Citation
Leadership expectations and perceptions of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation

Material Information

Title:
Leadership expectations and perceptions of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation
Creator:
Carter, Hannah S. F
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 210 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( jstor )
Community associations ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Farms ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Political processes ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Volunteer labor ( jstor )
Volunteerism ( jstor )
Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Agricultural Education and Communication -- UF ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Hannah S. F. Carter.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
003100585 ( ALEPH )
AA00004690_00001 ( sobekcm )
770716520 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS
OF THE FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION















By

HANNAH S. F. CARTER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004






























Copyright 2004

by

Hannah S. F. Carter































Dedicated to Michael Carl Linzmayer,
whose support and encouragement made it possible.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would have not become a reality if it were not for an

extraordinary individual, Dr. Rick Rudd, who signed on for a second tour as my advisor.

I feel extremely fortunate to have worked with Dr. Rudd, who made my graduate school

experience truly enjoyable and I will be forever grateful for his mentorship, friendship,

and encouragement. I would like to thank the members of my advisory committee, Drs.

Rick Rudd, Howard Ladewig, Burl Long, Nick Place, and Eugene Trotter for their

contributions and guidance, which made this a study that I am very proud of.

This process was made infinitely better with the presence of a special individual

who provided constant support, encouragement and motivation that has made my life all

the better, even during the dissertation process. Words cannot express my thanks to

Mike, for always telling me that "You can do it," for providing me rewards for my

accomplishments along the way and a reprieve from the process when necessary, and for

having a pizza delivered late one night which meant more to me then he will ever know.

The past year and half, during this whole dissertation process, has been the happiest time

of my life, thank you.

This study would not have become a reality without Pat Cockrell and the Florida

Farm Bureau Federation. I would like to especially thank Mr. Carl Loop, Jr., Scottie

Butler, Rod Hemphill, and Pat Cockrell for their assistance and support throughout this

process. I enjoyed working with these individuals and all members of the Florida Farm

Bureau Federation who participated in this study immensely.









My sister, Alex, deserves my heartfelt thanks for again believing in me and

getting me to Florida in the first place. If I could have anyone in my cheering section, it

would be my sister as she truly makes me believe that I am capable of anything that I set

my mind too and is a source of inspiration to me. I would like to thank the rest of the

members of my family for having full faith that I would get this done and for their

support as I enter this new phase of my life.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the following individuals: Steve

Johnson, who apparently saw my potential when I could not even fathom it; Amy

Sullivan for her continued friendship and for going through this process together as

misery truly does love company; Bob Watts, for his far away emails full of advice and for

providing me an incentive to get this degree as I look forward to our future leadership

collaborations and our eventual takeover of the world! Janice Barner for going above and

beyond the call of duty in the office, for keeping things going while I was finishing, for

tying up her printer, and for the constant support that she provided me; Maureen, Jack,

and Megan Noll for opening their hearts and home to me and making me feel like I have

family here in Florida. I appreciate them all so much and the feeling of "family" that

they have provided me.

I have many other friends and family members who have seen me through the

good times and the bad and who have added so much to my life. I am thankful for them

and grateful for them being in my life. Though they will not realize it, Rosie, Finnegan,

and Lucky deserve a pat for reminding me each day what unconditional love is and how

fortunate I am to be in their company as they make my life all that much better.














TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................ix

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................

Background of the Study ...................................................................9
Problem Statement .............................................................................11
Objectives of the Study ........................................................................13
Significance of the Study ............................................................. ...13
Overview of Methodology .....................................................................14
Delimitations of the Study .....................................................................16
Definitions of Key Terms......................................................................16
C onclusions....................................................................................... 17

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................ .............. 18

History of Farm Bureau and Agricultural Organizations ................................ 19
Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group ..................................................26
Grassroots Organizations ......................................................................30
Motivations of Volunteers.....................................................................33
Organizational Leadership .....................................................................45
Social Capital ..............................................................................57
Agricultural Leadership .......................................................................60
Summary....................................................................................... 63

3 METHODS ................................................................................. 66

Research Design ............................................................................67
Research Context ...........................................................................72
Research Participants .........................................................................72
Instruments Used in Data Collection ........................................................ 75
Data Analysis ................................................................................78
Sum m ary ...................................................................................... ...81









4 R E SU LT S ........................................................................................82

Objective 1 ......................................... .........................................83
Objective 2 .................................................................................. 94
Objective 3 .................................................................................103
Objective 4 .................................................................................118
Objective 5 ......................................................................................129
Summary ........................................................ ....................137

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................................139

Summary of the Study ...................................................................... ... 139
Findings ......................................... .............................................144
Conclusions .......................................................................... ........149
Recommendations ...........................................................................164
Suggestions for Further Research ...........................................................167
Summary ....................................................................................169

APPENDIX

A LETTER TO FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS ................................171

B SECOND LETTER TO FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS ...................172

C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS ......173

D SURVEY FOR COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ....................................... 174

E SURVEY FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS .....................................................181

F FIRST LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS ................................................188

G SECOND LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS .........................................189

H POSTCARD TO ACTIVE MEMBERS ................................................191

I FOURTH LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS ...........................................192

J FIRST LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ..................................193

K SECOND LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ..............................194

L POSTCARD TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ......................................196

M FOURTH LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ..............................197




vii









REFERENCE LIST .........................................................................198

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................209














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS
OF THE FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

By

Hannah S. F. Carter

August 2004


Chair: Rick Rudd
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

The purpose of this study was to determine the leadership expectations and

perceptions of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. This study was conducted in three

parts. The first part was composed of qualitative interviews with seven officials of the

Florida Farm Bureau Federation; questions were developed to determine the expectations

of state officials of county board members and the necessary leadership skills that county

Farm Bureau board members should possess.

The second part of the study was a quantitative instrument, which was developed

from the competencies that came from the first phase of the study. A sample of 280

county Farm Bureau members were given this instrument, which was comprised of four

theme areas: leadership, political process, effective boards, and knowledge of Farm

Bureau, with a total of 66 competencies. Participants were asked to rate how important









each competency was and how proficient it was using a seven point Likert scale. A

demographic information section was also included at the end of this instrument.

The third phase of the study examined why Farm Bureau members may or may

not participate in leadership roles, such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau

board. A quantitative instrument was developed and included three parts: a motivation

sources inventory, a semantic differential scale on volunteering, and a Likert scale, which

measured perceptions of serving on county boards. This instrument also had a

demographic information section at the end. The instrument was sent to a random

sample of 420 active Farm Bureau members.

From the results of the county board member instrument, it was found that the

largest "gap" between importance and proficiency competencies was in the political

process area. Active board members were found to be motivated by internal self-concept

factors and rated the evaluative factors of volunteering the highest. This study found that

the best model for explaining why Farm Bureau members chose to participate in

leadership roles explained 36% of the variance and included the independent variables:

volunteering evaluative factor, volunteering activity factor, number of Farm Bureau

events attended, member of other youth development organizations and participation in

leadership development programs.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Rural communities remain a source of identity for many people. Most of the rural

localities established in the last century remain today, and their residents continue to

invest in them with social value, despite changing economic and social relationships

(Goudy & Ryan, 1982). Hobbs (1995) described the role of agriculture in communities

as follows:

The special role of agriculture in the overall development of U.S. rural and
community life is not simply attributable to production from the land. The actual
form of production (large numbers of small farmers owning and operating their
own land) in much of rural America contributed most to the institutions and
organizations established to support agriculture and rural life. Despite local
differences in organization, most rural people shared dependence on agriculture,
the methods by which it was practiced, and the ideologies that surrounded it. This
homogeneity of farmers' interests and practices helped reinforce the social
foundations of the settlements. (p. 377)

After the Civil War, the growth of industrialization generated new markets for

agricultural production, and the completion of railroads linked agricultural producers

with the external markets. An early consequence of increased market dependency was

the emergence of farmer's movements that provided the foundation for what would

become general farm organizations. Agriculture led the way in breaking from local

institutional constraints and connecting with the institutions of the larger society

(Mooney & Majka, 1995).

During the late 1800s, the Grange and the Farmer's Alliances were two of the

prominent agricultural movements of the time. The Grange was originally established as









a social and educational organization for farmers (National Grange of the Order of

Patrons of Husbandry [NGOPH], 2004). The National Farmers Union (NFU) and the

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) are two organizations which originated in the

period from 1900 to 1920 and are still active today. These two organizations, along with

the Grange, were general farm organizations because their focus is a broad-based

program of education, improving farm production and lobbying for favorable legislation

to farmers. All three have an organizational structure from the local level to the state and

national organization (NGOPH, 2004; NFU, 2003; AFBF, 2003).

These organizations are important in history because their programs generally

were devoted to improving the well being of farmers and were initially mechanisms for

representing rural interests nationally. They were instrumental in lobbying for rural mail

delivery, rural electrification, and improvement in rural roads and highways, innovations

that benefited both farmers and town residents (Hobbs, 1995).

The AFBF is an organization of over five million members across the United

States (AFBF, 2003). Farm Bureaus can be found in every state in the country. The

Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) has a membership of 151,645 and county Farm

Bureaus in 61 out of 67 counties (FFBF, 2003). In some instances a "county" Farm

Bureau may actually be made up of two counties and in another instance there are two

county Farm Bureaus in one county because of local geography (P. Cockrell, personal

communication, September 10, 2002).

Farm Bureau is

An independent, non-governmental, voluntary organization governed by and
representing farm and ranch families united for the purpose of









analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational
improvement, economic opportunity and social advancement and, thereby, to
promote the national well being. Farm Bureau is local, county, state, national,
and international in its scope and influence and is non-partisan, non-sectarian and
non-secret in character (AFBF, 2003, para. 2).

The strength of Farm Bureau from the county to the national level begins at the

grassroots with individual members who decide to become active and take on leadership

roles in the organization. In the corridors of power in Washington, D.C., all that seems to

matter are the interests of the powerful agribusiness organizations that speak for large

producers and maybe the environmental groups that have an upper-middle class

constituency. While people in farming communities are small in numbers, they are a

significant force within their districts and states and should not be discounted

(Hassebrook, 1999).

In the past ten years, agriculture and farming have been dramatically restructured

(Purdy, 1999). Hassebrook (1999) states that the family farm is dying and farm

ownership is being concentrated into fewer hands. As the agricultural industry has

become more concentrated, decision-making concerning agriculture has shifted from the

independent producers to those in influential positions at the top of large agribusiness

organizations (Swenson, 1999).

Present trends indicate that the family farm as the nucleus of United States
agriculture is slipping away. There is a movement toward a dual agriculture. At
one extreme are many small farms, most of them part-time. Fifty percent of all
farms, as defined by the U.S. census, market only about three percent of all farm
products. Most of these farmers depend on non-farm income for their living.
They are not easily dislodged from farming (Breimyer & Frederick, 1999,
paragraph 19).

As specialized commodity producers have grown in both the size and proportion

of total agricultural production and as rural economies have diversified, another kind of









"farmer" has become important. These are "part-time" farmers, farmers who are

employed full-time off the farm or have other sources of income larger than farm income

(Coughenour & Wimberley, 1982).

Part-time farmers generally do not identify farming as their principal occupation.

Their occupations and interests are diverse and they often do not share the interests of

commercial agricultural. Commodity producers are more likely to view farming as "a

business," whereas the choice to farm part-time along with working at another occupation

is more often based on a desire to practice agrarian values. The growth of part-time

farms has come at the expense of the middle group of "family farms," which is

diminishing but which has long been regarded as epitomizing the agrarian values of the

United States. Although the number of middle-sized family farms is decreasing, the

impression of those farms as typical continues to prevail, especially in political debate

over farm programs (Hobbs, 1995).

The widespread restructuring of the agricultural industry has also taken a heavy

toll on those rural communities that depend on a healthy farm income to survive and

thrive. A system of economically viable, midsize, owner-operated family farms

contributes more to communities than systems characterized by inequality and large

numbers of farm laborers with below average incomes and little ownership or control of

productive assets (Hassebrook, 1999, p. 55). Historically, locally owned businesses tied

to agriculture often provided a good source of jobs and revenue for rural areas, and

reinvested profits in their community, creating a multiplier effect in which funds would

exchange hands several times. In contrast, multinational agricultural corporations

typically take their profits out of the communities in which they were earned.









Communities suffer not only financially, but also in terms of the quality of education,

health care, and other essential services (Swenson, 1999). Christenson and Robinson

(1989) state that "since the early '80's, communities, especially rural communities have

confronted a social, economic, political, and demographic environment substantively

different from that of the first part of the century" (p. 197).

The agricultural sector of America is changing. In the 2002 Census of

Agriculture, there were 2.13 million farms in the United States, up 0.1% from 2001. The

increase in farms occurred primarily in agricultural operations with $1,000 to $9,999 a

year in sales. The total land in farms in 2002 was 939.5 million acres, which increased

170,000 acres from 2001. A farm is defined as any place from which $1000 or more of

agricultural products were produced and sold during the year (United States Department

of Agriculture [USDA], 2004).

The average farm size in the United States is 441 acres. The largest number of

farms 658,804 are those, which are 50 to 179 acres in size (USDA, 2004). Figure 1-1

represents the distribution of farm size (in acres) in the United States.


700000
600000
500000-
0
S400000
5 300000
200000-

100000
0
1 to9 10to 50 to 180to 500to 1000to 2000+
49 179 499 999 1999
Size of Farm (in acres)
Figure 1-1. Distributions of Farms by Size (USDA, 2004)









Family or individual farms make up the largest majority of farms in the United

States. The Economic Research Service (2004) defines family farms as farms, which are

legally controlled, by their operator and the operator's family and includes all farms

except those organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives. Over 1.9 million

farms are family farms, which has increased by 250,000 from 1992. The average age of

the principal operator of the farm is 55.3 years, which is two years older than in 1992.

Those who make up the age group of 45 to 54 years old are the largest percentage with

572,664 (USDA, 2004). Figure 1-2 represents the age range of principal operators for

farms in the United States.

'd 600000
> 500000

400000
2 300000-




25 and 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70+
younger
Age (in years)

Figure 1-2. Age Range of Principal Operators (USDA, 2004)

The trend of growth of smaller farms is evident in Florida. There were 44,000

farms in Florida in 2002, which was unchanged from 2000 and 2001, but approximately

9,000 more than in 1992. The average farm size is 236 acres, 70 acres less than in 1992.

There are 18,360 farms in Florida which are 10 to 49 acres in size, the second largest

group of farms, 10,267, are those that are one to nine acres in size. There are only 842

farms that are 2,000 acres or more (which produce most of the dollar value of agricultural









production). Family farms are the largest type of farm, with over 37,000 in this

category, which are approximately 10,000 more than in 1992. In Florida, the average age

of the principal operator on a farm is 57, an increase of 1.5 years from 1992. As with the

data for the United States, those in the age group of 45 to 54 are the largest group with

15,465 in the group (USDA, 2004).

The trends in the United States and Florida follow the shift in agriculture, which

has many small "part-time" farms and large agricultural corporations, with a decreasing

number of farms that are found in the middle of these two groups. There is a concern

about the loss of these farms because they represent such a significant portion of all farms

in the United States. In 1998, "91% of all U.S. farms were classified as small (or part-

time) farms and these farms accounted for 68% of all land owned by farmers" (Duffy &

Nanhou, 2002, p. 3). Critics of those concerned about of the loss of small farms argue

that farms are becoming larger to capture the economies of size. They believe that small

farms are not "real farms"; instead they seem as just rural residents or retirement farms

(Duffy & Nanhou, 2002).

One attribute of small farms is that they are almost universally part of a

household. There are an estimated 1.2 million farms in the United States, and of these

farms, 43% are owned by individuals who are classified as rural residents. This

percentage of small farms means they have sales less than $250,000 and they list

something other than farming as their principal income (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002).

Those involved in agriculture in the United States and the State of Florida realize

the need for people to step forth and provide a strong and educated voice to lead

agriculture and bring the needs and issues of the rural community to the forefront at the









community, state, national and international level. A reasonable choice to provide this

voice for rural communities and provide individuals who have the attitude/will/desire to

participate in the leadership process is the AFBF. Farm Bureau reflects the future of

agriculture and rural communities in its membership, the younger members who are

embarking on their careers and looking towards leadership positions in the future (P.

Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002).

But why are those actively involved in agriculture not taking on leadership

responsibilities in the Florida Farm Bureau organization? Do they lack training, skills,

abilities, time or knowledge? Or do they not have a desire to lead? For those that do

accept leadership positions, will they be able to become effective and provide strong

leadership? Florida Farm Bureau realizes the need to provide leadership training for their

members, but what training should be offered? This study will provide data to assist in

answering these questions.

McCaslin (1993) theorized that sustainable rural development has been and will

be realized only through programs, which focus on active involvement of human

resources rather than a passive approach. Florida Farm Bureau is taking this proactive

approach, realizing the need for leadership development and wanting to take the next step

in designing a leadership-training program for its county board members.

An ideal leadership program reflects the diversity of the organization or

community. The shared experiences and networking that take place within the program

create a group of dedicated people who want to make a difference (Hustedde &

Woodward, 1996). Because of the complexity of today's organizations requires the use

of different leadership skills, and many organizations are concerned about the








inadequacies in leadership skills of their members and are involved in the development

and implementation of leadership development programs. These leadership programs

often offer ways to improve and develop the leadership capabilities of individuals

(Sogunro, 1997).

A focus group consisting of county Farm Bureau presidents agreed that training

for county board members should be improved, with one participant going on to state that

it is "the very weakest link" in his county Farm Bureau's program. The group concluded

that county Farm Bureaus would benefit from training by the FFBF staff (Florida Farm

Bureau Public Relations Division [FFBPRD], 1998). Findings from a study of those who

went through a leadership development program found that those who participated felt

more confident about promoting causes, were able to motivate others better, made more

informed decisions on public issues, were better able to work with people and lead a

group, and deal with local leaders better (Rohs & Langone, 1993). If the FFBF staff were

to offer such a leadership-training program, it would be expected that participants would

have similar experiences and results.

Background of the Study

Leadership is not an innate characteristic; it can be developed through formal and

informal training (Bolton, 1991). Leaders are made, not born. Most people have within

them the basic skills and abilities to assume leadership positions, and one strategy for

local capacity building is to promote the emergence of such individuals. An integral

component to the efforts to expand the pool of local leadership is the focus on

augmenting leadership skills. An understanding of the leadership process and an









enhancement of the potential local leader's information base are representative of this

strategy (Christenson & Robinson, 1989).

Developing the full potential of the leadership base in agriculture is extremely

important as this industry is facing new challenges such as environmental responsibility,

food quality, international competition, taxation, and clarifying its own identity (Georgia

Agri-Leaders Forum Foundation [GALFF], 2002). Rapid change is occurring in all

segments of society, agriculture included. To keep pace with this change, informed,

decisive, and communicative spokespersons are needed to represent agriculture (Kansas

Agriculture and Rural Leadership, 2002). New technologies, consolidation,

environmental concerns and food safety are some of the factors that are contributing to

the rapidly changing face of agriculture in the United States (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002).

Foster (2000) states that leadership provides people a way to connect with and

serve their communities, institutions, and organizations. This leadership is necessary as

dramatic changes are affecting the social, economic, natural, and political environments

of people in communities and cultures around the world. These changes present

challenges and opportunities that demand effective leadership at all levels of society to

ensure effective transitions and change.

Organizations can play a significant role by nurturing future leaders. They can

provide the education and training necessary for the advancement of leadership among its

members (Foster, 2000). Pemick (2001) states there are two advantages of building

leadership talent within an organization.

First, the next generation of leaders is groomed by the organization and can instill
the culture and agenda of the organization. Secondly, the organization has greater
control over the supply of leaders with the necessary skills, which makes
implementation of the organization's agenda easier and quicker. (p. 429)








Leadership development resides in the context of a community or organization

and must answer the question, "leadership for what?" (Foster, 2000). This study will

attempt to provide a basis for the "what" for the FFBF. It will provide research that will

allow the state organization to customize a leadership development program for its

membership with the expectations that after members go through this training they will

have the leadership background necessary to become effective leaders not only in the

Farm Bureau organization, but in their homes, businesses, and communities. The effects

of a leadership development program for Farm Bureau members could be far reaching,

but before those effects can be felt, desired leadership practices must be identified,

existing behavior in current leaders must be determined, "gaps" between desired practices

and existing behavior must be identified, current leadership practices must be explained

and the motivators of individuals to take on additional leadership responsibilities must be

determined.

FFBF needs a leadership-training program for county board members that range

from having little experience to years of experience. They also need to know what

motivates individuals who belong to the organization to become more involved. The

organization needs to have its members participate more in the programs that are offered

to the county Farm Bureaus and needs to have its members know more about the

organization as a whole (P. Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002).

Problem Statement

American agriculture is at a critical juncture. If current policies and trends are left

in place for another generation, there will be little left of traditional American agriculture









(Hassebrook, 1999). Instead there will be smaller, "hobby farms" and gigantic multi-

national agricultural corporations.

Rural communities that are supported by agriculture were once the foundation of

the United States and still make up large parts of the country, though rural communities

are diminishing due to urbanization and the decrease of agricultural industries that

provide the community base. McCaslin (1993) states, "one of the overriding concerns of

those individuals working towards the stabilization and future growth of rural

communities is the lack of active participation by many of its citizens" (p. 46). The

process of stabilization and revitalization in agriculture begins with effective and active

leadership and participation. As Farm Bureaus can be found in most rural communities

in the country and in Florida, this leadership can be found in the membership of local

county Farm Bureaus.

The problem leading to this research was: To keep a strong voice and presence at

the local, state, and national level, agriculture needs qualified leaders who are willing and

able to work on behalf of agriculture, rural communities and their livelihoods as

agriculture in the United States and the state of Florida is rapidly changing. From this

problem the following question arose: Why isn't Farm Bureau more involved in

"growing" and retaining leaders for grassroots leadership in local county Farm Bureaus.

Three reasons were hypothesized: 1) there is a lack of infusion of young member

involvement, 2) the attitude/will/desire among Farm Bureau members in taking

leadership roles in their local Farm Bureau organizations is unknown, and 3) expectations

of leaders is unknown.









From this problem, question, and potential explanations, the following objectives

were developed to guide this study.

Objectives of the Study

1. Identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership.

2. Identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders held by the state
Farm Bureau leadership.

3. Measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership
expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they
assign to those skills.

4. Determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau
members.

5. Determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not
participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards.


Significance of the Study

This study added to the body of knowledge on grassroots organizations, rural

leadership, and effective board membership. This study can serve as a model for other

Farm Bureau organizations, or other organizations interested in developing greater

participation in grassroots leadership. This is a critical time for Farm Bureaus around the

country, as well as other rural and agricultural organizations, as they change to meet new

needs of agriculture and the people who make their livelihood in this industry. The Farm

Bureau of today faces many challenges and it will need to evolve to meet those

challenges. In order for this evolution to occur, strong and capable leaders must emerge

and assume leadership positions and responsibilities.









Overview of Methodology

For this study, a non-experimental research design was employed that utilized

both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The first part of the study was a

qualitative assessment that used a long interview format. These interviews were

conducted with seven state leaders of the FFBF and were used to identify desired

leadership competencies they believed county Farm Bureau members should have in

order for their county Farm Bureau boards to be effective.

The second part of the study was derived from the content analysis of the

interview responses. A quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher

based on the identified competencies. In addition to the 66 competency questions this

survey also included a section with questions to gather selected demographic information.

The survey was given to a random sample of current county Farm Bureau board members

to determine their perceived importance of each competency and their perceived

proficiency of each competency.

In the third part of this study, a researcher designed leadership behavior

instrument was given to a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau members to determine

their motivations and their attitudes towards volunteering to serve on their county Farm

Bureau boards. This survey also included a section to collect selected demographic

information. These instruments were examined by a panel of experts and pilot tested

with a sample population of Farm Bureau county board members and active members to

ensure validity of the instruments and then were analyzed using descriptive statistics,

correlations and multiple regression.








Several approaches were employed in this research design to aid in resolving the

research questions. The long interviews provided qualitative information which

described processes and relationships that served as the basis for the second instrument.

Descriptive statistics were collected with the quantitative data provided in the second and

third instrument. The descriptive statistics do not provide evidence of relationships but

can be beneficial in explaining characteristics of individuals in groups. Correlations

between desired leadership practices and the attitude/will/desire of leaders or those in

leadership positions were also analyzed. These correlations investigate relationships of

variables and how they vary (Black, 1999).

The two instruments given to the two groups of Farm Bureau members were ex

post facto, or "after the fact." This refers to real-life studies that employ some of the

same measurement and statistical tools used in experimental studies. The difference is

the lack of control over independent variables; life experiences replace researcher-

determined treatments that would have been possible in a more structured, experimental

design (Black, 1999). Examples of the independent variables used in this study include

age, length of service to Farm Bureau, participation in other organizations (both

agricultural and general), marital status, family status, gender, residence, and if they work

off the farm.

Results of the survey to county board members and interviews with state Farm

Bureau officials identified "gaps" within desired leadership practices that are expected by

the state leadership in the FFBF and the importance and proficiency that board members

place on these practices. Also identified in the survey given to active members were the

motivations and attitudes that active Farm Bureau members have towards taking









additional leadership roles. These results were provided to the FFBF to assist in planning

leadership development opportunities for Farm Bureau members in the state of Florida.

Delimitations of the Study

This study used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Respondents

to this research design included leaders of the FFBF, county Farm Bureau board

members, and active Farm Bureau members. Limitations of this study must be

considered when applying the results. They are as follows:

1. The findings of this study can only be generalized to the population who make up the
Florida Farm Bureau membership. Care should be taken in attempts to generalize
these findings to other state Farm Bureau organizations, as the competencies of the
members of those organizations and the leadership requirements of the organizations
themselves may be different than those which are found in Florida. One could
surmise that Farm Bureau organizations across the country would benefit from a
study such as this and use it as a model to benefit their own organizations.

2. This study was limited to the current availability of literature on Farm Bureau
organizations on the state and national level.

3. The research assumes the subjects of the study provided truthful responses, but bias
may occur in the responses of the subjects.


Definitions of Key Terms

The following definitions are used in this study.

Florida Farm Bureau Federation The state Farm Bureau organization made up of the

federation of the 61 county Farm Bureau boards in Florida (P. Cockrell, personal

communication, September 10, 2002).

Active members Farm Bureau members who are full-time farmers, part-time farmers,

or farm managers. Currently only active members are elected to county boards or other

leadership positions in the Farm Bureau organization (P. Cockrell, S. Butler, & R.

Hemphill, personal communication, July 17, 2003).









Associate members Farm Bureau members who are not directly involved in farming.

These members are not eligible to be on county boards or state boards (P. Cockrell, S.

Butler, & R. Hemphill, personal communication, July 17, 2003).

Conclusion

The FFBF realizes that with the changes taking place within agriculture and

society as a whole, strong and effective leaders are needed to keep agriculture and the

Farm Bureau organization viable in the future. Younger members of the organization

often do not take on leadership roles or if they do, are not as effective in these roles as

they could be (P. Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002). Realizing

this, the FFBF would like to offer a leadership-training program to its members, but must

understand and be able to articulate expectations of its leaders. This study provided the

necessary research for the development of such a program.

The five objectives that guided this study are to (1) identify demographics of

county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm

Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which

county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm

Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, (4) determine

leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5)

determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate

in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. A background of the study, the

significance of the study, delimitations of the study and definitions of key terms of the

study were also provided in Chapter 1.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to determine the leadership expectations and

perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members. To accomplish this purpose, the study was

guided by six objectives which were (1) identify selected demographics of county Farm

Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau

leaders held by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county

Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau

leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, (4) determine leadership

attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5) determine

reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in

leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards.

This chapter will review the relevant literature that provided the background for

this research. Specific areas of literature include: the history of the Farm Bureau and

other agricultural organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations,

organizational leadership, motivations of volunteers, social capital and agricultural

leadership. As specific information or studies were limited about Farm Bureau boards

and leadership, general studies were also examined and reported in this chapter.

These specific areas of literature are divided into sections in this chapter with

headings that include history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations, political

interest groups, grassroots organizations, organizational leadership, motivations of









volunteers, social capital and agricultural leadership. The chapter will conclude with a

summary of the information provided.

History of Farm Bureau and Agricultural Organizations

Rural America had two features, which historically contributed most to its

distinctive forms of organization, the dominance of the family farm as the initial rural

industry and the prevalence of geographically separated small settlements. The

interdependence of the farm and town also fostered, and reinforced, agrarianism as a

dominant, pervasive, and persistent rural value (Mooney & Majka, 1995).

An agricultural industry composed largely of small family farms dispersed

geographically among small settlements were two of the most pertinent features of the

organizational foundation of rural America. Agriculture as an industry became identified

with agrarianism, and the dispersed settlements were the foundation for communitarian

values. The combination contributes to institutionalizing of family farms and rural

communities themselves, which then inspired many associated forms of organization

(Hobbs, 1995).

Farmers in rural areas were soon aided with several pieces of legislation that

provided the dissemination of research and information being conducted at the

universities in their states. The Hatch Act of 1867 established the land grant university

system and agricultural experiment stations. The Cooperative Extension Service soon

provided agricultural agents in each county, and "county demonstrators" had spread

across the south and into the north.









Creation of Farm Bureaus

In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act was enacted which accelerated the spread of the

county agent system. The Smith-Lever Act required states to pass legislation, which

would govern the utilization of federal revenues. Many states passed laws, which

required that a county agent could not be hired unless a local organization of farmers, a

"Farm Bureau" was first established. These early Farm Bureaus were formed in the early

1910s, which was a decade of dramatic reorganization in the agricultural sector (Berlage,

2001).

The Farm Bureaus showed local support for the county agent's programs and

created a source of funding for the agent's salary from the dues paid by members. The

relationship between the Farm Bureaus and the Extension Service was questioned

because the county agent, who was a public employee, had obligations to a private

pressure group, the county Farm Bureau. To address this concern, many state legislatures

and state colleges of agriculture began to separate extension from the local Farm Bureaus

(Brown, 1989).

Following WWII, the accelerating rate of agricultural mechanization along with

price supports and other new production technologies, expedited the substation of capital

for labor and increased the rate of farm consolidation. At the same time, land-grant

university research and extension reinforced a transition from multi-crop general farming

to specialized commodity production (Hobbs, 1995).

This transition was accompanied by new and different producer interests and

therefore a change in the types of organizations which represented them. Farmers no

longer automatically held interests in common but began to specialize along commodity









lines. Accordingly, general farm organizations became less effective in representing the

interests of producers, for interests of different commodities were often competitive.

New organizations, specialized by commodity, began to appear such as the American

Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National

Cattlemen's Association. General farm organizations, such as the AFBF differ from

commodity organizations. Commodity organizations are principally devoted to

promoting domestic and international sales of their commodity, affecting legislation

favorable to commodity producers, and supporting research to develop new products and

uses of the commodity. Their primary focus is national and international in scope,

although most of the major commodity organizations have state and local associations in

regions that produce the commodity they represent. They are unlikely to have a local

agenda unless a local issue of direct relevance to commodity producers arises (Hobbs,

1995).

Specialized commodity organizations, such as the National Cattlemen's

Association or the National Corn Growers are more effective in pursuing narrow policy

goals than general agricultural organizations. The consequences to this piece-meal

approach to policy making by many specialized groups is the neglect of the farming

sector as a whole (Mooney & Majka, 1995).

During the early years of Farm Bureau, it was unique as compared to other

organizations because of the strong financial support it enjoyed. High dues for

membership, support from agribusiness, and effective governmental subsidization

through the Cooperative Extension Service all contributed to a powerful resource base for

Farm Bureau (Mooney & Majka, 1995).









There are two factors that have contributed to the success of the AFBF

organization. First, it was created and nurtured by the Cooperative Extension Service, a

public agency. The Extension Service organized local Farm Bureaus, helped in the

recruitment of members, and favored those members with the allocation of goods and

services. Second, the Farm Bureaus offered their members a number of services, from

insurance to farm supplies (Hansen, 1995).

While scholars have concentrated on the AFBF's national political influence to

explain its power, the local programs it offered were equally as important. Members

participated in the organization to take advantage of the bureau's scientific, economic,

and social projects rather than to gain national political power. The array of programs

that local Farm Bureaus offered strengthened the appeal of the organization and helped to

establish a strong power base in rural communities (Berlage, 2001).

The AFBF is the nation's largest farm organization with over five million

members in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. There are 2800 county Farm Bureaus across

the country, which provide programs that are developed to meet the needs of member

families. Thousands of volunteer leaders serve on county Farm Bureau boards and

committees (AFBF, 2003). Bob Stallman, AFBF President, stated, "whether at the

county, state or national level, Farm Bureaus across the nation have always been loyal to

the foundation of our organization-our grassroots members" (Stallman, 2003, para. 11).

Farm Bureau has endured its share of criticisms. In his critique of the AFBF,

Berger (1971) stated that the AFBF claims it is a grassroots organization, which is truly

representative of farmers. However, the organization has become more and more

autocratic over the years. Policy positions are made at the top of a rigid hierarchy, while









attempts at the grassroots level to change that policy have been stifled. Another criticism

is that the AFBF claims to be an organization made up of farmers, when a large

percentage of its members have no relationship to farming. Membership has become

little more than a device through which Farm Bureau products and services are sold

(Berger, 1971).

In his 1971 commentary about AFBF Berger stated that, "the nation's biggest

farm organization has been quietly but systematically amassing one of the largest

business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the

farmers whom it supposedly represents." Farm Bureau has been called an organization of

and for large farmers (Mooney & Majka, 1995).

The AFBF was the dominant voice in Washington, D.C. with respect to farm

policy at the end of WWII. This was no longer true in the 1990s. Browne (1995)

conducted a study of agricultural organizations influence in the United States Congress,

he stated:

Generalist organizations usually ranked by respondents as very active and
involved but only somewhat influential include such high profile groups as the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the Fertilizer Institute, and the Food
Marketing Institute. The access and influence of those groups are not seen as the
same, as is the case for interest that represent fewer and narrower claims.
Organizations that can speak to the very specific needs of a commodity program
or a distinct type of business seem to have a better transactional base within
Congress and, as a result, gain better reputations for influence. (p. 372)

National Farmers Union and the Grange

The NFU and the Grange also continue to represent large numbers of farmers in

addition to the AFBF. The Grange was, "increasingly relegated to less agriculturally

dependent regions and was not aggressive politically" (Mooney & Majka, 1995, p. 90).

The NFU struggled with the AFBF's increasing influence. The NGOPH, which was









established in the late 1800s, is the oldest national agricultural organization in the nation.

Today, Granges are established in 3,600 communities in 37 states. Its 300,000 members

provide support to rural areas and agriculture on a wide variety of issues, including

economic development, family, and legislation designed to assure a strong and viable

rural America (NGOPH, 2004).

The Grange is a grassroots organization that provides its' members a voice on the

local, state and national level. Major objectives of the Grange support stewardship of

America's natural resources, promotion of worldwide free trade, a combination of local

and federal support of rural medical, communications, and road systems, and elimination

of direct government farm programs (NGOPH, 2004).

The NFU is a general farm organization with a membership of nearly 250,000

farm and ranch families across the country. It is a federation that represents farmers and

ranchers in all states and the presidents of the 24 state and regional farmers union

organizations serve as its board of directors (Price, 2003).

The NFU was founded in 1902 due to a need identified by a group of farmers to

join together to fight a common cause. Today, according the president of the NFU, Dave

Frederickson, the NFU's education, cooperation, and legislative programs all revolve

around member needs. This organization also provides a voice for family agriculture and

rural America. Its primary goal has been to sustain and strengthen family farm and ranch

agriculture, which it does through a grassroots structure with policy positions begun at

the local level (Price, 2003).

In addition to the AFBF, the Grange, and the NFU, there is one other national

farm organization. The National Farmers' Organization (NFO) was formed in 1955. It








originated as a protest group that threatened farm strikes to a serious collective

bargaining organization that bargained with the buyers and processors of farm products

(Mooney & Majka, 1995).

All of these agricultural organizations have basically one thing in common, they

were all founded because a critical mass of highly motivated people decided that their

likelihood of success in tackling a significant challenge would be much greater if people

worked cooperatively toward a common goal (Stuart, 2003).

Florida Commodity Organizations

In the state of Florida, there are numerous organizations that represent all the

major agricultural commodities, which are grown in the state in addition to the FFBF

representing the general agricultural interests. Two of the largest and most powerful are

the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFVA) and Florida Citrus Mutual (FCM).

FFVA began during World War II to address the challenges facing growers at the

time. Legislation had been passed that negatively affected Florida growers and those

growers saw a clear need to organize so that the concerns of Florida's fruit and vegetable

industry would be heard in Washington D. C. (Stuart, 2003).

The FFVA "has grown into one of the most recognized and influential

organizations of its kind in the country. Its success can be directly attributed to the

dedication and hard work of individuals who have served as officers and on its board of

directors and committees throughout its history" (Stuart, 2003, para. 5).

FCM began in 1948 after the citrus industry experienced severe market

fluctuations. Today, FCM provides the following services to its members: reliable

market information, grower legislation, taxation, citrus research, Florida Department of









Citrus oversight, and non-price information. The reason it has survived and prospered is

because growers, shippers, and processors of Florida citrus have coalesced to create an

organization that has broadened its initiatives to meet the changing needs of its grower

members (Florida Citrus Mutual, 2004).

Summary of history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations

Farm Bureaus were formed in the early 1900s in response to changes in the

agricultural sector. Farm Bureaus provided ways to disseminate research and information

being conducted by universities to farmers in rural areas. After WWII, farmers no longer

had common interests that were represented by organizations such as Farm Bureau.

Instead, organizations began forming that specialized along commodity lines and

represented the more narrow interests of farmers. These commodity groups pursued

more limited policy objectives than a general interest group such as Farm Bureau.

Even with each agricultural industry and commodity having a national

organization and frequently a state organization who represents them, the AFBF

continues to be the nation's largest farm organization with over five million members in

2800 local county Farm Bureaus across the United States and Puerto Rico. The NFU and

the NGOPH are general agricultural organizations who also represent farmers but have

smaller memberships than the AFBF. The Farm Bureau continues to represent the

political interests of its members on the county, state, and national level. The next

section provides information on Farm Bureau as a political interest group.

Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group

Groups do not form spontaneously. In a simple society, there is little need for

interest group formation, even though there are distinct interests in the society.









Economic specialization and social differentiations are crucial to group proliferation.

Technological changes and the interdependence of economic sectors create new interests

and encourage the formation of interest groups (Loomis & Cigler, 1995).

Loomis and Cigler (1995) state that, "central to theories of group proliferation are

the pluralist notions that elements of society possess common needs and share a group

identity or consciousness, and that these are sufficient conditions for the formation of

effective political organizations" (p. 7).

Economist Mancur Olson challenged the pluralist theories and instead proposed

that individuals who share common interests are not inclined to join the organizations

that address their concerns. Individuals choose not to participate and bear the costs of

participation, because they can enjoy the benefits of the organization whether they join or

not, the "free rider" problem. Groups that pursue benefits that accrue to all members of a

segment of society will have difficulty forming and surviving (Olson, 1971).

As an organization, the AFBF has received extensive research and theoretical

treatment by social scientists since the AFBF is an economic lobby, which represents a

large constituency (Hansen, 1995). There are several controversies that exist regarding

membership in political interest groups especially in the AFBF. The core of this

controversy in this area is the importance of selective material benefits in the explanation

of membership. Olson (1971) argued that coercion or the offer of selective material

benefits to potential members would be necessary to induce them to join if the group was

to overcome the "free-ride" tendency. The free-rider problem is especially problematic

for large organizations as the larger the group, the less likely an individual will believe

their contribution as having any impact on group success (Loomis & Cigler, 1995).









Other political scientists and economists (such as Salisbury (1969), Moe (1980),

and Hansen (1985) believe that nonmaterial selective benefits and other factors

(perceptions and efficacy) explain membership in political interest groups (Brown, 1989).

The key to group formation and survival is the presence of selective benefits. These

benefits are offered to only members of the group and can include: discounts,

publications, and cheap insurance. The AFBF offers inexpensive insurance, which is a

major inducement to join, even if an individual does not agree with the Farm Bureau's

goals (Loomis & Cigler, 1995). The following services have been supplied as selective

material benefits to Farm Bureau members: (1) wide variety of insurance programs, (2)

regional and state purchasing cooperatives, (3) cooperative marketing programs, and (4)

discounts on consumer goods (Brown, 1989).

Another area of controversy is the impact of economic conditions on political

interest group membership. Truman's theory suggests that during hard economic times

individuals will join organizations that work for improvement of their economic

conditions. Truman theorized that two interrelated processes lead to group formation,

societal change and disturbances. As society evolves and becomes more complex, new

interest groups will emerge. Individuals are affected by "disturbances" which drive them

to then support group endeavors. Examples of this can be found in the history of the

formation of the major farm groups in the United States, such as the NGOPH, the

Farmers Alliance, the AFBF, and the NFU which all emerged between 1867 and 1900.

They were formed from an increased interaction of farmers in response to disturbances of

their accustomed behavior. These disturbances included: technological change,









westward expansion, growth of corporate power, industrialization, and low commodity

prices (Nownes & Neeley, 1996).

Robert Salisbury theorizes that group survival depends upon an exchange of

benefits that is mutually advantageous between the organization and the members

(Nownes & Neeley, 1996). Salisbury's view is that people join political interest groups

during periods of prosperity when the cost of dues is relatively painless, and that when

times get rougher membership in organizations is one of the first cost-cutting measures in

which people engage (Brown, 1989).

Hansen (1985) theorized that people in different contexts have different resources

and preferences, which indicates that they have different subjective weightings of the

benefits and costs of participating in a group. When resources such as time and income

are ample, people can easily bear the costs of participation. When people have particular

needs and preferences, they are attracted to certain benefits. When people have different

attitudes toward risk, they are more or less willing to engage in actions whose success is

uncertain.

An individual will join an interest group if the subjective costs incurred by joining

are less than the subjective benefits received from membership. As the information,

resources, preferences, and risk attitudes change in making the assessments to join, the

attractiveness of group affiliation changes too (Hansen, 1995).

Individuals are more easily mobilized in response to a threat than they are in

response to a prospect. The collective benefits of group membership are increased with

the awareness of threats. The effects of costs and benefits on group membership depend








on what is known about them, whether or not the benefits are wanted, and whether or not

the costs can be afforded (Hansen, 1995).

Brown (1989) tested several of the most prominent interest group theories by

examining membership in five state affiliates of the AFBF, but offered no concrete

conclusions except for the need of additional research on why people join interest groups

and what factors determine the membership levels.

Summary of Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group

The AFBF has received extensive research and theoretical treatments by social

scientists, as it is an economic lobby which represents a large constituency. Several

theories by prominent social scientists were introduced in regards to group membership

such as: selective benefits, disturbances, exchange of benefits, and costs of benefits for

belonging to organizations. In addition to being a political interest group, the AFBF is a

grassroots organization which derives its power from its members on the county level. A

discussion of grassroots organizations follows.

Grassroots Organizations

In addition to being a political interest group, the AFBF is also a grassroots

organization. Smith (2000) defines grassroots associations as, "locally based,

significantly autonomous, volunteer-run, formal nonprofit groups that manifest

substantial voluntary altruism as groups and use the associational form of organization

and, thus, have official memberships of volunteers who perform most, and often all, of

the work/activity done in and by these nonprofits" (p. 7). Throughout history and

cultures, people have organized themselves to find solutions to specific problems through

grassroots efforts (Wittig, 1996).








Identifying with Grassroots Organizations

Important to grassroots organizations is developing a sense of identification with

the organization. The development of group cohesion, team building, and increasing

perceived social support may prove effective in enhancing the identification and further

strengthening the favorability of members' attitudes (Hinkle, Fox-Cardamone, Haseleu,

Brown, & Irwin, 1996). The development of a social identity serves to sustain

membership in a grassroots organization. This social identity serves as a motivator for

participating in a group. Individuals strive to maintain their self-esteem by committing to

a group, participating in its activities, identifying with its behaviors, and adopting its

symbols (Pratkanis & Turner, 1996). Bettencourt (1996) states, "grassroots efforts may

succeed if they capitalize on initiating grassroots involvement by helping potential

volunteers to become identified with the grassroots organization and on maintaining

activism by encouraging cohesion and commitment among the members of their group"

(p. 209).

By joining organizations, people are seeking the respect of their peers. They also

want to belong to a group that gives individuals an opportunity where their contributions

can be appreciated (Kaye, 2001). People join grassroots organizations because they want

to be recognized for their leadership to serve members of their organizations and by

members of other groups for their contribution to the effort to build a better quality of life

(Kaye, 2001). Monetary funds, time, capacity, and skills of grassroots members, in

addition to leadership, are resources that contribute to the success of grassroots

organizations. They are necessary for the effectiveness and continued operation of

grassroots efforts (Bettencourt, 1996).









Leadership in Grassroots Organizations

To be successful, grassroots groups need to encourage the development of

effective communication skills among their members. When working toward a goal,

good communication among members is necessary to accomplish the planned action

steps to get to the goal. The extent to which grassroots members and leaders utilize open

communication will be reflected in the group's ability to resolve disagreements as well as

reduce conflict, resentment, and member dropout (Bettencourt, Dillman & Wollman,

1996).

Leaders of grassroots organizations need to be aware that volunteers differ in the

rewards they value and that these values change over time. Grassroots organizations

need to offer volunteers a variety of rewarding and challenging tasks to sustain their

efforts (Bettencourt et al., 1996). Brant (1995) states that, "one's personal values play an

important role in propelling one toward grassroots action" (p. 185).

A lack of leadership in grassroots organizations may have dire consequences on

the success of the group and the attempt to achieve change. To reduce chances of failure,

grassroots organizations need to foster the leadership skills of their members

(Bettencourt, 1996).

Negative factors that affect volunteer motivations are stress, burnout, and

expenditures of time. "Although a certain amount of time investment from volunteers is

necessary, grassroots organizations should be ever mindful to encourage volunteers to

give only as much as they can afford and to avoid spreading themselves too thin with

commitments" (Bettencourt et al., 1996, p. 173).








Grassroots organizations have less of a problem finding people that support their

cause and more of a problem motivating people to act on their convictions (Hinkle et al.,

1996). Bettencourt et al. (1996) reasoned,

The success of a grassroots group is attributable, in part, to the coordination and
motivation of group members. The extent to which a grassroots organization
encourages members to identify with the group may be important for sustained
success. Group identity should facilitate coordination and motivation within the
group. (p. 170)

There are different types of motivations, which may inspire individuals to work

for grassroots organizations. One may be whether the fruits of the grassroots effort will

directly or indirectly affect members of the group (Bettencourt, 1996).

