<%BANNER%>

Leadership in the Cooperative Extension System: An Examination of Leadership Styles and Skills of State Directors and Ad...


PAGE 1

LEADERSHIP IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM: AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AND SKILLS OF STATE DIRECTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS By LORI L. MOORE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Lori L. Moore

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my father, Richard G. Moore and the memory of my mother, Judith H. Moore.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my advisory committee: Drs. Rick Rudd, Larry Arrington, Jim Dyer, Nick Place, and Saundra TenBroeck. Without their varied talents and expertise, sound advice, honest words of criticism, and constant encouragement, none of this would have been possible. I am indebted to my advisor, Dr. Rick Rudd, for stretching me intellectually and whose hard work and dedication served as my foundation. I would also like to thank my family, friends and colleagues. They have served as the inspiration behind all of the decisions I have made in my life, both large and small, and both personally and professionally, that have brought me to where I am today and have helped shape me into the person I am today. I would especially like to extend thanks to the following individuals: My father, Dick Moore, for his unconditional love, honesty, and integrity. How difficult it must have been to always tell me the truth, but how worth it in the end. My mother, Judy Moore, for leading by example and teaching me that anything is possible despite my limitations. Lynn Hendrickson and Pat Adams for the cards, letters, and care packages and for ensuring that, even in her absence, I always felt the presence of my mother. Dr. Tracy Hoover and Dr. Christine Townsend for their continued support, both emotionally and intellectually, and for believing in me when I did not always believe in myself. Elyse Griffin for the work ethic she instilled in me and who taught me the value of both personal and professional integrity. Ray Pieniazek, for being not only a mentor whose iv

PAGE 5

wisdom and passion guided me into this profession, but also a friend. Kyla Goodson whose presence in my life is a constant reminder of the value of friendship and who has inspired me to live life to the fullest. John Ricketts whose prayers and persistent words of encouragement lifted my spirit and gave me endurance. Gretchen and Henry Polczer for opening not only their home but also their hearts and for making me a part of the family. Floyd McConnell for his tremendous insight and understanding, and especially his willingness to listen. Anessa Brown, Nicole Douda, Kris Grage, Kelly and Shane Hahne, Carol Lorenzen, Rick Moore, Casey Owens, Sharon Spann, Nicole Stedman, and James Umphrey for the gift of their friendship and having faith in me. I would also like to thank all of the faculty, staff, and graduate students, both past and present, in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication for their support and assistance throughout this process. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xiv ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY...............................................1 Introduction to the Study..............................................................................................1 Background of the Study..............................................................................................1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................5 Purpose and Objectives of the Study............................................................................7 Significance of Study....................................................................................................8 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................9 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................9 Summary.....................................................................................................................10 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................12 The Nature of Leadership and Leadership Defined....................................................13 Leadership and Management......................................................................................14 Major Leadership Theories.........................................................................................17 The Trait Approach.............................................................................................18 The Behavioral Approach....................................................................................19 The Power-Influence Approach..........................................................................19 The Situational Approach....................................................................................20 The Integrative Approach....................................................................................21 Leadership Styles........................................................................................................21 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles......................................23 Relationship Between Leadership Style and Leadership/Management Theory..34 Influence of Demographics on Leadership Styles......................................................35 Gender.................................................................................................................35 Ethnicity..............................................................................................................39 Age......................................................................................................................40 Tenure..................................................................................................................41 vi

PAGE 7

Educational Background and Promotion Path.....................................................43 Leadership Training and Development...............................................................45 Leadership Skills........................................................................................................47 Influence of Demographics on Leadership Skills.......................................................54 Conceptual Framework...............................................................................................54 Summary.....................................................................................................................56 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................58 Research Design.........................................................................................................59 Populations.................................................................................................................60 Participant Selection: Extension Leaders...........................................................60 Participant Selection: Administrative Heads of Extension Leaders...................61 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................61 Interview Questionnaire......................................................................................62 Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument............................................63 Demographic Instrument.....................................................................................66 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.................................................................67 Data Collection and Analysis.....................................................................................71 Methods Used for Objective One........................................................................71 Methods Used for Objectives Two and Three.....................................................73 Methods Used for Objectives Four and Five.......................................................76 Summary.....................................................................................................................76 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................78 Objective One.............................................................................................................79 Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their Administrative Heads.......................................................................................79 Skill Area One: Human Skills............................................................................81 Skill Area Two: Conceptual Skills.....................................................................83 Skill Area Three: Technical Skills.....................................................................83 Skill Area Four: Communication Skills.............................................................85 Skill Area Five: Emotional Intelligence Skills...................................................86 Skill Area Six: Industry Knowledge Skills........................................................87 Objective Two............................................................................................................89 Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their Demographics and Leadership Style...............................................................................................89 Objective Three..........................................................................................................92 Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe Each Skill Area Is As Well As How Proficient They Perceive Themselves to be in Each Skill Area..................................................................................................................92 Perceived Importance of Leadership Skill Areas.........................................92 Perceived Proficiency in Leadership Skill Areas.........................................93 Difference Between Perceived Importance and Self-Perceived Proficiency..............................................................................................94 vii

PAGE 8

Objective Four............................................................................................................95 Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Styles of Current Extension Leaders...............................................................................95 Leadership Style and Gender.......................................................................95 Leadership Style and Ethnicity....................................................................96 Leadership Style and Age............................................................................99 Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension...................................................99 Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s)............100 Leadership Style and Highest Degree........................................................101 Leadership Style and Degree Classification...............................................101 Leadership Style and Previous Leadership Development..........................104 Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Styles.......................105 Objective Five...........................................................................................................107 Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Skills of Current Extension Leaders.............................................................................107 Leadership Skills and Gender....................................................................107 Leadership Skills and Ethnicity..................................................................109 Leadership Skills and Age..........................................................................114 Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension................................................115 Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s)...........116 Leadership Skills and Highest Degree.......................................................118 Leadership Skills and Degree Classification..............................................120 Leadership Skills and Previous Leadership Development.........................123 Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Skills.......................125 Summary...................................................................................................................127 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................128 Summary of the Study..............................................................................................128 Statement of the Problem..................................................................................128 Purpose and Objectives.....................................................................................129 Methodology......................................................................................................130 Findings.............................................................................................................131 Objective One.............................................................................................131 Objective Two............................................................................................131 Objective Three..........................................................................................133 Objective Four............................................................................................134 Objective Five............................................................................................135 Conclusions...............................................................................................................136 Discussion and Implications.....................................................................................138 Objective One Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their Administrative Head....................................138 Leadership skill areas needed by Extension leaders are: Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills............138 viii

PAGE 9

Administrative heads of agriculture from larger schools placed less importance on computer skills than do administrative heads of agriculture from smaller schools...........................................................139 Objective Two Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their Demographics and Leadership Style.............................................................140 Females and minorities are underrepresented in Extension leadership positions................................................................................................140 The majority of participants held their highest degree in social science disciplines.............................................................................................142 Participants engaged in Transformational Leadership Style behaviors more often than they engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors...............................................................................................142 Objective Three Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe Each Skill Area Is As Well As How Proficient They Believe They Are In Each Skill Area..............................................................................................143 Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills were rated between important and very important. Technical skills were rated between somewhat important and important........................................143 Emotional Intelligence Skills were rated as most important and Technical Skills were rated as least important......................................................144 Participants ranked themselves between above average and very proficient in terms of their proficiency in Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. Participants ranked themselves between average and above average in proficiency in technical skills...............146 Participants were most proficient in Emotional Intelligence Skills and least proficient in Technical Skills........................................................147 Objective Four Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Styles of Current Extension Leaders...........................................148 There was a significant, moderately negative relationship between tenure in Extension and Transactional Leadership Style......................148 Participants with bench science degrees engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors significantly more often than those with social science backgrounds...................................................................150 Ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transformational Leadership Style..................................................151 Participants highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transactional Leadership Style.............................................................153 Demographics did not significantly influence Transformational Leadership Style. With the exception of tenure in Extension and ix

PAGE 10

degree classification, demographics did not significantly influence Transactional Leadership Style.............................................................154 Objective Five Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Skills of Current Extension Leaders...........................................155 Ethnicity and age were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Human Skills.....................................................................................................155 With the exception of human skills, demographics did not significantly influence leadership skills.....................................................................156 Recommendations.....................................................................................................157 Suggestions for Additional Research........................................................................158 APPENDIX A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................160 Demographics (to be filled in by the researcher):....................................................160 Background Questions:.............................................................................................160 Leadership Skills and Competencies Questions:......................................................160 B LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES IN EXTENSION INSTRUMENT...................163 C MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ)...............................173 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................174 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................183 x

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=15).......65 3-2 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=47).......66 4-1 Leadership Sub-Skills.................................................................................................80 4-2 Minor Themes by Leadership Skill Areas..................................................................82 4-3 Human Skills Leadership Competencies....................................................................83 4-4 Conceptual Skills Leadership Competencies.............................................................84 4-5 Technical Skills Leadership Competencies................................................................85 4-6 Communication Skills Leadership Competencies......................................................86 4-7 Emotional Intelligence Skills Leadership Competencies...........................................88 4-8 Industry Knowledge Skills Leadership Competencies...............................................89 4-9 Gender of Participants by Ethnicity (N=47)...............................................................89 4-10 Age and Tenure of Study Participants (N=47).........................................................90 4-11 Previous Leadership Training Scores (N=47)..........................................................91 4-12 MLQ 5X Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores (N=47)................91 4-13 Mean Scores for Perceived Importance of the Leadership Skills.............................92 4-14 Mean Scores for Self-perceived Proficiency in the Leadership Skills.....................94 4-15 Difference Between Mean for Importance and Mean for Proficiency.....................95 4-16 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Gender (N=47)....96 4-17 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Gender (N=47).........................................................................................................97 xi

PAGE 12

4-18 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Ethnicity (N=47)......................................................................................................98 4-19 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Ethnicity (N=45)......................................................................................................98 4-20 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Age (N=46)..........................................................................99 4-21 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension (N=47)..............................................100 4-22 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47).........101 4-23 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Styles by Highest Degree (N=47)....................102 4-24 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Degree Classification (N=47).............................................................................................103 4-25 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Degree Classification (N=47).................................................................................104 4-26 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Total Leadership Development Score (N=47)...................104 4-27 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill Score (N=47)..........................................................................................................105 4-28 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill Score (N=47)..........................................................................................................106 4-29 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Gender (N=47)..........................108 4-31 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Gender (N=47)..........................110 4-32 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Gender (N=47).......................................................................................................111 4-33 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47).......................111 4-34 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Ethnicity (N=47)....................................................................................................112 4-35 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47).......................113 4-36 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Ethnicity (N=47)....................................................................................................113 xii

PAGE 13

4-37 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Age (N=46)......................................................................................................114 4-38 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Age (N=46)......................................................................................................115 4-39 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Tenure in Extension (N=47)............................................................................115 4-40 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Tenure in Extension (N=47)............................................................................116 4-41 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47).......................................117 4-42 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47).......................................117 4-43 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Importance) by Highest Degree (N=47)........................................................................................................118 4-44 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Highest Degree (N=47)........................................................................................................119 4-45 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47)...121 4-46 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Degree Classification (N=47)............................................................................................121 4-47 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47)...123 4-48 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Degree Classification (N=47)............................................................................................123 4-49 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Previous Leadership Development (N=47).....................................................124 4-50 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Previous Leadership Development (N=47).....................................................125 4-51 Backward Regression Explaining Human Skills (Proficiency) (N=47).................126 xiii

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. Basss (1985a) model of transactional leadership....................................................25 2-2. Bass (1985a) model of transformational leadership.................................................26 2.3. Amount of human, technical, and conceptual skills needed at various levels in an organization (Hicks & Gullett, 1975, p. 308)...........................................................48 2-4. Factors influencing leadership styles and leadership skills of Extension leaders.....55 xiv

PAGE 15

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 IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM: AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AND SKILLS OF STATE DIRECTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS By Lori L. Moore May, 2003 Chair: Rick Rudd Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. In the first phase of the study, seven administrative heads of agriculture participated in qualitative interviews to identify the major leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each area needed by Extension leaders. Forty-seven current Extension leaders from 1862 and 1890 institutions participated in the second phase. Participants completed a leadership style instrument, researcher-developed competency instrument, and demographic instrument. Leadership style and leadership skills were the dependent variables. Gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), highest degree, degree classification, and previous leadership development were the independent variables. Participants were described in terms of their demographics, leadership styles, and xv

PAGE 16

leadership skills. Independent variables were used to explain the influence of demographics on the dependent variables. Participants reported engaging in transformational leadership behaviors more often than transactional leadership behaviors. Transformational and transactional leadership styles were not significantly affected by the independent variables with the exception of both tenure in Extension and degree classification significantly affecting transactional leadership. Overall, participants rated the skill areas as important and perceived themselves to be of above average proficiency. Self-perceived proficiency in the six leadership skill areas was not significantly affected by the independent variables with the exception of age having a significant effect on proficiency in human skills (r=.30, p<.05). This study found that the best model for explaining transformational leadership style explained 13% of the variance and included ethnicity, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score. The best model for explaining transactional leadership style explained 28% of the variance and included the highest degree held by the participant, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score. The best model for explaining self-perceived proficiency in human skills explained 9% of the variance and included ethnicity and age. No model significantly explained the influence of demographics on laissez-faire leadership or self-perceived proficiency in the leadership skills areas of conceptual skills, technical skills, communication skills, emotional intelligence skills, or industry knowledge skills. xvi

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Introduction to the Study This study utilized qualitative research methodology to identify specific leadership competencies current state Extension administrators need to be successful in their position, as perceived by their administrative heads. This study also incorporated quantitative methodology to describe current state Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership styles, and to assess their self-perceived proficiency level in each of the competencies identified by their supervisors. Finally, this study examined the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Background of the Study The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), often referred to as the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), is one of four departments housed within the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The system itself is a publicly funded, non-formal educational system that links the activities of the USDA, CSREES, 51 land-grant universities created under the Morrill Act of 1862, 17 land-grant institutions created or supported under the second Morrill Act of 1890, 34 land-grant institutions created from 1890 to 1994, and approximately 3,150 county administrative units (Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1997; McDowell, 2001; Rasmussen, 1989). 1

PAGE 18

2 The CSREES is a unique educational system established over 85 years ago by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. It was originally designed as a partnership among the land-grant universities, created under the Morrill Land-Grant College Acts in 1862 and 1890, which provided higher education to the general public rather than only the elite. The Morrill Act of 1862 provided for at least one college in each state, called land-grant colleges, to teach agriculture and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 required the establishment of separate, but equal land-grant colleges for black students. Most recently, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 conferred land-grant status to 29 tribal colleges. State legislation allowed local governments in each county to become the third legal partner in the system. The CSREES identified diversity as a major area of emphasis over 10 years ago (Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1991). Diversity is not a concept defined simply in terms of race or gender (Thomas, 1991). In fact, it encompasses much more and can be defined as differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and other human differences (Gear, 1992). According to Pathway to Diversity (Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1991), the strategic plan for implementing the emphasis on diversity within the CSREES, a commitment was made to emphasize diversity in several aspects of the organization: mission and vision; work force; programs; audience; and relationships with other people, groups, and organizations. Within this strategic plan was the specific goal of achieving work force diversity. The plan called for the CES to increase and sustain the diversity of its work force, including leadership, to better reflect the diversity of the

PAGE 19

3 Nation, states, and territories. This increase in the diversity of Extension staff is necessary for the CES to achieve the goals of its strategic plan and to provide quality educational programming to new and varied audiences (Grogan & Eshelman, 1998). Human diversity in terms of individual differences in areas such as history, knowledge and experience, perspective and insight, and gender is key to organizational success (Klagge, 1996). Support, genuine commitment that goes beyond sloganism, and a demonstrated belief in diversity by leaders in top management positions are critical to transform such a traditional organization (Cano & Ludwig, 1995; Cox & Blake, 1991; Mosley, 1998). In other words, for the CES to achieve its goals in the area of diversity, and thereby organizational success, it is essential that such diversity be apparent in and endorsed by the leaders of the organization. Mosley (1998) concluded that the workforce demographics of an organizations staff should mirror that of the clientele they serve. This conclusion is supported as it applied to Extension (Gear, 1992; Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1991). The United States has become a very diverse society, and as such, the makeup of the United States workforce has also diversified (Ewert, Rice, & Lauderdale, 1995). More and more women, minorities, and older individuals have entered the workforce in the United States over the past two decades. In 1990, more than half of the U.S. workforce consisted of women, minorities, and immigrants. Thus, the problem is not getting diverse populations into an organization; it is more a problem of getting them into leadership positions (Thomas, 1990). Most people would agree that women and minorities can be leaders (Alire, 2001; Indvik, 2001). Despite this agreement, women are still underrepresented in the ranks of

PAGE 20

4 senior leadership positions across a variety of disciplines (Cohen, Broschak, & Haveman, 1998; Kvaerner, Aasland, & Botten, 1999). This trend is consistent with the trend seen in the Extension hierarchy. There are more women and minorities in non-manager and first-line management positions now than in previous years. For example, only 25% of the total Extension staff in Ohio was female in 1970, whereas in 1990, the number of female staff members had grown to 44% (Walker, 2000). The Ohio Extension system also saw an increase in the number of minority staff during a similar time period. From 1970 to 1998, the number of non-white agents went from 1% (n=3) to 5% (n=27) of the total Extension staff (Walker, 2000). However, this increase in the number of women and minorities has not transcended into senior level, top management positions (Clark, 1992; Mayer, 2001; Moore & Jones, 2001). These positions have traditionally been held, and continue to be held, predominantly by white males. As Moore and Jones (2001) pointed out, in many states, Extension leadership does not reflect diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender. In 1992, 70 of the 77 state directors of the Cooperative Extension Service from both 1862 and 1890 institutions, or 90.9% of the population, participated in a study conducted by Clark (1992). He reported that of these 70 participants, 91.4% were male. In 2001, Moore and Jones reported that of the 56 1862 land-grant universities, only 9% (n=5) of the directors, 7% (n=4) of the associate directors, and 2% (n=1) of the interim directors were female. Of these ten individuals, nine were Caucasian and one was African American. In the 17 1890 land-grant universities including Tuskegee, 24% (n=4) of the administrators, 12% (n=2) of the associate administrators, and 6 percent (n=1) of the acting associate

PAGE 21

5 administrators were female. Of these 7 individuals, all are African American. Thus, the representation of ethnic minorities in senior leadership positions are a little more encouraging in 1890 institutions as compared to 1862 institutions. However, even within these institutions, leaders seem to be very similar and therefore, empirical evidence still suggests an overall under-representation of diverse populations in senior leadership positions within the Extension system as a whole. Studies conducted within Extension have suggested the need for and recommended further diversification of leaders within the organization (Lowery, 1996). Lowery reported that 83% of the CEDs who participated in her study were males, 89% were white, and 45% held degrees in agriculture. Findings of her study indicated that individuals who have worked in other areas besides agriculture, females, and ethnic minorities can also provided effective leadership. There is substantial empirical evidence to suggest that demographic variables, such as gender, age, ethnicity, tenure, background, and formal leadership training, influence the leadership styles of individuals. The influence of these variables on an individuals leadership style combined with the specific abilities that an individual possesses are determining factors in which individuals become leaders within an organization. Problem Statement Most employers, including those responsible for hiring state Extension directors, would agree that leadership skills are desirable in employees. Although an abundance of information about leadership exists, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding specific aspects of leadership. This is especially true within the Extension system.

PAGE 22

6 Despite a commitment by the CSREES to a diverse workforce, including the leaders of the organization, there are still populations that are underrepresented in leadership positions within the Extension system. Mayer (2001) reported a discrepancy between the number of qualified women within the CSREES and the number of women in state-based director positions. The people in positions of power in the United States have traditionally been white males (Dorsey, 2001) and many business and industry leaders tend to replace themselves with people whose backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics are similar to there own (Sorcher & Brant, 2002). It is possible that these same trends are present within the Extension service. Empirical evidence exists that documents the lack of diversity in leadership positions, within Extension. There is also research that examines the relationship between demographics and leadership styles and supervisory/management competencies of mid-level leaders within Extension (Cobb, 1989; Haynes, 1997; Lowery, 1996; Shearon, 1969), but the amount of research focusing on the influence of demographics on leadership styles and skills of senior leaders within the organization is arguably thin. Furthermore, in-depth leadership skill development training programs have been recommended for professional staff in Extension (Holder, 1990). However, the organization has made no attempt to define specific leadership styles and skills it is seeking in its leaders, thus making the inclusion of such competencies in training programs difficult. Several questions thus arise. What specific leadership skills do Extension leaders need to be successful? Which leadership styles do most leaders within the organization posses? What role do demographic characteristics play in an individual's leadership style

PAGE 23

7 and skills? Are diverse populations underrepresented in leadership positions in Extension as a function of different leadership styles and skills? The study focused on identifying specific leadership skills needed by state Extension directors and describing the self-perceived proficiency level of current administrators in each of these areas. This study also described the demographic characteristics of these current administrators, thus examining and describing aspects of diversity among current administrators. Purpose and Objectives of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. In this study, specific leadership competencies needed by state Extension directors, as perceived by their administrative heads, were determined. The self-perceived level of proficiency of current Extension leaders in each competency was assessed. The study also described current Extension administrators in terms of their leadership style, gender, age, ethnicity, previous leadership training, and educational background. In describing current administrators, it was possible to assess the current level of diversity within Extension state director and administrator positions. This research addressed the following specific objectives: 1. To determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads. 2. To describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style. 3. To assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each area.

PAGE 24

8 4. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders. 5. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders. Significance of Study This study identified specific leadership competencies administrative heads of current Extension leaders believe these leaders need to possess in order to be successful. The CES is a unique organization in that its leaders are promoted almost exclusively from within based on their performance in previous positions (Patterson, 1997; Pittman & Bruny, 1986). The identification of specific competencies needed by Extension leaders could help design leadership development programs that prepare individuals to be successful in future leadership positions and ensure a large pool of competent leaders, including members of diverse populations, from which the next generation of leaders can be chosen. This study also described current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics, leadership style, and self-perceived proficiency in leadership skill areas. Only a small body of knowledge exists that addresses the leadership styles and demographics of Extension leaders, and that tries to explain the influence of these variables on the ability of individuals to obtain positions of leadership within the organization. Very few studies have been conducted that focus on leaders in senior leadership positions within the organization. Being able to better explain the influence of demographics on leadership styles and skills of Extension personnel could help in the recruitment of future leaders, preferably from diverse populations.

PAGE 25

9 Definition of Terms Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) (Also known as the Cooperative Extension Service [CES]) An educational system established as a partnership between the United States Department of Agriculture and the land-grant universities to disseminate practical information in areas such as agriculture and home economics to local community members. Administrative Heads For the purposes of this study, Administrative Heads will be the individuals in positions recognized by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) as Administration Heads of Agriculture. According to NASULGC, these individuals are the chief administrators of the member universities agricultural programs. Diversity Differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and other human differences (Gear, 1992). Leadership An interaction that occurs between two or more members of a group and can involve a structuring, or restructuring, of both the situation involves, and the perceptions and expectations of the members involved (Bass, 1990). Leadership styles The characteristic manner in which an individual leads other people; patterns of leadership behavior. Leadership skills The abilities and acquired tasks related to leadership developed by an individual. Extension leaders For the purpose of this study, Extension leaders will be defined as those individuals responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Extension system within each state, as identified by the individuals listed in the CSREES State Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002). Limitations of the Study As with any scholarly study, there are limitations that limit the generalizability of this study. The first limitation that must be considered is related to the nature of the organization being studied. Because this study will be conducted within the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension System, which is a unique organization in terms of its structure and function, the findings will not be generalizable to other

PAGE 26

10 organizations. The study will nevertheless contribute useful information and recommendations for researchers and Extension practitioners. Second, this study will be limited to current Extension leaders in state director or administrator positions, or as identified as the individual responsible for the day-to-day operations of Extension within their state. This definition of Extension leaders limits the generalizability of the findings to other types of leaders, such as leaders who emerge within an organization without holding a formal management or administrative position. The third limitation of the study deals with the limited number of demographic variables included in the study. Other demographic variables that were not included in this study may influence an individuals leadership style and leadership skills. The final limitation of the study that must be considered is the fact that the proficiency of current leaders related to each of the leadership competencies is self-reported. This self-reported data may, or may not, be as accurate as if it was obtained from observers familiar with the leaders proficiency in each of the skill areas. Summary This chapter provided the background and significance of the problem as well as the purpose of the study. This study described the leadership styles of Extension leaders and assessed the self-perceived proficiency level of administrators in specific leadership competencies identified by their immediate supervisors. The study also explained the influence of demographics on the leadership style and leadership skills of current leaders. There were five research questions presented and the significance of study was discussed. The five research objectives were the following: 1. To determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads.

PAGE 27

11 2. To describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style. 3. To assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area. 4. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders. 5. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders. This chapter also included the operational definitions of several terms related to the study. Limitations of the study were also discussed. Chapter 2 will present the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that guided this study. Empirical research related to leadership styles, leadership skills, and the influence of demographic variables will be addressed.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Specifically, this study sought to (1) identify leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) assess how important current Extension leaders perceive each skill area to be as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each area (4) explain the influence of demographics on leadership style, and (5) explain the influence of demographics on leadership skills. This chapter presents a review of the relevant literature concerned with leadership styles and skills. The chapter focuses on literature describing leadership styles, the effect of demographic variables on leadership styles, and presents the relevant theoretical and conceptual frameworks. A number of general studies related to leadership styles and demographic variables are included in this examination, as a limited amount of empirical research has been conducted specific to the Extension system. This chapter also reviews pertinent literature concerned with specific leadership skills and the influence of personal variables on these skills. This chapter is divided into the following major sections: the nature of leadership and leadership defined, leadership and management, major theories of leadership, 12

PAGE 29

13 leadership styles, influence of demographics on leadership styles, leadership skills, influence of demographics on leadership skills, conceptual framework, and summary. The Nature of Leadership and Leadership Defined Leadership has been well researched over the years, yet a lack of consensus in many aspects of leadership still remains. Despite the fact that several thousand books, articles, and papers have been written on the phenomenon of leadership, there is still not an appropriate, consensus definition that is universally accepted. According to Stogdill (1974), there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept (p. 7). Although most researchers generally define leadership according to their major areas of interest and personal perspectives, most definitions are based on the belief that leadership is a process that occurs as one individual influences one or more others in an effort to facilitate organizational or group performance (Yukl, 2002). Similarly, Northouse (2001) identified four central components to the concept of leadership: (1) leadership is a process, (2) leadership involves influence, (3) leadership occurs within a group context, and (4) leadership involves goal attainment. The following examples reflect the various definitions of leadership that have been proposed over the years. Gardner (1990) defined leadership as the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held or shared by the leader and his or her followers (p. 1). Kouzes & Posner (1997a) defined leadership as the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations (p. 30). Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (p. 3). Bass (1990a) defined leadership as an interaction between two or more members of a group

PAGE 30

14 that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the members (p. 19). One of the characteristics common to each of these definitions is the presence of other people. In his book Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way James Lundy (1990) offers the following simple definition of a leader, "A leader is anyone who has followers" (p. 20). According to this definition, leaders can exist anywhere within the organizational hierarchy. Leadership should not be equated with position, power, authority, or status (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Gardner, 1990). Leadership should be viewed as more of a function of the relationship that exists between leaders and followers rather that the title, power, status or authority one possesses within the organization. This is not to say that people in administrative and management positions should not be considered leaders. They are leaders not because of their title, but because people around them grant their cooperation and follow them (Bolman & Deal). Leadership is a universally accepted concept, yet one that is surrounded by confusion and disagreement (Bolman & Deal, 1997). According to Bennis and Nanus (1997), 'Leadership' is a word on everyone's lips," and "Everyone agrees there is less of it than there used to be" (p. 1). They go on to point out that although specific leadership competencies have remained more or less the same over the years, theories of what exactly leadership is, how it works, how it is learned, and how it is applied have not remained as quite as constant. Leadership and Management An ongoing debate exists about the difference between leadership and management. Within the Extension system, it is often assumed that the leaders of the organization are those individuals in the top-management positions and that to be

PAGE 31

15 effective, these individuals need to be both a manager and a leader. Therefore, it is important at this point to define and discuss the similarities and differences between leadership and management. Scholars generally agree that there are differences, but the degree to which the two overlap or exist as separate entities is a matter of perspective. Some theorists have suggested that leadership and management are two distinct entities (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990b; Zalenik, 1977). Kotter (1990b) distinguished between leaders and managers on three different criteria. According to him, leaders set a direction, align people, and motivate and inspire whereas managers plan and budget, organize and staff, and control and solve problems. In essence, management functions to provide order and consistency to an organization whereas leadership functions to produce change and movement and leadership compliments rather than replaces management (Kotter, 1990a). Although Kotter described leadership and management as separate factors, he did not assume that leaders and managers are different people. In contrast, Zalenik (1977) argued that leaders and managers themselves are different and distinct. He distinguished between leaders and managers based on three areas of suggested differences: motivation, personal history, and in how they think and act and goes on to argue that managers and leaders are in fact different types of people (Zalenik). As a result of his belief that leaders and managers are two different types of people, Zalenik went on to argue that training and developing managers may actually inhibit the development of leaders. Similarly, Bennis and Nanus (1985) described distinct differences between managers and leaders as people. According to them, managers are people who do things

PAGE 32

16 right and leaders are people who do the right things (p. 21). For theorists such as Kotter, Zalenik, and Bennis and Nanus, the essential distinction between leaders and managers seems to be that leaders influence commitment while managers simply exercise authority as they perform the responsibilities associated with their position (Yukl, 1989). However, empirical research does not support the association of leadership and management with different types of people as people tend not to sort themselves into such extreme stereotypes (Yukl, 2002). There are also theorists who, although they see the functions of leadership and management as separate, view the two as interdependent rather than distinct entities (Lester & Kunich, 1997). Lester & Kunich (1997) defined the functions of a leader as setting the overall tone for the organizational culture and shaping the vision and mission of the organization by setting goals and objectives and giving followers something to believe in, and then motivating and inspiring them to accomplish the goal. In contrast, they defined the roles of effective managers to be ensuring that everything is operating optimally and efficiently by controlling and integrating resources to accomplish organizational goals. These theorists see leadership and management as interdependent. That is to say that good leadership can exist without effective management, and that poor leadership can exist with effective management. No matter if theorists have suggested the two to be entirely separate or interdependent, theorists agree that to be successful, organizations need both effective leadership and effective management (Kotter, 1990b; Lester & Kunich, 1997). One thing that many definitions of effective management have in common is the effective utilization of both human and material resources to achieve common goals and

PAGE 33

17 objectives (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997). Most scholars support the notion that to be an effective manager, leading is involved (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995; Yukl, 2002). Within the context of Extension, management can be divided into five major functions: planning, organizing, staffing and human resource management, leading and influencing, and controlling (Buford et al.). Buford et al. defined the leading and influencing function of management within Extension to be the process of inducing individuals (peers, superiors, subordinates, and nonsubordinates) or groups to assist willingly and harmoniously in accomplishing organizational objectives (p. 7). Thus, although leadership is not positional, managers within Extension can be expected to be leaders within the organization as well. Major Leadership Theories In order to begin understanding the concept of leadership, one must understand the various leadership theories that have contributed thus far to our understanding of leadership as a whole. In his paper on leadership competencies, Scholtes (1999) discussed the importance of theory. According to Scholtes, without theory there is no learning and without application there is no learning. We have a theory. We try it out. We adjust our theory, based on what we have learned. We try that out and on and on. The extensive cycle is called learning (p. S706). When viewed collectively, the various leadership theories provide a multifaceted view of leadership (Kanji & Sa, 2001). Over the years, researchers have conducted literally thousands of studies that have tried to explain leadership, and perhaps more importantly, effective leadership using a number of different approaches. Nahavandi (2000) classified modern leadership approaches into one of three eras: the trait era, the behavior era, and the contingency era. Similarly, Yukl (2002) classified empirical research and leadership theories into one of

PAGE 34

18 five major approaches: the trait approach, the behavioral approach, the power-influence approach, the situational approach, and the integrative approach. Studies that have been conducted within the various approaches to leadership have made distinct contributions to our understanding of what leadership is, and each approach continues to influence our thinking about leadership as a process (Nahavandi). Each of the approaches outlined by Yukl will be discussed briefly in the sections that follow. The Trait Approach Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific attributes, or traits, of leaders such as personality, motives, values, and skills (Yukl, 2002). The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. In essence, the trait approach assumed that leaders were born, not made. Hundreds of trait leadership studies were conducted during the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait research (Bass, 1990a). However, these studies failed to create list of traits that would guarantee leadership success (Yukl, 2002). Different studies found different traits associated with leaders, and soon, the list became too long to be of practical significance. After trait leadership studies failed to produce a conclusive list of traits that made leaders successful, researchers began to study leadership using one of the other approaches. However, there has been a renewed interest in trait leadership in recent years (Bryman, 1992; Nahavandi, 2000). The inclusion of traits as one of the elements in effective leadership is generally well accepted, but is no longer looked at as the only, or even dominant, factor in effective leadership (Nahavandi).

PAGE 35

19 The Behavioral Approach After the studies conducted using the trait approach failed to produce conclusive findings, many researchers began using a behavioral approach to study leadership. In doing so, researchers and theorists began looking into what leaders actually did on the job (Yukl, 2002). According to Yukl, research conducted under the behavioral approach falls into one of two subcategories: (1) how leaders spend their time and the typical pattern of activities, responsibilities, and functions of their jobs, and (2) identifying effective leadership behavior. The behavior approach was successful in increasing our understanding of leadership by successfully identifying several categories of leadership behaviors (Nahavandi, 2000). However, similar to the trait approach, the behavior approach focused only on one variable of leadership. As Nahavandi points out, by emphasizing only behaviors, this approach disregarded other variables, such as situational elements, and therefore, provides a simplistic, and less than thorough understanding of the complex process of leadership. The Power-Influence Approach According to Yukl (2002), this type of approach to leadership involves the study of the influence that takes place between leaders and other people. Studies that have been conducted with this approach generally focused on leadership in terms of the amount of power possessed by a leader, the different types of power, and how power was exercised (Yukl, 1989). Power and influence are of concern to researchers as influence is the essence of leadership and power is important not only for influencing followers, but also for influencing peers and superiors, as well as individuals outside of an organization (Yukl,

PAGE 36

20 1989, 2002). Bradford and Cohen (1984) noted the importance of this multidirectional power and influence within an organization. According to them, having clout with your boss gains respect from subordinates and peers; being influential with colleagues lets you deliver what your boss wants and your subordinates need; and high-performing subordinates increase your power sideways and upwards because you can deliver on your obligations and promises (p. 280). The Situational Approach The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the study of leadership. Yukl (1989; 2002) identified the following contextual factors: the leaders authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed by the leaders unit, the characteristics of the followers, the type of organization, and the nature of the external environment. Similarly, from his review of the works of several leadership theorists, Bennis (1961) identified several factors that must be taken into account when explaining who emerges and succeeds as a leader within an organization. Such factors might include the relationship between leaders and followers and the design of tasks that allow individuals to reach self-actualization. Bennis argued that effective leadership depends on finding balance between individuals and the organization such that both can obtain maximum satisfaction. Research conducted under the situational approach generally can be generally categorized into one of two subcategories: (1) an attempt to discover the extent to which the leadership processes are the same or unique across different types of organizations, levels of management, and cultures, or (2) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2002).

PAGE 37

21 The Integrative Approach Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include more than one type of leadership variable, such as trait, behavior, influence processes, and situational variables (Yukl, 2002). Bass (1990a) stressed the importance of including more than one type of leadership variable in research involving leaders and leadership when he stated, cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them (p. 52). He further stated that "leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables that are in constant flux" (p. 76). Leadership theories such as charismatic and transformational leadership are good examples of an integrative approach to leadership. These theories are broader in scope: they simultaneously involve leader traits, power, behavior, and situational variables (Yukl, 1989, p. 270). Leadership Styles The concept of leadership styles is somewhat vague in that each individuals style is as personal as the individuals themselves. Leadership style refers to the characteristics manner in which an individual leads others. Early conceptualizations categorized leadership styles as either autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire (White & Lippitt, 1960). According to White and Lippitt, autocratic leadership styles are exhibited by leaders who maintain a high degree of control over the group, without allowing much freedom for participation by group members in decision-making. The autocratic leader sets group goals and determines how the group will accomplish those roles. In other words, the autocratic leader possesses high goal and means control, and utilizes low stimulation of group procedures. The democratic leader, on the other hand, attempts to get the group to

PAGE 38

22 develop the methods or procedures used to set goals. Therefore, the democratic leader possesses low goals and means control, and utilizes high stimulation of group procedures. The Laissez-faire leadership style is characterized by a hands-off approach to leadership. Laissez-faire leaders both possess low goal and means control, and utilize low stimulation of group procedures. Through their work with the situational approach to leadership, Hersey and Blanchard created their own leadership styles. They based their leadership styles on the amount a task-behavior and relationship-behavior the leader provided followers. In their initial classification system, leaders could be classified as having one of the four following styles: telling (high task, low relationship), selling (high task, high relationship), participating (low task, high relationship), or delegating (low task, low relationship). A newer version of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership model has been created (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). In this version, Situational Leadership II, there area still four classifications of leadership styles based on task and relationship behavior, but leaders are said to have either directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating leadership styles. In the last 20 years, a new paradigm of leadership has emerged that shifted emphasis from the traditional, or transactional, models of leadership toward of the study of transformational leadership styles. The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by Burns (1978) and refined by Bass (1985a). According to Tichy and Devanna (1990), "transformational leaders are not dictators. They are powerful yet sensitive of other people, and ultimately they work toward the empowerment of others"

PAGE 39

23 (p. 273). The concept of transactional versus transformational leadership style becomes an important aspect in the overall study of leadership in that, according to Bass (1985a), the leadership of great men (and great women) of history has usually been transformational, not transactional (p. 26). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles Burns (1978) viewed the two as a dimensional construct in which transactional and transformational leadership were at opposite ends of the same continuum. He characterized transactional leadership as being based on interactions between leaders and followers in which something of value was exchanged, such as rewards for performance. At the other end of the continuum, he characterized transformational leadership as occurring when leaders and followers interacted in such a way that the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower were raised. In contrast, Bass (1985a) viewed the two as complementary constructs, and as such, saw it possible, in fact almost necessary, for the leader to engage in both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leadership is not a substitute for transactional leadership, but rather tends to add to its effectiveness (Bass, 1997). Bass characterized the transactional leader as someone who worked within the existing organizational culture of the group to recognize and clarify the roles and responsibilities of followers such that desired outcomes were achieved (see Figure 2-1). These desired outcomes were achieved when the leader negotiated with followers an exchange relationship of reward for compliance (Bass, 1985a). In other words, transactional leaders explain to followers what is required of them and then negotiate the compensation followers will receive if they meet the requirements, either the promise of

PAGE 40

24 reward for good performance or the threat of punishment for poor performance (Bass, 1990b). Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified four characteristics of transactional leaders: (1) contingent reward in which the leader provides rewards if followers meet agreed upon performance and designated goals; (2) active management-by-exception in which the leader watches and searches for follower mistakes such that corrective action can be taken; (3) passive management-by-exception in which the leader only intervenes in a followers work if performance goals are not being met; and (4) laissez-faire leadership in which the leader withdraws and avoids responsibility and decision-making when performance goals are not met. Laissez-faire leadership can actually be considered a non-leadership factor as it represents the absence of leadership (Northouse, 2001). Bass characterized transformational leaders as individuals who motivate followers to do more than they originally expected to do based on their original level of confidence towards accomplishing desired outcomes (see Figure 2-2). Transformational leadership occurs when a leader: raises the level of awareness about the importance and value of desired outcomes, alters or expands the wants and needs of followers, and/or gets followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the group (Bass, 1985a). Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified four characteristics of transformational leaders: (1) charisma in which the leader is able to provide followers with a vision, transmit a sense mission, gain respect and trust, and instill faith in followers; (2) inspiration in which the leader provides examples and patterns for the follower through symbols and images, emotional appeals, and communicating high expectations; (3) intellectual stimulation in which the leader stimulates followers to think in new ways, promotes intelligence and rationality, and emphasizes problem solving; and (4) individualized consideration in

PAGE 41

25 which the leader provides a supportive and coaching environment such that each follower is treated as a respected individual. Leader clarifies followers role Follower confidence in meeting role requirements (subjective probability of success) Leader recognizes what follower must do to attain designated outcomes Leader recognizes what follower needs Leader clarifies how followers need fulfillment will be exchanged for enacting role to attain designated outcome Follower value of designated outcomes (need fulfilling value for follower) Follower motivation to attain desired outcomes (expected effort) Figure 2-1 Basss (1985a) model of transactional leadership.

PAGE 42

26 Leader expansion of followers portfolio of needs Leader transcending of followers self-interests Leader elevation of followers need to a higher Maslow level Leader confidence-building in follower Leader elevation of followers subjective probabilities of success From Figure 2-1 Follower current state of expected effort Follower expected performance Leader change in organizational culture Follower performance beyond expectations Follower heightened motivation to attain designated outcome (extra effort ) Leader elevation of value of designated outcomes for follower Figure 2-2 Bass (1985a) model of transformational leadership.

PAGE 43

27 Another popular conceptualization of transformational leadership style was that of the leadership challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Kouzes and Posner collected over 1,000 surveys and interviewed numerous middle-level to senior-level managers who described their personal best leadership experience and identified five fundamental leadership practices of transformational leaders. When the leaders in their study moved people beyond expectations, they: (1) challenged the process, (2) inspired a shared vision, (3) enabled others to act, (4) modeled the way, and (5) encouraged the heart. Posner and Kouzes (1988) reported that over 80 percent of the behaviors and strategies respondents described in their interviews and personal best leadership experiences were accounted for by these five fundamental practices. Leaders who exhibit the leadership practice Challenge the Process are not bound by the status quo, are open to innovation, and encourage risk-taking within the organization. Leaders who Inspire a Shared Vision are able to look ahead and see what the organization can be while at the same time enlisting the efforts of others in the achieving the common goals of the organizational vision. Leaders who engage in behaviors characteristic of the Enabling Others to Act practice transfer power to others in the organization, involve others in the decision making processes of the organization, and ultimately build trust and mutual respect within the organization. Leaders who Model the Way set examples within the organization by adhering to the same rules and expectations of others within the organization. Leaders who utilize the Encourage the Heart practice recognize the contributions of individuals and celebrate the accomplishments of others within the organization.

PAGE 44

28 Measurement of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. In an effort to measure the conceptualizations of transformational and transactional leadership, Bass created the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). To develop the instrument, Bass began with 142 statements drafted from a review of literature and open-ended interviews with 70 male senior industrial executives. These statements were reviewed by 11 graduate MBA and social science students who were enrolled in a leadership seminar class. The 11 judges had studied detailed descriptions of transactional and transformational leadership and sorted the statements into one of three categories: transactional, transformational, or cant say. Items were selected as transactional if nine or more of the 11 judges identified it as transactional and none or only one of the judges identifies it as transformational. An item was selected as transformational if eight or more of the 11 judges identified it as transformational and none or only one identified it as transactional. Of the original 142 statements, 73 remained and were included in the revised questionnaire. From his conceptualization of the characteristics of transformational and transactional leaders, Bass identified seven leadership factors: charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985a). Although Bass considered charisma and inspiration to be distinct constructs, the two were not found to be distinguishable in a factor analysis study of data obtained from 176 military officers (104 U.S. Army colonels, foreign officers, and civilians of equivalent rank and 72 senior military officers) who completed the 73 item revised questionnaire, and thus the two were combined to represent a single factor (Bass, 1985a, 1988).

