periodically. But never on
program issues, such that I have little awareness of their efforts
(if any) in their region.
Supervisors in Michigan have not in recent years been viewed as
"strong" positions; they lack clout with both the department chairs
and the Assistant Directors. In many states they have PhD's or
that's my impression. My impression that they need to cultivate
"stronger" links with departments and enhance their creditibi1ity
with department chairs. What scholarly work - if any - do they do?
How well are they known in the college? My impression is that they
are often maternalistic/paternalistic and quite traditional. Some
are better than others.
This instrument highlights how little I know about the job
description of the Regional Supervisor - particularly in relationship
to that of the Assistant Directors.
The Regional Supervisor represents one more unnecessary and
superfluous levels of Extension bureaucracy. The resources would be
better employed accomplishing something.
Amazing number of tasks and responsibilties required of Regional
Supervisors. Whew!
I had real difficulty responding to pages 1-10 because I see so much
variance between supervisors in the what and how of the role.
With the size of the regions Regional Extension Supervisor's time is
limited. The duties should be very administrative or developmental.
Programming content has to be shared by those who are responsible for
the program director both locally and at the state level.

443

COMMENTS FROM REGIONAL EXTENSION SUPERVISORS
Number of hours and expectations must be meshed somehow - size of
region (geographically) and number of staff vary greatly - may be
room for more equity.
A Regional Supervisor's responsibilities extend well beyond assigned
authority. Credibility at all interfaces can be enhanced through
demonstrated competence and empowerment is thus extended. If
regional supervision were to play a "major" role in many of these
areas there are implications for current number of staff assigned to
Regional Supervisors. May imply a need to focus on
personnel/staffing and leave program development to program leaders??
The organization might benifit from more clearly defined
responsibilities for Regional Supervisors. "When everyone is
responsible - no one is responsible."

APPENDIX G
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE MICHIGAN
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

444

Dean ft Vice Provoat

Support Services
•

Personnel

— Budget 4c Finance
— Qomputer Services

Assoc. Direr lor

fceporclat, Evaluacloo

Department

Chain

4-H Youth

A c M arketing

l o w Ecewmlea

Natural Resources
Public Policy

Specialists

Assistant Directors, Programs
L |

Program Leaders' ~ |

0

D .P . (A c tin g )

\ * W \ j r L J \ T \ t I VI

Extension
S ervice
Michigan State University

Regional Supervisors

District Agents

County D irectors
C ounty-R egional-A rea S ta ff

MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J .
(1989). L e t t e r t o t h e e x t e n s i o n s t a f f in Michigan
co nce rn in g t h e C.E.S. Study Committee.
A rt a b a s y , J .
(1991, J a n u a r y ) . Manager, ANR Personnel S e r v i c e s ,
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Personal i n t e r v i e w .
A sn g a ri , P. S. (1982). P e r c e p t i o n s o f d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s
and county e x t e n s i o n chairmen r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n s
o f t h e Texas A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e . Unpublished doc­
t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Bahram, G. M.
(1977).
The r o l e o f t h e e x t e n s i o n s u p e r v i s o r as
p e r c e iv e d by e x t e n s i o n pe rsonnel in A f g h a n i s t a n . Unpublished
d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin.
B ar ber , P. S.
(1989).
Occupational s t r e s s o r s and work b e h a v io r
ty p e s o f C ooper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e mid-managers. Unpub­
lished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of F lorida.
B a t e s , F. L.
tion of

(1956, May). P o s i t i o n , r o l e and s t a t u s :
c o n c e p t s . Socia l F o r c e s . M -

A reforma­

Beach, D. S.
(1980). P e rs o nn e l: The management o f people a t work
(4th e d . ) . New York: Macmillan.
B i t t e l , L. R.
(1974).
What every s u p e r v i s o r should know (3rd e d . ) .
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bla nchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1982).
York: Berkley P u b li s h in g Group.

The one minute manager.

Blau, P. M. (1956).. Bureaucracy in modern s o c i e t y .
U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s .

New

Chicago:

Boone, E. J .
(1970). The Cooperative Extensio n S e r v i c e .
In R. M.
Smith, G. Aker, & J . R. Kidd ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f a d u l t e d u c a ­
t i o n . New York: Macmillan.
B r in c k lo e , W. D., & Coughlin, M. T. (1977).
t i o n s . Encino, CA: Glencoe P r e s s .