Summary of grassroots organizations

Farm Bureau is a grassroots organization. Grassroots organizations are

organizations in which people create and join to find solutions to specific problems that

affect them. Membership in these organizations is sustained by a common social identity

with the organization and its' members. Individuals are motivated to join these

organizations for many reasons, such as respect from their peers, benefits the

organization provides, solutions to problems that affect them, and the satisfaction of

working with others with similar problems to reach a common goal.

Motivations of Volunteers

According to Scott (2000):

There are more than one million not-for-profit organizations in the U.S. with
100,000 more created each year. This sector depends on volunteers to help
provide programs and services and financial support. Ninety-three million
people, almost half of the population volunteers an average of 4.2 hours a week.
(p. 3)








With every other adult already volunteering, the overall number is unlikely to

grow. If non-profit organizations want to add to their activities they are already engaged

in, or attract volunteers from other organizations, they have to make their volunteers

more productive, which means giving them more work to do and additional responsibility

(Drucker, 2001).

A majority of volunteer work is completed in associations or organizations. In

1995, 71% of the adults in the United States were members of associations, not including

memberships to churches and synagogues. In 1991, 53% of the population participated

in active unpaid volunteer work for non-profit organizations and associations (Smith,

2000). In 1998, survey results showed the highest rate of volunteer participation at 55%,

while the number of hours volunteered per week fell to 3.5 hours. Though there are

increasing numbers of people volunteering, fewer hours are being contributed by those

volunteers, which greatly increase the risk of volunteer burnout (Safrit & Merrill, 2002).

Inherited in the legacy in America is volunteering on behalf of the common good.

People are identifiers of needs, issues, and problems and expect to participate in the

decision making on how to respond to these. Voluntary activities range from short-term

events, which have a time limit, to longer-term commitments of service such as serving

on a board. The choice to sit on an organization's board is an important decision (Scott,

2000). Safrit & Merrill (2002) stated that:

The concept ofvolunteerism in North American society has evolved. What
historically began as individualized, altruistic behaviors founded upon strong
religious tenets has evolved into a contemporary social movement driven by a
wide range of individual motivations, and organizational and governmental
incentives. (p. 12)









Penner (2002) defines volunteerism "as long-term, planned, prosocial behaviors

that benefit strangers and occur within an organizational setting. Based on this definition,

volunteerism has four salient attributes: longevity, planfulness, nonobligatory helping,

and an organizational context" (p. 448). Longevity indicates a long-term behavior rather

than a one-time occurrence. Planfulness means that volunteering is typically a planned

action. Nonobligatory helping is the notion that the volunteer is not motivated by a sense

of personal obligation to a particular person (Penner, 2002).

Drucker (2001) described the motivations of volunteers as follows:

Volunteers have to get more satisfaction from their work than paid employees,
precisely because they do not get a paycheck. They need, above all, challenge.
They need to know the organization's mission and to believe in it. They need
continual training. They need to see results. (p. 80)

Motivation depends on being effective and being able to achieve something. If

effectiveness is lacking, the commitment to work and to contribute to the organization

will soon vanish and it will then be just going through the motions (Drucker, 2001).

Motivation Theories

The theoretical rationale on the roles of motives comes from Snyder's (1993)

functional approach to prosocial behaviors which are based on the notion that much of

human behavior is motivated by specific goals or needs. To fully understand why a

person is engaging in a behavior, the purpose or need served by that behavior needs to be

identified. The fundamental concerns of motivational inquiry is understanding the

processes that move people to action and the processes that initiate, direct and sustain

action. Clary et al. (1998) describe the functional perspective of volunteering as

encouraging the consideration of the wide range of personal and social motivations that

promote sustained behavior. This perspective advances an interactionist position, as it








argues that consequences follow from matching the motivations of individuals to the

opportunities in their environments.

From a functional perspective, people are recruited to volunteer by appealing to

their own psychological functions, and they will be satisfied to the extent they engage in

volunteer work that serves these psychological functions, and they will continue to serve

to the extent that their psychological functions are being served (Clary et al., 1998).

Omoto and Snyder (2002) developed a conceptual model of the volunteer process

which explains volunteering on various levels. At the individual level, the model focuses

on activities and the psychological processes of the individuals which include:

expressing their personal values, satisfying their need to help others, community concern,

personal development, and to fulfill esteem enhancement needs. At the intrapersonal

level, the dynamics of helping relationships between the volunteers and the recipients of

their help are incorporated. At the organizational level, the focus is now on the goals

associated with the recruitment, management, and retainment of volunteers. At the

societal level, the model takes into consideration the linkages between individuals and the

social structures of their society.

Cavalier (2000) proposes a triarchic theory of motivation, which proposes that

motivation is comprised of three autonomous motivational systems: the formative

system, the operational system, and the thematic system. The formative system includes

the development forces that move individuals in a certain direction. These forces include:

one's genetic makeup, learned behaviors, beliefs, values, social norms and attitudes, and

conflicts. The operational system includes the assessments where there is a sense of









integration, choosing, decision-making and evaluation. The thematic system finds its

roots in: 1) ego gratification, 2) self-actuation and 3) altruism (Cavalier, 2000).

Self-actuation is the motivation of individuals to seek ways to fully express their

interest, talents and potentials as human beings. The people who are characterized by

these motives may have talents or power over others by the virtue of their knowledge or

talents. Altruism is the principal motivational theme for people who seek opportunities to

help others (Cavalier, 2000). In rough terms, altruism is defined as an internal concept

that refers to the tendency or disposition of an entity to help others (Smith, 2000).

Penner (2002) used data from 1100 individuals who responded to a survey in the

USA Weekend, a Sunday supplement magazine carried in 560 newspapers, which

contained an article on altruism and invited readers to respond to an online poll about

their prosocial behaviors. This behavior is defined as an individual's empathy and

feelings of concern and responsibility for the welfare of others. Results from this study

showed that age was significantly and positively associated with the number of

organizations and length of time spent working for an organization.

Motivation Sources

Another instrument used to measure motivation sources was developed by

Barbuto and Scholl (1998), the motivation sources inventory has been used to predict

leadership influence tactics, transformational leadership behaviors and follower

compliance using sources of motivation which include: intrinsic, instrumental, external

and internal self-concept. It has shown to be reliable and valid in reported studies and

captures the sources of motivation.









Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite and Wheeler (2001) describe intrinsic process

motivation as when a person is motivated to perform certain kinds of work or to engage

in certain types of behavior for the fun of it. The work acts as an incentive and it is

derived from immediate internal gratification. Deci and Ryan (1995) describe intrinsic

motivation as the innate, organismic needs for self-determination and competence.

Instrumental motivation is when individuals perceive their behavior will lead to pay,

promotions, bonuses, or other extrinsic tangible outcomes (Barbuto et al., 2001).

Self-concept-external motivation is based on an individual who is primarily other-

directed and seeking affirmation of traits, competencies, and values. The individual

behaves to satisfy reference group members to gain acceptance and then status (Barbuto

et al., 2001). Deci and Ryan (1995) describe this type of motivation as extrinsic

motivation, the behavior where the reason for doing it is something other than an interest

in the activity itself. It may be due to something a person feels pressured to do.

Self-concept-internal motivation is internally based. The individual sets internal

standards that become the basis for the ideal self and is motivated to engage in behaviors

that reinforce these standards (Barbuto et al., 2001). Internal motivations also are

motivations for cooperation that flow from individuals' values and attitudes and shape

their behavior (Tyler, 2002).

Loyalty or commitment to the group or organization can also be a motivation of

volunteering as people in groups come to identify with those groups (Tyler, 2002). Tyler

(2002) describes social identity theory as one that individuals in groups identify with

those groups and merge their sense of identity with the groups and when people identify

with groups they put the welfare of the group above their own.









When there is no identification with a group, if an individual believes that the

organization does not represent their interests or if an individual is content, they may

become apathetic and do not feel the need to participate. There is a connection between

contentment and apathy as a content person may become lulled into apathy over time

after deciding that withdrawing from an activity will not seriously jeopardize his or her

future wants or needs, and thereby future contentment (DeLuca, 1995).

Leaders play an important role in creating and sustaining a group with which

individuals can become loyal and committed to. The feeling of group identification

encourages cooperation on behalf of the group because people merge their sense of

themselves with the group. The important role of attitudes and values in stimulating

cooperation suggests the importance of creating a supportive culture or value climate

within a group. "Leaders need to stimulate intrinsic interest in group roles, identification

with the group, and the development of moral values and feelings that group authorities

are legitimate" (Tyler, 2002, p. 779).

The objective of a study done by Martinez and McMullin (2004) was to better

understand the motivations and characteristics of individuals who participate in volunteer

activities in comparison to those who do not. Results found that active members

belonged to organizations almost twice as long as non-active members. Both groups had

similar competing commitments on their time. Active members witnessed the effects of

their efforts, witnessed organizational success and achieved a level of personal

accomplishment; they believed they could make a difference. For those that were not

active, the potential benefits and outcomes may have been important but unknown. This

study, a longitudinal analysis, was conducted on the characteristics of membership of









voluntary organizations, "these characteristics are: (a) memberships over time are

relatively stable, (b) most individuals will add and drop memberships in organizations

over time but maintain at least one continuous membership, and (c) the occurrence of

affiliation changes influence the structure and function of association" (Martinez &

McMullin, 2004, p. 114).

Influences on Volunteers

Penner (2002) identified the organizational variables that are likely to influence a

volunteer's behavior, they are: "(1) an individual member's perceptions of and feelings

about the way he or she is treated by the organization and (2) the organization's

reputation and personnel practices" (p. 458). In a study done by DeChant (2001),

research showed that a person may be committed to an organization but the level of

commitment cannot serve as a measure for the amount of volunteer hours they will

actually perform. Volunteering in an organization provides opportunities to build

stronger ties and commitment to the organization. For those that are not active

participants, believing that they could not contribute effectively to the organization's

activities may be the reason why they do not actively participate (Martinez & McMullin,

2004).

Eisinger (2002) states "attracting future leaders is as much about knowing what

you want as it is about knowing what members are hoping to gain, that's another

challenge inherent to attracting and engaging volunteer leaders" (p.3). Organizations

who are interested in recruiting new volunteers would benefit by identifying the things

that would motivate a certain target group to volunteer and then highlight those motives

in their recruiting appeals directed at this target group. If an organization has difficulties









retaining volunteers, the problem is sometimes not a shortage of people who want to

volunteer it is the attrition rate of people who are in the early stages of tenure in the

organization (Penner, 2002). Why do individuals volunteer for organizations? Clary et

al. (1998) state simply that:

Volunteers (a) often actively seek out opportunities to help others; (b) may
deliberate for considerable amounts of time about whether to volunteer, the extent
of their involvement, and the degree to which particular activities fit with their
own personal needs; and (c) may make a commitment to an ongoing helping
relationships that may extend over a considerable period of time and that may
entail considerable personal costs of time, energy, and opportunity. (p. 1517)

Martinez and McMullin (2004) state "volunteer roles may appeal to people with

certain lifestyles based on (a) ones' position in a job; (b) whether one is employed full-

time, part-time is retired, or is a home maker, (c) age and (d) the expectations and

associated responsibilities of the role(s) one would fill" (p. 114). The success of the

volunteer experience is largely determined by whether the volunteer experience meets the

person's expectations. The more that is known about those expectations, the more effort

can be made to ensure the volunteer remains motivated (Eisinger, 2002).

Individuals are more attracted to organizations that have a good reputation for

management that effectively used the talents of the volunteers. Poor management of

volunteers is frequently the reason that people discontinue their volunteer service. In

addition to effective volunteer management, organizations who utilize volunteers should

have individuals volunteering who represent the membership that they are working for.

There is increasing pressure for organizations to reflect a broader cross-section of the

societies which they represent (Safrit & Merrill, 2002).









Constraints on Volunteering

Martinez and McMullin (2004) state that in order to understand why people

become active volunteers, it is important to consider why people do not volunteer.

"Three reasons for nonparticipation have been identified: (a) individuals lacked the

capacity to volunteer, (b) individuals lacked motivation, or (c) individuals had not been

asked" (p. 113). This implied that both access to resources and capacity to take part

along with motivation, are necessary for members to become active.

The generations of individuals who compose the volunteer segment of the

population are facing different issues and pressures. Individuals who belong to the "baby

boomer" generation are facing pressures of the needs of their children and their aging

parents. Those individuals who were born between 1960 and 1980, the members of

Generation X, are inwardly focused and less inclined to be involved. They are facing

personal and professional pressures as they build their careers and families. Life

pressures, particularly those of time and family are limiting the availability of traditional

volunteers (Safrit & Merrill, 2002).

Organizations need to find ways to structure volunteer work, which will allow

people increased flexibility to move in and out of volunteering as work and family

pressures affect their lives. Turnover rate is influenced by the importance and structure

of an organization, as well as age, family status, work, family stage, and life stage

(Martinez & McMullin, 2004). As Eisinger (2002) states:

The needs of today's time-crunched members, such as shorter-term commitments,
may require associations to examine their traditional notions of volunteer service
and how to attract those members to leadership positions. In addition, identifying
and developing future volunteer leaders requires a commitment from the highest
levels of the organization. (p. 5)








Organizations need to pay more attention to personal and professional

development opportunities for volunteers that will increase their effectiveness while

maintaining personal interest (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). Volunteers who are active must

have certain abilities. Volunteers must develop the personal capacities to make critical

decisions regarding their actions on behalf of the organization as they need to learn "how

to think" rather than just "what to think" (Safrit & Jones, 2003). Volunteers demand

training from their organizations. They want responsibility and expect to participate in

making decisions that affect their work and the work of the organization as a whole.

Volunteers also expect the organization to remove non-performers who are hindering the

effectiveness of the organization (Drucker, 2001). Traditionally, training programs for

volunteers have focused on specific subject matter, organizational, or interpersonal skills.

They must also include components that challenge volunteers to develop important

thinking and processing skills (Safrit & Jones, 2003).

There are several variables that determine the group's overall effectiveness; how

well resources are utilized (both personnel and resources), how members are motivated to

perform, and how much teamwork and cooperation there is among group members. A

deficiency in any of these variables is likely to reduce group effectiveness. The function

of leadership is maintaining an optimal level for each of these variables (Yukl, 1994).

Current trends in organizational management and leadership are affecting the

decisions that people make in their volunteer activities. Authoritarian management styles

are being replaced by participative decision-making and teamwork and volunteers are

seeking similar management styles in the non-profit organizations they volunteer with.

Volunteers tend now to avoid authoritarian management and large bureaucratic









institutions, and are seeking organizations that treat them professionally and include them

in planning and decision-making phases of work (Safrit & Merrill, 2002).

Further studies have shown that the length of tenure as a volunteer is positively

associated with organizational satisfaction. "Volunteers who are satisfied with their job,

committed to the organization, have positive affect while on the job, and believe they are

being treated fairly should display a higher level of volunteer activity" (Penner, 2002, p.

459). Organizations that can design and manage opportunities for volunteers that allow

individuals to make meaningful contributions in non-traditional time frames are more

likely to attract a more diverse range of volunteers (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). The next

section will address organizational leadership and how it affects the productivity of a

group or organization.

Summary of motivations of volunteers

Approximately half of the adult population in the United States volunteers a

portion of their time to organizations. Individuals are identifiers of needs, issues, and

problems and participate in the decision making on how to respond to these factors.

There are many reasons why individuals volunteer and organizations need to understand

what motivates individuals to volunteer and make the volunteer experience positive and

meaningful to their volunteers. The organization needs to provide group identification

for their volunteers so they can relate to the organization and the organization needs to

provide volunteer experiences that fit with the individual's lifestyle as factors such as

gender, children, and life status affect the time an individual can devote to an

organization.









Organizational Leadership

An understanding of what the attraction is to serve and lead an organization, of

what motivates individuals to become members of the board, of what causes those

individuals to care deeply about the future of the organization, and of what helps

individuals remain active and committed is vitally important knowledge to an

organization (Scott, 2000).

Maxwell (1995) states "grow a leader-grow the organization" (p.4). An

organization's strength is a direct result of the strength of the leaders of the organization.

Organizational leaders must be active in their organization, generate productive activity

and must encourage and command changes in the organization (Maxwell, 1995). The

survival of institutions depends on the capacity of "leaders to develop and maintain

organizational cultures that foster and sustain autonomy and independence while

strengthening the ability of individuals to care for and commit to the organization and the

larger community" (Scott, 2000, p. 13).

Organizational leaders will need to be able to read the larger environment at

various levels and know which level to focus attention on so their organization can

negotiate change successfully. Not-for-profit organizations need leaders who can engage

in the process of "systems thinking." This is leadership that can understand the bigger

picture without being pulled into tunnel vision or allow quick fixes of problems (Scott,

2000).

Organizational Theories

The process of "systems thinking" can be better understood by understanding the

different components or perspectives of an organization. Bolman and Deal (1997) have









condensed the major schools of organizational thought into four perspectives or frames.

The frames are structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Effective leaders

understand their own strengths and work to expand them and build their teams or groups

that can provide leadership in all four frames.

The structural frame emphasizes the organizations' goals, roles and relationships.

Problems in organizations occur when the structure does not fit the situation. The

challenge is to tailor the organization to the people who work within it. Organizations

need to find a way for individuals to get the job done, while feeling good about what they

are doing (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

The human resource frame believes that organizations can be productive,

energizing and mutually rewarding. This perspective regards the skills, attitudes, energy

and commitment of individuals as vital resources of either making or breaking the

enterprise. When the fit between the organization and individual is poor, one or both

suffer. Organizations may become ineffective because individuals withdraw their efforts

and individuals may feel neglected or feel their abilities are needed or wanted. When the

fit is good, individuals find meaningful and satisfying work and organizations get the

talent and energy they need to succeed (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

The political frame asserts that in the face of differences and scarce resources,

conflict is unavoidable and power is a key resource, the assumptions of this frame find

the sources of political dynamics in organizations. The symbolic frame sees

organizations as cultures, which are propelled by rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes and

myths rather than by rules, policies, and managerial authority (Bolman & Deal, 1997).









Duke (1998) stated that individuals are seen to occupy roles which represent sets

of expectations and these roles are a function of social context and individual

understanding. An assumption about human nature supports this "role theory" is that

humans are capable of self-reflection and evaluation. Inquiry in sociological research

must focus on understanding how people define situations, determine what is expected of

them, and select courses of action. Role expectations become an important source of

information for the study of organizations.

Organizing is as much a bottom-up philosophy and process as a method to win

victories on specific issues as people are encouraged to take direct action on their own

issues, not encouraged to look to others to act on their behalf The greatest organizational

mileage occurs when a group of members are directly involved in winning a victory. The

lesson is that "we won because we are organized, there is strength in numbers." Such

strategies build a sense of ownership and control, empowering people through the process

of organizing as well as through benefits achieved (Staples, 1984).

Membership in Organizations

The growth of an organization depends on retaining members and recruiting new

ones. Success depends on a combination of things: a shared organizational vision, an

effective group process and a strong capacity for leadership development. The long-

range vision of an organization is key to keeping and attracting new members. There

needs to be a sense of community and the challenge of higher goals. More people will

stay active in an organization if they feel they are taking part in something important and

exciting. Some membership attrition is inevitable as people's lives, actions, and

responsibilities change over time. "Only by attracting and involving new people can the









organization renew and regenerate itself in the face of the natural tendency for people to

lose interest, drop out, or become less active" (Staples, 1984, p. 122). The "apathy" of

the organization's members is usually blamed for declines in organizational membership.

Most individuals are attracted to an organization because of the prospects of being

victorious on an issue they have a stake in. Membership involvement is needed to win

through collective action, which also helps to build an organization. Members do their

part by participating, and hopefully there is a concrete benefit produced by the

organization. When the issue is over, most members go back home, even though they are

still members of the organization. If the experience was satisfying, they will likely

participate again if it's in their self-interests to do so (Staples, 1984). Effective collective

action depends on the active involvement of self-motivated participants. The

commitment of organizational participants-to each other and to the organization-

becomes a critical and a necessary mechanism for directing their behavior toward

collective goal accomplishment (Robertson & Tang, 1995).

Roberson and Tang (1995) defined commitment as "a psychological attachment

felt by the person for the organization" (p.68). The dominant orientation in

organizational behavior literature focuses on commitment as an individual's attitude

regarding their relationship to the organization. The role of commitment in collective

action receives attention from two literature bases, the field of organizational behavior

and rational choice literature. The organizational behavior literature focuses on factors

that influence the quality of individuals' involvement and performance in the

organization. A primary focus has been individuals' work attitudes and the individual

and organizational characteristics that shape these attitudes (Robertson & Tang, 1995).









The rational choice literature focuses on how an individual's choice of behavior

depends on the way they perceive and weigh the expected costs and benefits of

alternative courses of action. The extent to which participants perceive each other to be

credibly committed to the cooperative arrangement is important, rather than the level of

individuals' commitment to the organization as an entity (Robertson & Tang, 1995).

Both organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives share the common

belief that commitment is an important factor affecting collective action systems.

Implicit in both is the notion that individuals with higher levels of commitment are more

likely to engage in behaviors oriented toward the good of the collective. Commitment

can motivate individuals to act cooperatively in pursuit of shared collective ends

(Robertson & Tang, 1995).

The two perspectives differ in how they conceptualize the role of the mechanisms

in building commitment in collective action. Robertson and Tang (1995) describe these

two perspectives:

The organizational behavior literature emphasizes the role informal social
mechanisms play in shaping individuals' cognition and values. The focus is on
how participants internalize norms and values, and thus increase their personal
commitment to social and organizational life. The rational choice perspective, on
the other hand, views informal social mechanisms as a means of enhancing
credible commitment and mutually beneficial gains among individuals. The focus
is on how participants develop trust among themselves and pursue long-term
mutual benefits. (p. 70)

Leadership in Organizations

Staples (1984) states, "the person who acts alone has very little power. When

people join together and organize, they increase their ability to get things done. The goal

is to strengthen their collective capacities to bring about social change" (p. 1).

"Organizations with the broadest base of participation usually develop the best leaders









and, in turn, those leaders help increase membership involvement. Existing leaders and

organizers have the responsibility for expanding the leadership core and motivating,

teaching, and supporting the new people who emerge" (Staples, 1984, p. 129). An

organization's choice not to innovate or change with the times is the largest reason for its

decline. Organizational performance is measured by its development of its people, its

standing, innovation, and its productivity. Changes in population structure and

population dynamics are important trends to watch in the future of organizations, as these

trends will be the cause of an organization to evolve. The populations that comprise the

memberships of organizations are changing and no longer remain as constant as they

once did (Drucker, 2001).

A successful nonprofit organization focuses the organization on action by

defining the strategies needed to accomplish the important goals of the organization. The

most effective nonprofits devote much time on defining the mission of the organization.

They focus objectives that have clear implications for the work of their members, both

their staff and their volunteers (Drucker, 2001).

Northouse (1997) defines leadership as, "a process whereby an individual

influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). At the core of

leadership are the ideas that leadership is a process, it involves influence, it occurs within

a group and it involves the attainment of a goal by the group (Northouse, 1997).

An important impediment to achieving leadership effectiveness is a lack of leadership

skill. Skill is needed because the role of the leader is both complex and simple. Simple,

because effectively functioning groups have a natural synergy that gives them momentum

and complex because the relationships with group members are dynamic and constantly









changing, depending on the situation, goals, and the environment (Hersey, Blanchard &

Johnson, 1996).

One of the fastest ways to build leaders in an organization is to train them. The

most effective training takes advantage of the way people learn, from research it is

known that individuals remember 10% of what they hear, 50% of what we see, 70% of

what we say, and 90% of what we hear, see, say, and do (Maxwell, 1995). Leadership

development programs that aid in the assurance of an adequate supply of effective leaders

are a vital and continuing need in communities and organizations across the United States

(Rohs & Langone, 1993). Leadership development builds the capacity of local leaders

and citizens. This means enhancing the potential of individuals to solve problems. It is

done by engaging citizens and organizations to identify needs, resources, and

opportunities (Hustedde & Woodward, 1996).

A major responsibility of an organization is to cultivate leadership skills and pass

on that knowledge to the next generation of leaders. Because of retirement, many

organizations are facing a high turnover rate, which means that the leaders of tomorrow

could look, and think a lot differently, about their commitment and role within the

organization (Eisinger, 2002). Eisinger (2002) continues by stating, "once associations

identify future volunteer leaders, they must offer specific training programs" (p.14).

Much of this training needs to be directed towards those volunteers who are serving on

organizational boards as they sometimes lack the necessary skills to be effective board

members.

Many non-profits have a functioning board. Those that serve on the boards have

a personal commitment to the organization's cause. Most board members should have a









deep knowledge and understanding about the organization. The key to making the board

effective is organizing the work of the board (Drucker, 2001).

The board of an organization should reflect the makeup of the membership, which

includes people of different backgrounds, ethnicities, ages, and interest. If the board has

been homogeneous in the past, it needs to broaden its horizons and welcome new ideas

that emerge from interactions among different groups (Eisinger, 2002).

Tweeten (2002) states, "dynamic, visionary boards are absolutely critical to the

future of nonprofit, service delivery organizations" (p. 1). Twenty-first century boards

are facing inevitable changes as a result of dramatic and continuing societal changes.

These changes include, the way people learn, they way they view authority, philanthropy,

and non-profit organizations, and they way they live, work, and play with emphasis on

self-development, independence, flexibility, rapidly moving technology, and family

(Tweeten, 2002).

In the past, some boards with weak board members may have been able to operate

inefficiently and still get by, but this will not be possible as organizations face the

transformation process that is inevitable if they are to be successful. Boards can no

longer afford to be dysfunctional. There is a dangerous tendency for some boards to be

so attached to their past that they overvalue their history and are reluctant to embrace the

necessary change that will make them effective (Tweeten, 2002).

Organizational Changes for the Future

There are several ways organizations will have to change to remain viable and

effective in the future. Organizations need to realize that there are other ways for the

meaningful involvement of people in their organizations other than on their boards.









Boards will need to be more resourceful and their membership more diverse to accurately

reflect the population they represent. Board members will have to be team players, with

the ability to work effectively in a group. Board members will need to make intense

commitments to their board responsibilities. This commitment may result in board

members cycling in and out appropriately, depending on their available time to be fully

engaged as they serve on the board. Commitments may be shorter but more concentrated

(Tweeten, 2002).

A study by Bright (2001) on the commitment of board members suggested that

individuals believe that commitment among board members is essential to the effective

functioning of boards. When board members served primarily because they had an

emotional attachment to the organization, the board experienced higher performance,

though passions and personal experiences individuals bring to the cause often obscure

objective thinking and may thwart the success of the organization. Research has

suggested that ideal board members are personally affected by the problems) the

organization focuses on. It has also shown that board members who care, but have some

distance from the issue are best because they are able to make difficult decisions for the

good of the organization as a whole, based on facts, not emotions (Bright, 2001).

Whether volunteering on an organizational board or for the organization in

general, it is important that the group has common goals. Hersey et al. (1996) state

"research has consistently shown that group productivity is highest in those groups in

which techniques are used that simultaneously further the attainment of group goals and

bring fulfillment of the needs of individual group members" (p. 363).









The goals of an organization help shape the organizational leaders as do the

context, norms and values of the organization and determine the effectiveness of a group.

Two conditions that face all organizations and their leaders are external adoption and

internal integration. External adaptation is the idea that all organizations fit a context; the

survival of the organization is contingent on the organization's ability to address the

needs and expectations of its environment. Internal integration is the assurance that all

members of the organization value and pursue the goals of the organization (Duke, 1998).

Effective groups are those in which the needs of the group are harmonious with

the needs of the individuals. Individual needs may be different for each group member.

The key to individual needs satisfaction is that those needs are dependent upon the

accomplishment of the group goals. The degree to which individual need satisfaction is

achieved differentiates those effective groups from ineffective ones (Hersey et al., 1996).

The shifting demographic trends may make it necessary for organizations to

modify their approach to volunteerism and how leadership opportunities are structured.

Differing leadership styles need to be considered. Keeping the interest levels high in

volunteers is not achieved by increasing their responsibilities, instead, they need to feel

like the have ownership in the association (Eisinger, 2002).

Those who volunteer are less interested in serving in long-term commitments and

in a designated role for the entire year, and are more willing to work on one project and

see it through to completion. Organizations are learning that the more you give board

members to do, the more they tend not to return (Eisinger, 2002). Washbush (1998)

states, "personal motivation, self-assessment, diagnostic skills coupled with vision, and








the ability to communicate are fundamentally important to one who aspires to have an

impact in the organization" (p. 251).

Sorcher and Brant (2002) state, "homogenous groups often run more smoothly,

but they lack the synergistic power of a diverse team of people with talents, skills, and

characteristics that complement one another" (p. 80). Exceptional leaders are willing to

take risks by picking people who are not like them and who may have different

leadership styles.

There are several trends that need to be addressed by nonprofit boards: (1)

limited availability of board members, (2) lack of preparation of board members, (3) lack

of recruitment strategies, (4) board members who are on too many boards, and (5) board

members who do not understand their roles (Tweeten, 2002). Many organizations do not

have procedures in place to identify or recruit potential leaders. Potential leaders are

sometimes assessed based on hearsay, observations, and insufficient information. The

process of identifying these future leaders is not simple or straightforward as leadership is

a complex, multifaceted capability (Sorcher & Brant, 2002).

Organizations need to consider these trends as many organizations are struggling

with a shortage in leadership, though in these organizations, there may be a lot of

leadership talent that goes unused. Leaders tend to favor other potential leaders with

backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics that are similar to their own. Often

promising potential leaders are overlooked because of differences in gender, race, or

cultural, academic, socioeconomic, or geographical background (Sorcher & Brant, 2002).

Leaders are managers of group dynamics. They are a key component to the

effectiveness of any group. Effective leaders will recognize the variations among









individual members in their abilities and willingness to do a job and assign work roles

accordingly. Effective leaders are sensitive to the natural cycle of commitment to long-

term projects and provide the necessary support to sustain commitment over prolonged

periods (Garkovich, 1984).

"If we assume that leaders are made, not born, and that most people have within

them the basic skills and abilities to assume leadership positions, then one strategy for

local capacity building is to promote the emergence of such individuals" (Garkovich,

1984, p. 209). This can be done through organized leadership development programs.

A climate needs to be generated in an organization where the members feel that

they are heard, supported, and have a sense that the organization is open to new ideas.

This generates interest and encourages the members to stay involved (Eisinger, 2002).

Organizations need to retain its volunteers to remain effective and viable into the future.

Effective leadership combines both altruism and authority. It is respectful of the

need for individual interests and also considerate of the common good (Scott, 2000).

Scott (2000) defines altruism as "caring for the welfare of others; it is the ability to be

concerned about the condition or state of being of another human and to acknowledge

and meet the needs of the other" (p. 23). Authority is the degree of power exercised by

an individual, organization, or group in order to perform important functions to those

over which the authority is exercised. These concepts build into the ideas of social

capital and civic engagement, which will be examined in the next section.

Summary of organizational leadership

The strength of an organization is a direct result of the organization's leadership.

The growth of an organization depends on retaining members and recruiting new ones.








Individuals will continue to be involved in an organization if they feel they are

participating in something important and exciting. Individuals are attracted to

organizations because of the prospects of being victorious on an issue they have a stake

in. An organization has the responsibility to provide leadership development

opportunities to individuals to further develop their leadership skills.

Social Capital

Social capital is a collective concept that has its basis in individual behavior,

attitudes, and predispositions. Multiple institutions nurture the habits and values that give

rise to social capital, including community and other voluntary associations, families,

church organizations, and cultural patterns. Scholarly interest in the development of

social capital is motivated primarily by the linkage between levels of social capital and

collective outcomes (Brehm & Rahn, 1997, p. 999).

The more citizens participate in organizations and their communities, the more

they learn to trust others; the greater the trust of others, and the more likely they are to

participate. Social capital is the reciprocal relationship between civic participation and

interpersonal trust. Brehm and Rahn (1997) believe that, "civic engagement and

generalized trust, and the dynamic that sustains them, have important consequences for

the polity, specifically, citizens' confidence in political institutions" (p. 1003).

According to Garkovich (1984), associations and organizations, "provide the locus in

which individual interests are articulated and translated into action goals, and humans and

other resources are mobilized for goal accomplishment" (p. 199).

Scheufele and Shah (2000) propose that the process through which social capital

is maintained is a three-way relationship among civic engagement (group memberships








and civic participation), life satisfaction (contentment with respect to present condition

and future prospects), and interpersonal trust. The theory of social capital presumes that

the more people connect with each other, the more they trust each other. Civic

engagement refers to people's connections with the life of their communities (Scheufele

& Shah, 2000).

In the social field paradigm, social action is the pivotal element. It is in social

action that various individuals and associations come to orient their activities around

overlapping interests (Garkovich, 1984). Christenson and Robinson (1989) discuss social

action as the key component in the social field paradigm. The underlying process of the

social action framework, is one in which associations are linked through common

interests to act together toward mutually defined goals. The process depends on effective

leadership, leadership that can anticipate change, identify action programs, contribute to

informed decisions, stimulate support, attract resources, and manage group behavior.

Leadership involves both the ability to organize and sustain task performance and arouse

or stimulate others to join in the task (Garkovich, 1984; Christenson & Robinson, Jr.,

1989).

An essential characteristic of a properly functioning society is engagement in

civic activities because cooperative actions enable citizens to efficiently pursue common

goals. Self-confident leaders are more trusting in other people, they are satisfied with

their life and their achievements, and they are more likely to engage in various forms of

community activities. A grassroots political movement is a social capital-intensive form

of political participation (Scheufele & Shah, 2000).









The trend in civic engagement, shown by membership records of organizations,

has declined by roughly 25 to 50% over the last three decades. There are many reasons

why social capital has eroded: time pressures, economic hard times, residential mobility,

surbanization, movement of women to the paid work force, disruption of marriage and

family times, the electronic revolution and other technological changes. A social trend

which influences social capital and coincides with the downturn in civic engagement is

the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Since the family is a key form of social

capital, its eclipse is part of the explanation for the reduction in joining and trusting in the

wider community (Scheufele & Shah, 2000).

Married men and women do rank higher on measures of social capital. Men and

women, divorced, separated, and never-married, are significantly less trusting and less

engaged civically than married people. Married men and women are a third more

trusting and belong to about 15 to 25% more groups than comparable single men and

women. Women belong to fewer voluntary organizations then men and older people

belong to more organizations than young people (Scheufele & Shah, 2000).

Social capital is features of life, networks, norms, and trust that enable

participants to act together to more effectively pursue shared objectives (Scheufele &

Shah, 2000). It has been shown that a greater number of social ties increased the

likelihood that a group will be more successful in organizing for concerted action

(O'Brien, Hassinger, Brown & Pinkerton, 1991). Social capital is important when

discussing agricultural organizations as social capital has strong influences in these

organizations.








Summary of Social Capital

Social capital is the reciprocal relationship between civic participation and

interpersonal trust. It presumes that the more people connect with each other, the more

they trust each other. From this theory comes the notion of social action in which

individuals and groups orient their activities around overlapping interest. There has been

a decline in social capital because of time pressures, difficult economic times and

changes in the family structure. This has caused a decline in civic participation.

Agricultural Leadership

When discussing leadership in agricultural organizations, the leaders have

traditionally been male. With recent demographic shifts in the volunteers of

organizations, more women will become a part of these organizations, but to understand

agriculture and agricultural organizations, it is important to look at the past and the

influence that men have had on these organizations.

Family farmers lack the power of individual survival almost by their very nature.

The reason lies in the psychology of the individual farmer, whose concentration on his

own operation tends to distract him from concern for factors that affect farming as a

whole. This has been referred to as family farming's "non-instinct for self-preservation"

(Breimyer & Frederick, 1999).

Men are driven to succeed, with their masculinity tied to career success and the

ability to be the breadwinner and provide for their family. They are likely to be

supportive of Type A behavior, which reveres rationality and tough-mindedness. Men

show that they are in command of the situation and carry out tasks with confidence, even

when those tasks seem insurmountable (Lindsey, 1994).








Weigel (2003) theorizes that growing up male is "often characterized by an

emphasis on independence, competition, emotional restraint, and maintaining the upper

hand in relationships." Beliefs about how men ought to behave are constructed at many

levels in society and in the minds of men. This masculine identity is generated by the

media, teachers, historians, parents, and public figures and dominates how men think

about themselves. Men in any subgroup, such as farmers, tend to share the same cultural

history and have similar notions about behavior. This identity leads to four traditional

attitudes about masculinity: (1) men should not be feminine, (2) men should strive to be

respected for successful achievement, (3) men should never show weakness, and (4) men

should seek adventure and risk (Weigel, 2003). In addition to looking at the psychology

of men, investigating leadership in other agricultural organizations is important in this

review of literature, as it could possibly be a basis for leadership development in other

agricultural organizations.

Kajer (1996) conducted a study with nine agricultural leaders in Minnesota

regarding their leadership experiences. Kajer found that volunteer leaders in agricultural

organizations define their leadership in a range of processes and roles, with the most

important being facilitating group cooperation and decisions. These leaders are

concerned with the struggle to maintain and build memberships, and find and develop

future leaders for agricultural organizations. With state level volunteer positions,

volunteer leadership in agricultural organizations can result in large sacrifices by the

individual in lost time with family and business and unreimbursed expenses in time and

travel. Those who do take leadership positions become energized by the experience and

dedicate much time to the organization during their key leadership position years.









Volunteer leaders believe that their leadership experiences made their lives fuller,

increased their self-esteem and expanded their horizons (Kajer, 1996).

In a study of volunteer leaders in agricultural organizations, the motivations to

serve in leadership roles in agricultural organizations were found to be a concern for

people, the responsibility to support their profession, it's something they believe in, it's

an outlet for their talents, it's a source of enjoyment and satisfaction, it's their duty to use

their talents in service to others, and they believe they owe it to their industry (Kajer,

1996).

In Kajer's study of volunteer leaders (1996), the importance of being asked to

take on a particular leadership role was emphasized. When individuals are asked to

serve, it affirms the confidence of others in their leadership abilities, which also raises

their individual self-confidence and firms their resolve not to let the people down who

asked them. Those that participated in this study felt that the "asking" could be improved

by treating it as a grooming process for leadership rather than a single request.

Respondents to the study of volunteer leaders in agricultural organizations felt

there is little involvement of women in most agricultural organizations as active members

and especially as leaders. There is a great deal of leadership potential being wasted with

the absence of women. Increased involvement of women would increase the pool of

leaders and make available the special talents and interests that women have. The "good

old boys network" continues to be a barrier for women with the stereotyping of women's

roles continued to be reinforced by both genders at the family, community, and

organization levels. A general consensus has been found that the process of breaking









down gender barriers is slower in rural communities and organizations than in society as

a whole (Kajer, 1996).

There are issues that will affect agricultural organizations and their leaders now

and in the future. One set of issues revolves around the trend to larger and fewer farms

and the effect this has on rural communities, agricultural organizations and on

agriculture's influence. Another set of issues are the challenges of technology and

information overload to members in the agricultural community especially those older

members who are not as comfortable working within technology. Leaders will need a

broader perspective on the world in the future and how agriculture fits into this larger

picture (Kajer, 1996).

Summary of Agricultural Leadership

The leaders of agricultural organizations have traditionally been male, but more

women are becoming involved in agricultural organizations and in leadership roles in

these organizations. A study conducted with leaders of agricultural organizations found

that agricultural leaders are concerned with maintaining and building memberships and

finding and developing future leaders for the organization. Changes in agriculture,

technology and demographics are issues that will affect agricultural organizations in the

future.

Summary

This chapter focused on the areas of literature important to this study, which were:

history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations, political interest groups,

grassroots organizations, motivations of volunteers, organizational leadership, social

capital and agricultural leadership.









Farm Bureau is the largest general agricultural organization that represents

farmers throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. It has been representing the needs

of its members for one hundred years through grassroots efforts that begin with members

at the county level. Because of the changes in agriculture and the prominence of

commodity organizations that serve specific segments of the agricultural industry, Farm

Bureau needs to find ways to recruit, retain, and encourage its members to take on

additional leadership roles within the Farm Bureau organization.

An understanding of volunteers and what motivates individuals to join

organizations and assume roles in those organizations is necessary for organizations in

order for those organizations to more effectively utilize their volunteers and make their

efforts productive. Individuals need to identify with the organization and its members

and feel that they are accomplishing organizational objectives. Organizations should

realize that they are competing with other time pressures on an individual and should

consider restructuring volunteer tasks to meet the needs of the volunteer.

Another factor in an individual's likelihood to join and participate in an

organization is the organization itself and the leadership that guides it. Organizations

should develop the leadership within to produce new leaders for tomorrow and to

increase the leadership skills of existing leaders to make their organizations more

effective. One way to do this is to offer leadership development opportunities and

leadership training to individuals in the organization.

Agricultural organizations need to consider the motivations of volunteers and

their organizational leadership as agriculture is facing many changes, such as farm sizes,






65


technology and shifts in demographics. If these organizations do not take measures to

evolve with these changes, they may not remain productive and viable in the future.













CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Chapter 1 provided an introduction and the background of this study of the

leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members, especially

those who serve (or who may serve) on their local county boards. An overview of the

methodology used in this study, delimitations of the study, and definitions of key terms

are outlined in this chapter.

A thorough review of relevant literature was provided in Chapter 2. This

literature focused on areas which included: history of Farm Bureau and agricultural

organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations, volunteer motivations,

organizational leadership, social capital and agricultural leadership.

This chapter explains the methodology and data analysis used in this study. The

objectives that were identified in this study were: (1) identify selected demographics of

county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm

Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which

county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm

Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, (4) determine

leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5)

determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate

in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards.








In this chapter the research design used, the populations who participated in the

study, the procedures used for data collection and the statistics used to analyze the data

are described.

Research Design

The research design of this study was a three-part assessment of the Florida Farm

Bureau and its membership using both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

The three parts of this study included:

1. A qualitative long interview of members of the state leadership of the FFBF. This
interview was the first part of the study and provided the foundation for the
leadership competency instrument given to county Farm Bureau board members.
Interview questions included their expectations of desired leadership practices and
behaviors of local board members and their expectations of what county Farm
Bureau boards should accomplish. The information provided in these interviews
accomplished the second objective of this study.

2. A quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher, based upon
findings from the qualitative interview and given to a random sample of members
of local Farm Bureau boards. This instrument had a list of 66 leadership
competencies, derived from the qualitative long interviews, which were divided into
four sections and each respondent rated their perceived importance and proficiency
of each. This instrument was used to accomplish the third objective of this study.

3. A quantitative leadership behavior instrument developed by the researcher and
administered to active Farm Bureau members. This instrument measured
respondent attitude/will/desire regarding leadership to determine if leadership
apathy exists. Objectives four and five were accomplished by this instrument.

A demographic section was included at the end of both quantitative instruments to

collect personal information about survey respondents. This information was used to

accomplish the first objective of this study.

Quantitative research uses objective measurement and numerical analysis of data

to explain the causes of changes in social phenomena. Qualitative research, seeks to

understand a social phenomenon through the researcher's total immersion in the situation.









Quantitative research seeks to explain, while qualitative research is more concerned with

understanding (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 1996).

Denzin and Lincoln (1994) offer a generic definition of qualitative research as

multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject

matter. Qualitative researchers study subjects in their natural settings, attempting to

make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them. It

involves the studies use and collection of a variety of empirical materials-case study,

personal experience, introspective, life stories, interviews, observational, historical,

interactional, and visual texts that describe routine and problematic moments and

meanings in individuals' lives.

Qualitative research does not have a distinct set of methods that are entirely its

own. Researchers in this field use semiotics, narrative, content, discourse, archival, and

phonemic analysis, and even statistics (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). In reporting

qualitative data, one includes conceptual and theoretical framework, purpose and

questions, research methodologies, findings, and a discussion section (Rudd, 1998).

Qualitative studies seek to answer questions that stress how social experience is created

and given meaning (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).

Ary et al., (1996) state that both qualitative and quantitative research aim at a type

of scientific explanation that includes the discovery of and appeal to laws-laws that

govern the behavior of the physical world and human behavior. Rudd (1998) describes

the attributes of qualitative research as providing a deep understanding of what is being

researched, generating a deeper understanding of the phenomena, and providing another

perspective for research. In qualitative research, researchers seek to interpret human








actions, institutions, events, and customs and in doing so, they construct a "reading" or

portrayal of what is being studied. The ultimate goal is to portray the complex pattern of

what is being studied in sufficient depth and detail so that one who has not experienced it

can understand it (Ary et al., 1996).

Survey research can be classified as quantitative research in which instruments

such as questionnaires are used to gather information from groups of subjects. Surveys

are used to measure attitudes and opinions of respondents and are widely used in the

social sciences (Ary et al., 1996). Regardless of whether a survey is qualitative or

quantitative, it must be reliable (consistent) and valid (accurate) to ensure the accuracy

and truthfulness of the findings.

Ary et al., (1996) describe validity as the extent to which an instrument measures

what it is intended to measure. Reliability is the extent to which a measuring device is

consistent in measuring whatever it measures. Vogt (1999) defines validity as a term

used to describe a measurement instrument or test that accurately measures what it is

suppose to measure. Reliability is defined as the freedom from measurement or random

error. For qualitative data, the measurement instrument is said to be reliable when

repeated measures of the same thing give identical or similar results. This reliability can

be measured for the quantitative data using statistical software packages.

A long interview made up the first phase of the study. Long interviews are a

more formal, orderly interview process that the researcher can direct to a range of

intentions (Glesne, 1999). Researchers ask questions in the context of purposes generally

known only to themselves, while the respondents, who possess the information the

researchers are seeking, answer the questions in the context of dispositions (motives,









values, concerns, needs) that the researchers need to unravel to clarify the words that their

questions generated. Long interviews can be the basis for later data collection (which is

the case for this research project) as in the form of a questionnaire, which is the next step

outlined in this process (Glesne, 1999).

Long interviews were chosen as they yield a high percentage of returns, as people

are willing to cooperate with the research agenda. Information derived from interviews is

likely to be correct than data obtained by other sources as the interviewer can clear up

inaccurate answers by explaining the questions more thoroughly (Miller, 1991). This

method is also advantageous as the researcher can chose and control those who answers

the questions, important in this study as the state Farm Bureau organization initiated this

needs assessment, so it is important to obtain the ideas and thoughts of the state

leadership of this organization.

The qualitative interviews of the state Farm Bureau leadership underwent content

analysis to provide the information used in the qualitative instrument given to county

board members. Interviewing can be used to produce data for academic analysis and for

the purpose of measurement or for understanding of an individual or group perspective.

It is used as an attempt to understand the complex behavior of individuals without

imposing any categorization that may limit the field of inquiry (Fontana & Frey, 1994).