PAGE 45

29 Similarly, the laissez-faire leadership construct faded as a separate entity (Bass, 1985a). Of the remaining five factors, three were identified as transformational (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual consideration) and two were identified as transactional (contingent reward and management-by-exception). More recent forms of the MLQ such as the MLQ 5X (2000a) include nine leadership scales. Of these, five are transformational: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Three of the leadership scales are transactional: contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), and management-by-exception passive. The remaining leadership scale, laissez-faire leadership is the only measure the laissez-faire, or non-leadership, style. Idealized influence is defined in terms of how followers react to the leader and his/her behavior. Leaders with idealized influence are admired and respected by followers and serve as strong role models. They have high standards of ethical and moral conduct and provide followers with a vision and sense of mission. Followers want to emulate leaders who exhibit idealized influence (Northouse, 2001). According to Bass and Avolio (2000b), idealized influence can be seen as both a behavior and an impact, thus requiring two leadership scales: idealized influence (attributed) and idealized influence (behavior). Inspirational motivation is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she inspires and motivates followers to demonstrate commitment to the shared vision of the organization. Leaders who engage in this behavior clearly communicate high expectations to followers and increase team spirit and enthusiasm (Northouse, 2001).

PAGE 46

30 Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she supports followers to be creative and innovative, try new approaches, and challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization. Followers engage in problem solving to find creative solutions (Northouse, 2001). Individualized consideration is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she provides a supportive climate, listens to followers, and acts as a coach and mentor. The leader pays attention to individual differences and treats individual employees in a caring and unique way. Leaders also help individuals achieve goals and grow personally (Northouse, 2001). Contingent reward refers to the engagement of leaders and followers in an exchange process in which effort by followers is exchanged for specific rewards. Objectives are agreed upon by both leaders and followers, and achievement of the objectives is positively reinforced (Northouse, 2001). Management-by exception occurs when transactional leaders intervene to make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative reinforcement. Management-by-exception can be active or passive. Transactional leaders engage in active management-by-exception when they closely monitor followers so they can detect mistakes and take corrective action and offer negative feedback. Transactional leaders engage in passive management-by-exception when they intervene with a follower only after standards have not been met or problems arise (Northouse, 2001). Laissez-faire leaders engage in laissez-faire behaviors when they abdicate responsibility, delay decisions, offer no feedback, and make little or no effort to help

PAGE 47

31 followers satisfy needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a "hands-off" approach to leadership (Northouse, 2001). The MLQ is the most widely used measure of transformational leadership (Northouse, 2001). By 1986, the MLQ had been included in over 75 research studies with findings published in journals, dissertations, book chapters, conference papers, and technical reports (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). According to Lowe et al. (1996), the MLQ has been used to study leaders at all levels of both public and private organizations in business and industry, the military, and educational and religious institutions, as well as to study effectiveness criteria such as follower perceptions of effectiveness and satisfaction and extra effort and organizational measures of performance. In an effort to measure their own conceptualizations of leadership, Kouzes and Posner created the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). After collecting and analyzing the interview and personal best leadership experience forms and identifying the five fundamental practices of effective leaders, the authors wrote six statements that captured each of the five practices for a total of 30 statements. Kouzes and Posner created two forms of the instrument: the LPI-Self to be completed by the leader and the LPI-Other to be completed by the leaders followers or subordinates (Kouzes & Posner, 1997b). The initial versions of the instrument were based on a five-point Likert scale that asked respondents to rate how often the leader demonstrated a particular behavior on a scale from one to five where one represented rarely or very seldom and five represented very frequently or almost always. The LPI was then completed by 120 MBA students and receiving feedback from respondents, difficult, ambiguous, or inconsistent statements

PAGE 48

32 were revised or replaced (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The revised instrument was administered to over 2,100 managers and their subordinates and data were analyzed for internal reliability and construct validity. A factor analysis was also conducted and statements that loaded poorly or on a factor that was not interpreted were either discarded or rewritten. In a study of managers and executives in management development seminars and approximately three of their subordinates (N=2,876) Posner and Kouzes (1988) reported overall internal reliabilities of the LPI ranging from .77 to .90 with reliabilities of .70 to .84 on the LPI-Self and .81 to .91 on the LPI-Other. The authors also reported that a factor analysis extracted five factors and accounted for 59.9% of the variance. The LPI was not created to measure either transactional or transformational leadership, but rather the five fundamental practices of leadership identified by Kouzes and Posner (1987). However, in a study involving 1,892 subordinates describing 344 middle managers, Fields and Herold (1997) evaluated three alternative factor models of the five dimensions of the LPI. Results of the analysis indicated that the model which associates two dimensions of the LPI (Challenging the Process and Inspiring a Shared Vision) with transformational leadership, one dimension (Enabling Others to Act) with transactional leadership, and the remaining two dimensions (Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart) with a mixture of both transformational and transactional leadership produced to best fit to the raw data. The authors concluded that subordinate assessments of a leader using the LPI can be used to measure transformational and transactional leadership.

PAGE 49

33 Similarly, in a study involving 1,440 subordinates in an Australian banking firm, Carless (2001) concluded that although the constructs of the LPI were highly correlated and thus the LPI had a weak discriminant validity, the instrument was assessing an over-arching transformational leadership construct. It should be noted however that this study utilized the first edition of the LPI rather than the newer, second edition. Posner and Kouzes (1988) also examined the relationship between a leaders effectiveness and his or her behavior as measured by the LPI. Data collected only from the LPI-Other instruments were analyzed using stepwise regression. The five factors were entered as independent variables and leader effectiveness was entered as the dependent variable. A significant regression equation was obtained. Results of the analysis indicated that nearly 55% of a managers effectiveness can be explained by the managers behavior based on the conceptual framework of transformational leadership measured by the LPI (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). Kouzes and Posner have continued to revise and improve the LPI as well as conduct reliability and validity studies (1997b). The second edition of the instrument asks respondents to rate the leaders demonstrated behavior on a one to ten point Likert scale instead of the five-point scale used in an earlier version. Additionally, the authors changed the name of the LPI-Other to the LPI-Observer because they believe the new name more accurately describes its intent as it is designed to be used by people who directly observe the behaviors of the leader they are describing (Kouzes & Posner, 1997b). Early views of transformational and transactional leadership styles placed the two at opposite ends of a single continuum, and therefore suggested that leaders were unable

PAGE 50

34 to engage in aspects of both styles at the same time. In contrast, current theories view the two as complementary constructs, both of which are important to the success and prosperity of organizations, and suggest that effective leaders can, and should, engage in aspects of both at the same time. In other words, transformational leadership is an extension of the traditional transactional leadership, and leaders are most effective when they exhibit both styles. In a meta-analysis of 39 studies on transformational leadership that used the MLQ, Lowe et al. (1996) reported that transformational leadership behaviors were more strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness than were transactional leadership behaviors across different contexts. These findings support the theory that effective leaders utilize transactional leadership when necessary and appropriate, but also emphasize and practice transformational leadership. Relationship Between Leadership Style and Leadership/Management Theory Some scholars have related the differences between management and leadership to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Bennis and Nanus (1997) noted that management typically consists of a set of contractual exchanges whereas the end result of leadership is empowerment, which results in the desire of individuals to achieve success. From this perspective, management can be seen as those activities performed by transactional leaders while leadership can be seen as those activities performed by transformational leaders. The functions of management and leadership are different, but a considerable amount of overlap exists between the two. Both effective management and effective leadership are needed in order for organizations to reach their greatest potential outcomes. In many respects, the functions of management can be compared to transactional leadership in which followers meet the expectations of their leaders based

PAGE 51

35 on contracts and performance requirements. Under most circumstances, this may be effective, however, over the past couple of decades the leadership paradigm has shifted and the literature now supports the idea that to generate extra effort, commitment and satisfaction in followers, transformational leadership is more effective. Influence of Demographics on Leadership Styles Numerous studies have been conducted in the field of leadership that have addressed the influence of selected demographic characteristics of individuals on their leadership style. Some studies have focused on the influence of the characteristics on the self-perceived leadership style of the individual, others have focused on the perceptions of followers related to an individuals leadership style and the influence of these characteristics, and still others have involved the perceptions of both the leaders and their followers. Krishnan and Park (1998) noted that demographic characteristics do exert considerable influence on the leadership styles of top managers. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that demographic traits such as age, tenure in an organization, functional area background, educational background, and degree of formal management training are all important aspects of leadership that influence organizational success. Gender Differences in the preferred leadership styles of men and women is perhaps one of the most well researched aspects of leadership. There are two major schools of thought on gender differences and leadership, one that says there are distinct differences and the other that says there are no differences in the preferred leadership styles of men and women. Several studies have been conducted to determine if male or female leaders are more transformational. In their meta-analysis, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that

PAGE 52

36 women tend to use a more participative and inclusive style while men tend to use a more directive and controlling style. This indicates that women use more transformational styles while men use more transactional styles. This conclusion is supported by other studies that found women more likely to use transformational leadership than men and that men were more likely to use transactional leadership as their primary style (Druskat, 1994; Rosener, 1990). Carless (1998) went on to assess transformational and transactional leadership in terms of subordinate, leader and superior perceptions. A unique aspect of her study is that she used both the MLQ and the LPI to completely assess and measure transformational and transactional leadership. Carless reported that while subordinates reported no differences between men and women in their use of transformational leadership, both the leaders themselves and the leaders superiors reported females to be more transformational than their male counterparts. In a study of 73 senior human resource management professionals, 49 males and 24 females, Posner and Kouzes (1988) reported that statistically significant differences were obtained between the males and females on the Encouraging the Heart factor of the LPI with the females reporting higher frequency scores than their male counterparts. In a later study involving 5,298 managers who completed the LPI-Self instrument and 30,913 subordinates who completed the LPI-Observer instrument, two of the five leadership practices were found to be significantly different between males and females in both LPI-Self and LPI-Observer groups (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). In the LPI-self group, female managers reported engaging in Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart significantly more often that their male counterparts. This finding is supported by the

PAGE 53

37 findings of the LPI-Observer scores that revealed female managers were seen by their subordinates as engaging in Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart behaviors significantly more often that their male colleagues. Findings from these studies suggest that in general, male and female leaders are more alike than they are different in terms of the five leadership practices that are measured by the LPI (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). It is interesting to not however, that the two practices females have been shown to engage in significantly more often than that their male peers, Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart, are the same two practices that Fields and Herold (1997) found to represent both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. There have been studies conducted within the Extension system that have addressed differences in the leadership styles of men and women administrators. Rudd (2000) conducted a study in which five observers completed the LPI-Observer instrument for 38 male and 16 female County Extension Directors in Florida. Observers reported significant differences between the men and women on four of the five leadership practices measured by the LPI. Observers reported women using Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart behaviors significantly more often than their male counterparts. In the same study, 28 male and 16 female County Extension Directors completed the LPI-Self instrument. It is interesting to note that the male leaders ranked themselves higher in all five leadership practices than did their observers, whereas the female leaders ranked themselves lower in four of the five leadership practices. Self-reported and observer scores for females in the Enabling Others to Act were equivalent.

PAGE 54

38 Lowery (1996) used the Human Patterns instrument to measure five leadership behaviors based on the work of Kouzes and Posner. The five leadership behaviors were: appreciating and recognizing others, challenging and pushing others, coaching and enabling others, inspiring others, and serving as a role model. Results showed that the female CEDs in her study showed a strong preference for inspiring others and challenging others while male CEDs preferred the leadership behaviors of inspiring others, coaching others, and appreciating others. In a study in which the self-perceived leadership and management behaviors of County Extension Directors (CED) were compared with the perceptions of their behaviors provided by County Extension Agents (CEA), Sykes (1995) classified certain behaviors as those found in leaders, such as risk taker, visionary, and innovates, and certain behaviors found in managers, such as monitors, administers general duties, and satisfied with status quo. When compared with the literature, those behaviors Sykes classified as leader behaviors are comparable to behaviors exhibited by transformational leaders, whereas those behaviors she classified as manager behaviors are more comparable to transactional leadership behaviors. With respect to gender, Sykes found that female CEDs perceived themselves to demonstrate more leadership behaviors than male CEDs perceived themselves to demonstrate. Haynes (1997) examined the relationship between demographics such as gender, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in a supervisory/management position, and program area and 15 supervisory/management competencies that were observed and assessed in an Extension Assessment Center. In his study, participants that demonstrated above average

PAGE 55

39 strength ion the behavioral flexibility competency tended to be female. Demonstrated strength in the remaining competencies was not affected by gender. In her study involving employees of the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service, Holder (1990) categorized participants as either Extension faculty (county Extension faculty and Extension specialists) or middle managers (county Extension directors, district directors, and program leaders). She reported that leadership style was not significantly related to gender for either Extension faculty or middle managers. Ethnicity Little empirical evidence exists in the study of ethnicity differences related to leadership styles. Few studies in Extension have been conducted in which the influence of ethnicity on leadership style was addressed. However, it is nevertheless important to consider ethnicity differences in leadership styles. As Alire (2001) points out, minorities themselves view differences between white and minority leadership (p. 97) and for the most part, minorities think that they are held to a higher standard (p. 99). Davis (1982) concluded that based on Burns definitions of transformational and transactional leadership, the needs and experiences of the black population may dictate a greater emphasis on transformational leadership. This conclusion may suggest that black followers seek transformational leaders and that black leaders tend to be more transformational. The latter has not been supported in empirical studies. In the Posner and Kouzes (1993) study involving over 36,000 managers and their subordinates, the authors compared the responses of Caucasians with those of non-Caucasians. Non-Caucasian managers reported engaging in Inspiring a Shared Vision and Modeling the Way behaviors significantly more often than their Caucasian colleagues. However, when

PAGE 56

40 LPI-Observer scores were analyzed, no significant differences between Caucasians and non-Caucasians in any of the five leadership practices. In a smaller study conducted with 42 male and 32 female Directors of Student Athletic Support Services at NCAA Division I Institutions, Rochelle (1999) reported significant differences between Hispanics and the group that reported Other as their ethnicity in the leadership practice Encouraging the Heart as measured by the LPI. Within the Extension system, Sykes (1995) reported significant differences in the self-perceived leadership behaviors of African-American CEDs as compared to CEDs of other races. The African-American CEDs in her study perceived themselves to demonstrate more leadership behaviors. In contrast, Holder (1990) found no significant relationship between ethnic origin and leadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers. Age Several studies examining the relationship between age and leadership style have been conducted organizations other than Extension. Vroom and Pahl (1971) suggested that older managers within an organization may have a greater commitment to maintaining the status quo than younger managers and less favorable attitudes towards taking risks. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that younger managers were more inclined to take risks than older managers. Taking risks rather than maintaining the status quo is one of the characteristics of leaders who engage in the leadership practice Challenging the Process identified by Kouzes and Posner (1987). Spotanski and Carter (1993) conducted a study on the self-perceived leadership practices and behaviors of agricultural education department executive officers in which demographic variables, including age, tenure, and formal leadership training and/or

PAGE 57

41 education, were analyzed in relation to the leadership practices measured by the LPI. In their study, 28 of 49 participants were below the age of 50 and 21 were above the age of 50. When grouped according to age, below 50 and above 50, findings of the study indicated no significant differences in leadership style. Within the Extension system, Sykes (1995) found that the age of a CED did not significantly influence her behavior as a manager or a leader. She did find, however, that younger CEDs, 45 years old and younger, perceived themselves to demonstrate more leader behaviors. Holder (1990) reported that age was not significantly related to the preferred leadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers. Similarly, Haynes (1997) reported that age did not affect participants' demonstrated strength in the 15 supervisory/management competencies included in his study. Tenure Studies have been conducted that assess the relationship between an individuals leadership style and their tenure within an organization as well as their tenure in leadership positions within the organization. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that the more tenure the leaders of an organization have, the more likely they are to have a greater commitment to maintaining the status quo. Similarly, Bantel and Jackson(1989) found that the more tenure of the top management team within the independent financial institutions they studied had, the more likely they were to resist innovation and organizational change. However, in their study, they found no significant differences between the tenure of the CEO and total innovation. Tenure has also been addressed from the perspective of how long an individual has served in a leadership position. The Spotanski and Carter (1993) study that included

PAGE 58

42 age as a demographic variable also included a comparison between leadership styles and the number of years in which a participant had served as a department executive officer. The authors reported no significant difference between leadership styles of the study participants when compared to years of experience as a department executive officer. In his study of Directors of Student Athletic Support Services at NCAA Division I Institutions, Rochelle (1999) reported that the number of years respondents reported working in the primary leadership role was significantly correlated with the Encouraging the Heart leadership practice of the LPI. Shearon (1969) introduced the concept of Administrative Professional Leadership (APL) in Extension that he defined as a leader's efforts to coordinate and influence the performance of Extension agents. In his study involving County Extension Chairmen (CEC) and Extension agents in the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, he found that the more tenure a CEC had in Extension, the lower their APL scores indicating decreased leadership effectiveness. Cobb (1989) conducted a study involving CEDs and county Extension agents in select counties of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. He reported no significant difference in the leadership effectiveness of CEDs with one to 10 years tenure in the CED position as compared to CEDs with 11 to 30 years of tenure in the CED position. Similarly, Holder (1990) reported no significant relationship between tenure in Extension and the preferred leadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers. Sykes (1995) reported on the influence of tenure both within Extension as a whole and within and Extension CED position. Findings of her study indicated that tenure in the Extension system as a whole did not influence a CEDs behavior either as a leader or

PAGE 59

43 as a manager. The same finding was reported for tenure in an Extension CED position. In other words, more tenure, either in the Extension system as a whole or in a leadership position within Extension, did not necessarily indicate a more transactional leadership style. In his study involving demonstrated strength of Extension employees who completed the Assessing Supervisory and Management Skills Assessment Center at the Minnesota Extension Summer School and the Ohio State University Extension County Chair Assessment Center, Haynes (1997) reported that participants who demonstrated above average strength in leadership tended to have more tenure in Extension. Those who demonstrated above average strength in development of coworkers had both more tenure in Extension and more tenure in a supervisory/management position. The remaining competencies were not affected by tenure. Educational Background and Promotion Path Educational background and promotion path are variables that have received considerably less attention than other demographic variables within the literature. Shearon (1969) found no relationship between undergraduate major, which he classified as either oriented more to the social sciences or to agricultural technology, and the APL of the CECs in his study. Findings of the study conducted by Sykes (1995) suggested that program discipline from which CEDs came from significantly influenced their self-perceptions related to transformational leadership styles. Sykes reported that CEDs from home economics and 4-H program backgrounds perceived themselves to demonstrate more leadership behaviors than CEDs from agricultural program backgrounds. Sykes also reported that the type of degree, beyond a bachelors degree, had no significant influence

PAGE 60

44 on the self-perceive leadership styles of the CEDs in her study. However, in terms of leadership effectiveness, Cobb (1989) reported no significant difference in the leadership effectiveness of CEDs as a function of their previous program discipline. Haynes (1997) reported that participants in his study who demonstrated above average strength in leadership tended not to be from the family and consumer science, 4-H youth development, or community/economic development program areas. Similarly, those who demonstrated above average strength in development of coworkers tended not to come from the agriculture/natural resources, 4-H youth development, or community/economic development programs and those who demonstrated above average strength in behavioral flexibility tended not to come from the community/economic development program area. The remaining competencies were not affected by previous program area. Although there has been little study into the influence of educational background and promotion path, it is an area of great importance as the leaders of Extension are almost always promoted from within the organization based on their performance in their subject matter discipline or previous Extension positions (Patterson, 1997; Pittman & Bruny, 1986). In many cases, leaders tend to want to surround and replace themselves with people who are like them in terms of their background and experiences (Sorcher & Brant, 2002). Thus, it is logical to believe that individuals trained in a bench science disciple would seek to promote individuals with training in a bench science. However, Bantel and Jackson (1989) proposed that it is to the benefit of top management teams within an organization to be composed of diverse individuals with dissimilar types of curricula backgrounds.

PAGE 61

45 In some respects, this proposition has not been supported in the literature related to Extension. For example, All six of the African American Extension leaders at 1890 Land-Grant institutions studied by Moore and Jones (2001) had an academic background in Family and Consumer Sciences. Gender, ethnicity, age, tenure, and background are the most common demographic variables studied throughout the literature in regards to their influence on leadership style. There are many inferences that can be drawn from the findings of the studies examined. It can be suggested that younger leaders are more transformational in their leadership style. Leadership Training and Development Transformational leadership practices can be taught and learned (Bass, 1990b, 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; 1997a) and therefore, it is important consideration in the context of training and development. In the context of Extension, training programs for administrators have historically included instruction in managerial skills such as program planning, personnel management, resource allocation and budgeting, and advisory committee organization, but lacked instruction in leadership skill areas such as participatory leadership, visioning, communication, innovation, empowerment, and recognition of followers and subordinates (Rudd, 2000). Moore and Jones (2001) suggested that an increase in minorities in leadership positions would occur in Extension would increase leadership development opportunities for minorities. When leadership training and development is viewed from a transformational leadership perspective, Payne, Fuqua, and Canegami (1997) reported that when trained, there is no difference between the transformational leadership behaviors of men and women. However, when untrained, men will use a more task-oriented or transactional

PAGE 62

46 style, while women will tend to use a more consideration-oriented or transformational style. Gunderson (1994) reported ways of preparing individuals for future leadership positions as a major theme that emerged from an in-depth case study involving 57 Extension leaders from four states. Radhakrishna, Yoder and Baggett (1994) noted the importance and value of identifying leadership styles, behaviors and practices in the professional growth of County Extension Directors. According to the authors, the identification of weakness areas would help determine additional professional growth efforts, which in turn could increase their effectiveness as leaders. The findings that leadership training and development is important within the Extension system are supported by the findings of studies conducted in other organizations as well as in Extension. The Spotanski and Carter (1993) study involving agricultural education department executive officers reported that study participants who had completed a leadership course in college or formal leadership training utilized the leadership practice Encouraging the Heart significantly more often than participants who had not completed such training. The authors also reported that study participants who completed a college course in leadership also utilized the leadership practice Enabling Others to Act significantly more often that participants who had not completed a leadership course. Within the Extension system, Shearon (1969) found no relationship between the APL of the CEC and the number of courses taken in the areas of administration, education, and sociology.

PAGE 63

47 Leadership Skills Leadership skills can be taught and learned, yet skilled leaders continue to be in short supply (Pernick, 2001). According to Katz (1955), a skill can be defined as an ability which can be developed, not necessarily inborn, and which is manifested in performance, not merely in potential (p. 33-34). Nahavandi (2000) expanded on this definition by including a training dimension. Nahavandi proposed that a skill is an acquired task a person develops and can change with training and experience. Katz (1955) identified three categories of skills needed by leaders: technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Although the amount of human, technical, and conceptual skills may vary depending on position within the organizational hierarchy, each is nevertheless important for successful leaders to possess. Figure 2.3 illustrates the amount of each skill required at the various levels of management within an organization. Technical skills, according to Katz, are the most concrete type of skills and are associated with understanding and being able to complete specific activities. In other words, these are the how to do it skills and involve methods, processes, procedures, or techniques. Leaders engage in technical skills when they perform the technical activities required of them. Technical skills are more important at the lower levels of administration (Goleman, 1998; Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955). As a leader moves up in the organizational hierarchy, he/she relies on the technical skills of followers more than on his/her own technical skills (Hicks & Gullett, 1975).

PAGE 64

48 Technical Conceptual Human First-line Supervisor Middle Management Top Management Amount of skill requirements Figure 2.3 Amount of human, technical, and conceptual skills needed at various levels in an organization (Hicks & Gullett, 1975, p. 308). Human skills can be considered the people skills. Katz (1955) defined human skills as the ability to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative effort within the team he leads (p. 34). This skill is demonstrated in how a leader perceives and behaves towards those around him/her, including superiors, peers, and followers, and most importantly cannot be a some-time skill, but rather must be demonstrated in every action of the leader (Katz, 1955). Leaders engage in human relation skills when they motivate individuals and groups. Human skills are essential throughout all management levels (Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955). Conceptual skills can be thought of as the thinking skills needed by leaders. This type of skill involves being able to see both what is going on within an entire organization, and how the various parts of the organization interact and depend on one another (Katz, 1955). Conceptual skills are perhaps most important at top management

PAGE 65

49 levels where policy decisions, long-term planning, and broad scale actions are required (Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955). Newer approaches to leadership skills have been built upon the technical, human, and conceptual skill classification, but are slightly different. Goleman (1998) outlined three domains of leadership skills: purely technical skills, cognitive abilities, and competencies that demonstrated emotional intelligence. There are five components to emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Goleman (1998) included emotional intelligence as a set of leadership skills because he saw it as the distinguishing competence of senior leaders. In fact, he reported emotional intelligence to be twice as important as the others when applied to all levels of jobs within the organizational hierarchy, and found emotional intelligence, rather than conceptual skills, to explain 90% of the difference in the effectiveness of star performers and average senior level leaders. Strand (1981) conducted a study to determine community leadership competencies, as perceived by community residents. A factor analysis of the 39 competency items contained in the instrument revealed nine broad competency areas. Four of the nine competency areas represented conceptual skills, three represented human skills, and two represented technical skills. Findings of this study suggested that conceptual competencies were the most important, followed closely by human competencies, with technical competencies being least important. In a study in which they designed a leadership competency instrument for healthcare administration, Robbins, Bradley, and Spicer (2001)identified four leadership

PAGE 66

50 skill domains. Their assessment instrument contained 52 items that were classified as technical skills, industry knowledge, analytic and conceptual reasoning, or interpersonal and emotional intelligence. They identified industry knowledge as a domain of skills due to the complex nature of the healthcare industry. Just like there are a number of different approaches researchers can use to study leadership, there are a number of different classification systems of leadership skills. However, each involves some aspect of getting the work done, some aspect of seeing both the big picture and the small, and dealing with the human aspect of the leadership process either from a self or other perspective. Leadership Competencies. Within an organization, identifying critical leadership competencies required for effectiveness helps define what skills leaders need (Pernick, 2001). In a study conducted by The American Society for Training & Development, The American Productivity & Quality Center, James Kouzes, and Robert Fulmer, most of the best-practice organizations, those identified as having a strong or innovative leadership development programs, studied had identified leadership competencies of successful leaders within their organization (Fulmer & Wagner, 1999). The identification of key competencies provides for both individual and organizational growth and helps the organization meet future demands (Pickett, 1998). Pernick identified three ways in which organizations determine critical leadership competencies: (1) use generic leadership competencies found in theory, (2) build their own competencies, or (3) derive competencies from the organizations mission statement and core values. However, according to Barner (2000), it makes no sense to try to

PAGE 67

51 identify essential leadership capabilities unless one knows the business context in which the leaders will be expected to excel (p. 47). There are two distinct views of competencies. One is based on the belief that a competent individual is one who has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform a job adequately to minimum standards of performance, while the other is based on the belief that competencies are based on the belief that competencies are developed based on characteristics of highly successful individuals (Robbins et al., 2001). Robbins et al. proposed that the second view, the star approach, is the most useful view in terms of leadership development In his study on community leadership competencies, Strand (1981) reported nine categories of leadership competencies. The nine competencies identified as important by community members were: 1. Problem solving ability. 2. Demeanor. 3. Budgeting and supervisory competencies. 4. Needs assessment competencies. 5. Promoting feelings of importance in community members. 6. Group organization and communication competencies. 7. Organization leadership competencies. 8. Leadership attitudes/principles. 9. Management of change competencies. After the identification of the nine competency areas, Strand was able to view each as technical, human, or conceptual skills. Based on Demings System of Profound Knowledge (Deming, 1994), Scholtes (1999) identified six competencies he considered essential for leaders to possess. Scholtes six new leadership competencies were: 1. The ability to think in terms of systems and knowing how to lead systems. 2. The ability to understand the variability of work in planning and problem-solving.

PAGE 68

52 3. Understanding how we learn, develop and improve, and leading true learning and improvement. 4. Understanding people and why they behave as they do. 5. Understanding the interdependence and interaction between systems, variation, learning and human behavior: knowing how each affects the others. 6. Giving vision, meaning, direction and focus to the organization. If we were to group these six competencies according to Katzs (1955) classification system of leadership skills, we would find an overwhelming tilt towards the human and conceptual skills, or those skills identified as most important to top management. Kanji and Sa (2001) summarized 11 core competencies of leadership based on the work of Dering (1998), Senge (1990), and Zairi (1999). According to Kanji and Sa, the following 11 competency areas are the key leadership competencies for an organization committed to quality and excellence: 1. Ethics and principles. 2. Communication. 3. Customer orientation. 4. Organizational change. 5. Structures and systems. 6. Measurement, evaluation and reporting. 7. Process improvement. 8. Team development. 9. Developing subordinates. 10. Developing partnerships. 11. Innovation and continuous learning. Within each of the 11 competency areas, Kanji and Sa provided specific examples of how leaders might accomplish each competency. Although some leadership competencies may be transferable, it is nonetheless important to look at specific competencies needed within a particular organization (Barner, 2000; Fulmer & Wagner, 1999; Pickett, 1998). Within the Extension system, the National Impact Study of Leadership Development in Extension (NISLDE) (Michael,

PAGE 69

53 Paxson, & Howell, 1991)identified 13 broad leadership competencies (Paxson, Howell, Michael, & Wong, 1993). The 13 competencies identified were: 1. Solving problems. 2. Directing projects or activities. 3. Forming and working with groups. 4. Planning for group action. 5. Managing meetings. 6. Communicating effectively. 7. Developing proficiency in teaching. 8. Mobilizing for group action. 9. Understanding and developing oneself. 10. Understanding financial matters. 11. Understanding leadership. 12. Understanding society. 13. Understanding social change. In trying to group theses competencies into skill sets, it is possible to see that technical, human relation, emotional intelligence, and conceptual skills are represented. For example, understanding and developing oneself can be seen as an emotional intelligence skill in that it requires one to clarify values, assess degree of self-confidence, and ultimately build self-confidence. Likewise, Understanding financial matters, such as budgeting, record keeping, and understanding financial records can be viewed as technical skills. Although the goal of the NISLDE study was to understand leadership development work in Extension from the standpoint of what skills Extension workers were trying to teach clientele as a part of their leadership development effort, the list of 13 broad competencies was the result of asking Extension staff what the word leadership meant to them (Paxson et al., 1993). Although there was much overlap in the competencies that were identified in each of the studies, no two studies reported the same competency list. Much like the trait approach to leadership failed to produce a universal list of traits that distinguished leaders

PAGE 70

54 from non-leaders, there is not a universal list of competencies for leaders across different organizations. Although many of the competencies are transferable, there are some that are unique to each organization. Therefore, specific leadership competencies must be developed with the specific organization in mind. Influence of Demographics on Leadership Skills Little research has been conducted on the influence of demographic variables on leadership skills. One thing that is certain, however, is that leadership skills can be learned (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955; Nahavandi, 2000; Pernick, 2001). Some theorists believe that the development of leadership skills is accomplished through experience (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955; Nahavandi, 2000). If this is true, then it makes sense intuitively that demographic variables such as age, educational background, promotion path, tenure both within an organization and in a leadership position, and prior exposure to leadership training and/or courses would influence an individuals leadership skills. This notion is supported, at least in the area of emotional intelligence, by Goleman who reported that emotional intelligence, on of his three classifications of leadership skills, does increase with both age and experience. Conceptual Framework The variables gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in an organization as well as tenure in a leadership position, background, and leadership training have all been identified in the literature as factors that may influence the leadership styles of individuals. Thus, it is possible that diverse populations are excluded from leadership positions based on their leadership style. The literature also suggested that demographic variables that are related to an individuals age and/or experience can influence an individuals leadership skills. That is, variables such as age, background, tenure within Extension, tenure in a

PAGE 71

55 leadership position, and exposure to leadership training and/or courses may all influence and increase an individuals leadership skills in one or more skill areas. A conceptual model for this study depicting the relationship between selected variables and an Figure 2-4 Extension leaders leadership style and leadership skills is presented in Figure 2-4. Factors influencing leadership styles and leadership skills of Extension Gender Ethnicity Age Tenure in Extension Background Tenure in leadership p ositions Independent Variables Dependent Variables Leadership styles Leadership Training Leadership skills Promotion Path leaders.

PAGE 72

56 Summary This chapter has reviewed literature related to transactional and transformational leadership and their relationship with leadership and management, and the variables influencing transformational and transactional leadership. The theoretical and conceptual frameworks were also discussed. The review of literature revealed that leadership is an area in which much research has been conducted, but little consensus has been reached. There are a number of definitions of what leadership is, and as a result, a number of theories about effective leadership and what makes a leader effective have emerged. Several recent studies have focused on the transformational leadership theories. Bass (1985a) introduced a model of transformational leadership where the performance of an organizations followers exceeds the expectations that would be expected to be achieved by expanding on transactional leadership. A leader engages in transactional leadership when he/she recognizes the needs and wants of followers and clarifies how these will be met if necessary efforts are made (Bass, 1985b). According to Basss model of transactional leadership, by clarifying the role and task requirements of the desired outcomes, the leader gives followers the confidence necessary to reach the expected effort. Additionally, by recognizing followers needs and wants and clarifying how these will be satisfied once the desired outcomes are met, the leader is able to motivate followers to perform and expend the necessary effort. Bass (1985a) transformational leadership model begins with the current level of effort a leader could expect through transactional leadership and builds upon this to reach performance beyond expectations. According to Bass theory, the leader is able additional effort and performance by increasing the confidence level of followers, which

PAGE 73

57 increases their belief in their own probability of success, and by increasing the needs of the follower, which elevates the value of outcomes for the followers. The literature showed that there are differences between specific functions of leadership and management, but that the two concepts overlap. There is also literature to suggest that the concepts of leadership and management can be equated with transactional and transformational leadership. Management is concerned with consistency and efficiency through contractual agreements as is transactional leadership, whereas leadership is concerned with adapting to change through empowering those around you as in transformational leadership.

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 described the Cooperative Extension service and provided the background for studying leadership positions within the organization. Definitions of several key terms were provided. Chapter 1 also identified the purposes of the study and explained the significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. This study also sought to explain the influence of demographic variables on an Extension leaders leadership style and leadership skills. Chapter 2 presented a discussion of previous research related to this study. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks were also provided. Chapter 2 focused on literature related to the following key areas: (a) the nature of leadership and leadership defined, (b) leadership and management, (c) major leadership theories, (d) leadership styles, (e) the influence of demographics on leadership styles, (f) leadership skills, and (g) the influence of demographics on leadership skills. This chapter explains the methods used to accomplish the objectives of the study. Five specific research objectives were identified: (1) to determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) to describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) to assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they 58

PAGE 75

59 perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4) to explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders, and (5) to explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders. This chapter specifically addresses the research design, target populations, instrumentation, data collection procedures and statistical procedures that were used to analyze the data. Research Design This study employed a mixed methodology to accomplish the specific research objectives. A qualitative long interview design was used to accomplish the first research objective. Content analysis of the interview data provided a basis for the development of a leadership competency instrument. Descriptive research was used to accomplish research objectives two and three. A correlational and causal-comparative or ex post facto design was employed to accomplish objectives four and five. In an ex post facto design, the researcher does not have direct control over the independent variable(s) and any variations in the independent variable(s) have already been determined prior to the research being conducted (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996). The independent variables were age, gender, ethnicity, highest degree, degree classification, tenure in Extension, tenure in an Extension leadership position(s), and previous experience with leadership courses and/or training. Gender, ethnicity, highest degree, and degree classification were nominal independent variables. Degree classification was determined by classifying the highest degree reported by study participants as either a bench science degree or a social science degree. Age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous experience with

PAGE 76

60 leadership courses and/or training total score were continuous independent variables. The previous experience with leadership courses and/or training total score was derived by summing the total number of experiences listed by participants on the demographic instrument described later in this chapter. The leadership styles scores and leadership skills scores of Extension leaders were the dependent variables in this study and were continuous variables. Populations The total population for this study consisted of two different groups: (a) the state Extension directors and administrators at each of the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions, and (2) the administrative heads of these leaders. For the purposes of this study, a census of the Extension leaders was used, whereas a purposive sample of the administrative heads was utilized. Participant Selection: Extension Leaders The Extension leaders who participated in the quantitative data collection portion of this study were the Extension directors and administrators responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Cooperative Extension Service within their state. Each individual listed in the CSREES Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002) was contacted via e-mail about the nature and purposes of this study. These individuals were contacted because many of the individuals listed in the directory function as the administrative head of Extension rather than the director or administrator who is in charge of the day-to-day operation of the organization. The individuals contacted were asked to confirm that they were in charge of the day-to-day operation of Extension, or to provide the name and contact information of the individual who was. Based on the responses to these e-mails,

PAGE 77

61 a list of 80 current Leaders was compiled and served as the population frame for this study. There were 49 responses from the population frame of 80 current Extension leaders for a response rate of 61.25%. Two responses did not contain usable data and were removed from the database leaving 47 actual participants in the study. Participant Selection: Administrative Heads of Extension Leaders The administrative heads of Extension leaders who that were selected as participants in the qualitative data collection portion of this study consisted of a purposive sample chosen from both the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. The sample consisted of administrative heads identified by a panel of Extension administrators and educators as the administrative heads most familiar with the Extension system. The use of such a purposive sample was intended to reduce any potential bias that may have been introduced by administrative heads that are unfamiliar with the Extension system as a whole. According to Barner (2000), "it makes no sense to try to identify essential leadership capabilities unless one knows the business context in which the leaders will be expected to excel" (p. 47). Therefore, a purposive sample of administrative heads identified by current Extension administrators and educators as most knowledgeable about Extension was used to collect data on the specific leadership competencies needed by Extension leaders. A total of 11 administrative heads were selected as participants. Seven individuals were from 1862 institutions, and four individuals were selected from the 1890 institutions. Instrumentation A total of four instruments were used in this study. The first instrument, a researcher-designed interview questionnaire (see Appendix A), was used to collect

PAGE 78

62 information from the administrative heads on the specific leadership competencies they believe Extension leaders need to possess to be successful. The second instrument was a researcher-developed leadership competencies in Extension instrument that assessed both how important current Extension leaders believe the specific leadership competencies are, as well as how proficient they believe they are in each competency (see Appendix B). The third instrument was a demographic instrument developed by the researcher to gather demographic and personal data information from participants. To reduce the number of instruments participants were required to complete, the demographic instrument was included on the leadership competency instrument (see Appendix B). The final instrument used in this study, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000a), was used to gather information on the leadership style of participants (see Appendix C). The reliability and validity of the instruments are important aspects to consider in all research studies utilizing survey instruments. Validity is a concept that refers to whether or not an instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Ary et al., 1996). In an effort to ensure valid researcher developed instruments, each instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and face validity. The leadership competency instrument was pilot tested prior to its administration to the Extension leaders in the study. Interview Questionnaire When conducting the long interviews, the use of a questionnaire was indispensable (McCracken, 1988). According to McCracken, the questionnaire has several functions: (a) to ensure that the investigator covers the same information in the same order with each individual that is interviewed, (b) to ensure the correct scheduling

PAGE 79

63 of necessary prompts, (c) to establish channels for the direction and scope of the conversation, and (d) to allow the interviewer to give all of his/her attention to the individual's response. In essence, the interview questionnaire protected the structure and objectives of the interview while at the same time routinizing enough tasks such that the interviewer was able to focus on the person being interviewed and his/her responses with as little distraction as possible (McCracken). Questions on the interview instrument were developed based on the review of literature. The interview questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and face validity prior to the telephone interviews. Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument From the content analysis of the long interviews, a specific competency instrument was developed by the researcher. A total of 80 competencies were identified within six major leadership skill areas. This instrument was designed to assess how important current Extension leaders believe each competency is to their overall success and the self-perceived proficiency level of the leaders in each specific leadership competency. To assess importance, participants were asked to respond to the 80 competencies on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important). Raw scores were calculated for the perceived importance of each of the six skill areas by summing the responses within each area. Raw scores were then converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of the responses by the total possible response score for each skill area. Scores were converted to a 100-point scale for ease of interpretation and allowed all skill areas, regardless of the number of items within the skill area, to be represented on the same scale. Scores on this 100-point scale served as the scale score for importance in

PAGE 80

64 each of the six areas. Raw scores were also calculated for perceived importance of all 80 competencies by summing all of the importance responses. These raw scores were also converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of responses by the maximum possible score, 400, which served as the total score for importance. To measure participants self-perceived proficiency, participants were asked to respond to each of the 80 competencies on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (None) to 5 Very Proficient). Raw scores were calculated for proficiency in each of the six skill areas by summing the responses within each area. Raw scores were converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of the responses by the total possible response score for each skill area. Scores on this 100-point scale served as the scale score for proficiency in each of the six skill areas. Raw scores were also calculated for the self-perceived proficiency in all 80 competencies by summing all of the proficiency responses. These raw scores were also converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of responses by the maximum possible score, 400, which served as the total score for proficiency. After its development, the instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and face validity. The panel of experts consisted of individuals identified as experts in the field of leadership and/or Extension. The instrument was also pilot tested with a group of Extension administrators not included in the study. Data collected during the pilot study was used to establish reliability. The pilot study group consisted of 29 associate and assistant deans and directors of Extension not included in the study. Fifteen of the 29 individuals invited to participate in the pilot study completed the instrument for a response rate of 51.7%. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for importance and proficiency within each skill category (see Table 3-1). Cronbach's

PAGE 81

65 alpha is appropriate for estimating internal-consistency reliability within a scale in Likert format (Isaac& Michael1995). In terms of how important pilot study participants perceived the competencies within each skill area to be, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: =.91 for Human Skills, =.92 for Conceptual Skills, =.74 for Technical Skills, =.91 for Communication Skills, =.86 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and =.92 for Industry Knowledge Skills. In terms of how proficient pilot study participants perceived they were in each skill area, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: =.93 for Human Skills, =.94 for Conceptual Skills, =.80 for Technical Skills, =.91 for Communication Skills, =.91 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and =.88 for Industry Knowledge Skills. No leadership competencies could have been removed so as to cause an increase in Cronbach's alpha for both perceived importance and self-perceived level of proficiency. Table 3-1 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=15) Importance Proficiency Skill Area Human Skills 0.91 0.93 Conceptual Skills 0.92 0.94 Technical Skills 0.74 0.80 Communication Skills 0.91 0.91 Emotional Intelligence Skills 0.86 0.91 Industry Knowledge Skills 0.92 0.88 According to Penfield (2001), reliabilities of greater than .90 are considered high, those greater than .80 are considered moderate to high, and those greater than .70 considered low. The only scale on the instrument with low reliability was for importance of technical skills. Therefore, these estimates were deemed appropriate and the instrument was not changed as a result of the pilot test.

PAGE 82

66 To confirm reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's alpha for importance and proficiency within each skill category was calculated after final data collection (see Table 3-2). In terms of how important study participants perceived the competencies within each skill area to be, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: =.83 for Human Skills, =.78 for Conceptual Skills, =.87 for Technical Skills, =.90 for Communication Skills, =.88 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and =.87 for Industry Knowledge Skills. In terms of how proficient study participants perceived they were in each skill area, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: =.88 for Human Skills, =.90 for Conceptual Skills, =.85 for Technical Skills, =.89 for Communication Skills, =.86 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and =.94 for Industry Knowledge Skills. Table 3-2 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=47) Importance Proficiency Skill Area Human Skills 0.83 0.88 Conceptual Skills 0.78 0.90 Technical Skills 0.87 0.85 Communication Skills 0.90 0.89 Emotional Intelligence Skills 0.88 0.86 Industry Knowledge Skills 0.87 0.94 Although the reliabilities of some of the scales changed, all but one of the scales had moderate to high reliabilities. Therefore the reliability of the scales, and the instrument as a whole, was considered acceptable. Demographic Instrument The instrument used to collect data on the demographic characteristics of participants was developed by the researcher. The data collected included the gender, ethnicity, age, position, degrees held, educational background (major program area), tenure in years within the Extension system, tenure in years in a leadership position

PAGE 83

67 within the Extension system, previous positions held within the Extension system, and exposure to previous leadership training of current Extension leaders. Previous exposure to leadership training was divided into three sections: (1) college leadership courses, (2) leadership workshops provided by non-Extension trainers, and (3) leadership workshops provided by the Cooperative Extension System. Each experience listed was given a value of one point. Participants who described entire degrees in leadership were given five points. Sub-total scores were created for each of the three areas: college leadership courses, non-Extension training courses/workshops, and Extension training courses/workshops. These self-reported experiences were summed to create the previous leadership development total scores. The demographic instrument was administered as a part of the leadership competency instrument. The demographic instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for content and face validity prior to data collection. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed and tested by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (2000a). The instrument has been copyrighted by Bass and Avolio and published by Mind Garden, Inc. The MLQ 5X has two forms: a leader form and a rater form. The Leader Form was developed to be completed by an individual to measure his/her self-perceived leadership styles and was used in this study. The instrument consisted of 45 statements and asked respondents to answer each item on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently, if not always). The MLQ 5X was developed to measure aspects of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership leadership styles as well as outcomes of leadership.

PAGE 84

68 The 45-item instrument contained 12 scales: Idealized Influence (Attributed) Idealized Influence (Behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), Management-by-Exception (Passive), Laissez Faire Leadership, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. Idealized influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration were transformational leadership style scales measured by the MLQ. Contingent Reward and Management-by-Exception were transactional leadership style scales measured by the MLQ. Laissez Faire leadership was the non-leadership component. Idealized influence is defined in terms of how followers react to the leader and his/her behavior. Leaders with idealized influence are admired and respected by followers and serve as strong role models. They have high standards of ethical and moral conduct and provide followers with a vision and sense of mission. Followers want to emulate leaders who exhibit idealized influence (Northouse, 2001). According to Bass and Avolio (2000b), idealized influence can be seen as both a behavior and an impact, thus requiring two leadership scales: idealized influence (attributed) and idealized influence (behavior). Inspirational motivation is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she inspires and motivates followers to demonstrate commitment to the shared vision of the organization. Leaders who engage in this behavior clearly communicate high expectations to followers and increase team spirit and enthusiasm (Northouse, 2001). Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she supports followers to be creative and innovative, try new approaches, and challenge their

PAGE 85

69 own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization. Followers engage in problem solving to find creative solutions (Northouse, 2001). Individualized consideration is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she provides a supportive climate, listens to followers, and acts as a coach and mentor. The leader pays attention to individual differences and treats individual employees in a caring and unique way. Leaders also help individuals achieve goals and grow personally (Northouse, 2001). Contingent reward refers to the engagement of leaders and followers in an exchange process in which effort by followers is exchanged for specific rewards. Objectives are agreed upon by both leaders and followers, and achievement of the objectives is positively reinforced (Northouse, 2001). Management-by exception occurs when transactional leaders intervene to make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative reinforcement. Management-by-exception can be active or passive. Transactional leaders engage in active management-by-exception when they closely monitor followers so they can detect mistakes and take corrective action and offer negative feedback. Transactional leaders engage in passive management-by-exception when they intervene with a follower only after standards have not been met or problems arise (Northouse, 2001). Laissez-faire leaders engage in laissez-faire behaviors when they abdicate responsibility, delay decisions, offer no feedback, and make little or no effort to help followers satisfy needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a "hands-off" approach to leadership (Northouse, 2001).

PAGE 86

70 All of the leadership style scales had four items per scale. Leadership styles scores for each of the nine leadership style scales were the average scores for the items in each scale. Transformational leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from the items contained in the Idealized Influence (Attributed), Idealized Influence (Behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration scales, a total of 20 items. Transactional leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from the items in the Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), and Management-by-Exception (Passive) scales, a total of 12 items. Because Laissez-faire Leadership is the only scale measuring non-leadership, the non-leadership style score was equivalent to the Laissez-faire Leadership scale score. In their MLQ technical report, Bass and Avolio (2000b) discussed the construct validation process associated with the MLQ 5X. An early version was evaluated by a panel of six leadership scholars, and their recommendations were included in the final instrument development. Since that time, 14 samples have been used to validate and cross-validate the MLQ Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 2000b). Reliability refers to how consistently the instrument measures whatever it measures (Ary et al., 1996). According to Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), "the reliability of a test refers to how much measurement error is present in the scores yielded by the test" (p. 254). Measurement error is one of four sources of survey error outlined by Dillman (2000). Measurement error occurs when there is a difference between the score an individual receives on a test over a variety of conditions and their true score on the test and often results from poor question wording and questionnaire construction (Ary et al., ;

PAGE 87

71 Gall et al.). The reliability of the MLQ 5x is of particular concern in this study as it is intended to measure and provide scores on an individual's leadership style, including transformational, transactional and non-leadership components. Bass and Avolio (2000b) report reliabilities for each of the leadership factors ranging from .74 to .91 and for the outcomes of leadership ranging from .91 to .94. Data Collection and Analysis Prior to the collection of any data, a proposal to conduct the each phase of the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board for non-medical projects (IRB-02). Both proposals were approved (Protocol #2002-U-698 for the first phase; Protocol #2002-U-699 for the second phase). A copy of the informed consent form that was mailed to study participants with the instruments was submitted to the IRB with the proposal to conduct the study. The informed consent form described the study and the voluntary nature of participation, and also informed participants of any potential risks and/or compensations associated with participation in the study. Once approval to conduct this study was granted by the IRB, data was collected and analyzed by the researcher. Data was collected during September, October, November, and December of 2002 and January and February of 2003. Specific data collection procedures, including which instruments were administered to each group and how the instruments were administered, and data analysis procedures, including the types of statistics included in the analysis, are discussed for each of the research objectives. Methods Used for Objective One In order to accomplish research objective one, to identify specific leadership competencies needed by state Extension directors and administrators as perceived by administrative heads, a purposive sample of these administrative heads were involved in

PAGE 88

72 telephone interviews using the interview questionnaire developed by the researcher. Long interviews with the administrative heads was selected to accomplish this objective as long interviews allow us "to achieve qualitative objectives within a manageable methodological context" (McCracken, 1988, p. 11). Prior to conducting the interviews, participants were sent a skills summary sheet developed by the researcher based on a review of the literature. Based on the literature, the summary sheet was divided into five major skill groups: technical skills, human skills, conceptual skills, emotional intelligence skills, and industry knowledge skills. The summary sheet described the skill category and provided two examples of specific leadership competencies within each skill area. The purpose of this skills summary sheet was to help participants focus their thinking on the types of competencies needed by Extension leaders. The skills summary sheet was evaluated for content and face validity prior to sending it to the participants. Each interview was conducted over the telephone and lasted between one-half and one hour. Each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed in its entirety as soon as possible following the interview. The transcripts and audio-tapes were analyzed for content and coded. Based on the themes and competencies identified in the review of literature, a "start list" of codes was created prior to coding (Miles & Huberman, 1984). This "start list" provided a base for coding the data collected during the interviews, but codes were revised, eliminated, or added as necessary. Thus, the themes and competencies reviewed in the literature served as a guide during the coding process, but did not prohibit the revision of themes and competencies or the emergence of new ideas.

PAGE 89

73 The themes and competencies were counted and clustered in order to generate meaning of the information collected (Miles & Huberman, 1984). This process aided in the development of the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument. The major themes served as the leadership skill areas of the instrument, while the minor themes served as sub-skills. These sub-skills were then refined, based on the specific comments of interview participants and the literature base, to develop the specific competencies that were then classified into one of the skill areas. These specific competencies served as the individual response items on the instrument. Methods Used for Objectives Two and Three In order to accomplish research objective two, to describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and including leadership style, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the demographic instrument were administered to the current Extension leaders identified by contacting the individuals listed in the CSREES State Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X), the leadership competency instrument, and the demographic instrument were administered at the same time following the Tailored Design Method of Dillman (2000). This method included a system of up to five compatible contacts with each individual selected for participation in the study. First, a brief prenotice letter was sent to the current Extension leaders informing them that they would soon be receiving directions for completing the instruments and encouraging their participation in the study. Second, within one week, a packet containing directions for participating in the study, an informed consent form, and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were mailed to the Extension leaders. At this time,

PAGE 90

74 study participants were asked to complete the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument on-line. Third, a thank you postcard was sent one week later thanking those who had already completed the instruments and returned them, while at the same time encouraging those who had not to please complete and return the instruments. Study participants were randomly assigned an individual identification number and all instruments were coded with these individual identification numbers. As the researcher received the completed instruments, they were dated and the codes used to eliminate that particular individual from any future contacts requesting the completion and return of the instruments. Approximately three weeks after sending the thank you post card a fourth contact was made with individuals who have not returned the completed instruments. Replacement instrument packets were mailed to these individuals. For participants who had already completed and returned the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and informed consent form, the replacement instrument packets contained a hard-copy of the Leadership Competencies as well as directions for completing the instrument on-line if the participant preferred. For participants who had already completed the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument, the replacement packet included another informed consent form and another Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. For individuals from whom nothing had been received, the replacement packet contained another informed consent form, another Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, and a hard-copy of the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument as well as instructions for completing the competency instrument on-line if the individual preferred.

PAGE 91

75 Finally, a fifth contact was made by telephone approximately one week after the replacement questionnaires were mailed as a final attempt to encourage a response. In order to accomplish research objective three, to assess the proficiency level of current Extension leaders in specific leadership competencies, the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument developed by the researcher, based on the data collected during the qualitative interviews, was administered to the current Extension leaders identified by contacting the individuals listed in the CSREES State Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002). According to Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001), nonresponse error can be a threat to the external validity of a study anytime a response rate below 100% is achieved. In an effort to address nonresponse error in this study, early and late respondents were compared for statistical differences (Ary et al., 1996; Lindner et al.; Miller & Smith, 1983). Late responders were defined as the later 50% of the respondents (Lindner et al.). There was no statistical difference between early responders and late responders. Data collected from the demographic instrument, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X), and the leadership competency instrument were analyzed using SPSS statistical package for Windows. In instances where participants did not respond to a particular item, the missing value was replaced with the mean for that item during analysis (George & Mallery, 2001). However, there were five cases in which the missing data accounted for more than 15 percent of the scale and therefore missing values were left as missing and that participants responses were not included in the analysis of that particular scale or in the analysis of the total score for the instrument (George & Mallery).

PAGE 92

76 Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to describe current Extension leaders in terms of their gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree, degree classification, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership positions, previous experience with leadership courses/training, leadership styles, perceived importance of each leadership competency, and self-perceived proficiency in each of the leadership competencies. Methods Used for Objectives Four and Five Correlations between the independent and dependent variables were also analyzed to examine the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables on an individual basis. Multiple regression is one of the most widely used statistical techniques to determine the correlation between a criterion variable and a combination of two or more predictor variables (Gall et al., 1996). In an attempt to explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders, the researcher used backward multiple regression to build 10 explanatory models: (1) Transformational Leadership Style, (2) Transactional Leadership Style, (3) Laissez-Faire Leadership, (4) proficiency in Human Skills, (5) proficiency in Conceptual Skills, (6) proficiency in Technical Skills, (7) proficiency in Communication Skills, (8) proficiency in Emotional Intelligence skills, (9) proficiency in Industry Knowledge, and (10) total proficiency score. Summary This chapter described the methods used in this examination of leadership styles and skills of Extension leaders. The first phase of this study used a qualitative long interview design to determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies needed by Extension leaders. The population for this phase of the study

PAGE 93

77 was administrative heads of agriculture at land-grant institutions. The second phase of the study descriptive research with a correlational and causal-comparative design was used to describe current Extension leaders and explain the influence of demographics on their leadership styles and leadership skills. The population for this phase of the study were the individuals responsible for the day-to-day operation of Extension within each of the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. There were four instruments used to gather data for this study: (1) an interview questionnaire developed by the researcher, (2) a Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument developed by the researcher, (3) a demographic instrument developed by the researcher, and (4) the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000a). Data were collected through on-line and mailed instruments. Data analysis procedures were also discussed in this chapter. Content analysis of the interview tapes and transcripts was used in the qualitative phase of the study. In the quantitative phase of the study, descriptive statistics, correlations, and backward multiple regression procedures were used. Chapter 4 will report the results of the study. Findings will be reported by the objectives of the study.

PAGE 94

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 described the background for studying leadership within the Cooperative Extension Service. The chapter also described the purposes and the significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Specifically, this study sought to: (1) determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders, and (5) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders. Chapter 1 also provided operational definitions of several key terms and identified the limitations of the study. Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and conceptual frameworks for this study based on previous research related to leadership and Extension. Chapter 2 focused on empirical research related to the following key areas: (a) the nature of leadership and leadership defined, (b) leadership and management, (c) major leadership theories, (d) leadership styles, (e) the influence of demographics on leadership styles, (f) leadership skills, and (g) the influence of demographics on leadership skills. 78

PAGE 95

79 Chapter 3 described the research methodology used to accomplish the objectives of the study. Specifically, this chapter explained the research design, populations, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures. This chapter presents the findings of the study. Findings are organized by the objectives of the study identified in Chapter 1. Objective One Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their Administrative Heads Six major leadership skill areas emerged from the analysis of the interview transcripts and audio-tapes. Prior to conducting each interview, participants were sent a skills summary sheet developed by the researcher based on the review of the literature. Consistent with the literature, the summary sheet was divided into five major skill groups: technical skills, human skills, conceptual skills, emotional intelligence skills, and industry knowledge skills. As expected, these five skill areas emerged as skill areas needed by Extension leaders. However, in this study, communication skills emerged as an additional leadership skill area needed by Extension leaders. The following statement from one of the interview participants indicated the need to include communication skills as a separate skill area: I, I guess, I hope that the human skills and people skills would encompass some other things other than being able to, uh, I suppose oral presentations is what I see that comes out here. We have a whole communications wing as you do that helps support what they director or dean wants to put together in a speech, but I think sometimes, the interaction with people, whether its scripted or not, is one of the most important things tied into leadership as well. And so writing I think factors into that because there are some things that only directors write, and so, I didnt see that, you know, broken out as a particular skill and I think one of the most important ones is listening. And I think if youre really comprehensive in this, as I think you want to be, the reading, writing, speaking, and listening ought to somehow be in this particular section of people skills.

PAGE 96

80 Fifty-six minor themes, or sub-skills, emerged from the interviews. The sub-skills that emerged from the data are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Leadership Sub-Skills Sub-skill Sub-skill Context/role of Extension Negotiation Vision Internet skills Listening Skills Coaching Strategic/sequential planning Competent (in technical area) Time management Decision making Budgeting Critical/creative thinking Empathy/respect Goals (set and achieve) Know constituencies Organizational change Speaking skills Mentoring Relationship builder Motivation Open/approachable Reading skills Communication (settings) Identify talent Team leader Electronic communication Maturity (criticism/emotions) Media interaction Energy/enthusiasm Networking abilities Team player/member Written communication Honesty/integrity Understand social problems Evaluate people Flexibility Computer skills Run meetings/set agendas Conflict resolution High values Finances/fundraising Appreciate position Cultural awareness/diversity Gregarious and bright Sense of humor Positive attitude Political environment Keep up with whats going on Create linkages Appropriate behavior Extension priorities Administrative skill Leadership development Stability Understand program areas Courage Sub-skills with a frequency of one were mentioned by only one of the seven administrative heads of agriculture that participated in the qualitative interviews. Because these sub-skills emerged from only one participant, they were not considered as trustworthy for the development of the leadership competency instrument and were therefore removed from consideration. The remaining 45 sub-skills were clustered into one of the six leadership skill areas that emerged. Table 4-2 summarizes these sub-skills

PAGE 97

81 clustered within each skill area. From these sub-skills, a total of 80 leadership competencies were developed. Skill Area One: Human Skills The human skills area had more sub-skills than any other skills area. When asked to identify the specific leadership competencies Extension leaders need related to human skills, one study participant replied, I think we could talk about that all day. Five of the seven participants mentioned something about being a relationship builder. For example, when asked about human skills, one participant said, Evidence of relationship building skills and a value for human relationships while another participant said And I think its very, very important for someone in the, in a leadership position to not only foster strength that you can get from team relationships, but also to be someone who fosters trust among team members. Two of the sub-skills that emerged from the data in this area were related to teams. Although related, these were kept as separate sub-skills. According to one study participant: And you have to be, be a, for sure to be both an effective team leader and an effective team member when youre not the leader because youre gonna be in situations no matter what your position is where youre not the leader. From the eleven sub-skills that were clustered into the human skills area, fifteen specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-3).

PAGE 98

82 Table 4-2 Minor Themes by Leadership Skill Areas Leadership Skill Area Number of Sub-skills Sub-skills Human Skills 11 Relationship builder Open/approachable Team member/player Evaluate people Team leader Cultural awareness/diversity Identify talent Mentoring Leadership development Coaching Understand social problems Conceptual Skills 6 Vision Strategic/sequential planning Decision making Critical/creative thinking Goals (set and achieve) Organizational change Technical Skills 5 Budgeting Finance/fundraising Computer skills Internet skills Competent (in technical area) Communication Skills 7 Listening skills Speaking skills Communication (settings) Reading skills Electronic communication Media interaction Written communication Emotional Intelligence 9 Time management Skills Empathy/respect Maturity (criticism/emotions) Energy/enthusiasm Honesty/integrity Conflict resolution Sense of humor Negotiation Motivation Industry Knowledge 7 Context/role of Extension Skills Know constituencies Political environment Create linkages Extension priorities Understand program areas Networking abilities

PAGE 99

83 Table 4-3 Human Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Ability to foster relationships 2 Ability to be an effective mentor 3 Ability to identify personal strengths and weaknesses 4 Ability to be an effective team leader 5 Ability to evaluate the impact of personnel 6 Demonstrate respect for others 7 Ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of others 8 Ability to create an environment in which the leader is approachable and open to new ideas 9 Demonstrate empathy for social problems 10 Ability to be an effective team member 11 Ability to be an effective coach 12 Ability to surround themselves with people of complimentary strengths 13 Create an environment that values the diversity of others 14 Ability to create an environment in which the team members are willing to share ideas 15 Demonstrate support for organizational leadership development programs Skill Area Two: Conceptual Skills Within the conceptual skills area, all seven study participants referred to some aspect of having a vision. As one of the participants explained: You know, this is vision. I would put vision in this. Youre able to create a vision. I surely think thats not only to create the vision, but also lead the group, your organization to the point where they finalize the vision and take ownership of it. I think that the leaders got to give them a glimpse of the vision, but the completeness of the vision needs to be developed by the organization and where they take ownership of that vision. So it not just the directors vision, its the organizations vision. From the six sub-skills clustered into the conceptual skills area, fourteen specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-4). Skill Area Three: Technical Skills The technical skills area had the fewest number of sub-skills as compared to the other skill areas. Participants also offered conflicting views related to the sub-skills related to using computers. Participants from larger institutions saw computer skills as

PAGE 100

84 less important. For example, when asked about technical skills, one participant from a large institution stated: I think its less, quite honestly, and very candidly, I think its of less importance that uh our directors be able to effectively use PC software and word processing, spreadsheets, and databases until it gets into their management responsibilities. And if they cant do that, theyre not going to be even considered. Table 4-4 Conceptual Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Ability to create a long term vision for the organization 2 Ability to think strategically 3 Ability to set goals 4 Create an environment that supports organizational change 5 Ability to communicate an organizational vision with others 6 Ability to think critically 7 Ability to help others support organizational change 8 Ability to utilize sequential planning techniques 9 Ability to be decisive 10 Ability to think abstractly as well as linearly 11 Exhibit an attitude that supports and welcomes organizational change 12 Ability to achieve goals 13 Ability to think creatively 14 Ability to create an environment in which all personnel are able to take ownership of the organizational vision Similarly, another participant from a larger institution stated: Technical skills really dont, dont come up real high in terms of the skills that are needed I dont believe. Its nice to have them, but, theyre not something that are gonna, gonna be a big limitation I dont believe. However, the other two participants who discussed computer skills were from smaller institutions and saw them as important skills to have within the technical skills area. One of these participants offered the following comment: Well, you know, where youve got word processing, spreadsheets, and databases, you also need to know how to integrate those. How to go from one to the other and merge files, collapse files. But, you also need, not only to know how to use them, but also how to integrate them. You need to know how to integrate those skills, not just use them independently.

PAGE 101

85 The other participant who spoke positively about PC software and computer skills as a technical skill referred to them as pretty obviously critical." Other sub-skills in the technical skills area, such as budgeting, finances and fundraising, and technical competence in some area were much less controversial. Participants saw these as important to the success of Extension leaders. From the five sub-skills clustered into the technical skills area, ten specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-5). Table 4-5 Technical Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Ability to develop budgets for all levels within the organization 2 Ability to effectively use computer software for word processing 3 Ability to raise funds from external sources 4 Ability to interpret and explain organizational budgets 5 Ability to effectively use and search the internet 6 Ability to use computer software for spreadsheets 7 Ability to implement and adjust organizational budgets to accomplish programs 8 Ability to effectively use computer software for databases 9 Ability to work with foundations 10 Ability to effectively integrate computer software program applications (i.e. merge files) Skill Area Four: Communication Skills All seven interview participants mentioned some form of communication, either written, oral, reading, listening, or electronic communication, during their interview. One participant pointed out the importance of communication with the media: And the other one, you know, I thought about, and this is something that every Extension director/administrator has to do, and they have to interact with the media. And again, theres some, there are some, we run training programs ourselves to help people be more skillful in interaction with newspaper reporters, television reporters, radio reportersits communication skills, but its targeted to particular audiences. Another participant described the importance of communication skills in various settings by stating:

PAGE 102

86 If that person doesnt posses the tremendous skill in communication, it would be very hard to carry out the mission of Extension. The ability to communicate, to stand up in front of any group, or one-on-one is very important. Six of the seven participants referred to the importance of listening skills as important to the success of Extension leaders. For example, one participant stated: One thing Ive noticed that Ive been talking about lately with people here is being able to listen, auditory skills. Being able to listen. Uh, the thing is, I was talking to the staff, the staff out there, not just the Extension director, but there is research and the department chairperson, you need to refine or improve the ability of just listening to what our people are saying. So their auditory skills are very important. From the seven sub-skills clustered into the communication skills area, fourteen specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-6). Table 4-6 Communication Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Ability to communicate orally with groups of various sizes ranging from one-on-one situations to large group situations 2 Ability to actively listen to people 3 Ability to interact and communicate with individuals with various depth of knowledge capabilities 4 Ability to interact and communicate with people who have divergent points of view 5 Ability to effectively communicate with others using electronic communication channels (i.e. e-mail) 6 Ability to identify barriers to listening 7 Ability to write for various organizational purposes (i.e. technical writing professional publications, etc.) 8 Ability to conduct quality oral presentations 9 Ability to read and comprehend a wide range of publications 10 Ability to reduce barriers to listening 11 Ability to recognize and effectively use nonverbal cues or behaviors 12 Ability to write for various audiences (i.e. limited resource audiences) 13 Ability to communicate orally with groups of various backgrounds 14 Ability to interact with the media (i.e. television and newspaper reporters) Skill Area Five: Emotional Intelligence Skills Six of the participants discussed the importance of time management skills and being balanced in ones life. One participant had this to say about time management,

PAGE 103

87 Obviously the ability toto manage your time. I always used to think I was pretty good in time management until I got in a big enough job that uh, that I found, I found I needed to get better. Similarly, another participant stated, This one, I was laughing this morning, I told my secretary that I dont effectively manage my personal time. Both of these participants discussed the importance of Extension leaders being able to seek balance between their personal and professional lives and effectively manage their time in both areas. Another sub-skill that four of the seven participants spent time discussing centered around emotional maturity in terms of being able to receive criticism without becoming critical or hearing bad news without shooting the messenger. For example, one participant, when asked about emotional intelligence skills stated: Calmness, you have to be able to control your emotions. You know, one way or the other and uh, sometimes youve gotta hear some things you dont like and maybe even upset you, but you cant let your emotions control your actions. Another participant had the following to say in relation to emotional intelligence skills: An ability to take criticism and anger without becoming critical and angry themselves. And that is described I guess as maturity so that they can focus on their objective rather than getting embroiled in the personality parts of peoples reactions. From the nine sub-skills clustered into the emotional intelligence skills area, fourteen specific leadership competencies identified (see Table 4-7). Skill Area Six: Industry Knowledge Skills All seven participants in the interview phase of this study identified understanding the context and or role of Extension as being an important industry knowledge skill. For many of the participants, this begins by first defining the industry. One participant stated: And, I think,when we say industry, we often think agriculture, and yet we should be thinking much broader. Uh, who is, who are the constituencies. It isnt just

PAGE 104

88 agriculture. Its basically the entire state. And so one has to kind of be able to think about the organizations and the people that are in that other than the ag industry. Table 4-7 Emotional Intelligence Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Demonstrate personal integrity 2 Ability to set priorities to effectively manage personal time 3 Ability to resolve conflict 4 Ability to make use of constructive criticism without becoming critical and angry 5 Ability to separate personalities from behaviors 6 Possess a sense of humor 7 Ability to negotiate agreement 8 Demonstrate high level of motivation 9 Ability to control emotions in emotional situations 10 Demonstrate professional integrity 11 Demonstrate empathy and respect for others 12 Ability to set priorities to effectively manage organizational time 13 Demonstrate high levels of energy and enthusiasm 14 Demonstrate respect for the time commitments of others Participants also discussed when Extension leaders needed to know specifically related to the Extension system. Comments ranged from knowing who the constituents of Extension are within the state, understanding the cultural base of those constituents, and knowing the political environment influencing Extension. Participants were also concerned that Extension leaders understand and recognize the implications of Extension at the national level. One of the participants explained, Id also want someone who understood not only what the state priorities are, which I think are usually pretty obvious, state legislatures are usually pretty close to Extension. But, the national priority system is also important, and I dont think as easily understood by leadership and I would want someone who understood that the national priorities, and how the formula funds are applied, and what work product is, um, and work plans and the demands from the national perspective. Id want somebody who, who understood that very well. From the seven sub-skills clustered into the industry knowledge skills area, thirteen specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-8).

PAGE 105

89 Table 4-8 Industry Knowledge Skills Leadership Competencies Item Number Specific Competency 1 Ability to explain the basic program areas of Extension within the state 2 Network and partner with a variety of organizations and agencies to accomplish programs 3 Ability to identify and describe the various constituencies of Extension 4 Ability to explain state and national Extension priorities 5 Ability to create linkages within both traditional and non-traditional audiences 6 Ability to interact with elected officials and their staff 7 Possess depth of knowledge in a content area 8 Ability to explain the role of Extension relative to the mission of the land-grant university 9 Ability to identify the needs of various client groups within the state 10 Ability to explain the political environment of the state and the implications for Extension 11 Explain the relationships between statewide programs (i.e. role of various agencies in the delivery of programs) 12 Ability to evaluate the impact of programs for each client group 13 Ability to explain the cooperative nature of Extension with county, state, and federal governments Objective Two Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their Demographics and Leadership Style Of the 47 current Extension leaders who participated in the second phase, the quantitative phase, of the study, 70.2% (n=33) were male and 29.8% (n=14) were female. In terms of ethnicity, 80.9% (n=38) were White, 14.9% (n=7) were Black or African American, 2.1% (n=1) were Asian, and 2.1% (n=1) were Hispanic or Latino. Table 4-9 shows the gender of participant by ethnicity. Table 4-9 Gender of Participants by Ethnicity (N=47) Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity n % of total n % of total n % Asian 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 2.1 Black or African American 6 12.8 1 2.1 7 14.9 Hispanic or Latino 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 2.1 White 25 53.2 13 27.7 38 80.9 Total 33 70.2 14 29.8 47 100.0

PAGE 106

90 Age of the participants ranged from 44 to 66. The mean age of the participants was 54.46. One participant did not report their age. Tenure within the Extension system ranged from three to 37 years and had a mean of 22.08 years. Their tenure in Extension leadership positions ranged from one year to 26 years and had a mean of 11.88 years. Age and tenure are presented in Table 4-10. Table 4-10 Age and Tenure of Study Participants (N=47) N M SD Minimum Maximum Age 46 54.46 4.89 44 66 Tenure in Extension 47 22.08 9.20 3 37 Tenure in Extension Leadership 47 11.88 7.17 1 26 In terms of the highest degree held by study participants, 76.6% (n=36) had a doctor of philosophy degree, 12.8% (n=6) had a masters degree, 6.4% (n=3) had an doctor of education degree, 2.1% (n=1) had a specialist degree, and 2.1% (n=1) had a doctor of veterinary medicine degree. The academic major of each participants highest degree was classified as either a bench science degree or a social science degree. Of the 47 participants, 59.6% (n=28) had a social science degree and 40.4% (n=19) had a bench science degree. Previous leadership training sub-scores and total scores are presented in Table 4-11. According to the table, sub-total scores for previous experience in college leadership courses, non-Extension leadership courses/workshops, and Extension leadership courses/workshops ranged from zero to five. The average sub-total scores were M=1.30, SD=1.90 for college leadership courses, M=1.11, SD=1.40 for non-Extension leadership courses/workshops, and M=.93, SD=1.44 for Extension leadership courses/workshops. Previous leadership development total scores ranged from zero to 15 and had a M=3.19 and SD=3.28.

PAGE 107

91 Table 4-11 Previous Leadership Training Scores (N=47) M SD Minimum Maximum College leadership courses 1.30 1.90 0 5 Non-Extension leadership courses 1.11 1.40 0 5 Extension leadership courses 0.93 1.44 0 5 Previous leadership development total 3.19 3.28 0 5 Leadership styles of study participants were determined as outlined in the MLQ 5X Scoring Key. Mean scores of the nine leadership scales measured by the MLQ 5X as well as Transformational and Transactional Leadership Style scores are presented in Table 4-12. Means for each of the scale and style scores have a possible range of zero to four. Of the nine scale scores, the highest mean scores was reported for the Inspirational Motivation (M=3.54, SD=.48) scale and the Idealized Influence (Behavior) (M=3.53, SD=.48) scale, both transformational leadership scales, and the lowest mean score was reported for the Laissez-Faire Leadership (M=.50, SD=.49) scale, the non-leadership scale and no-leadership style. Table 4-12 MLQ 5X Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores (N=47) M SD Minimum Maximum Idealized Influence (Attributed) 3.16 0.48 2.00 4.00 Idealized Influence (Behavior) 3.53 0.48 1.75 4.00 Inspirational Motivation 3.54 0.44 2.00 4.00 Intellectual Stimulation 3.35 0.44 2.25 4.00 Individualized Consideration 3.48 0.41 2.50 4.00 Transformational Leadership Style 3.41 0.35 2.20 3.90 Contingent Reward 3.15 0.56 2.00 4.00 Management-by-Exception (Active) 1.20 0.82 0.00 4.00 Management-by-Exception (Passive) 1.02 0.60 0.00 2.25 Transactional Leadership Style 1.79 0.41 0.92 2.83 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.50 0.49 0.00 1.67

PAGE 108

92 Objective Three Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe Each Skill Area Is As Well As How Proficient They Perceive Themselves to be in Each Skill Area Perceived Importance of Leadership Skill Areas The mean score for perceived importance of the 80 leadership competencies was M=88.82, SD=8.03 (see Table 4-13). Scores for the importance of Human Skills ranged from a low of 80.00 to a high of 100, the highest possible score. For the importance of Conceptual Skills, scores ranged from a low of 82.27 to a high of 100. Scores for the importance of Technical Skills ranged from a low of 56.00 to a high of 100. For the importance of Communications Skills, scores ranged from a low of 65.71 to a high of 100. Scores for the importance of Emotional Intelligence Skills ranged from a low of 77.14 to a high of 100. For the importance of Industry Knowledge Skills, scores ranged from a low score of 73.85 to a high score of 100. Total Importance Scores ranged from a low of 76.00 to a high of 99.75. Table 4-13 Mean Scores for Perceived Importance of the Leadership Skills n M SD Human Skills (Importance) 47 92.04 5.63 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 47 92.27 5.28 Technical Skills (Importance) 46 79.52 11.13 Communication Skills (Importance) 46 89.06 7.86 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) 46 93.14 6.14 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) 46 91.04 7.52 Total Importance Score 44 90.24 5.83 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. One respondent had more than 15 percent missing data for the importance of Technical Skills. One respondent had more than 15 percent missing data for the importance of Communication Skills. One respondent had more than 15 percent missing data in the importance of Emotional Intelligence Skills and the importance of Industry

PAGE 109

93 Knowledge Skills. Data for these respondents was not included in the analysis for the scale in which they were missing more than 15 percent of the data, or in the analysis for the Total Importance Score so as not to artificially lower the total score (George & Mallery, 2001). As shown in Table 4-13, the highest mean score was in the Emotional Intelligence Skills scale (M=93.14, SD=6.14) and the lowest mean score was in the Technical Skills scale (M=79.52, SD=11.13). Mean scores for all of the scales and the total score were above 75 out of the possible range of zero to 100. The Technical Skills (M=79.52, SD=5.28) and Communication Skills (M=89.06, SD=7.86) scales were the only two scales with mean scores lower than 90. Perceived Proficiency in Leadership Skill Areas The mean score for self-perceived proficiency in the 80 leadership competencies was M=81.91, SD=8.14 (see Table 4-14). Scores for the self-perceived proficiency of respondents in Human Skills ranged from a low of 66.67 to a high of 97.33 on a possible scale of 20 to 100. For the self-perceived proficiency level in Conceptual Skills, scores ranged from a low of 58.57 to a high of 98.57. Scores for self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills ranged from a low of 46.00 to a high of 98.00. For the self-perceived proficiency level in Communication Skills, scores ranged from a low score of 58.57 to a high score of 100. Scores for self-perceived proficiency in Emotional Intelligence Skills ranged from a low of 68.57 to a high of 100. For the self-perceived proficiency level in Industry Knowledge Skills, scores ranged from a low of 50.77 to a high of 100. Total Proficiency Scores ranged from a low of 64.00 to a high of 96.50.

PAGE 110

94 Table 4-14 Mean Scores for Self-perceived Proficiency in the Leadership Skills n M SD Human Skills (Proficiency) 47 84.28 8.31 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 47 82.49 9.42 Technical Skills (Proficiency) 46 71.50 12.20 Communication Skills (Proficiency) 47 81.51 9.95 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) 47 85.46 8.10 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) 47 84.31 10.80 Total Proficiency Score 46 82.11 8.12 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Proficiency Score. One respondent had more than 15 percent missing data for self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills. Data for this respondent was not included in the analysis for the Technical Skills scale, or in the analysis for the Total Proficiency Score. As shown in Table 4-14, the highest mean score for proficiency level was in the Emotional Intelligence Skills scale (M=85.46, SD=8.10) and the lowest mean score was in the Technical Skills scale (M=71.50, SD=12.20). Mean scores for all of the scales and the total score were above 70 out of the possible range of zero to 100. The Technical Skills (M=71.50, SD=12.20) scale was the only scale with mean scores lower than 80. No scale had a mean score greater than 90. Difference Between Perceived Importance and Self-Perceived Proficiency Table 4-15 shows the difference between mean scores for the importance of each skill area and the self-perceived proficiency level of respondents in each skill area. Means for importance were greater than means for proficiency in all of the skill areas and total score. The largest gap between mean scores occurred in the Conceptual Skills area (MImportance=92.27, MProficiency=82.49) and the smallest gap occurred in the Industry Knowledge Skills (MImportance=91.04, MProficiency=84.31).

PAGE 111

95 Table 4-15 Difference Between Mean for Importance and Mean for Proficiency M (Importance) M (Proficiency) Difference Human Skills 92.04 84.28 7.76 Conceptual Skills 92.27 82.49 9.78 Technical Skills 79.52 71.50 8.02 Communication Skills 89.06 81.51 7.55 Emotional Intelligence Skills 93.14 85.46 7.68 Industry Knowledge Skills 91.04 84.31 6.73 Total Score 90.24 82.11 8.13 Objective Four Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Styles of Current Extension Leaders Leadership Style and Gender There were more male respondents (n=33) than female respondents (n=14). Leadership scales scores and leadership styles scores had a possible range of zero to four. The range of Transformational Leadership Style scores was 2.20 to 3.90 for males and 2.70 to 3.90 for females. The range of Transactional Leadership Styles scores was .92 to 2.90 for males and 1.25 to 2.83 for females. The range of Laissez-Faire Leadership (non-leadership) was .00 to 1.50 for males and .00 to 1.67 for females. Mean scores for each of the nine leadership scales and the leadership styles by gender are presented in Table 4-16. Management-by-Exception (Active) was the only scale in which males (M=1.24, SD=.84) scored higher than females (M=1.09, SD=.81). A medium effect (Cohen, 1977) was found for the Idealized Influence (Attributed) (d=.78) leadership scale. Small effects were found in the Inspirational Motivation (d=.34), Intellectual Stimulation (d=.31), Individualized Consideration (d=.20), and Management-by-Exception (Passive) (d=.21) leadership scales and Transformational Leadership Style (d=.20). Table 4-16 showed that females scored higher in all but one of the leadership scales. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that gender had no effect on the

PAGE 112

96 leadership scales except in the Idealized Influence (Attributed) scale t(45)=-2.12, p<.05 (see Table 4-17). The t-test also revealed no statistical difference between males and females for Transformational Leadership Style, t(45)=-1.26, p>.05, or Transactional Leadership Style, t(45)=-.51, p>.05. Table 4-16 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Gender (N=47) Construct Gender n M SD d Idealized Influence (Attributed) Male Female 33 14 3.07 3.38 0.49 0.40 0.78 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Male Female 33 14 3.52 3.55 0.48 0.48 0.06 Inspirational Motivation Male Female 33 14 3.50 3.64 0.44 0.41 0.34 Intellectual Stimulation Male Female 33 14 3.31 3.45 0.45 0.41 0.31 Individualized Consideration Male Female 33 14 3.46 3.54 0.41 0.40 0.20 Transformational Leadership Style Male Female 33 14 3.37 3.51 0.36 0.34 0.41 Contingent Reward Male Female 33 14 3.09 3.29 0.58 0.50 0.40 Management-by-Exception (Active) Male Female 33 14 1.24 1.09 0.84 0.81 0.19 Management-by-Exception (Passive) Male Female 33 14 0.99 1.11 0.56 0.69 0.21 Transactional Leadership Style Male Female 33 14 1.77 1.84 0.41 0.43 0.17 Laissez-Faire Leadership Male Female 33 14 0.53 0.44 0.47 0.54 0.19 Leadership Style and Ethnicity There were more participants who reported their ethnicity as White (n=38) than individuals who reported their ethnicity as Black or African American. It should be noted that the effect of ethnicity on leadership scale scores and leadership style scores was not analyzed for the Asian and Hispanic or Latino participants because there was only one participant who reported each of these ethnicities. The range of

PAGE 113

97 Transformational Leadership Styles ranged from 2.70 to 3.90 for Whites and 2.80 to 2.80 for Blacks. The range of Transactional Leadership Styles ranged from 1.08 to 2.83 for Whites and .92 to 2.42 for Blacks. The range of Laissez-Faire Leadership (non-leadership) ranged from .00 to 1.67 for Whites and .00 to 1.25 for Blacks. Mean scores for each of the nine leadership scales and the leadership styles by gender are presented in Table 4-18. Contingent Reward and Laissez-Faire Leadership are the only scales in which Blacks (M=3.21, SD=.53; M=.54, SD=.57) scored higher than Whites (M=3.17, SD=.56; M=.48, SD=.49), respectively. A large effect size was found in the Management-by-Exception (Active) (d=.80) leadership scale. A medium effect was found in the Intellectual Stimulation (d=.64) leadership scale. Small effects were found in the Individualized Consideration (d=.29) and Management-by-Exception (Passive) (d=.26) leadership scales and the Transformational Leadership (d=.33) and Transactional Leadership (d=.48) Styles. Table 4-17 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Gender (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) -2.12 45 0.04 Idealized Influence (Behavior) -0.25 45 0.80 Inspirational Motivation -1.06 45 0.30 Intellectual Stimulation -0.98 45 0.33 Individualized Consideration -0.57 45 0.58 Transformational Leadership Style -1.26 45 0.22 Contingent Reward -1.10 45 0.28 Management-by-Exception (Active) 0.58 45 0.57 Management-by-Exception (Passive) -0.62 45 0.54 Transactional Leadership Style -0.51 45 0.61 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.55 45 0.59 Table 4-18 showed that Whites scored higher than Blacks in all but two of the leadership scales. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that ethnicity had no effect on the nine leadership scales (see Table 4-19). The t-test also revealed no

PAGE 114

98 statistical difference between Blacks and Whites for Transformational Leadership Style, t(43)=.80, p>.05, or Transactional Leadership Style, t(43)=1.13, p>.05. Table 4-18 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Ethnicity (N=47) Construct Ethnicity n M SD d Idealized Influence (Attributed) White Black 38 7 3.20 3.14 0.49 0.35 0.17 Idealized Influence (Behavior) White Black 38 7 3.58 3.50 0.41 0.41 0.19 Inspirational Motivation White Black 38 7 3.58 3.54 0.37 0.44 0.11 Intellectual Stimulation White Black 38 7 3.42 3.17 0.39 0.57 0.64 Individualized Consideration White Black 38 7 3.53 3.43 0.39 0.35 0.29 Transformational Leadership Style White Black 38 7 3.46 3.36 0.30 0.35 0.33 Contingent Reward White Black 38 7 3.17 3.21 0.56 0.53 0.08 Management-by-Exception (Active) White Black 38 7 1.23 0.75 0.83 0.60 0.80 Management-by-Exception (Passive) White Black 38 7 1.03 0.89 0.62 0.54 0.26 Transactional Leadership Style White Black 38 7 1.81 1.62 0.40 0.49 0.48 Laissez-Faire Leadership White Black 38 7 0.48 0.54 0.49 0.47 0.13 Table 4-19 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Ethnicity (N=45) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) 0.29 43 0.77 Idealized Influence (Behavior) 0.47 43 0.64 Inspirational Motivation 0.25 43 0.80 Intellectual Stimulation 1.49 43 0.14 Individualized Consideration 0.67 43 0.51 Transformational Leadership Style 0.80 43 0.43 Contingent Reward -0.19 43 0.85 Management-by-Exception (Active) 1.45 43 0.15 Management-by-Exception (Passive) 0.55 43 0.59 Transactional Leadership Style 1.13 43 0.27 Laissez-Faire Leadership -0.27 43 0.79

PAGE 115

99 Leadership Style and Age Pearson Product Moment Correlations between each of the leadership scales and the leadership styles and age are presented in Table 4-20. As shown in the table, there was no significant relationship between age and leadership style. There was a low negative (Miller, 1998), but insignificant relationship between Idealized Influence (Attributed) and age, r=-.20, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. The relationship was low positive, but insignificant between the Idealized Influence (Behavior), r=.18, p>.05, Inspirational Motivation, r=.15, p>.05, and Contingent Reward, r=.13, p>.05, scales and age and between Transactional Leadership Style, r=.10, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. Table 4-20 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Age (N=46) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) -0.20 45 0.17 Idealized Influence (Behavior) 0.18 45 0.23 Inspirational Motivation 0.15 45 0.33 Intellectual Stimulation 0.08 45 0.62 Individualized Consideration 0.06 45 0.72 Transformational Leadership Style 0.06 45 0.69 Contingent Reward 0.13 45 0.38 Management-by-Exception (Active) 0.09 45 0.56 Management-by-Exception (Passive) -0.02 45 0.90 Transactional Leadership Style 0.10 45 0.51 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.06 45 0.68 Note: One participant did not report their age. Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension Pearson Product Moment Correlations between each of the leadership scales and the leadership styles and tenure in Extension are presented in Table 4-21. As shown in the table, there was a significant moderate negative relationship between Transactional Leadership Style, r=-.49, p<.05, and two of the scales from which Transactional Leadership Style is derived, Management-by-Exception (Active), r=-.36, p>.05, and

PAGE 116

100 Management-by-Exception (Passive), r=-.33, p>.05 and tenure in Extension when alpha was set apriori at .05. There was no relationship between tenure in Extension and the other seven leadership scales or Transformational Leadership Style. Table 4-21 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) -0.18 46 0.22 Idealized Influence (Behavior) -0.03 46 0.86 Inspirational Motivation -0.07 46 0.66 Intellectual Stimulation 0.01 46 0.96 Individualized Consideration 0.02 46 0.92 Transformational Leadership Style -0.07 46 0.67 Contingent Reward -0.20 46 0.17 Management-by-Exception (Active) -0.36 46 0.01 Management-by-Exception (Passive) -0.33 46 0.03 Transactional Leadership Style -0.49 46 0.00 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.06 46 0.70 Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) Pearson Product Moment Correlations between each of the leadership scales and the leadership styles and tenure in Extension leadership position(s) are presented in Table 4-22. As shown in the table, there was no significant relationship between tenure in Extension leadership position(s) and leadership style. There was a low negative, but insignificant relationship between the Contingent Reward, r=-.11, p>.05, and Management-by-Exception (Passive) scales and tenure in Extension leadership position, r=-.28, p>.05 and between Transactional Leadership Styles and tenure in Extension leadership position(s), r=-.25, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. The relationship was low positive, but insignificant between the Idealized Influence (Behavior), r=.18, p>.05, and Individualized Consideration, r=.12, p>.05, scales and tenure in Extension leadership position(s) when alpha was set apriori at .05.

PAGE 117

101 Table 4-22 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) Leadership Style and Highest Degree One-way analysis of variance revealed that leadership style is not dependent on highest degree (see Table 4-23). Transformational Leadership Style, F(4,42)=.48, p>.05, and Transactional Leadership Style, F(4,42)=.92, p>.05, were not statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held. The Management-by-Exception scale (one of the transactional leadership scales), F(4,42)=3.01, p<.05, was statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held. There was no statistical difference found between highest degree and any of the other leadership scales. A large effect (Keppel, 1991) was found in the Management-by-Exception (2=.15) leadership scale. In this study, the highest degree of each respondent was classified as either a social science degree or a bench science degree. There were more respondents with social science degrees (n=28) than with bench science degrees (n=19). The range of Transformational Leadership Style scores was 2.70 to 3.90 for participants with bench science degrees and 2.20 to 3.90 for participants with social science degrees. The range r df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) -0.09 46 0.55 Idealized Influence (Behavior) 0.18 46 0.22 Inspirational Motivation 0.04 46 0.79 Intellectual Stimulation 0.03 46 0.83 Individualized Consideration 0.12 46 0.42 Transformational Leadership Style 0.07 46 0.62 Contingent Reward -0.11 46 0.48 Management-by-Exception (Active) -0.09 46 0.56 Management-by-Exception (Passive) -0.28 46 0.06 Transactional Leadership Style -0.25 46 0.09 Laissez-Faire Leadership -0.06 46 0.71 Leadership Style and Degree Classification

PAGE 118

102 of Transactional Leadership Styles scores was .1.08 to 2.83 for participants with bench science degrees and .92 to 2.42 for participants with social science degrees. The range of Laissez-Faire Leadership (non-leadership) was .00 to 1.67 for participants with bench science degrees and .00 to 1.50 for participants with social science degrees. Table 4-23 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Styles by Highest Degree (N=47) df F Sig. 2 Idealized Influence (Attributed) Between 4 0.54 0.71 -0.04 Within 42 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Between 4 1.00 0.40 0.00 Within 42 Inspirational Motivation Between 4 0.34 0.85 -0.06 Within 42 Intellectual Stimulation Between 4 0.45 0.77 -0.05 Within 42 Individualized Consideration Between 4 0.30 0.87 -0.06 Within 42 Transformational Leadership Between 4 0.48 0.75 -0.05 Within 42 Contingent Reward Between 4 0.49 0.74 -0.05 Within 42 Management-by-Exception (Active) Between 4 0.44 0.78 -0.05 Within 42 Management-by-Exception (Passive) Between 4 3.01 0.03 0.15 Within 42 Transactional Leadership Style Between 4 0.92 0.46 -0.01 Within 42 Laissez-Faire Leadership Between 4 0.31 0.87 -0.06 Within 42 Mean scores for each of the nine leadership scales and the leadership styles by degree classification are presented in Table 4-24. As shown in Table 4-24, Intellectual Stimulation was the only scale in which participants with a social science degree (M=3.41, SD=.40) scored higher than participants with a bench science degree (M=3.26, SD=.50). A large effect was found in the Management-by-Exception (Active) (d=1.07) leadership scale. A medium effect was found in Transactional Leadership Style (d=.56). Small effects were found in the Idealized Influence (Behavior) (d=.39), Inspirational

PAGE 119

103 Motivation (d=.24), and Intellectual Stimulation (d=.38) leadership scales and in Laissez-Faire Leadership (d=.23). Table 4-24 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Degree Classification (N=47) Table 4-24 showed that participants with bench science degrees scored higher in all but one of the leadership scales. Independent sample t-tests revealed that degree classification had a significant effect on Transactional Leadership Style t(45)=2.11, p<.05, and one of the transactional leadership scales, Management-by-Exception (Active), t(45)=2.81), p<.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05 (see Table 4-25). The t-test revealed no statistical difference between participants with bench science degrees and those with social science degrees for Transformational Leadership Style, t(45)=.35, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. Construct Classification n M SD d Idealized Influence (Attributed) Bench 19 3.18 .62 0.08 Social 28 3.15 .38 Idealized Influence (Behavior) Bench 19 3.64 .38 Social 28 3.45 .52 Inspirational Motivation Bench Social 19 28 3.60 3.50 .41 .46 0.24 Intellectual Stimulation Bench Social 19 28 3.26 3.41 .50 .40 0.38 Individualized Consideration Bench Social 19 28 3.49 3.48 .44 .38 0.03 Transformational Leadership Style Bench Social 19 28 3.44 3.40 .37 .35 0.11 Contingent Reward Bench Social 19 28 3.20 3.12 .60 .53 0.15 Management-by-Exception (Active) Bench Social 19 28 1.58 0.94 .97 .60 1.07 Management-by-Exception (Passive) Bench Social 19 28 1.01 1.00 .48 .67 0.02 Transactional Leadership Style Bench Social 19 28 1.94 1.69 .45 .46 0.56 Laissez-Faire Leadership Bench Social 19 28 0.57 0.46 .48 .50 0.23 0.39

PAGE 120

104 Leadership Style and Previous Leadership Development Pearson Product Moment Correlations between each of the leadership scales and the leadership styles and previous leadership development total score are presented in Table 4-26. A significant low negative relationship existed between Management-by-Exception (Active), r=-.29, p<.05, and previous leadership development. A low negative, but insignificant relationship between the between Transformational Leadership Style, r=-.21, p>.05, and previous leadership development and between Transactional Leadership Style, r=-.28, p>.05, and previous leadership development. Table 4-25 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by Degree Classification (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) 0.27 45 0.79 Idealized Influence (Behavior) 1.42 45 0.16 Inspirational Motivation 0.76 45 0.45 Intellectual Stimulation -1.11 45 0.28 Individualized Consideration 0.04 45 0.97 Transformational Leadership Style 0.35 45 0.73 Contingent Reward 0.49 45 0.63 Management-by-Exception (Active) 2.81 45 0.01 Management-by-Exception (Passive) 0.33 45 0.74 Transactional Leadership Style 2.11 45 0.04 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.77 45 0.44 Table 4-26 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and Leadership Styles and Total Leadership Development Score (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Idealized Influence (Attributed) -0.17 46 0.24 Idealized Influence (Behavior) -0.19 46 0.20 Inspirational Motivation -0.11 46 0.47 Intellectual Stimulation -0.24 46 0.11 Individualized Consideration -0.12 46 0.44 Transformational Leadership Style -0.21 46 0.17 Contingent Reward -0.14 46 0.33 Management-by-Exception (Active) -0.29 46 0.05 Management-by-Exception (Passive) -0.05 46 0.75 Transactional Leadership Style -0.28 46 0.06 Laissez-Faire Leadership 0.04 46 0.78

PAGE 121

105 Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Styles The previous sections described the relationship between individual demographic variables and leadership styles. Backward multiple regression was performed between all of the demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), highest degree, degree classification, and previous leadership development) and three leadership styles (Transformational Leadership Style, Transactional Leadership Style, and Laissez-Faire Leadership) in order to explain the influence of demographic variables on leadership style. When conducting multiple regression analysis procedures, there should be 15 subjects for every variable included in the model (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Because there were 47 participants in this study, a maximum of three demographic variables will be included in the model to explain leadership styles. Transformational Leadership Style. Ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous leadership development total score yield the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transformational Leadership Style. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained Transformational Leadership Style, F(3, 42)=3.20, p<.05. R2 for the model was .19 and adjusted R2 was .13. Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression coefficients () for each variable are presented in Table 4-27. Table 4-27 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill Score (N=47) B SE Beta t Sig. (Constant) 2.83 0.25 11.23 0.00 Ethnicity 0.10 0.04 0.35 2.48 0.02 Tenure in Extension leadership position(s) 0.01 0.01 0.19 1.32 0.19 Leadership development total score 0.03 0.02 -0.28 -1.95 0.06

PAGE 122

106 In terms of individual relationships between the independent variables and Transformational Leadership Style, ethnicity, t=.80, p>.05, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), r=.07, p>.05, and previous leadership development total score, r=-.21, p>.05 did not significantly predict Transformational Leadership Style. When combined, the three variables, ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and leadership development total score explained 13 percent of the variance in Transformational Leadership Style. Transactional Leadership Style. Participants highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score yield the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transactional Leadership Styles. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained Transformational Leadership Style, F(3, 42)=6.81, p<.05. R2 for the model was .33 and adjusted R2 was .28. Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression coefficients () for each variable are presented in Table 4-28. Table 4-28 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill Score (N=47) B SE Beta t Sig. (Constant) 2.75 0.27 10.01 0.00 Highest Degree 0.09 0.05 -0.24 -1.91 0.06 Tenure in Extension 0.02 0.01 -0.48 -3.61 0.00 Leadership Development Total Score 0.02 0.02 -0.18 -1.33 0.19 In terms of individual relationships between the independent variables and Transactional Leadership Style, pervious leadership development total score, r=-.28, p>.05 and participants highest degree, F=.92, p>.05, did not significantly predict Transactional Leadership Sstyle while tenure in Extension, r=-.49, p<.05 did significantly predict Transactional Leadership Style. When combined, the three variables, previous

PAGE 123

107 leadership development total score, participants highest degree, and tenure in Extension explained 28 percent of the variance in Transactional Leadership Style. Laissez-Faire Leadership. Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained Laissez-Faire Leadership. None of the variables exhibited significant individual relationships with Laissez-Faire Leadership. Objective Five Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Skills of Current Extension Leaders Leadership Skills and Gender Importance. Leadership skills scores were on a 100 point scale. The scores for the importance of Human Skills ranged from 81.33 to 100.00 for males and 80.00 to 100.00 for females. The scores for the importance of Conceptual Skills ranged from 82.27 to 100.00 for males and 83.29 to 100.00 for females. Scores was for the importance of Technical Skills ranged from 56.00 to 100.00 for males and 60.00 to 98.00 for females. Scores for the importance of Communication Skills ranged from 65.71 to 100.00 for males and 75.71 to 100.00 for females. The range of scores for the importance of Emotional Intelligence was 77.14 to 100.00 for males to 84.29 to 100.00 for females. The range of scores for the importance of Industry Knowledge Skills was 73.85 to 100.00 for males and 78.46 to 100.00 for females. Total Importance Scores ranged from 76.00 to 99.75 for males and 80.00 to 99.75 for females. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for importance and for total importance score by gender are presented in Table 4-29. Females reported higher scores for importance in all of the skill areas. A medium effect was found in the perceived importance of Emotional Intelligence Skills (d=.62). Small effects were found in the

PAGE 124

108 perceived importance of Conceptual Skills (d=.36), Communication Skills (d=.24), Industry Knowledge Skills (d=.30), and in the Total Importance Score (d=.47). Table 4-29 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Gender (N=47) Gender n M SD d Human Skills (Importance) Male Female 33 14 91.73 92.76 5.81 5.33 0.19 Conceptual Skills (Importance) Male Female 33 14 91.70 93.60 5.25 5.27 0.36 Technical Skills (Importance) Male Female 33 13 79.33 80.00 11.42 10.77 0.06 Communication Skills (Importance) Male Female 32 14 88.52 90.31 8.05 7.54 0.24 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) Male Female 32 14 92.19 95.31 6.40 5.06 0.62 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) Male Female 32 14 90.38 92.53 7.71 7.11 0.30 Total Importance Male Female 31 13 89.51 91.96 6.02 5.17 0.47 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-29 shows that females reported higher scores for importance in all six skill areas and total importance score. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that gender had no effect on the perceived importance of leadership skills (see Table 4-30). Table 4-30 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Gender (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) -0.57 45 0.57 Conceptual Skills (Importance) -1.13 45 0.26 Technical Skills (Importance) -0.18 44 0.86 Communication Skills (Importance) -0.71 44 0.48 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) -1.61 44 0.11 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) -0.89 44 0.38 Total Importance -1.28 42 0.21 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Scores for self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills ranged from 66.67 to 97.33 for males and 73.33 to 93.33 for females. The range of scores for self

PAGE 125

109 perceived proficiency in Conceptual skills was 58.57 to 98.57 for males and 65.71 to 91.53 for females. The scores for self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills ranged from 46.00 to 98.00 for males and 56.00 to 86.00 for females. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills was 58.57 to 100.00 for males and 75.71 to 95.71 for females. The scores for self-perceive proficiency in Emotional Intelligence Skills ranged from 68.57 to 100.00 for males and 71.43 to 97.14 for females. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Industry Knowledge Skills was 50.77 to 100.00 for males to 67.69 to 96.92 for females. Total Proficiency Scores ranged from 64.00 to 96.50 for males and 72.25 to 92.75 for females. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for self-perceived proficiency and for total proficiency score by gender are presented in table 4-31. Females reported higher self-perceived proficiency scores in Communication Skills (M=83.04, SD=6.10), Emotional Intelligence Skills (M=86.53, SD=7.36), and Industry Knowledge Skills (M=85.55, SD=8.12), than did the males (M=80.87, SD=11.22; M=85.01, SD=8.47; M=83.79, SD=11.83), respectively. Small effects were found in the self-perceived proficiency all six leadership skill areas, but not in the Total Proficiency Score. Table 4-31 shows that females reported higher scores for proficiency in three of the six skill areas. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that gender had no effect on the perceived importance of leadership skills (see Table 4-32). Leadership Skills and Ethnicity Importance. The scores for the importance of Human Skills ranged from 80.00 to 100.00 for Whites and 81.33 to 97.16 for Blacks. The scores for the importance of Conceptual Skills ranged from 82.86 to 100.00 for Whites and 82.27 to 100.00 for Blacks. Scores was for the importance of Technical Skills ranged from 56.00 to 100.00

PAGE 126

110 for Whites and 70.00 to 98.00 for Blacks. Scores for the importance of Communication Skills ranged from 65.71 to 100.00 for Whites and 87.14 to 97.14 for Blacks. The range of scores for the importance of Emotional Intelligence was 81.43 to 100.00 for Whites to 88.57 to 98.57 for Blacks. The range of scores for the importance of Industry Knowledge Skills was 73.85 to 100.00 for Whites and 83.08 to 96.92 for females. Total Importance Scores ranged from 76.00 to 99.75 for Whites and 86.65 to 92.75 for Blacks. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for perceived importance and for total importance score by ethnicity are presented in table 4-33. Medium effects were found for perceived importance of Conceptual Skills (d=.50), and for Total Importance Score (d=.55). Small effects were found in the perceived importance of Human Skills (d=.40) and Industry Knowledge Skills (d=.37). Table 4-31 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Gender (N=47) Gender n M SD d Human Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 14 84.66 83.39 9.22 5.83 0.22 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 14 83.25 80.69 9.84 8.40 0.30 Technical Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 13 72.41 69.20 13.52 7.90 0.41 Communication Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 14 80.87 83.04 11.22 6.10 0.36 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 14 85.01 86.53 8.47 7.36 0.21 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) Male Female 33 14 83.79 85.55 11.83 8.12 0.22 Total Proficiency Male Female 33 13 82.14 82.03 8.96 5.76 0.02 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. As shown in Table 4-33, Whites reported higher perceived importance scores for Human Skills (M=92.73, SD=5.43), Conceptual Skills (M=92.92, SD=5.11), and Industry Knowledge Skills (M=91.90, SD=89.74) than did Blacks (M=91.17, SD=3.87; M=90.36,

PAGE 127

111 SD=5.82; M=89.74, SD=5.89), respectively. Whites also had higher total importance scores (M=90.93, SD=5.78) than did Blacks (M=89.77, SD=2.12). Table 4-32 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Gender (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.48 45 0.64 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 0.85 45 0.40 Technical Skills (Proficiency) 0.80 44 0.43 Communication Skills (Proficiency) -0.68 45 0.50 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) -0.58 45 0.56 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) -0.51 45 0.61 Total Proficiency 0.04 44 0.97 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-33 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47) Ethnicity n M SD d Human Skills (Importance) White Black 38 7 92.73 91.17 5.43 3.87 0.40 Conceptual Skills (Importance) White Black 38 7 92.93 90.36 5.11 5.82 0.50 Technical Skills (Importance) White Black 37 7 79.84 81.43 11.15 11.18 0.14 Communication Skills (Importance) White Black 37 7 89.58 90.15 7.99 3.43 0.17 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) White Black 38 6 93.62 93.81 5.96 4.01 0.05 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) White Black 38 6 91.90 89.74 7.35 5.89 0.37 Total Importance White Black 36 6 90.93 89.77 5.78 2.12 0.55 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-33 shows that Whites reported higher scores for perceived importance in three of the six skill areas and total importance score. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that ethnicity had no effect on the perceived importance of leadership skills (see Table 4-34).

PAGE 128

112 Table 4-34 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Ethnicity (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.71 43 0.48 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 1.20 43 0.24 Technical Skills (Importance) -0.35 42 0.73 Communication Skills (Importance) -0.19 42 0.85 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) -0.08 42 0.74 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) 0.68 42 0.50 Total Importance 0.48 40 0.63 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Scores for self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills ranged from 72.00 to 97.33 for Whites and 69.33 to 97.33 for Blacks. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Conceptual skills was 67.14 to 98.57 for Whites and 65.71 to 95.71 for Blacks. The scores for self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills ranged from 46.00 to 98.00 for Whites and 60.00 to 90.00 for Blacks. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills was 58.57 to 100.00 for Whites and 81.43 to 92.86 for Blacks. The scores for self-perceive proficiency in Emotional Intelligence Skills ranged from 68.57 to 100.00 for Whites and 77.14 to 94.19 for Blacks. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Industry Knowledge Skills was 66.15 to 100.00 for Whites and 73.85 to 90.77 for Blacks. Total Proficiency Scores ranged from 67.00 to 96.50 for Whites and 74.50 to 88.75 for Blacks. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for self-perceived proficiency and for total proficiency score by ethnicity are presented in table 4-35. Blacks reported higher self-perceived proficiency scores in Technical Skills (M=74.49, SD=12.84), Communication Skills (M=86.33, SD=4.51), and Emotional Intelligence Skills (M=86.92, SD=6.50), than did Whites (M=71.39, SD=12.29; M=81.65, SD=9.76; M=85.86, SD=8.10), respectively. Blacks also reported higher total proficiency scores (M=83.42,

PAGE 129

113 SD=5.76) than did Whites (M=82.78, SD=7.74). A large effect was found for self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills (d=1.04). Small effects were found in the self-perceived proficiency of Human Skills (d=.29) and Technical Skills (d=.25). Table 4-35 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47) Ethnicity n M SD d Human Skills (Proficiency) White Black 38 7 85.26 83.05 7.62 9.61 0.29 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) White Black 38 7 83.57 82.22 8.39 10.22 0.16 Technical Skills (Proficiency) White Black 37 7 71.39 74.49 12.29 12.84 0.25 Communication Skills (Proficiency) White Black 38 7 81.65 86.33 9.76 4.51 1.04 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) White Black 38 7 85.86 86.92 8.10 6.50 0.16 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) White Black 38 7 85.53 84.89 10.03 5.59 0.11 Total Proficiency White Black 37 7 82.78 83.42 7.74 5.76 0.11 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-35 shows that Blacks reported higher scores for self-proficiency in three of the six skill areas and total proficiency score. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that ethnicity had no effect on the self-perceived proficiency in leadership skills (see Table 4-36). Table 4-36 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Ethnicity (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.68 43 0.50 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 0.38 43 0.71 Technical Skills (Proficiency) -0.67 42 0.51 Communication Skills (Proficiency) -1.24 43 0.22 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) -0.33 43 0.74 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) 0.16 43 0.87 Total Proficiency -0.21 42 0.84 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score.

PAGE 130

114 Leadership Skills and Age Importance. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between perceived importance of each of the leadership skill areas and total importance score and age are presented in Table 4-37. As shown in the table, there was no significant relationship between age and leadership skills. There was a low positive (Miller, 1998), but insignificant relationship between Human Skills and age, r=.11, p>.05 and between Industry Knowledge Skills and age, r=.11, p>.05, when alpha was set at .05. Table 4-37 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Age (N=46) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.11 45 0.47 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 0.02 45 0.91 Technical Skills (Importance) 0.05 44 0.76 Communication Skills (Importance) 0.09 44 0.55 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) -0.04 44 0.79 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) 0.11 44 0.46 Total Importance 0.06 42 0.70 Note: One participant did not report their age. Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between self-perceived proficiency in each of the leadership skill areas and total proficiency score and age are presented in Table 4-38. There was a significant, moderate positive relationship between self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills and age, r=.30, p<.05, when alpha was set at .05. The relationship was low positive, but insignificant between self-perceived proficiency in Conceptual Skills and age, r=.18, p>.05, self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills and age, r=.12, p>.05, self-perceived proficiency in Industry Knowledge Skills and age, r=.13, p>.05, and Total Proficiency Score and age, r=.16, p>.05, when alpha was set at .05.

PAGE 131

115 Table 4-38 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Age (N=46) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.30 45 0.04 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 0.18 45 0.22 Technical Skills (Proficiency) -0.04 44 0.80 Communication Skills (Proficiency) 0.12 45 0.41 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) 0.09 45 0.53 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) 0.13 45 0.40 Total Proficiency 0.16 44 0.45 Note: One participant did not report their age. Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension Importance. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between perceived importance of each of the leadership skill areas and total importance score and tenure in Extension are presented in Table 4-39. There was no significant relationship between perceived importance of the leadership skills and tenure in Extension. There was a low positive, but insignificant relationship between perceived importance of Human Skills and tenure in Extension, r=.18, p>.05, perceived importance of Conceptual skills and tenure in Extension, r=.21, p>.05, and perceived importance of Industry Knowledge Skills and tenure in Extension, r=.23, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. Table 4-39 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Tenure in Extension (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.18 46 0.23 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 0.21 46 0.17 Technical Skills (Importance) -0.02 45 0.88 Communication Skills (Importance) 0.06 45 0.68 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) 0.06 45 0.70 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) 0.23 45 0.13 Total Importance 0.11 43 0.48 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score.

PAGE 132

116 Proficiency. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between self-perceived proficiency in each of the leadership skill areas and total proficiency score and tenure in Extension are presented in Table 4-40. There was no significant relationship between self-perceived level of proficiency in leadership skills and tenure in Extension. There was a low positive, but insignificant relationship between self-perceived level of proficiency in Industry Knowledge skills and tenure in Extension, r=.22, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. Table 4-40 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Tenure in Extension (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.01 46 0.96 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 0.08 46 0.58 Technical Skills (Proficiency) -0.09 45 0.57 Communication Skills (Proficiency) 0.03 46 0.84 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) 0.09 46 0.56 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) 0.22 46 0.13 Total Proficiency 0.07 45 0.63 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) Importance. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between perceived importance of each of the leadership skill areas and total importance score and tenure in Extension leadership position(s) are presented in Table 4-41. As shown in the table, there was no significant relationship between perceived importance of leadership skills and tenure in Extension leadership position(s). There was a low negative, but insignificant relationship between perceived importance of Emotional Intelligence Skills and tenure in Extension leadership position(s), r=-.13, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05.

PAGE 133

117 Table 4-41 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.00 46 0.99 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 0.08 46 0.57 Technical Skills (Importance) -0.05 45 0.75 Communication Skills (Importance) -0.08 45 0.60 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) -0.13 45 0.40 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) -0.05 45 0.73 Total Importance -0.04 43 0.81 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between self-perceived proficiency in each of the leadership skill areas and total proficiency scores and tenure in Extension leadership position(s) are presented in Table 4-42. There was no significant relationship between self-perceived proficiency in leadership skills and tenure in Extension leadership position(s). There was a low positive, but insignificant relationship between the self-perceived proficiency in the Human Skills, r=.12, p>.05, Conceptual Skills, r=.16, p>.05, and Emotional Intelligence Skills, r=.10, p>.05, scales and tenure in Extension leadership position (s) when alpha was set apriori at .05. The relationship was low negative, but insignificant between self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills and tenure in Extension leadership position(s), r=-.10, p>.05. Table 4-42 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.12 46 0.44 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) 0.16 46 0.27 Technical Skills (Proficiency) -0.02 45 0.92 Communication Skills (Proficiency) -0.10 46 0.51 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) 0.10 46 0.49 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) 0.07 46 0.66 Total Proficiency 0.07 45 0.67 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score.

PAGE 134

118 Leadership Skills and Highest Degree Importance. One-way analysis of variance revealed that perceived importance in the leadership skills areas of Communication Skills, F(4,42)=3.78, p<.05, and Industry Knowledge Skills, F(4,41)=3.05, p<.05, and Total Importance Scores F(4,39)=2.66, p<.05 were statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held (see Table 4-43). Perceived importance in Human Skills, F(4,42)=1.36, p>.05, Conceptual Skills, F(4,42)=2.53, p>.05, Technical Skills, F(4,41)=1.61, p>.05, and Emotional Intelligence Skills, F(4,41)=1.48, p>.05, were not statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held. Large effects were found in perceived importance of Communication Skills (2=.19) and Industry Knowledge Skills (2=.15). Medium effects were found in perceived importance of Conceptual Skills (2=.12) and in Total Importance Score (2=.13). Small effects were found in perceived importance of Human Skills (2=.03), Technical Skills (2=.05), and Emotional Intelligence Skills (2=.04). Table 4-43 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Importance) by Highest Degree (N=47) df F Sig. 2 Human Skills (Importance) Between 4 1.36 0.27 0.03 Within 42 Conceptual Skills (Importance) Between 4 2.53 0.06 0.12 Within 42 Technical Skills (Importance) Between 4 1.61 0.19 0.05 Within 41 Communication Skills (Importance) Between 4 3.78 0.01 0.19 Within 41 Emotional Intelligence (Importance) Between 4 1.48 0.27 0.04 Within 41 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) Between 4 3.05 0.03 0.15 Within 41 Total Importance Between 4 2.66 0.05 0.13 Within 39 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score.

PAGE 135

119 Proficiency. One-way analysis of variance revealed that self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills, F(4,41)=2.93, p<.05 was statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held (see Table 4-44). Self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills, F(4,42)=.46, p>.05, Conceptual Skills, F(4,42)=2.24, p>.05, Communication Skills, F(4,42)=2.33, p>.05, Emotional Intelligence Skills, F(4,42)=.96, p>.05, and Industry Knowledge Skills F(4,42)=1.30, p>.05 were not statistically different as a function of the highest degree participants held. Total Proficiency Score F(4,41)=1.90, p>.05, was also not dependent on highest degree. Medium effects were found in the self-perceived proficiency of Conceptual Skills (2=.10), Technical Skills (2=.14), Communication Skills (2=.10), and in Total Proficiency (2=.07). A small effect was found in the self-perceived proficiency of Industry Knowledge Skills (2=.02). Table 4-44 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Highest Degree (N=47) df F Sig. 2 Human Skills (Proficiency) Between 4 0.46 0.77 -0.05 Within 42 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) Between 4 2.24 0.08 0.10 Within 42 Technical Skills (Proficiency) Between 4 2.93 0.03 0.14 Within 41 Communication Skills (Proficiency) Between 4 2.33 0.07 0.10 Within 42 Emotional Intelligence (Proficiency) Between 4 0.96 0.44 -0.00 Within 42 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) Between 4 1.30 0.29 0.02 Within 42 Total Proficiency Between 4 1.90 0.13 0.07 Within 41 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score.

PAGE 136

120 Leadership Skills and Degree Classification Importance. The scores for the importance of Human Skills ranged from 81.33 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 80.00 to 100.00 for those with social science degrees. The scores for the importance of Conceptual Skills ranged from 82.27 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 82.86 to 100.00 for participants with social science degrees. Scores was for the importance of Technical Skills ranged from 58.00 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 56.00 to 98.00 for those with social science degrees. Scores for the importance of Communication Skills ranged from 65.71 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 71.43 to 100.00 for participants with social science degrees. The range of scores for the importance of Emotional Intelligence was 81.43 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees to 77.14 to 100.00 for those with social science degrees. The range of scores for the importance of Industry Knowledge Skills was 73.85 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 75.38 to 100.00 for participants with social science degrees. Total Importance Scores ranged from 76.00 to 99.75 for participants with bench science degrees and 76.75 to 99.75 for those with social science degrees. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for importance and for total importance score by degree classification are presented in Table 4-45. Conceptual Skills was the only skill area in which participants with social science degrees (M=93.01, SD=5.24) reported higher scores for perceived importance than did participants with bench science degrees (M=91.17, SD=5.28). Small effects were found in the perceived importance of Conceptual Skills (d=.35), Technical Skills (d=.48), Communication Skills (d=.36), Emotional Intelligence Skills (d=.29), and Industry Knowledge Skills (d=.25).

PAGE 137

121 Table 4-45 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47) Degree n M SD d Human Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 28 92.14 91.97 5.53 5.79 0.03 Conceptual Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 28 91.17 93.01 5.28 5.24 0.35 Technical Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 27 82.21 77.63 12.79 9.59 0.48 Communication Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 27 90.68 87.92 8.14 7.60 0.36 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 27 94.06 92.49 5.50 6.58 0.29 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) Bench Social 19 27 92.06 90.31 8.11 7.14 0.25 Total Importance Bench Social 19 25 90.80 89.81 5.94 5.83 0.17 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-45 shows that participants with bench science degrees reported higher scores for importance in five of the six skill areas and total importance score. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that degree classification had no effect on the perceived importance of leadership skills (see Table 4-46). Table 4-46 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Degree Classification (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.10 45 0.92 Conceptual Skills (Importance) -1.18 45 0.25 Technical Skills (Importance) 1.39 44 0.17 Communication Skills (Importance) 1.18 44 0.25 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) 0.85 44 0.39 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) 0.77 44 0.44 Total Importance 0.55 42 0.59 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Scores for self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills ranged from 69.33 to 97.33 for participants with bench science degrees and 66.67 to 97.33 for those with social science degrees. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in

PAGE 138

122 Conceptual Skills was 58.57 to 98.57 for participants with bench science degrees and 65.71 to 97.14 for participants with social science degrees. The scores for self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills ranged from 46.00 to 98.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 56.00 to 96.00 for those with social science degrees. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills was 58.57 to 97.14 for participants with bench science degrees and 62.83 to 100.00 for those with social science degrees. The scores for self-perceive proficiency in Emotional Intelligence Skills ranged from 71.43 to 97.14 for participants with bench science degrees and 68.57 to 100.00 for those with social science degrees. The range of scores for self-perceived proficiency in Industry Knowledge Skills was 50.77 to 100.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 67.69 to 100.00 for participants with social science degrees. Total Proficiency Scores ranged from 64.00 to 96.00 for participants with bench science degrees and 66.25 to 96.50 for those with social science degrees. Mean scores for each of the six skills scales for self-perceived proficiency and for total proficiency score by degree classification are presented in Table 4-47. Participants with bench science degrees reported higher self-perceived proficiency scores in Human Skills (M=84.47, SD=9.07) and Technical Skills (M=71.68, SD=13.97), than did participants with social science degrees (M=84.16, SD=7.93; M=71.37, SD=11.06), respectively. Participants with social science degrees reported higher self-perceived proficiency scores in the remaining four leadership skill areas. For total proficiency scores, participants with social science degrees (M=82.43, SD=7.37) reported higher scores than did those with bench science degrees (M=81.65, SD=7.37). A small effect was found in the self-perceived proficiency of Industry Knowledge Skills (d=.29).

PAGE 139

123 Table 4-47 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47) Degree n M SD d Human Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 28 84.47 84.16 9.07 7.93 0.04 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 28 81.81 82.94 10.28 8.95 0.13 Technical Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 27 71.68 71.37 13.97 11.06 0.03 Communication Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 28 81.11 81.79 11.03 9.35 0.07 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 28 85.11 85.70 7.20 8.79 0.08 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) Bench Social 19 28 82.71 85.40 12.85 9.26 0.29 Total Proficiency Bench Social 19 27 81.65 82.43 9.27 7.37 0.11 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Table 4-47 shows that participants with social science degrees reported higher scores for self-perceived proficiency in four of the six skill areas and total proficiency score. However, independent sample t-tests revealed that degree classification had no effect on the perceived importance of leadership skills (see Table 4-48). Table 4-48 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Degree Classification (N=47) t df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) 0.13 45 0.90 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) -0.40 45 0.69 Technical Skills (Proficiency) 0.08 44 0.93 Communication Skills (Proficiency) -0.23 45 0.82 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) -0.24 45 0.81 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) -0.83 45 0.41 Total Proficiency -0.32 44 0.75 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Leadership Skills and Previous Leadership Development Importance. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between perceived importance of each of the leadership skill areas and total importance score and previous

PAGE 140

124 leadership development total score are presented in Table 4-49. There was no significant relationship perceived importance of leadership skills and previous leadership development. There was a low negative, but insignificant relationship between perceived importance of Technical Skills and previous leadership development, r=-.19, p>.05 when alpha was set apriori at .05. Table 4-49 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance) and Previous Leadership Development (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Importance) 0.07 46 0.65 Conceptual Skills (Importance) 0.02 46 0.89 Technical Skills (Importance) -0.19 45 0.22 Communication Skills (Importance) -0.02 45 0.88 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Importance) -0.04 45 0.79 Industry Knowledge Skills (Importance) -0.04 45 0.81 Total Importance -0.07 43 0.65 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Proficiency. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between self-perceived proficiency in each of the leadership skill areas and total proficiency score and previous leadership development are presented in Table 4-50. There was no significant relationship between self-perceived proficiency in leadership skills and previous leadership development. The relationship was low negative, but insignificant between the self-perceived proficiency level in Conceptual Skills and previous leadership development, r=-.12, p>.05, self-perceived proficiency level in Technical Skills and previous leadership development, r=-.19, p>.05, and between total proficiency score and previous leadership development, r=-.10, p>.05, when alpha was set apriori at .05.

PAGE 141

125 Table 4-50 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency) and Previous Leadership Development (N=47) r df Sig. (2-tailed) Human Skills (Proficiency) -0.00 46 0.99 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency) -0.12 46 0.44 Technical Skills (Proficiency) -0.19 45 0.22 Communication Skills (Proficiency) -0.09 46 0.55 Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency) -0.03 46 0.85 Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency) -0.09 46 0.56 Total Proficiency -0.10 45 0.49 Note: If more than 15% of the data for a particular scale was missing, that respondents data was not included in the analysis for that scale or for the Total Importance Score. Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Skills The previous sections described the relationship between individual demographic variables and leadership skills. Backward multiple regression was performed between all of the demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), highest degree, degree classification, and previous leadership development) and the self-perceived proficiency of the leadership skills (Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, Industry Knowledge Skills, and Total Proficiency) in order to explain the influence of demographic variables on participants self-perception of proficiency. Human Skills (Proficiency). Ethnicity and age yield the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on self-perceived proficiency of Human Skills. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained Human Skills, F(2, 43)=3.31, p<.05. R2 for the model was .13 and adjusted R2 was .09. Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression coefficients () for each variable are presented in Table 4-51. In terms of individual relationships between the independent variables and self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills, ethnicity, t=.68, p>.05, did not have a significant effect while age, r=.30, p<.05 did

PAGE 142

126 have a significant effect. When combined, the two variables, ethnicity and age explained nine percent of the variance in self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills. Table 4-51 Backward Regression Explaining Human Skills (Proficiency) (N=47) B SE Beta t Sig. (Constant) 49.98 13.96 3.58 0.00 Ethnicity 1.44 0.99 0.21 1.45 0.16 Age 0.49 0.25 0.28 1.98 0.05 Conceptual Skills (Proficiency). Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained self-perceived proficiency of Conceptual Skills. None of the independent variables exhibited significant individual relationships with self-perceived proficiency in Conceptual Skills. Technical Skills (Proficiency). Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained self-perceived proficiency of Technical Skills. The highest degree held by participants, F(4,41)=2.93, p<.05, was the only independent variable with a significant individual relationship with self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills. Communication Skills (Proficiency). Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained self-perceived proficiency of Communication Skills. None of the independent variables exhibited significant individual relationships with self-perceived proficiency in Communication Skills. Emotional Intelligence Skills (Proficiency). Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained self-perceived proficiency of Emotional Intelligence Skills. None of the independent variables exhibited

PAGE 143

127 significant individual relationships with self-perceived proficiency in Emotional Intelligence Skills. Industry Knowledge Skills (Proficiency). Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained self-perceived proficiency of Industry Knowledge Skills. None of the independent variables exhibited significant individual relationships with self-perceived proficiency in Industry Knowledge Skills. Total Proficiency. Regression analysis using the demographic variables did not yield a model that significantly explained Total Proficiency scores. None of the independent variables exhibited a significant relationship with Total Proficiency score on an individual basis. Summary This chapter presented the findings of the study. Findings were organized and presented by the following objectives: (1) determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders, and (5) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leasers. Chapter 5 will present more a detailed discussion of the findings. Conclusions drawn from the findings and recommendations will also be presented.

PAGE 144

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This chapter summarizes the study and discusses the conclusions, implications, and recommendations drawn from the findings of the study. The first section of the chapter provides an overview of the study, including the purpose and specific objectives, methodology, and findings. The remainder of the chapter discusses specific conclusions drawn from the findings, implications of the findings, and recommendations for future research. Summary of the Study Statement of the Problem Most employers, including those responsible for hiring state Extension directors, would agree that leadership skills are desirable in employees. Although an abundance of information about leadership exists, there is still a lack of consensus about specific aspects of leadership. This is especially true within the Extension system. Despite a commitment by the CSREES to a diverse workforce, including the leaders of the organization, there are still populations that are underrepresented in leadership positions within the Extension system. Mayer (2001) reported a discrepancy between the number of qualified women within the CSREES and the number of women in state-based director positions. The people in positions of power in the United States have traditionally been white males (Dorsey, 2001) and many business and industry leaders tend to replace themselves with people whose backgrounds, experiences, and 128

PAGE 145

129 characteristics are similar to their own (Sorcher & Brant, 2002). It is possible that these same trends are present within the Extension system. Empirical evidence exists that documents the lack of diversity in leadership positions, but the amount of research focusing on the influence of demographics on leadership styles and skills of Extension leaders is arguably thin. Furthermore, the organization has made no attempt to define specific leadership styles and skills it is seeking in its leaders. Several questions thus arise. What specific leadership skills do its leaders need to be successful? Which leadership styles do most leaders within the organization possess? What role do demographic characteristics play in an individuals leadership style and skills? Are diverse populations underrepresented in leadership positions in Extension as a function of different leadership styles and skills? Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Specifically, this study sought to: (1) determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders, and (5) explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders.

PAGE 146

130 Methodology To accomplish the specific objectives, the study was conducted in two phases with two different populations. The first phase was conducted to accomplish objective one and utilized qualitative interviews with administrative heads of agriculture, as identified by NASULGC. A total of 11 administrative heads of agriculture were invited to participate in the interviews. Seven of the 11 individuals that were included in this sample participated for a response rate of 63.3%. Data in this phase were collected during audio-taped telephone interviews. Following the interviews, the tapes were transcribed. The transcripts and audio-tapes were analyzed for content and coded. Major themes that emerged from the data were used to identify major leadership skill areas. Sub-skills that emerged were clustered into one of the skill areas and specific competencies were developed based on the sub-skills. These skill areas and specific competencies were used to develop the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument used in the second phase of the study. The second phase of the study was conducted to accomplish objectives two through five and utilized survey (descriptive) research and a correlational and causal comparative, or ex post facto, design. The dependent variables in the study were leadership styles and skills. The independent variables were gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership positions, highest degree held, classification of highest degree, and previous leadership development and training. In the second phase, the current Extension leaders in each of the CSREES state partner institutions, as identified by the individuals listed in the CSREES Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002), were included in the population for a total of 80

PAGE 147

131 individuals. Responses were obtained from 49 of the 80 individuals for a response rate of 61.25%. Of these 49 responses, 47 contained usable data. Data in this phase were collected on-line for the leadership competency instrument, and by mail for the leadership style instrument and late responders to the leadership competency instrument. Data analysis procedures consisted of frequencies, descriptives, independent sample t-tests, Pearson Product Moment correlations, omega-squared, Cohens d, one-way analysis of variance, and backward multiple regression. Findings The findings of this study are summarized in relation to the objectives of the study presented in Chapter 1. Objective One Objective one sought to determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads. Major themes served as leadership skill areas. Six leadership skill areas were identified: human skills, conceptual skills, technical skills, communication skills, emotional intelligence skills, and industry knowledge skills. Forty-five minor themes were identified and clustered into one of the six skill areas. From these themes, a total of 80 specific leadership competencies were identified. Objective Two Objective two sought to describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style. The demographic variables of gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership positions, highest degree held, science classification of highest degree held, and involvement in previous leadership development and training were included in this study.

PAGE 148

132 Of the 47 participants who participated in the second phase of the study, 70.2% were male and 29.8% were female. Almost 81% of the study participants reported their ethnicity as white, 15% reported black or African American, and 2% each reported Asian and Hispanic or Latino. The participants ranged in age from 44 to 66 years. The mean age of the participants was 54.5 years. The mean tenure in the Cooperative Extension System was 22 years and ranged from 3 to 37 years. In terms of tenure in leadership positions within the Cooperative Extension System, the mean was 11.9 years and ranged from 1 to 26 years. Over three-quarters (76.6%) of the study participants held a doctor of philosophy degree as their highest degree while 12% held a masters degree, 6.4% held a doctor of education degree, and 2.1% each held a specialist degree and a doctor of veterinary medicine degree. Sixty percent of the study participants held their highest degree in a social science discipline and 40% held their highest degree in a bench science discipline. Participants had previous experience in an average of 3.19 leadership courses/workshops. When separated by the type of experience, participants reported involvement in an average of 1.30 leadership courses in college, 1.11 leadership courses/workshops conducted by non-Extension presented, and .93 leadership courses/workshops within Extension. In terms of leadership style, study participants reported engaging in behaviors related to transformational leadership more often than behaviors related to transactional leadership or laissez-faire leadership. On a scale from zero to four, participants had the highest mean scores for Transformational Leadership Style (M=3.41, SD=.35), followed

PAGE 149

133 by Transactional Leadership Style (M=1.79, SD=.41) and Laissez-Faire Leadership (M=.50, SD=.49). Objective Three Objective three sought to assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill set is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill set. In terms of perceived importance, participants as a whole rated each leadership skill area as important. All scores were above 75 for the possible range of 20 to 100. The highest mean score was for the importance of Emotional Intelligence Skills (M=93.14, SD=6.14), followed by Conceptual Skills (M=92.27, SD=5.28), Human Skills (M=92.04, SD=5.62), Industry Knowledge Skills (M=91.04, SD=7.52), Communication Skills (M=89.06, SD=7.86), and Technical Skills (M=79.53, SD=11.13), respectively. The Technical Skills area was the only skill area that had a mean score for perceived importance below 80. In terms of self-perceived proficiency in each of the skill areas, participants reported lower means than for importance. All scores were above 70 for the possible range of 20 to 100. The highest mean score for self-perceived proficiency was for Emotional Intelligence Skills (M=85.46, SD=8.10), followed by Industry Knowledge Skills (M=84.31, SD=10.80), Human Skills (M=84.28, SD=8.31), Conceptual Skills (M=82.49, SD=9.48), Communication Skills (M=81.51, SD=9.95), and Technical Skills (M=71.50, SD=12.20), respectively. Mean scores were higher for perceived importance than for self-perceived level of proficiency in all six skill areas. The difference between perceived importance and self-perceived proficiency was greatest for Conceptual Skills (Mean Difference=9.78), followed by Technical Skills (Mean Difference=8.02), Human Skills (Mean Difference=7.76), Emotional Intelligence Skills (Mean Difference=7.68),

PAGE 150

134 Communication Skills (Mean Difference=7.55), and Industry Knowledge Skills (Mean Difference=6.73). Objective Four Objective four sought to explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders. Individual relationships between independent variables and leadership styles were analyzed. Gender had a significant effect on the Idealized Influence (Attributed) leadership scale (t(45)=-2.12, p<.05) with female scoring significantly higher than males. Overall, gender had no significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (t(45)=-1.26, p>.05), or Transactional Leadership Style (t(45)=-.51, p>.05). Ethnicity had no significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (t(43)=.80, p>.05), or Transactional Leadership (t(43)=1.13, p>.05). Age did not have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (r=.06, p>.05), or Transactional Leadership Style (r=.10, p>.05) although the relationship between age and transactional leadership was a low positive relationship. Tenure in Extension had a significant moderate relationship with the Management-by-Exception (Active) (r=-.36, p<.05), and Management-by-Exception (Passive) (r=-.33, p<.05), leadership scales and the Transactional Leadership Style (r=-.49, p<.05). Tenure in Extension did not have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (r=-.07, p>.05). Tenure in Extension leadership position did not have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (r=.07, p>.05) or Transactional Leadership Style (r=-.25, p>.05). The highest degree held by participants had a significant effect on the Management-by-Exception (Passive) (F(4,42)=3.01, p<.05) leadership scale, but did not have a significant effect on overall Transformational Leadership Style (F(4,42)=.48, p>.05) or Transactional Leadership Style (F(4,42)=.92, p>.05). Degree classification had

PAGE 151

135 a significant effect on Transactional Leadership Style (t(45)=2.11, p<.05) with participants with bench science degrees scoring significantly higher than those with social science degrees. Degree classification did not have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership style (t(45)=.35, p>.05). Previous leadership development had a significant effect on the Management-by-Exception (r=-.29, p<.05) leadership scale, but did not have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style (r=-.21, p>.05) or Transactional Leadership Style (r=-.28, p>.05). Backward multiple regression analysis was then performed to explain the influence of all of the demographic variables on Transformational Leadership Style, Transactional Leadership Style, and Laissez-Faire Leadership. Transformational Leadership Style was best explained with a model including ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous leadership development total score that explained 13% of the variance. Transactional Leadership Style was best explained with a model including highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score, which explained 28% of the variance. For Laissez-Faire Leadership, there was no model that significantly explained the influence of demographic variables. Objective Five Objective five sought to explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders. Individual relationships between each of the demographic variables and perceived importance of the leadership skills were analyzed. Gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), degree classification, and previous leadership development had no significant effect on perceived importance of any of the six leadership skill areas. Highest degree

PAGE 152

136 had a significant effect on the perceived importance of Communication Skills (F(4,41)=3.78, p<.05), and Industry Knowledge Skills (F(4,41)=3.05, p<.05) but did not have a significant effect on the perceived importance of the other four leadership skill areas. Individual relationships between each of the variables and participants perception of their proficiency in each of the leadership areas were also analyzed. Gender, ethnicity, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), degree classification, and previous leadership development had no significant effect on participants perceived level of proficiency in any of the six leadership skill areas. Age had a significant effect on self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills (r=.30, p<.05) but did not have a significant effect in the other five leadership skill areas. Highest degree had a significant effect on self-proficiency in Technical Skills (F(4,41)=2.93, p<.05) but did not have a significant effect in the other five leadership skills. Backward multiple regression analysis was then performed to explain the influence of all of the demographic variables on the participants self-perceived proficiency in each of the six leadership skill areas. Proficiency in Human Skills was best explained by a model including ethnicity and age, which explained 9% of the variance. There was no model that significantly explained proficiency in the leadership skills areas of Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, or Industry Knowledge Skills. Conclusions Because the quantitative phase of this study was a census study of Extension leaders directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of Extension within each state, the generalizability of the conclusions and recommendations of the study beyond the

PAGE 153

137 population described should be carefully considered. With this limitation in mind, the following conclusions were derived from the findings of the five research objectives. Leadership skill areas needed by Extension leaders are: Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. Administrative heads of agriculture from larger schools placed less importance on computer skills than do administrative heads of agriculture from smaller schools. Females and minorities are underrepresented in Extension leadership positions. The majority of participants held their highest degree in social science disciplines. Participants engaged in Transformational Leadership Style behaviors more often than they engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills rated between important and very important. Technical skills were rated between somewhat important and important. Emotional Intelligence skills were rated as most important and Technical Skills were rated as least important. Participants ranked themselves between above average and very proficient in terms of their proficiency in Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. Participants ranked themselves between about average and above average in proficiency in technical skills. Participants were most proficient in Emotional Intelligence Skills and least proficient in Technical Skills. There was a significant, moderately negative relationship between tenure in Extension and Transactional Leadership Style. Participants with bench science degrees engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors significantly more often than those with social science backgrounds. Ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transformational Leadership Style. Participants highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for

PAGE 154

138 explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transactional Leadership Style. Demographics did not significantly influence Transformational Leadership Styles. With the exception of tenure in Extension and degree classification, demographics did not significantly influence Transactional Leadership Styles. Ethnicity and age were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Human Skills. With the exception of Human Skills, demographics did not significantly influence leadership skills. Discussion and Implications Objective One Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their Administrative Head Leadership skill areas needed by Extension leaders are: Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills Because the administrative heads were provided a skills summary sheet prior to the interview that reviewed the leadership skill areas found in the review of literature (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955, Robbins, et al., 2001) it was to be expected that interview participants would identify leadership competencies within the areas of Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills as being important. However, in this study, Communication Skills, a leadership skill area not previously identified in leadership skills literature as a separate, important skill area emerged as another skill area of leadership needed by Extension leaders. Holder (1990) did however recommend the inclusion of communication and listening skills, as well as visionary and futurism training, and enabling skills such as empowerment and delegation be included in Extension leadership training programs.

PAGE 155

139 It is possible that participants in both phases of the study did not recognize communication as a part of leadership. Participants of the study had at least a masters degree and most all college degrees require a communications course of some sort. Yet, on the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument, no participant included a communications course when asked about previous experience in leadership development. Findings of this study indicated that all six leadership skill areas are important for Extension leaders to possess and thus, leadership development programs should incorporate all six areas. It must be noted, however, that because the largest gap between perceived importance and self-perceived proficiency occurred within the conceptual skills area, additional emphasis should be placed on the development of conceptual skills as a whole and the specific competencies contained within this leadership skill area. In essence this finding supports literature, which suggested that conceptual skills are more important at higher levels of leadership within an organization. Perhaps current Extension leaders have not received enough training in the Conceptual Skills area prior to assuming a senior leadership position within the organization, and therefore, report the largest difference between perceived importance and self-perceived proficiency in the Conceptual Skills area. Administrative heads of agriculture from larger schools placed less importance on computer skills than do administrative heads of agriculture from smaller schools Technical Skills was the leadership skill area that had the most disagreement among interview participants. Hicks & Gullet (1975) suggested that the amount of technical skills needed by leaders decreased the higher an individual climbed within the organizational hierarchy. Several of the participants in this study supported this notion,

PAGE 156

140 especially related to computer and PC software skills. However, other study participants emphasized the importance of these same skills as skills needed by Extension professional in order for them to be successful. The individuals that perceived these skills to be less important represented the larger land-grant institutions included in this phase of the study, whereas those who saw them as more important were from the smaller land-grant universities and the 1862 land-grant university represented in this study. For example, one participant who was from a large land-grant institution in the study stated: Um, obviously the things that uh, that you mention there in terms of uh computers uh are very useful but in many cases uh if they dont have that thats not a great limitation because there are people right next to them that have those skills uh very strongly and uh use them and provide that support to the leader. It is likely that the Extension leaders at the larger institutions have more resources and support at their disposal than do the Extension leaders at the smaller schools, and that these additional resources decrease the perceived importance of computer related competencies in the technical skills area. Objective Two Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their Demographics and Leadership Style Females and minorities are underrepresented in Extension leadership positions. In this study, 70.2% (n=33) of participants were male and 29.8% (n=14) were female. This finding is actually very representative of the total population frame of 80 Extension leaders. In the total population, 71.25% (n=57) were male and 28.75% (n=23) were female. When analyzed by ethnicity, white males still comprised the majority of participants. In this study, 53.19% (n=25) were white males, 27.66% (n=13) were white females, 12.76% (n=6) were Black or African American males (n=6), and there was

PAGE 157

141 2.13% of each Asian males (n=1), Hispanic or Latino males (n=1), and Black or African American females (n=1). Although the majority of participants were white males, the findings of this study are nonetheless encouraging in that they show more diverse populations serving in senior leadership positions within Extension. In a study by Clark (1992), of the 90.9% (n=70) of the state directors of the Cooperative Extension Service from both 1862 and 1890 institutions that participated in the study, 91.4% (n=64) were male, as compared to the 70.2% in the present study. Thus, there are more females in senior leadership positions within Extension today than there were a decade ago. Strides are being made towards gender diversity as a whole, but there is still a need to recruit minorities, and more specifically, minority females. Moore and Jones (2001) reported that of the 17 females in state director/administrator, associate director/associate administrator, or interim director/acting associate administrator, eight were Black or African American: one associate director, four state administrators, two associate administrators, and one associate acting administrator. In the present study, there was only one black female participant. While the findings of this study are encouraging, several concerns still remain. Findings of this study suggest that diverse populations are not underrepresented in senior leadership positions in Extension as a function of different leadership styles and skills. It is possible that women and minorities are underrepresented in Extension leadership positions for reasons other than differences in leadership styles and skills. For example, it is possible that women and minorities do not want such senior leadership positions. Perhaps they do not want to have to balance family and work concerns, and therefore do

PAGE 158

142 not actively seek leadership positions within the organization. Further research should be conducted to examine the motives of females who do and do not seek senior leadership positions. The majority of participants held their highest degree in social science disciplines In this study, 59.6% of participants held their highest degree in social science degrees as opposed to bench science degrees. When analyzed by gender, the majority of participants were white males, and of those, 52% were from social science backgrounds. These findings are encouraging for the diversity efforts of Extension in that it showed that Extension leaders are becoming more diverse in terms of educational background, whereas traditionally, leadership positions within the organization were held by bench scientists. It must be pointed out, however, that this study only classified participants according to their highest degree. It is possible that some of the participants who held their highest degree in a social science held other degrees in bench science disciplines. If they were promoted to a leadership position in Extension from a state specialist position, for example, it is quite possible that their academic home was actually in a bench science discipline rather than a social science discipline. Participants engaged in Transformational Leadership Style behaviors more often than they engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors The mean score for Transformational Leadership Style was M=3.41, SD=.35 and the mean score for Transactional Leadership Style was M=1.79, SD= .41. The possible range of means was from zero to four where a zero indicated that a leader engaged in a particular behavior not at all, one indicated that the leader engaged in the behavior once in a while, two indicated that the leader engaged in the behavior sometimes, three

PAGE 159

143 indicated that the leader engaged in the behavior fairly often, and a four indicated that the leader engaged in the behavior frequently, if not always. Participants in this study were engaging in transactional leadership behaviors once in a while to sometimes and engaged in transformational leadership behaviors fairly often to frequently, if not always. Using transformational leadership as a theoretical base, the fact that participants reported engaging in both types of behaviors at least every once in a while is to be expected. Bass (1985a) viewed transformational leadership and transactional leadership as complimentary constructs. According to Bass, it is necessary for leaders to engage in both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Results of this study supports this notion. This finding is important in that it shows the leaders are not trying to replace one leadership style with the other, but rather are using both. They are using transformational leadership more often and thus, are augmenting the effects of transactional leadership, a major premise of transformational leadership theory. Objective Three Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe Each Skill Area Is As Well As How Proficient They Believe They Are In Each Skill Area Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills were rated between important and very important. Technical skills were rated between somewhat important and important Five of the six leadership skill areas had means for perceived importance that were between 80 and 100. The possible range of scores was 20 to 100. Scores between 20 and 40 represented skill areas that were not important to of little importance, scores between 40 and 60 represented skill areas that were between of little importance and somewhat important, scores between 60 and 80 represented skill areas that were between somewhat important and important, and scores between 80 and 100 represented skill

PAGE 160

144 areas that were between important and very important. Therefore, in this study, Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills were all perceived as important to very important for Extension leaders to possess. Technical Skills were somewhat important to important for Extension leaders to have. Overall, participants rated all of the competencies as important to very important. This finding could suggest one of two things. It could indicate that a great job was done in developing a relevant instrument for assessing leadership competencies in Extension. It could also suggest that perhaps participants are trying to do all things for all people, and therefore see everything as important. Emotional Intelligence Skills were rated as most important and Technical Skills were rated as least important Participants perceived Emotional Intelligence Skills (M=93.14, SD=6.14) to be the most important of the six leadership skills areas. In such difficult budget times, demands on faculty time continue to increase. It is no surprise that the Emotional Intelligence Skills area, which included competencies such as time management and balancing personal and professional lives, was perceived as the most important. Although not unexpected, it is interesting to find Emotional Intelligence Skills rated most important. Many of the sub-skills and specific competencies within this skill area are the same skill areas and competencies often left out of leadership training and development. For example, it is rare to find a leadership course, workshop, or seminar on developing a sense of humor, yet possessing a sense of humor was one of the specific leadership competencies mentioned by more than one of the interview participants in this study. It is not so rare to find leadership development in competencies such as conflict

PAGE 161

145 resolution and negotiation, but overall, the competencies within the Emotional Intelligence Skills area are generally not taught in leadership training and development courses. Perhaps the fact these competencies are so rarely taught contributes to the perceived importance of them by Extension leaders. Participants perceived Technical Skills (M=79.52, SD=11.13) to be the least important of the six leadership skill areas. The mean for the Technical Skills areas was the only mean below 80. This finding is consistent with the literature (Hicks & Gullett, 1975) that reported the amount of technical skills required by leaders decreased the higher in the organizational hierarchy leaders were. Since the leaders in this study were in the most senior leadership positions within the organization, it is to be expected that the amount of technical skills they require would be less than that of other skill areas and therefore perceived as less important. It must be noted however, that although the Technical Skills area was rated as least important, overall, the competencies were still rated between somewhat important and important and in reality, were rated closer to the important end of that scale. The Technical Skills area also had the largest standard deviation indicating more deviation from the mean of the distribution for this skill area than for any of the other skill areas. In essence, this finding supports the finding of the qualitative interview portion of the study that found technical skills to be the area of the most disagreement. In other words, some of the current Extension leaders perceived technical skills competencies to be closer to very important while others perceived them to be closer to somewhat important. Perhaps like in the qualitative portion of the study, those that perceive them to be less important are from the larger institutions with more resources

PAGE 162

146 and those that perceive them to be more important are from the smaller institutions with fewer resources at their disposal. Participants ranked themselves between above average and very proficient in terms of their proficiency in Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. Participants ranked themselves between average and above average in proficiency in technical skills Five of the six leadership skill areas had means for self-perceived proficiency that were between 80 and 100. The possible range of scores was 20 to 100. Scores between 20 and 40 represented proficiencies in skill areas from none to below average proficiency, scores between 40 and 60 represented proficiencies in skill areas that were between of below average proficiency and about average proficiency, scores between 60 and 80 represented proficiencies in skill areas that were between about average proficiency and above average proficiency, and scores between 80 and 100 represented proficiencies in skill areas that were above average proficiency and very proficient. Therefore, in this study, participants perceived themselves to be between above average in proficiency to very proficient in Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. They perceived their proficiency in Technical Skills to be between about average proficiency and very proficient. Previous research has offered conflicting findings related to whether leaders tend to rate themselves higher on self-reported leadership measures than do people who are familiar with their styles and abilities. Holder (1990) reported that Extension faculty members rated their middle managers lower on leadership practices and skills than the managers rated themselves. In contrast, Cobb (1989) reported no significant differences in the leadership effectiveness ratings of the CEDs who rated themselves and the county

PAGE 163

147 Extension agents who rated their CEDs. A study by Rudd (2000) offered conflicting finding based on gender. In his study, male CEDs ranked themselves higher on all five leadership practices measured by the LPI than did there observers whereas female CEDs ranked themselves lower in four of the five leadership areas than did their observers. Future research involving superiors and subordinates of the participants in the present study needs to be conducted to determine if participants have a false sense of security about their own level of proficiency in each competency, or if they in fact actually view their abilities as they are. Participants were most proficient in Emotional Intelligence Skills and least proficient in Technical Skills Participants perceived themselves to be most proficient in Emotional Intelligence leadership skills (M=85.46, SD=8.10). After finding that participants ranked Emotional Intelligence skills as most important, it was not unexpected to find that they perceived themselves to be most proficient in the same skill area. It is to be expected that participants in a study involving self-reported data are not likely to perceive themselves to be poor in a skill area they believe is very important. Perhaps because participants perceived the Emotional Intelligence Skills area to be most important, they have sought opportunities to develop such skills and therefore perceive themselves to be more proficient than in other skill areas in which they have not sought development opportunities. Participants perceived themselves to be least proficient in the Technical skills area (M=71.50, SD=12.20). The mean for Technical Skills was the only mean below 80. It is interesting to note that participants also believed Technical Skills were the least important of the six skills. This is not surprising based on the self-reported nature of the data. It

PAGE 164

148 may be possible that the reason Technical Skills are rated as least important is because participants see them as an area of weakness. It is also quite possible that because Technical Skills are seen as least important, participants have chosen to develop their skills in areas they consider to be more important and not sought opportunities to develop their technical skills. It must also be noted that self-perceived proficiency in the Technical Skills area had the largest standard deviation indication variation about the mean. This again supports the finding from the qualitative portion of the study. Further research should be conducted that analyzes the specific competencies to determine if the disagreement is a function of the computer related competencies or competencies such as budgeting and finance. Objective Four Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Styles of Current Extension Leaders There was a significant, moderately negative relationship between tenure in Extension and Transactional Leadership Style There was a significant relationship between tenure in Extension and Transactional Leadership Style. The relationship was moderately negative (r=-.49, p<.05). In other words, the longer participants had been in the Extension system, the less often they engaged in transactional leadership behaviors. It should be noted however, that there was not a significant relationship between tenure in Extension and Transformational Leadership Style. Thus, participants did not differ in how often they engaged in transformational leadership behaviors, only transactional leadership behaviors. This finding clouds rather than clarifies the relationship between tenure in an organization and leadership style. According to Hambrick and Mason (1984), the more

PAGE 165

149 tenure leaders have within an organization, the greater commitment they would have towards maintaining the status quo. If this is true, then tenure in Extension would be expected to have a positive rather negative relationship with Transactional Leadership Style. The fact that there was a significant negative relationship also contradicts the findings of Sykes (1995) who reported that tenure within the Extension system did not influence either transformational or transactional leadership behavior. Although this finding does not confirm findings of previous studies, it is encouraging for Extension. On a positive note, leaders with less tenure in the Extension system are engaging in transformational leadership behaviors just as often as leaders who have more tenure and regardless of how long leaders have been in Extension, participants reported engaging in transformational leadership behaviors more often than transactional leadership behaviors. The only significant change that is occurring in leaders the longer they are in Extension is the decrease in frequency of transactional leadership behaviors. Perhaps when leaders enter the Extension system, they believe that to achieve desired outcomes, the must interact with followers in such a way that performance that meets expectations is rewarded and performance that does not meet performance is punished in some way. This belief may be due, in part, to their previous experiences as a leader in other organizations or as a follower, both variables not addressed in the present study. In any event, the longer are in Extension the less frequently they engage in this type of exchange interaction, thus accounting for the significant decrease in Transactional Leadership Style. It is also encouraging to see that leaders, regardless of tenure, are still engaging in behaviors associated with Transactional Leadership Style sometimes, although with less

PAGE 166

150 frequency than they are engaging in transformational leadership behaviors. This finding reflects Basss theory of transformational leadership that leaders need to engage in both transformational and transactional leadership and that transformational leadership should augment the effects of transactional leadership. Participants with bench science degrees engaged in Transactional Leadership Style behaviors significantly more often than those with social science backgrounds The mean score for Transactional Leadership Style was significantly higher for participants with bench science degrees (M=1.94, SD=.45) than for those with social science degrees (M=1.69, SD=.46). This finding is somewhat consistent with the findings of (Sykes, 1995). In her study, CEDs from home economics, a social science discipline, perceived themselves to be more transformational than their counterparts from agricultural programs, more of the bench science agricultural disciplines. Lowery (1996) reported that CEDs with Community/Resource Development and agricultural areas of responsibility focus more on subject matter knowledge and technical expertise as compared to leadership behaviors. In contrast to both of these studies, Cobb (1989) reported no significant differences in the leadership effectiveness of CEDs as a function of previous program area. Although these other studies did not report the degree classification of individuals within each program area, perhaps the structure and focus on subject matter associated with bench science degree influences leaders to engage in the exchange of behavior for rewards type behaviors that are more consistent with transactional leadership.

PAGE 167

151 Ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership position(s), and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transformational Leadership Style The ethnicity of participants, the participant's tenure in Extension, and the score for total previous leadership development experience were the variables included in the model that best explained total variance in Transformational Leadership Style. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained the variance. R2 for the model was .19 and adjusted R2 was .13. The three variables collectively explained 13% of the variance in Transformational Leadership Style, the dependent variable. None of the three variables had a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style when individual relationship between the independent and dependent variables were analyzed. In terms of ethnicity, previous literature suggests that African-American extension CEDs perceive themselves to be more transformational (Sykes, 1995). Lowery (1996) found that 80% of the African-American/Other CEDs in her study reported a preference for the leadership practice of inspiring others while white CEDs preferred coaching others. However, in the present study, whites reported higher scores, although not statistically different, for Transformational Leadership Style. This study found that tenure in Extension leadership position did not by itself have a significant effect on Transformational Leadership Style. This finding is consistent with that of Sykes (1995) and Cobb (1989). Cobb hypothesized that individuals with more tenure as a CED would have higher levels of leadership effectiveness as compared to those with less tenure in a leadership position. However, findings of his study found no significant difference between CED leadership effectiveness as a function of tenure in a leadership position. Findings of the present study, as well as those of the previous

PAGE 168

152 studies cited, suggest that Extension leaders are interested in maintaining high levels of transformational leadership behaviors, regardless of tenure. If leadership styles can be taught and learned (Bass, 1990b, 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 1987), then it would seem logical that the more leadership training a participant had been exposed to, the more they would engage in transformational leadership behaviors. Findings of this study do not support that notion. However, findings do support those of Payne et al. (1997) that found when trained, there is no difference between the transformational leadership behaviors of men and women. In this study, previous leadership development total score had a negative relationship with Transformational Leadership Style (r=-.21, p<.05). This finding could suggest that when asked to report previous experience with leadership development courses, seminars, and/or workshops, study participants tended to report those experiences that were in fact management development activities rather than leadership development activities, and thus, be more related to the development of transactional leadership behaviors rather than transformational behaviors. It is also possible that on-the-job training would account for the fact that there were no statistical differences between any of the groups in Transformational Leadership Style. The fact that participants reported an average only three previous leadership development activities (M=3.19, SD=3.28) is also an area of concern. The finding that all participants had more tenure in Extension than they did in an Extension leadership position suggests that Extension leaders continue to be promoted from within the organization as opposed to being hired directly into leadership positions. This finding, coupled with the fact that respondents reported participating in, on the average, less than

PAGE 169

153 one leadership development activity conducted within Extension lends credibility to the notion that Extension leaders may be hired into the system to perform a job that requires one set of skills, and then are promoted into another position requiring another set of skills without being adequately prepared for the new position. It may be that many senior leaders in Extension were initially hired for their technical expertise rather than their leadership abilities. Perhaps the open-ended nature of the questions used to collect the self-reported data related to previous leadership development experience created some measurement error. Perhaps study participants did not report everything they should have reported. In fact, several participants did not report any previous leadership development courses, seminars, and/or workshops. Participants highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Transactional Leadership Style The highest degree of participants, tenure in Extension, and the score for total previous leadership development experience were the variables included in the model that best explained total variance in Transactional Leadership Style. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained the variance. R2 for the model was .33 and adjusted R2 was .28. The three variables collectively explained 28% of the variance in Transactional Leadership Style, the dependent variable. It would seem as though the more education an individual has, the more accustomed they are to rewards for performance behaviors and thus, highest degree would play a role in Transactional Leadership Sstyle. Sykes' (1995) study found that type of degree beyond a bachelor's degree had no significant effect on perceive

PAGE 170

154 transformational leadership, but nothing was reported for transactional behaviors. It is not surprising that a low negative relationship existed between previous leadership development and Transactional Leadership Style. This means that as previous leadership score increased, transactional leadership decreased, a finding that is consistent with that of Payne et al. (1997). Demographics did not significantly influence Transformational Leadership Style. With the exception of tenure in Extension and degree classification, demographics did not significantly influence Transactional Leadership Style When relationships between the independent demographic variables and Transformational Leadership Style, the dependent variable, were analyzed on an individual basis, none of the demographic variables significantly influenced Transformational Leadership Style. When relationships between the independent demographic variables and Transactional Leadership Style, the dependent variable, were analyzed on an individual basis, only two demographic variables, tenure in Extension and degree classification significantly influenced Transactional Leadership Style. As previously discussed, participants with bench science degrees engaged in transactional leadership behaviors significantly more often than those with social science degrees and as tenure in Extension increased, participants engaged in transactional leadership behaviors significantly more often. The significance of these findings lie in the fact that the variables most commonly associated with differences in leadership style, such as gender and ethnicity, did not have a significant effect on leadership style, either Transformational Leadership Style or Transactional Leadership Style. This suggests that females and African-American leaders are not underrepresented as a function of their perceived leadership style. Perhaps they are still underrepresented in senior leadership positions within Extension

PAGE 171

155 because others perceive them to lead differently. The perceptions of others related to both the leadership style and leadership effectiveness of female and minority Extension leaders should be addressed in future research. Objective Five Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Skills of Current Extension Leaders Ethnicity and age were the variables that provided the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on Human Skills The ethnicity of participants and the age of participants were the variables included in the model that best explained total variance in self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills. Regression analysis revealed that the model significantly explained the variance. R2 for the model was .13 and adjusted R2 was .09. The two variables collectively explained 9% of the variance in self-perceived proficiency in Human Skills, the dependent variable. It was not entirely unexpected that age would affect proficiency in the leadership skills. Although the influence of demographics on perceived proficiency in leadership skills has not been extensively documented in the literature, it has been suggested that skills can be developed through experience (Goleman, 1988; Katz, 1955, Nahavandi, 2000). The fact that age had a significant, positive relationship with proficiency in Human Skills supports this notion and suggests that the experiences that come with age allow individuals to perceive themselves as more proficient in the Human Skills area of leadership skills. Ethnicity was not expected to play a major role in the proficiency of study participants in the leadership skill areas. Sykes (1995) reported that African-American CEDs in her study perceived themselves to be significantly more transformational than CEDs of other races. Transformational leaders empower people, which could correlate to

PAGE 172

156 increased proficiency in human skills as compared to transactional leaders. It could be expected then that African-Americans would have higher self-perceived proficiency in the human skills than whites. However, in this study, the opposite was found. White participants scored higher, although not significantly higher, than black participants in the Human Skills area. With the exception of human skills, demographics did not significantly influence leadership skills The independent variables did not have a significant effect on the self-perceived proficiency of participants in the leadership skill areas of Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills. One way analysis of variance did reveal that self-perceived proficiency in Technical Skills (F(4,41)=2.93, p<.05) was statistically different as a function of age, but no regression model significantly explained the variance in Technical Skills. Age was the only independent variable that had a significant effect (r=.30, p<.04) on Human Skills and was included in the model that significantly explained variance in Human Skills. There is little empirical evidence that supports a relationship between age and leadership skill development. However, Goleman (1998) suggested that emotional intelligence skills increased with age. Findings of this study do not support this notion. In this study, there was very little variability in self-perceived proficiency between different groups of people in each of the skill areas. More influence of demographics on the leadership skills in general was expected. However, any significant differences were due to variables other than those included in this study. It must be noted, however, that the competencies contained in the Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument were identified by the individuals responsible for

PAGE 173

157 hiring Extension leaders as those competencies needed by leaders. If these are the competencies that all leaders need, the question must be asked it we really desire to see diversity in terms of proficiency within the competencies. Perhaps this is one area in which Extension does not need to diversify its leaders. Recommendations Based upon the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations were made: Leadership development programs for Extension administrators should focus on developing the leadership skills of participants in the areas of human skills, conceptual skills, technical skills, communication skills, emotional intelligence skills, and industry knowledge skills. These leadership skill areas and the specific competencies on the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument were identified because of their perceived importance by the administrative heads of current Extension leaders and the current leaders themselves perceived these as important. Because communication skills emerged as a leadership skill area important for Extension leaders to have, communications courses and workshops should be recognized as necessary leadership development activities. The largest gap between perceived importance and self-perceived proficiency occurred in the area of conceptual skills. Competencies in this area of development, such as strategic thinking and creating a long term vision, should be included in Extension leadership development programs for Extension administrators. In this study, gender had no effect on overall transformational leadership style, overall transactional leadership style, or perceived proficiency in the leadership skill areas. Based on this finding, gender should not be a basis of discrimination when hiring Extension leaders. In this study, ethnicity had no effect on overall transformational leadership style, overall transactional leadership style, or perceived proficiency in the leadership skill areas. Based on this finding, ethnicity should not be a basis of discrimination when hiring Extension leaders. Because tenure in Extension did not have a significant effect on perceived proficiency in any of the six leadership skill areas, it may not be as important to promote from within as once perceived.

PAGE 174

158 In this study, demographics exhibited little significant effect on the leadership styles or leadership skills participants. Based on this finding, Extension could recruit individuals with diverse backgrounds without dramatic changes in the leadership styles and skills of the leaders. Suggestions for Additional Research Based upon the findings and conclusions of this study, the following suggestions for additional research were made: Because this was a census study and only those individuals within each state directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of Extension, typically the state director or state administrator were included and the majority of the participants were white males, additional research needs to be conducted with a larger population, such as including associate directors and administrators and assistant directors and administrators, that perhaps includes more diversity. Some of the administrative heads of agriculture that participated in the study perceived technical skills to be of little importance. It appears as though those from smaller institutions perceived them to be more important than those from smaller institutions. Technical skills was the leadership skills area participants perceived to be of least importance. In this study, no data were collected on the size of the institution participants were from and the availability of technical support. Additional research is needed in this area to determine if perceived importance is actually a function of such factors or simply that many professionals are becoming more computer literate. This study identified specific leadership competencies needed by Extension leaders and assessed the self-perceived proficiency of current leaders in each competency. Future research should be conducted to develop an objective measure of leadership knowledge related to the six leadership skill areas. Because both the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X and the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument were self-reported instruments, additional research should be conducted using these instruments with both superiors and subordinates of Extension leaders to validate the self-reported data of participants. In this study, gender and ethnicity had no significant effect on leadership style. This study looked only at senior leaders within the organization and did not examine specific factors related to the development of an individuals leadership style. It is possible that females and/or minorities in senior leadership positions were promoted to those positions because they emulated the leaders who preceded them. Additional research needs to be conducted with leaders at all levels within the organization to determine if gender or ethnicity has an effect on the leadership style of other organizational leaders.

PAGE 175

159 This study only addressed the perceived leadership styles and self-perceived proficiency in leadership skills of current leaders. Future research should be conducted to determine the perceptions of both leaders and those around them with respect to the effectiveness of leadership. In this study, previous leadership development had no effect on self-perceived proficiency in any of the six leadership skills areas as reported on the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument. Because this was a correlational, or ex post facto, design with no experimental treatment, additional research should be conducted using a quasi-experimental design in which the instrument is administered both before and after participation in a leadership development program to assess the influence of such programs on self-perceived proficiency. Researchers should continue to investigate the relationship between leader characteristics and leadership style and skills. In order to explain more of the variance in leadership styles and skills, the relationship between situational variables and leadership characteristics should also be investigated.

PAGE 176

APPENDIX A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you again for agreeing to participate in this study of leadership competencies needed by Extension leaders. For the purposes of this study, we are defining Extension leaders as the directors and administrators of the Cooperative Extension System within each state. Because individuals in positions such as your are often responsible for the hiring of Extension leaders in your state, we are particularly interested in your thoughts and ideas about what specific leadership competencies these individuals need in order to be successful. Demographics (to be filled in by the researcher): Name of interviewee: University: Extension Region: Background Questions: I have just a couple of background questions to ask you as we begin our discussion. 6. Please describe you current position. 7. How long have you been in your current position? 8. What is your highest degree? Leadership Skills and Competencies Questions: Next, I would like to talk briefly about Extension in your state. 9. How many counties are there in your state? Extension employees? 160

PAGE 177

161 10. What do you see as the role of the Cooperative Extension Service in your state? 11. How involved are you in your state's Cooperative Extension Service? Are you responsible for the hiring/firing of Extension leaders in your state? 12. Does your state have a list of leadership competencies identified for its Extension leaders? If so, could you describe them to me? Would you be willing to send me a copy of these competencies? 13. If your state does have a set of identified leadership competencies, is there a relationship between the identified competencies and hiring practices? 14. How are Extension leaders recruited and hired in your state? Do you have a copy of the last position announcement for the State Extension Director position you would be willing to send me? Now I would like to talk to you about specific leadership skills and competencies you believe the leaders of Extension (State Directors and Administrators) need to be successful in their positions. I hope you had a chance to review the leadership skills summary sheet and have given some thought to what specific competencies you see as important within each category. Do you have any questions about these categories before we begin? Let's discuss these in the order they were discussed on the summary sheet. We will start with technical skills. 15. What specific leadership competencies do you believe Extension leaders need related to technical skills? Could you be a little more specific? Are there any other technical leadership competencies you see as important for Extension leaders to possess? Let's move on to human skills. 16. What specific leadership competencies do you believe Extension leaders need related to human skills? Could you be a little more specific? Are there any other human leadership competencies you see as important for Extension leaders to possess? Next, let's talk about conceptual skills.

PAGE 178

162 17. What specific leadership competencies do you believe Extension leaders need related to conceptual skills? Could you be a little more specific? Are there any other conceptual leadership competencies you see as important for Extension leaders to possess? Let's move on to industry knowledge skills. 18. What specific leadership competencies do you believe Extension leaders need related to industry knowledge skills? Could you be a little more specific? Are there any other industry knowledge leadership competencies you see as important for Extension leaders to possess? Let's talk about emotional intelligence skills. 19. What specific leadership competencies do you believe Extension leaders need related to emotional intelligence skills? Could you be a little more specific? Are there any other emotional intelligence leadership competencies you see as important for Extension leaders to possess? 20. Can you think of any leadership competencies that you believe are important but do not fit in any of the leadership skill categories we have already discussed? 21. Think back over the competencies you identified during our discussion. If you were asked to create a list of the top 5 competencies required for Extension leaders, which of the competencies you identified would make that list? 22. Do you have anything else you would like to add? Thank you again for taking time out of your day to visit with me. I have enjoyed talking with you.

PAGE 179

APPENDIX B LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES IN EXTENSION INSTRUMENT Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. The purpose of this study is to determine the importance of specific leadership competencies to the success of Extension leaders and to assess proficiency levels of current Extension leaders in each competency. Your responses to this instrument will be kept completely confidential. The code number on the front of this instrument will be used only for follow-up mailings to those individuals who do not respond. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, but it is our hope that you will take just a few moments to complete the instrument and share information that will better help us prepare future Extension leaders. The instrument will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete and has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida. Thank you again for your participation. Directions: This instrument consists of seven sections. The first six address important areas of work or competencies needed in leadership. The last section of the instrument consists of demographic questions related to you and your position as an Extension leader. Level of Importance: Please rate the level of importance of each competency listed using the scale below: 1 = Not Important (NI) 2 = Little Importance (LI) 3 = Somewhat Important (SI) 4 = Important (I) 5 = Very Important (VI) Level of Proficiency: Please rate your level of proficiency in each of the competencies listed using the scale below. Please rate your current level of proficiency, not your desired level of proficiency. 1 = None (N) 2 = Below Average Proficiency (BA) 3 = About Average Proficiency (AV) 4 = Above Average Proficiency (AA) 5 = Very Proficient (VP) 163

PAGE 180

Code Number __________ SECTION 1. Human Skills For each human skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance HUMAN SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI LI SI I VI N BA AV AA VP 1 2 3 4 5 1. Ability to foster relationships 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. Ability to be an effective mentor 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. Ability to identify personal strengths and weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. Ability to be an effective team leader 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Ability to evaluate the impact of personnel 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. Demonstrate respect for others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. Ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Ability to create an environment in which the leader is approachable and open to new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. Demonstrate empathy for social problems 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Ability to be an effective team member 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. Ability to be an effective coach 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. Ability to surround themselves with people of complimentary strengths 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. Create an environment that values the diversity of others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Ability to create an environment in which team members are willing to share ideas 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Demonstrate support for organizational leadership development programs 1 2 3 4 5 164

PAGE 181

SECTION 2. Conceptual Skills For each conceptual skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance CONCEPTUAL SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI LI SI I VI VP N BAAV AA 1 2 3 4 5 16. Ability to create a long term vision for the organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. Ability to think strategically 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. Ability to set goals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. Create an environment that supports organizational change 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. Ability to communicate an organizational vision with others 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 21. Ability to think critically 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 22. Ability to help others support organizational change 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23. Ability to utilize sequential planning techniques 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 24. Ability to be decisive 1 2 3 165 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 25. Ability to think abstractly as well as linearly 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 26. Exhibit an attitude that supports and welcomes organizational change 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. Ability to achieve goals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. Ability to think creatively 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 29. Ability to create an environment in which all personnel are able to take ownership of the organizational vision 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 182

166SECTION 3. Technical Skills For each technical skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance TECHNICAL SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI LI SI I VI N BAAV AAVP 1 2 3 4 5 30. Ability to develop budgets for all levels within the organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31. Ability to effectively use computer software for word processing 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 32. Ability to raise funds from external sources 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 33. Ability to interpret and explain organizational budgets 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 34. Ability to effectively use and search the internet 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 35. Ability to use computer software for spreadsheets 1 2 4 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 36. Ability to implement and adjust organizational budgets to accomplish programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 37. Ability to effectively use computer software for databases 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 38. Ability to work with foundations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 39. Ability to effectively integrate computer software program applications (i.e. merge files) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 183

167SECTION 4. Communication Skills For each communication skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance COMMUNICATION SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI LI SI I VI N BAAV AAVP 1 2 3 4 5 40. Ability to communicate orally with groups of various sizes ranging from one-on-one situations to large group situations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 41. Ability to actively listen to people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 42. Ability to interact and communicate with individuals with various depth of knowledge capabilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 43. Ability to interact and communicate with people who have divergent points of view 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 Ability to effectively communicate with others using electronic communication channels (i.e. e-mail) 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 5 44. 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 45. Ability to identify barriers to listening 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 46. Ability to write for various organizational purposes (i.e. technical writing, professional publications, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 47. Ability to conduct quality oral presentations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 48. Ability to read and comprehend a wide range of publications 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 49. Ability to reduce barriers to listening 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 50. Ability to recognize and effectively use nonverbal cues or behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 51. Ability to write for various audiences (i.e. limited resource audiences) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 52. Ability to communicate orally with groups of various backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 53. Ability to interact with the media (i.e. television and newspaper reporters) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 184

SECTION 5. Emotional Intelligence Skills 168For each emotional intelligence skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI LI SI I VI N BAAV AAVP 1 2 3 4 5 54. Demonstrate personal integrity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 Ability to set priorities to effectively manage personal time 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 55. 4 5 58. Ability to separate personalities from behaviors 1 2 3 4 4 5 59. Possess a sense of humor 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to set priorities to effectively manage organizational time Demonstrate high levels of energy and enthusiasm 1 2 3 4 5 56. Ability to resolve conflict 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 57. Ability to make use of constructive criticism without becoming critical and angry 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 60. Ability to negotiate agreement 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 61. Demonstrate high level of motivation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 62. Ability to control emotions in emotional situations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 63. Demonstrate professional integrity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 64. Demonstrate empathy and respect for others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 65. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 66. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 67. Demonstrate respect for the time commitments of others 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 185

169SECTION 6. Industry Knowledge Skills For each industry knowledge skill competency below, please rate the level of importance in the left-hand column and your current proficiency level in the right-hand column. Level of Importance INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE SKILLS Level of Proficiency NI VP LI SI I VI N BAAV AA 1 2 5 74. Possess depth of knowledge in a content area 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 77. 1 1 2 3 4 5 68. Ability to explain the basic programs areas of Extension within the state 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 69. Network and partner with a variety of organizations and agencies to accomplish programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 70. Ability to identify and describe the various constituencies of Extension 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 71. Ability to explain state and national Extension priorities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 72. Ability to create linkages within both traditional and non-traditional audiences 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 73. Ability to interact with elected officials and their staff 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 75. Ability to explain the role of Extension relative to the mission of the land-grant university 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 76. Ability to identify the needs of various client groups within the state 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to explain the political environment of the state and the implications for Extension 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 78. Explain the relationships between statewide programs (i.e. role of various agencies in the delivery of programs) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 79. Ability to evaluate the impact of programs for each client group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 80. Ability to explain the cooperative nature of Extension with county, state, and federal governments 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 186

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 170 SECTION 7. Demographic Information Please complete the following demographic questions. 1. What is your gender? (please check) Female Male 2. What is your ethnicity? (please check) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino White Other (please indicate) _______________________ 3. What is your age (in years)? __________________________ 4. Please indicate your current position within Extension: _________________________________________________________ 5. In the spaces below, please list the degree, year awarded, major, and granting institution for each of your degrees. Degree Year Awarded Major Institution ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 187

1716. How long (in years) have you been employed within the Extension System? ________________________________________ 7. How long (in years) have you been in a formal leadership position within the Extension System?________________________ 8. In the space provided below, please list the position titles of all positions you have held within the Extension System. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ College Courses: Please provide the year, course name, credit hours, and very brief description of the course. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Workshops provided by non-Extension trainers: Please indicate the year, name of training organization/presenters, title of training, and a brief description of the workshop. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. In the space provided below, please complete the information about previous leadership training you have had.

PAGE 188

172 Extension workshops: Please indicate the year, who conducted the training, length of training, title of training, and a brief description of the training. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your participation! If you believe there are things we have not addressed that are important to leadership competency, please use the following space to record your comments.

PAGE 189

173 APPENDIX C MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ) The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed, tested, and copyrighted by Bass & Avolio (2000a) and is published by Mind Garden, Inc. The following sample questions from the MLQ Leader Form 5X are reproduced with permission. Use the following rating scale: 10. Not at all 11. Once in a while 12. Sometimes 13. Fairly often 14. Frequently, if not always 1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts2. I talk about my most important values and beliefs...........................3. I articulate a compelling vision of the future...................................4. I help others develop their strengths................................................5. I delay responding to urgent questions............................................. ..........0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 3 4 3 4

PAGE 190

LIST OF REFERENCES Alire, C. A. (2001). Diversity and leadership: The color of leadership. Journal of Library Administration, 32(3/4), 95-109. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razawieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124. Barner, R. (2000). Five steps to leadership competencies. Training & Development, 54(3), 47-51. Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Digest, 13(3), 26-40. Bass, B. M. (1988). The inspirational process of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7, 21-31. Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend the organization and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 174

PAGE 191

175 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000a). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5x). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000b). Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for the MLQ Form 5x-short. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking change. New York: Harper & Row. Bennis, W. G. (1961). Revisionist theory of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 39(1), 26-36, 146-150. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking change (2nd ed.). New York: HarperBusiness. Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Zigarmi, P. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager. New York: William Morrow and Co. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance organizations. New York: John Wiley. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage Publishers. Buford, J. A., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in Extension (3rd ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Extension. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Cano, J., & Ludwig, B. (1995). Perceptions, responses, and knowledge about diversity held by Extension administrators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(3), 64-71. Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 39(11-12), 887-902. Carless, S. A. (2001). Assessing the discriminant validity of the leadership practices inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 233-239. Clark, R. W. (1992). Stress and turnover among Extension directors. Journal of Extension, 30(2), Retrieved May 2, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/rb1.html

PAGE 192

176 Cobb, D. W. (1989). Leadership effectiveness of county Extension directors: A comparison of perceptions between county Extension agents and county Extension directors within the North Carolina agricultural Extension service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. Cohen, L. E., Broschak, J. P., & Haveman, H. A. (1998). And then there were more? The effect of organizational sex composition on the hiring and promotion of managers. American Sociological Review, 63, 711-727. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. (2002, April). State Extension directors and administrators directory. Retrieved May 20, 2002 from http://www.reeusda.gov/hrd/state.pdf Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56. Davis, K. E. (1982). The status of black leadership: Implications for black followers in the 1980s. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 309-322. Deming, W. E. (1994). The New Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dering, N. (1998). Leadership in quality organizations. Journal for Quality and Participation, Jan./Feb., 32-35. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dorsey, M. (2001). Achieving diversity and pluralism: Our (sad) separatist model. Journal of Extension, 39(6), Retrieved May 2, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/comm1.html Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic church. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 99-119. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership syle: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. Ewert, M., Rice, J. K., & Lauderdale, E. (1995). Training for diversity: How organizations become more inclusive. Adult Learning, 6(5), 27-28. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (1991). Pathway to diversity: Strategic plan for the cooperative Extension system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

PAGE 193

177 Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (1997). Strategic directions of the cooperative Extension system. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Fields, D. L., & Herold, D. M. (1997). Using the leadership practices inventory to measure transformational and transactional leadership. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57(4), 569-580. Fulmer, R. M., & Wagner, S. (1999). Leadership: Lessons from the best. Training & Development, 53(3), 29-32. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press. Gear, C. (1992). An emphasis on diversity in CES. Journal of Extension, 30(3), Retrieved May 2, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992fall/tp1.html George, D. & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 10.0 update (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93-102. Grogan, S., & Eshelman, B. (1998). Staffing strategies for a more diverse workforce: Case examples in Cornell cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension, 36(1), Retrieved May 8, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/a2001.html. Gunderson, G. J. (1994). How leaders lead through organizational change and transition: Postpositivist inquiry into the beliefs, actions and reflections of leaders in the Cooperative Extension Service. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(10A), 3050. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. Haynes, B. R. (1997). Factors affecting supervisory and management competencies of participants in Extension assessment centers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Hicks, H. G., & Gullett, C. R. (1975). Organizations: Theory and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Holder, S. L. (1990). Leadership style and leadership behavior preferences of cooperative Extension faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

PAGE 194

178 Indvik, J. (2001). Women and leadership. In P. G. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 215-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd ed.). San literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. Diego, CA: EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Services. Kanji, G. K., & Sa, P. M. E. (2001). Measuring leadership excellence. Total Quality Management, 12(6), 701-718. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Klagge, J. (1996). The leadership role of today's middle manager. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 11-19. Kotter, J. P. (1990a). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1990b). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997a). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997b). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI): Facilitator's Guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (1998). The influence of top management team leadership on corporate refocusing: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 50-61. Kvaerner, K. L., Aasland, O. G., & Botten, G. S. (1999). Female medical leadership: Cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, 318, 91-94. Lester, R. I., & Kunich, J. C. (1997). Leadership and management: The quality quadrants. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 17-32. Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

PAGE 195

179 Lowery, C. M. (1996). Leadership behaviors and job performance of county Extension directors in the North Carolina cooperative Extension service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. http://www.joe.org/joe/1997/december/comm2001.html. Lundy, J. L. (1990). Lead, follow, or get out of the way: Invaluable insights into leadership style. San Marcos, CA: Avant Books. Mayer, L. C. (2001). Predictors of women's success in achieving senior-level administrative positions in CSREES. Journal of Extension, 39(2), Retrieved April 29, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/rb6.html McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Michael, J. A., Paxson, C. M., & Howell, R. E. (1991). An assessment of Extension's leadership development work. Washington, D.C.: Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Miller, L. E. (1998). Appropriate analysis. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(2), 1-10. Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5). Retrieved May 2, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf Moore, M., & Jones, J. (2001). Cracking the concrete ceiling: Inquiry into the aspirations, values, motives, and actions of african american female 1890 cooperative Extension administrators. Journal of Extension, 39(6), Retrieved April 29, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/rb1.html Mosley, A. L. (1998). A behavioral approach to leadership: Implications for diversity in today's organization. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 38-50. Nahavandi, A. (2000). The art and science of leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Patterson, T. F. (1997). Fundamentally flawed: Extension administrative practice part 1. Journal of Extension, 35(6), Retrieved May 1, 2002 from

PAGE 196

180 Paxson, C. M., Howell, R. E., Michael, J. A., & Wong, S. K. (1993). Leadership development in Extension. Journal of Extension, 31(1), Retrieved April 29, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/rb2.html Agricultural Education Research Conference. Payne, K. E., Fuqua, H. E., & Canegami, J. P. (1997). Women as leaders. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 44-63. Penfield, R. D. (2002). The fundamentals of survey-based research: The science of collecting information from humans about humans. Gainesville: University of Florida. Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 429-444. Pickett, L. (1998). Competencies and managerial effectiveness: Putting competencies to work. Public Personnel Management, 27(1), 103-115. Pittman, J. D., & Bruny, L. (1986). Promotion from within anyone qualified? Training program creates a pool of potential administrators. Journal of Extension, 24(2), Retrieved May 8, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1986summer/a6.html Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and validation of the leadership practices inventory. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 48, 483-496. Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership practices inventory---updated. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 191-200. Radhakrishna, R., Yoder, E. P., & Baggett, C. D. (1994). Leadership effectiveness of county Extension directors. Journal of Extension, 32(2), Retrieved April 29, 2002 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/rb2.html Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Robbins, C. J., Bradley, E. H., & Spicer, M. (2001). Developing leadership in healthcare administration: A competency assessment tool. Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(3), 188-199. Rochelle, S. (1999). Leadership practices of directors of student athlete support services at NCAA Division I institutions according to ethnicity, gender, tenure, and educational level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03A), 841. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-125. Rudd, R. D. (2000). Leadership styles of Florida's county Extension directors: Perceptions of self and others. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National

PAGE 197

181 Scholtes, P. R. (1999). The new competencies of leadership. Total Quality Management, 10(4 & 5), S704-S710. Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative Extension. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers. Senge, P. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 7-22. Shearon, R. W. (1969). Staff leadership in the North Carolina agricultural Extension service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Sorcher, M., & Brant, J. (2002). Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business Review, 80(2), 78-85. Sorcher, M., & Brant, J. (2002, February). Are you picking the right leaders? Harvard Business Review, 78-85. Spotanski, D. R., & Carter, R. I. (1993). Self evaluation of leadership practices and behaviors used by department executive officers in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(3), 17-25. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press. Strand, G. A. (1981). Community leadership competencies in the Northeast US: Implications for training public health educators. American Journal of Public Health, 71(4), 397-402. Sykes, W. D. (1995). County Extension directors' perceived behavior as a manager or leader as compared to county Extension agents' perceptions of CEDs' behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Thomas, R. R. (1990, March/April). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 107-117. Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM: American Management Association. Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to global competitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vroom, V., & Pahl, B. (1971). Relationship between age and risk taking among managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 399-405.

PAGE 198

182 Walker, C. L. (2000). Staffing and programming patterns in Ohio State University Extension. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(05A), 1714. White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zairi, M. (1999). Managing excellence leadership. The TQM Magazine, 11(4), 215-220. Zalenik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

PAGE 199

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lori Lynne Moore was born at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, on October 3, 1972. She lived in Pensacola, Florida, until the 3rd grade when her family moved to Houston, Texas. She graduated from Clear Lake High School in May, 1990. Ms. Moore entered Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, in the fall of 1990. She received her B.S. degree in agricultural education (agricultural science) in May, 1994. She remained at Texas A&M University. In August 1996, she received her M.S. degree in animal science (meat science). Upon graduation, Ms. Moore returned to Houston and began teaching agriculture at Alvin High School in Alvin, Texas, where she taught animal science, advanced animal science, introduction to agricultural science, horticulture, and advanced plant and soil science. During the summer of 1998, she changed schools and began teaching agricultural science classes at her alma matter, Clear Lake High School. While there, she taught courses in personal skills, landscape development, animal science, advanced animal science, floral design, and advanced floral design. In August, 2000, Ms. Moore entered the Ph.D. program in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida where she specialized in agricultural leadership and teaching and learning. While working on her degree, she was a graduate teaching and research assistant where she assisted in the instruction of six different agricultural education courses, supervised student teachers, 183 and collaborated on several research projects within the department.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000748/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership in the Cooperative Extension System: An Examination of Leadership Styles and Skills of State Directors and Administrators
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000748:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000748/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership in the Cooperative Extension System: An Examination of Leadership Styles and Skills of State Directors and Administrators
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000748:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












LEADERSHIP IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM: AN
EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AND SKILLS OF STATE DIRECTORS
AND ADMINISTRATORS
















By

LORI L. MOORE


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


2003


































Copyright 2003

by

Lori L. Moore

































This document is dedicated to my father, Richard G. Moore and the memory of my
mother, Judith H. Moore.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my advisory committee: Drs. Rick Rudd,

Larry Arrington, Jim Dyer, Nick Place, and Saundra TenBroeck. Without their varied

talents and expertise, sound advice, honest words of criticism, and constant

encouragement, none of this would have been possible. I am indebted to my advisor, Dr.

Rick Rudd, for stretching me intellectually and whose hard work and dedication served as

my foundation.

I would also like to thank my family, friends and colleagues. They have served as

the inspiration behind all of the decisions I have made in my life, both large and small,

and both personally and professionally, that have brought me to where I am today and

have helped shape me into the person I am today.

I would especially like to extend thanks to the following individuals: My father,

Dick Moore, for his unconditional love, honesty, and integrity. How difficult it must

have been to always tell me the truth, but how worth it in the end. My mother, Judy

Moore, for leading by example and teaching me that anything is possible despite my

limitations. Lynn Hendrickson and Pat Adams for the cards, letters, and care packages

and for ensuring that, even in her absence, I always felt the presence of my mother. Dr.

Tracy Hoover and Dr. Christine Townsend for their continued support, both emotionally

and intellectually, and for believing in me when I did not always believe in myself. Elyse

Griffin for the work ethic she instilled in me and who taught me the value of both

personal and professional integrity. Ray Pieniazek, for being not only a mentor whose









wisdom and passion guided me into this profession, but also a friend. Kyla Goodson

whose presence in my life is a constant reminder of the value of friendship and who has

inspired me to live life to the fullest. John Ricketts whose prayers and persistent words

of encouragement lifted my spirit and gave me endurance. Gretchen and Henry Polczer

for opening not only their home but also their hearts and for making me a part of the

family. Floyd McConnell for his tremendous insight and understanding, and especially

his willingness to listen. Anessa Brown, Nicole Douda, Kris Grage, Kelly and Shane

Hahne, Carol Lorenzen, Rick Moore, Casey Owens, Sharon Spann, Nicole Stedman, and

James Umphrey for the gift of their friendship and having faith in me. I would also like

to thank all of the faculty, staff, and graduate students, both past and present, in the

Department of Agricultural Education and Communication for their support and

assistance throughout this process.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................ ......... .......... .......... .. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....................... .......... ..................... xiv

A B S T R A C T .......................................... ..................................................x v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY.............................................. 1

Intro du action to th e Stu dy ................................................................... .....................
B background of the Study .................................................... .............................. .
Problem Statem ent ........................ .. ................. .......... .... ........ .............
Purpose and Objectives of the Study ................. ...................................7
Significance of Study ... ............................................................ .. ................ .8
D definition of T erm s ................. .................................. ...... ........ .......... .......
L im stations of the Study ............................................................... ....................... 9
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................1 0

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................... ..............12

The Nature of Leadership and Leadership Defined..................................................13
Leadership and M anagem ent......................................................... .............. 14
M ajor Leadership Theories........................................................... ............... 17
T he T rait A approach .............................. ........................ .. ........ .... ............18
The B ehavioral A pproach......................................................... ............... 19
The Pow er-Influence Approach ........................................ ....... ............... 19
The Situational A pproach......................................................... ............... 20
The Integrative A approach ........................................................ ................ 21
Leadership Styles.................................. ................ ......... 21
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles ....................................23
Relationship Between Leadership Style and Leadership/Management Theory..34
Influence of Demographics on Leadership Styles ................................................35
G e n d e r ........................................................................................................... 3 5
E ethnicity ................................................................... 39
A g e ..............................................................................4 0
T e n u re .................41............................................









Educational Background and Promotion Path................... .......................... 43
Leadership Training and Development .................................... ............... 45
L leadership Skills ..................... ... .................................................. 47
Influence of Demographics on Leadership Skills.....................................................54
C onceptual F ram ew ork ...................................................................... ...................54
Sum m ary .......................................................................................................... 56

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 5 8

R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 5 9
P populations ........................... ..................60
Participant Selection: Extension Leaders ........................ ..... ................. ... 60
Participant Selection: Administrative Heads of Extension Leaders .................61
Instrumentation ............... ......... ................. 61
Interview Q questionnaire ................................................... ............... ... 62
Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument ........................................63
D em graphic Instrum ent ...................... .............. ..................... .... ........... 66
M ultifactor Leadership Questionnaire.............................................................. 67
D ata Collection and A analysis .............................................................................. 71
M ethods Used for Objective One .......................... .................................... 71
Methods Used for Objectives Two and Three................. ............................73
M ethods Used for Objectives Four and Five.....................................................76
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 7 6

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................7 8

Objective One ................. .................................79
Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies
Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their
A dm inistrativ e H eads................................... ............................................79
Skill A rea O ne: H um an Skills ........................................ ........................ 81
Skill A rea Tw o: Conceptual Skills.................................. ....................... 83
Skill A rea Three: Technical Skills ........................................ ............... 83
Skill Area Four: Communication Skills .................................. ............... 85
Skill Area Five: Emotional Intelligence Skills........................................86
Skill Area Six: Industry Knowledge Skills ................................ ............... 87
O bjectiv e T w o ...................... ................................ ... .. ... ................ 89
Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their Demographics and
Leadership Style............... .. .... .................... .........89
O objective Three ................... ..................... ...... ........ ... .........................92
Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe Each Skill Area Is
As Well As How Proficient They Perceive Themselves to be in Each Skill
Area ........................... ... ... .......... ......................... 92
Perceived Importance of Leadership Skill Areas.......................................92
Perceived Proficiency in Leadership Skill Areas.......................................93
Difference Between Perceived Importance and Self-Perceived
P roficien cy .................................................................. 94









Objective Four .............. ........... .................................. .. ................95
Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Styles of
Current Extension Leaders........................................ ........................... 95
Leadership Style and G ender ............................................ ............... 95
Leadership Style and Ethnicity ....................................... ............... 96
Leadership Style and A ge ........................................ ........................ 99
Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension................... ..................99
Leadership Style and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s)............100
Leadership Style and H highest D egree ....................................................... 101
Leadership Style and Degree Classification................. ...............101
Leadership Style and Previous Leadership Development..........................104
Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Styles .......................105
O bj active Five ............... ........... ................................. .. ............... 107
Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the Leadership Skills of
Current Extension Leaders....................................... .......................... 107
Leadership Skills and G ender ....................................... ............... 107
Leadership Skills and Ethnicity..... .......... ....................................... 109
L leadership Skills and A ge................................... .................................... 114
Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension...............................................115
Leadership Skills and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) ..........116
Leadership Skills and H highest D egree ......................................................118
Leadership Skills and Degree Classification................. ...............120
Leadership Skills and Previous Leadership Development.........................123
Influence of Demographic Variables on Leadership Skills .......................125
Sum m ary ............................................................... ..... ..... ......... 127

5 SUM M ARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................ ........ ............... 128

Su m m ary of th e Stu dy ................................................................... ..................... 12 8
Statem ent of the Problem ...................................................................... 128
Purpose and Objectives .............. ......................................... ............... 129
M ethodology............................ ....................................... ..... 130
Findings ................................. ................................... ............... 131
O objective O ne .......................................... ..................... 13 1
Objective Tw o ........................................................... .. ...... 131
Objective Three ............. ................ ............ ...... ................133
O bjectiv e F our......... .................................................... .. ...... .. 134
Objective Five ................................. .......................... ........ 135
C on clu sion s.....................................................136
D discussion and Im plications ............................ ................................ .................. 138
Objective One Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific
Leadership Competencies Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension
Leaders, as Perceived by Their Administrative Head..................................138
Leadership skill areas needed by Extension leaders are: Human Skills,
Conceptual Skills, Technical Skills, Communication Skills,
Emotional Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills ............138









Administrative heads of agriculture from larger schools placed less
importance on computer skills than do administrative heads of
agriculture from smaller schools.................. ......................139
Objective Two Describe Current Extension Leaders in Terms of Their
D em graphics and Leadership Style ......................................................... 140
Females and minorities are underrepresented in Extension leadership
p o sitio n s .......................... ... .... .. ...... ......................... 14 0
The majority of participants held their highest degree in social science
discipline es ...................................... ... ..... .............. ..................142
Participants engaged in Transformational Leadership Style behaviors
more often than they engaged in Transactional Leadership Style
behaviors .................. ............ ... ... ........... ...... ...............142
Objective Three Assess How Important Current Extension Leaders Believe
Each Skill Area Is As Well As How Proficient They Believe They Are In
Each Skill Area ............. .............. .......... .. .......... .........143
Human Skills, Conceptual Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional
Intelligence Skills, and Industry Knowledge Skills were rated
between important and very important. Technical skills were rated
between somewhat important and important.................... ........ 143
Emotional Intelligence Skills were rated as most important and Technical
Skills were rated as least important .............. ....................... ......... 144
Participants ranked themselves between above average and very
proficient in terms of their proficiency in Human Skills, Conceptual
Skills, Communication Skills, Emotional Intelligence Skills, and
Industry Knowledge Skills. Participants ranked themselves between
average and above average in proficiency in technical skills.............146
Participants were most proficient in Emotional Intelligence Skills and
least proficient in Technical Skills.................... ............................. 147
Objective Four Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the
Leadership Styles of Current Extension Leaders................... .... ................148
There was a significant, moderately negative relationship between
tenure in Extension and Transactional Leadership Style .................148
Participants with bench science degrees engaged in Transactional
Leadership Style behaviors significantly more often than those with
social science backgrounds .............. .... .... .................. .........150
Ethnicity, tenure in Extension leadership positionss, and previous
leadership development total score were the variables that provided
the best model for explaining the influence of demographic variables
on Transform national Leadership Style...............................................151
Participants' highest degree, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership
development total score were the variables that provided the best
model for explaining the influence of demographic variables on
Transactional Leadership Style................. ...... ..... .................. ... 153
Demographics did not significantly influence Transformational
Leadership Style. With the exception of tenure in Extension and









degree classification, demographics did not significantly influence
Transactional Leadership Style................... ...... ..... ................ ... 154
Objective Five Explain the Influence of Demographic Variables on the
Leadership Skills of Current Extension Leaders ........................................155
Ethnicity and age were the variables that provided the best model for
explaining the influence of demographic variables on Human
Skills ........................... .................. ..... ....... .... ............. 155
With the exception of human skills, demographics did not significantly
influence leadership skills.................................. ....................... 156
R ecom m endations....... ............ ............................ .. .... ................ 157
Suggestions for A additional Research.................................... ........................ 158

APPENDIX

A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE............... .......... .............160

Demographics (to be filled in by the researcher): ................................. ........160
B background Q uestions:.............................................. ......................................... 160
Leadership Skills and Competencies Questions: ....................... .............. 160

B LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES IN EXTENSION INSTRUMENT .................163

C MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ)..............................173

L IST O F R EFE R EN C E S ......... .. ................................. .............................................. 174

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH .................................... ............ ................ .....................183
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=15).......65

3-2 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=47).......66

4-1 L leadership Sub-Skills......... ............................................................... .... .... ....... 80

4-2 M inor Themes by Leadership Skill Areas..................................... ....................... 82

4-3 Human Skills Leadership Competencies .............................. ................83

4-4 Conceptual Skills Leadership Competencies .................................. ............... 84

4-5 Technical Skills Leadership Com petencies..................................... .................85

4-6 Communication Skills Leadership Competencies............. .............. ...............86

4-7 Emotional Intelligence Skills Leadership Competencies ...........................................88

4-8 Industry Knowledge Skills Leadership Competencies................... .....................89

4-9 Gender of Participants by Ethnicity (N=47)........ ..............................................89

4-10 Age and Tenure of Study Participants (N=47) ............... ............................... 90

4-11 Previous Leadership Training Scores (N=47) .................................. ............... 91

4-12 MLQ 5X Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores (N=47) ................91

4-13 Mean Scores for Perceived Importance of the Leadership Skills............................92

4-14 Mean Scores for Self-perceived Proficiency in the Leadership Skills ...................94

4-15 Difference Between Mean for Importance and Mean for Proficiency ...................95

4-16 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Gender (N=47)....96

4-17 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by
G en d er (N = 4 7) ..................................................... ................ 9 7









4-18 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by
E ethnicity (N =47) ...................... ...................... ...... ................. 98

4-19 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by
E ethnicity (N = 4 5) ......................................................................98

4-20 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and
Leadership Styles and Age (N =46) ............................................... ............... 99

4-21 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and
Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension (N=47) ........................................... 100

4-22 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and
Leadership Styles and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) .........101

4-23 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Styles by Highest Degree (N=47)....................102

4-24 Mean Leadership Scale Scores and Leadership Style Scores by Degree
Classification (N=47) .............................................. .... ........ .. ............ 103

4-25 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Scale and Leadership Styles by
D egree Classification (N =47).......................................... ........................... 104

4-26 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Scales and
Leadership Styles and Total Leadership Development Score (N=47)................. 104

4-27 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill
Score (N=47) .................................... .. .............................. ......... 105

4-28 Backward Regression Explaining Transformational Leadership Skill
Score (N=47) .................................... .. .............................. ......... 106

4-29 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Gender (N=47)..........................108

4-31 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Gender (N=47)..........................110

4-32 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by
G en d er (N = 4 7) ...................................... ............................. ................ 1 1 1

4-33 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47) .....................111

4-34 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by
Ethnicity (N =47) .................. .............................. .... .... .. ........ .. .. 112

4-35 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Ethnicity (N=47) .....................113

4-36 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by
E ethnicity (N =47) .......................................................................................... 113









4-37 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance)
and A ge (N =46) ................................................................ ... ......... 114

4-38 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency)
and A ge (N =46) ................................................................ ... ......... 115

4-39 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance)
and Tenure in Extension (N =47)................................................. ....... ........ 115

4-40 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency)
and Tenure in Extension (N =47)................................................. ....... ........ 116

4-41 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance)
and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) ............... ................. 117

4-42 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency)
and Tenure in Extension Leadership Position(s) (N=47) ............... ................. 117

4-43 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Importance) by Highest
D degree (N =47)................................................................. ... ......... 118

4-44 One Way ANOVA of Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Highest
D degree (N =47)................................................................. ... ......... 119

4-45 Mean Leadership Skills (Importance) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47) ...121

4-46 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Importance) by Degree
Classification (N =47) .................. .......................... ....... .... .. .......... .. 121

4-47 Mean Leadership Skills (Proficiency) Scores by Degree Classification (N=47)...123

4-48 Independent Groups t-test for Leadership Skills (Proficiency) by Degree
Classification (N =47) .................. .......................... ....... .... .. ............ 123

4-49 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Importance)
and Previous Leadership Development (N=47).....................................................124

4-50 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Leadership Skills (Proficiency)
and Previous Leadership Development (N=47).....................................................125

4-51 Backward Regression Explaining Human Skills (Proficiency) (N=47)...............126
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1. Bass's (1985a) model of transactional leadership. ............. .................................... 25

2-2. Bass' (1985a) model of transformational leadership.....................................26

2.3. Amount of human, technical, and conceptual skills needed at various levels in an
organization (Hicks & Gullett, 1975, p. 308)................................ ............... 48

2-4. Factors influencing leadership styles and leadership skills of Extension leaders. ....55















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 IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM: AN
EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AND SKILLS OF STATE DIRECTORS
AND ADMINISTRATORS

By

Lori L. Moore

May, 2003

Chair: Rick Rudd
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe leadership styles

and skills of current Extension leaders. In the first phase of the study, seven

administrative heads of agriculture participated in qualitative interviews to identify the

major leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each area needed

by Extension leaders.

Forty-seven current Extension leaders from 1862 and 1890 institutions participated

in the second phase. Participants completed a leadership style instrument, researcher-

developed competency instrument, and demographic instrument. Leadership style and

leadership skills were the dependent variables. Gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in

Extension, tenure in Extension leadership positionss, highest degree, degree

classification, and previous leadership development were the independent variables.

Participants were described in terms of their demographics, leadership styles, and









leadership skills. Independent variables were used to explain the influence of

demographics on the dependent variables.

Participants reported engaging in transformational leadership behaviors more often

than transactional leadership behaviors. Transformational and transactional leadership

styles were not significantly affected by the independent variables with the exception of

both tenure in Extension and degree classification significantly affecting transactional

leadership.

Overall, participants rated the skill areas as important and perceived themselves to

be of above average proficiency. Self-perceived proficiency in the six leadership skill

areas was not significantly affected by the independent variables with the exception of

age having a significant effect on proficiency in human skills (r=.30,p<.05).

This study found that the best model for explaining transformational leadership

style explained 13% of the variance and included ethnicity, tenure in Extension, and

previous leadership development total score. The best model for explaining transactional

leadership style explained 28% of the variance and included the highest degree held by

the participant, tenure in Extension, and previous leadership development total score.

The best model for explaining self-perceived proficiency in human skills explained 9% of

the variance and included ethnicity and age. No model significantly explained the

influence of demographics on laissez-faire leadership or self-perceived proficiency in the

leadership skills areas of conceptual skills, technical skills, communication skills,

emotional intelligence skills, or industry knowledge skills.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Introduction to the Study

This study utilized qualitative research methodology to identify specific

leadership competencies current state Extension administrators need to be successful in

their position, as perceived by their administrative heads. This study also incorporated

quantitative methodology to describe current state Extension leaders in terms of their

demographics and leadership styles, and to assess their self-perceived proficiency level in

each of the competencies identified by their supervisors. Finally, this study examined the

influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles and skills of current

Extension leaders.

Background of the Study

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),

often referred to as the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), is one of four departments

housed within the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) division of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The system itself is a publicly funded, non-

formal educational system that links the activities of the USDA, CSREES, 51 land-grant

universities created under the Morrill Act of 1862, 17 land-grant institutions created or

supported under the second Morrill Act of 1890, 34 land-grant institutions created from

1890 to 1994, and approximately 3,150 county administrative units (Extension

Committee on Organization and Policy, 1997; McDowell, 2001; Rasmussen, 1989).









The CSREES is a unique educational system established over 85 years ago by the

Smith-Lever Act of 1914. It was originally designed as a partnership among the land-

grant universities, created under the Morrill Land-Grant College Acts in 1862 and 1890,

which provided higher education to the general public rather than only the elite. The

Morrill Act of 1862 provided for at least one college in each state, called land-grant

colleges, to teach agriculture and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 required the

establishment of "separate, but equal" land-grant colleges for black students. Most

recently, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 conferred land-grant

status to 29 tribal colleges. State legislation allowed local governments in each county to

become the third legal partner in the system.

The CSREES identified diversity as a major area of emphasis over 10 years ago

(Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1991). Diversity is not a concept

defined simply in terms of race or gender (Thomas, 1991). In fact, it encompasses much

more and can be defined as differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity,

gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and other

human differences (Gear, 1992).

According to Pathway to Diversity (Extension Committee on Organization and

Policy, 1991), the strategic plan for implementing the emphasis on diversity within the

CSREES, a commitment was made to emphasize diversity in several aspects of the

organization: mission and vision; work force; programs; audience; and relationships with

other people, groups, and organizations. Within this strategic plan was the specific goal

of achieving work force diversity. The plan called for the CES to increase and sustain the

diversity of its work force, including leadership, to better reflect the diversity of the









Nation, states, and territories. This increase in the diversity of Extension staff is

necessary for the CES to achieve the goals of its strategic plan and to provide quality

educational programming to new and varied audiences (Grogan & Eshelman, 1998).

Human diversity in terms of individual differences in areas such as history,

knowledge and experience, perspective and insight, and gender is key to organizational

success (Klagge, 1996). Support, genuine commitment that goes beyond sloganism, and

a demonstrated belief in diversity by leaders in top management positions are critical to

transform such a traditional organization (Cano & Ludwig, 1995; Cox & Blake, 1991;

Mosley, 1998). In other words, for the CES to achieve its goals in the area of diversity,

and thereby organizational success, it is essential that such diversity be apparent in and

endorsed by the leaders of the organization.

Mosley (1998) concluded that the workforce demographics of an organization's

staff should mirror that of the clientele they serve. This conclusion is supported as it

applied to Extension (Gear, 1992; Extension Committee on Organization and Policy,

1991). The United States has become a very diverse society, and as such, the makeup of

the United States workforce has also diversified (Ewert, Rice, & Lauderdale, 1995).

More and more women, minorities, and older individuals have entered the workforce in

the United States over the past two decades. In 1990, more than half of the U.S.

workforce consisted of women, minorities, and immigrants. Thus, the problem is not

getting diverse populations into an organization; it is more a problem of getting them into

leadership positions (Thomas, 1990).

Most people would agree that women and minorities can be leaders (Alire, 2001;

Indvik, 2001). Despite this agreement, women are still underrepresented in the ranks of









senior leadership positions across a variety of disciplines (Cohen, Broschak, & Haveman,

1998; Kvaerner, Aasland, & Botten, 1999).

This trend is consistent with the trend seen in the Extension hierarchy. There are

more women and minorities in non-manager and first-line management positions now

than in previous years. For example, only 25% of the total Extension staff in Ohio was

female in 1970, whereas in 1990, the number of female staff members had grown to 44%

(Walker, 2000). The Ohio Extension system also saw an increase in the number of

minority staff during a similar time period. From 1970 to 1998, the number of non-white

agents went from 1% (n=3) to 5% (n=27) of the total Extension staff (Walker, 2000).

However, this increase in the number of women and minorities has not transcended into

senior level, top management positions (Clark, 1992; Mayer, 2001; Moore & Jones,

2001). These positions have traditionally been held, and continue to be held,

predominantly by white males.

As Moore and Jones (2001) pointed out, in many states, Extension leadership

does not reflect diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender. In 1992, 70 of the 77

state directors of the Cooperative Extension Service from both 1862 and 1890

institutions, or 90.9% of the population, participated in a study conducted by Clark

(1992). He reported that of these 70 participants, 91.4% were male. In 2001, Moore and

Jones reported that of the 56 1862 land-grant universities, only 9% (n=5) of the directors,

7% (n=4) of the associate directors, and 2% (n=l) of the interim directors were female.

Of these ten individuals, nine were Caucasian and one was African American. In the 17

1890 land-grant universities including Tuskegee, 24% (n=4) of the administrators, 12%

(n=2) of the associate administrators, and 6 percent (n=1) of the acting associate









administrators were female. Of these 7 individuals, all are African American. Thus, the

representation of ethnic minorities in senior leadership positions are a little more

encouraging in 1890 institutions as compared to 1862 institutions. However, even within

these institutions, leaders seem to be very similar and therefore, empirical evidence still

suggests an overall under-representation of diverse populations in senior leadership

positions within the Extension system as a whole.

Studies conducted within Extension have suggested the need for and

recommended further diversification of leaders within the organization (Lowery, 1996).

Lowery reported that 83% of the CEDs who participated in her study were males, 89%

were white, and 45% held degrees in agriculture. Findings of her study indicated that

individuals who have worked in other areas besides agriculture, females, and ethnic

minorities can also provided effective leadership.

There is substantial empirical evidence to suggest that demographic variables,

such as gender, age, ethnicity, tenure, background, and formal leadership training,

influence the leadership styles of individuals. The influence of these variables on an

individual's leadership style combined with the specific abilities that an individual

possesses are determining factors in which individuals become leaders within an

organization.

Problem Statement

Most employers, including those responsible for hiring state Extension directors,

would agree that leadership skills are desirable in employees. Although an abundance of

information about leadership exists, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding specific

aspects of leadership. This is especially true within the Extension system.









Despite a commitment by the CSREES to a diverse workforce, including the

leaders of the organization, there are still populations that are underrepresented in

leadership positions within the Extension system. Mayer (2001) reported a discrepancy

between the number of qualified women within the CSREES and the number of women

in state-based director positions. The people in positions of power in the United States

have traditionally been white males (Dorsey, 2001) and many business and industry

leaders tend to replace themselves with people whose backgrounds, experiences, and

characteristics are similar to there own (Sorcher & Brant, 2002). It is possible that these

same trends are present within the Extension service.

Empirical evidence exists that documents the lack of diversity in leadership

positions, within Extension. There is also research that examines the relationship

between demographics and leadership styles and supervisory/management competencies

of mid-level leaders within Extension (Cobb, 1989; Haynes, 1997; Lowery, 1996;

Shearon, 1969), but the amount of research focusing on the influence of demographics on

leadership styles and skills of senior leaders within the organization is arguably thin.

Furthermore, in-depth leadership skill development training programs have been

recommended for professional staff in Extension (Holder, 1990). However, the

organization has made no attempt to define specific leadership styles and skills it is

seeking in its leaders, thus making the inclusion of such competencies in training

programs difficult.

Several questions thus arise. What specific leadership skills do Extension leaders

need to be successful? Which leadership styles do most leaders within the organization

posses? What role do demographic characteristics play in an individual's leadership style









and skills? Are diverse populations underrepresented in leadership positions in Extension

as a function of different leadership styles and skills?

The study focused on identifying specific leadership skills needed by state

Extension directors and describing the self-perceived proficiency level of current

administrators in each of these areas. This study also described the demographic

characteristics of these current administrators, thus examining and describing aspects of

diversity among current administrators.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership

styles and skills of current Extension leaders. In this study, specific leadership

competencies needed by state Extension directors, as perceived by their administrative

heads, were determined. The self-perceived level of proficiency of current Extension

leaders in each competency was assessed. The study also described current Extension

administrators in terms of their leadership style, gender, age, ethnicity, previous

leadership training, and educational background. In describing current administrators, it

was possible to assess the current level of diversity within Extension state director and

administrator positions.

This research addressed the following specific objectives:

1. To determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within
each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative
heads.

2. To describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and
leadership style.

3. To assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well
as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each area.









4. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of
current Extension leaders.

5. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of
current Extension leaders.

Significance of Study

This study identified specific leadership competencies administrative heads of

current Extension leaders believe these leaders need to possess in order to be successful.

The CES is a unique organization in that its leaders are promoted almost exclusively from

within based on their performance in previous positions (Patterson, 1997; Pittman &

Bruny, 1986). The identification of specific competencies needed by Extension leaders

could help design leadership development programs that prepare individuals to be

successful in future leadership positions and ensure a large pool of competent leaders,

including members of diverse populations, from which the next generation of leaders can

be chosen.

This study also described current Extension leaders in terms of their

demographics, leadership style, and self-perceived proficiency in leadership skill areas.

Only a small body of knowledge exists that addresses the leadership styles and

demographics of Extension leaders, and that tries to explain the influence of these

variables on the ability of individuals to obtain positions of leadership within the

organization. Very few studies have been conducted that focus on leaders in senior

leadership positions within the organization. Being able to better explain the influence of

demographics on leadership styles and skills of Extension personnel could help in the

recruitment of future leaders, preferably from diverse populations.









Definition of Terms

* Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) (Also
known as the Cooperative Extension Service [CES) An educational system
established as a partnership between the United States Department of Agriculture
and the land-grant universities to disseminate practical information in areas such as
agriculture and home economics to local community members.

* Administrative Heads For the purposes of this study, Administrative Heads will
be the individuals in positions recognized by the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) as Administration Heads of
Agriculture. According to NASULGC, these individuals are the chief
administrators of the member universities agricultural programs.

* Diversity Differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender,
physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and other
human differences (Gear, 1992).

* Leadership An interaction that occurs between two or more members of a group
and can involve a structuring, or restructuring, of both the situation involves, and
the perceptions and expectations of the members involved (Bass, 1990).

* Leadership styles The characteristic manner in which an individual leads other
people; patterns of leadership behavior.

* Leadership skills The abilities and acquired tasks related to leadership developed
by an individual.

* Extension leaders For the purpose of this study, Extension leaders will be defined
as those individuals responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Extension
system within each state, as identified by the individuals listed in the CSREES
State Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002).

Limitations of the Study

As with any scholarly study, there are limitations that limit the generalizability of

this study. The first limitation that must be considered is related to the nature of the

organization being studied. Because this study will be conducted within the Cooperative

State Research, Education, and Extension System, which is a unique organization in

terms of its structure and function, the findings will not be generalizable to other









organizations. The study will nevertheless contribute useful information and

recommendations for researchers and Extension practitioners.

Second, this study will be limited to current Extension leaders in state director or

administrator positions, or as identified as the individual responsible for the day-to-day

operations of Extension within their state. This definition of "Extension leaders" limits

the generalizability of the findings to other types of leaders, such as leaders who emerge

within an organization without holding a formal management or administrative position.

The third limitation of the study deals with the limited number of demographic

variables included in the study. Other demographic variables that were not included in

this study may influence an individual's leadership style and leadership skills.

The final limitation of the study that must be considered is the fact that the

proficiency of current leaders related to each of the leadership competencies is self-

reported. This self-reported data may, or may not, be as accurate as if it was obtained

from observers familiar with the leader's proficiency in each of the skill areas.

Summary

This chapter provided the background and significance of the problem as well as

the purpose of the study. This study described the leadership styles of Extension leaders

and assessed the self-perceived proficiency level of administrators in specific leadership

competencies identified by their immediate supervisors. The study also explained the

influence of demographics on the leadership style and leadership skills of current leaders.

There were five research questions presented and the significance of study was

discussed. The five research objectives were the following:

1. To determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within
each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative
heads.









2. To describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and
leadership style.

3. To assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well
as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area.

4. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of
current Extension leaders.

5. To explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of
current Extension leaders.

This chapter also included the operational definitions of several terms related to

the study. Limitations of the study were also discussed.

Chapter 2 will present the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that guided this

study. Empirical research related to leadership styles, leadership skills, and the influence

of demographic variables will be addressed.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership

styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Specifically, this study sought to (1)

identify leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area

needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) describe

current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) assess

how important current Extension leaders perceive each skill area to be as well as how

proficient they perceive themselves to be in each area (4) explain the influence of

demographics on leadership style, and (5) explain the influence of demographics on

leadership skills.

This chapter presents a review of the relevant literature concerned with leadership

styles and skills. The chapter focuses on literature describing leadership styles, the effect

of demographic variables on leadership styles, and presents the relevant theoretical and

conceptual frameworks. A number of general studies related to leadership styles and

demographic variables are included in this examination, as a limited amount of empirical

research has been conducted specific to the Extension system. This chapter also reviews

pertinent literature concerned with specific leadership skills and the influence of personal

variables on these skills.

This chapter is divided into the following major sections: the nature of leadership

and leadership defined, leadership and management, major theories of leadership,









leadership styles, influence of demographics on leadership styles, leadership skills,

influence of demographics on leadership skills, conceptual framework, and summary.

The Nature of Leadership and Leadership Defined

Leadership has been well researched over the years, yet a lack of consensus in

many aspects of leadership still remains. Despite the fact that several thousand books,

articles, and papers have been written on the phenomenon of leadership, there is still not

an appropriate, consensus definition that is universally accepted. According to Stogdill

(1974), "there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have

attempted to define the concept" (p. 7).

Although most researchers generally define leadership according to their major

areas of interest and personal perspectives, most definitions are based on the belief that

leadership is a process that occurs as one individual influences one or more others in an

effort to facilitate organizational or group performance (Yukl, 2002). Similarly,

Northouse (2001) identified four central components to the concept of leadership: (1)

leadership is a process, (2) leadership involves influence, (3) leadership occurs within a

group context, and (4) leadership involves goal attainment.

The following examples reflect the various definitions of leadership that have

been proposed over the years. Gardner (1990) defined leadership as "the process of

persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to

pursue objectives held or shared by the leader and his or her followers" (p. 1). Kouzes &

Posner (1997a) defined leadership as "the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for

shared aspirations" (p. 30). Northouse (2001) defined leadership as "a process whereby

an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). Bass

(1990a) defined leadership as "an interaction between two or more members of a group









that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and

expectations of the members" (p. 19).

One of the characteristics common to each of these definitions is the presence of

other people. In his book Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way James Lundy (1990)

offers the following simple definition of a leader, "A leader is anyone who has followers"

(p. 20). According to this definition, leaders can exist anywhere within the organizational

hierarchy. Leadership should not be equated with position, power, authority, or status

(Bolman & Deal, 1997; Gardner, 1990). Leadership should be viewed as more of a

function of the relationship that exists between leaders and followers rather that the title,

power, status or authority one possesses within the organization. This is not to say that

people in administrative and management positions should not be considered leaders.

They are leaders not because of their title, but because people around them grant their

cooperation and follow them (Bolman & Deal).

Leadership is a universally accepted concept, yet one that is surrounded by

confusion and disagreement (Bolman & Deal, 1997). According to Bennis and Nanus

(1997), 'Leadership' is a word on everyone's lips," and "Everyone agrees there is less of

it than there used to be" (p. 1). They go on to point out that although specific leadership

competencies have remained more or less the same over the years, theories of what

exactly leadership is, how it works, how it is learned, and how it is applied have not

remained as quite as constant.

Leadership and Management

An ongoing debate exists about the difference between leadership and

management. Within the Extension system, it is often assumed that the leaders of the

organization are those individuals in the top-management positions and that to be









effective, these individuals need to be both a manager and a leader. Therefore, it is

important at this point to define and discuss the similarities and differences between

leadership and management.

Scholars generally agree that there are differences, but the degree to which the

two overlap or exist as separate entities is a matter of perspective. Some theorists have

suggested that leadership and management are two distinct entities (Bennis & Nanus,

1985; Kotter, 1990b; Zalenik, 1977). Kotter (1990b) distinguished between leaders and

managers on three different criteria. According to him, leaders set a direction, align

people, and motivate and inspire whereas managers plan and budget, organize and staff,

and control and solve problems. In essence, management functions to provide order and

consistency to an organization whereas leadership functions to produce change and

movement and leadership compliments rather than replaces management (Kotter, 1990a).

Although Kotter described leadership and management as separate factors, he did not

assume that leaders and managers are different people.

In contrast, Zalenik (1977) argued that leaders and managers themselves are

different and distinct. He distinguished between leaders and managers based on three

areas of suggested differences: motivation, personal history, and in how they think and

act and goes on to argue that managers and leaders are in fact different types of people

(Zalenik). As a result of his belief that leaders and managers are two different types of

people, Zalenik went on to argue that training and developing managers may actually

inhibit the development of leaders.

Similarly, Bennis and Nanus (1985) described distinct differences between

managers and leaders as people. According to them, "managers are people who do things









right and leaders are people who do the right things" (p. 21). For theorists such as Kotter,

Zalenik, and Bennis and Nanus, the essential distinction between leaders and managers

seems to be that leaders influence commitment while managers simply exercise authority

as they perform the responsibilities associated with their position (Yukl, 1989).

However, empirical research does not support the association of leadership and

management with different types of people as people tend not to sort themselves into

such extreme stereotypes (Yukl, 2002).

There are also theorists who, although they see the functions of leadership and

management as separate, view the two as interdependent rather than distinct entities

(Lester & Kunich, 1997). Lester & Kunich (1997) defined the functions of a leader as

setting the overall tone for the organizational culture and shaping the vision and mission

of the organization by setting goals and objectives and giving followers something to

believe in, and then motivating and inspiring them to accomplish the goal. In contrast,

they defined the roles of effective managers to be ensuring that everything is operating

optimally and efficiently by controlling and integrating resources to accomplish

organizational goals. These theorists see leadership and management as interdependent.

That is to say that good leadership can exist without effective management, and that poor

leadership can exist with effective management. No matter if theorists have suggested

the two to be entirely separate or interdependent, theorists agree that to be successful,

organizations need both effective leadership and effective management (Kotter, 1990b;

Lester & Kunich, 1997).

One thing that many definitions of effective management have in common is the

effective utilization of both human and material resources to achieve common goals and









objectives (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997). Most scholars support the

notion that to be an effective manager, leading is involved (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner,

1995; Yukl, 2002). Within the context of Extension, management can be divided into

five major functions: planning, organizing, staffing and human resource management,

leading and influencing, and controlling (Buford et al.). Buford et al. defined the leading

and influencing function of management within Extension to be "the process of inducing

individuals (peers, superiors, subordinates, and nonsubordinates) or groups to assist

willingly and harmoniously in accomplishing organizational objectives" (p. 7). Thus,

although leadership is not positional, managers within Extension can be expected to be

leaders within the organization as well.

Major Leadership Theories

In order to begin understanding the concept of leadership, one must understand

the various leadership theories that have contributed thus far to our understanding of

leadership as a whole. In his paper on leadership competencies, Scholtes (1999)

discussed the importance of theory. According to Scholtes, "without theory there is no

learning and without application there is no learning. We have a theory. We try it out.

We adjust our theory, based on what we have learned. We try that out and on and on.

The extensive cycle is called learning" (p. S706). When viewed collectively, the various

leadership theories provide a multifaceted view of leadership (Kanji & Sa, 2001).

Over the years, researchers have conducted literally thousands of studies that have

tried to explain leadership, and perhaps more importantly, effective leadership using a

number of different approaches. Nahavandi (2000) classified modern leadership

approaches into one of three eras: the trait era, the behavior era, and the contingency era.

Similarly, Yukl (2002) classified empirical research and leadership theories into one of









five major approaches: the trait approach, the behavioral approach, the power-influence

approach, the situational approach, and the integrative approach. Studies that have been

conducted within the various approaches to leadership have made distinct contributions

to our understanding of what leadership is, and each approach continues to influence our

thinking about leadership as a process (Nahavandi). Each of the approaches outlined by

Yukl will be discussed briefly in the sections that follow.

The Trait Approach

Studies conducted using the trait approach to leadership emphasized specific

attributes, or traits, of leaders such as personality, motives, values, and skills (Yukl,

2002). The basic assumption that guided the trait leadership studies was that leaders

possessed certain traits that other people did not possess. In essence, the trait approach

assumed that leaders were born, not made.

Hundreds of trait leadership studies were conducted during the 1930s and 1940s.

In fact, most of the leadership research conducted until the 1940s can be classified as trait

research (Bass, 1990a). However, these studies failed to create list of traits that would

guarantee leadership success (Yukl, 2002). Different studies found different traits

associated with leaders, and soon, the list became too long to be of practical significance.

After trait leadership studies failed to produce a conclusive list of traits that made

leaders successful, researchers began to study leadership using one of the other

approaches. However, there has been a renewed interest in trait leadership in recent years

(Bryman, 1992; Nahavandi, 2000). The inclusion of traits as one of the elements in

effective leadership is generally well accepted, but is no longer looked at as the only, or

even dominant, factor in effective leadership (Nahavandi).









The Behavioral Approach

After the studies conducted using the trait approach failed to produce conclusive

findings, many researchers began using a behavioral approach to study leadership. In

doing so, researchers and theorists began looking into what leaders actually did on the job

(Yukl, 2002). According to Yukl, research conducted under the behavioral approach falls

into one of two subcategories: (1) how leaders spend their time and the typical pattern of

activities, responsibilities, and functions of their jobs, and (2) identifying effective

leadership behavior.

The behavior approach was successful in increasing our understanding of

leadership by successfully identifying several categories of leadership behaviors

(Nahavandi, 2000). However, similar to the trait approach, the behavior approach

focused only on one variable of leadership. As Nahavandi points out, by emphasizing

only behaviors, this approach disregarded other variables, such as situational elements,

and therefore, provides a simplistic, and less than thorough understanding of the complex

process of leadership.

The Power-Influence Approach

According to Yukl (2002), this type of approach to leadership involves the study

of the influence that takes place between leaders and other people. Studies that have been

conducted with this approach generally focused on leadership in terms of the amount of

power possessed by a leader, the different types of power, and how power was exercised

(Yukl, 1989).

Power and influence are of concern to researchers as influence is the essence of

leadership and power is important not only for influencing followers, but also for

influencing peers and superiors, as well as individuals outside of an organization (Yukl,









1989, 2002). Bradford and Cohen (1984) noted the importance of this multidirectional

power and influence within an organization. According to them, "having clout with your

boss gains respect from subordinates and peers; being influential with colleagues lets you

deliver what your boss wants and your subordinates need; and high-performing

subordinates increase your power sideways and upwards because you can deliver on your

obligations and promises" (p. 280).

The Situational Approach

The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in the

study of leadership. Yukl (1989; 2002) identified the following contextual factors: the

leader's authority and discretion, the nature of the work performed by the leader's unit,

the characteristics of the followers, the type of organization, and the nature of the external

environment. Similarly, from his review of the works of several leadership theorists,

Bennis (1961) identified several factors that must be taken into account when explaining

who emerges and succeeds as a leader within an organization. Such factors might include

the relationship between leaders and followers and the design of tasks that allow

individuals to reach self-actualization. Bennis argued that effective leadership depends

on finding balance between individuals and the organization such that both can obtain

maximum satisfaction.

Research conducted under the situational approach generally can be generally

categorized into one of two subcategories: (1) an attempt to discover the extent to which

the leadership processes are the same or unique across different types of organizations,

levels of management, and cultures, or (2) an attempt to identify aspects of the situation

that moderate the relationship of leader attributes to leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2002).









The Integrative Approach

Researchers and theorists using the integrative approach to leadership include

more than one type of leadership variable, such as trait, behavior, influence processes,

and situational variables (Yukl, 2002). Bass (1990a) stressed the importance of including

more than one type of leadership variable in research involving leaders and leadership

when he stated, "cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations are likely to be

needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them" (p. 52).

He further stated that "leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of

variables that are in constant flux" (p. 76).

Leadership theories such as charismatic and transformational leadership are good

examples of an integrative approach to leadership. These theories are "broader in scope:

they simultaneously involve leader traits, power, behavior, and situational variables"

(Yukl, 1989, p. 270).

Leadership Styles

The concept of leadership styles is somewhat vague in that each individual's style

is as personal as the individuals themselves. Leadership style refers to the characteristics

manner in which an individual leads others. Early conceptualizations categorized

leadership styles as either autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire (White & Lippitt, 1960).

According to White and Lippitt, autocratic leadership styles are exhibited by leaders who

maintain a high degree of control over the group, without allowing much freedom for

participation by group members in decision-making. The autocratic leader sets group

goals and determines how the group will accomplish those roles. In other words, the

autocratic leader possesses high goal and means control, and utilizes low stimulation of

group procedures. The democratic leader, on the other hand, attempts to get the group to









develop the methods or procedures used to set goals. Therefore, the democratic leader

possesses low goals and means control, and utilizes high stimulation of group procedures.

The Laissez-faire leadership style is characterized by a "hands-off' approach to

leadership. Laissez-faire leaders both possess low goal and means control, and utilize

low stimulation of group procedures.

Through their work with the situational approach to leadership, Hersey and

Blanchard created their own leadership styles. They based their leadership styles on the

amount a task-behavior and relationship-behavior the leader provided followers. In their

initial classification system, leaders could be classified as having one of the four

following styles: telling (high task, low relationship), selling (high task, high

relationship), participating (low task, high relationship), or delegating (low task, low

relationship).

A newer version of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership model has been

created (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). In this version, Situational Leadership

II, there area still four classifications of leadership styles based on task and relationship

behavior, but leaders are said to have either directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating

leadership styles.

In the last 20 years, a new paradigm of leadership has emerged that shifted

emphasis from the traditional, or transactional, models of leadership toward of the study

of transformational leadership styles. The concept of transformational leadership was

introduced by Burns (1978) and refined by Bass (1985a). According to Tichy and

Devanna (1990), "transformational leaders are not dictators. They are powerful yet

sensitive of other people, and ultimately they work toward the empowerment of others"









(p. 273). The concept of transactional versus transformational leadership style becomes

an important aspect in the overall study of leadership in that, according to Bass (1985a),

"the leadership of great men (and great women) of history has usually been

transformational, not transactional" (p. 26).

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles

Burns (1978) viewed the two as a dimensional construct in which transactional

and transformational leadership were at opposite ends of the same continuum. He

characterized transactional leadership as being based on interactions between leaders and

followers in which something of value was exchanged, such as rewards for performance.

At the other end of the continuum, he characterized transformational leadership as

occurring when leaders and followers interacted in such a way that the level of

motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower were raised.

In contrast, Bass (1985a) viewed the two as complementary constructs, and as

such, saw it possible, in fact almost necessary, for the leader to engage in both

transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leadership is

not a substitute for transactional leadership, but rather tends to add to its effectiveness

(Bass, 1997).

Bass characterized the transactional leader as someone who worked within the

existing organizational culture of the group to recognize and clarify the roles and

responsibilities of followers such that desired outcomes were achieved (see Figure 2-1).

These desired outcomes were achieved when the leader negotiated with followers

an exchange relationship of reward for compliance (Bass, 1985a). In other words,

transactional leaders explain to followers what is required of them and then negotiate the

compensation followers will receive if they meet the requirements, either the promise of









reward for good performance or the threat of punishment for poor performance (Bass,

1990b). Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified four characteristics of transactional leaders: (1)

contingent reward in which the leader provides rewards if followers meet agreed upon

performance and designated goals; (2) active management-by-exception in which the

leader watches and searches for follower mistakes such that corrective action can be

taken; (3) passive management-by-exception in which the leader only intervenes in a

followers work if performance goals are not being met; and (4) laissez-faire leadership in

which the leader withdraws and avoids responsibility and decision-making when

performance goals are not met. Laissez-faire leadership can actually be considered a

non-leadership factor as it represents the absence of leadership (Northouse, 2001).

Bass characterized transformational leaders as individuals who motivate followers

to do more than they originally expected to do based on their original level of confidence

towards accomplishing desired outcomes (see Figure 2-2). Transformational leadership

occurs when a leader: raises the level of awareness about the importance and value of

desired outcomes, alters or expands the wants and needs of followers, and/or gets

followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the group (Bass, 1985a).

Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified four characteristics of transformational leaders: (1)

charisma in which the leader is able to provide followers with a vision, transmit a sense

mission, gain respect and trust, and instill faith in followers; (2) inspiration in which the

leader provides examples and patterns for the follower through symbols and images,

emotional appeals, and communicating high expectations; (3) intellectual stimulation in

which the leader stimulates followers to think in new ways, promotes intelligence and

rationality, and emphasizes problem solving; and (4) individualized consideration in









which the leader provides a supportive and coaching environment such that each follower

is treated as a respected individual.


Leader Leader
recognizes what recognizes what
follower must do follower needs
to attain
designated
outcomes
Leader clarifies
how follower's
need fulfillment
Leader clarifies ille
will be
follower's role exchanged for
exchanged for
enacting role to
attain designated
outcome

Follower
confidence in
meeting role Follower value
requirements of designated
(subjective outcomes (need
probability of fulfilling value
success) for follower)




Follower
motivation to
attain desired
outcomes
(expected effort)


Figure 2-1. Bass's (1985a) model of transactional leadership.










Leader
expansion of
follower's
portfolio of
needs


Leader
transcending of
follower's self-
interests


Leader elevation
of follower's
need to a higher
Maslow level


Leader elevation
of follower's
subjective
probabilities of
success


Follower current
state of expected
effort


Leader elevation
of value of
designated
outcomes for
follower


Follower
heightened
motivation to
attain designated
outcome (extra
effort)


Figure 2-2. Bass' (1985a) model of transformational leadership.









Another popular conceptualization of transformational leadership style was that of

the leadership challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Kouzes and Posner collected over

1,000 surveys and interviewed numerous middle-level to senior-level managers who

described their personal best leadership experience and identified five fundamental

leadership practices of transformational leaders. When the leaders in their study moved

people beyond expectations, they: (1) challenged the process, (2) inspired a shared

vision, (3) enabled others to act, (4) modeled the way, and (5) encouraged the heart.

Posner and Kouzes (1988) reported that over 80 percent of the behaviors and strategies

respondents described in their interviews and personal best leadership experiences were

accounted for by these five fundamental practices.

Leaders who exhibit the leadership practice Challenge the Process are not bound

by the status quo, are open to innovation, and encourage risk-taking within the

organization. Leaders who Inspire a Shared Vision are able to look ahead and see what

the organization can be while at the same time enlisting the efforts of others in the

achieving the common goals of the organizational vision. Leaders who engage in

behaviors characteristic of the Enabling Others to Act practice transfer power to others in

the organization, involve others in the decision making processes of the organization, and

ultimately build trust and mutual respect within the organization. Leaders who Model the

Way set examples within the organization by adhering to the same rules and expectations

of others within the organization. Leaders who utilize the Encourage the Heart practice

recognize the contributions of individuals and celebrate the accomplishments of others

within the organization.









Measurement of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. In an

effort to measure the conceptualizations of transformational and transactional leadership,

Bass created the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). To develop the

instrument, Bass began with 142 statements drafted from a review of literature and open-

ended interviews with 70 male senior industrial executives. These statements were

reviewed by 11 graduate MBA and social science students who were enrolled in a

leadership seminar class. The 11 judges had studied detailed descriptions of transactional

and transformational leadership and sorted the statements into one of three categories:

transactional, transformational, or "can't say."

Items were selected as transactional if nine or more of the 11 judges identified it

as transactional and none or only one of the judges identifies it as transformational. An

item was selected as transformational if eight or more of the 11 judges identified it as

transformational and none or only one identified it as transactional. Of the original 142

statements, 73 remained and were included in the revised questionnaire.

From his conceptualization of the characteristics of transformational and

transactional leaders, Bass identified seven leadership factors: charisma, inspiration,

intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-

by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985a).

Although Bass considered charisma and inspiration to be distinct constructs, the two were

not found to be distinguishable in a factor analysis study of data obtained from 176

military officers (104 U.S. Army colonels, foreign officers, and civilians of equivalent

rank and 72 senior military officers) who completed the 73 item revised questionnaire,

and thus the two were combined to represent a single factor (Bass, 1985a, 1988).









Similarly, the laissez-faire leadership construct faded as a separate entity (Bass, 1985a).

Of the remaining five factors, three were identified as transformational (charismatic

leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual consideration) and two were

identified as transactional (contingent reward and management-by-exception).

More recent forms of the MLQ such as the MLQ 5X (2000a) include nine

leadership scales. Of these, five are transformational: idealized influence (attributed),

idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. Three of the leadership scales are transactional: contingent

reward, management-by-exception (active), and management-by-exception passive. The

remaining leadership scale, laissez-faire leadership is the only measure the laissez-faire,

or non-leadership, style.

Idealized influence is defined in terms of how followers react to the leader and

his/her behavior. Leaders with idealized influence are admired and respected by

followers and serve as strong role models. They have high standards of ethical and moral

conduct and provide followers with a vision and sense of mission. Followers want to

emulate leaders who exhibit idealized influence (Northouse, 2001). According to Bass

and Avolio (2000b), idealized influence can be seen as both a behavior and an impact,

thus requiring two leadership scales: idealized influence (attributed) and idealized

influence (behavior).

Inspirational motivation is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she

inspires and motivates followers to demonstrate commitment to the shared vision of the

organization. Leaders who engage in this behavior clearly communicate high

expectations to followers and increase team spirit and enthusiasm (Northouse, 2001).









Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she

supports followers to be creative and innovative, try new approaches, and challenge their

own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization. Followers

engage in problem solving to find creative solutions (Northouse, 2001).

Individualized consideration is displayed by a transformational leader when

he/she provides a supportive climate, listens to followers, and acts as a coach and mentor.

The leader pays attention to individual differences and treats individual employees in a

caring and unique way. Leaders also help individuals achieve goals and grow personally

(Northouse, 2001).

Contingent reward refers to the engagement of leaders and followers in an

exchange process in which effort by followers is exchanged for specific rewards.

Objectives are agreed upon by both leaders and followers, and achievement of the

objectives is positively reinforced (Northouse, 2001).

Management-by exception occurs when transactional leaders intervene to make

some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative reinforcement.

Management-by-exception can be active or passive. Transactional leaders engage in

active management-by-exception when they closely monitor followers so they can detect

mistakes and take corrective action and offer negative feedback. Transactional leaders

engage in passive management-by-exception when they intervene with a follower only

after standards have not been met or problems arise (Northouse, 2001).

Laissez-faire leaders engage in laissez-faire behaviors when they abdicate

responsibility, delay decisions, offer no feedback, and make little or no effort to help









followers satisfy needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a "hands-off' approach to

leadership (Northouse, 2001).

The MLQ is the most widely used measure of transformational leadership

(Northouse, 2001). By 1986, the MLQ had been included in over 75 research studies

with findings published in journals, dissertations, book chapters, conference papers, and

technical reports (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). According to Lowe et al.

(1996), the MLQ has been used to study leaders at all levels of both public and private

organizations in business and industry, the military, and educational and religious

institutions, as well as to study effectiveness criteria such as follower perceptions of

effectiveness and satisfaction and extra effort and organizational measures of

performance.

In an effort to measure their own conceptualizations of leadership, Kouzes and

Posner created the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). After collecting and analyzing

the interview and personal best leadership experience forms and identifying the five

fundamental practices of effective leaders, the authors wrote six statements that captured

each of the five practices for a total of 30 statements. Kouzes and Posner created two

forms of the instrument: the LPI-Self to be completed by the leader and the LPI-Other to

be completed by the leader's followers or subordinates (Kouzes & Posner, 1997b). The

initial versions of the instrument were based on a five-point Likert scale that asked

respondents to rate how often the leader demonstrated a particular behavior on a scale

from one to five where one represented rarely or very seldom and five represented very

frequently or almost always. The LPI was then completed by 120 MBA students and

receiving feedback from respondents, difficult, ambiguous, or inconsistent statements









were revised or replaced (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). The revised instrument was

administered to over 2,100 managers and their subordinates and data were analyzed for

internal reliability and construct validity. A factor analysis was also conducted and

statements that loaded poorly or on a factor that was not interpreted were either discarded

or rewritten. In a study of managers and executives in management development

seminars and approximately three of their subordinates (N=2,876) Posner and Kouzes

(1988) reported overall internal reliabilities of the LPI ranging from .77 to .90 with

reliabilities of .70 to .84 on the LPI-Self and .81 to .91 on the LPI-Other. The authors

also reported that a factor analysis extracted five factors and accounted for 59.9% of the

variance.

The LPI was not created to measure either transactional or transformational

leadership, but rather the five fundamental practices of leadership identified by Kouzes

and Posner (1987). However, in a study involving 1,892 subordinates describing 344

middle managers, Fields and Herold (1997) evaluated three alternative factor models of

the five dimensions of the LPI. Results of the analysis indicated that the model which

associates two dimensions of the LPI (Challenging the Process and Inspiring a Shared

Vision) with transformational leadership, one dimension (Enabling Others to Act) with

transactional leadership, and the remaining two dimensions (Modeling the Way and

Encouraging the Heart) with a mixture of both transformational and transactional

leadership produced to best fit to the raw data. The authors concluded that subordinate

assessments of a leader using the LPI can be used to measure transformational and

transactional leadership.









Similarly, in a study involving 1,440 subordinates in an Australian banking firm,

Carless (2001) concluded that although the constructs of the LPI were highly correlated

and thus the LPI had a weak discriminant validity, the instrument was assessing an over-

arching transformational leadership construct. It should be noted however that this study

utilized the first edition of the LPI rather than the newer, second edition.

Posner and Kouzes (1988) also examined the relationship between a leader's

effectiveness and his or her behavior as measured by the LPI. Data collected only from

the LPI-Other instruments were analyzed using stepwise regression. The five factors were

entered as independent variables and leader effectiveness was entered as the dependent

variable. A significant regression equation was obtained. Results of the analysis

indicated that nearly 55% of a manager's effectiveness can be explained by the

manager's behavior based on the conceptual framework of transformational leadership

measured by the LPI (Posner & Kouzes, 1988).

Kouzes and Posner have continued to revise and improve the LPI as well as

conduct reliability and validity studies (1997b). The second edition of the instrument

asks respondents to rate the leader's demonstrated behavior on a one to ten point Likert

scale instead of the five-point scale used in an earlier version. Additionally, the authors

changed the name of the LPI-Other to the LPI-Observer because they believe the new

name more accurately describes its intent as it is designed to be used by people who

directly observe the behaviors of the leader they are describing (Kouzes & Posner,

1997b).

Early views of transformational and transactional leadership styles placed the two

at opposite ends of a single continuum, and therefore suggested that leaders were unable









to engage in aspects of both styles at the same time. In contrast, current theories view the

two as complementary constructs, both of which are important to the success and

prosperity of organizations, and suggest that effective leaders can, and should, engage in

aspects of both at the same time. In other words, transformational leadership is an

extension of the traditional transactional leadership, and leaders are most effective when

they exhibit both styles. In a meta-analysis of 39 studies on transformational leadership

that used the MLQ, Lowe et al. (1996) reported that transformational leadership

behaviors were more strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness than were

transactional leadership behaviors across different contexts. These findings support the

theory that effective leaders utilize transactional leadership when necessary and

appropriate, but also emphasize and practice transformational leadership.

Relationship Between Leadership Style and Leadership/Management Theory

Some scholars have related the differences between management and leadership

to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Bennis and

Nanus (1997) noted that management typically consists of a set of contractual exchanges

whereas the end result of leadership is empowerment, which results in the desire of

individuals to achieve success. From this perspective, management can be seen as those

activities performed by transactional leaders while leadership can be seen as those

activities performed by transformational leaders.

The functions of management and leadership are different, but a considerable

amount of overlap exists between the two. Both effective management and effective

leadership are needed in order for organizations to reach their greatest potential

outcomes. In many respects, the functions of management can be compared to

transactional leadership in which followers meet the expectations of their leaders based









on contracts and performance requirements. Under most circumstances, this may be

effective, however, over the past couple of decades the leadership paradigm has shifted

and the literature now supports the idea that to generate extra effort, commitment and

satisfaction in followers, transformational leadership is more effective.

Influence of Demographics on Leadership Styles

Numerous studies have been conducted in the field of leadership that have

addressed the influence of selected demographic characteristics of individuals on their

leadership style. Some studies have focused on the influence of the characteristics on the

self-perceived leadership style of the individual, others have focused on the perceptions

of followers related to an individual's leadership style and the influence of these

characteristics, and still others have involved the perceptions of both the leaders and their

followers. Krishnan and Park (1998) noted that demographic characteristics do exert

considerable influence on the leadership styles of top managers. Hambrick and Mason

(1984) proposed that demographic traits such as age, tenure in an organization, functional

area background, educational background, and degree of formal management training are

all important aspects of leadership that influence organizational success.

Gender

Differences in the preferred leadership styles of men and women is perhaps one of

the most well researched aspects of leadership. There are two major schools of thought

on gender differences and leadership, one that says there are distinct differences and the

other that says there are no differences in the preferred leadership styles of men and

women.

Several studies have been conducted to determine if male or female leaders are

more transformational. In their meta-analysis, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that









women tend to use a more participative and inclusive style while men tend to use a more

directive and controlling style. This indicates that women use more transformational

styles while men use more transactional styles. This conclusion is supported by other

studies that found women more likely to use transformational leadership than men and

that men were more likely to use transactional leadership as their primary style (Druskat,

1994; Rosener, 1990).

Carless (1998) went on to assess transformational and transactional leadership in

terms of subordinate, leader and superior perceptions. A unique aspect of her study is

that she used both the MLQ and the LPI to completely assess and measure

transformational and transactional leadership. Carless reported that while subordinates

reported no differences between men and women in their use of transformational

leadership, both the leaders themselves and the leaders' superiors reported females to be

more transformational than their male counterparts.

In a study of 73 senior human resource management professionals, 49 males and

24 females, Posner and Kouzes (1988) reported that statistically significant differences

were obtained between the males and females on the Encouraging the Heart factor of the

LPI with the females reporting higher frequency scores than their male counterparts. In a

later study involving 5,298 managers who completed the LPI-Self instrument and 30,913

subordinates who completed the LPI-Observer instrument, two of the five leadership

practices were found to be significantly different between males and females in both LPI-

Self and LPI-Observer groups (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). In the LPI-self group, female

managers reported engaging in Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart

significantly more often that their male counterparts. This finding is supported by the









findings of the LPI-Observer scores that revealed female managers were seen by their

subordinates as engaging in Modeling the Way and Encouraging the Heart behaviors

significantly more often that their male colleagues. Findings from these studies suggest

that in general, male and female leaders are more alike than they are different in terms of

the five leadership practices that are measured by the LPI (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). It is

interesting to not however, that the two practices females have been shown to engage in

significantly more often than that their male peers, Modeling the Way and Encouraging

the Heart, are the same two practices that Fields and Herold (1997) found to represent

both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.

There have been studies conducted within the Extension system that have

addressed differences in the leadership styles of men and women administrators. Rudd

(2000) conducted a study in which five observers completed the LPI-Observer instrument

for 38 male and 16 female County Extension Directors in Florida. Observers reported

significant differences between the men and women on four of the five leadership

practices measured by the LPI. Observers reported women using Challenging the

Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart

behaviors significantly more often than their male counterparts. In the same study, 28

male and 16 female County Extension Directors completed the LPI-Self instrument. It is

interesting to note that the male leaders ranked themselves higher in all five leadership

practices than did their observers, whereas the female leaders ranked themselves lower in

four of the five leadership practices. Self-reported and observer scores for females in the

Enabling Others to Act were equivalent.









Lowery (1996) used the Human Patterns instrument to measure five leadership

behaviors based on the work of Kouzes and Posner. The five leadership behaviors were:

appreciating and recognizing others, challenging and pushing others, coaching and

enabling others, inspiring others, and serving as a role model. Results showed that the

female CEDs in her study showed a strong preference for inspiring others and

challenging others while male CEDs preferred the leadership behaviors of inspiring

others, coaching others, and appreciating others.

In a study in which the self-perceived leadership and management behaviors of

County Extension Directors (CED) were compared with the perceptions of their

behaviors provided by County Extension Agents (CEA), Sykes (1995) classified certain

behaviors as those found in leaders, such as risk taker, visionary, and innovates, and

certain behaviors found in managers, such as monitors, administers general duties, and

satisfied with status quo. When compared with the literature, those behaviors Sykes

classified as leader behaviors are comparable to behaviors exhibited by transformational

leaders, whereas those behaviors she classified as manager behaviors are more

comparable to transactional leadership behaviors. With respect to gender, Sykes found

that female CEDs perceived themselves to demonstrate more leadership behaviors than

male CEDs perceived themselves to demonstrate.

Haynes (1997) examined the relationship between demographics such as gender,

age, tenure in Extension, tenure in a supervisory/management position, and program area

and 15 supervisory/management competencies that were observed and assessed in an

Extension Assessment Center. In his study, participants that demonstrated above average









strength ion the behavioral flexibility competency tended to be female. Demonstrated

strength in the remaining competencies was not affected by gender.

In her study involving employees of the New Mexico Cooperative Extension

Service, Holder (1990) categorized participants as either Extension faculty (county

Extension faculty and Extension specialists) or middle managers (county Extension

directors, district directors, and program leaders). She reported that leadership style was

not significantly related to gender for either Extension faculty or middle managers.

Ethnicity

Little empirical evidence exists in the study of ethnicity differences related to

leadership styles. Few studies in Extension have been conducted in which the influence

of ethnicity on leadership style was addressed. However, it is nevertheless important to

consider ethnicity differences in leadership styles. As Alire (2001) points out,

"minorities themselves view differences between white and minority leadership" (p. 97)

and "for the most part, minorities think that they are held to a higher standard" (p. 99).

Davis (1982) concluded that based on Bums' definitions of transformational and

transactional leadership, the needs and experiences of the black population may dictate a

greater emphasis on transformational leadership. This conclusion may suggest that black

followers seek transformational leaders and that black leaders tend to be more

transformational. The latter has not been supported in empirical studies. In the Posner

and Kouzes (1993) study involving over 36,000 managers and their subordinates, the

authors compared the responses of Caucasians with those of non-Caucasians. Non-

Caucasian managers reported engaging in Inspiring a Shared Vision and Modeling the

Way behaviors significantly more often than their Caucasian colleagues. However, when









LPI-Observer scores were analyzed, no significant differences between Caucasians and

non-Caucasians in any of the five leadership practices.

In a smaller study conducted with 42 male and 32 female Directors of Student

Athletic Support Services at NCAA Division I Institutions, Rochelle (1999) reported

significant differences between Hispanics and the group that reported Other as their

ethnicity in the leadership practice Encouraging the Heart as measured by the LPI.

Within the Extension system, Sykes (1995) reported significant differences in the

self-perceived leadership behaviors of African-American CEDs as compared to CEDs of

other races. The African-American CEDs in her study perceived themselves to

demonstrate more leadership behaviors. In contrast, Holder (1990) found no significant

relationship between ethnic origin and leadership style of Extension faculty and middle

managers.

Age

Several studies examining the relationship between age and leadership style have

been conducted organizations other than Extension. Vroom and Pahl (1971) suggested

that older managers within an organization may have a greater commitment to

maintaining the status quo than younger managers and less favorable attitudes towards

taking risks. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that younger managers were more

inclined to take risks than older managers. Taking risks rather than maintaining the status

quo is one of the characteristics of leaders who engage in the leadership practice

Challenging the Process identified by Kouzes and Posner (1987).

Spotanski and Carter (1993) conducted a study on the self-perceived leadership

practices and behaviors of agricultural education department executive officers in which

demographic variables, including age, tenure, and formal leadership training and/or









education, were analyzed in relation to the leadership practices measured by the LPI. In

their study, 28 of 49 participants were below the age of 50 and 21 were above the age of

50. When grouped according to age, below 50 and above 50, findings of the study

indicated no significant differences in leadership style.

Within the Extension system, Sykes (1995) found that the age of a CED did not

significantly influence her behavior as a manager or a leader. She did find, however, that

younger CEDs, 45 years old and younger, perceived themselves to demonstrate more

leader behaviors.

Holder (1990) reported that age was not significantly related to the preferred

leadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers. Similarly, Haynes (1997)

reported that age did not affect participants' demonstrated strength in the 15

supervisory/management competencies included in his study.

Tenure

Studies have been conducted that assess the relationship between an individual's

leadership style and their tenure within an organization as well as their tenure in

leadership positions within the organization. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that

the more tenure the leaders of an organization have, the more likely they are to have a

greater commitment to maintaining the status quo. Similarly, Bantel and Jackson(1989)

found that the more tenure of the top management team within the independent financial

institutions they studied had, the more likely they were to resist innovation and

organizational change. However, in their study, they found no significant differences

between the tenure of the CEO and total innovation.

Tenure has also been addressed from the perspective of how long an individual

has served in a leadership position. The Spotanski and Carter (1993) study that included









age as a demographic variable also included a comparison between leadership styles and

the number of years in which a participant had served as a department executive officer.

The authors reported no significant difference between leadership styles of the study

participants when compared to years of experience as a department executive officer.

In his study of Directors of Student Athletic Support Services at NCAA Division I

Institutions, Rochelle (1999) reported that the number of years respondents reported

working in the primary leadership role was significantly correlated with the Encouraging

the Heart leadership practice of the LPI.

Shearon (1969) introduced the concept of Administrative Professional Leadership

(APL) in Extension that he defined as a leader's efforts to coordinate and influence the

performance of Extension agents. In his study involving County Extension Chairmen

(CEC) and Extension agents in the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, he

found that the more tenure a CEC had in Extension, the lower their APL scores indicating

decreased leadership effectiveness.

Cobb (1989) conducted a study involving CEDs and county Extension agents in

select counties of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. He reported no

significant difference in the leadership effectiveness of CEDs with one to 10 years tenure

in the CED position as compared to CEDs with 11 to 30 years of tenure in the CED

position. Similarly, Holder (1990) reported no significant relationship between tenure in

Extension and the preferred leadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers.

Sykes (1995) reported on the influence of tenure both within Extension as a whole

and within and Extension CED position. Findings of her study indicated that tenure in

the Extension system as a whole did not influence a CEDs behavior either as a leader or









as a manager. The same finding was reported for tenure in an Extension CED position.

In other words, more tenure, either in the Extension system as a whole or in a leadership

position within Extension, did not necessarily indicate a more transactional leadership

style.

In his study involving demonstrated strength of Extension employees who

completed the Assessing Supervisory and Management Skills Assessment Center at the

Minnesota Extension Summer School and the Ohio State University Extension County

Chair Assessment Center, Haynes (1997) reported that participants who demonstrated

above average strength in leadership tended to have more tenure in Extension. Those

who demonstrated above average strength in development of coworkers had both more

tenure in Extension and more tenure in a supervisory/management position. The

remaining competencies were not affected by tenure.

Educational Background and Promotion Path

Educational background and promotion path are variables that have received

considerably less attention than other demographic variables within the literature.

Shearon (1969) found no relationship between undergraduate major, which he classified

as either oriented more to the social sciences or to agricultural technology, and the APL

of the CECs in his study.

Findings of the study conducted by Sykes (1995) suggested that program

discipline from which CEDs came from significantly influenced their self-perceptions

related to transformational leadership styles. Sykes reported that CEDs from home

economics and 4-H program backgrounds perceived themselves to demonstrate more

leadership behaviors than CEDs from agricultural program backgrounds. Sykes also

reported that the type of degree, beyond a bachelor's degree, had no significant influence









on the self-perceive leadership styles of the CEDs in her study. However, in terms of

leadership effectiveness, Cobb (1989) reported no significant difference in the leadership

effectiveness of CEDs as a function of their previous program discipline.

Haynes (1997) reported that participants in his study who demonstrated above

average strength in leadership tended not to be from the family and consumer science, 4-

H youth development, or community/economic development program areas. Similarly,

those who demonstrated above average strength in development of coworkers tended not

to come from the agriculture/natural resources, 4-H youth development, or

community/economic development programs and those who demonstrated above average

strength in behavioral flexibility tended not to come from the community/economic

development program area. The remaining competencies were not affected by previous

program area.

Although there has been little study into the influence of educational background

and promotion path, it is an area of great importance as the leaders of Extension are

almost always promoted from within the organization based on their performance in their

subject matter discipline or previous Extension positions (Patterson, 1997; Pittman &

Bruny, 1986). In many cases, leaders tend to want to surround and replace themselves

with people who are like them in terms of their background and experiences (Sorcher &

Brant, 2002). Thus, it is logical to believe that individuals trained in a bench science

disciple would seek to promote individuals with training in a bench science. However,

Bantel and Jackson (1989) proposed that it is to the benefit of top management teams

within an organization to be composed of diverse individuals with dissimilar types of

curricula backgrounds.









In some respects, this proposition has not been supported in the literature related

to Extension. For example, All six of the African American Extension leaders at 1890

Land-Grant institutions studied by Moore and Jones (2001) had an academic background

in Family and Consumer Sciences.

Gender, ethnicity, age, tenure, and background are the most common

demographic variables studied throughout the literature in regards to their influence on

leadership style. There are many inferences that can be drawn from the findings of the

studies examined. It can be suggested that younger leaders are more transformational in

their leadership style.

Leadership Training and Development

Transformational leadership practices can be taught and learned (Bass, 1990b,

1998; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; 1997a) and therefore, it is important consideration in the

context of training and development. In the context of Extension, training programs for

administrators have historically included instruction in managerial skills such as program

planning, personnel management, resource allocation and budgeting, and advisory

committee organization, but lacked instruction in leadership skill areas such as

participatory leadership, visioning, communication, innovation, empowerment, and

recognition of followers and subordinates (Rudd, 2000). Moore and Jones (2001)

suggested that an increase in minorities in leadership positions would occur in Extension

would increase leadership development opportunities for minorities.

When leadership training and development is viewed from a transformational

leadership perspective, Payne, Fuqua, and Canegami (1997) reported that when trained,

there is no difference between the transformational leadership behaviors of men and

women. However, when untrained, men will use a more task-oriented or transactional









style, while women will tend to use a more consideration-oriented or transformational

style.

Gunderson (1994) reported ways of preparing individuals for future leadership

positions as a major theme that emerged from an in-depth case study involving 57

Extension leaders from four states. Radhakrishna, Yoder and Baggett (1994) noted the

importance and value of identifying leadership styles, behaviors and practices in the

professional growth of County Extension Directors. According to the authors, the

identification of weakness areas would help determine additional professional growth

efforts, which in turn could increase their effectiveness as leaders.

The findings that leadership training and development is important within the

Extension system are supported by the findings of studies conducted in other

organizations as well as in Extension. The Spotanski and Carter (1993) study involving

agricultural education department executive officers reported that study participants who

had completed a leadership course in college or formal leadership training utilized the

leadership practice Encouraging the Heart significantly more often than participants who

had not completed such training. The authors also reported that study participants who

completed a college course in leadership also utilized the leadership practice Enabling

Others to Act significantly more often that participants who had not completed a

leadership course.

Within the Extension system, Shearon (1969) found no relationship between the

APL of the CEC and the number of courses taken in the areas of administration,

education, and sociology.









Leadership Skills

Leadership skills can be taught and learned, yet skilled leaders continue to be in

short supply (Pernick, 2001). According to Katz (1955), a skill can be defined as "an

ability which can be developed, not necessarily inborn, and which is manifested in

performance, not merely in potential" (p. 33-34). Nahavandi (2000) expanded on this

definition by including a training dimension. Nahavandi proposed that a skill is an

acquired task a person develops and can change with training and experience.

Katz (1955) identified three categories of skills needed by leaders: technical

skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Although the amount of human, technical, and

conceptual skills may vary depending on position within the organizational hierarchy,

each is nevertheless important for successful leaders to possess. Figure 2.3 illustrates the

amount of each skill required at the various levels of management within an organization.

Technical skills, according to Katz, are the most concrete type of skills and are

associated with understanding and being able to complete specific activities. In other

words, these are the "how to do it" skills and involve methods, processes, procedures, or

techniques. Leaders engage in technical skills when they perform the technical activities

required of them. Technical skills are more important at the lower levels of

administration (Goleman, 1998; Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955). As a leader moves

up in the organizational hierarchy, he/she relies on the technical skills of followers more

than on his/her own technical skills (Hicks & Gullett, 1975).











Top Management Conceptual




Middle Management Human




First-line Supervisor Technical



Amount of skill requirements --

Figure 2.3. Amount of human, technical, and conceptual skills needed at various levels
in an organization (Hicks & Gullett, 1975, p. 308).


Human skills can be considered the "people skills." Katz (1955) defined human

skills as "the ability to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative

effort within the team he leads" (p. 34). This skill is demonstrated in how a leader

perceives and behaves towards those around him/her, including superiors, peers, and

followers, and most importantly cannot be a "some-time skill," but rather must be

demonstrated in every action of the leader (Katz, 1955). Leaders engage in human

relation skills when they motivate individuals and groups. Human skills are essential

throughout all management levels (Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955).

Conceptual skills can be thought of as the "thinking skills" needed by leaders.

This type of skill involves being able to see both what is going on within an entire

organization, and how the various parts of the organization interact and depend on one

another (Katz, 1955). Conceptual skills are perhaps most important at top management









levels where policy decisions, long-term planning, and broad scale actions are required

(Hicks & Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955).

Newer approaches to leadership skills have been built upon the technical, human,

and conceptual skill classification, but are slightly different. Goleman (1998) outlined

three domains of leadership skills: purely technical skills, cognitive abilities, and

competencies that demonstrated emotional intelligence. There are five components to

emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social

skill.

Goleman (1998) included emotional intelligence as a set of leadership skills

because he saw it as the distinguishing competence of senior leaders. In fact, he reported

emotional intelligence to be twice as important as the others when applied to all levels of

jobs within the organizational hierarchy, and found emotional intelligence, rather than

conceptual skills, to explain 90% of the difference in the effectiveness of star performers

and average senior level leaders.

Strand (1981) conducted a study to determine community leadership

competencies, as perceived by community residents. A factor analysis of the 39

competency items contained in the instrument revealed nine broad competency areas.

Four of the nine competency areas represented conceptual skills, three represented human

skills, and two represented technical skills. Findings of this study suggested that

conceptual competencies were the most important, followed closely by human

competencies, with technical competencies being least important.

In a study in which they designed a leadership competency instrument for

healthcare administration, Robbins, Bradley, and Spicer (2001)identified four leadership









skill domains. Their assessment instrument contained 52 items that were classified as

technical skills, industry knowledge, analytic and conceptual reasoning, or interpersonal

and emotional intelligence. They identified industry knowledge as a domain of skills due

to the complex nature of the healthcare industry.

Just like there are a number of different approaches researchers can use to study

leadership, there are a number of different classification systems of leadership skills.

However, each involves some aspect of getting the work done, some aspect of seeing

both the big picture and the small, and dealing with the human aspect of the leadership

process either from a self or other perspective.

Leadership Competencies. Within an organization, identifying critical leadership

competencies required for effectiveness helps define what skills leaders need (Pemick,

2001). In a study conducted by The American Society for Training & Development, The

American Productivity & Quality Center, James Kouzes, and Robert Fulmer, most of the

best-practice organizations, those identified as having a strong or innovative leadership

development programs, studied had identified leadership competencies of successful

leaders within their organization (Fulmer & Wagner, 1999). The identification of key

competencies provides for both individual and organizational growth and helps the

organization meet future demands (Pickett, 1998).

Pernick identified three ways in which organizations determine critical leadership

competencies: (1) use generic leadership competencies found in theory, (2) build their

own competencies, or (3) derive competencies from the organization's mission statement

and core values. However, according to Barner (2000), "it makes no sense to try to









identify essential leadership capabilities unless one knows the business context in which

the leaders will be expected to excel" (p. 47).

There are two distinct views of competencies. One is based on the belief that a

competent individual is one who has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform ajob

adequately to minimum standards of performance, while the other is based on the belief

that competencies are based on the belief that competencies are developed based on

characteristics of highly successful individuals (Robbins et al., 2001). Robbins et al.

proposed that the second view, the "star" approach, is the most useful view in terms of

leadership development

In his study on community leadership competencies, Strand (1981) reported nine

categories of leadership competencies. The nine competencies identified as important by

community members were:

1. Problem solving ability.
2. Demeanor.
3. Budgeting and supervisory competencies.
4. Needs assessment competencies.
5. Promoting feelings of importance in community members.
6. Group organization and communication competencies.
7. Organization leadership competencies.
8. Leadership attitudes/principles.
9. Management of change competencies.

After the identification of the nine competency areas, Strand was able to view each as

technical, human, or conceptual skills.

Based on Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (Deming, 1994), Scholtes

(1999) identified six competencies he considered essential for leaders to possess.

Scholtes' six new leadership competencies were:

1. The ability to think in terms of systems and knowing how to lead systems.
2. The ability to understand the variability of work in planning and problem-solving.









3. Understanding how we learn, develop and improve, and leading true learning and
improvement.
4. Understanding people and why they behave as they do.
5. Understanding the interdependence and interaction between systems, variation,
learning and human behavior: knowing how each affects the others.
6. Giving vision, meaning, direction and focus to the organization.

If we were to group these six competencies according to Katz's (1955)

classification system of leadership skills, we would find an overwhelming tilt towards the

human and conceptual skills, or those skills identified as most important to top

management.

Kanji and Sa (2001) summarized 11 core competencies of leadership based on the

work of Dering (1998), Senge (1990), and Zairi (1999). According to Kanji and Sa, the

following 11 competency areas are the key leadership competencies for an organization

committed to quality and excellence:

1. Ethics and principles.
2. Communication.
3. Customer orientation.
4. Organizational change.
5. Structures and systems.
6. Measurement, evaluation and reporting.
7. Process improvement.
8. Team development.
9. Developing subordinates.
10. Developing partnerships.
11. Innovation and continuous learning.

Within each of the 11 competency areas, Kanji and Sa provided specific examples of how

leaders might accomplish each competency.

Although some leadership competencies may be transferable, it is nonetheless

important to look at specific competencies needed within a particular organization

(Barner, 2000; Fulmer & Wagner, 1999; Pickett, 1998). Within the Extension system,

the National Impact Study of Leadership Development in Extension (NISLDE) (Michael,









Paxson, & Howell, 1991)identified 13 broad leadership competencies (Paxson, Howell,

Michael, & Wong, 1993). The 13 competencies identified were:

1. Solving problems.
2. Directing projects or activities.
3. Forming and working with groups.
4. Planning for group action.
5. Managing meetings.
6. Communicating effectively.
7. Developing proficiency in teaching.
8. Mobilizing for group action.
9. Understanding and developing oneself.
10. Understanding financial matters.
11. Understanding leadership.
12. Understanding society.
13. Understanding social change.

In trying to group theses competencies into skill sets, it is possible to see that

technical, human relation, emotional intelligence, and conceptual skills are represented.

For example, understanding and developing oneself can be seen as an emotional

intelligence skill in that it requires one to clarify values, assess degree of self-confidence,

and ultimately build self-confidence. Likewise, Understanding financial matters, such as

budgeting, record keeping, and understanding financial records can be viewed as

technical skills. Although the goal of the NISLDE study was to understand leadership

development work in Extension from the standpoint of what skills Extension workers

were trying to teach clientele as a part of their leadership development effort, the list of

13 broad competencies was the result of asking Extension staff what the word

"leadership" meant to them (Paxson et al., 1993).

Although there was much overlap in the competencies that were identified in each

of the studies, no two studies reported the same competency list. Much like the trait

approach to leadership failed to produce a universal list of traits that distinguished leaders









from non-leaders, there is not a universal list of competencies for leaders across different

organizations. Although many of the competencies are transferable, there are some that

are unique to each organization. Therefore, specific leadership competencies must be

developed with the specific organization in mind.

Influence of Demographics on Leadership Skills

Little research has been conducted on the influence of demographic variables on

leadership skills. One thing that is certain, however, is that leadership skills can be

learned (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955; Nahavandi, 2000; Pemick, 2001).

Some theorists believe that the development of leadership skills is accomplished

through experience (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955; Nahavandi, 2000). If this is true, then it

makes sense intuitively that demographic variables such as age, educational background,

promotion path, tenure both within an organization and in a leadership position, and prior

exposure to leadership training and/or courses would influence an individual's leadership

skills. This notion is supported, at least in the area of emotional intelligence, by Goleman

who reported that emotional intelligence, on of his three classifications of leadership

skills, does increase with both age and experience.

Conceptual Framework

The variables gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in an organization as well as tenure in

a leadership position, background, and leadership training have all been identified in the

literature as factors that may influence the leadership styles of individuals. Thus, it is

possible that diverse populations are excluded from leadership positions based on their

leadership style. The literature also suggested that demographic variables that are related

to an individuals age and/or experience can influence an individual's leadership skills.

That is, variables such as age, background, tenure within Extension, tenure in a









leadership position, and exposure to leadership training and/or courses may all influence

and increase an individual's leadership skills in one or more skill areas. A conceptual

model for this study depicting the relationship between selected variables and an

Extension leader's leadership style and leadership skills is presented in Figure 2-4.

Independent Dependent
Variables Variables


Figure 2-4. Factors influencing leadership styles and leadership skills of Extension
leaders.









Summary

This chapter has reviewed literature related to transactional and transformational

leadership and their relationship with leadership and management, and the variables

influencing transformational and transactional leadership. The theoretical and conceptual

frameworks were also discussed.

The review of literature revealed that leadership is an area in which much

research has been conducted, but little consensus has been reached. There are a number

of definitions of what leadership is, and as a result, a number of theories about effective

leadership and what makes a leader effective have emerged. Several recent studies have

focused on the transformational leadership theories.

Bass (1985a) introduced a model of transformational leadership where the

performance of an organization's followers exceeds the expectations that would be

expected to be achieved by expanding on transactional leadership. A leader engages in

transactional leadership when he/she recognizes the needs and wants of followers and

clarifies how these will be met if necessary efforts are made (Bass, 1985b). According to

Bass's model of transactional leadership, by clarifying the role and task requirements of

the desired outcomes, the leader gives followers the confidence necessary to reach the

expected effort. Additionally, by recognizing followers' needs and wants and clarifying

how these will be satisfied once the desired outcomes are met, the leader is able to

motivate followers to perform and expend the necessary effort.

Bass' (1985a) transformational leadership model begins with the current level of

effort a leader could expect through transactional leadership and builds upon this to reach

performance beyond expectations. According to Bass' theory, the leader is able

additional effort and performance by increasing the confidence level of followers, which









increases their belief in their own probability of success, and by increasing the needs of

the follower, which elevates the value of outcomes for the followers.

The literature showed that there are differences between specific functions of

leadership and management, but that the two concepts overlap. There is also literature to

suggest that the concepts of leadership and management can be equated with

transactional and transformational leadership. Management is concerned with

consistency and efficiency through contractual agreements as is transactional leadership,

whereas leadership is concerned with adapting to change through empowering those

around you as in transformational leadership.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Chapter 1 described the Cooperative Extension service and provided the

background for studying leadership positions within the organization. Definitions of

several key terms were provided. Chapter 1 also identified the purposes of the study and

explained the significance of the study.

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the leadership

styles and skills of current Extension leaders. This study also sought to explain the

influence of demographic variables on an Extension leader's leadership style and

leadership skills.

Chapter 2 presented a discussion of previous research related to this study.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks were also provided. Chapter 2 focused on

literature related to the following key areas: (a) the nature of leadership and leadership

defined, (b) leadership and management, (c) major leadership theories, (d) leadership

styles, (e) the influence of demographics on leadership styles, (f) leadership skills, and (g)

the influence of demographics on leadership skills.

This chapter explains the methods used to accomplish the objectives of the study.

Five specific research objectives were identified: (1) to determine the leadership skill

areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill area needed by Extension

leaders, as perceived by their administrative heads, (2) to describe current Extension

leaders in terms of their demographics and leadership style, (3) to assess how important

current Extension leaders believe each skill area is as well as how proficient they









perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4) to explain the influence of demographic

variables on the leadership styles of current Extension leaders, and (5) to explain the

influence of demographic variables on the leadership skills of current Extension leaders.

This chapter specifically addresses the research design, target populations,

instrumentation, data collection procedures and statistical procedures that were used to

analyze the data.

Research Design

This study employed a mixed methodology to accomplish the specific research

objectives. A qualitative long interview design was used to accomplish the first research

objective. Content analysis of the interview data provided a basis for the development of

a leadership competency instrument.

Descriptive research was used to accomplish research objectives two and three. A

correlational and causal-comparative or ex post facto design was employed to accomplish

objectives four and five. In an ex post facto design, the researcher does not have direct

control over the independent variable(s) and any variations in the independent variable(s)

have already been determined prior to the research being conducted (Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, 1996).

The independent variables were age, gender, ethnicity, highest degree, degree

classification, tenure in Extension, tenure in an Extension leadership positionss, and

previous experience with leadership courses and/or training. Gender, ethnicity, highest

degree, and degree classification were nominal independent variables. Degree

classification was determined by classifying the highest degree reported by study

participants as either a bench science degree or a social science degree. Age, tenure in

Extension, tenure in Extension leadership positionss, and previous experience with









leadership courses and/or training total score were continuous independent variables.

The previous experience with leadership courses and/or training total score was derived

by summing the total number of experiences listed by participants on the demographic

instrument described later in this chapter. The leadership styles scores and leadership

skills scores of Extension leaders were the dependent variables in this study and were

continuous variables.

Populations

The total population for this study consisted of two different groups: (a) the state

Extension directors and administrators at each of the 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions, and (2) the administrative heads of these leaders. For the purposes of this

study, a census of the Extension leaders was used, whereas a purposive sample of the

administrative heads was utilized.

Participant Selection: Extension Leaders

The Extension leaders who participated in the quantitative data collection portion

of this study were the Extension directors and administrators responsible for the day-to-

day operation of the Cooperative Extension Service within their state. Each individual

listed in the CSREES Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002) was contacted

via e-mail about the nature and purposes of this study. These individuals were contacted

because many of the individuals listed in the directory function as the administrative head

of Extension rather than the director or administrator who is in charge of the day-to-day

operation of the organization. The individuals contacted were asked to confirm that they

were in charge of the day-to-day operation of Extension, or to provide the name and

contact information of the individual who was. Based on the responses to these e-mails,









a list of 80 current Leaders was compiled and served as the population frame for this

study.

There were 49 responses from the population frame of 80 current Extension

leaders for a response rate of 61.25%. Two responses did not contain usable data and

were removed from the database leaving 47 actual participants in the study.

Participant Selection: Administrative Heads of Extension Leaders

The administrative heads of Extension leaders who that were selected as

participants in the qualitative data collection portion of this study consisted of a

purposive sample chosen from both the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. The

sample consisted of administrative heads identified by a panel of Extension

administrators and educators as the administrative heads most familiar with the Extension

system. The use of such a purposive sample was intended to reduce any potential bias

that may have been introduced by administrative heads that are unfamiliar with the

Extension system as a whole. According to Barner (2000), "it makes no sense to try to

identify essential leadership capabilities unless one knows the business context in which

the leaders will be expected to excel" (p. 47). Therefore, a purposive sample of

administrative heads identified by current Extension administrators and educators as most

knowledgeable about Extension was used to collect data on the specific leadership

competencies needed by Extension leaders. A total of 11 administrative heads were

selected as participants. Seven individuals were from 1862 institutions, and four

individuals were selected from the 1890 institutions.

Instrumentation

A total of four instruments were used in this study. The first instrument, a

researcher-designed interview questionnaire (see Appendix A), was used to collect









information from the administrative heads on the specific leadership competencies they

believe Extension leaders need to possess to be successful. The second instrument was a

researcher-developed leadership competencies in Extension instrument that assessed both

how important current Extension leaders believe the specific leadership competencies

are, as well as how proficient they believe they are in each competency (see Appendix

B). The third instrument was a demographic instrument developed by the researcher to

gather demographic and personal data information from participants. To reduce the

number of instruments participants were required to complete, the demographic

instrument was included on the leadership competency instrument (see Appendix B).

The final instrument used in this study, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass &

Avolio, 2000a), was used to gather information on the leadership style of participants

(see Appendix C).

The reliability and validity of the instruments are important aspects to consider in

all research studies utilizing survey instruments. Validity is a concept that refers to

whether or not an instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Ary et al., 1996).

In an effort to ensure valid researcher developed instruments, each instrument was

evaluated by a panel of experts for content and face validity. The leadership competency

instrument was pilot tested prior to its administration to the Extension leaders in the

study.

Interview Questionnaire

When conducting the long interviews, the use of a questionnaire was

indispensable (McCracken, 1988). According to McCracken, the questionnaire has

several functions: (a) to ensure that the investigator covers the same information in the

same order with each individual that is interviewed, (b) to ensure the correct scheduling









of necessary prompts, (c) to establish channels for the direction and scope of the

conversation, and (d) to allow the interviewer to give all of his/her attention to the

individual's response. In essence, the interview questionnaire protected the structure and

objectives of the interview while at the same time routinizing enough tasks such that the

interviewer was able to focus on the person being interviewed and his/her responses with

as little distraction as possible (McCracken).

Questions on the interview instrument were developed based on the review of

literature. The interview questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of experts for content

and face validity prior to the telephone interviews.

Leadership Competencies in Extension Instrument

From the content analysis of the long interviews, a specific competency

instrument was developed by the researcher. A total of 80 competencies were identified

within six major leadership skill areas. This instrument was designed to assess how

important current Extension leaders believe each competency is to their overall success

and the self-perceived proficiency level of the leaders in each specific leadership

competency.

To assess importance, participants were asked to respond to the 80 competencies

on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important). Raw scores were

calculated for the perceived importance of each of the six skill areas by summing the

responses within each area. Raw scores were then converted to a 100-point scale by

dividing the sum of the responses by the total possible response score for each skill area.

Scores were converted to a 100-point scale for ease of interpretation and allowed all skill

areas, regardless of the number of items within the skill area, to be represented on the

same scale. Scores on this 100-point scale served as the scale score for importance in









each of the six areas. Raw scores were also calculated for perceived importance of all 80

competencies by summing all of the importance responses. These raw scores were also

converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of responses by the maximum

possible score, 400, which served as the total score for importance.

To measure participants' self-perceived proficiency, participants were asked to

respond to each of the 80 competencies on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (None) to 5

Very Proficient). Raw scores were calculated for proficiency in each of the six skill areas

by summing the responses within each area. Raw scores were converted to a 100-point

scale by dividing the sum of the responses by the total possible response score for each

skill area. Scores on this 100-point scale served as the scale score for proficiency in each

of the six skill areas. Raw scores were also calculated for the self-perceived proficiency

in all 80 competencies by summing all of the proficiency responses. These raw scores

were also converted to a 100-point scale by dividing the sum of responses by the

maximum possible score, 400, which served as the total score for proficiency.

After its development, the instrument was evaluated by a panel of experts for

content and face validity. The panel of experts consisted of individuals identified as

experts in the field of leadership and/or Extension. The instrument was also pilot tested

with a group of Extension administrators not included in the study.

Data collected during the pilot study was used to establish reliability. The pilot

study group consisted of 29 associate and assistant deans and directors of Extension not

included in the study. Fifteen of the 29 individuals invited to participate in the pilot study

completed the instrument for a response rate of 51.7%. Cronbach's alpha was calculated

for importance and proficiency within each skill category (see Table 3-1). Cronbach's









alpha is appropriate for estimating internal-consistency reliability within a scale in Likert

format (Isaac& Michael 1995). In terms of how important pilot study participants

perceived the competencies within each skill area to be, Cronbach's alpha for each skill

area were: a=.91 for Human Skills, a=.92 for Conceptual Skills, a=.74 for Technical

Skills, a=.91 for Communication Skills, a=.86 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and

a=.92 for Industry Knowledge Skills. In terms of how proficient pilot study participants

perceived they were in each skill area, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: a=.93

for Human Skills, a=.94 for Conceptual Skills, a=.80 for Technical Skills, a=.91 for

Communication Skills, a=.91 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and a=.88 for Industry

Knowledge Skills. No leadership competencies could have been removed so as to cause

an increase in Cronbach's alpha for both perceived importance and self-perceived level of

proficiency.

Table 3-1 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=15)
Importance Proficiency
Skill Area a a
Human Skills 0.91 0.93
Conceptual Skills 0.92 0.94
Technical Skills 0.74 0.80
Communication Skills 0.91 0.91
Emotional Intelligence Skills 0.86 0.91
Industry Knowledge Skills 0.92 0.88

According to Penfield (2001), reliabilities of greater than .90 are considered high,

those greater than .80 are considered moderate to high, and those greater than .70

considered low. The only scale on the instrument with low reliability was for importance

of technical skills. Therefore, these estimates were deemed appropriate and the

instrument was not changed as a result of the pilot test.









To confirm reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's alpha for importance and

proficiency within each skill category was calculated after final data collection (see Table

3-2). In terms of how important study participants perceived the competencies within

each skill area to be, Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: a=.83 for Human Skills,

a=.78 for Conceptual Skills, a=.87 for Technical Skills, a=.90 for Communication Skills,

a=.88 for Emotional Intelligence Skills, and a=.87 for Industry Knowledge Skills. In

terms of how proficient study participants perceived they were in each skill area,

Cronbach's alpha for each skill area were: a=.88 for Human Skills, a=.90 for Conceptual

Skills, a=.85 for Technical Skills, a=.89 for Communication Skills, a=.86 for Emotional

Intelligence Skills, and a=.94 for Industry Knowledge Skills.

Table 3-2 Cronbach's Alpha For Importance and Proficiency for Each Skill Area (N=47)
Importance Proficiency
Skill Area a a
Human Skills 0.83 0.88
Conceptual Skills 0.78 0.90
Technical Skills 0.87 0.85
Communication Skills 0.90 0.89
Emotional Intelligence Skills 0.88 0.86
Industry Knowledge Skills 0.87 0.94

Although the reliabilities of some of the scales changed, all but one of the scales

had moderate to high reliabilities. Therefore the reliability of the scales, and the

instrument as a whole, was considered acceptable.

Demographic Instrument

The instrument used to collect data on the demographic characteristics of

participants was developed by the researcher. The data collected included the gender,

ethnicity, age, position, degrees held, educational background (major program area),

tenure in years within the Extension system, tenure in years in a leadership position









within the Extension system, previous positions held within the Extension system, and

exposure to previous leadership training of current Extension leaders. Previous exposure

to leadership training was divided into three sections: (1) college leadership courses, (2)

leadership workshops provided by non-Extension trainers, and (3) leadership workshops

provided by the Cooperative Extension System. Each experience listed was given a value

of one point. Participants who described entire degrees in leadership were given five

points. Sub-total scores were created for each of the three areas: college leadership

courses, non-Extension training courses/workshops, and Extension training

courses/workshops. These self-reported experiences were summed to create the previous

leadership development total scores.

The demographic instrument was administered as a part of the leadership

competency instrument. The demographic instrument was evaluated by a panel of

experts for content and face validity prior to data collection.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed and

tested by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (2000a). The instrument has been copyrighted

by Bass and Avolio and published by Mind Garden, Inc.

The MLQ 5X has two forms: a leader form and a rater form. The Leader Form

was developed to be completed by an individual to measure his/her self-perceived

leadership styles and was used in this study. The instrument consisted of 45 statements

and asked respondents to answer each item on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all)

to 4 (Frequently, if not always).

The MLQ 5X was developed to measure aspects of transformational,

transactional, and non-leadership leadership styles as well as outcomes of leadership.









The 45-item instrument contained 12 scales: Idealized Influence (Attributed), Idealized

Influence (Behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized

Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), Management-

by-Exception (Passive), Laissez Faire Leadership, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and

Satisfaction. Idealized influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and

Individualized Consideration were transformational leadership style scales measured by

the MLQ. Contingent Reward and Management-by-Exception were transactional

leadership style scales measured by the MLQ. Laissez Faire leadership was the non-

leadership component.

Idealized influence is defined in terms of how followers react to the leader and

his/her behavior. Leaders with idealized influence are admired and respected by

followers and serve as strong role models. They have high standards of ethical and moral

conduct and provide followers with a vision and sense of mission. Followers want to

emulate leaders who exhibit idealized influence (Northouse, 2001). According to Bass

and Avolio (2000b), idealized influence can be seen as both a behavior and an impact,

thus requiring two leadership scales: idealized influence (attributed) and idealized

influence (behavior).

Inspirational motivation is displayed by a transformational leader when he/she

inspires and motivates followers to demonstrate commitment to the shared vision of the

organization. Leaders who engage in this behavior clearly communicate high

expectations to followers and increase team spirit and enthusiasm (Northouse, 2001).

Intellectual stimulation is demonstrated by a transformational leader when he/she

supports followers to be creative and innovative, try new approaches, and challenge their









own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization. Followers

engage in problem solving to find creative solutions (Northouse, 2001).

Individualized consideration is displayed by a transformational leader when

he/she provides a supportive climate, listens to followers, and acts as a coach and mentor.

The leader pays attention to individual differences and treats individual employees in a

caring and unique way. Leaders also help individuals achieve goals and grow personally

(Northouse, 2001).

Contingent reward refers to the engagement of leaders and followers in an

exchange process in which effort by followers is exchanged for specific rewards.

Objectives are agreed upon by both leaders and followers, and achievement of the

objectives is positively reinforced (Northouse, 2001).

Management-by exception occurs when transactional leaders intervene to make

some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative reinforcement.

Management-by-exception can be active or passive. Transactional leaders engage in

active management-by-exception when they closely monitor followers so they can detect

mistakes and take corrective action and offer negative feedback. Transactional leaders

engage in passive management-by-exception when they intervene with a follower only

after standards have not been met or problems arise (Northouse, 2001).

Laissez-faire leaders engage in laissez-faire behaviors when they abdicate

responsibility, delay decisions, offer no feedback, and make little or no effort to help

followers satisfy needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a "hands-off' approach to

leadership (Northouse, 2001).









All of the leadership style scales had four items per scale. Leadership styles

scores for each of the nine leadership style scales were the average scores for the items in

each scale. Transformational leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of

the scores from the items contained in the Idealized Influence (Attributed), Idealized

Influence (Behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and

Individualized Consideration scales, a total of 20 items. Transactional leadership styles

scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from the items in the Contingent

Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), and Management-by-Exception (Passive)

scales, a total of 12 items. Because Laissez-faire Leadership is the only scale measuring

non-leadership, the non-leadership style score was equivalent to the Laissez-faire

Leadership scale score.

In their MLQ technical report, Bass and Avolio (2000b) discussed the construct

validation process associated with the MLQ 5X. An early version was evaluated by a

panel of six leadership scholars, and their recommendations were included in the final

instrument development. Since that time, 14 samples have been used to validate and

cross-validate the MLQ Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 2000b).

Reliability refers to how consistently the instrument measures whatever it

measures (Ary et al., 1996). According to Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), "the reliability of

a test refers to how much measurement error is present in the scores yielded by the test"

(p. 254). Measurement error is one of four sources of survey error outlined by Dillman

(2000). Measurement error occurs when there is a difference between the score an

individual receives on a test over a variety of conditions and their true score on the test

and often results from poor question wording and questionnaire construction (Ary et al.,;









Gall et al.). The reliability of the MLQ 5x is of particular concern in this study as it is

intended to measure and provide scores on an individual's leadership style, including

transformational, transactional and non-leadership components. Bass and Avolio (2000b)

report reliabilities for each of the leadership factors ranging from .74 to .91 and for the

outcomes of leadership ranging from .91 to .94.

Data Collection and Analysis

Prior to the collection of any data, a proposal to conduct the each phase of the

study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board for non-

medical projects (IRB-02). Both proposals were approved (Protocol #2002-U-698 for the

first phase; Protocol #2002-U-699 for the second phase). A copy of the informed consent

form that was mailed to study participants with the instruments was submitted to the IRB

with the proposal to conduct the study. The informed consent form described the study

and the voluntary nature of participation, and also informed participants of any potential

risks and/or compensations associated with participation in the study.

Once approval to conduct this study was granted by the IRB, data was collected

and analyzed by the researcher. Data was collected during September, October,

November, and December of 2002 and January and February of 2003. Specific data

collection procedures, including which instruments were administered to each group and

how the instruments were administered, and data analysis procedures, including the types

of statistics included in the analysis, are discussed for each of the research objectives.

Methods Used for Objective One

In order to accomplish research objective one, to identify specific leadership

competencies needed by state Extension directors and administrators as perceived by

administrative heads, a purposive sample of these administrative heads were involved in









telephone interviews using the interview questionnaire developed by the researcher.

Long interviews with the administrative heads was selected to accomplish this objective

as long interviews allow us "to achieve qualitative objectives within a manageable

methodological context" (McCracken, 1988, p. 11).

Prior to conducting the interviews, participants were sent a skills summary sheet

developed by the researcher based on a review of the literature. Based on the literature,

the summary sheet was divided into five major skill groups: technical skills, human

skills, conceptual skills, emotional intelligence skills, and industry knowledge skills. The

summary sheet described the skill category and provided two examples of specific

leadership competencies within each skill area. The purpose of this skills summary sheet

was to help participants focus their thinking on the types of competencies needed by

Extension leaders. The skills summary sheet was evaluated for content and face validity

prior to sending it to the participants.

Each interview was conducted over the telephone and lasted between one-half and

one hour. Each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed in its entirety as soon as

possible following the interview. The transcripts and audio-tapes were analyzed for

content and coded. Based on the themes and competencies identified in the review of

literature, a "start list" of codes was created prior to coding (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

This "start list" provided a base for coding the data collected during the interviews, but

codes were revised, eliminated, or added as necessary. Thus, the themes and

competencies reviewed in the literature served as a guide during the coding process, but

did not prohibit the revision of themes and competencies or the emergence of new ideas.









The themes and competencies were counted and clustered in order to generate

meaning of the information collected (Miles & Huberman, 1984). This process aided in

the development of the Leadership Competencies in Extension instrument. The major

themes served as the leadership skill areas of the instrument, while the minor themes

served as sub-skills. These sub-skills were then refined, based on the specific comments

of interview participants and the literature base, to develop the specific competencies that

were then classified into one of the skill areas. These specific competencies served as the

individual response items on the instrument.

Methods Used for Objectives Two and Three

In order to accomplish research objective two, to describe current Extension

leaders in terms of their demographics and including leadership style, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire and the demographic instrument were administered to the

current Extension leaders identified by contacting the individuals listed in the CSREES

State Directors and Administrators Directory (April, 2002).

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X), the leadership competency

instrument, and the demographic instrument were administered at the same time

following the Tailored Design Method of Dillman (2000). This method included a

system of up to five compatible contacts with each individual selected for participation in

the study.

First, a brief prenotice letter was sent to the current Extension leaders informing

them that they would soon be receiving directions for completing the instruments and

encouraging their participation in the study. Second, within one week, a packet

containing directions for participating in the study, an informed consent form, and the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were mailed to the Extension leaders. At this time,









study participants were asked to complete the Leadership Competencies in Extension

instrument on-line. Third, a thank you postcard was sent one week later thanking those

who had already completed the instruments and returned them, while at the same time

encouraging those who had not to please complete and return the instruments.

Study participants were randomly assigned an individual identification number

and all instruments were coded with these individual identification numbers. As the

researcher received the completed instruments, they were dated and the codes used to

eliminate that particular individual from any future contacts requesting the completion

and return of the instruments.

Approximately three weeks after sending the thank you post card a fourth contact

was made with individuals who have not returned the completed instruments.

Replacement instrument packets were mailed to these individuals. For participants who

had already completed and returned the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and

informed consent form, the replacement instrument packets contained a hard-copy of the

Leadership Competencies as well as directions for completing the instrument on-line if

the participant preferred.

For participants who had already completed the Leadership Competencies in

Extension instrument, the replacement packet included another informed consent form

and another Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. For individuals from whom nothing

had been received, the replacement packet contained another informed consent form,

another Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, and a hard-copy of the Leadership

Competencies in Extension instrument as well as instructions for completing the

competency instrument on-line if the individual preferred.









Finally, a fifth contact was made by telephone approximately one week after the

replacement questionnaires were mailed as a final attempt to encourage a response.

In order to accomplish research objective three, to assess the proficiency level of

current Extension leaders in specific leadership competencies, the Leadership

Competencies in Extension instrument developed by the researcher, based on the data

collected during the qualitative interviews, was administered to the current Extension

leaders identified by contacting the individuals listed in the CSREES State Directors and

Administrators Directory (April, 2002).

According to Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001), nonresponse error can be a

threat to the external validity of a study anytime a response rate below 100% is achieved.

In an effort to address nonresponse error in this study, early and late respondents were

compared for statistical differences (Ary et al., 1996; Lindner et al.; Miller & Smith,

1983). Late responders were defined as the later 50% of the respondents (Lindner et al.).

There was no statistical difference between early responders and late responders.

Data collected from the demographic instrument, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (Form 5X), and the leadership competency instrument were analyzed using

SPSS statistical package for WindowsTM. In instances where participants did not

respond to a particular item, the missing value was replaced with the mean for that item

during analysis (George & Mallery, 2001). However, there were five cases in which the

missing data accounted for more than 15 percent of the scale and therefore missing values

were left as missing and that participant's responses were not included in the analysis of

that particular scale or in the analysis of the total score for the instrument (George &

Mallery).









Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and measures of central tendency were

used to describe current Extension leaders in terms of their gender, age, ethnicity, highest

degree, degree classification, tenure in Extension, tenure in Extension leadership

positions, previous experience with leadership courses/training, leadership styles,

perceived importance of each leadership competency, and self-perceived proficiency in

each of the leadership competencies.

Methods Used for Objectives Four and Five

Correlations between the independent and dependent variables were also analyzed

to examine the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables on an

individual basis. Multiple regression is one of the most widely used statistical techniques

to determine the correlation between a criterion variable and a combination of two or

more predictor variables (Gall et al., 1996). In an attempt to explain the influence of

demographic variables on the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders, the

researcher used backward multiple regression to build 10 explanatory models: (1)

Transformational Leadership Style, (2) Transactional Leadership Style, (3) Laissez-Faire

Leadership, (4) proficiency in Human Skills, (5) proficiency in Conceptual Skills, (6)

proficiency in Technical Skills, (7) proficiency in Communication Skills, (8) proficiency

in Emotional Intelligence skills, (9) proficiency in Industry Knowledge, and (10) total

proficiency score.

Summary

This chapter described the methods used in this examination of leadership styles

and skills of Extension leaders. The first phase of this study used a qualitative long

interview design to determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership

competencies needed by Extension leaders. The population for this phase of the study









was administrative heads of agriculture at land-grant institutions. The second phase of

the study descriptive research with a correlational and causal-comparative design was

used to describe current Extension leaders and explain the influence of demographics on

their leadership styles and leadership skills. The population for this phase of the study

were the individuals responsible for the day-to-day operation of Extension within each of

the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions.

There were four instruments used to gather data for this study: (1) an interview

questionnaire developed by the researcher, (2) a Leadership Competencies in Extension

Instrument developed by the researcher, (3) a demographic instrument developed by the

researcher, and (4) the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000a).

Data were collected through on-line and mailed instruments.

Data analysis procedures were also discussed in this chapter. Content analysis of

the interview tapes and transcripts was used in the qualitative phase of the study. In the

quantitative phase of the study, descriptive statistics, correlations, and backward multiple

regression procedures were used.

Chapter 4 will report the results of the study. Findings will be reported by the

objectives of the study.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Chapter 1 described the background for studying leadership within the

Cooperative Extension Service. The chapter also described the purposes and the

significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe

the leadership styles and skills of current Extension leaders. Specifically, this study

sought to: (1) determine the leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies

within each skill area needed by Extension leaders, as perceived by their administrative

heads, (2) describe current Extension leaders in terms of their demographics and

leadership style, (3) assess how important current Extension leaders believe each skill

area is as well as how proficient they perceive themselves to be in each skill area, (4)

explain the influence of demographic variables on the leadership styles of current

Extension leaders, and (5) explain the influence of demographic variables on the

leadership skills of current Extension leaders. Chapter 1 also provided operational

definitions of several key terms and identified the limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and conceptual frameworks for this study

based on previous research related to leadership and Extension. Chapter 2 focused on

empirical research related to the following key areas: (a) the nature of leadership and

leadership defined, (b) leadership and management, (c) major leadership theories, (d)

leadership styles, (e) the influence of demographics on leadership styles, (f) leadership

skills, and (g) the influence of demographics on leadership skills.









Chapter 3 described the research methodology used to accomplish the objectives

of the study. Specifically, this chapter explained the research design, populations,

instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures.

This chapter presents the findings of the study. Findings are organized by the

objectives of the study identified in Chapter 1.

Objective One

Determine the Leadership Skill Areas and Specific Leadership Competencies
Within Each Skill Area Needed by Extension Leaders, as Perceived by Their
Administrative Heads

Six major leadership skill areas emerged from the analysis of the interview

transcripts and audio-tapes. Prior to conducting each interview, participants were sent a

skills summary sheet developed by the researcher based on the review of the literature.

Consistent with the literature, the summary sheet was divided into five major skill

groups: technical skills, human skills, conceptual skills, emotional intelligence skills, and

industry knowledge skills. As expected, these five skill areas emerged as skill areas

needed by Extension leaders. However, in this study, communication skills emerged as

an additional leadership skill area needed by Extension leaders. The following statement

from one of the interview participants indicated the need to include communication skills

as a separate skill area:

I, I guess, I hope that the human skills and people skills would encompass some
other things other than being able to, uh, I suppose oral presentations is what I see
that comes out here. We have a whole communications wing as you do that helps
support what they director or dean wants to put together in a speech, but I think
sometimes, the interaction with people, whether it's scripted or not, is one of the
most important things tied into leadership as well. And so writing I think factors
into that because there are some things that only directors write, and so, I didn't see
that, you know, broken out as a particular skill and I think one of the most
important ones is listening. And I think if you're really comprehensive in this, as I
think you want to be, the reading, writing, speaking, and listening ought to
somehow be in this particular section of people skills.









Fifty-six minor themes, or sub-skills, emerged from the interviews. The sub-skills

that emerged from the data are presented in Table 4-1.


Sub-skills with a frequency of one were mentioned by only one of the seven

administrative heads of agriculture that participated in the qualitative interviews.

Because these sub-skills emerged from only one participant, they were not considered as

trustworthy for the development of the leadership competency instrument and were

therefore removed from consideration. The remaining 45 sub-skills were clustered into

one of the six leadership skill areas that emerged. Table 4-2 summarizes these sub-skills


Table 4-1 Leadership Sub-Skills
Sub-skill
Context/role of Extension
Vision
Listening Skills
Strategic/sequential planning
Time management
Budgeting
Empathy/respect
Know constituencies
Speaking skills
Relationship builder
Open/approachable
Communication (settings)
Team leader
Maturity (criticism/emotions)
Energy/enthusiasm
Team player/member
Honesty/integrity
Evaluate people
Computer skills
Conflict resolution
Finances/fundraising
Cultural awareness/diversity
Sense of humor
Political environment
Create linkages
Extension priorities
Leadership development
Understand program areas


Sub-skill
Negotiation
Internet skills
Coaching
Competent (in technical area)
Decision making
Critical/creative thinking
Goals (set and achieve)
Organizational change
Mentoring
Motivation
Reading skills
Identify talent
Electronic communication
Media interaction
Networking abilities
Written communication
Understand social problems
Flexibility
Run meetings/set agendas
High values
Appreciate position
Gregarious and bright
Positive attitude
Keep up with what's going on
Appropriate behavior
Administrative skill
Stability
Courage









clustered within each skill area. From these sub-skills, a total of 80 leadership

competencies were developed.

Skill Area One: Human Skills

The human skills area had more sub-skills than any other skills area. When asked

to identify the specific leadership competencies Extension leaders need related to human

skills, one study participant replied, "I think we could talk about that all day."

Five of the seven participants mentioned something about being a relationship

builder. For example, when asked about human skills, one participant said, "Evidence of

relationship building skills and a value for human relationships" while another participant

said "And I think it's very, very important for someone in the, in a leadership position to

not only foster strength that you can get from team relationships, but also to be someone

who fosters trust among team members."

Two of the sub-skills that emerged from the data in this area were related to

teams. Although related, these were kept as separate sub-skills. According to one study

participant:

And you have to be, be a, for sure to be both an effective team leader and an
effective team member when you're not the leader because you're gonna be in
situations no matter what your position is where you're not the leader.

From the eleven sub-skills that were clustered into the human skills area, fifteen

specific leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-3).










Table 4-2 Minor Themes by Leadership Skill Areas
Leadership Skill Area Number of Sub-skills Sub-skills
Human Skills 11 Relationship builder
Open/approachable
Team member/player
Evaluate people
Team leader
Cultural awareness/diversity
Identify talent
Mentoring
Leadership development
Coaching
Understand social problems
Conceptual Skills 6 Vision
Strategic/sequential planning
Decision making
Critical/creative thinking
Goals (set and achieve)
Organizational change
Technical Skills 5 Budgeting
Finance/fundraising
Computer skills
Internet skills
Competent (in technical area)
Communication Skills 7 Listening skills
Speaking skills
Communication (settings)
Reading skills
Electronic communication
Media interaction
Written communication
Emotional Intelligence 9 Time management
Skills Empathy/respect
Maturity (criticism/emotions)
Energy/enthusiasm
Honesty/integrity
Conflict resolution
Sense of humor
Negotiation
Motivation
Industry Knowledge 7 Context/role of Extension
Skills Know constituencies
Political environment
Create linkages
Extension priorities
Understand program areas
Networking abilities









Table 4-3 Human Skills Leadership Competencies
Item Number Specific Competency
1 Ability to foster relationships
2 Ability to be an effective mentor
3 Ability to identify personal strengths and weaknesses
4 Ability to be an effective team leader
5 Ability to evaluate the impact of personnel
6 Demonstrate respect for others
7 Ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of others
8 Ability to create an environment in which the leader is approachable and
open to new ideas
9 Demonstrate empathy for social problems
10 Ability to be an effective team member
11 Ability to be an effective coach
12 Ability to surround themselves with people of complimentary strengths
13 Create an environment that values the diversity of others
14 Ability to create an environment in which the team members are willing
to share ideas
15 Demonstrate support for organizational leadership development programs

Skill Area Two: Conceptual Skills

Within the conceptual skills area, all seven study participants referred to some

aspect of having a vision. As one of the participants explained:

You know, this is vision. I would put vision in this. You're able to create a vision.
I surely think that's not only to create the vision, but also lead the group, your
organization to the point where they finalize the vision and take ownership of it. I
think that the leader's got to give them a glimpse of the vision, but the
completeness of the vision needs to be developed by the organization and where
they take ownership of that vision. So it not just the director's vision, it's the
organization's vision.

From the six sub-skills clustered into the conceptual skills area, fourteen specific

leadership competencies were identified (see Table 4-4).

Skill Area Three: Technical Skills

The technical skills area had the fewest number of sub-skills as compared to the

other skill areas. Participants also offered conflicting views related to the sub-skills

related to using computers. Participants from larger institutions saw computer skills as









less important. For example, when asked about technical skills, one participant from a

large institution stated:

I think it's less, quite honestly, and very candidly, I think it's of less importance
that uh our directors be able to effectively use PC software and word processing,
spreadsheets, and databases until it gets into their management responsibilities.
And if they can't do that, they're not going to be even considered.

Table 4-4 Conceptual Skills Leadership Competencies
Item Number Specific Competency
1 Ability to create a long term vision for the organization
2 Ability to think strategically
3 Ability to set goals
4 Create an environment that supports organizational change
5 Ability to communicate an organizational vision with others
6 Ability to think critically
7 Ability to help others support organizational change
8 Ability to utilize sequential planning techniques
9 Ability to be decisive
10 Ability to think abstractly as well as linearly
11 Exhibit an attitude that supports and welcomes organizational change
12 Ability to achieve goals
13 Ability to think creatively
14 Ability to create an environment in which all personnel are able to take
ownership of the organizational vision

Similarly, another participant from a larger institution stated:

Technical skills really don't, don't come up real high in terms of the skills that are
needed I don't believe. It's nice to have them, but, they're not something that are
gonna, gonna be a big limitation I don't believe.

However, the other two participants who discussed computer skills were from smaller

institutions and saw them as important skills to have within the technical skills area. One

of these participants offered the following comment:

Well, you know, where you've got word processing, spreadsheets, and databases,
you also need to know how to integrate those. How to go from one to the other and
merge files, collapse files. But, you also need, not only to know how to use them,
but also how to integrate them. You need to know how to integrate those skills, not
just use them independently.