445

Managing o r g a n i z a ­

446
B ro u s si n e , M., & G u e r r i e r , Y. (1983). S ur v iv al as a middle
manager. Beckenham, Great B r i t a i n : Croom Helm.
Busse, L. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C ooper at iv e Extension
S e r v i c e , Purdue U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
Caul, D. A. (1960). P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e county e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r ’ s
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in Michigan. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin.
Choa, L. L. (1969).
McGraw-Hill.

S t a t i s t i c a l methods and a n a l y s e s .

New York:

Chruden, H. J . , & Sherman, A. W., J r .
(1976). Personnel manage­
ment. C i n c i n n a t i , OH: Wouth-Western P u b l i s h i n g .
C re s w e ll , J . W., Wheeler, D. W., Seagren, A. T . , Egly, N. J . , &
Beyer, K. D. (1990). The academic c h a i r p e r s o n ’ s handbook.
Li ncoln: U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s .
Dale, E. (1952). Pl an nin g and de v elopi ng t h e company o r g a n i z a t i o n
s t r u c t u r e (Research Report No. 20). New York: American
Management A s s o c i a t i o n .
Dale, E. (1965).
McGraw-Hill.

Management:

Theory and p r a c t i c e .

New York:

D a lto n, G. W., & Lawrence, P. R. (1971). M ot iv a ti on and c o n t r o l in
o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin/Dorsey P r e s s .
Davis, K.

(1949).

Human s o c i e t y .

New York:

Macmillan.

D e s s l e r , G. (1982). O rg a n i z a t i o n and management.
Reston P u b li s h in g Co.

Reston, VA:

Drucker, P. F. (1986). D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .
In M. J e l i n e k , J . A.
L i t t e r e r , & R. Miles ( E d s . ) , O r g a n i z a t i o n s bv d e s i g n : Theory
and p r a c t i c e . Plano, TX: Business P u b l i c a t i o n s .
F a r l i n , S. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C oop era ti ve Ex te n­
sion S e r v i c e , Kansas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
F i l l e y , A. C., & House, R. J .
organizational behavior.
F o l l e t t , M. P.
Green.

(1924).

G a l b r a i t h , 0. R. (1977).
Addison-Wesley.

(1969). Managerial p ro c e ss and
Glenview, IL: S c o t t , Foresman.

Creative experience.
O r g a n iz a ti o n d e s i g n .

London:

Longmans &

Reading, MA:

447
Gerber, J . M. (1985). Extension s p e c i a l i s t s :
J o u rn a l o f E x t e n s i o n . 23.

A s e lf analysis.

G e t z e l s , J . W., & Guba, E. G. (1957, W in te r ) .
S o c ia l b e h a v i o r and
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s . School Review. 65.
Gibson, J . L ., Iv a n c e v ic h , J . M., & Donnelly, J . H., J r .
(1973).
O r g a n i z a t i o n s : S t r u c t u r e , p r o c e s s e s and b e h a v i o r . D a l l a s ,
TX: Business P u b l i c a t i o n s .
G i l l e s p i e , J . R. (1988a). Role o f r e g io n a l s u p e r v i s o r s . Handout
given t o new Extension s t a f f in Michigan d u ri n g t h e i r Phase 1
tra in in g session.
G illespie,
sion,

J . R. (1988b, O c t o b e r ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r o f Ext en­
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Personal i n t e r v i e w .

G l a z i e r , G. (1988, O c to b e r ) . A s s o c i a t e Manager, ANR Personnel
S e r v i c e s , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Personal i n t e r v i e w .
Gross, N., Mason, W. S . , & McEacher, A. W. (1958). E x p e c t a t i o n s in
r o l e a n a l y s i s : S t u d i e s o f t h e school s u p e r i n t e n d e n c v r o l e .
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
G ulick, L., & Urwick, L. ( E d s . ) .
(1937). Papers on t h e s c i e n c e o f
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Hamburg, M. (1970). S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s f o r d e c i s i o n making.
York: H a rc o u r t, Brace & World.

New

Hammond, M. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C ooper ati ve
Extension S e r v i c e , North Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone
i n t e r v sw.
Hansen, L. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C ooper at iv e Ex ten­
si on S e r v i c e , South Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone i n t e r ­
view.
H a r r is o n , W. A. (1984). An a n a l y s i s o f t h e county e x t e n s i o n
d i r e c t o r ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in Michi gan . Unpublished
d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Hemphill, J . K. (1959, S e pte m be r-O c to be r) .
e x e c u t i v e s . Harvard Business Review.