Keppel and Zedeck (1989) describe content analysis as an examination of spoken or

written material for the purpose of classifying or coding of the information. Content

analysis is a quantitatively oriented technique by which standardized measurements are

used to characterize and compare documents (Manning & Cullum-Swan, 1994).








There were several steps in the content analysis of these interview questionnaires.

The first step was the complete transcription of the seven interviews. The responses for

each question were then grouped together. From the groups of responses for each

question, four themes emerged. Responses were then grouped into these four theme

areas and from there, the duplicate responses were eliminated. From the remaining

responses in each area, the competencies were derived from the responses for the county

board member instrument.

The quantitative portion of this study utilized survey research methods, with the

first part a questionnaire developed from the responses of the long interviews and

administered to county Farm Bureau board members. An additional leadership behavior

instrument was developed to examine leadership attitude/will/desire within members.

This instrument was administered to a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau members.

Ary et al., (1996) describe a survey as a research technique in which data are

gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals called respondents. Survey

research asks questions about the nature, incidence, or distribution of variables and/or the

relationships among those variables. No manipulation is attempted on the variables, only

descriptions of variables and their relationships as they naturally occur.

All three survey instruments used in this study were pilot tested to ensure validity.

Pilot tests are a form ofpre-testing in which subjects from the sample population are

given the instrument and provide feedback to determine if the instrument is measuring

what it is suppose to measure (Black, 1999). Members of the pilot test groups were taken

from the same as the groups who would be receiving the three individual instruments.









Findings of this study determined what Farm Bureau is doing and what it needs to

do to make local board members more effective in their county Farm Bureau's and also

in their communities. The findings will be used as the state Farm Bureau organization is

interested in developing a leadership program for its members, especially those serving

on the local county boards. Results of this study will provide the state organization with

the information needed to develop programs tailored to the needs of members.

Research Context

This study took place in several locations and covered a five-month period, from

January 2004 to May 2004. The development of the interview schedule occurred in early

January and was completed early February 2004. The survey instrument developed from

these interviews was pilot tested in March, then sent out to all local board members at the

end of March 2004. The third and final part of this study, the leadership behavior

instrument was developed and pilot tested in March 2004 and then was mailed to a

sample of Florida Farm Bureau active members in late March 2004 with the responses

collected until the middle of May 2004.

Research Participants

For this study, one population, the Florida Farm Bureau organization, was used.

Three subsets of this population were included in this population. The first subset was

the leadership of the FFBF, which included: the president of the board of directors,

administrative and legal counsel, director of the agricultural policy division, director of

public relations, the vice president of the board of directors, the coordinator of national

affairs, and the executive director of the Dade County Farm Bureau. These individuals

participated in the first part of this study, individual interviews using a long interview









format. These interviews asked the organizational leaders to explain what they expect

from county board members and what they want these board members and county boards

to accomplish.

The second subset of the population was composed of members of local county

Farm Bureau boards. A sample of this sub-population completed the survey derived from

the state leader responses to the interview questionnaires. This portion of the study

determined existing board member leadership behavior. Salant and Dillman (1994)

describe how a sample size is chosen. There are approximately 666 county Farm Bureau

board members in Florida (FFBF, 2004). Using a table provided by Salant and Dillman

(1994), the researcher chose a 50/50 split with a 5% sampling error, a sample of 279

individuals was chosen (p. 55). The researcher was given the names and addresses of all

county board members and randomly chose 279 participants to receive the survey. They

were chosen through a process of systematic sampling, with the first element in the

sample chosen from a random numbers table. After that number was chosen, every other

individual on the list was included in the survey.

The third subset of the population was a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau

members. The researcher was given a computer generated random list of active members

and mailed surveys to 419 of these members. In this study, one of the subsets of the

population was the active members of Florida Farm Bureau. The size of this subset is

36,100 (P. Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002). Using a 50/50 split

with a 5% sampling error, 419 members of this subpopulation were selected to

participate in this part of the study.








The basic survey procedure outlined in Salant and Dillman (1994) was used for

the data collection of the two subset populations of board members and active members.

This survey procedure is comprised of four separate mailings. The first is a personalized,

advance notice letter, which is mailed to all members of the sample. This letter explained

to the individuals that they were selected for the survey and that they will be receiving a

questionnaire. The second mailing was mailed a week later. It included a personalized

cover letter, which explained the survey, their rights as survey subjects, a survey

instrument, and a stamped return envelope. Exactly six days after the second mailing, a

postcard was sent to each participant thanking those who had sent back their survey and

requesting a response from those who had not yet responded. Three weeks after the

second mailing a third mailing was sent out to all those who had not responded. It

included a personalized letter again explaining the importance of their returning the

survey, a replacement survey, and another stamped return envelope.

This procedure was used to produce an acceptable response rate so as to try to

avoid nonresponse error. The response rate for the qualitative interview was 100%, 46%

for county board members, and 25% for active members. As Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh

(1996) state "using information only from those who choose to respond can introduce

error, because the respondents represent a self-selected group that may not represent the

views of the entire sample or population" (p. 460). Research has shown that respondents

differ from nonrespondents and the extent of this difference should be determined. For

this study, early and late respondents were compared as late respondents are similar to

those who do not respond at all (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996). Those who responded

to the survey early (after the first survey was sent to them) were compared to those who









responded late (after the follow-up survey was sent). Differences were examined in the

responses of these groups to determine if there were any significant differences between

the responses, the differences examined include survey responses and demographic

information. There were no significant differences found in the surveys of the early and

late respondents, which indicates that it was an unbiased sample of recipients.

Instruments Used in Data Collection

Three instruments were used in the data collection for this study. The first was an

interview questionnaire found in Appendix C. This questionnaire was developed by the

researcher and sought to determine the competencies and skills that were perceived by

the leadership of the state Farm Bureau organization as necessary leadership attributes

that local county board members should have to make them effective members of their

county boards. These questions also were used to determine from the state leadership the

perceived needs of the county boards, the perceived needs of the Farm Bureau

organization, and the needs of Farm Bureau members. There were 16 questions used for

this interview and based on interviews with Farm Bureau leadership and from a review of

the literature.

This instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and validity and

pilot tested with a comparable group of leaders from two other state Farm Bureaus.

These pilot tests were conducted over the telephone and lasted approximately one hour.

The interviews were transcribed by the researcher and analyzed for content. Minor

changes were made to the interview questionnaire from the results of the pilot test.

This questionnaire was administered by the researcher to leaders of the Florida

Farm Bureau organization. Five of these interviews took place in person in the state









Farm Bureau headquarters in Gainesville, Florida and two took place by telephone, and

all were recorded for later transcription. This transcription occurred soon after the

interviews and themes were examined in the responses. Four themes emerged from these

interviews and served as a basis for the instrument that was developed for county board

members.

The second instrument was developed by the researcher from the responses of the

long interviews. Respondents of this survey questionnaire (Appendix D) were local Farm

Bureau county board members. This instrument was pilot tested with a group of county

board members who were not included in the final sample. From the content analysis of

the long interviews with state Farm Bureau officials, a list of 100 competencies were

identified in four areas: leadership, political process, knowledge of Farm Bureau, and

effective boards. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each competency to

the success of a county board using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (low importance) to 7

(high importance). In addition, how proficient they felt they were, was also rated on a

Likert scale ranging from 1 (low importance) to 7 (high importance). After pilot testing

this instrument and analyzing the data, the list of competencies was reduced to 66 across

the four construct areas. A conceptual model for this part of the study depicting the

relationship between the competencies found in the first part of the study and what makes

a successful board member is presented in Figure 3-1. This model represents that being a

successful board member is a function of competencies in the four theme areas.

Competencies In:
SBM f (L, + Pc + Ec + K)
Successful Leadership Political Effective Knowledge
Board Member Process Boards of Farm Bureau
Figure 3-1. Competencies Necessary for Successful Board Members.









The third instrument (Appendix E) used in this study was a leadership behavior

instrument which was composed of three parts: a motivation sources inventory, a

semantic differential scale to measure volunteering attitudes, and a Likert scale inventory

to assess respondents' desire about serving on a county board. The motivation sources

inventory was developed by Barbuto and Scholl (1998) and measures the sources of

motivation. The authors developed this inventory to predict behaviors of individuals and

it was used in this context as a factor that contributes to members will to serve (or not to

serve) on their county Farm Bureau boards.

Because county board members are volunteers, a semantic differential was

constructed to obtain participants' attitudes on volunteering. Vogt (1999) defines a

semantic differential scale as "a question format in an interview or survey in which

respondents are asked to locate their attitudes on a scale ranging between opposite

positions on a particular issue" (p. 261). This scale is a combination of scaling

procedures and controlled association that provides the subject with a concept, in this

case volunteering, to be differentiated and a set of bipolar adjectival scales against which

to do it. The participant is asked to indicate for each item, the direction of their

association and its intensity on a seven-step scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1971.)

Twelve adjective pairs were used in the semantic differential used in this scale.

The third part of this instrument was a Likert scale, which measured participants'

desire about serving on their local county Farm Bureau boards. This part of the

researcher-developed instrument consisted of twelve statements which participants were

asked to rate from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).









From the literature, motivation factors, attitudes on volunteering and demographic

variables have been identified as influences on participation in organizations and whether

individuals will step forth for additional leadership responsibilities within these

organizations. These contribute to the attitude/will/desire that was measured by this

instrument in the third part of this study. A conceptual model which represents this part

of the study is provided in Figure 3-2. In this model, leadership is a function of

motivation factors, volunteering attitudes, a desire to serve and demographic variables.

L f(M + V + S + D)
(Leadership) Motivation Factors Volunteering Desire Demographic
Attitudes to Serve Variables
Internal Self-Concept Evaluative Gender
External Self-Concept Potency Age
Intrinsic Process Activity Marital Status
Instrumental Children
Belong to Orgs.
(Will) (Attitude) (Desire)


Figure 3-2. Factors which Influence Individuals Participation in Leadership
Opportunities
Data Analysis

An informed consent letter for study participants and a proposal of this study was

submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) for their review.

The IRB approved the proposal for this study and the instruments that were used to

collect data (Protocol #2003-U-992). A copy of the informed consent letter was signed

by interviewees before they participated in the long interviews. For the other two

participant groups, they were informed of their rights as research subjects in a letter they

received explaining the survey and the importance of their participation. Data collection

began once IRB approved this study.








Various methods of data collection and analyses were conducted in this study.

Responses from the long interviews underwent content analysis. McCracken (1988)

described the qualitative researcher's goal in long interviews is to isolate and define

categories during the process of research. Patterns of interrelationships between

categories are examined. Using the same interview questions for each respondent

ensures that the investigator covers all the terrain in the same order for each respondent.

The first step in this analysis was the transcription of the interview answers. The object

of this analysis was to determine the relationships, categories and assumptions that

inform the respondent's view of the world in general and the topic in particular

(McCracken, 1988). The analysis conducted identified themes in the responses that were

subsequently used in the development of the competencies used in the survey instrument

given to local county board members. The information provided by this content analysis

was used in objective two; identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau

leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership.

Data analysis of the two survey instruments was used to explain and predict

leader involvement. The demographic information collected from both surveys was used

to accomplish the first research objective, identify demographics of county Farm Bureau

members. Independent variables, age, gender, years of membership in Farm Bureau,

membership in other agricultural organizations, membership in other organizations,

membership in leadership and youth development organizations, marital status, children,

agricultural income and farm size was analyzed. Selected independent variables were

used with other data as predictors of participation on county Farm Bureau boards.








The leadership competency instrument that was developed for county board

members was used to accomplish objective three, measure the extent to which county

Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau

leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills. This instrument was

comprised of four competency sections: (1) 15 leadership, (2) 20 political process, (3) 15

effective boards, and (4) 16 knowledge of Farm Bureau. The mean and standard

deviation was calculated for the importance and proficiency of each competency section.

Determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau

members was accomplished in objective four, by analyzing the data of each section of the

instrument. A mean and standard deviation was found for the motivation sources

inventory and the semantic differential. A reliability analysis was conducted on the

Likert scale about perceptions of serving on county boards.

Multiple linear regression was used in the accomplishment of objective five,

determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate

in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. Vogt (1999) describes regression

analysis as a predictor for whether something will happen or not, such as graduation,

business failure, or in this case, participation on a county board. Regression is used to

determine the nature of the relationship between a dependent variable and more than one

independent variable (Black, 1999). For this analysis, the dependent variable is

participation on a county board, and the independent variables are: the four motivation

factors from the motivation sources inventory, the three factors about attitude on

volunteering from the semantic differential, attitude about serving on a county board, and

the following demographic variables: motivation internal self-concept factor, evaluative








volunteering factor, activity volunteering factor, belonging to other organizations,

children, member of 4-H, member of other youth development organizations,

participation in leadership development programs, and agricultural income from

livestock.

Summary

This chapter explained the research methods that were used in this research design

conducted for the FFBF. This study was conducted in three-parts, which included: long

interviews, a leadership instrument developed from these interviews, and a leadership

behavior instrument developed to measure leadership attitude/will/desire. Demographic

information was also collected from individuals which was used to in the data analysis.

Results of these methods will be presented in the next chapter.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study examined the need for individuals to step forward and assume

leadership positions within a changing agricultural industry. The purpose of this study

was to examine the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau

members.

Chapter one provided the background to this study, the problem statement, and

significance of this study, definitions of key terms and several limitations to the study.

The objectives of the study were: (1) identify demographics of county Farm Bureau

membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by

the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau

members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders, (4)

determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members,

and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not

participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards.

The theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was found in Chapter

two. This framework focused on research in seven areas: the history of the Farm Bureau

and other agricultural organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations,

organizational leadership, motivations of volunteers, social capital and agricultural

leadership.









The research methodology used in this study was described in Chapter three. The

research design, research participants, instruments used in data collection and data

analysis procedures were described.

This chapter will present the findings of the study, which are organized in order of

the research objectives.

Objective One
Identify Demographics of County Farm Bureau Membership

Results from the demographic information section found at the end of each of the

quantitative instruments (Appendices D-E) are reported separately for the two groups due

to differences found between the demographic variables of active members and county

board members. Please note the change in population number (n) for each table. Several

respondents in both groups did not fill out portions of the demographic information

sections found in both instruments. The total number of board members who responded

to the survey was 129 (46%) and the total number of active members was 104 (25%).

Table 4-1 provides information on gender, marital status and children of

participants in both groups. Of the 129 board members who responded to this survey,

88.4% (n=114) were male and 11.6% (n=15) were female. For the active survey, of the

100 who completed this demographic variable, 69% (n=69) were male and 31% (n=31)

were female. According to the 2002 Census ofAgriculture, 11% of principal operators

on farms were women, while 89% were men (USDA, 2004). Those numbers reflect the

county board members who responded to the survey.

Married board members made up 86% (n=l 11) of the board member population.

Single board members accounted for 14% (n=18) of the population. Of the active

members who participated in the study, 68.3% (n=69) were married.









Large percentages of both groups had children, 93.8% (n=121) for board

members and 84.2% (n=85) for active members. When combined, 90% (n=206) of

respondents to both surveys had children.

Table 4-1 Demographic Variables for Gender, Marital Status, & Children of Active and
Board Members (N=233)
Board (N=129) Active (N=104) Total (N=233)
n % n % n %
Male 114 88.4 69 69 183 80
Female 15 11.6 31 31 46 20

Married 111 86 69 68.3 180 78
Single 18 14 32 31.7 50 22

Children 121 93.8 85 84.2 206 90
No Children 8 6.2 16 15.8 24 10
Note: Missing variables (Active = 4)

Those who serve on Farm Bureau boards have been a Farm Bureau member for

an average of 21.4 years. The average number of years in Farm Bureau for active

members who completed this survey was 14.5 years. Years of membership in Farm

Bureau can be found in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Years of Membership in Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=220)
Board Active
(n=125) (n=95)
Mean 21.4 14.5
Minimum 1 .30
Maximum 62 64

% %
Member for 0-10 years 33.6 50.5
Member for 11 to 25 years 33.6 37.9
Member for 26 to 64 years 32.8 11.6
Note: Missing variables (Board = 4; Active = 9)

Board members who have belonged to Farm Bureau for zero to ten years is 33.6%

(n=42), while 50.5% (n=48) of active members have belonged to Farm Bureau for this

time range. Those who have been a member for 11 to 25 years are 33.6% (n=42) for









board members and 37.9% (n=36) for active members. The third range of membership,

26 to 64 years, has 32.8% (n=41) of board members and 11.6% (n= 11) of active

members. A graphic representation for years of membership in Farm Bureau for both

groups can be found in Figure 4-1.


5 20


0
15

5-

"10


5-



0 0 0 0 40 50 60 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Active Members Board Members
Figure 4-1. Comparisons of Years of Membership in Farm Bureau (Active N=95,
M=14.50, SD=11.90; Board N=125, M=21.38, SD=14.94)


Family involvement in Farm Bureau was also examined with 73.4% (n=91) of

board members indicating that they were part of another generation of Farm Bureau as

their family had been involved in Farm Bureau, while only 17% (n=17) of active

members indicated that their family was involved in Farm Bureau. Table 4-3 represents

the involvement of family in Farm Bureau and demonstrates that board members have a

much greater percentage of family who have been involved in Farm Bureau than active

members.









Table 4-3 Family Involved in Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=224)
Board Active
(n=124) (n=100)
% %
Family Involved
Yes 73.4 17.0
No 26.6 83

Family Involved in FB from 0 to 25 Years 56.2 92.8
Family Involved in FB from 26 to 50 Years 40 5.1
Family Involved in FB from 51 to 80 Years 3.8 2.1
Note: Missing variables (Board = 5; Active = 4)

On average, Farm Bureau board members spend 8.4 hours per month on Farm

Bureau activities, which includes participating in meetings, activities, events and

conventions and reading information in support of these activities. Active members

spend considerably less time than board members, only a quarter of an hour per month on

average. Farm Bureau board members attended, on average, 11.7 Farm Bureau events in

the past year, while active members only attended an average of 0.3 events for the past

year. Table 4-4 represents the time devoted and events attended for both groups.

Table 4-4 Time Devoted to Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=215)
Board Active
(n=123) (n=92)
Mean Number of Hours Per Month 8.4 0.4
Minimum Number of Hours Per Month 0 0
Maximum Number of Hours Per Month 82 8

Mean Number of FB Events Attended Last Year 11.7 0.3
Minimum Number of FB Events Attended Last Year 2 0
Maximum Number of FB Events Attended Last Years 40 6
Note: Missing variables (Board = 6; Active = 12)

There were several demographic questions that were only asked of county board

members. These questions reflected their length of time on their county board, if they

had been president of their county Farm Bureau board and if they had been on the Florida

Farm Bureau Federation board. Table 4-5 represents the first of these questions for board









members, the length of time (in years) they have served on their county boards. County

board members have served an average of 11.5 years on their county boards. This table

shows that over 60% of county board members have been on their boards for up to ten

years, while over 14% have been on their board for longer then twenty years.

Table 4-5 Length of Time (in years) on Farm Bureau Board (N=126)
Board
(n=126)
Mean 11.5
Minimum 0.5
Maximum 54

n %
0.5 to 5 Years 53 42.1
6 to 10 Years 25 19.8
11 to 15 Years 18 14.3
16 to 20 Years 12 9.5
20 and More Years 18 14.3
Note: Missing variables (Board = 3)

One-third of county board members have served as president of their county Farm

Bureau board 33.6% (n=43) and less then 10% (n=10) have served on the Florida Farm

Bureau Federation Board. Table 4-6 reflects those that have served in these higher

capacities.

Table 4-6 Board Members Who Have Served as President of County Farm Bureau Board
and/or on the Florida Farm Bureau Federation Board(N=128)
No Yes
n % n %
Served as County President 85 66.4 43 33.6
Served on Florida Farm Bureau Federation Board 118 92.2 10 7.8
Note: Missing variables (Board = 1)

Many organizations represent components of agriculture and Table 4-7 shows the

involvement of both board and active members in other agricultural organizations. Board

members seem to be more active in other organizations 71.4% (n=90) than do active

members 10% (n=10). For those that are involved, board members belong to an average








of 1.9 other agricultural organizations, while active members belong to an average of 0.5

agricultural organizations. Board members belong to a greater number of organizations

as well, as the maximum number was 11 with a maximum of only 5 for active members.

Of those board members who were involved in other agricultural organizations, 42.1%

(n=53) held leadership roles in these organizations, while only 4% (n=4) of active

members held leadership positions in other agricultural organizations.

Table 4-7 Involvement with other Agricultural Organizations for Active and Board
Members (N=226)
Board Active
(n=126) (n=100)
n % n %
Involvement with Other Ag. Organizations
Yes 90 71.4 10 10
No 36 28.6 90 90

Leadership Role in Agricultural Organizations
Yes 53 42.1 4 4
No 73 57.9 96 96

Mean Number of Agricultural Organizations 1.9 .5
Minimum Number of Agricultural Organizations 1 1
Maximum Number of Agricultural Organizations 11 5
Note: Missing variables (Board = 3; Active = 4)

Individuals are also involved in other civic, community, and business

organizations and Table 4-8 represents the level of involvement by board and active

members. Both groups are involved with other organizations, 63.8% (n=81) of board

members and 42.6% (n=43) of active members are involved in at least one civic,

community or business organization. On average, active members belonged to 0.9

additional organizations, while board members belonged to 1.9 additional organizations.

Of the over one-third of board members who did belong to additional organizations, 37%









(n=47) held leadership roles in these organizations, while 18.8% (n=19) of active

members held leadership positions in civic, community, and business organizations.

Table 4-8 Involvement with other Organizations (N=228)


Board
(n=127)


n % n %


Active
(n=101)


Mean Number of Boards 1.1 0.3
Minimum Number of Boards 1 1
Maximum Number of Boards 7 5
Note: Missing variables (Board = 2; Active = 4)

The age characteristics of board and active members can be found on Table 4-10.

The mean ages for both groups are approximately equivalent, 51.4 years for board


Yes 81 63.8 43 42.6
No 45 35.4 58 57.4

Leadership Role in Organizations
Yes 47 37 19 18.8
No 80 63 82 81.2

Mean Number of Organizations 1.9 0.9
Minimum Number of Organizations 1 1
Maximum Number of Organizations 8 6
Note: Missing variables (Board = 2; Active = 3)

Slightly over half of the board members 53.5% (n=68) were currently serving on

the board of other organizations, while only 16% (n=16) of active members were on the

boards of other organizations. The mean number of additional boards that county Farm

Bureau board members were serving on was 1.1 boards, while the number for active

members was 0.3. These figures are represented by Table 4-9.

Table 4-9 Active and Board Members Currently Serving on Boards of other
Organizations (N=227)
Board Active
(n =127) (n =100)
n % n %
Yes 68 53.5 16 16
No 59 46.5 84 84









members and 50.9 years for active members. A graphic representation of the

distributions of ages for both groups is presented in Figure 4-2. Close to fifty percent of

active members, 48.5% (n=33) are between 43 to 60 years old, while 33% (n=36) of

board members fall within this age range. A graphic representation of the distributions of

ages for both groups is presented in Figure 4-2.

Table 4-10 Age of Active and Board Members (N=177)


Board Active
(n =109) (n =68)
Mean Age 51.4 50.9
Minimum Age 21 19
Maximum Age 83 87

n % n %
19 to 42 Years Old 36 33% 19 27.9%
43 to 60 Years Old 36 33% 33 48.5%
61 to 87 Years Old 37 33.9% 16 23.5%
Note: Missing variables (Board = 20; Active = 36)


10-


8-



6-
2
~4-


2-


20 40 60 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Age Distribution of Active Members Age Distribution of Board Members
Figure 4-2. Age Distributions of Active and Board Members (Active N=68, M=50.90,
SD=14.32; Board N=109, M=51.40, SD=15.26)


n\




Full Text

PAGE 1

LEADERSHlP EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION By HANNAH S F CARTER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNNERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNNERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Hannah S. F. Carter

PAGE 3

Dedicated to Michael Carl Linzmayer whose support and encouragemen t made it possible.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would have not become a reality if it were not for an extraordinary individual Dr. Rick Rudd who signed on for a second tour as my advisor. I feel extremely fortunate to have worked with Dr. Rudd who made my graduate school experience truly enjoyable and I will be forever grateful for his mentorship friendship and encouragement. I would like to thank the members of my advisory committee, Drs Rick Rudd Howard Ladewig Burl Long Nick Place and Eugene Trotter for their contributions and guidance which made this a study that I am very proud of. This process was made infinitely better with the presence of a special individual who provided constant support encouragement and motivation that has made my life all the better even during the dissertation process Words cannot express my thanks to Mike for always telling me that "You can do it," for providing me rewards for my accomplishments along the way and a reprieve from the process when necessary and for having a pizza delivered late one night which meant more to me then he will ever know The past year and half, during this whole dissertation process has been the happiest time of my life thank you This study would not have become a reality without Pat Cockrell and the Florida Fann Bureau F e deration I would like to especially thank Mr. Carl Loop Jr. Scottie Butler Rod Hemphill and Pat Cockrell for their assistance and support throughout this process. I enjoyed working with these individuals and all members of the F lorida Fann Bureau Federation who participated in this study immensely IV

PAGE 5

My sister Alex deserves my heartfelt thanks for again believing in me and getting me to Florida in the first place. If I could have anyone in my cheering section it would be my sister as she truly makes me believe that I am capable of anything that I set my mind too and is a source of inspiration to me. I would like to thank the rest of the members of my family for having full faith that I would get this done and for their support as I enter this new phase of my life. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the following individuals: Steve Johnson who apparently saw my potential when I could not even fathom it ; Amy Sullivan for her continued friendship and for going through this process together as misery truly does love company ; Bob Watts, for his far away emails full of advice and for providing me an incentive to get this degree as I look forward to our future leadership collaborations and our eventual takeover of the world! Janice Barner for going above and beyond the call of duty in the office for keeping things going while I was finishing for tying up her printer and for the constant support that she provided me; Maureen Jack and Megan Noll for opening their hearts and home to me and making me feel like I have family here in Florida. I appreciate them all so much and the feeling of "family that they have provided me. I have many other friends and family members who have seen me through the good times and the bad and who have added so much to my life. I am thankful for them and grateful for them being in my life. Though they will not realize it Rosie, Finnegan and Lucky deserve a pat for reminding me each day what unconditional love is and how fortunate I am to be in their company as they make my life all that much better V

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. .. .......................... .. ............................... .. ..... iv ABSTRACT . .. ........ ..... .. .................................................................... .ix CHAPTER 1 IN"TRODUCTION .......................................................................... . ... 1 Background of the Study ........ .. .. . ............. ............................. . . .. ..... . . 9 Problem Statement . .. .. . ...... ..... . .. ................... . .. .. ..... .. . . ............ 11 Objectives of the Study ............................. .. ................... .... . .. . ........ . . 13 Significance of the Study ........... . .. ...... ................................................. 13 Overview of Methodology ........... ........... ....... . .......... ........................... 14 Delimitations of the Study ............................................ .. ........................ 16 Definitions of Key Terms ......................... .. ...... .. . .. ....................... ....... 16 Conclusions .. . .................................. ................. .............................. 17 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .. ................................................... ............ 18 History of Farm Bureau and Agricultural Organizations .......... ...... ............ .... 19 Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group .... .. ................... .. ...... ................. 26 Grassroots Organizations .. .................................................... .. ..... ........ 30 Motivations of Volunteers .. ....... . .. ........ .. ...... .. ........ . ........................ .. 33 Organizational Leadership .............. ..................... ......... . . . . .. . . .. .... .45 Social Capital .............................. . .. .................... .. .. .. . .. ................ .. 57 Agricultural Leadership .................................. .. .................................. .. 60 Summary .. ... .. ....... ... ............. .. .. ... .. ............................... .. ... ....... .. .. .. 63 3 METHODS ... ......................... .............. .. ............... ..... .............. .. ... 66 Research Design ..... .. ................................. . .................. . ...... ...... . ... 6 7 Research Context ............................... . .................... .. ....... . ............... 72 Research Participants ............................................ ............................... 72 Instruments U sed in Data Collection ....................... .. .................... .. .......... 75 Data Analysis ..... ........ .. . .......................... . ........................ .. .......... 78 Summary .... ...................... ... . ......................... ............. ...... . . .. ....... 81 VI

PAGE 7

4 RESULTS ........................................................................................ 82 Objective 1 ....................................................................................... 83 Objective 2 ....... ................................................................................ 94 Objective 3 ...................................................................................... 103 Objective 4 ............................... ........... . ......................................... 118 Objective 5 ...................................................................................... 129 Summary ........................................................................................ 137 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 139 Summary of the Study ................ .. ..................... ................................. 139 Findings ......................................................................................... 144 Conclusions ....................................... .............................................. 149 Recommendations ............................................. ................................. 164 Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................ 167 Summary ........................................................................................ 169 APPENDIX A LETTER TOFLORIDAFARMBUREAUOFFICIALS ..... .. ...................... .171 B SECOND LETTER TO FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS .................. 172 C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS ...... 173 D SURVEY FOR COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ........................................ 174 E SURVEY FOR ACTNE MEMBERS ... ...... .... .. .. ..... ................................ 181 F FIRST LETTER TO ACTNE MEMBERS ........... . .................................. .188 G SECOND LETTER TO ACTNE MEMBERS .. ...... .. .. .. ................ .......... 189 H POSTCARD TO ACTNE MEMBERS ................................................... 191 I FOURTH LETTER TO ACTNE MEMBERS .......................................... .192 J FIRST LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ................................... 193 K SECOND LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ............................. 194 L POSTCARD TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ....................................... 196 M FOURTH LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ... .... ....................... 197 vu

PAGE 8

REFERENC E LIST .............. ......... ......... . ............................................ 1 98 BIOGRAPIDCAL SKET CH . ............... . .. . .. ..... ....... .. .. . .. ....... ............. 209 Vlll

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Chair: Rick Rudd By Hannah S. F. Carter August 2004 Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication The purpose of this study was to determine the leadership expectations and perceptions of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. This study was conducted in three parts. The first part was composed of qualitative interviews with seven officials of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation; questions were developed to determine the expectations of state officials of county board members and the necessary leadership skills that county Farm Bureau board members should possess The second part of the study was a quantitative instrument, which was developed from the competencies that came from the first phase of the study. A sample of 280 county Farm Bureau members were given this instrument which was comprised of four theme areas: leadership, political process effective boards and knowledge of Farm Bureau with a total of 66 competencies. Participants were asked to rate how important IX

PAGE 10

each competency was and how proficient it was using a seven point Likert scale. A demographic information section was also included at the end of this instrument. The third phase of the study examined why Farm Bureau members may or may not participate in leadership roles, such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau board. A quantitative instrument was developed and included three parts: a motivation sources inventory, a semantic differential scale on volunteering, and a Likert scale, which measured perceptions of serving on county boards. This instrument also had a demographic information section at the end. The instrument was sent to a random sample of 420 active Farm Bureau members. From the results of the county board member instrument, it was found that the largest "gap" between importance and proficiency competencies was in the political process area. Active board members were found to be motivated by internal self-concept factors and rated the evaluative factors of volunteering the highest. This study found that the best model for explaining why Farm Bureau members chose to participate in leadership roles explained 36% of the variance and included the independent variables: volunteering evaluative factor, volunteering activity factor, number of Farm Bureau events attended, member of other youth development organizations and participation in leadership development programs. X

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 lNTRODUCTION Rural communities remain a source of identity for many people. Most of the rural localities established in the last century remain today, and their residents continue to invest in them with social value, despite changing economic and social relationships (Goudy & Ryan 1982). Hobbs (1995) described the role of agriculture in communities as follows : The special role of agriculture in the overall development of U.S. rural and community life is not simply attributable to production from the land. The actual form of production (large numbers of small farmers owning and operating their own land) in much of rural America contributed most to the institutions and organizations established to support agriculture and rural life. Despite local differences in organization, most rural people shared dependence on agriculture, the methods by which it was practiced, and the ideologies that surrounded it. This homogeneity of farmers' interests and practices helped reinforce the social foundations of the settlements. (p 377) After the Civil War, the growth of industrialization generated new markets for agricultural production, and the completion of railroads linked agricultural producers with the external markets. An early consequence of increased market dependency was the emergence of farmer's movements that provided the foundation for what would become general farm organizations. Agriculture led the way in breaking from local institutional constraints and connecting with the institutions of the larger society (Mooney & Majka, 1995). During the late 1800s, the Grange and the Farmer's Alliances were two of the prominent agricultural movements of the time. The Grange was originally established as 1

PAGE 12

2 a social and educational organization for farmers (National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry [NGOPH], 2004) The National Farmers Union (NFU) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) are two organizations which originated in the period from 1900 to 1920 and are still active today. These two organizations along with the Grange were general farm organizations because their focus is a broad-based program of education improving farm production and lobbying for favorable legislations to farmers. All three have an organizational structure from the local level to the state and national organization (NGOPH, 2004; NFU, 2003 ; AFBF, 2003) These organizations are important in history because their programs generally were devoted to improving the well being of farmers and were i nitially mechanisms for representing rural interests nationally. They were instrumental in lobbying for rural mail delivery rural electrification and improvement in rural roads and highways inno v ations that benefited both farmers and town residents (Hobbs 1995). The AFBF is an organization of over five million members across the United States (AFBF 2003). Farm Bureaus can be found in every state in the country The Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) has a membership of 151 645 and county Farm Bureaus in 61 out of 67 counties (FFBF 2003). In some instances a "county'' Farm Bureau may actually be made up of two counties and in another instance there are two county Farm Bureaus in one county because of local geography (P Cockrell, personal communication September I 0 2002). Farm Bureau is An independent non-governmental voluntary organi zation governed by and representing farm and ranch families unit e d for the purpose of

PAGE 13

3 analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity and social advancement and thereby, to promote the national well being. Farm Bureau is local, county, state, national, and international in its scope and influence and is non-partisan, non-sectarian and non-secret in character (AFBF, 2003, para. 2). The strength of Farm Bureau from the county to the national level begins at the grassroots with individual members who decide to become active and take on leadership roles in the organization. In the corridors of power in Washington D.C., all that seems to matter are the interests of the powerful agribusiness organizations that speak for large producers and maybe the environmental groups that have an upper-middle class constituency. While people in farming communities are small in numbers, they are a significant force within their districts and states and should not be discounted (Hassebrook, 1999). In the past ten years, agriculture and farming have been dramatically restructured (Purdy 1999). Hassebrook (1999) states that the family farm is dying and farm ownership is being concentrated into fewer hands As the agricultural industry has become more concentrated, decision-making concerning agriculture has shifted from the independent producers to those in influential positions at the top oflarge agribusiness organizations (Swenson, 1999). Present trends indicate that the family farm as the nucleus of United States agriculture is slipping away. There is a movemen t toward a dual agric ulture. At one extreme are many small farms, most of them part-time. Fifty percent of all farms as defined by the U.S. census, market only about thre e percent of all farm products. Most of these farmers depend on non-farm income for their living. They are not easily dislodged from farming (Bre i myer & Frederick 1999 paragraph 19). As speciali ze d commodity producers have grown in both the si z e and proportion of total agricultural production and as rural economies have diversified another kind of

PAGE 14

4 "farmer" has become important. These are "part-time" farmers farmers who are employed full-time off the farm or have other sources of income larger than farm income (Coughenour & Wimberley, 1982). Part-time farmers generally do not identify farming as their principal occupation. Their occupations and interests are diverse and they often do not share the interests of commercial agricultural. Commodity producers are more likely to view farming as "a business," whereas the choice to farm part-time along with working at another occupation is more often based on a desire to practice agrarian values. The growth of part-time farms has come at the expense of the middle group of" farnily farms," which is diminishing but which has long been regarded as epitomizing the agrarian values of the United States. Although the number of middle-sized family farms is decreasing, the impression of those farms as typical continues to prevail especially in political debate over farm programs (Hobbs 1995). The widespread restructuring of the agricultural industry has also taken a heavy toll on those rural communities that depend on a healthy farm income to survive and thrive A system of economically viable, midsi z e owner-operated family farms contributes more to communities than systems characteri z ed by inequality and large numbers of farm laborers with below average incomes and little ownership or control of productive assets (Hassebrook 1999 p. 55). Historically, locally owned businesses tied to agriculture often provided a good source of jobs and revenue for rural areas and reinvested profits in their community creating a multiplier effect in which funds would exchange hands several times In contrast multinational agricultural corporations typically take their profits out of the communities in which they were earned.

PAGE 15

5 Communities suffer not only financially but also in terms of the quality of education health care and other essential services (Swenson 1999) Christenson and Robinson (1989) state that since the early 80 s communities especially rural communit i es ha v e confronted a social economic political and demographic environment substantively different from that of the first part of the century (p 197). The agricultural sector of America is changing In the 2002 Census of Agriculture there were 2.13 million farms in the United States up 0 1 % from 2001. The increase in farms occurred primarily in agricultural operations with $1, 000 to $9 999 a year in sales. The total land in farms in 2002 was 939 5 million acres which increased 170 000 acres from 2001. A farm is defined as any place from which $1000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold during the y ear (United States Departmen t of Agriculture (USDA], 2004). The average farm si z e in the U nited States is 441 acres The largest number of farms 658,804 are those which are 50 to 179 acres in si z e (USDA, 2004) Figure 1-1 represents the distribution of farm si z e (in acres) in the U nited States 700000 en 600000 500000 .. c..,., 0 400000 I-< (1) ,.D 300000 200000 100000 0 1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 500 to 1000 to 2000+ 499 999 1999 Size of Farm (in acres) F igure 1-1. Distributions of Farms by Si z e (USDA, 2004 )

PAGE 16

6 Family or individual farms make up the largest majority of farms in the United States. The Economic Research Service (2004) defines family farms as farms, which are legally controlled, by their operator and the operator's family and includes all farms except those organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives. Over 1.9 million farms are family farms, which has increased by 250,000 from 1992. The average age of the principal operator of the farm is 55.3 years, which is two years older than in 1992. Those who make up the age group of 45 to 54 years old are the largest percentage with 572,664 (USDA, 2004). Figure 1-2 represents the age range of principal operators for farms in the United States. 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 25 and 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 + younger Age (in years) Figure 1-2 Age Range of Principal Operators (USDA, 2004) The trend of growth of smaller farms is evident in Florida. There were 44,000 farms in Florida in 2002, which was unchanged from 2000 and 2001, but approximately 9,000 more than in 1992. The average farm size is 236 acres, 70 acres less than in 1992. There are 18, 360 farms in Florida which are 10 to 49 acres in size, the second largest group of farms, 10 267, are those that are one to nine acres in size. There are only 842 farms that are 2 000 acres or more (which produce most of the dollar value of agricultural

PAGE 17

7 production). Family farms are the largest type of farm with over 37,000 in this category, which are approximately 10,000 more than in 1992 In Florida the average age of the principal operator on a farm is 57 an increase of 1.5 years from 1992 As with the data for the United States those in the age group of 45 to 54 are the largest group with 15, 465 in the group (USDA 2004). The trends i n the United States and Florida follow the shift in agriculture, which has many small "part-time" farms and large agricultural corporations, with a decreasing number of farms that are found in the middle of these two groups. There is a concern about the loss of these farms because they represent such a significant portion of all farms in the United States. In 1998 "91 % of all U.S. farms were classified as small (or part time) farms and these farms accounted for 68 % of all land owned by farmers (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002 p. 3). Critics of those concerned about of the loss of small farms argue that farms are becoming larger to capture the economies of size They belie v e that small farms are not real farms"; instead they seem as just rural residents or retirement farms (Duffy & Nanhou 2002) One attribute o f small farms is that they are almost universally part of a household. There are an estimated 1.2 million farms in the U nited States, and of these farms 43 % are owned by individuals who are classified as rural residents This percentage of small farms means they have sales less than $250 ,000 and they list something other than farming as their principal income (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002). Those involved in agriculture in the United S t ates and the State of Florida reali z e the need for people to step forth and provide a strong and educated voice to lead agriculture and bring the needs and issues of the rural community to th e forefront at the

PAGE 18

8 community, state, national and international level. A reasonable choice to provide this voice for rural communities and provide individuals who have the attitude / will/desire to participate in the leadership process is the AFBF. Farm Bureau reflects the future of agriculture and rural communities in its membership the younger members who are embarking on their careers and looking towards leadership positions in the future (P. Cockrell personal communication, September 10 2002). But why are those actively involved in agriculture not taking on leadership responsibilities in the Florida Farm Bureau organization? Do they lack training, skills, abilities, time or knowledge? Or do they not have a desire to lead? For those that do accept leadership positions, will they be able to become effective and provide strong leadership? Florida Farm Bureau realizes the need to provide leadership training for their members, but what training should be offered? This study will provide data to assist in answering these questions Mccaslin (1993) theorized that sustainable rural development has been and will be reali z ed only through programs, which focus on active involvement of human resources rather than a passive approach Florida Farm Bureau is taking this proactive approach realizing the need for leadership development and wanting to take the next step in designing a leadership-training program for its county board members. An ideal leadership program reflects the diversity of the organization or community The shared experiences and networking that take place within the program create a group of dedicated people who want to make a difference (Hustedde & Woodward 1996). Because of the complexity of today s organi z ations requires the use of different leadership skills and many org ani z ations are concerned about the

PAGE 19

9 inadequacies in leadership skills of their members and are involved in the development and implementation of leadership development programs. These leadership programs often offer ways to improve and develop the leadership capabilities of individuals (Sogunro, 1997). A focus group consisting of county Farm Bureau presidents agreed that training for county board members should be improved with one participant going on to state that it is "the very weakest link" in his county Farm Bureau s program. The group concluded that county Farm Bureaus would benefit from training by the FFBF staff (Florida Farm Bureau Public Relations Division [FFBPRD], 1998). Findings from a study of those who went through a leadership development program found that those who participated felt more confident about promoting causes, were able to motivate others better, made more informed decisions on public issues were better able to work with people and lead a group and deal with local leaders better (Rohs & Langone 1993) If the FFBF staff were to offer such a leadership-training program, it would be expected that participants would have similar experiences and results. Background of the Study Leadership is not an innate characteristic; it can be developed through formal and informal training (Bolton, 1991). Leaders are made not born. Most people have within them the basic skills and abilities to assume leadership positions and one strategy for local capacity building is to promote the emergence of such individuals An integral component to the efforts to expand the pool of local leadership is the focus on augmenting leadership skills An understanding of the leadership process and an

PAGE 20

10 enhancement of the potential local leader s information base are representative of this strategy (Christenson & Robinson 1989). Developing the full potential of the leadership base in agriculture is extremely important as this industry is facing new challenges such as environmental responsibility food quality international competition taxation and clarifying its own identity (Georgia Agri-Leaders Forum Foundation [GALFF] 2002) Rapid change is occurring in all segments of society agriculture included. To keep pace with this change informed, decisive and communicative spokespersons are needed to represent agriculture (Kansas Agriculture and Rural Leadership 2002) New technologies consolidation, environmental concerns and food safety are some of the factors that are contributing to the rapidly changing face of agriculture in the United States (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002). Foster (2000) states that leadership provides people a way to connect with and serve their communities institutions, and organizations. This leadership is necessary as dramatic changes are affecting the social economic natural and political environments of people in communities and cultures around the world These changes present challenges and opportunities that demand effective leadership at all levels of society to ensure effecti v e transitions and change. Organizations can play a significant role by nurturing future leaders They can provide the educat i on and training necessary for the advancement ofleadership among its members (Foster 2000). Pernick (2001) states there are two advantages of building leadership talent within an organi z ation. First the ne x t generation of leaders is groomed by the organization and can instill the culture and agenda of the organization. Secondly the organization has greater control over the supply of leaders with the necessary skills which makes implementation of the organization's agenda easier and quicker. (p. 429)

PAGE 21

11 Leadership development resides in the context of a community or organization and must answer the question, "leadership for what?" (Foster, 2000). This study will attempt to provide a basis for the "what" for the FFBF. It will provide research that will allow the state organization to customize a leadership development program for its membership with the expectations that after members go through this training they will have the leadership background necessary to become effective leaders not only in the Farm Bureau organization but in their homes businesses, and communities. The effects of a leadership development program for Farm Bureau members could be far reaching, but before those effects can be felt desired leadership practices must be identified, existing behavior in current leaders must be determined "gaps" between desired practices and existing behavior must be identified current leadership practices must be explained and the motivators of individuals to take on additional leadership responsibilities must be determined. FFBF needs a leadership-training program for county board members tha t range from having little experience to years of experience They also need to know what motivates individuals who belong to the organization to become more involved The organi z ation needs to have its members participate more in the programs that are offered to the county Farm Bureaus and needs to have its members know more about the organization as a whole (P. Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002). Problem Statement American agriculture is at a critical juncture. If current policies and trends are left in place for another generation there will be little left of traditional American agriculture

PAGE 22

12 (Hassebrook 1999). Instead there will be smaller, hobby farms" and gigantic multi national agricultural corporations Rural communities that are supported by agriculture were once the foundation of the United States and still make up large parts of the country though rural communities are diminishing due to urbanization and the decrease of agricultural industries that provide the community base. McCaslin (1993) states one of the overriding concerns of those individuals working towards the stabilization and future growth of rural communities is the lack of active participation by many of its citizens (p. 46) The process of stabilization and revitalization in agriculture begins with effective and active leadership and participation. As Farm Bureaus can be found in most rural communities in the country and in Florida this leadership can be found in the membership of local county Farm Bureaus. The problem leading to this research was: To keep a strong voice and presence at the local state and national level agriculture needs qualified leaders who are willing and able to work on behalf of agriculture rural communities and their livelihoods as agriculture in the United States and the state of Florida i s rapidly changing From this problem the following question arose: Why isn't Farm Bureau more involved in growing and retaining leaders for grassroots leadership in local county Farm Bureaus. Three reasons were hypothesized: 1) there is a lack of infusion of young member involvement 2) the attitude / will / desire among Farm Bureau members in taking leadership roles in their local Farm Bureau organizations is unknown and 3) expectations of leaders is unknown.

PAGE 23

13 From this problem, question, and potential explanations the following objectives were developed to guide this study. Objectives of the Study 1 Identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership. 2. Identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders held by the state Farm Bureau leadership. 3 Measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills. 4. Determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members 5 Determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. Significance of the Study This study added to the body of knowledge on grassroots organizations, rural leadership and effective board membership. This study can serve as a model for other Farm Bureau organizations or other organizations interested in developing greater participation in grassroots leadership. This is a critical time for Farm Bureaus around the country as well as other rural and agricultural organi z ations as they change to meet new needs of agriculture and the people who make their livelihood in this industry The Farm Bureau of today faces many challenges and it will need to evolve to meet those challenges. In order for this evolution to occur strong and capable leaders must emerge and assume leadership positions and responsibilities.

PAGE 24

14 Overview of Methodology For this study, a non-experimental research design was employed that utilized both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The first part of the study was a qualitative assessment that used a long interview format. These interviews were conducted with seven state leaders of the FFBF and were used to identify desired leadership competencies they believed county Farm Bureau members should have in order for their county Farm Bureau boards to be effective. The second part of the study was derived from the content analysis of the interview responses A quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher based on the identified competencies. In addition to the 66 competency questions this survey also included a section with questions to gather selected demographic information. The survey was given to a random sample of current county Farm Bureau board members to determine their perceived importance of each competency and their perceived proficiency of each competency. In the third part of this study, a researcher designed leadership behavior instrument was given to a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau members to determine their motivations and their attitudes towards volunteering to serve on their county Farm Bureau boards This survey also included a section to collect selected demographic information These instruments were examined by a panel of experts and pilot tested with a sample population of Farm Bureau county board members and active members to ensure validity of the instruments and then were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlations and multiple regression

PAGE 25

15 Several approaches were employed in this research design to aid in resolving the research questions. The long interviews provided qualitative information which described processes and relationships that served as the basis for the second instrument. Descriptive statistics were collected with the quantitative data provided in the second and third instrument. The descriptive statistics do not provide evidence of relationships but can be beneficial in explaining characteristics of individuals in groups. Correlations between desired leadership practices and the attitude / will/desire of leaders or those i n leadership positions were also analyzed. These correlations investigate relationships of variables and how they vary (Black, 1999). The two instruments given to the two groups of Farm Bureau members were ex post facto, or "after the fact." This refers to real life studies that employ some of the same measurement and statistical tools used in experimental studies. The difference is the lack of control over independent variables; life experiences replace researcher determined treatments that would have been possible in a more structured, experimental design (Black, 1999). Examples of the independent variables used in this study include age, length of service to Farm Bureau, participation in other organi z ations (both agricultural and general), marital status, family status, gender, residence and if they work off the farm Results of the survey to county board members and interviews with state Farm Bureau officials identified "gaps" within desired leadership practices that are expected by the state leadership in the FFBF and the importance and proficiency that board members place on these practices Also identified in the survey given to active members were the motivations and attitudes that active Farm Bureau members have towards taking

PAGE 26

16 additional leadership roles. These results were provided to the FFBF to assist in planning leadership development opportunities for Farm Bureau members in the state of Florida. Delimitations of the Study This study used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Respondents to this research design included leaders of the FFBF, county Farm Bureau board members and active Farm Bureau members. Limitations of this study must be considered when applying the results. They are as follows: 1. The findings of this study can only be generalized to the population who make up the Florida Farm Bureau membership. Care should be taken in attempts to generalize these findings to other state Farm Bureau organizations as the competencies of the members of those organizations and the leadership requirements of the organizations themselves may be different than those which are found in F l orida. One could surmise that Farm Bureau organizations across the country would benefit from a study such as this and use it as a model to benefit their own organizations. 2. This study was limited to the current availability of literature on Farm Bureau organizations on the state and national level. 3. The research assumes the subjects of the study provided truthful responses, but bias may occur in the responses of the subjects. Definitions of Key Terms The following definitions are used in this study. Florida Farm Bureau Federation The state Farm Bureau organization made up of the federation of the 61 county Farm Bureau boards in F l orida (P. Cockrell personal communication September 10, 2002). Active members Farm Bureau members who are full time farmers part-time farmers or farm managers Currently only active members are elected to county boards or other leadership positions in the Farm Bureau organi z ation (P. Cockrell, S. Butler & R. Hemphill personal communication, July 17 2003).

PAGE 27

17 Associate members Farm Bureau members who are not directly involved in farming. These members are not eligible to be on county boards or state boards (P. Cockrell, S. Butler, & R. Hemphill, personal communication, July 17, 2003). Conclusion The FFBF realizes that with the changes talcing place within agriculture and society as a whole, strong and effective leaders are needed to keep agriculture and the Farm Bureau organization viable in the future. Younger members of the organization often do not take on leadership roles or if they do, are not as effective in these roles as they could be (P Cockrell, personal communication, September 10, 2002). Realizing this, the FFBF would like to offer a leadership-training program to its members, but must understand and be able to articulate expectations of its leaders. This study provided the necessary research for the development of such a program. The five objectives that guided this study are to (1) identify demographics of county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the l eadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, ( 4) determine leadership attitude, will and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. A background of the study, the significance of the study, delimitations of the study and definitions of key terms of the study were also provided in Chapter 1

PAGE 28

CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to determine the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members. To accomplish this purpose, the study was guided by six objectives which were (1) identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders held by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, (4) determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. This chapter will review the relevant literature that provided the background for this research. Specific areas of literature include: the history of the Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations, organizational leadership, motivations of volunteers, social capital and agricultural leadership. As specific information or studies were limited about Farm Bureau boards and leadership, general studies were also examined and reported in this chapter. These specific areas of literature are divided into sections in this chapter with headings that include history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations, organizational leadership, motivations of 18

PAGE 29

19 volunteers, social capital and agricultural leadership. The chapter will conclude with a summary of the information provided. History of Farm Bureau and Agricultural Organizations Rural America had two features, which historically contributed most to its distinctive forms of organization, the dominance of the family farm as the initial rural industry and the prevalence of geographically separated small settlements The interdependence of the farm and town also fostered, and reinforced, agrarianism as a dominant, pervasive, and persistent rural value (Mooney & Majka, 1995). An agricultural industry composed largely of small family farms dispersed geographically among small settlements were two of the most pertinent features of the organizational foundation of rural America. Agriculture as an industry became identified with agrarianism, and the dispersed settlements were the foundation for communitarian values. The combination contributes to institutionalizing of family farms and rural communities themselves, which then inspired many associated forms of organization (Hobbs, 1995). Farmers in rural areas were soon aided with several pieces of legislation that provided the dissemination of research and information being conducted at the universities in their states. The Hatch Act of 1867 established the land grant university system and agricultural experiment stations. The Cooperative Extension Service soon provided agricultural agents in each county and "county demonstrators" had spread across the south and into the north.

PAGE 30

20 Creation of Farm Bureaus In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act was enacted which accelerated the spread of the county agent system. The Smith-Lever Act required sta t es to pass legislation, which would govern the utilization of federal revenues. Many states passed laws, which required that a county agent could not be hired unless a local organization of farmers a Farm Bureau" was first established. These early Farm Bureaus were formed in the early 1910s which was a decade of dramatic reorganization in the agricultural sector (Berlage, 2001). The Farm Bureaus showed local support for the county agent's programs and created a source of funding for the agent's salary from the dues paid by members. The relationship between the Farm Bureaus and the Extension Service was questioned because the county agent who was a public employee, had obligations to a private pressure group the county Farm Bureau. To address this concern many state legislatures and state colleges of agriculture began to separate extension from the local Farm Bureaus (Brown 1989). Following WWII the accelerating rate of agricultural mechani z ation along with price supports and other new production technologies exp e dited the substation of capital for labor and increased the rate of farm consolidation At the same time land-grant university research and extension reinforced a transition from mul t i-crop general farming to specialized commodity production (Hobbs 1995). This transition was accompanied by new and different produce r interests and therefore a chan g e in the types of organi z ations which repr e sented them. Farmers no lon ger automatically held interests in common but be g an to speci a li z e along commodity

PAGE 31

21 lines. Accordingly general farm organizations became less effective in representing the interests of producers for interests of different commodit i es were often competitive. New organizations specialized by commodity began to appear such as the American Soybean Association the National Com Growers Association and the National Cattlemen s Association. General farm organizations such as the AFBF differ from commodity organizations Commodity organizations are principally devoted to promoting domestic and international sales of their commodity affecting legislation favorable to commodity producers and supporting research to develop new products and uses of the commodity. Their primary focus is national and international in scope, although most of the major commodity organizations have state and local associations in regions that produce the commodity they represent. They are unlikely to have a local agenda unless a local issue of direct relevance to commodity producers arises (Hobbs 1995) Speciali z ed commodity organi z ations such as the National Cattlemen s Association or the National Com Growers are more effective in pursuing narrow policy goals than general agricultural organi z ations The consequences to this piece-meal approach to policy making by many specialized groups is the neglect of the farming sector as a whole (Mooney & Majka 1995). During th e early years of Farm Bureau it was unique as compared to other organi z ations because of the strong financial support it enjoyed High dues for membership support from agribusiness and effective governmental subsidization through the Cooperative E xtension Service all contributed to a powerful resource base for Farm Bureau (Mooney & Majka 1995).

PAGE 32

22 There are two factors that have contributed to the success of the AFBF organization. First, it was created and nurtured by the Cooperative Extension Service, a public agency. The Extension Service organized local Farm Bureaus, helped in the recruitment of members, and favored those members with the allocation of goods and services. Second, the Farm Bureaus offered their members a number of services, from insurance to farm supplies (Hansen, 1995). While scholars have concentrated on the AFBF's national political influence to explain its power, the local programs it offered were equally as important. Members participated in the organization to take advantage of the bureau's scientific, economic, and social projects rather than to gain national political power. The array of programs that local Farm Bureaus offered strengthened the appeal of the organization and helped to establish a strong power base in rural communities (Berlage, 2001). The AFBF is the nation's largest farm organization with over five million members in all 50 states and Puerto Rico There are 2800 county Farm Bureaus across the country, which provide programs that are developed to meet the needs of member families. Thousands of volunteer leaders serve on county Farm Bureau boards and committees (AFBF, 2003). Bob Stallman, AFBF President, stated, "whether at the county, state or national level, Farm Bureaus across the nation have always been loyal to the foundation of our organization-our grassroots members" (Stallman, 2003, para. 11 ). Farm Bureau has endured its share of criticisms. In his critique of the AFBF, Berger (1971) stated that the AFBF claims it is a grassroots organization, which is truly representative of farmers. However, the organization has become more and more autocratic over the years. Policy positions are made at the top of a rigid hierarchy, while

PAGE 33

23 attempts at the grassroots level to change that policy have been stifled. Another criticism is that the AFBF claims to be an organization made up of farmers, when a large percentage of its members have no relationship to farming. Membership has become little more than a device through which Farm Bureau products and services are sold (Berger, 1971). In his 1971 commentary about AFBF Berger stated that, "the nation's biggest farm organization has been quietly but systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents." Farm Bureau has been called an organization of and for large farmers (Mooney & Majka, 1995). The AFBF was the dominant voice in Washington D.C. with respect to farm policy at the end of WWII. This was no longer true in the 1990s Browne (1995) conducted a study of agricultural organizations influence in the United States Congress, he stated: Generalist organizations usually ranked by respondents as very active and involved but only somewhat influential include such high profile groups as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Fertilizer Institute and the Food Marketing Institute. The access and influence of those groups are not seen as the same, as is the case for interest that represent fewer and narrower claims. Organizations that can speak to the very specific needs of a commodity program or a distinct type of business seem to have a better transactional base within Congress and, as a result, gain better reputations for influence. (p. 372) National Farmers Union and the Grange The NFU and the Grange also continue to represent large numbers of farmers in addition to the AFBF. The Grange was "increasingly relegated to less agriculturally dependent regions and was not aggressive politically'' (Mooney & Majka, 1995, p. 90). The NFU struggled with the AFBF's increasing influence. The NGOPH, which was

PAGE 34

24 established in the late 1800s, is the oldest n a tional agricultural o r ganization in the nation Today, Granges are established in 3,600 communities in 37 states. Its 300,000 members provide support to rural areas and agriculture on a wide variety of issues, including economic development family, and legislation designed to assure a strong and viable rural America (NGOPH, 2004). The Grange is a grassroots organization that provides its members a voice on the local, state and national level. Major objectives of the Grange support stewardship of America's natural resources, promotion of worldwide free trade a combination oflocal and federal support of rural medical communications and road systems and elimination of direct government farm programs (NGOPH, 2004). The NFU is a general farm organization with a membership of nearly 250,000 farm and ranch families across the country. It is a federation that represents farmers and ranchers in all states and the presidents of the 24 state and regional farmers union organizations serve as its board of directors (Price 2003) The NFU was founded in 1902 due to a need identified by a group of farmers to join together to fight a common cause. Today, according the president of the NFU, Dav e Frederickson the NFU' s education cooperation and legisla tive programs all revolve around member needs. This organi z ation also pro v ides a v oice for family agricu l ture and rural America. Its primary goal has been to sustain and strengthen fam i ly farm and ranch agriculture which it does through a grassroots structure with policy positions begun a t the local lev el (Price 2003). In addition to the AFBF, the Grange, and the NFU there i s one other national farm org ani z ation The National Farmers' Org ani z at ion (NFO) w as formed in 1 9 55 It

PAGE 35

25 originated as a protest group that threatened farm strikes to a serious collective bargaining organization that bargained with the buyers and processors of farm products (Mooney & Majka, 1995). All of these agricultural organizations have basically one thing in common, they were all founded because a critical mass of highly motivated people decided that their likelihood of success in tackling a significant challenge would be much greater if people worked cooperatively toward a common goal (Stuart, 2003). Florida Commodity Organizations In the state of Florida, there are numerous organizations that represent all the major agricultural commodities, which are grown in the state in addition to the FFBF representing the general agricultural interests. Two of the largest and most powerful are the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFV A) and Florida Citrus Mutual (FCM). FFV A began during World War II to address the challenges facing growers at the time. Legislation had been passed that negatively affected Florida growers and those growers saw a clear need to organize so that the concerns of Florida's fruit and vegetable industry would be heard in Washington D. C. (Stuart 2003). The FFV A "has grown into one of the most recognized and influential organizations of its kind in the country. Its success can be directly attributed to the dedication and hard work of individuals who have served as officers and on its board of directors and committees throughout its history" (Stuart, 2003 para. 5). FCM began in 1948 after the citrus industry experienced severe market fluctuations. Today FCM provides the following services to its members: reliable market information grower legislation, taxation citrus research Florida Department of

PAGE 36

26 Citrus oversight and non-price information. The reason it has survived and prospered is because growers, shippers, and processors of Florida citrus have coalesced to create an organization that has broadened its initiatives to meet the changing needs of its grower members (Florida Citrus Mutual, 2004). Summary of history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations Farm Bureaus were formed in the early 1900s in response to changes in the agricultural sector. Farm Bureaus provided ways to disseminate research and information being conducted by universities to farmers in rural areas. After WWII, farmers no longer had common interests that were represented by organizations such as Farm Bureau. Instead, organizations began forming that specialized along commodity lines and represented the more narrow interests of farmers. These commodity groups pursued more limited policy objectives than a general interest group such as Farm Bureau. Even with each agricultural industry and commodity having a national organization and frequently a state organization who represents them the AFBF continues to be the nation's largest farm organization with over five million members in 2800 local county Farm Bureaus across the United States and Puerto Rico. The NFU and the NGOPH are general agricultural organizations who also represent farmers but have smaller memberships than the AFBF. The Farm Bureau continues to represent the political interests of its members on the county state, and national level. The next section provides information on Farm Bureau as a political interest group. Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group Groups do not form spontaneously. In a simple society there is little need for interest group formation, even though there are distinct interests in the society

PAGE 37

27 Economic specialization and social differentiations are crucial to group proliferation Technological changes and the interdependence of economic sectors create new interests and encourage the formation of interest groups (Loomis & Cigler, 1995). Loomis and Cigler (1995) state that, "central to theories of group proliferation are the pluralist notions that elements of society possess common needs and share a group identity or consciousness, and that these are sufficient conditions for the formation of effective political organizations" (p. 7). Economist Mancur Olson challenged the pluralist theories and instead proposed that individuals who share common interests are not inclined to join the organiza ti ons that address their concerns. Individuals choose not to participate and bear the costs of participation because they can enjoy the benefits of the organization whether they join or not, the "free rider" problem. Groups that pursue benefits that accrue to all members o f a segment of society will have difficulty forming and surviving (Olson 1971 ). As an organization the AFBF has received extensive research and theore ti cal treatment by social scientists since the AFBF is an economic lobby which represents a large constituency (Hansen 1995) There are se v eral controversies that exist regardin g membership in political interest groups especially in the AFBF. The core ofthis controversy in this area is the importance of selective material benefits in the exp l anat i on of membership Olson (1971) argued that coercion or the offer of selective material benefits to potential members would be necessary to induce them to join if the group was to overcome the free-ride" tendency. The free-rider problem is especially problematic for large organi z ations as the larger the group the less likel y an individual w ill belie v e their contribution as havin g any impact on group success (Loomis & Cigler 1 995).

PAGE 38

28 Other political scientists and economists (such as Salisbury (1969), Moe (1980), and Hansen (1985) believe that nonmaterial selective benefits and other factors (perceptions and efficacy) explain membership in political interest groups (Brown, 1989). The key to group formation and survival is the presence of selective benefits. These benefits are offered to only members of the group and can include: discounts, publications, and cheap insurance. The AFBF offers inexpensive insurance, which is a major inducement to join, even if an individual does not agree with the Farm Bureau's goals (Loomis & Cigler, 1995). The following services have been supplied as selective material benefits to Farm Bureau members: (1) wide variety of insurance programs, (2) regional and state purchasing cooperatives, (3) cooperative marketing programs, and (4) discounts on consumer goods (Brown, 1989). Another area of controversy is the impact of economic conditions on political interest group membership. Truman's theory suggests that during hard economic times individuals will join organizations that work for improvement of their economic conditions. Truman theorized that two interrelated processes lead to group formation, societal change and disturbances. As society evolves and becomes more complex, new interest groups will emerge. Individuals are affected by "disturbances" which drive them to then support group endeavors. Examples of this can be found in the history of the formation of the major farm groups in the United States, such as the NGOPH, the Farmers Alliance, the AFBF, and the NFU which all emerged between 1867 and 1900. They were formed from an increased interaction of farmers in response to disturbances of their accustomed behavior. These disturbances included: technological change,

PAGE 39

29 westward expansion, growth of corporate power, industrialization and low commodity prices (Nownes & Neeley, 1996). Robert Salisbury theorizes that group survival depends upon an exchange of benefits that is mutually advantageous between the organization and the members (Nownes & Neeley 1996). Salisbury s view is that people join political interest groups during periods of prosperity when the cost of dues is relatively painless and that when times get rougher membership in organizations is one of the first cost-cutting measures in which people engage (Brown 1989) Hansen (1985) theorized that people in different contexts have different resources and preferences which indicates that they have different subjective weightings of the benefits and costs of participating in a group. When resources such as time and income are ample people can easily bear the costs of participation. When people have particular needs and preferences they are attracted to certain benefits. When people have different attitudes toward risk they are more or less willing to engage in actions whose success is uncertain. An individual will join an interest group if the subjective costs incurred by joining are less than the subjective benefits received from membership As the information, resources preferences and risk attitudes change in making the assessments to join, the attractiveness of group affiliation changes too (Hansen 1995). Individuals are more easily mobilized in response to a threat than they are in response to a prospect. The collective benefits of group membership are increased with the awareness of threats. The effects of costs and benefits on group membership depend

PAGE 40

30 on what is known about them, whether or not the benefits are wanted, and whether or not the costs can be afforded (Hansen, 1995). Brown (1989) tested several of the most prominent interest group theories by examining membership in five state affiliates of the AFBF, but offered no concrete conclusions except for the need of additional research on why people join interest groups and what factors determine the membership levels. Summary of Farm Bureau as a Political Interest Group The AFBF has received extensive research and theoretical treatments by social scientists, as it is an economic lobby which represents a large constituency. Several theories by prominent social scientists were introduced in regards to group membership such as: selective benefits, disturbances exchange of benefits, and costs of benefits for belonging to organizations. In addition to being a political interest group, the AFBF is a grassroots organization which derives its power from its members on the county level. A discussion of grassroots organizations follows. Grassroots Organizations In addition to being a political interest group, the AFBF is also a grassroots organization. Smith (2000) defines grassroots associations as, "locally based, significantly autonomous, volunteer-run, formal nonprofit groups that manifest substantial voluntary altruism as groups and use the associational form of organization and, thus, have official memberships of volunteers who perform most, and often all, of the work/activity done in and by these nonprofits" (p. 7). Throughout history and cultures, people have organized themselves to find solutions to specific problems through grassroots efforts (Wittig, 1996).

PAGE 41

31 Identifying with Grassroots Organizations Important to grassroots organizations is developing a sense of identification with the organization. The development of group cohesion, team building, and increasing perceived social support may prove effective in enhancing the identification and further strengthening the favorability of members attitudes (Hinkle, Fox-Cardamone, Haseleu Brown, & Irwin 1996) The development of a social identity serves to sustain membership in a grassroots organization. This social identity serves as a motivator for participating in a group. Individuals strive to maintain their self-esteem by committing to a group part i cipating in its activities, identifying with its behaviors, and adopting its symbols (Pratkanis & Turner, 1996). Bettencourt (1996) states "grassroots efforts may succeed if they capitalize on initiating grassroots involvement by helping potential volunteers to become identified with the grassroots organi z ation and on maintaining activism by encouraging cohesion and commitment among the members of their group" (p. 209) By joining organizations people are seeking the respect of their peers. They also want to belong to a group that gives individuals an opportunity where their contributions can be appreciated (Kaye 2001 ). People join grassroots organizations because they want to be recognized for their leadership to serve members of their organizations and by members of other groups for their contribution to the effort to build a better quality of life (Kaye 2001). Monetary funds time, capacity and skills of grassroots members in addition to leadership are resources that contribute to the success of grassroots organizations. They are necessary for the effectiveness and continued operation of grassroots efforts (Bettencourt 1996).

PAGE 42

32 Leadership in Grassroots Organizations To be successful, grassroots groups need to encourage the development of effective communication skills among their members. When working toward a goal, good communication among members is necessary to accomplish the planned action steps to get to the goal. The extent to which grassroots members and leaders utilize open communication will be reflected in the group's ability to resolve disagreements as well as reduce conflict, resentment and member dropout (Bettencourt Dillman & Wollman, 1996). Leaders of grassroots organizations need to be aware that volunteers differ in the rewards they value and that these values change over time. Grassroots organizations need to offer volunteers a variety of rewarding and challenging tasks to sustain their efforts (Bettencourt et al. 1996). Brant (1995) states that "one's personal values play an important role in propelling one toward grassroots action" (p. 185). A lack of leadership in grassroots organizations may have dire consequences on the success of the group and the attempt to achieve change. To reduce chances of failure grassroots organi z ations need to foster the leadership skills of their members (Bettencourt 1996). Negative factors that affect volunteer motivations are stress burnout and expenditures of time. Although a certain amount of time investment from volunteers i s necessary grassroots organi z ations should be ever mindful to encourage volunteers to give only as much as they can a f ford and to a v oid spreading thems e lves too thin w ith commitments (Bettencourt et al. 1996 p 1 7 3)

PAGE 43

33 Grassroots organizations have less of a problem finding people that support their cause and more of a problem motivating people to act on their convictions (Hinkle et al., 1996). Bettencourt et al. (1996) reasoned, The success of a grassroots group is attributable, in part, to the coordination and motivation of group members. The extent to which a grassroots organization encourages members to identify with the group may be important for sustained success. Group identity should facilitate coordination and motivation within the group. (p. 170) There are different types of motivations which may inspire individuals to work for grassroots organizations. One may be whether the fruits of the grassroots effort will directly or indirectly affect members of the group (Bettencourt, 1996) Summary of grassroots organizations Farm Bureau is a grassroots organization. Grassroots organizations are organizations in which people create and join to find solutions to specific problems that affect them. Membership in these organizations is sustained by a common social identity with the organization and its' members. Individuals are motivated to join these organizations for many reasons such as respect from their peers benefits the organization provides, solutions to problems that affect them, and the satisfaction of working with others with similar problems to reach a common goal. Motivations of Volunteers According to Scott (2000): There are more than one million not-for-profit organizations in the U.S. with 100,000 more created each year. This sector depends on volunteers to help provide programs and services and financial support Ninety-three million people almost half of the population volunteers an average of 4.2 hours a week. (p. 3)

PAGE 44

34 With every other adult already volunteering, the overall number is unlikely to grow. If non-profit organizations want to add to their activities they are already engaged in, or attract volunteers from other organizations, they have to make their volunteers more productive, which means giving them more work to do and additional responsibility (Drucker, 2001). A majority of volunteer work is completed in associations or organizations. In 1995, 71 % of the adults in the United States were members of associations, not including memberships to churches and synagogues. In 1991, 53% of the population participated in active unpaid volunteer work for non-profit organizations and associations (Smith, 2000). In 1998, survey results showed the highest rate of volunteer participation at 55%, while the number of hours volunteered per week fell to 3 5 hours. Though there are increasing numbers of people volunteering, fewer hours are being contributed by those volunteers, which greatly increase the risk of volunteer burnout (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). Inherited in the legacy in America is volunteering on behalf of the common good. People are identifiers of needs, issues, and problems and expect to participate in the decision making on how to respond to these. Voluntary activities range from short-term events, which have a time limit, to longer-term commitments of service such as serving on a board. The choice to sit on an organization's board is an important decision (Scott, 2000). Safrit & Merrill (2002) stated that: The concept ofvolunteerism in North American society has evolved. What historically began as individualized, altruistic behaviors founded upon strong religious tenets has evolved into a contemporary social movement driven by a wide range of individual motivations and organizational and governmental incentives (p. 12)

PAGE 45

35 Penner (2002) defines volunteerism "as long-term planned prosocial behaviors that benefit strangers and occur within an organizational setting. Based on this definition, volunteerism has four salient attributes : longevity planfulness nonobligatory helping and an organizational context (p. 448) Longevity indicates a long-term behavior rather than a one-time occurrence Planfulness means that volunteering is typically a planned action Nonobligatory helping is the notion that the volunteer is not motivated by a sense of personal obligation to a particular person (Penner 2002). Drucker (2001) described the motivations of volunteers as follows: Volunteers have to get more satisfaction from their work than paid employees precisely because they do not get a paycheck. They need, above all challenge They need to know the organi z ation s mission and to believe in it. They need continual training They need to see results. (p 80) Motivation depends on being effective and being able to achieve something. If effectiveness is lacking the commitment to work and to contribute to the organization will soon vanish and it will then be just going through the motions (Drucker 2001). Motivation Theories The theoretical rationale on the roles of motives comes from Snyder s (1993) functional approach to prosocial behaviors which are based on the notion that much of human behav ior is motivated by specific goals or needs To fully understand why a person is engaging in a beha v ior the purpose or need served by that behavior needs to be i dent i fied. The fundamental concerns of motivational inquiry is understanding the processes that move people to action and the processes that initiate direct and sustain action. Clary et al. (1998) describe the functional perspective of volunteering as encouraging the consideration of the wide range of personal and social motivations that promote sustained beha v ior. This perspective advances an interactionist position, as it

PAGE 46

36 argues that consequences follow from matching the motivations of individuals to the opportunities in their environments. From a functional perspective people are recruited to volunteer by appealing to their own psychological functions, and they will be satisfied to the extent they engage in volunteer work that serves these psychological functions and they will continue to serve to the extent that their psychological functions are being served (Clary et al., 1998). Omoto and Snyder (2002) developed a conceptual model of the volunteer process which explains volunteering on various levels. At the individual level the model focuses on activities and the psychological processes of the individuals which include: expressing their personal values satisfying their need to help others community concern personal development and to fulfill esteem enhancement needs. At the intrapersonal level the dynamics of helping relationships between the volunteers and the recipients of their help are incorporated At the organizational level the focus is now on the goals associated with the recruitment management and retainment of volunteers At the societal level the model takes into consideration the linkages between individuals and the social structures o f their society. Caval i er (2000) proposes a triarchic theory of motivation which proposes that motivation is comprised of three autonomous motivational systems: the formative system the operational system and the thematic system. The formative system includes th e development forces that move individuals in a certain direction. T hese forces include: one s genetic makeup learned behaviors beliefs values social norms and attitudes and conflicts. The operational system includes the assessments where there is a sense of

PAGE 47

37 integration, choosing, decision-making and evaluation. The thematic system finds its roots in: 1) ego gratification, 2) self-actuation and 3) altruism (Cavalier, 2000). Self-actuation is the motivation of individuals to seek ways to fully express their interest, talents and potentials as human beings The people who are characterized by these motives may have talents or power over others by the virtue of their knowledge or talents. Altruism is the principal motivational theme for people who seek opportunities to help others (Cavalier, 2000). In rough terms, altruism is defined as an internal concept that refers to the tendency or disposition of an entity to help others (Smith, 2000). Penner (2002) used data from 1100 individuals who responded to a survey in the USA Weekend, a Sunday supplement magazine carried in 560 newspapers, which contained an article on altruism and invited readers to respond to an online poll about their prosocial behaviors. This behavior is defined as an individual's empathy and feelings of concern and responsibility for the welfare of others. Results from this study showed that age was significantly and positively associated with the number of organizations and length of time spent working for an organization. Motivation Sources Another instrument used to measure motivation sources was developed by Barbuto and Scholl (1998), the motivation sources inventory has been used to predict leadership influence tactics, transformational leadership behaviors and follower compliance using sources of motivation which include: intrinsic, instrumental, external and internal self-concept. It has shown to be reliable and valid in reported studies and captures the sources of motivation

PAGE 48

38 Barbuto Brown, Wilhite and Wheeler (2001) describe intrinsic process motivation as when a person is motivated to perform certain kinds of work or to engage in certain types of behavior for the fun of it. The work acts as an incentive and it is derived from immediate internal gratification. Deci and Ryan (1995) describe intrinsic motivation as the innate organismic needs for self-determination and competence. Instrumental motivation is when individuals perceive their behavior will lead to pay promotions bonuses or other extrinsic tangible outcomes (Barbuto et al. 2001) Self-concept-external motivation is based on an individual who is primarily other directed and seeking affirmation of traits competencies and v alues The individual behaves to satisfy reference group members to gain acceptance and then status (Barbuto et al. 2001) Deci and Ryan (1995) describe this type of motivation as extrinsic moti v ation the behavior where the reason for doing it is something other than an interest in the activity itself. It may be due to something a person feels pressured to do. Self-concept-internal motivation is internally based The individual sets internal standards that become the basis for the ideal self and is motivated to engage in behaviors that reinforce these standards (Barbuto et al. 2001) Internal motivations also are motivations for cooperation that flow from individuals' v alues and attitudes and shape their behavior (Tyler 2002). Loyalty or commitment to the group or organi z ation can also be a motivation of volunteering as people in groups come to identify with those groups (Tyler 2002) Tyler (2002) describes social identity theory as one that individuals in groups identify with those groups and merge their sense of identity with the groups and when people identify with groups they put the welfare of the group above their own

PAGE 49

39 When there is no identification with a group, if an individual believes that the organization does not represent their interests or if an individual is content, they may become apathetic and do not feel the need to participate. There is a connection between contentment and apathy as a content person may become lulled into apathy over time after deciding that withdrawing from an activity will not seriously jeopardize his or her future wants or needs, and thereby future contentment (DeLuca 1995). Leaders play an important role in creating and sustaining a group with which individuals can become loyal and committed to The feeling of group identification encourages cooperation on behalf of the group because people merge their sense of themselves with the group. The important role of attitudes and values in stimulating cooperation suggests the importance of creating a supportive culture or value climate within a group "Leaders need to stimulate intrinsic interest in group roles, identification with the group and the development of moral values and feelings that group authorities are legitimate" (Tyler 2002 p. 779). The objective of a study done by Martinez and McMullin (2004) was to better understand the motivations and characteristics of individuals who participate in volunteer activities in comparison to those who do not. Results found that active members belonged to organizations almost twice as long as non-active members. Both groups had similar competing commitments on their time Active members witnessed the effects of their efforts witnessed organizational success and achieved a level of personal accomplishment; they believed they could make a difference For those that were not active the potential benefits and outcomes may have been important but unknown. This study, a longitudinal analysis was conducted on the characteristics of membership of

PAGE 50

40 voluntary organizations, "these characteristics are: (a) memberships over time are relatively stable, (b) most individuals will add and drop memberships in organizations over time but maintain at least one continuous membership, and ( c) the occurrence of affiliation changes influence the structure and function of association" (Martinez & McMullin, 2004, p. 114). Influences on Volunteers Penner (2002) identified the organizational variables that are likely to influence a volunteer's behavior, they are: "(l) an individual member's perceptions of and feelings about the way he or she is treated by the organization and (2) the organization's reputation and personnel practices" (p. 458). In a study done by DeChant (2001), research showed that a person may be committed to an organization but the level of commitment cannot serve as a measure for the amount of volunteer hours they will actually perform. Volunteering in an organization provides opportunities to build stronger ties and commitment to the organization. For those that are not active participants believing that they could not contribute effectively to the organization's activities may be the reason why they do not actively participate (Martinez & McMullin, 2004). Eisinger (2002) states "attracting future leaders is as much about knowing what you want as it is about knowing what members are hoping to gain, that's another challenge inherent to attracting and engaging volunteer leaders" (p.3) Organizations who are interested in recruiting new volunteers would benefit by identifying the things that would motivate a certain target group to volunteer and then highlight those motives in their recruiting appeals directed at this target group. If an organization has difficulties

PAGE 51

41 retaining volunteers, the problem is sometimes not a shortage of people who want to volunteer it is the attrition rate of people who are in the early stages of tenure in the organization (Penner, 2002). Why do individuals volunteer for organizations? Clary et al. (1998) state simply that: Volunteers (a) often actively seek out opportunities to help others; (b) may deliberate for considerable amounts of time about whether to volunteer, the extent of their involvement and the degree to which particular activities fit with their own personal needs; and ( c) may make a commitment to an ongoing helping relationships that may extend over a considerable period of time and that may entail considerable personal costs of time energy and opportunity (p 1517) Martinez and McMullin (2004) state volunteer roles may appeal to people with certa i n lifestyles based on (a) ones position in a job; (b) whether one is employed full time part-time is retired or is a home maker (c) age and (d) the expectations and associated responsibilities of the role(s) one would fill (p 114) The success of the volunteer experience is largely determined by whether the volunteer experience meets the person s expectations. The more that is known about those expectations the more effort can be made to ensure the volunteer remains motivated (Eisinger 2002). Individuals are more attracted to organizations that have a good reputation for management that effectively used the talents of the volunteers Poor management of volunteers is frequently the reason that people discontinue their volunteer service In addition to effective volunteer management, organizations who utilize volunteers should have individuals v olunteering who represent the membership that they are working for There is increasing pressure for organizations to reflect a broader cross-section of the societies which they represent (Safrit & Merrill 2002).

PAGE 52

42 Constraints on Volunteering Martinez and McMullin (2004) state that in order to understand why people become active volunteers, it is important to consider why people do not volunteer. "Three reasons for nonparticipation have been identified: (a) individuals lacked the capacity to volunteer, (b) individuals lacked motivation, or ( c) individuals had not been asked" (p. 113). This implied that both access to resources and capacity to take part along with motivation, are necessary for members to become active. The generations of individuals who compose the volunteer segment of the population are facing different issues and pressures. Individuals who belong to the "baby boomer" generation are facing pressures of the needs of their children and their aging parents. Those individuals who were born between 1960 and 1980 the members of Generation X, are inwardly focused and less inclined to be involved. They are facing personal and professional pressures as they build their careers and families. Life pressures, particularly those of time and family are limiting the availability of traditional volunteers (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). Organizations need to find ways to structure volunteer work, which will allow people increased flexibility to move in and out of volunteering as work and family pressures affect their lives. Turnover rate is influenced by the importance and structure of an organization, as well as age, family status, work, family stage, and life stage (Martinez & McMullin, 2004). As Eisinger (2002) states: The needs of today's time-crunched members, such as shorter-term commitments, may require associations to examine their traditional notions of volunteer service and how to attract those members to leadership positions In addition, identifying and developing future volunteer leaders requires a commitment from the highest levels of the organization. (p. 5)

PAGE 53

43 Organizations need to pay more attention to personal and professional development opportunities for volunteers that will increase their effectiveness while maintaining personal interest (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). Volunteers who are active must have certain abilities. Volunteers must develop the personal capacities to make critical decisions regarding their actions on behalf of the organization as they need to learn "how to think" rather than just ''what to think" (Safrit & Jones, 2003). Volunteers demand training from their organizations. They want responsibility and expect to participate in making decisions that affect their work and the work of the organization as a whole. Volunteers also expect the organization to remove non-performers who are hindering the effectiveness of the organization (Drucker, 2001). Traditionally, training programs for volunteers have focused on specific subject matter, organizational, or interpersonal skills. They must also include components that challenge volunteers to develop important thinking and processing skills (Safrit & Jones, 2003). There are several variables that determine the group's overall effectiveness; how well resources are utilized (both personnel and resources), how members are motivated to perform, and how much teamwork and cooperation there is among group members. A deficiency in any of these variables is likely to reduce group effectiveness. The function of leadership is maintaining an optimal level for each of these variables (Yukl, 1994). Current trends in organizational management and leadership are affecting the decisions that people make in their volunteer activities. Authoritarian management styles are being replaced by participative decision-making and teamwork and volunteers are seeking similar management styles in the non-profit organizations they volunteer with. Volunteers tend now to avoid authoritarian management and large bureaucratic

PAGE 54

44 institutions and are seeking organizations that treat them professionally and include them in planning and decision-making phases of work (Safrit & Merrill, 2002). Further studies have shown that the length of tenure as a volunteer is positively associated with organizational satisfaction. "Volunteers who are satisfied with their job, committed to the organization, have positive affect while on the job, and believe they are being treated fairly should display a higher level of volunteer activity'' (Penner, 2002 p. 459) Organizations that can design and manage opportunities for volunteers that allow individuals to make meaningful contributions in non-traditional time frames are more likely to attract a more diverse range of volunteers (Safrit & Merrill 2002). The next section will address organizational leadership and how it affects the productivity of a group or organization. Summary of motivations of volunteers Approximately half of the adult population in the United States volunteers a portion of their time to organizations. Individuals are identifiers of needs issues and problems and participate in the decision making on how to respond to these factors. There are many reasons why individuals volunteer and organi z ations need to understand what motivates individuals to volunteer and make the volunteer experience positive and meaningful to their volunteers The organi z ation needs to provide group identification for their volunteers so they can relate to the organization and the organization needs to provide volunteer experiences that fit with the individual s lifestyle as factors such as gender children and life status affect the time an indi v idual can devote to an organization

PAGE 55

45 Organizational Leadership An understanding of what the attraction is to serve and lead an organization of what motivates individuals to become members of the board of what causes those individuals to care deeply about the future of the organization and of what helps individuals remain active and committed is vitally important knowledge to an organization (Scott 2000) Maxwell (1995) states "grow a leader grow the organization" (p.4) An organization's strength is a direct result of the strength of the leaders of the organization. Organizational leaders must be active in their organization generate productive activity and must encourage and command changes in the organization (Maxwell, 1995) The survival of institutions depends on the capacity of leaders to develop and maintain organizational cultures that foster and sustain autonomy and independence while strengthening the ability of individuals to care for and commit to the organization and the larger community" (Scott, 2000 p. 13) Organizational leaders will need to be able to read the larger environment at various levels and know which level to focus attention on so their organization can negotiate change successfully. Not-for-profit organizations need leaders who can engage in the process of systems thinking." This is leadership that can understand the bigger picture without being pulled into tunnel vision or allow quick fixes of problems (Scott 2000). Organizational Theories The process of "systems thinking" can be better understood by understanding the different components or perspectives of an organization Bolman and Deal (1997) have

PAGE 56

46 condensed the major schools of organizational thought into four perspectives or frames. The frames are structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Effective leaders understand their own strengths and work to expand them and build their teams or groups that can provide leadership in all four frames. The structural frame emphasizes the organizations' goals, roles and relationships. Problems in organizations occur when the structure does not fit the situation. The challenge is to tailor the organization to the people who work within it. Organizations need to find a way for individuals to get the job done, while feeling good about what they are doing (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The human resource frame believes that organizations can be productive, energizing and mutually rewarding. This perspective regards the skills, attitudes, energy and commitment of individuals as vital resources of either making or breaking the enterprise. When the fit between the organization and individual is poor, one or both suffer. Organizations may become ineffective because individuals withdraw their efforts and individuals may feel neglected or feel their abilities are needed or wanted. When the fit is good, individuals find meaningful and satisfying work and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The political frame asserts that in the face of differences and scarce resources, conflict is unavoidable and power is a key resource, the assumptions of this frame find the sources of political dynamics in organizations. The symbolic frame sees organizations as cultures which are propelled by rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes and myths rather than by rules, policies, and managerial authority (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

PAGE 57

47 Duke (1998) stated that individuals are seen to occupy roles which represent sets of expectations and these roles are a function of social context and individual understanding. An assumption about human nature supports this "role theory' is that humans are capable of self-reflection and evaluation. Inquiry in sociological research must focus on understanding how people define situations determine what is expected of them and select courses of action. Role expectations become an important source of information for the study of organizations. Organizing is as much a bottom-up philosophy and process as a method to win victories on specific issues as people are encouraged to take direct action on their own issues not encouraged to look to others to act on their behalf. The greatest organizational mileage occurs when a group of members are directly involved in winning a victory The lesson is that "we won because we are organized there is strength in numbers." Such strategies build a sense of ownership and control empowering people through the process of organizing as well as through benefits achieved (Staples 1984). Membership in Organizations The growth of an organi z ation depends on retaining members and recruiting new ones. Success depends on a combination of things: a shared organizational vision an effective group process and a strong capacity for leadership development. The long range vision of an organization is key to keeping and attracting new members. There needs to be a sense of community and the challenge of higher goals More people will stay active in an organization if they feel they are taking part in something important and exciting. Some membership attrition is inevitable as people s lives actions and responsibilities change over time. Only by attracting and involving new people can the

PAGE 58

48 organization renew and regenerate itself in the face of the natural tendency for people to lose interest drop out or become less active" (Staples 1984 p 122). The "apathy'' of the organization s members is usually blamed for declines in organizational membership. Most individuals are attracted to an organization because of the prospects of being victorious on an issue they have a stake in Membership involvement is needed to win through collective action which also helps to build an organization Members do their part by participating and hopefully there is a concrete benefit produced by the organization. When the issue is over most members go back home even though they are still members of the organization If the experience was satisfying they will likely participate again if it's in their self-interests to do so (Staples 1984). Effective collective action depends on the active involvement of self-motivated participants The commitment of organizational participants to each other and to the organization becomes a critical and a necessary mechanism for directing their behavior toward collective goal accomplishment (Robertson & Tang 1995) Roberson and Tang (1995) defined commitment as a psychological attachment felt by the person for the organi z ation (p 68). The dominant orientation in organizational behavior literature focuses on commitment as an individual's attitude regarding their relationship to the organization. The role of commitment in collective action receives attention from two literature bases the field of organizational behavior and rational choice literature The organizational behavior literature focuses on factors that influence the quality of individuals' involvement and performance in the organization A primary focus has been individuals work attitudes and the individual and organizational characteristics that shape these attitudes (Robertson & Tang 1995)

PAGE 59

49 The rational choice literature focuses on how an individual's choice of behavior depends on the way they perceive and weigh the expected costs and benefits of alternative courses of action. The extent to which participants perceive each other to be credibly committed to the cooperative arrangement is important, rather than the level of individuals' commitment to the organization as an entity (Robertson & Tang, 1995). Both organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives share the common belief that commitment is an important factor affecting collective action systems. Implicit in both is the notion that individuals with higher levels of commitment are more likely to engage in behaviors oriented toward the good of the collective. Commitment can motivate individuals to act cooperatively in pursuit of shared collective ends (Robertson & Tang, 1995) The two perspectives differ in how they conceptualize the role of the mechanisms in building commitment in collective action. Robertson and Tang (1995) describe these two perspectives: The organizational behavior literature emphasizes the role informal social mechanisms play in shaping individuals' cognition and values. The focus is on how participants internalize norms and values, and thus increase their personal commitment to social and organizational life. The rational choice perspective, on the other hand, views informal social mechanisms as a means of enhancing credible commitment and mutually beneficial gains among individuals. The focus is on how participants develop trust among themselves and pursue long-term mutual benefits. (p. 70) Leadership in Organizations Staples (1984) states, "the person who acts alone has very little power. When people join together and organize, they increase their ability to get things done The goal is to strengthen their collective capacities to bring about social change" (p. 1). "Organizations with the broadest base of participation usually develop the best leaders

PAGE 60

50 and, in turn, those leaders help increase membership involvement. Existing leaders and organizers have the responsibility for expanding the leadership core and motivating, teaching, and supporting the new people who emerge" (Staples, 1984, p. 129). An organization's choice not to innovate or change with the times is the largest reason for its decline. Organizational performance is measured by its development of its people, its standing, innovation, and its producti vity. Changes in population structure and population dynamics are important trends to watch in the future of organizations, as these trends will be the cause of an organization to evolve. The populations that comprise the memberships of organizations are changing and no longer remain as constant as they once did (Drucker, 2001). A successful nonprofit organization focuses the organization on action by defining the strategies needed to accomplish the important goals of the organiza tion. The most effective nonprofits devote much time on defining the mission of the organization. They focus objectives that have clear implications for the work of their members both their staff and their volunteers (Drucker 2001). Northouse (1997) defines leadership as, "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). At the core of leadership are the ideas that leadership is a process, it involves influence, it occurs within a group and it involves the attainment of a goal by the group (Northouse, 1997). An important impediment to achieving leadership effectiveness is a lack of leadership skill. Skill is needed because the role of the leader is both complex and simple. Simple, because effectively functioning groups have a natural synergy that gives them momentum and complex because the relationships with group members are dynamic and constantly

PAGE 61

51 changing depending on the situation goals and the environment (Hersey Blanchard & Johnson 1996). One of the fastest ways to build leaders in an organization is to train them The most effective training takes advantage of the way people learn from research it is known that individuals remember 10 % of what they hear 50% of what we see, 70% of what we say and 90 % of what we hear see say and do (Maxwell 1995). Leadership development programs that aid in the assurance of an adequate supply of effective leaders are a vital and continuing need in communities and organizations across the United States (Rohs & Langone 1993). Leadership development builds the capacity of local leaders and citizens This means enhancing the potential of individuals to solve problems. It is done by engaging citizens and organizations to identify needs, resources and opportunities (Hustedde & Woodward 1996). A major responsibility of an organization is to cultivate leadership skills and pass on that knowledge to the next generation of leaders. Because of retirement, many organizations are facing a high turnover rate which means that the leaders of tomorrow could look and think a lot differently about their commitment and role within the organization (Eisinger 2002) Eisinger (2002) continues by stating once associations identify future volunteer leaders they must offer specific training programs (p.14). Much of this training needs to be directed towards those volunteers who are serving on organizational boards as they sometimes lack the necessary skills to be effective board members. Many non-profits have a functioning board. Those that serve on the boards have a personal commitment to the organization s cause Most board members should have a

PAGE 62

52 deep knowledge and understanding about the organization. The key to making the board effective is organizing the work of the board (Drucker 2001). The board of an organization should reflect the makeup of the membership, which includes people of different backgrounds, ethnicities ages and interest. If the board has been homogeneous in the past, it needs to broaden its horizons and welcome new ideas that emerge from interactions among different groups (Eisinger 2002). Tweeten (2002) states dynamic visionary boards are absolutely critical to the future of nonprofit service delivery organizations" (p 1). Twenty-first century boards are facing inevitable changes as a result of dramatic and continuing societal changes These changes include the way people learn they way they view authority philanthropy and non-profit organi z ations and they way they live, work and play with emphasis on self-development independence flexibility rapidly moving technology and family (Tweeten 2002) In the past some boards with weak board members may have been able to operate ine f ficiently and still get by but this will not be possible as organizations face the transformation process that is inevitable if they are to be successful. Boards can no longer afford to be dysfunctional. There is a dangerous tendency for some boards to be so attached to their past that they overvalue their history and are reluctant to embrace the necessary change that will make them effective (Tweeten 2002) Organizational Changes for the Future There are several ways organizations will have to change to remain viable and effecti v e in the future. Organi z ations need to reali z e that there are other ways for the meaningful involvement of people in their organi z ations other than on their boards

PAGE 63

53 Boards will need to be more resourceful and their membership more diverse to accurately reflect the population they represent. Board members will have to be team players, with the ability to work effectively in a group. Board members will need to make intense commitments to their board responsibilities This commitment may result in board members cycling in and out appropriately, depending on their available time to be fully engaged as they serve on the board. Commitments may be shorter but more concentrated (Tweeten, 2002). A study by Bright (2001) on the commitment of board members suggested that individuals believe that commitment among board members is essential to the effective functioning of boards. When board members served primarily because they had an emotional attachment to the organization, the board experienced higher performance, though passions and personal experiences individuals bring to the cause often obscure objective thinking and may thwart the success of the organization. Research has suggested that ideal board members are personally affected by the problem(s) the organization focuses on. It has also shown that board members who care, but have some distance from the issue are best because they are able to make difficult decisions for the good of the organization as a whole, based on facts, not emotions (Bright, 2001 ). Whether volunteering on an organizational board or for the organization in general, it is important that the group has common goals. Hersey et al. (1996) state "research has consistently shown that group productivity is highest in those groups in which techniques are used that simultaneously further the attainment of group goals and bring fulfillment of the needs of individual group members" (p. 363).

PAGE 64

54 The goals of an organization help shape the organizational leaders as do the context, norms and values of the organization and determine the effectiveness of a group. Two conditions that face all organizations and their leaders are external adoption and internal integration. External adaptation is the idea that all organizations fit a context; the survival of the organization is contingent on the organization's ability to address the needs and expectations of its environment. Internal integration is the assurance that all members of the organization value and pursue the goals of the organization (Duke 1998) Effective groups are those in which the needs of the group are harmonious with the needs of the individuals Individual needs may be different for each group member The key to individual needs satisfaction is that those needs are dependent upon the accomplishment of the group goals. The degree to which individual need satisfaction is achieved differentiates those effective groups from ineffective ones (Hersey et al., 1996) The shifting demographic trends may make it necessary for organizations to modify their approach to volunteerism and how leadership opportunities are structured. Differing leadership styles need to be considered Keeping the interest levels high in volunteers is not achieved by increasing their responsibilities instead, they need to feel like the have ownership in the association (Eisinger 2002) Those who volunteer are less interested in serving in long-term commitments and in a designated role for the entire year, and are more willing to work on one project and see it through to completion Organizations are learning that the more you give board members to do the more they tend not to return (Eisinger 2002). Washbush (1998) states, personal motivation, self-assessment diagnostic skills coupled with vision and

PAGE 65

55 the ability to communicate are fundamentally important to one who aspires to have an impact in the organization" (p 251 ). Sorcher and Brant (2002) state, homogenous groups often run more smoo t hly but they lack the synergistic power of a diverse team of people with talents, skills, and characteristics that complement one another" (p. 80) Exceptional leaders are willing to take risks by picking people who are not like them and who may have different leadership styles There are several trends that need to be addressed by nonprofit boards: (1) limited availability of board members, (2) lack of preparation of board members (3) lack ofrecruitment strategies (4) board members who are on too many boards, and (5) board members who do not understand their roles (Tweeten, 2002) Many organizations do not have procedures in place to identify or recruit potential leaders. Potential leaders are sometimes assessed based on hearsay, observations and insufficient information The process of identifying these future leaders is not simple or straightforward as leadership is a complex, multifaceted capability (Sorcher & Brant 2002). Organizations need to consider these trends as many organizations are struggling with a shortage in leadership though in these organizations there may be a lot of leadership talent that goes unused. Leaders tend to favor other potential leaders w ith backgrounds experiences and characteristics that are similar to their own. Often promising potential leaders are overlooked because of differences in gender, race, or cultural academic socioeconomic or geographical background (Sorcher & Brant 2002) Leaders are managers of group dynamics. They are a key component to the effectiveness of any group Effective leaders will recognize the variations among

PAGE 66

56 individual members in their abilities and willingness to do a job and assign work roles accordingly. Effective leaders are sensitive to the natural cycle of commitment to long term projects and provide the necessary support to sustain commitment over prolonged periods (Garkovich, 1984). "Ifwe assume that leaders are made, not born, and that most people have within them the basic skills and abilities to assume leadership positions, then one strategy for local capacity building is to promote the emergence of such individuals" (Garkovich, 1984, p. 209). This can be done through organized leadership development programs. A climate needs to be generated in an organization where the members feel that they are heard, supported, and have a sense that the organization is open to new ideas This generates interest and encourages the members to stay involved (Eisinger, 2002). Organizations need to retain its volunteers to remain effective and viable into the future. Effective leadership combines both altruism and authority. It is respectful of the need for individual interests and also considerate of the common good (Scott, 2000). Scott (2000) defines altruism as "caring for the welfare of others; it is the ability to be concerned about the condition or state of being of another human and to acknowledge and meet the needs of the other" (p. 23). Authority is the degree of power exercised by an individual, organization, or group in order to perform important functions to those over which the authority is exercised. These concepts build into the ideas of social capital and civic engagement, which will be examined in the next section. Summary of organizational leadership The strength of an organization is a direct result of the organization's leadership The growth of an organization depends on retaining members and recruiting new ones.

PAGE 67

57 Individuals will continue to be involved in an organization if they feel they are participating in something important and exciting. Individuals are attracted to organ izati ons because of the prospects of being victorious on an issue they have a stake in. An organization has the responsibility to provide leadership development opportunities to individuals to further develop their leadership skills. Social Capital Social capital is a collective concept that has its bas is in individual behavior, attitudes, and predispositions. Multiple institutions nurture the habits and values that give rise to social capital, including community and other voluntary associations, families church organizations, and cultural patterns. Scholarly interest in the development of social capital is motivated primarily by the linkage between levels of social capital and collective outcomes (Brehm & Rahn 1997, p. 999). The more citizens participate in organizat ions and their communities, the more they learn to trust others; the greater the trust of others and the more likely they are to participate Social capital is the reciprocal relationship between civic participation and interpersonal trust. Brehm and Rahn (1997) believe that "civic engagement and generalized trust, and the dynamic that sustains them, have important consequences for the polity specifically citizens' confidence in political institutions" (p. 1003). According to Garkovich (1984), associations and organizations "provide the locus in which individual interests are articulated and translated into action goals, and humans and other resources are mobilized for goal accomplishment" (p. 199). Scheufele and Shah (2000) propose that the process through which social capital is maintained is a three-way relationship among civic engagement (group memberships

PAGE 68

58 and civic participation), life satisfaction ( contentment with respect to present condition and future prospects) and interpersonal trust. The theory of social capital presumes that the more people connect with each other, the more they trust each other. Civic engagement refers to people's connections with the life of their communities (Scheufele & Shah 2000). In the social field paradigm social action is the pivotal element. It is in social action that various individuals and associations come to orient their activities around overlapping interests (Garkovich 1984). Christenson and Robinson (1989) discuss social action as the key component in the social field paradigm The underlying process of the social action framework is one in which associations are linked through common interests to act together toward mutually defined goals The process depends on effective leadership leadership that can anticipate change identify action programs contribute to informed decisions, stimulate support attract resources and manage group behavior Leadership involves both the ab i lity to organi z e and sustain task performance and arouse or stimulate others to join in the task (Garkovich 1984 ; Christenson & Robinson Jr. 1989) An essential characteristic of a properly functioning society is engagement in civic activiti e s because cooperative actions enable citi z ens to efficiently pursue common goals Selfconfident leaders a r e more trusting in other people they are satisfied with their li fe and their achievements and they are more likely to engage in various forms of community activities. A grassroots political movement is a social capital intensive form o f political participation (Scheufele & Shah, 2000).

PAGE 69

59 The trend in civic engagement shown by membership records of organizations has declined by roughly 25 to 50% over the last three decades There are many reasons why social capital has eroded: time pressures economic hard times residential mobility surbanization movement of women to the paid work force disruption of marriage and family times the electronic revolution and other technological changes. A social trend which influences social capital and coincides with the downturn in civic engagement is the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Since the family is a key form of social capital its eclipse is part of the e x planation for the reduction in joining and trusting in the wider community (Scheufele & Shah 2000). Married men and women do rank higher on measures of social capital. Men and women divorced separated and never-married, are significantly less trusting and less engaged civically than married people Married men and women are a third more trusting and belong to about 15 to 25 % more groups than comparable single men and women. Women belong to fewer voluntary organizations then men and older people belong to more organizations than young people (Scheufele & Shah 2000). Social capital is features of life networks norms and trust that enable partic i pants to ac t together to more effectively pursue shared objectives (Scheufele & Shah 2000). It has been shown that a greater number of social ties increased the likelihood that a group will be more successful in organizing for concerted action (O Brien Hassinger Brown & Pinkerton 1991). Social capital is important when discussing agricultural organizations as social capital has strong influences in these organi z ations

PAGE 70

60 Summary of Social Capital Social capital is the reciprocal relationship between civic participation and interpersonal trust. It presumes that the more people connect with each other, the more they trust each other. From this theory comes the notion of social action in which individuals and groups orient their activities around overlapping interest. There has been a decline in social capital because of time pressures difficult economic times and changes in the family structure This has caused a decline in civic participation Agricultural Leadership When discussing l eadership in agricultural organizations the leaders have traditionally been male. With recent demographic shifts in the v olunteers o f organizations more women will become a part of these organizations, but to understand agriculture and agricultural organizations it is importan t to look at the past and the influence that men have had on these organizations Family farmers lack the power of individual survival almost by their very nature. The reason lies in the psychology of the individual farmer w hose concentration on his own operation tends to distract him from concern for factors that affect farming as a whole. This has b e en referred to as family farming s non instinct for selfpreservation" (Breimyer & Frederick, 1999). Men are driven to succeed with their masculinity tied to career success and the ability to be the breadwinner and provide for their family. They are likely to be supportive of Type A behavior which reveres rationality and tou g h-mindedness Men show that they are in command of the situation and carry out tasks with confidence, e v en when those tasks s e em insurmountable (Lindsey 1994)

PAGE 71

61 Weigel (2003) theorizes that growing up male is "often characterized by an emphasis on independence, competition, emotional restraint, and maintaining the upper hand in relationships." Beliefs about how men ought to behave are constructed at many levels in society and in the minds of men. This masculine identity is generated by the media teachers, historians, parents, and public figures and dominates how men think about themselves. Men in any subgroup such as farmers, tend to share the same cultural history and have similar notions about behavior. This i dentity leads to four traditional attitudes about masculinity: (1) men should not be feminine, (2) men should strive to be respected for successful achievement (3) men should never show weakness and ( 4) men should seek adventure and risk (Weigel, 2003). In addition to looking at the psychology of men, investigating leadership in other agricultural organizations is important in this review of literature, as it could possibly be a basis for leadership development in other agricultural organizations. Kajer (1996) conducted a study with nine agricultural leaders in Minnesota regarding their leadership experiences. Kajer found that volunteer leaders in agricultural organizations define their leadership in a range of processes and roles with t he most important being facilitating group cooperation and decisions. These leaders are concerned with the struggle to maintain and build memberships, and fmd and develop future leaders for agricultural organizations. With state level volunteer posi t ions volunteer leadership in agricultural organizations can result in large sacrifices by the individual in lost time with family and business and unreimbursed expenses in time and travel. Those who do take leadership positions become energi z ed by the experience and dedicate much time to the organization during their key leadership position years

PAGE 72

62 Volunteer leaders believe that their leadership experiences made their lives fuller, increased their self-esteem and expanded their horizons (Kajer, 1996). In a study of volunteer leaders in agricultural organizations, the motivations to serve in leadership roles in agricultural organizations were found to be a concern for people, the responsibility to support their profession, it's something they believe in, it's an outlet for their talents, it's a source of enjoyment and satisfaction, it's their duty to use their talents in service to others, and they believe they owe it to their industry (Kajer, 1996). In Kajer's study of volunteer leaders (1996), the importance of being asked to take on a particular leadership role was emphasized. When individuals are asked to serve, it affirms the confidence of others in their leadership abilities, which also raises their individual self-confidence and firms their resolve not to let the people down who asked them. Those that participated in this study felt that the "asking" could be improved by treating it as a grooming process for leadership rather than a single request. Respondents to the study of volunteer leaders in agricultural organizations felt there is little involvement of women in most agricultural organizations as active members and especially as leaders There is a great deal of leadership potential being wasted with the absence of women. Increased involvement of women would increase the pool of leaders and make available the special talents and interests that women have. The "good old boys network" continues to be a barrier for women with the stereotyping of women's roles continued to be reinforced by both genders at the family, community, and organization levels. A general consensus has been found that the process of breaking

PAGE 73

63 down gender barriers is slower in rural communities and organizations than in society as a whole (Kajer 1996) There are issues that will affect agricultural organizations and their leaders now and in the future One set of issues revolves around the trend to larger and fewer farms and the effect this has on rural communities agricultural organizations and on agriculture s influence. Another set of issues are the challenges of technology and information overload to members in the agricultural community especially those older members who are not as comfortable working within technology Leaders will need a broader perspective on the world in the future and how agriculture fits into this larger picture (Kajer 1996). Summary of Agricultural Leadership The leade r s of agricultural organizations have trad i tionally been male but more women are becoming involved in agricultural organizations and in leadership roles in these organizations. A study conducted with leaders of agricultural organizations found that agricultural leaders are concerned with maintaining and building memberships and finding and developing future leaders for the organization Changes in agriculture technology and demographics are issues that will affect agricultural organizations in the future. Summary This chapter focused on the areas of literature important to this study which were: history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations political interest groups grassroots organi z ations motivations of volunteers organizational leadership social capital and agricultural leadership.

PAGE 74

64 Farm Bureau is the largest general agricultural organization that represents farmers throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. It has been representing the needs of its members for one hundred years through grassroots efforts that begin with members at the county level. Because of the changes in agriculture and the prominence of commodity organizations that serve specific segments of the agricultural industry, Farm Bureau needs to find ways to recruit, retain, and encourage its members to take on additional leadership roles within the Farm Bureau organization. An understanding of volunteers and what motivates individuals to join organizations and assume roles in those organizations is necessary for organizations in order for those organizations to more effectively utilize their volunteers and make their efforts productive. Individuals need to identify with the organization and its members and feel that they are accomplishing organizational objectives. Organizations should realize that they are competing with other time pressures on an individual and should consider restructuring volunteer tasks to meet the needs of the volunteer. Another factor in an individual's likelihood to join and participate in an organization is the organization itself and the leadership that guides it. Organizations should develop the leadership within to produce new leaders for tomorrow and to increase the leadership skills of existing leaders to make their organizations more effective. One way to do this is to offer leadership development opportunities and leadership training to individuals in the organization. Agricultural organizations need to consider the motivations of volunteers and their organizational leadership as agriculture is facing many changes, such as farm sizes,

PAGE 75

65 technology and shifts in demographics. If these organizations do not take measures to evolve with these changes, they may not remain productive and viable in the future.

PAGE 76

CHAPTER3 METHODS Chapter 1 provided an introduction and the background of this study of the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members, especially those who serve ( or who may serve) on their local county boards. An overview of the methodology used in this study, delimitations of the study, and definitions of key terms are outlined in this chapter. A thorough review of relevant literature was provided in Chapter 2. This literature focused on areas which included: history of Farm Bureau and agricultural organizations, political interest groups, grassroots organizations, volunteer motivations, organizational leadership, social capital and agricultural leadership. This chapter explains the methodology and data analysis used in this study. The objectives that were identified in this study were: (1) identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills, ( 4) determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards 66

PAGE 77

67 In this chapter the research design used, the populations who participated in the study, the procedures used for data collection and the statistics used to analyze the data are described. Research Design The research design of this study was a three-part assessment of the Florida Farm Bureau and its membership using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The three parts of this study included: 1. A qualitative long interview of members of the state leadership of the FFBF This interview was the first part of the study and provided the foundation for the leadership competency instrument given to county Farm Bureau board members. Interview questions included their expectations of desired leadership practices and behaviors of local board members and their expectations of what county Farm Bureau boards should accomplish. The information provided in these interviews accomplished the second objective of this study 2. A quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher, based upon findings from the qualitative interview and given to a random sample of members of local Farm Bureau boards. This instrument had a list of 66 leadership competencies derived from the qualitative long interviews which were divided into four sections and each respondent rated their perceived importance and proficiency of each. This instrument was used to accomplish the third objective of this study 3. A quantitative leadership behavior instrument developed by the researcher and administered to active Farm Bureau members. This instrument measured respondent attitude / will/desire regarding leadership to determine if leadership apathy exists. Objectives four and five were accomplished by this instrument. A demographic section was included at the end of both quantitative instruments to collect personal information about survey respondents This information was used to accomplish the first objective of this study Quantitative research uses objective measurement and numerical analysis of data to explain the causes of changes in social phenomena. Qualitative research, seeks to understand a social phenomenon through the researcher s total immersion in the situat i on

PAGE 78

68 Quantitative research seeks to e x plain while qualitative research is more concerned with understanding (Ary Jacobs and Razavieh 1996) Denzin and Lincoln (1994) offer a generic definition of qualitative research as multimethod in focus involving an interpreti v e naturalistic approach to its subject matter. Qualitative researchers study subjects in their natural settings attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them It involves the studies use and collection of a variety of empirical materials-case study, personal e x perience introspective life stories, interviews observational historical, interactional and visual te x ts that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals lives. Qualitative research does not have a distinct set of methods that are entirely its own. Researchers in this field use semiotics narrative content discourse archival, and phonemic analysis and even statistics (Denzin and Lincoln 1994) In reporting qualitative data one includes conceptual and theoretical framework purpose and questions research methodologies findings and a discussion section (Rudd, 1998). Qualitative studies seek to answer questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Ary et al. (1996) state that both qualitative and quantitative research aim at a type of scientific explanation that includes the discovery of and appeal to laws laws that govern the beha v ior of the physical world and human behavior. Rudd (1998) describes the attributes of qualitative research as providing a deep understanding of what is being researched generating a deeper understanding of the phenomena and providing another perspecti v e for research In qualitative research researchers seek to interpret human

PAGE 79

69 actions, institutions, events, and customs and in doing so, they construct a "reading" or portrayal of what is being studied. The ultimate goal is to portray the complex pattern of what is being studied in sufficient depth and detail so that one who has not experienced it can understand it (Ary et al., 1996). Survey research can be classified as quantitative research in which instruments such as questionnaires are used to gather information from groups of subjects. Surveys are used to measure attitudes and opinions of respondents and are widely used in the social sciences (Ary et al., 1996). Regardless of whether a survey is qualitative or quantitative, it must be reliable (consistent) and valid (accurate) to ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings. Ary et al., (1996) describe validity as the extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure Reliability is the extent to which a measuring device is consistent in measuring whatever it measures. Vogt (1999) defines validity as a term used to describe a measurement instrument or test that accurately measures what it is suppose to measure. Reliability is defined as the freedom from measurement or random error. For qualitative data, the measurement instrument is said to be reliable when repeated measures of the same thing give identical or similar results This reliability can be measured for the quantitative data using statistical software packages. A long interview made up the first phase of the study. Long interviews are a more formal, orderly interview process that the researcher can direct to a range of intentions (Glesne, 1999). Researchers ask questions in the context of purposes generally known only to themselves, while the respondents who possess the information the researchers are seeking answer the questions in the context of dispositions (motives,

PAGE 80

70 values concerns needs) that the researchers need to unravel to clarify the words that their questions generated. Long interviews can be the basis for later data collection (which is the case for this research project) as in the form of a questionnaire which is the next step outlined in this process (Glesne 1999) Long interviews were chosen as they yield a high percentage of returns as people are willing to cooperate with the research agenda. Information derived from interviews is likely to be correct than data obtained by other sources as the interviewer can clear up inaccurate answers by e x plaining the questions more thoroughly (Miller 1991) This method i s also advantageous as the researcher can chose and control those who answers the questions important in this study as the state Farm Bureau organization initiated this needs assessment so it is important to obtain the ideas and thoughts of the state leadership of this organi z ation. The qualitative interviews of the state Farm Bureau leadership underwent content analysis to provide the information used in the qualitative instrument given to county board members. Interviewing can be used to produce data for academic analysis and for the purpose of measurement or for understanding of an individual or group perspective It i s used as an attempt to understand the complex behavior of individuals without imposing any categorization that may limit the field of inquiry (Fontana & Frey, 1994). Keppel and Zedeck (1989) describe content analysis as an examination of spoken or written material for the purpose of classifying or coding of the information. Content analysis is a quantitatively oriented technique by which standardized measurements are used to characterize and compare documents (Manning & Cullum-Swan 1994).

PAGE 81

71 There were several steps in the content analysis of these interview questionnaires. The first step was the complete transcription of the seven interviews. The responses for each question were then grouped together. From the groups of responses for each question, four themes emerged. Responses were then grouped into these four theme areas and from there the duplicate responses were eliminated. From the remaining responses in each area, the competencies were derived from the responses for the county board member instrument. The quantitative portion ofthis study utilized survey research methods, with the first part a questionnaire developed from the responses of the long interviews and administered to county Farm Bureau board members. An additional leadership behavior instrument was developed to examine leadership attitude / will/desire within members This instrument was administered to a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau members Ary et al. (1996) describe a survey as a research technique in which data are gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals called respondents Survey research asks questions about the nature incidence, or distribution of variables and/or the relationships among those variables. No manipulation is attempted on the variables, only descriptions of variables and their relationships as they naturally occur. All three survey instruments used in this study were pilot tested to ensure validity. Pilot tests are a form of pre-testing in which subjects from the sample population are given the instrument and provide feedback to determine if the instrument is measuring what it is suppose to measure (Black, 1999). Members of the pilot test groups were taken from the same as the groups who would be receiving the three individual instruments.

PAGE 82

72 Findings of this study determined what Farm Bureau is doing and what it needs to do to make local board members more effective in their county Farm Bureau's and also in their communities The findings will be used as the state Farm Bureau organization is interested in developing a leadership program for its members especially those serving on the local county boards. Results of this study will provide the state organization with the information needed to develop programs tailored to the needs of members Research Context This study took place in several locations and covered a five-month period from January 2004 to May 2004. The development of the interview schedule occurred in early January and was completed early February 2004. The survey instrument developed from these interviews was pilot tested in March then sent out to all local board members at the end of March 2004. The third and final part ofthis study the leadership behavior instrument was developed and pilot tested in March 2004 and then was mailed to a sample of Florida Farm Bureau active members in late March 2004 with the responses collected until the middle of May 2004. Research Participants F or this study one population the Florida Farm Bureau organization, was used. Three subsets of this population were included in this population. The first subset was the leadership of the FFBF which included: the president of the board of directors administrative and legal counsel director of the agricultural policy division director of public relations the vice president of the board of directors the coordinator of national affairs and the executive director of the Dade County Farm Bureau. These individuals participated in the first part of this study individual interviews using a long interview

PAGE 83

73 format. These interviews asked the organizational leaders to explain what they expect from county board members and what they want these board members and county boards to accomplish. The second subset of the population was composed of members of local county Farm Bureau boards. A sample of this sub-population completed the survey derived from the state leader responses to the interview questionnaires. This portion of the study determined existing board member leadership behavior. Salant and Dillman (1994) describe how a sample size is chosen. There are approximately 666 county Farm Bureau board members in Florida (FFBF 2004) Using a table provided by Salant and Dillman (1994), the researcher chose a 50 / 50 split with a % sampling error a sample of279 individuals was chosen (p. 55) The researcher was given the names and addresses of all county board members and randomly chose 279 participants to receive the survey. They were chosen through a process of systematic sampling with the first element in the sample chosen from a random numbers table After that number was chosen every other individual on the list was included in the survey. The third subset of the population was a sample of active Florida Farm Bureau members The researcher was given a computer generated random list of active members and mailed surveys to 419 of these members. In this study one of the subsets of the population was the active members of Florida Farm Bureau The size of this subset is 36 100 (P. Cockrell, personal communication September 10 2002). Using a 50 / 50 split with a 5 % sampling error 419 members of this subpopulation were selected to participate in this part of the study.

PAGE 84

74 The basic survey procedure outlined in Salant and Dillman (1994) was used for the data collection of the two subset populations of board members and active members This survey procedure is comprised of four separate mailings The first is a personalized, advance notice letter, which is mailed to all members of the sample. This letter explained to the individuals that they were selected for the survey and that they will be receiving a questionnaire. The second mailing was mailed a week later. It included a personalized cover letter, which explained the survey, their rights as survey subjects, a survey instrument, and a stamped return envelope Exactly six days after the second mailing, a postcard was sent to each participant thanking those who had sent back their survey and requesting a response from those who had not yet responded. Three weeks after the second mailing a third mailing was sent out to all those who had not responded. It included a personalized letter again explaining the importance of their returning the survey a replacement survey, and another stamped return envelope. This procedure was used to produce an acceptable response rate so as to try to avoid nonresponse error. The response rate for the qualitative interview was 100%, 46% for county board members and 25% for active members. As Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1996) state ''using information only from those who choose to respond can introduce error because the respondents represent a self-selected group that may not represent the views of the entire sample or population" (p. 460). Research has shown that respondents differ from nonrespondents and the extent of this difference should be determined. For this study early and late respondents were compared as late respondents are similar to those who do not respond at all (Ary Jacobs & Razavieh, 1996). Those who responded to the survey early (after the first survey was sent to them) were compared to those who

PAGE 85

75 responded late (after the follow-up survey was sent). Differences were examined in the responses of these groups to determine if there were any significant differences between the responses the differences examined include survey responses and demographic information. There were no significant differences found in the surveys of the early and late respondents which indicates that it was an unbiased sample of recipients. Instruments Used in Data Collection Three instruments were used in the data collection for this study. The first was an interview questionnaire found in Appendix C This questionnaire was developed by the researcher and sought to determine the competencies and skills that were perceived by the leadership of the state Farm Bureau organization as necessary leadership attributes that local county board members should have to make them effective members of their county boards. These questions also were used to determine from the state leadership the perceived needs of the county boards the perceived needs of the Farm Bureau organization and the needs of Farm Bureau members. There were 16 questions used for this interview and based on interviews with Farm Bureau leadership and from a review of the literature This instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and validity and pilot tested with a comparable group of leaders from two other state Farm Bureaus These pilot tests were conducted over the telephone and lasted approximately one hour. The interviews were transcribed by the researcher and analyzed for content. Minor changes were made to the interview questionnaire from the results of the pilot test. This questionnaire was administered by the researcher to leaders of the Florida Farm Bureau organization. Five of these interviews took place in person in the state

PAGE 86

76 Farm Bureau headquarters in Gainesville, Florida and two took place by telephone, and all were recorded for later transcription This transcription occurred soon after the interviews and themes were examined in the responses. Four themes emerged from these interviews and served as a basis for the instrument that was developed for county board members The second instrument was developed by the researcher from the responses of the long interviews. Respondents of this survey questionnaire (Appendix D) were local Farm Bureau county board members This instrument was pilot tested with a group of county board members who were not included in the final sample. From the content analysis of the long interviews with state Farm Bureau officials, a list of 100 competencies were identified in four areas: leadership political process knowledge of Farm Bureau and effective boards. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each competency to the success of a county board using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (low importance) to 7 (high importance). In addition how proficient they felt they were was also rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (low importance) to 7 (high importance). After pilot testing this ins t rument and analyzing the data the list of competencies was reduced to 66 across the four construct areas A conceptual model for this part of the study depicting the relationship between the competencies found in the first part of the study and what makes a successful board member is presented in Figure 3-1. This model represents that being a successful board member is a function of competencies in the four theme areas SBM Successful Board Member f (L e + Leadership Competencies In: P c Political Process + E e Effective Boards + Kc) Knowledge of Farm Bureau Figure 3-1. Competencies Necessary for Successful Board Members.

PAGE 87

77 The third instrument (Appendix E) used in this study was a leadership behavior instrument which was composed of three parts: a motivation sources inventory, a semantic differential scale to measure volunteering attitudes and a Likert scale inventory to assess respondents' desire about serving on a county board. The motivation sources inventory was developed by Barbuto and Scholl (1998) and measures the sources of motivation. The authors developed this inventory to predict behaviors of individuals and it was used in this context as a factor that contributes to members will to serve ( or not to serve) on their county Farm Bureau boards. Because county board members are volunteers, a semantic differential was constructed to obtain participants' attitudes on volunteering. Vogt (1999) defines a semantic differential scale as "a question format in an interview or survey in which respondents are asked to locate their attitudes on a scale ranging between opposite positions on a particular issue" (p. 261 ). This scale is a combination of scaling procedures and controlled association that provides the subject with a concept, in this case volunteering, to be differentiated and a set of bipolar adjectival scales against which to do it. The participant is asked to indicate for each item, the direction of their association and its intensity on a seven-step scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1971.) Twelve adjective pairs were used in the semantic differential used in this scale. The third part of this instrument was a Likert scale, which measured participants' desire about serving on their local county Farm Bureau boards. This part of the researcher-developed instrument consisted of twelve statements which participants were asked to rate from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)

PAGE 88

78 From the literature, motivation factors, attitudes on volunteering and demographic variables have been identified as influences on participation in organizations and whether individuals will step forth for additional leadership responsibilities within these organizations These contribute to the attitude/will/desire that was measured by this instrument in the third part of this study. A conceptual model which represents this part of the study is provided in Figure 3-2. In this model, leadership is a function of motivation factors, volunteering attitudes, a desire to serve and demographic variables. = L f(M + V + s + D) (Leadership) Motivation Factors Volunteering Desire Demographic Attitudes to Serve Variables Internal Self-Concept Evaluative Gender External Self-Concept Potency Age Intrinsic Process Activity Marital Status Instrumental Children Belong to Orgs (Will) (Attitude) (Desire) Figure 3-2. Factors which Influence Individuals Participation in Leadership Opportunities Data Analysis An informed consent letter for study participants and a proposal of this study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) for their review The IRB approved the proposal for this study and the instruments that were used to collect data (Protocol #2003-U-992). A copy of the informed consent letter was signed by interviewees before they participated in the long interviews. For the other two participant groups, they were informed of their rights as research subjects in a letter they received explaining the survey and the importance of their participation. Data collection began once IRB approved this study.

PAGE 89

79 Various methods of data collection and analyses were conducted in this study. Responses from the long interviews underwent content analysis. McCracken (1988) described the qualitative researcher's goal in long interviews is to isolate and define categories during the process of research Patterns of interrelationships between categories are examined. Using the same interview questions for each respondent ensures that the investigator covers all the terrain in the same order for each respondent. The first step in this analysis was the transcription of the interview answers The object of this analysis was to determine the relationships categories and assumptions that inform the respondent's view of the world in general and the topic in particular (McCracken 1988). The analysis conducted identified themes in the responses that were subsequently used in the development of the competencies used in the survey instrument given to local county board members. The information provided by this content analysis was used in objective two; identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership. Data analysis of the two survey instruments was used to e x plain and predict leader involvement. The demographic information collected from both surveys was used to accomplish the first research objective, identify demographics of county Farm Bureau members. Independent variables age, gender years of membership in Farm Bureau, membership in other agricultural organizations, membership in other organizations, membership in leadership and youth development organizations, marital status children, agricultural income and farm size was analyzed. Selected independent variables were used with other data as predictors of participation on county Farm Bureau boards.

PAGE 90

80 The leadership competency instrument that was developed for county board members was used to accomplish objective three measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills This instrument was comprised of four competency sections : (1) 15 leadership, (2) 20 political process, (3) 15 effective boards and (4) 16 knowledge of Farm Bureau. The mean and standard deviation was calculated for the importance and proficiency of each competency section Determine leadership attitude will and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members was accomplished in objective four, by analyzing the data of each section of the instrument. A mean and standard deviation was found for the motivation sources inventory and the semantic differential. A reliability analysis was conducted on the Likert scale about perceptions of serving on county boards. Multiple linear regression was used in the accomplishment of objective fiv e, determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. Vogt (1999) describes regress i on analysis as a predictor for whether something will happen or not such as graduation, business failure or in this case participation on a county board. Regression is used to determine the nature of the relationship between a dependent variable and more than one independent variable (Black, 1999) For this analysis the dependent variable is participation on a county board and the independent variables are: the four mot iv ation factors from the motivation sources in v entory the three factors about attitude on volunteering from the semantic differential attitude about serving on a county board and the following demographic variables: motivation internal self-concept factor e v a l uati v e

PAGE 91

81 volunteering factor, activity volunteering factor, belonging to other organizations, children, member of 4-H, member of other youth development organizations, participation in leadership development programs, and agricultural income from livestock. Summary This chapter explained the research methods that were used in this research design conducted for the FFBF. This study was conducted in three-parts, which included: long interviews, a leadership instrument developed from these interviews and a leadership behavior instrument developed to measure leadership attitude / will/desire Demographic information was also collected from individuals which was used to in the data analysis. Results of these methods will be presented in the next chapter.

PAGE 92

CHAPTER4 RESULTS This study examined the need for individuals to step forward and assume leadership positions within a changing agricultural industry The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members. Chapter one provided the background to this study the problem statement, and significance of this study, definitions of key terms and several limitations to the study. The objectives of the study were: (1) identify demographics of county Farm Bureau membership (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders (4) determine leadership attitude will and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members and (5) determine r eason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. The theoretical and conceptual framework for this study was found in Chapter two This framework focused on research in seven areas: the history of the Farm Bureau and other agricultural organi z ations political interest groups grassroots organizations organi z ational leadership motivations o f volunte e rs social capital and agricultural l e adership 8 2

PAGE 93

83 The research methodology used in this study was described in Chapter three. The research design, research participants, instruments used in data collection and data analysis procedures were described. This chapter will present the findings of the study, which are organized in order of the research objectives Objective One Identify Demographics of County Farm Bureau Membership Results from the demographic information section found at the end of each of the quantitative instruments (Appendices D-E) are reported separately for the two groups due to differences found between the demographic variables of active members and county board members. Please note the change in population number (n) for each table. Several respondents in both groups did not fill out portions of the demographic information sections found in both instruments. The total number of board members who responded to the survey was 129 (46%) and the total number of active members was 104 (25%). Table 4-1 provides information on gender, marital status and children of participants in both groups. Of the 129 board members who responded to this survey, 88.4% (n=l 14) were male and 11.6% (n=l5) were female For the active survey, of the 100 who completed this demographic variable, 69% (n=69) were male and 31 % (n=31) were female According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 11 % of principal operators on farms were women, while 89% were men (USDA, 2004). Those numbers reflect the county board members who responded to the survey Married board members made up 86% (n=l 11) of the board member population. Single board members accounted for 14% (n=18) of the population. Of the active members who participated in the study, 68.3% (n=69) were married.

PAGE 94

84 Large percentages of both groups had children 93.8% (n =l21) for board members and 84 2% (n=85) for active members. When combined 90% (n=206) of respondents to both surveys had children. Table 4-1 Demographic Variables for Gender Marital Status, & Children of Active and Board Members (N = 233) Board (N=l29) Active (N=l04) Total (N=233) n % n % n % Male 114 88.4 69 69 183 80 Female 15 11.6 31 31 46 20 Married 111 86 69 68 3 180 78 Single 18 14 32 31.7 50 22 Children 121 93.8 85 84.2 206 90 No Children 8 6 2 16 15. 8 24 10 Note: Missing variables (Active= 4) Those who serve on Farm Bureau boards have been a Farm Bureau member for an average of21.4 years. The average number of years in Farm Bureau for active members who completed this survey was 14.5 years Years of membership in Farm Bureau can be found in Table 4-2 Table 4-2 Years of Membership in Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=220) Mean Minimum Maximum Member for 0-10 years Member for 11 to 25 years Member for 26 to 64 years Note: Missing variables (Board= 4 ; Active = 9) Board (n=125) 21.4 1 62 % 33.6 33 6 32 8 Active (n=95) 14.5 .30 64 % 50.5 37.9 11.6 Board members who have belonged to Farm Bureau for zero to ten years is 33. 6% (n=42) while 50.5% (n= 48) of active members have belonged to Farm Bureau for this time range Those who have been a member for 11 to 25 years are 33.6% (n=42) for

PAGE 95

85 board members and 37.9% (n=36) for active members. The third range of membership 26 to 64 years, has 32.8% (n = 41) of board members and 11. 6% (n=l 1) of active members. A graphic representation for years of membership in Farm Bureau for both groups can be found in Figure 4-1. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 0 0 40 50 6 0 70 0 IO 2 0 3 0 40 50 Active Members Board Members Figure 4-1. Comparisons of Years of Membership in Farm Bureau (Active N=95 M =l4. 50 SD=l 1.90; Board N=125 M=21.38 SD=14.94) 60 70 Family i nvolvement in Farm Bureau was also examined with 73.4% (n=91) of board members indicating that they were part of another generation of Farm Bureau as their family had been involved in Farm Bureau while only 17% (n = l 7) of active members indicated that their family was involved in Farm Bureau. Table 4-3 represents the involvement of family in Farm Bureau and demonstrates that board members have a much greater percentage of family who have been involved in Farm Bureau than active members

PAGE 96

86 Table 4-3 Family Involved in Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=224) Family Involved Yes No Family Involved in PB from O to 25 Years Family Involved in PB from 26 to 50 Years Family Involved in PB from 51 to 80 Years Note: Missing variables (Board= 5; Active= 4) Board Active (n=l24) (n=lOO) % 73.4 26.6 56.2 40 3 8 % 17.0 83 92.8 5.1 2.1 On average, Farm Bureau board members spend 8.4 hours per month on Farm Bureau activities, which includes participating in meetings, activities, events and conventions and reading information in support of these activities. Active members spend considerably less time than board members, only a quarter of an hour per month on average. Farm Bureau board members attended, on average, 11.7 Farm Bureau events in the past year while active members only attended an average of 0.3 events for the past year. Table 4-4 represents the time devoted and events attended for both groups. Table 4-4 Time Devoted to Farm Bureau for Active and Board Members (N=2 l 5) Board Active (n=123) (n=92) Mean Number of Hours Per Month 8.4 0.4 Minimum Number of Hours Per Month O 0 Maximum Number of Hours Per Month 82 8 Mean Number of PB Events Attended Last Year Minimum Number of PB Events Attended Last Year Maximum Number of PB Events Attended Last Years Note: Missing variables (Board= 6; Active= 12) 11.7 2 40 0.3 0 6 There were several demographic questions that were only asked of county board members. These questions reflected their length of time on their county board, if they had been president of their county Farm Bureau board and if they had been on the Florida Farm Bureau Federation board. Table 4-5 represents the first of these questions for board

PAGE 97

87 members the length of time (in years) they have served on their county boards. County board members have served an average of 11.5 years on their county boards. This table shows that over 60% of county board members have been on their boards for up to ten years, while over 14% have been on their board for longer then twenty years. Table 4-5 Length of Time (in years) on Farm Bureau Board (N=l26) Mean Minimum Maximum 0 5 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 to 20 Years 20 and More Years Note : Missing variables (Board= 3) n 53 25 18 12 18 Board n=l26 11.5 0.5 54 % 42.1 19. 8 14.3 9.5 14.3 One-third of county board members have served as president of their county Farm Bureau board 33.6% (n=43) and less then 10% (n = l 0) have served on the Florida Farm Bureau Federation Board Table 4-6 reflects those that have served in these higher capacities. Table 4-6 Board Members Who Have Served as President of County Farm Bureau Board and/or on the Florida Farm Bureau Federation Board(N= 128) No Yes n % n % Served as County President 85 66.4 43 33.6 Served on Florida Farm Bureau Federation Board 118 92.2 10 7.8 Note: Missing variables (Board = 1) Many organizations represent components of agriculture and Table 47 shows the involvement of both board and active members in other agricultural organizations. Board members seem to be more active in other organizations 71.4% (n=90) than do active members 10% (n=l 0). For those that are involved board members belong to an average

PAGE 98

88 of 1.9 other agricultural organizations, while active members belong to an average of 0.5 agricultural organizations. Board members belong to a greater number of organizations as well, as the maximum number was 11 with a maximum of only 5 for active members. Of those board members who were involved in other agricultural organizations, 42.1 % (n=53) held leadership roles in these organizations, while only 4% (n=4) of active members held leadership positions in other agricultural organizations. Table 47 Involvement with other Agricultural Organizations for Active and Board Members (N= 226) Involvement with Other Ag. Organizations Yes No Leadership Role in Agricultural Organizations Yes No Mean Number of Agricultural Organizations Minimum Number of Agricultural Organizations Maximum Number of Agricultural Organizations Note: Missing variables (Board= 3; Active = 4) Board (n=l26) n % 90 71.4 36 28.6 53 42.1 73 57 9 1.9 1 11 Active (n=IO0) n % 10 10 90 90 4 4 96 96 .5 1 5 Individuals are also involved in other civic, community and business organizations and Table 4 8 represents the level of involvement by board and active members Both groups are involved with other organi z ations 63.8 % (n = 81) of board members and 42 6% (n= 43) of active members are involved in at least one civic community or business organi z ation On average active members belonged to 0.9 additional organi z ations, while board members belonged to 1.9 additional organi z ations. Of the over one third of board members who did belong to additional organi z ations 3 7%

PAGE 99

89 (n=47) held leadership roles in these organizations while 18.8% (n=19) of active members held leadership positions in civic, community, and business organizations. Table 4-8 Involvement with other Organizations (N=228) Yes No Leadership Role in Organizations Yes No Mean Number of Organizations Minimum Number of Organizations Maximum Number of Organizations Note: Missing variables (Board= 2; Active= 3) Board (n=127) n % 81 63.8 45 35.4 47 37 80 63 1.9 1 8 Active (n=lOl) n % 43 42.6 58 57.4 19 18.8 82 81.2 0.9 1 6 Slightly over half of the board members 53.5% (n=68) were currently serving on the board of other organizations, while only 16% (n= 16) of active members were on the boards of other organizations. The mean number of additional boards that county Farm Bureau board members were serving on was 1.1 boards, while the number for active members was 0.3. These figures are represented by Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Active and Board Members Currently Serving on Boards of other Organizations (N=227) Board (n =127) n % 68 53.5 n 16 Yes No 59 46.5 84 Mean Number of Boards Minimum Number of Boards Maximum Number of Boards Note: Missing variables (Board= 2; Active= 4) 1.1 1 7 Active (n =100) % 16 84 0.3 1 5 The age characteristics of board and active members can be found on Table 4-10. The mean ages for both groups are approximately equivalent, 51.4 years for board

PAGE 100

90 members and 50.9 years for active members. A graphic representation of the distributions of ages for both groups is presented in Figure 4-2. Close to fifty percent of active members, 48.5% (n=33) are between 43 to 60 years old, while 33% (n=36) of board members fall within this age range. A graphic representation of the distributions of ages for both groups is presented in Figure 4 2. Table 4-10 Age of Active and Board Members (N= 177) Mean Age Minimum Age Maximum Age 19 to 42 Years Old 43 to 60 Years Old 61 to 87 Years Old Note: Missing variables (Board = 20; Active = 36) 10 15 8 1 2 9 6 2 3 20 40 60 80 Board Active (n =109) (n =68) 51.4 50.9 21 19 83 87 n % n % 36 33% 19 27.9% 36 33% 33 48.5% 37 33.9% 16 23.5% Age Distribution of Active Members Age Distribution of Board Members Figure 4-2. Age Distributions o f Active and Board Members (Active N=68, M = 50.90, SD = 14.32; Board N = 109 M = 51.40 SD = 15.26)

PAGE 101

91 Questions in reference to the respondents' participation in youth and leadership development organizations were found in the demographic portion of both questionnaires. Results of these questions can be found in Table 4-11. There were 55, (42.6%) board members who belonged to 4-H, while 21.8% (n=22) of active members were involved in the 4-H program. Almost half, 45.7% (n=59) of board members belonged to FFA, while only 12.9% (n=13) of active members belonged to this organization. Approximately the same percentage of each group, 34.6% (n=44) of board members and 34.7% (n=35) of active members, belonged to other youth development organizations. One-quarter of board members 24.4% (n=31) and 15.8% (n=16) of active members have participated in leadership development programs. Table 4-11 Membership in Youth and Leadership Development Programs for Active and Board Members (N=230) Member of 4-H Yes No Member of FF A Yes No Member in other Youth Development Organizations Yes No Participant in Leadership Development Programs Yes No Note: Missing variables (Active = 3) Board (n =129) n % 55 42.6 74 57.4 59 45.7 70 54.3 44 34.6 85 65.4 31 24.4 98 75.6 n 22 79 13 88 35 66 16 85 Active (n =101) % 21.8 78.2 12.9 87.1 34.7 65.3 15.8 84.2 Income derived from livestock accounted for the largest percentage of agricultural income for both groups, 43% for board members and 12.5% for active members.

PAGE 102

92 Agricultural income can be found in Table 4-12 Income from forestry represents the second largest percentage for board members 25% and is equivalent to the percentage of active members who are involved with livestock, 12.5%. The category of"other" represents the third largest percentage for each group, with 14% of board members and 8.9% of active members deriving their income from this category There are twelve other categories found on this table with their corresponding percentages. It should be noted that a majority of respondents indicated that they derived their agricultural income from more then one category which accounts for the reason why the n in each category will not equal to total number of respondents when summated. Table 4-12 Agricultural Income for Active and Board Members (N= 185) Board Active (n =129) (n =56) n % n % Livestock 56 43 7 12.5 Forestry 32 25 7 12.5 Other (Hay, Sod, Chemicals, Ag Sales, Etc ) 21 16 5 8.9 Citrus 18 14 3 5.4 Horticulture 16 12 2 3.6 Vegetables 15 12 3 5.4 Peanuts 14 11 0 0 Grain 11 9 1 1.8 Fruit 10 8 2 3.6 Equine 9 7 5 8.9 Dairy 5 4 2 3.6 Aquaculture 4 3 1 1.8 Poultry 3 2 1 1.8 Tobacco 2 2 0 0 Sugarcane 0 0 2 3.6 Note: Missing variables (Active = 48) The average size of a board members farm was 1 778.1 acres while the average farm of an active member was 398.1 acres. The range of farm size was approximately the same for both groups 0 to 28 000 acres for board members and O to 20,000 acres for active members Almost three-quarters of active members 72.4% (n=42) have farms,

PAGE 103

93 which range in size from Oto 10 acres, while 13.3% (n=l5) of board members have farms this size. A small number of board members 5.3% (n=6) and 1.7% (n=l) of active members had farms, which accounted for the upper size range, 10001 to 28000 acres in size. Farm size in acres can be found in Table 4-13. Table 4-13 Farm Size in Acres for Active and Board Members (N=l 71) Mean Size Median Size Minimum Size Maximum Size 0 to 10 acres 11 to 100 acres 101 to 500 acres 501 to 1000 acres 1001 to 10000 acres 10001 to 28000 acres Note: Missing variables (Board= 16; Active = 46) Board (n =113) 1,778.1 300 0 28,000 n % 15 13.3 26 23 30 26.5 14 12.4 22 19.5 6 5.3 n 42 10 3 2 0 1 Active (n =58) 398.1 2.05 0 20,000 % 72.4 17.3 5.1 3.5 0 1.7 Less than half of the board members work off farm 44.2% (n=57), while 65 .1 % (n=56) of active members are employed off the farm. Table 4-14 provides information on this demographic variable. Table 4-14 Active and County Board Members who Work Off Farm (N=215) Yes No Note: Missing variables (Active = 18) Summary of Objective One Board (n =129) n % 57 44.2 72 55.8 n 56 30 Active (n =86) % 65.1 34.9 The majority of county board members and active members were married men with children. County board members tended to be members of the FFBF longer then active members and they had more family who were involved in Farm Bureau then active

PAGE 104

94 members One third of county board members have been president of their county board while less then ten percent have been on the FFBF board. County board members are more active in other agricultural organizations and also business, community and civic organizations Both active and county board members have approximately the same mean age of 50 years. A greater number of county board members belonged to 4-H, FF A, and have participated in other leadership development programs. County board members have a greater average farm size then do active members and less work off farm Objective Two Identify Perceived Leadership Roles of County Farm Bureau Leaders by the State Farm Bureau Leadership State leadership of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation were given a researcher developed qualitative interview questionnaire (Appendix C) in order to determine their e x pectations of county Farm Bureau board members and county Farm Bureau boards From their responses a list of 100 competencies in four theme areas was developed, and after pilot testing 66 competencies remained and composed the instrument that was given to county board members Competencies were eliminated if they were repetitive confusing or were not statistically significant. The responses from the long interviews underwent content analysis and four major theme areas emerged from the analysis of the interview transcripts and audiotapes. These areas were: leadership, political process effective boards, and knowledge of Farm Bureau These were all areas that the state leadership determined county Farm Bureau board members should possess skills in Questions on the interview questionnaire were not separated into these four areas, but the responses given by interview participants were

PAGE 105

95 easily categorized into these four theme areas. It should be noted that the results in this section are reported as percentage of respondents who stated that specific competency was important. It would be assumed that all respondents would feel each are important for an "ideal" board member, but a specific competency may not have been explicitly stated by each and every board member. Leadership The competencies found in the leadership theme area included skills related to how to conduct meetings, effective communication practices, and identifying potential leaders and leadership abilities. A complete list of competencies that were developed from the responses in this area can be found in Table 4-15. As one participant stated "we need folks who have the desire to lead so the torch can be passed on." All respondents felt that county board members needed to already be leaders and possess some leadership skill(s). Not only do they need to possess leadership abilities, county board members need to choose to be involved in leadership opportunities such as serving on their county Farm Bureau board. The county boards need individuals who are willing to step forward and assume leadership roles within the organization. Several competencies were deemed highly important in the leadership area by the interview respondents, these included: choose individuals to serve the organizations who are respected in their communities, choose individuals to serve who are recognized as leaders by their peers, demonstrate ability to work in small group settings, demonstrate ability to build consensus within a group, and recognize how committees are utilized in the Farm Bureau organization.

PAGE 106

96 Table 4-15 Leadership Competencies Derived from Interviews with Florida Farm Bureau Officials (N=7) Recognize leadership opportunities. Choose to be involved in leadership opporturutles Demonstrate success in leadership capacities. Identify potential leaders. Encourage potential leaders to become involved. Recognize different types of leadership. Recognize different leadership styles. Recognize personality differences (as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs ) Choose individuals to serve the organization who are respected in their communities. Choose individuals to serve who are recognized as leaders by their peers. Demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting. Demonstrate knowledge of the use of goals and objectives in an organization. Demonstrate ability to work in small group settings. Demonstrate ability to build consensus within a group. Demonstrate ability to use conflict resolution practices. Identify proactive solutions. Practice progressiveness (not do things the way they have always been done). Demonstrate ability to use email and the internet. Recognize the importance of being involved in Farm Bureau committees. Recognize how committees are utilized in the Farm Bureau organization. Use effective communication skills in public speaking Use effective communication skills in media interviews. Use effective communication skills in working with groups. Use effective communication skills in writing letters. Respondents also indicated that county board members need to have the necessary skills to be an effective board member. These skills included: ability to work in a group and achieve consensus, the basic understanding of how to run an orderly meeting, and communication competencies in how to speak to the media and groups. The importance of board members being able to recognize different personality types and leadership styles as this would allow board members to better understand each other and work effectively together were also found important. Conflict resolution and the ability to achieve consensus in a group were identified by the participants as important abilities for board members to have. Respondents also indicated that board members should have

PAGE 107

97 communication skills which include: speaking to groups and the media, writing letters, and being comfortable with the use of technology such as email and the internet. Respondents indicated the need for county board members to be proactive and the ability to seek out alternatives to problems As indicated in the interviews ''we need board members who bring new things to the table who don't do things the way they have always been done." One of the concerns of the state leaders is that older board members are inhibiting younger board members from implementing new ideas as they are not comfortable with change or doing things differently from the way they have always been done. Political Process As one Farm Bureau official stated "Farm Bureau is a mechanism for people to work collectively together on political social and economic ideas ." Another stated "the strongest county Farm Bureaus are affecting political leaders." All interview respondents felt that one of the objectives of county Farm Bureaus and county Farm Bureau members should be involvement in the political process. This involvement included the abilities to: explain agricultural issues, demonstrate ability to become involved in government on the local, state and national level demonstrate knowledge of the political process and political structure on all levels, develop relationships with elected officials and support the legislative activities of the Farm Bureau. A complete list of political process competencies can be found in Table 4-16.

PAGE 108

98 Table 4-16 Political Process Competencies Derived from Interviews with Florida Farm Bureau Officials (N=7) Analyze agricultural issues on the county level. Explain agricultural issues on the county level. Analyze agricultural issues on the state level. Explain agricultural issues on the state level. Analyze agricultural issues on the national level. Explain agricultural issues on the national level. Develop relationships with local government. Demonstrate ability to be involved in local government. Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the county level. Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the state level. Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the national level. Demonstrate ability to formulate policy. Demonstrate ability to revise policy. Demonstrate knowledge of the political process. Choose ways to be more politically active. Identify the political structure in Tallahassee. Identify the political structure in Washington D.C Determine how policy decisions made in Tallahassee impact Farm Bureau. Determine how policy decisions made in Washington, D.C. impact Farm Bureau. Develop relationships with elected officials on the county level. Develop relationships with staff to elected officials on the county level. Develop relationships with elected officials on the state level. Develop relationships with staff to elected officials on the state level. Develop relationships with elected officials on the national level. Develop relationships with staff to elected officials on the national level. Develop Farm Bureau legislative activities Support Farm Bureau legislative activities. Recognize regulatory agencies Demonstrate involvement with regulatory agencies. Participate in county government meetings impacting agriculture. Participate in state government meetings impacting agriculture. Participate in national government meetings that are impacting agriculture. Respondents felt that county board members needed the following skills or competencies: analyze policy development issues that affect Farm Bureau on all levels, choose ways to be more politically active, determine how policy decisions affect Farm Bureau support Farm Bureau legislative activities and participate in government meetings that are impacting agriculture.

PAGE 109

99 Respondents specifically indicated that developing relationships with government officials was an important competency for county board members. They also believed that board members needed to possess the necessary skills to analyze and explain agricultural issues on all levels especially those on the local and state le v el. Policy development was a priority of Farm Bureau and that county board members needed to be familiar and comfortable with the policy development process. The competencies in this theme were all derived from these responses. As one respondent stated Farm Bureau s advantage is that they ha v e a 'presence in each county,' which gives incredible potential with policy issues and committee issues Farm Bureau officials who were interviewed felt that county board members needed to know how politics and the political process worked on the local, state and national level. This included the political structures of Tallahassee FL and Washington D.C Becoming politically active in the policy development process is the overriding them of this section All respondents stressed the importance that county board members be involved in policy development on some level and understand how the process works. Effective Boards Being an effective board member was another overriding theme in the interview responses Respondents indicated that board members needed to participate in Farm Bureau programs and meetings support the organization and it's leaders and demonstrate the ability to work together to benefit the organization. A list of effective board competencies can be found in Table 4-17.

PAGE 110

100 Table 4-17 Effective Board Competencies Derived from Interviews with Florida Farm Bureau Officials (N=7) Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs. Acquire additional responsibilities within Farm Bureau. Determine individuals' strengths. Provide activities to utilize those strengths. Demonstrate interest in serving on the county Farm Bureau board. Employ mutual respect for all board members. Demonstrate enjoyment in working together to accomplish goals. Demonstrate ability to work together to develop a vision of where the organization should be. Demonstrate ability to work together to develop the goals necessary to achieve vision. Support the organization. Support the county president. Support board decisions. Attend board meetings. Pay attention to proceedings at meetings. Evaluate materials involving issues. Up-hold the bylaws of the organization. Interpret financial aspects of the county board Propose ideas and solutions on issues. Demonstrate a background in agriculture. Demonstrate civic involvement. Identify with the business structure in the community. Represent Farm Bureau to others in the community. Demonstrate ability to work together for the benefit of the whole Farm Bureau organization. Demonstrate ability to work together to solve problems. Encourage individuals involved in agriculture to become members of Farm Bureau. Specific abilities in regards to effective boards and effective board meetings were mentioned by respondents: demonstrate the ability in working together to accomplish goals, demonstrate ability to work together to develop a vision of where the organizations should be, support the organization, support the county president, support board decisions, attend board meetings, pay attention to proceedings, evaluate materials and up-hold the bylaws of the organization. Those interviewed stated that it was important for county board members to identify with the business structure in their communities.

PAGE 111

101 Farm Bureau officials indicated that the first board meeting a newly elected board member attends is their first, so board members may need training on how to be an effective member. Board members needed to act collectively as a board, not as a group of individual board members and support the board's president and the decisions of the board, even if they did not agree with them. All respondents indicated the importance of working together to solve problems for the benefit of Farm Bureau and its members. As one respondent stated, "these boards are volunteer organizations, members need to transcend competitive enterprise to solve problems together and work together for the benefit of the whole organization. Knowledge of Farm Bureau A list of competencies in the "knowledge of Farm Bureau" area developed from the responses of the long interview can be found in Table 4-18. Those who participated in this interview process believed that county boards members needed to know: Farm Bureau's role in the development of policy, how powerful grassroots organizations can be and how they differ from other organizations, what their role was within the Farm Bureau organization, the organizational structure of Farm Bureau, the ability to look to the future needs of the organization, and to participate in Farm Bureau activities. Several responded that this needs to be stressed to county board members, as one participant stated, "county board members do not understand the strength or potential the organization has." Another indicated that county board members: ''Need to understand Florida Farm Bureau Federation and the American Farm Bureau Federation and the differences between the organization and structure of Farm Bureau and other organizations as in other organizations policy decisions are made from the top, with Farm Bureau, policy is an ongoing process and members have a real direct impact on the process."

PAGE 112

102 Table 4-18 Knowledge of Farm Bureau Competencies Derived from Interviews with Florida Farm Bureau Officials (N=7) Encourage Farm Bureau members to take on additional responsibilities. Demonstrate ability to look at future needs of the Farm Bureau organization. Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus is to help implement policy. Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus is to advise the state organization on policy issues. Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus is to serve as a springboard for ideas. Identify the organizational structure of Farm Bureau. Identify the history of Farm Bureau Define grassroots organizations. Differentiate how grassroots organizations differ from other organizations. Identify how powerful grassroots organizations can be. Recognize your role within the Farm Bureau organization. Determine how to be a progressive member of the organization. Define Farm Bureau as a general farm organization that serves as a mechanism for people to work collectively together on political, social and economic ideas. Differentiate between the organization and structure of Farm Bureau to other organizations who develop policy. Demonstrate knowledge of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Demonstrate knowledge of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau. Participate in events that promote agricultural education. Participate in media and farm tours. Responses from the interviews indicated that information on the history of Farm Bureau and knowledge of the AFBF and the FFBF is important for county board members to have, respondents felt that board members possessed some knowledge on both organizations, but felt that it is important for all board members to have this information. Several of those individuals interviewed indicated that there is no job description for county board members so board members do not know what knowledge, such as Farm Bureau's organizational structure, is necessary to do their job. As one participant stated "Farm Bureau is one of the most recognized organizations in the state and county

PAGE 113

103 board members need to have this appreciation and awareness of Farm Bureau to effectively work together. Summary for objective two From the qualitative interviews with the state leaders of Florida Farm Bureau four theme areas emerged These theme areas were leadership political process effective boards and knowledge of Farm Bureau. From these interviews competencies were derived and placed into the theme area they represented These competencies were then used in the county board member survey instrument. Objective Three Measure the Extent to Which County Farm Bureau Members Practice the Leadership Expectations Held by State Farm Bureau Leaders and the Level of Importance They Assign to Those Skills A random sample of 280 county board members out of a total of 666 county Farm Bureau board members of the Florida Farm Bureau was sent a researcher-designed questionnaire (Appendix D) which reflected the competencies that were deemed important by the qualitative interviews of the state leadership of the FFBF The competencies were divided into four sections: leadership political process effective boards and knowledge of Farm Bureau This instrument was developed using the Borich needs assessment model which assessed the respondents perceptions about the importance of each item or competency and their proficiency ( or ability) to apply this skill or knowledge By analyzing the perceived importance and proficiency about a particular topic individuals will learn the actual need for further education or programming efforts (Waters & Haskell, 1989) A Likert-type scale from one to seven was located on the side of each competency on the left survey participants were asked to rank how important they

PAGE 114

104 believed it was for an ideal county Farm Bureau board member to possess the following abilities or competencies with 1 =l ow and ?=high. On the right side, respondents were asked how proficient they believed they were at each ability or competency with 1 =low and ?=high. Leadership The first section of survey questionnaire was comprised of the competencies that belonged to the leadership theme and are reflected in Table 4-19. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.97 which indicates a high reliability for this list of competencies. The overall mean for the scale was 5.4. Two competencies had the highest means of (M=5.9, SD=l.5) which indicated that respondents felt they were the most important abilities or competencies of an ideal Farm Bureau country board member. These were: "ch oose individuals to serve the organization who are respected their communities" and "demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting." The competency that received the lowest score was "rec ognize personality differences (as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs)" (M=4.7, SD=l.7). Table 4-19 Leadership Competencies of County Board Members-Importance (N=l 14) Mean SD Choose individuals to serve the organization who are respected their 5.9 1.5 communities Demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting Use effective communication skills in working with groups Practice progressiveness (not do things the way they have always been done) Use effective communication skills in media interviews Choose individuals to serve who are recognized as leaders by their peers Demonstrate knowledge of the use of goals and objectives in an organization Use effective communication skills in writing letters Identify potential leaders Demonstrate success in leadership capacities 5.9 1.5 5.7 1.5 5.7 1.4 5.6 1.6 5.6 1.5 5.5 1.5 5.5 1.5 5.4 1.5 5.4 1.4

PAGE 115

105 Table 4-19. Continued Recognize different types of leadership Identify how committees are utilized in the Farm Bureau organization Demonstrate ability to use conflict resolution practices Demonstrate ability to use email and the internet Recognize personality differences ( as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs) Total Cronbach 's Alpha Note: Missing variables N=l4 Mean 5 3 5.3 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.4 .97 SD 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 The next table (Table 4-20) represents respondents' proficiencies of the leadership competencies The overall mean was 5.0. The lowest proficiency competency was demonstrate ability to use email and the Internet" (M=4.5, SD = 2.0). Respondents felt they were most proficient in the competency "choose individuals to serve the organization who are respected by their communities" (M = 5 5, SD = l 3 Those competencies that respondents felt they were least proficient in ranked below the overall mean and included: recognize personality differences (as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs)" (M=4.7 SD = l.3), "identify how committees are utilized in the Farm Bureau organization" (M = 4.9, SD = l.4), "use effective communication skills when writing letters" (M = 4.8, SD = l.6), and "use effective communication skills in media interviews" (M= 4.8 SD = l.6). Table 4-20 Leadership Competencies of County Board Members Proficiency (N=l 14) Choose individuals to serve the organization who are respected in their communities Demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting Practice progressiveness (not do things the way they have always been done) Choose individuals to serve who are recogni z ed as leaders by their peers Identify potential leaders Use effective communication skills in working with groups Mean SD 5.5 1.3 5.4 5.4 5.3 5 2 5 2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

PAGE 116

106 Table 4-20. Continued Demonstrate knowledge of the use of goals and objectives in an organizat i on Recognize different types of leadership Demonstrate success in leadership capacities Demonstrate ability to use conflict resolution pract i ces Identify how committees are utilized in the Farm Bureau organization Use effective communication skills in writing letters Use effective communication skills in media interviews Recognize personality differences ( as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs) Demonstrate ability to use email and the internet Total Mean Political Process Mean SD 5.1 1.2 5.0 1.3 5.0 1.1 5 0 1.1 4.9 1.4 4.8 1.6 4.8 1.5 4.7 1.3 4.5 2 0 5.0 1.3 The twenty competencies that made up the political process importance section had a Cronbach s alpha of 98 which indicates a high in ternal consistency o r reliabil i ty ofthis section of the instrument. The overall mean was (5 5) the mean of competencies r anging from a high of (M = 5.9 SD =l.5) for develop relationships with elected offic i als on the county level to a low of (M =5.l, SD = 1.5) for identify the political structure in Washington D.C." The political process competencies that were rated high in importance were: expla in agricultural issues on the county le v el (M = 5.8 SD =l.5), analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the county level (M = 5 7 SD =l.4), develop relationships with e l ected officials on the stat e le v el (M = 5 7 SD =l.5), support Farm Bureau legislative act iv it i es (M = 5 8 SD =l.6) and "participate in county go v ernment meetings impactin g a griculture" (M = 5 8 SD =l.6). The four additional competencies that ranked the lowest in importance were : demonstrate abil i ty to formulate polic y'' (M = 5 2 SD = l.3 ), "anal yze agricultural issues

PAGE 117

107 on the national level" (M=5.2, SD=l .5), "identify the political structure in Tallahassee" (M = 5.4, SD=l.5), and "develop relationships with elected officials on the national level" (M=5.2, SD=l.5). Results can be found in Table 4-21. Table 4-21 Political Process Competencies of County Board Members Importance (N=l 14) Develop relationships with elected officials on the county level Participate in county government meetings impacting agriculture Support Farm Bureau legislative activities Explain agricultural issues on the county level Develop relationships with elected officials on the state level Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the county level Demonstrate knowledge of the political process Determine how policy decisions made in Tallahassee impact Farm Bureau Participate in state government meetings impacting agriculture Analyze agricultural issues on the state level Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on the state level Choose ways to be more politically active Demonstrate ability to be involved in local government Identify the importance of regulatory agencies Identify the political structure in Tallahassee Analyze agricultural issues on the national level Determine how policy decisions made in Washington, D.C. impact Farm Bureau Develop relationships with elected officials on the national level Demonstrate ability to formulate policy Identify the political structure in Washington, D.C. Total Mean Cronbach's Alpha Mean SD 5.9 1.5 5.8 1.6 5.8 1.6 5 8 1.5 5.7 1.5 5.7 1.4 5.5 1.5 5.5 1.5 5.5 1.5 5.5 1.4 5.5 1.4 5.5 1.4 5.5 1.4 5.5 1.4 5.4 1.5 5.2 1.5 5 2 1.5 5.2 1.5 5.2 1.3 5.1 1.5 5.5 1.5 .98 The overall mean (M=4.7) for the proficiencies in the political process section was less than the overall mean of the importance section (M=5.5) Table 4-22 shows the results of this scale. The competency that respondents felt least proficient in was "develop relationships with elected officials on the national level" (M=3.9, SD=l.5). The

PAGE 118

108 two competencies that they felt the most proficient in were : develop relationships with elected officials on the county level (M=5 2 SD = l.5) and support Farm Bureau legislative activities (M=5 .2, SD = 1.5). Table 4-22 Political Process Competencies of County Board Members Proficiency =114 Mean SD Develop relationships with elected officials on the county level 5.2 1.5 Support Farm Bureau legislati v e activities 5.2 1.5 Explain agricultural issues on the county level 5.1 1.4 Demonstrate knowledge of the political process 5.0 1.5 Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on 5 0 1.3 the county level Participate in county government meetings impacting agriculture 4 9 1.5 Identify the importance of regulatory agencies 4.9 1.3 Demonstrate ability to be invol v ed in local government 4 8 1.6 Determine how policy decisions are made in Tallahassee impact 4.8 1.4 Farm Bureau Choose ways to be more politically active 4 7 1.5 Develop relationships with elected officials on the state level 4 7 1.5 Identify the political structure in Tallahassee 4.6 1.5 Analyze agricultural issues on the state level 4.6 1.3 Analyze policy development on issues that affect Farm Bureau on 4 6 1.3 the state level Demonstrate ability to formulate policy 4.5 1.4 Analyze agricultural issues on the national level 4.3 1.4 Participate in state government meetings impacting agriculture 4.3 1.4 Determine how policy decisions made in Washington, D.C impact 4.3 1.3 Farm Bureau Identify the political structure in Washington D C 4 1 1.5 Develop relationships with elected officials on the national level 3 9 1.5 Total Mean 4.7 1.4 Effective B o ards Table 4-23 represents the fifteen competencies related to importance in the effective board section of the survey instrument. There was a narrow range in the means for this section (M = 5 8 SD=l.3) to (M=6.3 SD = l.5) with the overall mean found in the middle of this range (M=6.l) and a reliability of 99. Respondents indicated that two

PAGE 119

109 competencies, "attend board meetings" (M=6.3, SD=l.5) and pay attention to proceedings at meetings (M=6.3 SD=l.4) were the most important competencies of this section. "Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs" (M=5.7, SD=l.5) scored the lowest. Table 4-23 Effective Board Competencies of County Board Members Importance =114 Attend board meetings Pay attention to proceedings at meetings Demonstrate ability to work together for the benefit of the whole Farm Bureau organization Demonstrate ability to work together to solve problems Employ mutual respect for all board members Support the organization Support board decisions Up-hold the bylaws of the organization Demonstrate ability to work together to develop the goals necessary to achieve the vision of the organization Represent Farm Bureau to others in the community Support the county president Demonstrate interest in serving on the county Farm Bureau board Evaluate materials involving issues Identify with the business structure in the community Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs Total Mean Cronbach's Alpha Mean 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6 2 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 6.1 .99 SD 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 "Pay attention to proceedings at meetings" (M=6.2 SD =l.5) had the highest mean for the proficiencies in the effective board section (Table 4 24) which indicates that respondents felt they were most proficient in this competency. The overall mean of this section was 5.9. The competency respondents felt least proficient in was "participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs" (M = 5.3 SD=l .2) The other competencies that scored the least of this section and would reflect the lowest proficiencies included : evaluate materials involving issues" (M = 5.8 SD =l.3), "identify

PAGE 120

110 with the business structure in the community'' (M=5.6, SD=l.2), "represent Farm Bureau to others in the community'' (M=5.7, SD=l.5), Table 4-24 Effective Board Competencies of County Board Members Proficiency (N=l 14) Pay attention to proceedings at meetings Attend board meetings Employ mutual respect for all board members Up-hold the bylaws of the organization Support board decisions Support the county president Support the organization Demonstrate ability to work together to solve problems Demonstrate ability to work together for the benefit of the whole Farm Bureau organization Demonstrate ability to work together to develop the goals necessary to achieve the vision of the organization Demonstrate interest in serving on the county Farm Bureau board Evaluate materials involving issues Represent Farm Bureau to others in the community Identify with the business structure in the community Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs Total Mean Knowledge of Farm Bureau Mean 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 5 9 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.3 5.9 SD 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 Knowledge of Farm Bureau and the importance respondents place on the competencies found in this section had an overall mean of 5.6 with a reliability score of .98. The competency that respondents felt was most important to an ideal county board member was "participate in events that promote agricultural education" (M=6.0, SD= 1.5) The competency, which received the lowest score, was "identify the history of Farm Bureau" (M=4.9, SD=l.6). Results of this table can be found in Table 425.

PAGE 121

111 Table 4-25 Knowledge of Farm Bureau Competencies of County Board Members Importance (N=l 14) Participate in events that promote agricultural education Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau Demonstrate ability to look at future needs of the Farm Bureau organi z ation Identify how powerful grassroots organizations can be Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus to advise the state organization on policy issues Participate in media and farm tours Determine how to be a progressive member of the organization Encourage Farm Bureau members to take on additional responsibilities Identify your role within the Farm Bureau organization Ident i fy the role of county Farm Bureaus to serve as a spring board for ideas Define grassroots organizations Demonstrate a knowledge of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation Identify the organizational structure of Farm Bureau Differentiate between the structure and organi z ation of Farm Bureau to other organi z ations who develop policy Demonstrate a knowledge of the American Farm Bureau Federation Identify the history of Farm Bureau Total Mean Cronbach's Alpha Mean 6 0 5.9 5.7 5 7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5 6 5 6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.2 4 9 5.6 .98 SD 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 The proficiency competencies of the knowledge of Farm Bureau section had a relatively lo w overall mean (M = 4 9) compared to the other sections Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau" (M = 6.3 SD = 1.5) received the highest scores and had the highest mean which indicated that respondents felt they were most proficient in this competency. Demonstrate a knowledge of the American Farm Bureau Federation (M = 4 2 SD = l.4) received the lowest score which indicates that respondents felt they were least proficient in this competency Results can be found in Table 4-26.

PAGE 122

112 Table 4-26 Knowledge of Farm Bureau Competencies of County Board MembersProficiency (N=l 14) Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau Participate in events that promote agricultural education Identify your role within the Farm Bureau organization Define grassroots organizations Identify how powerful grassroots organizations can be Demonstrate ability to look at future needs of the Farm Bureau organization Determine how to be a progressive member of the organization Identify the organizational structure of Farm Bureau Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus to advise the state organization on policy issues Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus to serve as a spring board for ideas Encourage Farm Bureau members to take on additional responsibilities Participate in media and farm tours Demonstrate a knowledge of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation Differentiate between the structure and organization of Farm Bureau to other organizations who develop policy Identify the history of Farm Bureau Demonstrate a knowledge of the American Farm Bureau Federation Total Mean Mean 6.3 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.9 SD 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 The overall means for importance and proficiency of the four theme areas are compared in Table 4-27. As would be expected the means of the importance sections are greater than the means for the proficiency sections. The largest "gap" between importance and proficiency occurred in the political process section, with importance rated 5.5 and proficiency 4 7. The smallest "gap" occurred in the effective board section with importance receiving a 6.1 and proficiency a 5.9. Table 4-27 Overall Importance and Proficiency Means of the Four Theme Areas Political Process Importance Political Process Proficiency Knowledge of Farm Bureau Importance Knowledge of Farm Bureau Proficiency Gap Mean { 5.5 .8 4.7 { 5.6 .7 4.9 SD 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4

PAGE 123

Table 4-27. Continued Leadership Importance Leadership Proficiency Effective Boards Importance Effective Boards Proficiency 113 Comparisons of Importance and Proficiency Scores Gap .4 .2 Mean SD { 5.4 1.5 5.0 1.3 { 6.1 1.4 5.9 1.4 The importance and proficiency mean scores for each competency were also compared. The comparisons for the leadership section can be found in Table 4-28. As would be e x pected the proficiency scores are less then the importance scores which would indicate that respondents feel the competencies are important for ideal county board members to posses but do not feel as proficient as the importance scores in these competencies The greatest gap (0.8) is found in the competency use effective communication skills in media interviews", which would indicate that respondents feel it is important but they do not feel proficient in this skill area Recognize personality differences (as indicated by personality tests such as the Myers Briggs) received the same mean score in each area (M=4.7) which demonstrates that respondents do not feel this competency is as important as the others and that they are not very proficient in it. Table 4-28 Leadership Competencies Comparisons of Importance and Proficiencies Mean Mean Gaps Importance Proficiency Use effective communication skills in media 5.6 4.8 0.8 interviews Use effective communication skills in writing 5 5 4.8 0.7 letters Demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting 5.9 5.4 0 5 Use effective communication skills in working 5.7 5.2 0.5 w i th groups Choose individuals to serve the organization who 5 9 5.5 0.4 are respected in their communities Demonstrate knowledge of the use of goals and 5.5 5 1 0.4 objectives in an organization

PAGE 124

114 Table 4-28. Continued Mean Mean Gaps Imeortance Proficiency Demonstrate success in leadership capacities 5.4 5 0 0.4 Identify how committees are utilized in the Farm 5.3 4.9 0.4 Bureau organization Practice progressiveness (not do things the way 5.7 5.4 0.3 they have always been done) Choose individuals to serve who are recognized as 5.6 5.3 0.3 leaders by their peers Recognize different types of leadership 5.3 5.0 0.3 Demonstrate ability to use email and the internet 4.8 4.5 0.3 Identify potential leaders 5.4 5.2 0 2 Demonstrate ability to use conflict resolution 5 2 5.0 0.2 practices Recognize personality differences (as indicated by 4.7 4.7 0 personality tests such as the Myers Briggs) Total Mean 5 4 5.0 0.4 Cronbach's Al~ha 0.97 Several competencies in the political process section had large gaps between the importance and proficiency scores. As with the previous section, all the mean proficiency scores in this section were less than the mean importance scores. Four competencies had a gap greater(> 1.00) than 1 00 these were: "identify the political structure in Washington D.C." (M1=5.l, MP=4.1) develop relationships with elected officials on the county level" (M1=5.7, MP=4.7) "develop relationships with elected officials on the national level" (M1= 5.2 MP= 3.9), "identify the importance of regulatory agencies" (MI = 6.1 MP=4.9) and "participate in state government meetings impacting agriculture" (MI = 5.5, MP = 4.3) Table 4-29 shows the results of this data. Table 4-29 Political Process Competencies Comparisons of Importance and Proficiencies Develop relationships with elected officials on the national level Mean Imeortance 5 .2 Mean Proficiency 3.9 Gaps 1.3

PAGE 125

115 Table 4-29. Continued Mean Mean Gaps Importance Proficiency Participate in state government meetings 5.5 4.3 1.2 impacting agriculture Develop relationships with elected officials on the 5.7 4.7 1.0 state level Identify the political structure in Washington, 5.1 4.1 1.0 D.C Participate in county government meetings 5.8 4.9 0.9 impacting agriculture Analyze agricultural issues on the state level 5.5 4.6 0.9 Analyze policy development on issues that affect 5.5 4.6 0.9 Farm Bureau on the state level Analyze agricultural issues on the national level 5 2 4.3 0.9 Determine how policy decisions made in 5.2 4.3 0.9 Washington, D.C. impact Farm Bureau Choose ways to be more politically active 5.5 4.7 0.8 Identify the political structure in Tallahassee 5.4 4.6 0.8 Develop relationships with elected officials on the 5.9 5.2 0.7 county level Explain agricultural issues on the county level 5.8 5.1 0.7 Analyze policy development on issues that affect 5.7 5.0 0.7 Farm Bureau on the county level Demonstrate ability to be involved in local 5.5 4.8 0.7 government Determine how policy decisions are made in 5.5 4.8 0.7 Tallahassee impact Farm Bureau Demonstrate ability to formulate policy 5.2 4.5 0.7 Support Farm Bureau legislative activities 5.8 5.2 0.6 Identify the importance of regulatory agencies 5.5 4.9 0.6 Demonstrate knowledge of the political process 5.5 5.0 0.5 Total Mean 5.5 4.7 0.8 Cronbach's Alpha 0.98 The scores in the effective board section had a narrower range between the two means (MI=6.l, MP=5.9), which indicated that the mean scores of the importance competencies were only slightly higher than the mean scores of the proficiency competencies. Only two, "participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs" (MI=5.7, MP=5.3) and "represent Farm Bureau to others in the community'' (M1=6.l, MP=5.7)

PAGE 126

116 had a gap of .04 which would indicate that respondents feel it is important, but feel they are not as proficient in this area. The proficiency means are all less than the importance means as with the other two sections. The results of the comparison of the means for importance and proficiency are presented in Table 4.30. Table 4-30 Effective Board Com2etencies Com2arisons oflm2ortance and Proficiencies Mean Mean Gaps Ini2ortance Proficiency Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs 5.7 5.3 0.4 Represent Farm Bureau to others in the community 6.1 5.7 0.4 Attend board meetings 6.3 6.1 0.3 Demonstrate ability to work together for the 6.2 5.9 0.3 benefit of the whole Farm Bureau organization Demonstrate ability to work together to solve 6.2 6.0 0 2 problems Support the organization 6.2 6.0 0.2 Demonstrate ability to work together to develop 6.1 5.9 0.2 the goals necessary to achieve the vision of the organization Identify with the business structure in the 5.8 5.6 0.2 community Pay attention to proceedings at meetings 6.3 6.2 0 1 Employ mutual respect for all board members 6.2 6.1 0.1 Support board decisions 6.2 6.1 0.1 Up-hold the bylaws of the organization 6 2 6.1 0.1 Support the county president 6.1 6.0 0.1 Evaluate materials involving issues 5.9 5.8 0.1 Demonstrate interest in serving on the county 5 9 5.9 0 Farm Bureau board Total Mean 6.1 5.9 0.2 Cronbach's Aieha 0.895 As with the three previous sections the overall mean scores of importance were greater than the overall mean scores of proficiency in the knowledge of Farm Bureau section, found in Table 4-31, except for one. "Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau" had a higher proficiency mean score (M=6.3) than an importance score (M=5.9). Individuals who responded to this survey believe that they are more proficient in this area

PAGE 127

117 than the area is important. One competency had a wider gap than the other fourteen competencies in this section Demonstrate a knowledge of the AFBF" (MI=5.2, MP= 4 .2), which would indicate that respondents felt it important and also felt they were not as proficient in this skill area The remaining competencies had a gap between the two mean scores that ranged from 0.4 to 0.8. Table 4-31 Knowledge of Farm Bureau Competencies Comparisons of Importance and Proficiencies Mean Mean Gaps Importance Proficiency Demonstrate a knowledge of the American Farm 5.2 4 2 1.0 Bureau Federation Participate in media and farm tours 5.7 4.8 0 9 Demonstrate a knowledge of the Florida Farm 5.5 4 7 0.8 Bureau Federation Demonstrate ability to look at future needs of the 5.7 5.0 0.7 Farm Bureau organization Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus to 5 7 5.0 0 7 advise the state organization on policy issues Encourage Farm Bureau members to take on 5 6 4.9 0.7 additional responsibilities Differentiate between the structure and 5.4 4.7 0 7 organi z ation of Farm Bureau to other organizations who develop policy Participate in events that promote agricultural 6.0 5.4 0.6 education Identify how powerful grassroots organizations 5.7 5.1 0 6 can be Determine how to be a progressive member of 5.6 5.0 0 6 the organi z ation Identify the role of county Farm Bureaus to serve 5.6 5.0 0.6 as a spring board for ideas Identify the organizational structure of Farm 5.5 5.0 0.5 Bureau Identify the history of Farm Bureau 4.9 4.4 0.5 Participate in events that promote Farm Bureau 5.9 6.3 0.4 Identify your role within the Farm Bureau 5.6 5.2 0.4 organization Define grassroots organizations 5.5 5.1 0.4 Total Mean 5.6 4.9 0.7 Cronbach's Alpha 0.98

PAGE 128

118 Summary of objective three In this objective, the importance that county board members placed on the competencies in the four theme areas and their proficiency of each competency was measured. Results found that county board members felt they were least proficient in political process competencies and the most proficient in the competencies found in the effective board theme area. The greatest "gap" between importance and proficiency was found in the political process theme area, while the effective board theme area had the smallest "gap". Objective Four Determine Leadership Attitude, Will, and Desire of Active Florida Farm Bureau Members Active Florida Farm Bureau members comprise 25% of the total membership of the FFBF. A sample of 420 active members out of 37,000 total active membership was randomly selected to receive the researcher-developed survey questionnaire (Appendix E) which attempted to determine the attitude, will and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members towards increasing their participation ( or leadership) in their county Farm Bureaus specifically serving on their county Farm Bureau boards. The survey questionnaire was divided into three sections to address the three components of this objective, the survey respondents' attitude, will, and desire. County Farm Bureau boards are composed of volunteer leaders who are willing to serve their local county Farm Bureau organization. To measure the attitudes that active members have towards volunteering to serve on their local county Farm Bureau board, a semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1971) was developed and included as a section in the survey questionnaire.

PAGE 129

119 A twelve-item Likert-type scale instrument was used to measure the will that act i ve members possess in regards toward serving on their local county Farm Bureau board. Items used in this section were derived from responses from the state Farm Bureau leadership on why individuals would serve on a county Farm Bureau board and critical skills they would need to serve. The third section of this survey questionnaire attempted to quantify the motivations of individuals and provide a measurement of the desire of respondents to volunteer as board members Results from this survey questionnaire will be discussed in three parts which correspond with the three sections of the survey questionnaire. This discussion will begin with explaining the "desire" portion of this objective what motivates individuals to assume leadership responsibilities. Motivation Sources Inventory The Motivation Sources Inventory was used in this section to provide information on the motivations of individuals This inventory developed by Barbuto and Scholl (1998) was created as an inventory to measure motivation sources. The sources of motivation measured included : external self-concept-based motivation internal self concept-based moti v ation intrinsic process motivation and instrumental motivation. In external self-concept-based motivation an individual behaves in ways to gain acceptance and status from reference group members. Motivation is other-directed and the ideal self is adopted from role expectations of a particular reference group. This source i s comparable to the social identity theory. Internal self-concept-based motivation is internally based when the individual sets internal standards of traits and values that

PAGE 130

120 become the basis for the ideal self. In intrinsic process motivation, an individual is motivated to engage in certain types of behavior for the sheer fun of it. The work itself acts as an incentive as it provides enjoyment. Instrumental motivation rewards individuals when they perceive their behavior will lead to extrinsic tangible outcomes such as promotions, pay, and bonuses (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). There were twenty-four items used in the survey questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rank their agreement for these twenty-four items on a seven point scale with 1 =strongly disagree and ?=strongly agree. The six unique questions per category o f motivation were randomly ordered in the survey questionnaire. Results of the in v entory can be found in Table 4-32. The Cronbach's alpha of the entire inventory was 0.8 which indicates that the inventory had a high level of internal consistency or reliability. This is the degree to which the items that make up the scale are all measuring the same underlying attribute (Pallant, 2001). The attribute being measured in this in v entory is motivation and due to the high Cronbach s alpha the inventory can be deemed reliable. External self-concept motivation and intrinsic process motivation received the lowest total mean scores both scored 3.7 which would indicate that respondents of this survey are not motivated by trying to gain the acceptance of others or by the fun and enjoyment of activities. Instrumental motivation received a mean score of 4.3 which is slightly more than external self-concept and intrinsic motivation and would explain tha t tangible rewards such as pay and bonuses motivates indiv i duals more than t h e fun of the activities or the acceptance of others Internal self-concept moti v ation recei v ed th e

PAGE 131

121 highest mean score of 5.8, which explains that respondents of this survey are motivated by their desire to meet their own personal standards The two statements that received the lowest mean score (M=2.7) were, "I often make decisions based on what others will think" and "I often put off work so that I can do something else that is more fun" could be found in the two sources of motivation that scored the lowest. Four statements scored 6.0, "I consider myself a self-motivated person," "I try to make sure that my decisions are cons i stent with my personal standards of behavior," "I like to do things which give me a sense of personal achievement," and "It is important that I work for a company that allows me to use my skills and talents. These four statements are all found in the internal self-concept motivation factor and provide strong evidence of why the internal self-concept motivation factor scored the highest. In the external self-concept motivation factor, "I often make decisions based on what others think" (M=2. 7 SD= 1.4) scored the lowest while "It is important to me th a t others approve of my behavior" score the highest (M=4.8, SD= 1.6). "I work harder on a project if public recognition is attached to it" (M =2 .8 SD =l.6) and "I give my best effort when I know that it will be seen by the most influential people in an organization" (M = 3.2 SD=l.7) also scored lower than the mean of this factor group (M =3.7, SD =l.6) In the other lower scoring motivation factor intrinsic process the highest scoring item was "If I didn't enjoy doing my job at work I would leave" (M=5.0, SD = l .6). The lowest scoring item was I often put off work so that I can do something else that is more fun" (M = 2.7 SD =l.7). Three other items in this factor all had mean scores which

PAGE 132

122 were lower than the total mean of 3.7, "I only like to do things that are fun" (M=3.5, SD=l.4), "when choosing jobs I usually choose the one that sounds like the most fun" (M=3.2, SD=l .6), and "if choosing between two jobs, the most important criteria are 'which is more fun"' (M=3.3, SD=l.6). "The people I choose to spend my time with are the most fun to be with" (M=4.9, SD=l .5) was the only other statement that scored above the mean of this factor. The instrumental motivation factor had a mean score of 4.3. The item that scored highest was "a day's work for a day's pay'' (M=5.3, SD=l.9). The lowest scoring item of this factor was "I would work harder if I knew that my effort would lead to higher pay'' (M=3.7, SD=l.9). The only other item that scored about the mean of 4.3 was "people should always keep their eyes and ears open for better job opportunities" (M=4.9, SD=l.6). The internal self-concept factor received the highest mean score of all four factors (M=5.8). There was only one item that scored lower than the overall factor mean, "I need to know that my skills and values are impacting the organizations success" (M=5.l, SD= l.5). Though it scored the lowest for this factor, the mean of this item (M=5.l, SD=l.5) is still higher than the total mean scores for the three other factors (M=3.7, SD=l.6; M = 3.7, SD=l.6; M = 4.3, SD = l.8). One item was also above the total mean, "decisions I make will reflect high standards that I've set for myself' (M=6.9, SD=l.3). Table 4-32 Motivation Sources Inventory (N=l0l) External Self-Concept It is important to me that others approve of my behavior If choosing jobs I want one that allows me to be recognized for successes Those people who make the most friends have lived the fullest lives I give my best effort when I know that it will be seen by the most influential people in an organization Mean SD 4 8 1.6 4.3 1.7 4.2 1.8 3.2 1.7

PAGE 133

123 Table 4-32. Continued I work harder on a project if public recognition is attached to it I often make decisions based on what others will think Total Mean Internal Self-Concept I consider myself a self-motivated person I try to make sure that my decisions are consistent with my personal standards of behavior I like to do things which give me a sense of personal achievement It is important that I work for a company that allows me to use my skills and talents Decisions I make will reflect high standards that I've set for myself I need to know that my skills and values are impacting the organization's success Total Mean Intrinsic Process Ifl didn't enjoy doing my job at work I would leave The people I choose to spend my time with are the most fun to be with I only like to do things that are fun If choosing between two jobs, the most important criteria are 'which is more fun?' When choosing jobs I usually choose the one that sounds like the most fun I often put off work so that I can do something else that is more fun Total Mean Instrumental A day's work for a day's pay People should always keep their eyes and ears open for better job opportunities When choosing jobs I usually choose the one that pays the most Job requirements dictate how much effort I exert during work I would work harder if I knew that my effort would lead to higher pay At work, my favorite day of the week is 'payday' Total Mean Overall Scale Mean Cronbach's Alpha Attitudes Towards Volunteering Mean SD 2.8 1.6 2.7 1.4 3.7 1.6 6.0 1.1 6.0 1.2 6.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 5.9 1.3 5.1 1.5 5.8 1.2 5.0 1.6 4.9 1.5 3.5 1.4 3.3 1.6 3.2 1.6 2.7 1.7 3.7 1.6 5.3 1.9 4.9 1.6 4.1 1.8 3.9 1.9 3.7 1.9 3.6 1.7 4.3 1.8 4.4 1.6 .8 A semantic differential scale was constructed to determine respondents attitudes towards volunteering The semantic differential was developed as a measurement of the direction and the intensity of feelings towards an attitude (Osgood et al., 1971; Mehling,

PAGE 134

124 1960). In the semantic differential, there are seven-step scales bounded on each end by polar adjectives, which can be loaded onto three factors, evaluative, potency, and activity (Brinton, 1961). The theoretical analysis of the semantic differential is summarized by Osgood et al., (1971): The location of a concept in the semantic space defined by a set of factors is equated with the evocation by the concept of a set of component mediating reactions, direction in space being equated to what mediators are evoked (from among reciprocally antagonistic pairs) and distance from the origin being equated to how intensely (with what habit strength) these are evoked. (p 29-30) The adjective pairs used in a semantic differential can be categorized into three dimensions of the semantic space: evaluative, potency and activity. Results from research conducted by Osgood et al. (1971) have shown that that the evaluative factor plays an important role in meaningful judgments as the evaluative factor is first in magnitude in the semantic space. The potency and activity factors also provide determinants in meaningful judgments of the semantic space, though to a lesser extent than the evaluative factor. In factor analysis of semantic differentials, the evaluative factor in human judgment regularly appears fist and accounts for approximately half to three-quarters of the variance. The second dimension of the semantic space is the potency factor, which accounts for half as much as the variance of the evaluative factor. The potency factor is concerned with the associations of size, weight, and toughness. The activity factor is the third dimension and is equal to or a little smaller in magnitude than the potency factor (Osgood et al. 1971).

PAGE 135

125 For this part of the survey instrument, the researcher developed a semantic differential scale to determine respondents' attitudes towards volunteering. This scale included four adjective pairings, or scales, per factor for a total of twelve scales These scales were randomly ordered and several were reverse coded. These adjective pairs had a "positive" end and a negative" end, the reverse coding was necessary so all the positive associations did not appear on one side of the scale Adjective pairs were chosen from those which had the highest loading on the three factors evaluative activity and potency. Adjective pairs used for the evaluative factor included: good-bad, negative positive boring-interesting, and important-unimportant. Those pairs used for the potency factor included: youthful-mature, constrained-free masculine-feminine and serious humorous. The adjective pairs used to describe the activity factor were: passive-active meaningful-meaningless complex-simple and intentional-unintentional. Respondents were asked to indicate their v iew toward volunteering, by marking one of the seven spaces between the adjecti v e pair. The data was analyzed by grouping the adjective pairs into their three factors and determining the mean for each factor. "The average factor scores for a group are associated with some measure of dispersion or v ariability; this measure is presumably an index of the consistency of the meaning of that concept in the culture (Osgood et al. 1971 p. 88) The Cronbach s alpha for the overall scale was 0.81 which indicates a high reliability for the scale. The overall mean of the scale was 5 6 and the overall standard deviation was 1 .1. The mean for the evaluative factor was 6.0 which was the highest mean of the three factors. The evaluative factor had a reliability of 0.81. The lowest mean occurred in the potency factor (M =5.l, SD=l.2) with a reliability of0.47. The

PAGE 136

126 mean of the activity factor was found in the middle (M=5 6, SD=l.O) and had a reliability of0. 66. Results of this analysis of the semantic differential scale on the attitudes towards volunteering can be found in Table 4-33 The adjective pair of important-unimportant received the highest mean score of the evaluative factor (M = 6. l SD = 87). The pairing of good-bad had the lowest mean of the evaluative factor (M=5.9 SD=l.O) The other two items in the evaluative factor positive-negative and interesting-boring, had means of 6.0 which were equal to the total mean for this factor The activity factor had the second highest mean (M=5 6 SD=l.O). The pairings of meaningful-meaningless had the highest mean of this factor and of the entire scale (M = 6.2, SD = .87). The pairing of complex-simple had the lowest mean of this factor (M=5.2 SD=l.O). There was one other pairing, active-passive which had a mean (M = 5 5 SD = l.3) which was also below the mean of this factor. The remaining item pairing intentional unintentional had a mean that was equal to the mean of this factor (M=5.6 ; SD=l .O). The lowest mean of the three factors (M = 5. l SD = l .2) belonged to the potency factor. Mature youthful provided the lowest mean of this factor (M = 4.9 SD =l.4) and for the entire scale The pair of serious-humorous had the highest mean of this factor (M = 5.4 SD = l.1) and was the only item which was greater, then the group mean of 5.1. T he two remaining adjective pairs, free-constrained and masculine-feminine, both had the same means (M =5.l, SD = l.2) which were equal to the group mean. Results of this s e mantic differential scal e indicate that how th e volunteerin g opportunity i s rated or e valuated contributes the great e st to the attitude towards

PAGE 137

127 volunteering. If a volunteer activity or job is considered positive, important or interesting then it is likely to be thought of favorable and contributes strongly to a positive attitude towards volunteering. Table 4-33 Attitudes on Volunteering of Active Members (N=96) Evaluative Factors Good -Bad Positive Negative Interesting Boring hnportant -Unimportant Total Mean Potency Factors Mature Youthful Free Constrained Masculine Feminine Serious Humorous Total Mean Activity Factors Active Passive Meaningful Meaningless Complex Simple Intentional -Unintentional Total Mean Overall Scale Mean Cronbach's Alpha Serving on County Boards Mean SD 5.9 1.0 6.0 1.1 6.0 .90 6.1 .87 6.0 .97 4.9 1.4 5.1 1.2 5.1 1.2 5.4 1.1 5.1 1.2 5.5 1.3 6.2 .87 5.2 1.0 5.6 1.0 5.6 1.0 5.6 1.1 .811 To determine why individuals would serve on their local county Farm Bureau board, or the "will" portion of this objective, a twelve question Likert-type scale was developed by the researcher. Items in this scale were derived from the interviews with the state Farm Bureau leadership and were all important constructs of what makes an effective county Farm Bureau board member. Table 4-34 provides the results of the analysis of this scale. The high Cronbach's alpha of this scale 0 838 indicates that all the items in this scale are measuring the same

PAGE 138

128 underlying theme, which is the respondents view of serving on county Farm Bureau boards. The overall mean of this scale was 3 9. The item with the highest mean (M=5.0, SD =l.2) was "I am satisfied with the Farm Bureau organization and its goals The item with the lowest mean was family members have served on the board and now it's my turn" (M = l.9, SD = l.3). Several items on the scale had means which were above the scale mean. I believe my county Farm Bureau board is active and accomplishing it s goals" (M=4.8 SD-1 .4) "I believe I work effectively with individuals and groups" (M = 4.9, SD =l.5), I understand politics and the policy development process" (M= 4.0 SD =l.7), I am able to seek out alternative solutions to problems" (M = 4.8 SD =l.4), and "I am comfortable with technology and the use of email and the internet" (M=4 4 SD=2 1 ). Table 4-34 Why Active Members May Serve on County Farm Bureau Boards (N = 98) I am satisfied with the Farm Bureau organization and it's goals I believe I work effectively with individuals and groups I am able to seek out alternative solutions to problems I believe my county Farm Bureau board is active and accomplishing it's goals I am comfortable with technology and the use of email and the internet I understand politics and the policy development process I am comfortable speaking to individuals, groups and the media I have a desire to be more involved in the Farm Bureau organization I believe it is important to attend all Farm Bureau functions (meetings activities, programs etc.) I am willing to help recruit more Farm Bureau members I would enjoy the recognition of being a board member Family members have served on the board and now it's my tum Total Mean Cronbach 's Alpha Mean SD 5.0 1.2 4 9 1.5 4.8 1.4 4.8 1.4 4.4 2.1 4.0 1.7 3 8 1.8 3.5 1.7 3.5 1.6 3.1 1.6 2 7 1.6 1.9 1.3 3.9 1.6 0.84 Results from this section of the survey would indica t e that indi v iduals are more likely to serve on their county Farm Bureau board when the y are satisfied with the Farm Bureau organization and it s goals because they believe that they work effecti v ely with

PAGE 139

129 individuals and groups and that their county Farm Bureau is active and accomplishing it's goals They are not likely to serve because they have had family members who have served and believe that it is now their turn. Summary of objective four From this survey instrument the leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members was measured. It was determined that active members are motivated by internal self-concept factors, which are those factors that are internally based in an individual and become the basis for the ideal self. Active members have positive attitude towards volunteering when they rate volunteering opportunities favorably and are more likely to serve on their county Farm Bureau board because of their satisfaction with the Farm Bureau organization and it' s goals. Objective Five Determine Reason why Local Farm Bureau Members Chose to Participate or not Participate in Leadership Roles in Local County Farm Bureau Boards Ary et al., ( 1996) define multiple regression as the prediction of a criterion using two or more predictor variables. Field (2000) describes a regression analysis as fitting a predictive model to the data and using it to predict values of the dependent variable from one or more independent variables. Multiple regression is useful in addressing a variety ofresearch topics such as how well a set of variables is able to predict a particular outcome (Pallant 2001 ). Multiple linear regression was used to accomplish this objective The outcome that was predicted to satisfy this objective was desire to participate on local county Farm Bureau boards The dependent variable used in the multiple regression models was

PAGE 140

130 derived from the total mean scores of the twelve questions on the "Serving on County Boards" section of the instrument given to active Farm Bureau members. There were a total of twenty-four independent variables that were considered for use as predictors in the multiple regression analysis they included: motivation external self-concept (a factor derived from obtaining the mean of the six external self-concept statements on the Motivation Sources Inventory section of the instrument given to active Farm Bureau members), motivation internal self-concept factor (derived from the six internal self-concept statements on the Motivation Sources Inventory section), motivation intrinsic process (derived from the six intrinsic process statements on the Motivation Sources Inventory section), motivation instrumentation (derived from the six instrumentation statements on the Motivation Sources Inventory section), volunteering evaluative factor (derived from obtaining the mean of the four evaluative adjective pairs on the volunteer section of the instrument given to active Farm Bureau members), volunteering potency factor (derived from obtaining the mean of the four potency adjective pairs), volunteering activity factor (derived from obtaining the mean of the four activity adjective pairs, years of membership in Farm Bureau, family involvement in Farm Bureau, time devoted to Farm Bureau, Farm Bureau events attended in the past year involved in other agricultural organizations, belong to other organizations, marital status, children, gender, age, member of 4-H, member of FF A, member of other youth development organizations, participated in leadership development programs, farm size, and work off the farm These variables were chosen as they all represent important factors in the literature that suggests why individuals volunteer to take on additional leadership roles

PAGE 141

131 such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau boards. Leadership is a function of these variables and this regression analysis will determine which variables are the greatest predictors of why individuals chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in their local county Farm Bureau boards. There are several procedures available for selecting the independent variables in the multiple regression equation. Stepwise selection is the most commonly used method (Ary et al., 1996). A type of stepwise selection, a backward selection, is a method of multiple regression in which each time a predictor is added to the equation, a removal test is made of the least useful predictor. The regression equation is constantly being reviewed to see whether any redundant predictors can be removed. The first step in this model is placing all the predictors in the model and calculating the contribution of each. If a predictor meets the criteria for removal, if it is not making a statistically significant contribution, then it is removed from the model and then the model is recalculated for the remaining predictors (Field, 2000). The first variable considered is the one with the largest positive or negative correlation with the criterion, this correlation is the Pearson correlation and is the second table (after the descriptive statistics table) given in a multiple regression analysis using SPSS 12.0 for Windows (Ary et al., 1996). Agresti and Finlay (1997) state that the larger the absolute value of r, the Pearson correlation, the stronger the degree of linear association between the independent and dependent variable. In a multiple regression analysis, there are several other variables that need to be considered when deciding if a dependent variable may be used to predict an independent variable. The value /3 or Beta value is the second variable that is examined. It is reported

PAGE 142

132 as both unstandardized and standardized, though for this analysis, the standardized value of (3 is of importance. The standardized values are values for each of the different variables that have been converted to the same scale so as to compare them. The variable that has the largest (3 value makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining the dependent variable, when the variances explained by all the other variables in the model are controlled for (Pallant, 2001). The level of significance needs to be examined as this explains whether the variable is making a significant unique contribution to the multiple regression equation. If the significance value is less than .05 (p<.05), then the variable is making a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable, if it is greater than .05 (p>.05), then the variable is not making a significant contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable (Field, 2000; Pallant, 2001). The other variables used to report the findings for this objective are the R squared, adjusted R-squared, degrees of freedom ( df) and the !-statistic. The R-square value is a measure of how much the variability in the outcome model is accounted for by the predictors used The adjusted R-square value is used when a small sample is used and the R-square value tends to be an overestimation of the true value. Both the R-square and adjusted R-square variables are reported as a decimal number for example, 0 6665, and used as a percentage, 66.5% to indicate how well the model generalizes to the population (Pallant, 2001 ). Degrees of freedom are the number of observations free to vary around a constant parameter and used to determine the appropriate critical values in statistical tables for evaluating the statistic (Ary et al., 1996 p.566). The !-statistic, or

PAGE 143

133 test statistic, indicates whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of variables being analyzed (Pallant, 2001 ) Table 4-35 provides the initial Pearson correlation, degrees of freedom, and significance values for the twenty-four independent variables that were identified for use in the stepwise, backward multiple regression analysis used to predict participation on local county Farm Bureau boards Pearson correlation values, r, that are close to or above .3 (both positive and negative) were identified. The "volunteering evaluative factor" had the highest r-value of .47. Table 4-35 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Independent Variables and Serving on County Boards (N=81) df r Sig.(2-tailed) Serving on County Boards 79 1.00 Motivation External Self-Concept Factor 79 .16 .12 Motivation Internal Self-Concept Factor 79 .26 .01 Motivation Intrinsic Process Factor 79 .11 .32 Motivation Instrumental Factor 79 -.07 .54 Volunteering Evaluative Factor 79 .47 .00 Volunteering Potency Factor 79 .17 .11 Volunteering Activity Factor 79 .39 .00 Years of Membership in Farm Bureau 79 .08 .49 Family Involvement in Farm Bureau 79 .11 .31 Time Devoted to Farm Bureau per Month 79 12 .29 Number of Farm Bureau Events Attended 79 .30 .01 Involved in Other Agricultural Organizations 79 .14 .18 Belong to Other Organizations 79 35 .00 Marital Status 79 .04 .71 Children 79 .20 .06 Gender 79 -.05 .67 Age 79 -.13 .34 Member of 4-H 79 .20 .06 Member of FF A 79 -.09 .93 Member of Other Youth Development Organizations 79 38 .00 Participated in Leadership Development Programs 79 .31 .00 Farm Size 79 .20 .14 Work Off Farm 79 .16 .17 Note: Model is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 144

134 These factors all have a strong relationship to the independent variable of desire to serve on county boards. These factors also had significance values that were less than or equal to .01 which indicates that the variables are making unique significant contributions to predicting the dependent variable. Table 4-36 provides a correlation matrix for eighteen of the independent variables, these variables were included in the matrix if the correlation value was greater than .35 and were statistically significant (p<.05). This matrix provides further evidence about the correlations of the independent variables, not only with the dependent variable (serving on county boards), but with each other. Correlation and significance values which show strong relationships and significance are highlighted in bold face type The factor "volunteering evaluative factor" had the strongest correlation in the multiple regression analysis. This factor correlated strongest with the "volunteering activity factor" (r=.65), which would indicated individuals want to participate in activities they place a high evaluative value to. The correlation between these two factors has the highest correlational value in the table ( r=. 65). Other correlations found in Table 4-36 include the correlation of family involvement with: "years in Farm Bureau" (r=.28), "time devoted to Farm Bureau" (r=.37), "events attended" (r=.22), "member of 4-H" (r=.34) "member of other youth development organizations" (r=.22), "farm size" (r=.28), and "motivation internal self concept" (r=.20). The strongest correlation was with "member ofFFA" (r=.46).

PAGE 145

135 Ta b le 4-36 Correlatio n s o f Ind e p e n den t Va ri ab les (N=8 I ) VI V2 VJ V4 vs V6 V7 vs V9 Vl0 Vil Vl2 Vl3 V l 4 VIS Vl6 VI ~ Yrs Mem r (VI) S ig Famil y r .28 (V2) S ig . 0 1 Time/ 2 1 .37 month r (VJ) Sig. 05 .oo Ev ents/ .37 22 Cf) r y ear (V4) Sig. .oo 0 3 .ll Ot h er Orgs r 20 16 ill 25 (VS) Sig. 05 .II .76 .02 Age r .38 10 ill .04 .09 (V6) Sig. .00 .40 "fj 78 .47 4 H r 07 .33 .II 18 18 .01 (V7) Sig. .50 .01 .08 .08 .9 1 FFA r -.08 .45 ro .02 03 0 4 .44 (VS) Sig. .44 .oo gJ 83 75 .70 .oo Y ou t h r 16 .22 Q5 22 .34 .04 .42 1 5 (V9) Sig. .JI .0 2 5} 0 3 .oo .69 .oo 1 2 L Ship Prgrms r .01 .JO ro .29 29 03 16 .07 .48 (Vl0) Sig. 88 .29 .OS .01 76 .09 .44 .00 Fa r m s i z e r SI .27 33 .05 1 5 03 20 -.04 16 -.06 (Vil) Sig. .00 .03 Dl .69 25 83 12 72 22 .66 MES C r 0 1 .08 ill .06 I I .08 26 .08 .09 0 4 .03 (Vl2) Sig. 90 .41 .77 53 27 .50 0 1 4 2 .35 63 .78 MJP r -. I I .06 -Ol .00 -.02 1 2 .16 .07 .01 .OJ -.25 .52 (Vl3) Sig. .25 .55 S8 .98 .85 .30 .09 .44 .85 95 .06 .00 MINST r .OJ 13 .(l! .07 .21 1 6 03 .00 .15 19 .09 .58 .48 (Vl4) Sig. 95 .20 .44 .49 .04 18 .76 .99 15 .06 .49 .oo .oo VEVAL r .09 .00 a; .OJ .34 .08 0 6 .11 .21 08 .21 -.06 -.30 -.22 (VIS) Sig. .36 .97 .55 .87 .oo 53 .51 .31 .04 .39 12 .55 .00 03 VPOT r 1 4 .08 .()2 08 .26 1 2 03 02 05 -.05 1 3 .09 -.09 02 .45 (Vl6) Sig. 18 .40 .K3 .46 .01 33 .71 83 .58 .57 .33 37 .38 .80 .oo VACT r .12 .02 .()2 .01 .42 .01 03 1 2 10 1 2 15 .00 -. 1 3 1 6 .65 .65 (Vl7) Sig. 25 .80 81 92 .oo .94 .72 24 .33 24 .26 98 .20 .II .oo 00 SCB r 07 1 0 .II .29 .35 1 2 .20 .00 .38 .31 .20 .16 10 -.06 .47 17 .39 (VIS) Sig. .48 .31 28 0 1 .00 .33 .05 93 .00 00 14 1 2 .32 53 .oo .JO .00 Not e : Correlation is significa n t at t h e 0 .05 l evel (2-tailed); r=Pearso n Correlat i o n ; Sig.= ( 2 Tai l ed)

PAGE 146

136 Seven independent variables were used in the final multiple regression analysis. These factors were: motivation internal self-concept, volunteering evaluative factor, volunteering activity factor, number of Farm Bureau events attended, belong to other organizations, member of other youth development organizations, and participated in leadership development programs. As Table 4-37 indicates, these independent variables have a significant relationship and impact on the dependent variable, participation on local county Farm Bureau boards. Table 4-37 Regression Analysis with Variables which Made Significant Contributions =86) Motivation Internal Self-Concept Volunteering Evaluative Factor Volunteering Activity Factor Number of Farm Bureau Events Attended Belong to Other Organizations Member of Other Youth Development Organizations Participated in Leadership Development Program Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (p<.05) df 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 r Sig. (2-Tailed) .26 .01 .47 .00 .39 .00 .30 .01 .35 00 .38 .00 .31 .00 In the final multiple regression model, a stepwise backward selection was utilized. Two variables met the removal criterion: belong to other organizations and motivation internal self-concept factor These two variables did not make a statistical significant contribution to how well the model predicts the dependent variable. The final multiple regression analysis with the remaining five variables is presented in Table 4-38. Why individuals take on additional leadership roles such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau boards is explained by these five variables. As discussed in the literature, how individuals evaluate volunteer opportunities the volunteer activities they are engaged in, how active they are in the organization (represented by the number of events they attended) and if they have participated in other organizations or leadership development

PAGE 147

137 programs all factor into whether individuals will step forth and assume greater leadership responsibilities The adjusted R2 value (R2 = .36) describes how much of the variance in the dependent variable (serving on county boards) is explained by the model. The five independent variables that are included account for 36% of the variance. The F-value of 9.96, which was significant at the .05 level, represents the ratio of the improvement in prediction as a result of fitting the model relative to the inaccuracy that still exists in the model (Field, 2000). From this table, "volunteering evaluative factor" has the highest Beta value of .34 and is statistically significant, which indicates the largest explanatory power between this variable and the dependent variable. Table 4-38 Final Regression Analysis with Variables which Made Significant Contributions (N= 86) {3 Beta t df Sig. R Adj.R Constant -.50 -.63 79 .53 Volunteering Evaluative Factor .46 .34 2.75 79 .01 Volunteering Activity Factor .24 .17 1.43 79 .16 Number of Farm Bureau Events .20 .19 1.93 79 .06 Attended Member of Other Youth .39 .20 1.86 79 .07 Development Organizations Participated in Leadership .46 .17 1.61 79 .11 Develoement Program .40 36 Note: F=9.96; a< .05 Summary This chapter presented the findings ofthis study, organized in order of the objectives, which were: (1) identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership, (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the

PAGE 148

138 level of importance they assign to those skills, ( 4) determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members, and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards The next chapter will discuss conclusions and recommendations that were drawn from this study. Recommendations will also be presented.

PAGE 149

CHAPTERS SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The conclusions and recommendations drawn from the findings of this study are found in this chapter. An overview of the study including the specific research objectives the methodology used and findings are provided in the first section of this chapter. The remainder of the chapter focuses on conclusions implications and recommendations for further research in this area. Summary of the Study Problem Statement Developing the full potential of the leadership base in agriculture is extremely important as this industry is facing new challenges it has never confronted such as environmental responsibility food quality international competition taxation and clarifying it's own identity (GALFF 2002). New technologies consolidation environmental concerns and food safety are some of the factors that are contributing to the rapidly changing face of agriculture in the United States (Duffy & Nanhou, 2002). Rapid change is occurring in all segments of society agriculture included. To keep pace with this change informed, decisive and communicati v e spokespersons are needed to represent agriculture (KARL 2002) Organi z ations can play a significant role by nurturing future leaders The y can provide the education and training necessary for the advancement of leadership among its members (Foster 2000) Pernick (2001) states there are two advantages of building 139

PAGE 150

140 leadership talent within an organization. "First the next generat ion of leaders i s groomed by the organization and can instill the culture and agenda of the organizat i on. Secondly the organization has greater control over the supply of leaders with the necessary skills, which makes implementation of the organization's agenda easier and quicker" (p. 429). The effects of a leadership development program for Farm Bureau members could be far reaching but before those effects can be felt desired leadership practices needed to be identified existing behavior in current leaders needed to be determined, "gaps between desired practices and existing behavior needed to be identified, current leadership practices needed to be explained and what motivates individuals to take on additional leadership responsibilities needed to be determined. Purpose and Objectives The problem identified for this study was: Agriculture in the U nited States and the state of Florida is rapidly changing. To keep a strong voice and presence at the local state and national level agriculture needs qualified leaders who are willing and able to work on behalf of agriculture and their livelihoods. The question identified was: Why isn't Farm Bureau more involved in "growing and retaining leaders for grassroots leadership in their local county farm bureaus. Several reasons are hypothesized: (1) there is a lack of infusion of young member involvement and (2) the attitude / will/desire among Farm Bureau members in taking leadership roles in their local Farm Bureau organi z ations is unknown This study examined these factors and the expectations that the FFBF has of its local leaders who are members of county boards. With the data this study provid e d the

PAGE 151

141 FFBF can tailor a leadership development program to meet needs of Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau members. The five objectives of this study were: (1) identify selected demographics of county Farm Bureau membership, (2) identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership (3) measure the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the level of importance they assign to those skills ( 4) determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members and (5) determine reason why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards Methodology The research design of this study was a three-part assessment of the Florida Farm Bureau and its membership using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The three parts of this study included: (1) a qualitative long interview of members of the state leadership of the FFBF. This interview was the first part of the stud y and provided the foundation for the leadership competency instrument given to coun ty farm bureau board members. Interview questions included their expectations of desired leadership practices and behaviors of local board members and their expectations of what county farm bureau boards should accomplish (2) a quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher based upon findings from the qualitative interview and given to a random sample of members of local Farm Bureau boards. This instrument had a list of 66 leadership practices divided into four comp et ence areas e ach r e spondent rat e d their perceived importance and proficiency of each and (3) a leadership behavior

PAGE 152

142 instrument developed by the researcher and administered to active Fann Bureau members This instrument measured respondent attitude / will/desire regarding leadership to determine if leadership apathy exists. Descriptive statistics analyzed the demographic variables ofrespondents A demographic section was included at the end of both quantitative instruments to collect personal information about survey respondents. The instruments used in this study were reviewed by a panel of experts and pilot tested with comparable farm bureau groups to ensure reliability and validity. For this study, one population, the Florida Fann Bureau organization, was used. Three subsets of this population were included in this population. The first subset was the leadership of the FFBF, which included: the president of the board of directors administrative and legal counsel, director of the agricultural policy division, director of public relations the vice president of the board of directors, the coordinator of national affairs, and the executive director of the Dade County Fann Bureau. These individuals participated in the first part of this study, individual interviews using a long interview format. The second subset of the population was composed of members of local county farm bureau boards. A sample of this sub-population was administered the survey that was derived from the responses to the interview questionnaires given to the first group of respondents. The third subset of the population was a sample of active Florida Fann Bureau members This group received the third instrument used in this study a leadership behavior instrument which was composed of three parts: a motivation sources inventory

PAGE 153

143 a semantic differential scale about volunteering, and a Likert scale inventory on respondents' views about serving on a county board. Demographic information was collected in this survey as well as the survey that was completed by the county farm bureau board members Various methods of data collection and analyses were conducted in this study. Responses from the long interviews were analyzed through content analysis. The analysis conducted identified themes in the responses that were subsequently used in the development of the competencies used in the survey instrument given to local county board members. The information provided by this content analysis was used in objecti ve three ; identify perceived leadership roles of county farm bureau leaders by the state farm bureau leadership. Data analysis of the two survey instruments was used to explain and predict leader involvement. The demographic information collected from both surveys was used to accomplish the first research objective, identify demographics of county farm bureau members. Independent variables such as age, gender years of membership in farm bureau, membership in other agricultural organizations, membership in other organizations, marital status children, membership in youth and leadership development programs, agricultural income, and farm size were analyzed. Selected independent variables were used with other data as predictors of participation on county farm bureau boards. The leadership competency instrument that was developed for county board members was used to accomplish objective three measure the extent to which county farm bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state farm bureau

PAGE 154

144 leaders. This instrument was comprised of four competency sections: (1) 15 leadership (2) 20 political process, (3) 15 effective boards, and (4) 16 knowledge of farm bureau. The mean and standard deviation was calculated for the importance and proficiency of each competency section. Objective four determine leadership attitude, will and desire of active Florida farm bureau members was accomplished by analyzing the data of each section of the instrument. A mean and standard deviation was found for the motivation sources inventory and the semantic differential. A reliability analysis was conducted on the Likert-scale about serving on county boards. Multiple regression was used to accomplish objective five, explain why local farm bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles i n local county farm bureau boards. For this analysis, the dependent variable is participation on a county board and the independent variables are: the four motivation factors from the motivation sources inventory, the three factors on volunteering from the semantic differential, attitude about serving on a county board and the demographic variables found at the end of the survey instrument. Findings A summary of the findings of this study are presented in relation to the objectives of the study. Objective One The first objective of this study sought to identify the demographics of county Farm Bureau membership Of th e 1 2 9 board m e mbers w ho responded to this surv ey,

PAGE 155

145 88.4% were male and 11.6% were female For the active survey, 69% were male and 31 % were female. Married board members made up 86% of the board member population. Of the active members who participated in the study, 68.3% were married. Large percentages of both groups had children, 93.8% for board members and 84.2% for active members. Those who serve on Farm Bureau boards have been a Farm Bureau member for an average of 21.4 years. The average number of years in Farm Bureau for active members who completed this survey was 14.5 years. The involvement of the respondents family in Farm Bureau was also examined with 73.4% of board members indicating that they were part of another generation of Farm Bureau as their family had been involved in Farm Bureau, while only 17% of active members indicated that their family was involved in Farm Bureau. On average Farm Bureau board members spend 8.4 hours per month on Farm Bureau activities, which includes participating in meetings activities, even t s and conventions and reading information in support of these activities. Active members spend considerably less time than board members only a quarter of an hour per month on average. County board members have served an average of 11.5 years on their county boards. One-third of county board m embers have served as president of their county Farm Bureau board 33.6 % Only 7 8% o f board members have been on the board of the state Farm Bureau organi z ation. Board members seem to be more active in oth e r organi z ations 7 1.4 % than do active members 10 % Of those board members who were involved in other agricultural

PAGE 156

146 organizations 42.1 % held leadership roles in these organizations, while only 4 % of active members held leadership positions. Both groups are i n v ol v ed wi th other civic community or business organizations 63 8 % of board members and 42.6 % of ac t ive members The mean ages for both groups are approximately equivalent 51.4 years for board members and 50 9 years for active members. Close to fifty percent o f active members, 48.5% are between 43 to 60 years old while 33% of board members fall within this age range. There were 42 6% of board members who belonged t o 4-H while 2 1.8% of acti v e members were involved in the 4-H program Almost half, 45.7 % of board members belonged to FFA while only 12 9% of active members belonged t o this organi z ation. Approximately the same percentage of each group 34.6 % of boa r d members and 34. 7 % of active members, belonged to other youth development organizations. Respondents derived their agricultural income from the follow ing sources: aquaculture dairy forestry grain livestock poultry tobacco citrus e quin e, fruit horticulture peanuts sugarcane vegetables and other ( such as hay sod chemic al s, sales) The average si z e of a board members farm was 1 7 78.1 acr es while the a v erage farm of an active member was 398.1 acres The final d e mographic characteristic that was reported was that less than half of board members work off farm 44.2 %, while 65.1 % of active members are employed off the farm which could indicates t hat more active members deriv e their income from outside pursuits.

PAGE 157

147 Objective Two The second research objective attempted to identify perceived leadership roles of county Farm Bureau leaders by the state Farm Bureau leadership. From the interview questionnaire, four themes emerged: leadership, political process, effective boards, and knowledge of Farm Bureau These were all areas that the state leadership determined county Farm Bureau board members should possess skills. In the leadership theme area, there were fifteen leadership competencies that state leaders thought were important for county Farm Bureau members to possess. In the political process area, twenty competencies emerged from responses to the qualitative instrument. Fifteen effective board member competencies were developed from responses to the interview questionnaire, and sixteen composed the section on the knowledge of Farm Bureau. The competencies were derived from analysis of the interview responses. They evolved from the responses to the interview questions given by the interview respondents, responses for each question were grouped together and then divided into the four theme areas. Duplicate responses were eliminated and several were combined. After pilot testing, several competencies were removed which were confusing or did not contribute statistically to the scale. Objective Three Objective three measured the extent to which county Farm Bureau members practice the leadership expectations held by state Farm Bureau leaders and the importance they place on each. This was done by designing a scale which asked the respondent to rate the importance of each competency and their proficiency at each. A quantitative instrument was developed using the competencies that emerged from the

PAGE 158

148 interviews with state officials and was divided into the same four theme areas. Respondents were asked to rate the importance and their proficiency in each competency. The overall means for each section were compared, the means of the importance sections are greater than the means for the proficiency sections. The largest "gap" between importance and proficiency occurred in the political process section, with importance rated 5.5 and proficiency 4.7. Objective Four Objective four attempted to determine leadership attitude, will, and desire of active Florida Farm Bureau members. The survey questionnaire given to active members was divided into three sections to address the three components of this objective the survey respondents' attitude, will, and desire. A semantic differential scale was developed and included to measure the attitudes that active members have towards volunteering. A Likert-type scale measured the will that active members possess in regards toward serving on their local county Farm Bureau boards. The third section of this survey questionnaire attempted to quantify the motivations of indiv i dua l s and provide a measurement of the desire respondents have towards volunteering using a motivation sources inventory. From the three parts of this questionnaire it was found that respondents were motivated by internal self-concept factors. These are fa c tors which make up the basis of an individual s ideal self and drives them to take action. Respondents had a positi v e attitude towards volunteering when they ranked those v olunteer opportunities high on an evaluative scal e. They final part of this survey the sec t ion on Servin g on County Boards found that individuals ranked I am satisfied with the Farm Bureau organi z ation

PAGE 159

149 and it's goals" as the highest, which could be a reason why individuals serve on their local county Farm Bureau board. Objective Five The final objective of this study explained why local Farm Bureau members chose to participate or not participate in leadership roles in local county Farm Bureau boards. To accomplish this objective, stepwise backward multiple regression was used. Twenty four independent variables were used in this regression model. Five independent variables the volunteering evaluative factor volunteering activity factor, number of Farm Bureau events attended member of other youth development organizations, and participation in leadership development programs were used in the final multiple regression analysis. In this analysis, the only factor which was statistically significant was the volunteering evaluative factor, which would indicate that individuals are more likely to accept additional leadership responsibilities such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau board if they place a high evaluative factor on serving on the board. Conclusions This study provides valuable information to the FFBF on the leadership perceptions and expectations of Florida Farm Bureau members. The generalizability of the conclusions and recommendations proposed in this study extends to the FFBF and the county Farm Bureaus in Florida. The information provided in this study could be useful to other Farm Bureau organizations in the United States as they are organizations who are composed of the same types of individuals and are organizationally structured the same. Findings from this study can be applied to the Florida Farm Bureau population even with response rates that could be perceived low in some research communities. To

PAGE 160

150 defend this return rate Hager Wilson Pollak and Rooney (in press) determined that surveys of organizations typically receive substantially lower return rates, with a return rate of 15% reaching a level of acceptability for organizational surveys In a study by Green and Hutchinson (1997) on the Effects of Population Type on Mail Surve y Response Rates and on the Efficac y of Response Enhancers the authors found that the response rate for those involved in agriculture was 30%, while the general public had a return rate of 35%. For the three sub populations who participated in this study, the response rates were as follows: 100% for state Farm Bureau officials 46% for county board members, and 25% for active board members It could be theorized that county board members returned a greater percentage of surveys because they had more of a vested interest i n the organization and believed that results from this study would benefit their county organizations. As one county board member stated on their returned survey "I appreciate the progressive attitude of Florida Farm Bureau and the realization that we must seek input from all stake holders ifwe are to serve the industry and maintain a resource for industry leaders." Another reason why Farm Bureau members may or may not have completed their surveys is due to their frustrations with their local county Farm Bureau boards which could either lead them to complete the survey in the hopes it would lead to changes, or not complete it due to believing that their opinion really did not matter. Another comment to this effect was found on a returned board members survey "Many of my county's board meetings are poorly attended and very poorly run. I consider my local organi z ation to be generally ineffective in advancing goals of Farm Bureau. More mature seasoned leadership is needed to improve organizational effectiveness. I've been

PAGE 161

151 very disappointed during my tenure as a county board member!" This comment adds credence to this study as findings may lead to leadership programming for Farm Bureau members, which may make them more effective on their county boards. Early and late respondents of both quantitative survey instruments were compared to determine if there were differences between those who responded early and late to the surveys as late responders are often similar to nonrespondents (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 1996). There were no significant differences found in the independent variables examined, age, gender, years in Farm Bureau marital status, children and years on their county Farm Bureau board (for board members), which would allow the assumption to be made that the respondents are an representative sample of the population and that the findings can be generalized to the whole group. Specific conclusions and research implications from this research will be reported in the order of the objectives that they were derived from. Objective 1 Identify Demographics of County Farm Bureau Membership Men composed a greater percentage of Farm Bureau membership (80%). For board members, 88.4% were men, which reflect the Farm Bureau percentage that was reported for the gender of Farm Bureau members. More men tend to be leaders in grassroots organizations than women (Smith, 2000). For the active survey, one-third (31 %) were women, as Eisinger (2002) explained, the board of an organization should reflect the makeup of the membership, which includes people of different backgrounds, ethnicities ages and interest. If the board has been homogeneous in the past, it needs to broaden its horizons and welcome new ideas that emerge from interactions among different groups such as gender.

PAGE 162

152 From the interviews of the state leaders though, more women and i ndividuals who represent smaller segments of agriculture (such as organic growers) need to be included on county Farm Bureau boards, as the populations they represent are increasing in numbers and their diverse backgrounds and knowledge would be beneficial t o their local county Farm Bureau boards. This is further shown in the size of the operations between the county board members and active members with active members having, on average smaller operations These individuals may not have a large agricultural presence in their county, but they are still involved in agriculture and should be considered for their local county Farm Bureau board. Seventy-eight percent of the total population (board and active members) were married and over ninety percent had children. From the literature family status is an important determinant in the decision to volunteer. As Safrit and Merrill ( 2002) stated organi z ations need to find ways to structure volunteer work which will allow people increased flexibility to move in and out of volunteering as work and family pressures affect their lives Farm Bureau needs to take this into account and realize that Farm Bureau members have busy lives with children and the fac t that approximately half of the survey respondents work off farm. These are busy individuals who do not have large amounts oftime to devote to serving on their county Farm Bureau boards. The needs of today s time-crunched members such as shorter-term commitments may require associations to examine their traditional notions of volunteer service and how to attract those members to leadership positions ( E isinger 2002 p 5) One of th e r e asons why activ e members are not taking on additiona l responsibilities such as serving on their local county Farm Bureau board could be

PAGE 163

153 because the active members do not identify with the current leadership of their county Farm Bureaus. When there is no identification with a group, if an individual believes that the organization does not represent their interests or if an individual is content and does not feel the need to participate then they may become apathetic. There is a connection between contentment and apathy as a content person may become lulled into apathy over time after deciding that withdrawing from an activity will not seriously jeopardize his or her future wants or needs, and thereby future contentment (DeLuca, 1995). County board members were more likely to have had family involvement in Farm Bureau (73.4%), while only a small percentage of active members had this family tradition (17%). As one state official stated "some members have grown up in Farm Bureau, they start attending Farm Bureau conventions as children, so being a Farm Bureau member when they are grown is a natural occurrence." Family involvement may account for board members having more of an identity with the organization As agriculture and the demographics of the State of Florida changes in the future, Farm Bureau needs to increase their identification with their members and potential members as less and less will have a family history with the organization. Farm Bureau needs to start this process of creating organizational identification with its members immediately especially with the changes of agriculture that are occurring. The mean age for county Farm Bureau members was approximately 50 years old. Those members who are in the younger age range (19 to 42 years old) account for close to one-third of Farm Bureau members Getting younger individuals involved in Farm Bureau and serving on their county Farm Bureau boards was a problem echoed by a majority of the state officials interviewed for this study Increasing the organi z ational

PAGE 164

154 identity with members, providing specific leadership opportunities and leadership development training, and providing a job description for county board members when they are elected to their boards could all increase part icipation of individuals in Farm Bureau on county boards. Farm Bureau members who responded to this survey were over 42 years old (67% board, 73% active), which would indicate that the older members of the organization are interested enough in the organization to complete the survey that was mailed to them. Again, this demographic needs to be considered as younger individuals will need to be recruited so as to represent all ages of the Farm Bureau population. Young people will be needed to continue the work of the county and state Farm Bureau organizations. Several state officials stated that a concern of the county boards was that the older board members impeded the ideas of newer members and limite d the progressiveness of county boards as they "want to do things the way they've always been done." The demographics in this study show that 42.1 % of board members actually have the least tenure on the board (0 5 to 5 years) and board members who have been on the board fifteen or more years account for one quarter of the board member population. A large percentage of board members (71.4%) were also involved in other agricultural organizations, while a large percentage of active members (90 % ) were not. One could conclude that board members were 'joiners" and active in the organizations that represented their interests. It could be theorized that being active in all these organizations could hamper their effectiveness as board members due to all the pressures on their time Conversely, those who belong to organizations, especially agricultural organizations that represent their industry interests are more likely to join additional

PAGE 165

155 organizations. These organizations also provide social identity and social capital to their participants. Results from the literature found that involved members belonged to organizations almost as twice as long as those members w ho were not as in v olved in organizations. Involved members (such as board members) witnessed the effects of the ir efforts witnessed organizational success and achieved a le v el of personal accomplishment; they believed they could make a difference. For those tha t were not as involved (or who do not participate on county boards) the potential benefits and outcomes may have been important but unknown. (Martinez & McMullin 2004). Board members have been members of Florida Farm Bureau for 21.4 years while active members only 14.5 years those who participate on county boards hav e been members of the organization longer and have a greater organizational commitment. Volunteers demand training from their organi z ations. Traditionall y, training programs for volunteers have focused on specific subject matter organizational or interpersonal skills. They must also include components that challenge v olunteers to develop important thinking and processing skills (Safrit & Jones 2003) Sev eral state officials stated the need for job descriptions for county board members so they knew exactly what was expected of them during their tenure on the board Over 50 % of board members had farms of 100 or more acres a g ain which reiterates the notion that those with smaller acreages are not as represented on county boards as over 70 % o f active members had farms with t en acres or less The FFBF n ee ds to r e alize tha t the number of active memb e rs from s m all farms a lso called hobb y'' farms and part-time farms is increas ing. In Florida there is a trend of the growth of

PAGE 166

156 smaller farms. There were 44,000 farms in Florida in 2002, the largest number of farms, 18,335, is those that are 10 to 49 acres in size (USDA, 2004). The average size farm for board members was 1,778.1 acres, while for act iv e members it was 398 1 acres. The median ( or the point where 50% of the cases fall below) for board members is 300 acres, while only 2.05 acres for active members. One could conclude that "farm size" equals "leadership" exemplified by these numbers. The FFBF needs to consider these numbers carefully as an overwhelming percentage (72.4%) of active members only have farms which range in size from O to 10 acres. This group needs greater representation on their local county Farm Bureau boards as this group is increasing in farm numbers (USDA, 2004). It should be noted that only 56 active members responded to the farm income and farm size questions on the survey instrument. Two conclusions could be derived from this lack ofresponse for these questions: 1) it could have been an error in instrumentation, or 2) individuals did not complete this section because they do not have farm income. From the demographic information and from the recent trends in agriculture (more small part-time farms) the membership of Farm Bureau is changing and the Farm Bureau organization needs to recognize these changes and implement measures to address them. An organization's choice not to innovate or change with the times is the largest reason for its decline. Organizational performance is measured by its development of its people, its standing innovation and its product i vity. Changes in population structure and population dynamics are important trends to watch in the future of organizations as these trends will be the cause of an organization to evolve. The

PAGE 167

157 populations that comprise the memberships of organizations are changing and no longer remain as constant as they once did (Drucker, 2001) Objective 2 Identify Perceived Leadership Roles of County Farm Bureau Leaders by the State Farm Bureau Leadership From the qualitative instrument and the seven interview respondents, it was determined that county Farm Bureau board members needed leadership skills, political process skills, effective board member skills, and knowledge of Farm Bureau skills. These four theme areas "easily'' shook out from the content analysis of these interviews. Each interview echoed the previous and most of the competencies were stated by a majority of the interview respondents. Of the 100 competencies that were described as important for county board members to possess, 66 were used for the quantitative instrument given to county board members. The largest group was in the political process section which makes sense as policy development is one of the biggest objectives and concerns of the FFBF. One of the most apparent conclusions for this objective is that there is agreement on behalf of the state leadership of the FFBF of what the leadership roles and expectations of county board members should be. In the section on leadership, respondents felt that involvement in leadership opportunities identifying potential leaders, recogni z ing different types of leaders, leadership styles and personality differences were all important aspects of leadership. The ability to conduct a meeting, work with small groups build consensus use conflict resolution practices and the ability to not do things the way they had always been done were all necessary for leaders in county Farm Bureaus. Communication skills from using the internet to public speaking were also deemed extremely important.

PAGE 168

158 All aspects o f the political process from the county, state, and nationa l level were emphasized by all those interviewed for the qualitative portion of this study. Analyzing issues, policy formation, developing relationships with officials at all levels, and supporting Farm Bureau legislative activities need to be understood and participated in by local county board members. Participating in Farm Bureau programs and events and all aspects that are conducive to an effective board were detailed in the section on effective boards Farm Bureau officials felt it was necessary to include this section to incorporate all the items that comprise an effective board. A knowledge of the FFBF, grassroots organizations, the AFBF, and individuals' roles in each are all components of an effective board member. The state organization needs to make sure that incoming board members are provided this know ledge when they begin their service on their boards. Objective 3 Measure the Extent to Which County Farm Bureau Members Practice the Leadership Expectations Held by State Farm Bureau Leaders and the Level of Importance they Assign to Those Skills Conclusions from this section are based on the differences between the level of importance assigned to competencies and the level of proficiency ( or if they are practicing these skills). For the first section on leadership competencies the mean of the importance scores is only slightly more then the mean of the proficiency scores (M=5.4, M = 5.0) which indicates that board members feel they are as proficient in the competency as they deem it important. A proficiency level of 5.0 would still indicate that there is a learning curve and members would benefit from additional training in these competency areas especially those with the lowest proficiency scores such as: recogni zing

PAGE 169

159 personality differences and the ability to use email and the internet two competencies that were considered important by state officials. Proficiency scores were also low in communication skills (working with the media writing letters, working with groups) which also indicates that additional training would be beneficial in these areas as county Farm Bureau members are suppose to be the spokespeople for Farm Bureau on the county level. The proficiency scores for the political process section were the lowest for the four theme areas (M=4 7). None of the competencies was higher then 5.1 and one ranked 3.9 a score that w ould reflect a very low proficiency level. This area is crucial for Farm Bureau as it is a policy development organization and its members need to be comfortable and knowledgeable about the policy development process Farm Bureau needs to do more work in this area and educate county Farm Bureau board members in policy development and the political process. Farm Bureau also needs to do more to encourage county board member in v olvement in the legislative activities Several state officials described the most important duty of a board member was to be politically active Farm Bureau needs to provide th e tools and skills necessary to accomplish this task. The mean scores for the effective boards section were extremely close (M1mportance= 6 l M P r oficie ncy=6.0) and relatively high an indication that county board members felt the competencies were important and that they were proficient in each. Results of this section are quest i onable as several state offic i als noted that members of county boards were not working together effecti v ely which cause the board to not be as successful as it could be. Even one county board member stated that meetings were

PAGE 170

160 more poorly run and poorly lead committees or board meetings I have served on." One reason for the high scores in this area could be that those board members who completed the survey belonged to the more effective county Farm Bureau organizations, an indication of this would be that members are willing to take the time to complete the survey which means that they have a vested interest in the board and a desire to make it even better. Even though board members ranked this section fairly high, it could still be recommended that board members need additional training on how to be an effective board member Eisinger (2002) states that much of leadership training needs to be directed towards those volunteers who are serving on organizational boards as they sometimes lack the necessary skills to be effective board members. The final section of competencies, those that dealt with a knowledge of Farm Bureau ranked fairly low in the proficiency area as well (M=4.9). Results from this section showed a low proficiency in identifying the history of Farm Bureau knowledge of the FFBF and the AFBF, and the ability to distinguish how the policy development process differs in Farm Bureau from other organizations (top down versus grassroots). The survival of institutions depends on the capacity of"leaders to deve lop and maintain organi z ational cultures that foster and sustain autonomy and independence while strengthening the ability of individuals to care for and commit to the organization and the larger community'' (Scott 2000, p 13). In order to care for and commit to the organization, Farm Bureau members need to understand why Farm Bureau was formed, how it is organized and how they, as county board members fit into the organization. Basic knowledge of the history of Farm Bureau the structure of Farm Bureau on the

PAGE 171

161 local, state, and national level, and grassroots organizations is needed for county board members. Objective 4 Determine Leadership Attitude, Will, and Desire of Active Florida Farm Bureau Members Results from the Motivation Sources Inventory showed that active Farm Bureau members are more motivated by internal standards of traits and values that individuals impose on themselves. They are not motivated by seeking the acceptance of others or by whether or not the v olunteer opportunity is enjoyable. Instrumental motivation scores were in the middle and would indicate that some active members are motivated by rewards, incentives, and bonuses Internal self-concept motivation, which received the highest scores on this inventory, are individual sets of internal standards that become the basis for the ideal self and is motivated to engage in behaviors that reinforce these standards (Barbuto et al., 2001). This is important, as a majority ofresponses from state officials indicated that people agree to serve on their Farm Bureau board because they were asked by other board members or a field staff person. With the results from this inventory, it would appear that this external self-concept motivation, or gaining the acceptance from other group members is not as important to individuals. Farm Bureau should make serving on county farm bureau boards appealing to individuals on a personal level. They should believe that their participation will add value to their lives give them a sense of personal achievement and that the organi z ation they volunteer for allows them to use their skills and talents. This sentiment is echoed by one-third of state officials who were interviewed and stated that Farm Bureau needed to

PAGE 172

162 find out member's skills and provide them opportunities to use these skills for the benefit of the organization. Results from the semantic differential scale on attitudes towards volunteering showed that active Farm Bureau members place a high value on the v olunteer ac t ivity and how they evaluate this activity. Activities that had positive or high evaluative terms are more appealing to individuals. Farm Bureau should make the volun t eer experience a positive one for its members, as if they feel it is uninteresting or unimportant they are less likely to participate From this analysis it could also be concluded that Farm Bureau members want t o be active; they want to accomplish something and derive more satisfact i on in volunteer activities that allow them to do this. For those individuals who participated in volunteer activities, they witnessed the effects of their efforts witnessed organi z ational success and achieved a level of personal accomplishment ; they believed they could make a d i fference. (Martinez & McMullin, 2004) The ''will of active members to increase their l evel of participation in the Farm Bureau organization was quantified by a scale that had twelve items relating to serving on a county board. The highest ranking item on this scale was a satisfaction with the Farm Bureau organization and its goals and the lowest ranking items had to do with feeling that it was their turn to serve on their board and wanting to be recogniz ed for being on the board. This result is congruent with the results from the moti v ation sources in v entory that found Farm Bureau members are not motivated by external sources such as recognition from others or that such a small percentage of active members had family involved in the Farm Bureau organization. The reason why family members ha v e

PAGE 173

163 served on the board and now it's my turn" could have ranked low is because a small percentage of active members who completed this survey had family members who belonged to Farm Bureau. Being satisfied with the organization and its goals is reflected in the work by Bolman and Deal (1997) on organizational frames which make an effective organization. The structural frame emphasizes the organizations' goals roles and relationships. Problems in organizations occur when the structure does not fit the situa ti on. The challenge is to tailor the organization to the people who work within it. Organi z ations need to find a way for individuals to get the job done, whi l e feeling good about what they are doing and feel that the organization's goals are congruent with their own. Objective 5 Determine Reason why Local Farm Bureau Members Chose to Participate or not Participate in Leadership Roles in Local County Farm Bureau Boards Results from this objective were interesting yet did not provide addi t ional support for the literature on why people chose to participate or not participat e in this case participation on their local county Farm Bureau boards In the multiple regression analysis, how individuals evaluate volunteering is a factor was the stron ge st determinant whether they volunteer for additional leadership responsibilities in the Farm Bureau organi z ation such as serving on county boards Other factors which accoun ted for participation on county boards includ e d : volunteerin g activity factor Farm Bureau events attended, member in other youth organizations, and participation in leadership development programs Being involved in youth organi z a t ions may serve t o encourage future participation in organi z ations as adults, especiall y i f the membe rship was a positive experience. A longitudinal analysis was completed on the characteristics of

PAGE 174

164 membership of voluntary organizations, "these characteristics are: (a) memberships over time are relatively stable, (b) most individuals will add and drop memberships in organizations over time but maintain at least one continuous membership, and ( c) the occurrence of affiliation changes influence the structure and function of association" (Martinez & McMullin, 2004, p. 114). The fact that most individuals will add and drop memberships in organizations over time may add the importance of serving in increased capacities as many individuals join an organization, work into leadership roles and once they serve in those roles, they then gradually remove themselves from the organization. Though the literature provided evidence that family status, gender and age were all variables that influenced volunteering; these factors were not found to be significant for this study and whether individuals will participate on their local county boards. These variables still need to be considered as important reasons why individuals chose to take on additional responsibilities within the Farm Bureau organization. The literature also described the importance of motivation and why volunteers chose to participate in organizations and volunteer opportunities. In the regression model used for this analysis, the four motivation factors were eliminated and were not included in the final analysis. This could be due to a problem with the instrument used in this study. Recommendations One of the fastest ways to build leadership in an organization is to train the membership. Leadership development programs that aid in the assurance of an adequate supply of effective leaders are a vital and continuing need in communities and organizations across the United States (Rohs & Langone, 1993) Leadership development builds the capacity of local leaders and citizens. This means enhancing the

PAGE 175

165 potential of individuals to solve problems. It is done by engaging citizens and organizations to identify needs, resources, and opportunities (Hustedde & Woodward, 1996). This study identified the needs of Florida Farm bureau members in regards to potential leadership training that could be provided by the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. From the four theme areas developed from the interviews with the state leadership, the following competencies had the greatest gaps between importance and knowledge and should be included in leadership programming: 1. Use effective communication skills in media interviews 2. Use effective communication skills in letter writing 3. Demonstrate ability to conduct an orderly meeting 4. Use effective communication skills in working with groups 5. Develop relationships with elected officials on the national level 6 Identify the political structure in Washington, D.C. 7. Participate in state government meetings impacting agriculture 8 Develop relationships with officials on the state level 9. Represent Farm Bureau to others in the community 10. Participate in Farm Bureau sponsored programs 11. The importance of attending meetings 12. Demonstrate ability to work together to develop the goals necessary to achieve the vision of the organization 13. Importance of participating in media and farm tours 14 Demonstrate a knowledge of the FFBF 15. Demonstrate a knowledge of the AFBF.

PAGE 176

166 The largest gaps were found in the political process theme area and the competencies included in this area should all be considered for a leadership-training program. This training should be provided to current and incoming county Farm Bureau board members. In addition to this training, Farm Bureau should provide county board members with a job description so they know exactly what being a county Farm Bureau board member entails. As one state official commented "the problem is that the organization never got around to doing a job description, what knowledge is needed to get the job (being an effective county board member) done." Another recommendation would be to provide county board members with a handbook that provides much of this knowledge, such as the history and organization of Farm Bureau on all levels, the policy development process, and the political structure at various levels (such as in Tallahassee, FL and Washington, D.C.) "The Florida Farm Bureau needs to recognize that agriculture is evolving into non-traditional types of farming in urbanizing counties and become more pro-active in supporting and including new forms of agriculture as they emerge." This was a comment provided by a county board member on their completed survey and one that needs to be supported at all levels of Farm Bureau from the county to the state organization. Agriculture is changing and Farm Bureau needs to bring individuals to the table that represent these non-traditional types of farming as they represent the future of agriculture and for Florida Farm Bureau to continue to play a role in Florida agriculture they need to practice the progressiveness that it is encouraging in its members.

PAGE 177

167 In addition to the changing demographics in rural communities and a changing constituency that Farm Bureau represents, the Farm Bureau organization itself needs to be examined as organizations today are different than the organizations that were formed almost a century ago, such as Farm Bureau. Florida Farm Bureau also should understand the motivations of its' volunteer members to retain the membership levels of its active members. As volunteers are the backbone of this organization, there is a great need for the retainment and recruitment of new volunteers for the organization. Additional research could be conducted in this area to determine exactly what motivates individuals to accept great responsibilities in Farm Bureau. Suggestions for Further Research This study could be the starting point for additional leadership research within the FFBF. Results from the qualitative questionnaire given to state leaders of the FFBF indicated that county board members needed specific leadership skills and abilities to be effective board members. If leadership programming was developed and made available to county board members, an experimental research design could be implemented to determine board members' leadership skills before they participated in such a program and after program completion. County Farm Bureau board members ranked themselves fairly high in proficiency for all the competencies in the "Effective Board" theme area. The state leadership would probably disagree with their high perceived proficiencies in this area as the lack of proficiencies were determined in the interviews. Additional research is necessary to assess the proficiencies of board members in regards to items listed in this theme area.

PAGE 178

168 The leadership styles of county board members could be another area of research as this study did not attempt to discover what types ofleaders county Farm Bureau members were and it would be an interesting an insightful study due to the age ranges of board members. This study could also include the leadership styles of members of the state Farm Bureau board and the officials of the FFBF Organizations and the boards that guide their direction are changing due to the motivations of the members that volunteer for the organization and who the organization serves. The FFBF uses boards on the county and state level and could provide valuable research on organizational boards and specifically what motiva t es board members to participate Information on organizational boards and the motivations of board members is lacking and Farm Bureau could be an indispensable source ofthis information. Current research on grassroots organizations such as Farm Bureau is also lacking. Policy development in Farm Bureau could be examined using the framework o f grassroots organizing to add to the body of literature on this form of constituent organizing. A study which undertook this research problem would also add to the knowledge base on the motivations of individuals who belong to grassroots organizations. One of the reasons this study would be of particular importance is that individuals usually join grassroots organizations because of a specific problem and once that has been addressed their participation ends. Because Farm Bureau requires continuous participation from its members, especially t hose tha t serve on the county boards it would be interesting to find what sustains their membership and invol v ement. Another deficit in the literature is current research on agricultural organizations With the number of agricultural organizations in the United States it would seem that

PAGE 179

169 there would be studies on these organizations such as: organizational composition, leadership, changes in agriculture, changes in membership (diversity), policy development, etc. A study could be conducted comparing the FFBF with a state agricultural organization such as the FFV A in regards to their membership characteristics, their perceived power and influence in policy making, the policy development process, and the leadership styles of the individual leaders of both organizations, just to identify a few. Three demographic questions that were asked on the two survey instruments given to country board and active Farm Bureau members asked if respondents had been members of 4-H, FF A, or other youth leadership organizations and results indicated that close to half of those who responded had belonged to either 4-H, FF A, or other youth development organizations. It would be interesting to continue this line of research and investigate the influence of these organizations on leaders. Those who had participated in such organizations could be compared to those who have not and differences noted. This research suggestion was instigated by a participant in the pilot test for the qualitative instrument who stated that the county board members in their state who had belonged to either 4-H or FFA were moving up through the leadership ranks quicker because of the background and leadership training that was provided by these organizations. Summary This study attempted to explain the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members. With the findings of this study, Florida Farm Bureau has an increased knowledge of the demographic characteristics of both board and county board members. Changes in several demographic attributes such as age, farm size

PAGE 180

170 organizational participation, and family involvement in Farm Bureau will all need to be considered by state Farm Bureau officials. State Farm Bureau officials identified approximately 66 competencies that county Farm Bureau board members should possess in order to be an effective member of their county board These competencies were divided into four sections: leadership, political process effective boards, and knowledge of Farm Bureau. County board members rated the importance and their proficiency of each. Gaps between importance and knowledge were determined and examined as areas for programming efforts. Why its members chose to take on additional leadership responsibilities such as serving on their county boards their attitudes towards volunteering and the factors that motivate Farm Bureau members were examined through various scales and inventories. Motivations and attitudes towards volunteering are important to determine to best tailor volunteering efforts using the most effective motivators. Information provided in this study will allow the FFBF to tailor programming efforts on leadership development, in the hopes to grow" a greater pool of leaders for Florida Farm Bureau and the agricultural industry

PAGE 181

APPENDIX A LETTER TO FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS Date Name Title Florida Farm Bureau Address 1 City, State, Postal Code Dear Name, As part of my graduate work at the University of Florida, I will be conducting a study tentatively titled "A Comparison of Leadership Expectations and Performances of Florida Farm Bureau Members." This study will be conducted in three phases, with the first phase being interviews of the state leadership of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation on their expectations of members of local county Farm Bureau boards. You have been identified as a member of the state leadership for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation and your help with this phase ofmy study is crucial to the success of my research. Findings from my dissertation will provide the Florida Farm Bureau Federation with information on the leadership expectations and needs of its' members I have included a copy of the questionnaire that I will be using during my interviews of the state leaders for your review I will contact you within the next week to set up a time that is convenient for you to have me come to your office to conduct my interview which should take no longer then an hour Thank you for your time and consideration of my interview request. If you have any questions please contact me at (352) 392-1038 or hscarter @ mail.ifas.ufl edu Sincer e ly Hannah Carter Department of Agricultural Education and Communication U niversity of F lorida 171

PAGE 182

APPENDIXB SECOND LETTER TO FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS Date Name Title Florida Farm Bureau Address 1 City State Postal Code Dear Name, This letter is a follow-up to one I sent last week in regards to the study I am conducting on leadership perceptions and expectations of Florida Farm Bureau members. As I stated in the letter the first phase of my study will be to interview members of the state Farm Bureau leadership using the questionnaire that I included in your letter. I have also requested interviews with other leaders of state organization. I would like to conduct your interview at your earliest possible convenience as the interviews are the basis of my research and the first part of my study. Please let me know your availability and I will certainly work around your schedule Again these interviews should not take more than an hour of your time Sincerely, Hannah Carter Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 172

PAGE 183

APPENDIXC INTER VIEW QUESTIONS FOR FLORIDA FARM BUREAU OFFICIALS Leadership: 1. What leadership skills do you expect county board members to have? 2 If a leadership-training program was offered to county board members, what should be included in the content of this program? 3. How does FB encourage young farmers to take on leadership roles and responsibilities such as serving on county boards? 4 What does the state organization need to do to prepare FB members for additional leadership roles? Boards: 5. What do you believe makes an effective county board? 6. How are potential board members identified in the counties? How are they then approached by FB for their consideration of serving on their county board? 7. What specific objectives would you like county boards to accomplish? 8. What is the role of the county boards in the state FB organization? 9. What activities should the county boards be engaged in? Members: 10 What motivates board members to take a more active role in the county boards or to even what motivates FB members to want to serve on a county board? 11. What kind of preparation or training is currently provided for new board members? 12. How are new board members acclimated to the board? 13. What are the most important duties of a county board member? Organization : 14 What knowledge do county board members need to have about the American Farm Bureau organization the state Farm Bureau Federation and grassroots organi z ations in general? Do most county members have this knowledge ? 15. What are the future needs of Farm Bureau in regards to county boards and their involvement? 173

PAGE 184

APPENDIXD SURVEY FOR COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Florida Farm Bureau Leadership Survey for County Board Members Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to: Hannah Carter 1928 SW 42nd Dr. #E Gainesville, FL 32607 174

PAGE 185

17 5 P lease rate (1 =l o w; ?=hig h ) ho w important y o u b elieve it is for an i d ea l c o unty Farm B ureau board mem b er t o p oss es s th e foll o wing ab ilities an d h o w profi c ient y o u are (l=lo w, ?=high) at each. (Example: 1 2 3 4C)6 7 S up po rt the organization. 1 2C)4 5 6 7) Thi s ability i s i mport ant: LEADERSHIP My proficienc y is: 1) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 3) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 6 7 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Re co gnize pers o nality difference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (as indi c ated b y personality tests such as the Myer s B riggs.) S) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Choose indi~ to serve the organization who are~ in their co "ties. 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cho ose individuals to serve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wh o are rec o gnized as leaders b their peers. 7) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Demonstrate ability to conduct anorderl 8 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dem o nstrate kn o wledge of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 use o f g o als an d o bjec t ives in 9) 1 2 3 7 1 0 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Practice progressiveness (not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 do things the way they have always been done.) 11) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Demo~ ab~ to use in 12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Identify how committees are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uti l ized in the Farm Bureau organization. 13) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Use effective communication skills in media in 14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7

PAGE 186

176 This ability is im ortant: 1) 1 2 3 4 S 6 1 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7) 1 2 3 4 S 8) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9) 1 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 1~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 187

177 19) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 20) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participate in state government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 meetings impacting This abili!Y is im ortant: 1) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15) 1 2 3 4 S 6 1 This ability is im ortant 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agriculture. Demonstrate interest in serving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the county Farm Bureau board. Employ mutual respect for all 1 2 3 4 S board members. Demonstrate ability to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 together to develop the goals necessary to achieve the vision of the organization s rttheo . 1 2 3 4 on. Support the county resident. 1 2 3 4 5 s rt board decisions. 1 2 3 4 S Attend board meetings Pay attention to proQCedings at meetin Evaluate materials involving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issues Up-hold the bylaws of the 1 2 3 . or on. Identify with the business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 structure in the community. Represent Farm Bureau tQ: others in the comm . Demonstrate ability to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 together for the benefit of the whole Farm Bureau organization. Demonstrate ability to work to ether to solve roblems.

PAGE 188

178 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demonstrate ability to look at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 future needs o f the Farm 3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 0 on 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Identify the role of c o unty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Farm Bureaus is to serve as a spring board for ideas. 5) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Identify the organizatio~ structure of Farm Bureau. 6 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Identify the history of Farm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bureau. 7) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Define gras,sroots 0 0 8 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Identify how powerful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 grassr o ots organizations can be. 9) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Identify your role within the 1 Farm Bureau zauOJL 1 0 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Determine how to be a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ll) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demonstrate a knowledge of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida Farm Bureau Federation. l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Demonstrate a kno'fl :American Fann Bureau Fed 14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15) 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 16) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participate in media and farm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 tours. P l ease tell us about yourse l f ... 1) Years of membership i n Farm Bureau: 2) How long have you been on your county Farm Bureau board ?

PAGE 189

179 3) Have you served as president of a county Farm Bureau board? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many years? __ 4) Have you served on the board of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many year? __ 5) Has your family been involved in Farm Bureau? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, for how many years? __ 6) County of residence: ________ 7) How much time (in hours) do you devote to Farm Bureau each month (includes attending meetings, participating in programs and activit i es, reading information, etc ?) -8) How many Farm Bureau events did you attend in the last year (includes meetings, dinners, conventions, etc.)? __ 9) Do you belong to other agricultural organizations? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? ___ B) Do you have a leadership role in any one or more of these organizations ? [ ] yes [ ] no C) If yes, what is your role? 10) Do you belong to other organizations (such as community civic business etc.?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? ----B) Do you have a leadership role in any one or more of these organizations ? [ ] yes [ ] no C) If yes, what is your role? 11) Are you currently serving on the boards of other organi z ations ( such as industry community, civic, business, etc.?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes how many? __ 12) Are you? [ ] married [ ] single 13) Do you have children ? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? _ 14) Gender: [ ] male [ ] female 15) Age : __

PAGE 190

180 16) Were you a member of 4-H? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many years? __ 17) Were you a member of FF A? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many years? __ 18) Were you a member of other youth development organizations? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many years? __ 19) Have you participated in leadership development programs (such as Leadership Florida, Wedgworth Leadership Institute, Rotary Leadership Programs?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? __ 20) Your agricultural income is derived from (please check all that apply): [ ] aquaculture [ ] citrus [ ]other (please specify) [ ] dairy [ ] equine [ ] forestry [ ] fruit [ ] grain [ ] horticulture [ ] livestock [ ] peanuts [ ] poultry [ ] sugarcane [ ] tobacco [ ] vegetables 21) Farm size (in acres): ___ 22) Do you work off farm? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, what is your occupation? _______ Thank you for participating in this survey! Your comments will be appreciated, either here or in a separate envelope.

PAGE 191

APPENDIXE SURVEY FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS Florida Farm Bureau Leadership Survey Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to: Hannah Carter 1928 SW 42nd Dr. #E Gainesville, FL 32607 181

PAGE 192

182 P lease r ead each statement and circle the appropriate responses on the 7 point scale from 1 =strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. (Example: It is important to me that others 0 approve of my behavior. ..... 1 2 3 5 6 7) Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. It is important to me that others approve of my behavior. ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Decisions I make will reflect high standards that I've set for myself. ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 I only like to do things that are fun ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 Job requirements dictate how much effort I exert during work. . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 I often make decisions based on what others will think ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Ifl didn't enjoy doing my job at work I would leave .................. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. A day' s work for a day's pay ......... I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I often put off work so that I can do something else that is more fun. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I would work harder if I knew that my effort would lead to higher pay ..... I 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I work harder on a project if public recognition is attached to it. . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. When choosing jobs I usually choose the one that sounds like the most fun. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. When choosing jobs I usually choose the one that pays the most. .... I 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 193

183 Str o ngly Strongly Disagree Agree 13. If choosing jobs I want one that allows me to be recognized for successes ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. I consider myself a self-motivated person ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The people I choose t o spend my time with are the most fun to be with ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. At work my favorite day of the week is 'payday.' .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. I try to make sure that my decisions are consistent with my personal standards of behavior ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I like to do things which give me a sense of personal achievement. ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 It is important that I work for a company that allows me to use my skills and talents .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. If choosing between two jobs, the most important criteria is 'which is more fun?' ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. People should always keep their eyes and ears open for better job opportunities ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 I give my best effort when I know that it will be seen by the most influential people in an organization ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I need to know that my skills and values are impacting organization s success ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Those people who make the m ost friends have lived the fullest lives ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 194

184 When you think about volunteering, what comes to mind? For the following pairs of words, place an "X" in the space nearest to the word of each pair that represents your views towards volunteering. Please be sure to mark each scale. Mark only one "X" for each pair of words. (Example: Boring _ 1. Good 2. Passive 3. Youthful 4. Negative 5. Meaningful __ 6. Constrained 7. Complex 8 Masculine 9. Boring 10. Important __ 11. Intentional 12. Serious X Interesting) Volunteerine: Bad Active Mature Positive Meaningless Free Simple Feminine Interesting Unimportant Unintentional Humorous Why would you serve on a county Farm Bureau board? Please read each statement and indicate your response by circling the appropriate number on the 7 point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. (Example: I am satisfied with the Farm Bureau organization and it's goals ..... 1 2 3 Q 5 6 7)

PAGE 195

185 Stro ngly Strongly Di sagree Agree I woul d serve on a county F a rm B urea u board because: 1. I have a desire to be more involved in the Farm Bureau organization ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I am satisfied with the Farm Bureau organization and it's goals ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I believe it is important to attend all Farm Bureau functions (meetings, activities programs, etc.) ... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I am willing to help recruit more Farm Bureau members ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I believe my county Farm Bureau board is active and accomplishing it's goals ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Family members have served on the board and now it's my tum ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I believe I work effectively with individuals and groups ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I understand politics and the policy development process ........... ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 I am comfortable speaking to individuals, groups and the media ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I am able to seek out alternative solutions to problems. . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I am comfortable with technology and the use of email and the internet. ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 I would enjoy the recognition of being a board member ................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P l ease tell us about yourself ... . 1. Years of membership in Farm Bureau :

PAGE 196

186 2. Has your family been involved in Farm Bureau? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, for how many years? __ 3. County of residence: ________ 4. How much time (in hours) do you devote to Farm Bureau each month (includes attending meetings, participating in programs and activities reading information etc ?) ---5. How many Farm Bureau events did you attend in the last year (includes meetings dinners conventions, etc.)? ---6 Do you belong to other agricultural organizations? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? __ B) Do you have a leadership role in any one or more of these organizations? [ ] yes [ ] no C) If yes, what is your role? _________ _ 7 Do you belong to other organizations (such as community c i vic business e t c.?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? __ B) Do you have a leadership role in any one or more of these organizations ? [ ] yes [ ] no C) If yes, what is your role? -----------8. Are you currently serving on the boards of other organizations (such as industry community, civic business, etc.?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? _ 9. Are you? [ ] married [ ] single 10. Do you have children? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, how many? __ 11. Gender: [ ] male [ ] female 12. Age: __ 13. Were you a member of 4-H? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes how many years ? _ 14. Were you a member of FF A? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes how many years? __ 15. Were you a member of other youth development organizations ? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes how many years? ---

PAGE 197

187 16. Have you participated in leadership development programs (such as Leadership Florida Wedgworth Leadership Institute, Rotary Leadership Programs?) [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes how many? __ 17 Your agricultural income is derived from (please check all that apply): [ ] aquaculture [ ] citrus [ ]other (please specify) [ ] dairy [ ] equme [ ] forestry [ ] fruit [ ] grain [ ] horticulture [ ] livestock [ ] peanuts [ ] poultry [ ] sugarcane [ ] tobacco [ ] vegetables 18. Farm size (in acres): ___ 19 Do you work off farm? [ ] yes [ ] no A) If yes, what is your occupation? ________ Thank you for completing this survey! Your comments will be appreciated, either here or in a separate envelope.

PAGE 198

APPENDIXF FIRST LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS Date FirstName LastName Address 1 City, State PostalCode Dear FirstName, Within the next few days you will receive a request to complete a brief questionnaire. We are mailing it to you in an effort to learn what motivates Farm Bureau members to take a more active role in the organization. This survey is being conducted to better inform the Florida Farm Bureau Federation on the leadership needs and expectations of its members. The information will aid in the understanding of what motivates individuals to participate in organizations, their attitudes towards volunteering and serving on county Farm Bureau boards. This information will be used to develop future leadership training programs for Farm Bureau members. We would greatly appreciate your taking the few minutes necessary to complete and return your questionnaire. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, Hannah Carter Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 188

PAGE 199

APPENDIXG SECOND LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS Date Name Address 1 City, State Zip Code Dear Name, The Florida Fann Bureau Federation is interested in learning about the leadership expectations and perceptions of its members. This information will be used for the development of leadership-training programs for Farm Bureau members. You have been chosen to participate in a study, which will measure what motivates individuals to participate in Fann Bureau, your attitudes towards volunteering and serving on county Fann Bureau boards. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all Florida Farm Bureau members. In order that the results of the study truly represent the thinking of Farm Bureau members, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned in the envelope provided. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire itself, nor will your answers be tied to your name in any way. Per IRB guidelines, we are to notify you that no risk of physical, psychological, or economic harm to participants is foreseen. There is no monetary compensation to you for participation. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Participation in the study will be the duration for completion of the questionnaire, approximately 20 minutes. For questions about your rights as a research participant please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at irb2@ufl edu or 352-392-0433. UF IRB Approval # 2003-U-992 189

PAGE 200

190 I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this study. Please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call me at (352) 264-9777. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Hannah Carter University of Florida Dept. of Agricultural Education & Communication

PAGE 201

APPENDIXH POSTCARD TO ACTIVE MEMBERS Last week, a questionnaire seeking your opinions about leadership expectations and perceptions of members of Florida Farm Bureau was mailed to you. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all Farm Bureau members. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept our sincere thanks. If not please do so today We are especially grateful for your help because we believe your response will be very useful to Florida Farm Bureau and your county organization. If you did not receive a questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call (352) 264-9777 and I will get another one in the mail to you today. Sincerely, Hannah Carter Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 191

PAGE 202

APPENDIX I FOURTH LETTER TO ACTIVE MEMBERS Date Name Address 1 City, State, Postal Code Dear -Name-, About three weeks ago, we wrote to you seeking your opinions about the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau members. As of today, we have not received your completed questionnaire. We realize that you may not have had time to complete it. However, we would genuinely appreciate hearing from you. The study is being conducted so that Florida Farm Bureau members like yourself, can help in the development of future programs offered for Farm Bureau members. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all Florida Farm Bureau members. We are writing to you again because the study's usefulness depends on our receiving a questionnaire from each respondent. In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. We would be happy to answer any questions you have about the study. Please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call me at (352) 264-9777. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Hannah Carter Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 192

PAGE 203

APPENDIXJ FIRST LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Date Name Address 1 City, State, Postal Code Dear -Name-, Within the next few days, you will receive a request to complete a brief questionnaire. We are mailing it to you in an effort to measure the leadership expectations and perceptions of Florida Farm Bureau county board members. This survey is being conducted to better inform the Florida Farm Bureau Federation on the leadership needs and expectations of those members who are serving on county Farm Bureau boards The information will be used to develop future leadership training programs for county board members. We would greatly appreciate your taking the few minutes necessary to complete and return your questionnaire. Thank you in advance for your help Sincerely Hannah Carter Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 193

PAGE 204

APPENDIXK SECOND LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Date Name Address 1 City, State Zip Code Dear Name, As a member of the board of your county's Farm Bureau organization, you may have certain expectations and perceptions about leadership and what it takes to be an effective county board member. The Florida Farm Bureau Federation is interested in your opinions to develop meaningful leadership-training programs for county board members You have been chosen to participate in a study, which will measure your leadership expectations and perceptions. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all county board members in Florida. In order that the results of the study truly represent the thinking of county board members, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned in the envelope provided. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire itself, nor will your answers be tied to your name in any way. Per IRB guidelines we are to notify you that no risk of physical psychological, or economic harm to participants is foreseen. There is no monetary compensation to you for participation. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Participation in the study will be the duration for completion of the questionnaire, approximately 30 minutes. 194

PAGE 205

195 For questions about your rights as a research participant please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at irb2@ufl.edu or 352-392-0433. UF IRB Approval # 2003-U-992 I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this study. Please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call me at (352) 264-9777. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Hannah Carter University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education & Communication

PAGE 206

APPENDIXL POSTCARD TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Last week, a questionnaire seeking your opinions about leadership expectations and perceptions of county board members of Florida Farm Bureau was mailed to you. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all county Farm Bureau board members. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so today We are especially grateful for your help because we believe your response will be very useful to Florida Farm Bureau and your county organization If you did not receive a questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call (352) 264-9777 and I will get another one in the mail to you today Sincerely Hannah Carter Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 196

PAGE 207

APPENDIXM FOURTH LETTER TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Date Name Address 1 City State Postal Code Dear -Name-, About three weeks ago we wrote to you seeking your opinions about your expectations and perceptions about leadership and what it takes to be an effective county board member. As of today, we have not received your completed questionnaire We realize that you may not have had time to complete it. However, we would genuinely appreciate hearing from you. The study is being conducted so that county Farm Bureau board members like yourself, can help in the development of future programs offered for county board members. Your name was randomly selected from a list of all county board members in Florida. We are writing to you again because the study s usefulness depends on our receiving a questionnaire from each respondent. In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. We would be happy to answer any questions you have about the study. Please email me at hscarter@mail.ifas.ufl.edu or call me at (352) 264-9777. Thank you very much for your assistance Sincerely Hannah Carter Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida 197

PAGE 208

REFERENCE LIST Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. American Farm Bureau Federation. (2003). We are farm bureau. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from http://www.fb.org/about/thisis/ wearefarmbureau.pdf Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Barbuto, J.E., Jr., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). Motivation sources inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports 82, 1011-1022. Barbuto, J.E., Jr., Brown, L. L., Wilhite, M. S., & Wheeler, D. W. (2001, December). Testing the underlying motives of organizational citizenship behaviors: Afield study of agricultural co-op workers. Paper presented at the meeting of the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference. Berger, S. R. (1971). Dollar harvest. Lexington: Heath Lexington Books. Berlage, N. K. (2001). Organizing the farm bureau: Family, community, and professionals, 1914-1928. Agricultural History, 75(4), 406-432. Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Bettencourt, B. A. (1996). Grassroots organizations: Recurrent themes and research applications. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 207-220. Bettencourt, B. A., Dillman, G., & Wollman, N. (1996). The intragroup dynamics of maintaining a successful grassroots organization: A case study. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 169-186. Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 198

PAGE 209

199 Bolton, E. B (1991 ). Developing local leaders: Results of a structured learning experience. Journal of the Community Development Society, 22, 119-143. Borich, G.D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. The Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 39-42. Brant, K. E. (1995). Grassroots leadership: A qualitative study of social activism at the very source. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999-1023. Breimyer, H. F ., & Frederick, A. L. (1999). Does the family farm really matter? (University of Missouri Extension Ag. Publication #G820). Retrieved March 22, 2004, from http:/ /muextension.missouri.edu/ explor/ agguides/ agecon/ goo820 .htm Bright, J. L. (2001). Commitment of board members of nonprofit organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont University, Claremont. Brinton, J.E. (1961). Deriving an attitude scale from semantic differential data. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(2), 289-295. Brown, C. (1989). Explanations of interest group membership over time: The Farm Bureau in five Midwestern states. American Politics Quarterly, 17(1), 32-53. Browne, W. P. (1989). Access and influence in agriculture and rural affairs: Congressional staff and lobbyist perceptions of organized interests. Rural Sociology, 54(3), 365-381. Browne, W. P. (1995). Organized interests, grassroots confidants, and Congress. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Cavalier, R. P. (2000). Personal motivation. Westport: Praeger. Christenson, J. A., & Robinson, J. W. (Eds.). (1989). Community development in perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Christenson J A. (2003). Charting the future Ari z ona Cooperative Extension. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://cals.arizona edu/extension/about/charting.htm Clary, E. G., Synder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J ., Stukas A. A. Haugen J ., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7 4( 6), 15161530

PAGE 210

200 Coughenour, C. M., & Wimberley, R. C. (1982). Small and part-time farmers. In D. A. Dillman, & D. J. Hobbs (Eds.). Rural society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s (pp. 347-356). Boulder: Westview Press. Crawford, G. B. (2000). An interview with the American farm bureau's leader. F/oridAgriculture, 59, 3-8. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J.B., Jr. (1989). For the common good. Boston: Beacon Press. Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. DeChant, G. L. (2001). A study of prosocial personality characteristics and leadership traits involving PT A volunteers. Undergraduate Journal of Psychology, 14. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from http://www.uncc.edu/psychology/UJOP/ UJOP%202001/DeChant.HTM Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. DeLuca, T. (1995). The two faces of political apathy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Drucker, P. F. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Duffy, M., & Nanhou, V (2002, September). Factors of success of small farms and the relationship between financial success and perceived success. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Small Farms Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Duhl, L. J. (1997). Leadership in American communities. National Civic Review, 86, 7579. Duke, D. L. (1998). The normative context of organizational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 165-196. Economic Research Service (2004). Farm structure: questions and answers. Retrieved June 28, 2004, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmStructure/ Questions/FamilyFarms.htm

PAGE 211

201 Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (1999). Assessing the in service needs of entry-phase agriculture teachers in Texas: a discrepancy model versus direct assessment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 40-49. Eisinger, J. (2002, June). Leadership gets a new look: to identify and develop volunteers, you need to know something about who they are. Find out what tomorrow's leaders want and what trends are shaping the volunteer experience. Association Management, 54(6). Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/ 134/382/50713000w2/ purl=rcl_ITOF _0_A874. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows London: Sage Publications. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Florida Citrus Mutual. (2004). About us. Retrieved March 22, 2004, from http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/index.cfrn?page1D=8 Florida Farm Bureau. (2003). Florida farm bureau federation Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.fb.com/flfb Florida Farm Bureau Federation (2003). News Release October 2, 2003. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www. fb.org/flfb/newsrel/2003/membership.html Florida Farm Bureau Federation (2004) Farm bureau county directory. Gainesville: Florida Farm Bureau Federation. Florida Farm Bureau Public Relations Division. (1998). Observations from PR/Communications focus group. Gainesville: Florida Farm Bureau Federation. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds ) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Foster, R. (2000). Leadership in the twenty-first century: working to build a civil society. National Civic Review, 89(1), 87-93 Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A., (1970). I get by with a little help from my friends. World Politics, 23(1), 104-120. Fulmer, R. M. & Goldsmith M. (2001). The leadership investment. New York: American Management Association.

PAGE 212

202 Gall, M. D. (2001). Figuring out the importance of research results: Statistical significance versus practical significance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Garkovich, L. E. (1984). Local organizations and leadership in community development. In J. A. Christenson and J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds.), Community development in perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Georgia Agri-Leaders Forum Foundation, Inc. (2003). Georgia agri-leaders forum foundation, inc Retrieved October 7, 2003 from http://www.thehillgroup.com/html/agri-leaders.html Glesne C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Goudy, W. J. & Ryan, V. D. (1982). Changing communities. In D. A. Dillman & D. J. Hobbs (Eds.) Rural society in the US.: Issues for the 1980s (pp. 256-263). Boulder: Westview Press. Green K. E., Boser, J. A., & Hutchinson, S. R. (1997, March). Effects of populations type on mail surve y response rates and on the efficacy of response enhancers Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Chicago, IL. Hager M .A., Wilson S. Pollak T. H ., Rooney, P M (in press). Response rates for mail surveys of nonprofit organizations: A review and empirical test. Nonprofit and Voluntary S ec tor Quarterl y Hambrick, D. C. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (Eds.). (1998) Navigating change. Boston : Harvard Business School Press. Hansen, J M ( 1985) The political economy of group membership The American Political Science Review 79 79-96. Hassebrook C. (1999). Saving the family farm. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 14(3) 55-60. Hathaway D. E. (1963). Government and agriculture: Public policy in a democratic so ci e ty. New York: The MacMillan Company. Hersey P ., Blanchard K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996) Managem ent of organi z ational beha v ior (7th ed. ) Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Hinkle, S ., Fox -Cardamone, L. Haseleu J A. Brown, R. & Irwin L. M. (1996). Grassroots political action as an intergroup phenomenon. Journal of Social Issues 5 2 (1) 3951.

PAGE 213

203 Hobbs, D. (1995). Social organizations in the countryside. In E. N. Castle (Ed.), The changing American countryside (pp.369-384). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Huelskamp, T. A. (1997). Agricultural policymaking: Bounded or unbounded? The Social Science Journal, 34(3), 323-336. Hustedde, R. J., & Woodward, A. (1996). Designing a rural leadership program and curriculum (IP-54). Lexington: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Ikerd, J.E. (n.d.). The globalization of agriculture: Implication for sustainability of small horticultural farms. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from University of Missouri Web site: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/ TorontoGlobalization.html Johnson, T. G., & Fluharty, C. (2002). Rural development. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from Farm Foundation Web site: http://www.farmfoundation.org/2002_farm_bi11/ tjohnson.pdf Kajer, T. 0. (1996). Leadership in agricultural organizations: Perceptions and experiences of volunteer leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership. (n.d.). Karl general program information. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/karl/narrativ.asp Kaye, G. (2001). Grassroots involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology 29(2), 269-275. Kennedy, C. J. (2002). Studying organizational change: A change response model with readiness factors, a case study, and research implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Binghamtom University, Binghamtom. Keppel, G. Z., S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. King, B. S., & Hustedde, R. (2001, Spring). Strengthening civic engagement in community decision-making. (Available from The Southern Rural Development Center Box 96556, Mississippi State, MS 39762) Lindsey, L. L. (1994). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

PAGE 214

204 Loomis, B. A. & Cigler, A. J. (1995). Introduction: The changing nature of interest group politics. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 5-11). Washington DC: CQ Press Manning, P. K., & Cullum-Swan, B. (1994). Narrative content, and semiotic analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 463-477). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Martinez, T. A. & McMullin S. L. (2004). Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in nongovernmental organizations Environment and Behavior 36(1), 112-136. Maxwell J.C. (1995). Developing the leaders around you. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers McCaslin M L. (1993). The nature of leadership within rural communities : A grounded theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Nebraska Lincoln. McClenaghan P. (2000). Social capital : exploring the theoretical foundations of community development education. British Educational Research Journal 26(5) 565-582 McCracken G. (1988) The long interview Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications McFarland A. S. (1991) Interest groups and political time: Cycles in America. British Journal of Political Science 21, 257-284. Mehling R. (1960) A simple test for measuring intensity of attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterl y, 2 3( 4) 576-578. Miller D C. (1991) Handbook of research design and social measurement (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Moe, T. M. (1980). The organi z ation of int e r e sts. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press Moe, T M (1981). Toward a broader view of interest groups. The Journal of Poli ti cs 43(2) 531-543 Mooney P.H., & Majka T J. (1995) Farmers' and farm worker s movements New Y o r k : T wayn e Publishers. N ational F arm e rs U nion (2003). National farm e rs un i on Retrieved November 18 2003 from http ://www. nfa .org

PAGE 215

205 National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. (2004). 137 years of senlice to rural America. Retrieved May 11, 2004, from http://www.nationalgrange.org/ about/history.html Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Nownes, A. J., & Neeley, G. (1996). Public interest group entrepreneurship and theories of group mobilization. Political Research Quarterly, 49(1 ), 119-146. O'Brien, D. J., & Hassinger, E.W. (1992). Community attachment among leaders in five rural communities. Rural Sociology, 57(4), 521-534. O'Brien, D. J., Hassinger, E.W., Brown, R. B., & Pinkerton, J. R. (1991). The social networks of leaders in more and less viable rural communities. Rural Sociology, 56(4), 699-716. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1971). The measurement of meaning (8th ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Penfield, R. D. (2002). The fundamentals of survey-based research. Gainesville: University of Florida. Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447467. Penner, L.A., & Finkelstein, M.A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525-537. Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 429-444 Pilisuk, M., McAllister, J., & Rothman, J. (1996). Coming together for action: The challenge of contemporary grassroots community organizing. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 15-37.

PAGE 216

206 Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1996). Persuasion and democracy: strategies for increasing deliberative participation and enacting social change. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 187-205. Price, R. (2003) Members committed to future of Farmers Union, take pride in recruiting efforts. National Farmers Union News, 50(9), 3. Purdy, J. (1999). The new culture of rural America. American Prospect, 11(3), 26-31. Putnam, R. D (1995) Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics 28(4), 664-683. Reese, P. (2002, May-June). Whatever it takes: Seven decisions you must make now to stay in family farming. Successful Farming Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.agriculture.com/stonline/sf/2002/may-june/0206decisions.html Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001 ). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6), 13061314. Robertson, P. J., & Tang, S. (1995). The role of commitment in collective action: Comparing the organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives. Public Administration Review 55(1) 67-79. Rohs, F R., & Langone C. A. (1993). Assessing leadership and problem-solving skills and their impacts in the community. Evaluation Review, 17(1), 109-115. Rudd, R. D (1998). AEE 6767 : Research strategies and procedures in agricultural education and communication. Gainesville: University of Florida. Sabatier, P.A. (1992). Interest group membership and organization: Multiple theories. In M P. Petracca (Ed ), The politics of interests Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J.M. (2003). Critical thinking: Helping volunteers make better decisions. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 21(2), 17-23. Safrit R. D., & Merrill, M. (2002). Management implications of contemporary trends in volunteerism in the United States and Canada. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 20(2), 1223 Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science 13, 1-32.

PAGE 217

207 Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D V. (2000) Personality strength and social capital. Communication Research, 27(2), 107-131. Schuh, G. E. (n.d.). Globalization and rural development. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from: http://www.hhh. umn. edu/ centers/slp/proj ects/rkcweb/vitality/Schuh. pdf Scott, K. T. (2000). Creating caring and capable boards San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Senge P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J (1997). Rural tourism: an introduction. London: International Thomson Business Press. Shepard R. (Ed ) (1996) Your farm bureau. Dubuque : Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Singelmann, J. (1996). Will rural areas still matter in the 21st century? (or) Can rural sociology remain relevant? Rural Sociology 61(1) 143-158. Smith D. H. (2000) Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a functional personality and social psychology Personali ty and Social Ps y chology Bulletin 19, 251-264. Sogunro, 0. A. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development. Evaluation Revi ew, 21(6) 713-737. Sorcher, M. & Brant J. (2002) Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business Review, 80(2) 78 85. Stallman, B. (2003 May). Farm Bureau thrives through loyalty to m e mbers. The Ag Agenda. Retrieved 11/4 / 2003 from http://www fb.org/views/agenda/2003 / ag052003 html Staples L. (1984). Roots to pow er. New York: Praeger. Stuart, M. (2003) President's letter. 60 years ofleadership for Florida agriculture FFVA A nnu a l R eport, 4. Sturgis A (1958). Your farm bureau. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. Swenson, L. (1999). Sowing disaster Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14(3) 48-54.

PAGE 218

208 Talbot, R. B., & Hadwiger, D F (1968). The policy process in American agriculture San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. Tarrow S. (1998) Power in movement (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tweeten B. L. (2002) Transformational boards San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Tyler T R. (2002). Leadership and cooperation in Groups. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5) 769-782. United States Department of Agriculture. (2004). National agricultural statistics service census of agriculture 2002 Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http:/ /www. nass. usda gov/ census2002 census of agriculture Vogt W. P (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology (2nd ed ). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Washbush, J.B. (1998) From where will the leaders come? Revisited Journal of Education for Business 73(4) 251-253. Waters R. G., & Haskell L. J. (1989) Identifying staff development needs of cooperative extension faculty using a modified Borich needs assessment model. Journal of A gricultural Education. 30(2) 26-32 Weigel R.R. (2003 May). Why ranchers and farmers are reluctant to seek counseling and how family practitioners can help The Forum for Family & Consumer Issues 8(2). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http:/ /www. ces ncsu edu/ depts / fcs / pub / 8(2) / weigel.html Wilson G. K. (1992). American interest groups in comparative perspective. In M. P. Petracca (Ed ) The politics of interests. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Wittig M.A. (1996). An introduction to social psychological perspectives on grassroots organizing. Journal of Social Issues 52(1), 3-14 Yukl G (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 219

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Hannah Sewall Farnham Carter was born on May 10, 1973 in Caribou, Maine. She grew up surrounded by the potato fields of Aroostook County and developed a deep love and appreciation for agriculture Growing up she was actively involved in 4-H and FFA. Upon graduation from Washburn District High School in 1991 she entered the University of Maine. After her freshman year, she transferred to the University of Maine at Presque Isle and also began her career with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE) which served clientele in the potato industry After graduating with her B.S. degree in biology in May, 1995, she continued her employment with UMCE. In the fall of 1997 she left the potato fields and moved to sunny Florida where she began working on her master's degree in agricultural education and communication at the University of Florida. For her master's thesis she evaluated the Florida Leadership Program for Agriculture and Natural Resources After graduating with her M.S. in the fall of 1999 she returned to Maine and UMCE and ran the Integrated Pest Management Program for potatoes. In 2000 she returned to the University of Florida to be part of the first class of PhD students in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. In addition to working on her doctorate in agricultural leadership she also worked as the pro gr am coordinator for the Florida Leadership Program now called the Wedgworth Leadership Inst i tute for Agriculture and Natural Resources After graduating with her PhD in August o f 2004 she will become a faculty member in the Department of 209

PAGE 220

210 Agricultural Education and Communication; with this appointment she will direct the Wedgworth Leadership Institute and teach undergraduate and graduate classes on leadership development.

PAGE 221

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Rick D R~d~ Associate Professor of Agricultural Education and Communication I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor ofPhiloso~: ,,....._o +w=ar_d_W _ -L~a~dewi~.g--~--Professor of Agricultural Education and Communication I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a d i ssertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Burl F I fo ng Professor of Food and Re Economic s I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosop~L Nick T. Place Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education and Communication I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy gene E. Trotter Professor of Agricultural Education and Communication

PAGE 222

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2004 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 223

I LO 1780 20..-.--04....._ CJJ3 -UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA I I I ll llllll Ill I l l lllll l llll l l llllll l lll lll l Ill l llll llll llll Ill I l 3 1262 08554 2511


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EVARKPZTF_N84S7P INGEST_TIME 2011-11-08T18:44:30Z PACKAGE AA00004690_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES