Michigan State University Extension 4-H Field Staff

Michigan State University Extension 4-H Field Staff Perceptions of Area of Expertise Teams

Elizabeth Scott Extension 4-H Youth Agent Michigan State University 333 Clinton Ave Grand Haven, Michigan [email protected] Introduction

In a global high-tech world, organizations need to be more fluid, inclusive, adaptive and responsive. (Kanter, 1999) Traditional hierarchy systems of management have given way in the past decade to broader concepts of self directed work teams and self management. Self-directed work teams are an important change in for-profit organizations and have been studied extensively in the past ten years. Teams have been shown to increase worker production by 35% (Wheatley, 1997).

The concept of self directed work teams in business as applied to educational organizations is sometimes known as shared decision making (Weiss & Cambone, 2000), transformational leadership (Marsh, 1997) or the learning organization (Senge, 1996). The educational organization is also becoming more de-centralized and team driven with groups of educators working together to create change (Odden, 1995). Change is the goal, but change is not always easy and certainly not a given. Literature suggests that when organizations change, 20% of the workforce has been eagerly awaiting the change, 75% will move slowly in the direction of the change and 5% will never get there (Offerman, 1997).

Michigan State University Extension Area of Expertise Teams (AOE Teams) were formed as the result of external demands from stakeholders and internal recommendations of the 1992 Empowerment Committee of the MSU Council of Extension Agents. The first teams launched were field crops, dairy and livestock teams in 1994. In 1995 AOE Teams were expanded to include teams for children youth and families, and natural resources and economic development. The organizational plan for Extension which includes Area of Expertise Teams as a central delivery mode for programming and addressing the critical needs of clientele groups is based on the concept of self-directed work teams also known as real teams. A real team by definition is a small group of people with complimentary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

Today AOE Teams are a major component of MSUE’s delivery structure and education model (Leholm & Vlassin, 2001). This change in structure has included the reduction of middle management administration with the resulting savings being invested directly into the AOE Teams. Currently there are 32 AOE teams covering all areas of programming for MSU Extension. The goal of MSU Extension in forming and supporting AOE Teams is to create groups that work at the real team level.

Research to date on Michigan’s Area of Expertise Teams has been limited to AOE Teams that are not part of the Children, Youth and Families component of MSU Extension (Booth 2001) and of clientele perception’s of AOE Team effectiveness (Suvedi, 2000). Booth studied six AOE Teams and perceptions of the team members. Studied were livestock, dairy, fruit, field crops, vegetables and nursery/greenhouse. Booth intentionally excluded AOE Teams that related to youth work because of her position as Director of Children, Youth and Families. Suvedi surveyed farmers in 1996 and again in 1999 doing a longitudinal study of farmer’s perceptions of AOE Teams in the areas of beef, dairy, swine, crops, vegetables and fruit.

These studies give us information on the effectiveness of some AOE Teams but they are limited because they don’t include programming areas that are traditional 4-H. They do not answer questions about what percent of staff have joined AOE Teams, what staff perceptions are of joining AOE Teams and of the and impact of the teams. Most importantly since previous studies only surveyed participants, research is needed to determine perceptions of those staff who are not members of AOE Teams and how they may differ from those who are team members. Since we know from the literature that real teams and great groups (Bennis, 1997) require a shared vision, a diverse group (Hillman, 1998) complimentary skills and equal commitment, then it follows that all areas of an organization must buy into the concept and participate in the change.

Purpose and Objectives

This research is a statewide study to assess MSUE 4-H field staff’s perceptions of AOE Teams. The objectives of the study are:

 Identify what percent of 4-H field staff are members of AOE Teams and identify what teams they are on.  Determine 4-H field staff’s awareness of and attitude toward joining MSU Extension’s AOE Teams  Determine 4-H field staff’s perceptions of the impact of AOE Teams on 4-H programs.  Ascertain if there are differences between participants and non participants or on other demographic groups.

Methods

The population for this study is comprised of Michigan Extension 4-H field staff (N=108) including both agents and program assistants. Since there are less than 300 in the population, a census was used. Names and addresses of 4-H field staff were collected from the staff directory and verified through the on-line staff list. Counties where no 4-H staff was listed were called for verification

A survey was developed that asks questions in four areas. The areas are AOE Team participation on the part of the respondent, factors related to joining teams, the impact of AOE teams and demographic information. Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of factors affecting joining a team and perceptions of impact using a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale where 1= strongly agree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4= agree and 5= strongly agree. They were also given the opportunity to explain answers and to add comments.

The instrument was examined for content validity by a panel of experts in MSU Extension familiar with 4-H Youth programs and AOE teams. Changes were made to improve clarity and reduce ambiguity in certain questions. It was piloted with Extension field staff who are not programming in 4-H. The survey was found to have a Chronbach alpha scale reliability coefficient of 0.86. The survey was mailed using Dillman’s (1978) total design method. A pre-post card was mailed to all 4-H field staff in Michigan announcing the survey and asking for assistance. On November 11, 2002 the surveys were mailed with a cover letter, a dollar bill as an incentive and a self addressed stamped return envelope. A commemorative stamp was used on the outside of the envelope and each letter was hand signed. One week following the mailing, a post card reminder was mailed and six weeks after the mailing a second mailing to non respondents contained a replacement survey. The survey had a response rate of 91%. Early and late respondents were compared and no significant difference was found.

The results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+) (SPSS Inc., 1991). Descriptive analysis included; frequencies, means, standard deviations and cross tabulations for membership on an AOE, type of position (agent vs. program assistant), years of service and regional location.

Results

Fifty-three percent of the respondents were agent staff, 41 percent were program assistant staff and four percent were county extension directors with 4-H programming responsibilities. Forty three percent of respondents reported being members of an AOE Team. The most common AOE memberships were volunteerism (17), youth development (13) and human development (3). Eight other AOE Teams had one or two 4-H staff member(s). Agent staff and county extension directors were more apt to be a member of an AOE Team with 69 percent of agents, and 75 percent of County Extension Directors being members of AOE Teams and only 10 percent of program assistants being members of AOE Teams.

Table 1 4-H Field Staff Membership on AOE Teams

AOE Team N Volunteerism 17 Youth Development 13 Human Development 3 Leadership 2 Equine 2 Fisheries & Wildlife 1 Food Safety 1 State and Local Government 1 Vegetables 1 Christmas Trees 1 Forage 1

Joining AOE Teams Half of the 4-H field staff agree or strongly agree they wanted to join an AOE Team. Fifty one percent agree or strongly agree that they have adequate support to belong to a team. However 25 percent disagree or strongly disagree that they have adequate support. Seventy five percent are neutral or disagree that they felt pressure to join an AOE in the past. Fifty-four percent are neutral or do not understand the process of joining an AOE. Only 45 percent agree or strongly agree that they can join any AOE that interests them. And only 42 percent agree or strongly agree that joining an AOE is easy. Time seems to be an issue for many 4-H field staff, with 21 percent saying they feel they have adequate time to participate in an AOE, while 56 percent disagree or strongly disagree that they have adequate time.

Table 2 – Factors affecting joining AOE Teams

Statement Mean SD I wanted to join an AOE. 3.36 1.04 I feel like I have adequate support to belong to an AOE. 3.31 1.14 I feel like I am expected to belong to an AOE. 3.31 1.30 I felt pressure to join an AOE in the past. 2.68 1.23 I understand the process of joining an AOE. 3.06 1.18 I feel I can join any AOE that interests me. 3.14 1.16 Joining an AOE is easy. 3.31 1.02 I have adequate time to participate in an AOE. 2.49 1.07 More than a dozen 4-H field staff expressed concern over whether they could join an AOE Team or should join an AOE Team. One respondent said, “I do not have an understanding of how joining an AOE will help me – this is why I have not become involved. I might consider it if someone took the time to ‘recruit’ me” In addition a number of 4-H program assistants said that they believed that they were not allowed to join an AOE Team because they were not agent staff. One said, “State and county staff make it very clear that these opportunities are intended for agent staff” and another said, “I believe there is still a perception that if you aren’t board appointed then there is a credibility issue of whether of not that person could be knowledgeable in a particular area.”

Impact of AOE Teams

In the impact section of the survey, 60 percent of 4-H field staff are either neutral or disagree or strongly disagree that AOE Teams have had an impact on 4-H programs. When asked about awareness of AOE Teams and communication from AOE Teams to 4- H field staff, only 13 percent agree that they are aware of what most AOE Teams are doing and none strongly agreed with that statement. Only 11 percent agree that there is adequate communication from AOE Teams to 4-H field staff and only nine percent said they regularly receive information from AOE Teams. On the question of if the AOE Team model has created a better working relationship between field staff and state staff, only 26 percent agree or strongly agree with that statement. Table 3 – Impact of AOE Teams

Statement Mean SD AOE Teams have had a positive impact on 4-H county programs 3.38 .82 I am aware of what most AOE Teams are doing 2.32 .90

There is adequate communication from AOE Teams to 4-H field staff 2.44 .88 AOE Teams are well respected by 4-H clientele 2.79 .89 The AOE Team model has created a better working relationship 3.09 .78 between field staff and state staff I regularly receive information from AOE Teams 2.10 .87 AOE Teams have affected my professional development 2.93 1.18 My county 4-H program has changed as a result of AOE Teams 2.72 1.07

There were many comments written that addressed the lack of impact on local programs. A typical respondent said, “I haven’t noticed any measurable impact on 4-H programming as a result of AOEs. I’m under the impression that more significant work takes place on the State 4-H Programming Committees (which are particularly valuable because of volunteer involvement).” And another said, “I feel AOE’s have been helpful in the area of professional development and indirectly this impacts the local program, but I don’t see a direct affect on local programming.” On the other hand there were a few 4-H field staff (4-H Agent staff) that seemed to find their participation meaningful and who expressed satisfaction with the impact of AOE Teams. One said, “My mind races with ideas when I attend meetings and there is not enough time to implement everything!”

There were many comments added to the surveys about lack of communication from the AOE Teams. One typical one said, “..unless I’m missing something – I never hear that much about or from these teams. Staff should be updated regularly as to whom they can consult, who is on these teams and especially – what these teams have been working on.” And other respondents said “Not much is coming back to the counties.” and “There are a lot of AOEs we never hear from.”

Conclusions

This study shows that the majority of MSU 4-H field staff think that they do not receive adequate communication from MSU Extension Area of Expertise Teams and they do not know what the majority of teams are doing. It also shows that more agent staff are members of AOE Teams than program assistant staff and that many program assistant staff do not believe they would be allowed to join an AOE Team. Based on the results of this study, MSUE needs to find a way to promote communication from AOE teams to field staff on a regular basis. Perhaps monthly fact sheets with the names of contact members of the teams and a quick update on what each team is working on or has available for field staff would be useful. The teams may also want to survey field staff to find out what their needs are for assistance in programming and also to find example of ways they have had impact so that they can share success stories.

Further study is recommended on the relationship of 4-H Program Assistant staff to AOE teams and the role they may play on them. A great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed in written comments added on to the surveys by program assistants that indicated this group is on the whole disenfranchised from the organization. Further study may help administration understand the issues surrounding this so that a better working relationship can be found for 4-H program assistants. References

Bennis, W. (1997). The Secret of Great Groups Leader to Leader No 3 The Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management. Retrieved June 2002 from http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/121/winter/97/bennis.html

Booth, C. N. (2001). Perception of Area of Expertise teams: A Study for Michigan State University Extension. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University DAI AAT 3021741

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method New York: John Wiley & Sons

Hillman, G. R. (1998) Diverse self-directed work teams: developing strategic initiatives for 21st century organizations. Public Personnel Management 187- 200

Kanter, R. M. (1999). The enduring skills of change leaders. Leader to Leader No 13 The Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management. Retrieved June 2002 from http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/121/supper99/kanter.html

Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. New York: McKinsey and Co

Leholm, A. & Vlasin, R. (2001). United States Land Grant Extension Model: Michigan State University Extension Area of Expertise Teams In Brewer, F. (Ed) Agricultural Extension Systems: An International Perspective (pp. 22 – 40) North Chelmsford, MA: Erudition Books

Marsh, D. (1997). Educational Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Educational Leadership, Jossey-Bass 126 – 145

Odden, A. R. (1995). Educational Leadership for America’s Schools. New York; McGraw Hill

Offerman, L. R. (1997). Leading and Empowering Diverse Followers In The Balance of Leadership and Followership Working Papers, Academy of Leadership Press

Senge, P. (1997). Give me a lever long enough…and single-handed I can move the world. Educational Leadership; Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

Suvedi, M. (2000.) Farmer’s perspectives on Michigan State University Extension: Trends and lessons from 1996 and 1999. The Journal of Extension, 38 (1) Retrieved April 2002 from http://www.joe.ogr/joe/2000february/a4.html Weiss, C. H. & Cambone, J. Principals, Shared Decisions Making and School Reform, Educational Leadership Jossey-Bass 366 - 387

Wheatley, M. J. (1997). Goodbye, command and control Leader to Leader No 5 The Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Non Profit Management Retrieved June 2002 from http://www.drucker.org/leaderbooks/121/sumer97/wheatley.html