Job d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r

Hoe lsc he r, C. W. (1983, August 21-1984, February 2 0 ) . I n - s e r v i c e
e d u c a ti o n needs o f e x t e n s i o n mid dle -m an ag er s. Unpublished
Study Leave Report. ( A v a i l a b l e from U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s
Coop er ati ve Extension S e rv ic e )

448
H un ts b e r g e r, D. V., & B i l l i n g s l e y , P. (1973). Elements
t i c a l i n f e r e n c e . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

ofs t a t i s ­

Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C oop er at iv e Extension S e r v i c e .
(1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r a r e a e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in Iowa.
J e l i n e k , M., L i t t e r e r , J . A ., & M i le s , R. ( E d s . ) .
(1986).
O r g a n i z a t i o n s bv d e s i g n : Theory and p r a c t i c e . Plano, TX:
Business P u b l i c a t i o n s .
Kansas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C oo pe r at i ve Extens ion S e r v i c e .
(1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r a r e a e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in Kansas.
Kelsey, L. D., & Hearne, C. C. (1963). C ooper at i ve e x t e n s i o n work
(3rd e d . ) .
I t h a c a , NY: Comstock P u b l i s h i n g A s s o c i a t e s .
Kerlinger,
York:

F. N. (1964). Foundations o f b e h a v io r a l r e s e a r c h .
H o lt , R i n e h a r t , & Winston.

New

Kosoko, 0. (1980). Role o f t h e e x t e n s i o n s u p e r v i s o r as p e r c e iv e d
bv s e l e c t e d Extension p e r s o n n e l . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
L i nt on, R. (1936).
Century.

The stu dy o f man.

New York:

D. Appleton-

M ar as cu il o, L. , McSweeky, M. E., & Kirk , R. E. ( C o n s u lt in g E d . ) .
(1977). Nonparametric and d i s t r i b u t i o n - f r e e methods f o r t h e
s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole P u b l i s h i n g .
M ar tin , R. A., & Abeysekera, R. (1987, May). The p e rc e iv e d
s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f a r e a e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in
Iowa. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Symposium on Research in
Extension Educa tion, Columbus, OH.
McFarland, D. E. (1964). Management:
(2nd e d . ) . New York: Macmillan.

P r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e s

McNamara, W. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C o op er at i v e
Extension S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s . Telephone
interview.
Meddis, R. (1984).
Blackwell.

S t a t i s t i c s usi ng r a n k s .

New York:

Basil

Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C oo per at iv e Extension S e r v i c e .
(1990,
February 14). Why does t h e C o ope rati ve Extension S e r v i c e need
$3.5 m i l l i o n budget i n c r e a s e f o r FY 91? Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e
Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e .

449
Moline, W. J .
(1988). Michigan Co op erati ve Extension S e r v i c e : A
unique p a r t n e r s h i p in e d u c a t i o n . Eas t Lansing, MI: Coopera­
t i v e Extension S e r v i c e .
Neiman, L. J . , & Hughes, J . W. (1951). The problem o f t h e co nce pt
o f r o l e - - A survey o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e . So cial F o r c e s . 30.
Nie,

N. H., H u ll , C. H., J e n k i n s , J . G., S t e i n b r e n n e r , K., & B r e n t,
D. H. (1975). SPSS:
S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r t h e s o c i a l
s c i e n c e s (2nd e d . ) . New York: McGraw-Hill.

N i l e s , M. C. H.
Brothers.
Nix,

(1941).

Middle management.

New York:

Harper &

H. L. (1960). A s o c i o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e r o l e s and va lu e
o r i e n t a t i o n s o f an o c c u p a t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , L ouis ia na S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

North Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Co oper ati v e Extension S e r v i c e .
(1988). P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s
in North Dakota.
The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Coop era ti ve Exten sio n S e r v i c e .
(1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in Ohio.
Olstrom, E. (1988, November). H i s t o r i a n , C oo pe ra ti ve Extension
S e r v i c e , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Personal i n t e r v i e w .
Olstrom, E ., & M i l l e r , H. (1984). Plus two s c o r e : The C oo per ati ve
Extension S e rv ic e in Michigan (1940 t o 19801. East Lansing,
MI: C ooper ati ve Extens ion S e r v i c e .
Panshin, D. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C oo per at iv e
Extension S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota. Telephone
interview.
Pa rs ons, T.

(1951).

The s o c i a l s yst em .

Glencoe:

The Free P r e s s .

Pars o ns , T . , & S h i l s , E. A. ( E d s . ) .
(1951). Towards a g e ne r al
th e o r y o f a c t i o n . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
P a t t o n , M. Q. (1987, F a l l ) . Tomorrow’ s e x t e n s i o n p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
J o u rn a l o f E x t e n s i o n . 25.
P e t e r s o n , W. L. (1987). The r o l e o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r y p r o c e s s as
pe r c e iv e d bv e x t e n s i o n s u p e r v i s o r s and county a g e n t s employed
bv t h e Coo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e . Unpublished d o c t o r a l
dissertation.
Pitt ma n, J . D., & Bruny, L. (1986, Summer). Promotion from w i t h i n
--Anyone q u a l i f i e d ? J ou rn a l o f E x t e n s i o n , 24*

450

P o r t e r , E. (1987). County agent and s t a t e e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r s o f Coop era ti ve Extension
programs as measured bv th e Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
o f Idaho.
Purdue U n i v e r s i t y . Co op erative Extension S e r v i c e .
(1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in
In d ia n a .
Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking t h e u n i v e r s i t y t o t h e p e o p l e - S e v e n t v - f i v e year s o f c o o p e r a t i v e e x t e n s i o n . Ames: Iowa S t a t e
U niversity Press.
Rieck, R. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , C ooper ati ve Extension
S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin. Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
R i t c h i e , R. M., & S t i t s w o r t h , M. H.
Jo urn al o f E x t e n s io n . 25.

(1987, F a l l ) .

Carving a n i c h e .

S a r g e n t, S. (1951). Concepts o f r o l e and ego in contemporary
psychology. In H. H. Rogrer & M. S h e r i f ( E d s . ) , S oc ia l p s y ­
chology a t t h e c r o s s r o a d s . New York: Harper & B r o t h e r s .
Smith, D. T. (1945, S p r i n g ) . Education f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Harvard Business Review. 23.
Smith, K. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , Coop era ti ve Extension
S e r v i c e , The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
South Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Co operativ e Extension S e r v i c e .
(1988). P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n s u p e r ­
v i s o r s in South Dakota.
S to w e ll , B. (1990, A p r i l ) . Personnel O f f i c e r , C oo per ati ve Exten­
si o n S e r v i c e , Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
Summers, J . (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c ia te D i r e c t o r , C ooper ati ve
Extension S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f M is s o u ri . Telephone
in t e r v i e w .
Sward, R. (1990, A p r i l ) . A s s o c ia te D i r e c t o r , Coop era ti ve Extension
S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska. Telephone i n t e r v i e w .
T a y lo r, F. W. (1947).
York: Harper.

P r i n c i p l e s o f s c i e n t i f i c management.

New

451
U.S. Congress. House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Committee on A p p r o p r i a ­
t i o n s . Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r 1969.
(1968). Hearings b e f o r e Subcommittee. 90th Congress, 2nd
S e s s i o n . Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Cited
by Boone, E. J .
(1970). The C ooper at i ve Extens ion S e r v i c e .
In R. M. Smith, G. Aker, & J . R. Kidd (197 0) . Handbook o f
a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . New York: Macmillan.
U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s . C ooper at i ve Exten sio n S e r v i c e . (1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r r e g i o n a l e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in
Illinois.
U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota.
Position d escription
Minnesota.

C oo per at iv e E xt ens ion S e r v i c e . (1988).
o f d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in

U n i v e r s i t y o f M is s o u r i. C ooper at i ve Extension S e r v i c e . (1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r re g i o n a l e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in
M issouri.
U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska. C ooper at i ve Exten sio n S e r v i c e . (1988).
P o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in
Nebraska.
U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin.
Position desc rip tio n
Wisconsin.

C oo pe ra ti ve Exten sio n S e r v i c e . (1988).
f o r d i s t r i c t e x t e n s i o n d i r e c t o r s in

Walonick, D. S. (1986). S ta tP a c q o l d - - S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s package
f o r t h e IBM. M in ne a po li s , MN: Walonick Assoc.
Weber, M. (1947). The t h e o r y o f s o c i a l and economic o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Webs te r’ s c o l l e g i a t e d i c t i o n a r y .
Merriam Co.
W h ite si de , J . E., & B a c h t e l , D. C.
J ou rn a l o f E x t e n s i o n , 25.
Wiersma, W. (1975).
F. E. Peacock.

(1946).

S p r i n g f i e l d , MA:

(1987, S p r i n g ) .

Research methods in e d u c a t i o n .

The Winston d i c t i o n a r y (C olle ge E d . ) .
John C. Winston.

(1946).

G. & C.

Ste ppi ng up.
I t a s c a , IL:

Philadelphia: