<%BANNER%>

Academia and industry perspectives on leadership and human resource development competencies required for agricultura...

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP GRADUATE STUDENTS PURSUING INDUSTRY CAREERS By LAIKHE TANYARA JONES 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 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Laikhe Tanyara Jones

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Zelma Jones, and the memory of the late William Alexander Jones.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ed Osborne, whose support and guidance was consistent from start to finish. I would also like to thank my other committee members (Drs. Tracy Irani, Nick Place, Howard Ladewig, and Josephine Turner). Their encouragement, support, and recommendations were greatly appreciated. Thanks go to Dr. Jeff Soper, University of Tampa faculty, for broadening my understanding of the training and development arena. I am indebted to my parents and extended family for their generous and undying support of my academic and professional goals. I truly thank my Mt. Carmel church family for their support and prayers. Special thanks go to Cheryl McFadden; words cannot express how much I appreciate her assistance with typing and formatting this document after my disk crashed. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Rudolph Tripp, Annette Williams, Sekeenia Haynes, and Tracy Bookhard for supporting me throughout this process. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................6 Purpose and Objectives.................................................................................................6 Variables.......................................................................................................................7 Definitions of Terms.....................................................................................................7 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................9 Assumptions.................................................................................................................9 Importance of the Study................................................................................................9 Summary.....................................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................12 Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................12 Leadership Defined.....................................................................................................16 Overview of Major Leadership Theories....................................................................16 Trait approach......................................................................................................17 Situational approach............................................................................................18 Transformational and transactional leadership....................................................19 Theory X and Theory Y......................................................................................20 Psychodynamic approach....................................................................................20 Exemplary Leadership Practices.................................................................................20 Faculty Characteristics................................................................................................23 Industry Characteristics..............................................................................................24 Leadershipt and development..............................................................................24 HRD competencies..............................................................................................25 Academia and Industry Partnerships..........................................................................31 Curriculum Development...........................................................................................34 v

PAGE 6

Overview of curriculum theories.........................................................................34 Tylers rational model.........................................................................................35 Gagnes model.....................................................................................................36 Trends in curriculum reform in agricultural sciences..........................................38 Competency defined............................................................................................40 Competency assessment......................................................................................41 Competency models............................................................................................41 Student Characteristics...............................................................................................44 Requisite skills required by industry...................................................................45 Leadership training and development.................................................................45 Competencies......................................................................................................46 Conceptual Model for the Study.................................................................................47 Summary.....................................................................................................................50 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................52 Population and Sample...............................................................................................53 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................54 Research Design.........................................................................................................56 Validity and Reliability...............................................................................................57 Pilot Study..................................................................................................................59 Data Collection...........................................................................................................60 Qualitative research component..........................................................................62 Profiles and trends of graduate agricultural leadership programs.......................62 Low response rates..............................................................................................63 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................63 Summary.....................................................................................................................64 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................65 Overview of University and Industry Participants.....................................................66 Description of University Faculty Respondents..................................................67 Gender..........................................................................................................67 Sources of leadership training......................................................................67 Graduate agricultural leadership programs..................................................68 Agricultural leadership teaching experience................................................68 Business/Industry work experience..............................................................69 Highest degree obtained...............................................................................69 Area of Highest Degree................................................................................70 Description of Industry Representatives.............................................................70 History of hiring agricultural education graduates.......................................71 Training and development career opportunities for agricultural education graduates.................................................................................................72 Company type..............................................................................................72 Current job titles...........................................................................................73 Years employed in current position and at company...................................73 Job titles of industry representatives............................................................74 vi

PAGE 7

Objective One.............................................................................................................74 Objective Two............................................................................................................79 Objective Three..........................................................................................................83 Objective Four............................................................................................................86 Objective Five.............................................................................................................88 Objective Six..............................................................................................................88 Original target audience...............................................................................90 Graduate agricultural leadership specialization...........................................90 Graduate leadership minor offered...............................................................91 Graduate Agricultural Leadership Curriculum...........................................................91 Primary areas of research interests...............................................................99 Professional memberships in leadership organizations................................99 Leadership emphasis in doctoral degree....................................................100 Formal leadership courses..........................................................................100 Summary...................................................................................................................101 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................102 Problem Statement....................................................................................................103 Population and Sample.............................................................................................103 Review of Methods...................................................................................................104 Summary of Results..................................................................................................105 Description of University and Industry Respondents........................................105 Objective One....................................................................................................106 Objective Two...................................................................................................108 Objective Three.................................................................................................109 Objective Four...................................................................................................110 Objective Five...................................................................................................111 Objective Six.....................................................................................................113 Discussion and Implications.....................................................................................113 Objective One....................................................................................................116 Objective Two...................................................................................................118 Objective Three.................................................................................................119 Objective Four...................................................................................................120 Objective Five...................................................................................................122 Low Response Rates..........................................................................................124 Objective Six.....................................................................................................124 Conclusions...............................................................................................................125 Recommendations for Practice.................................................................................126 Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................127 APPENDIX A EXPERT PANEL.....................................................................................................129 B UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................130 vii

PAGE 8

C INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................136 D UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTION GUIDE....................................................142 E INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................143 F PRE-EMAIL NOTIFICATION................................................................................144 G E-MAIL NOTIFICATION.......................................................................................145 H REMINDER E-MAIL NOTIFICATION.................................................................146 I COVER LETTER TO INDUSTRY RESPONDENTS............................................147 J COVER LETTER FOR SECOND MAILING.........................................................148 K UNIVERSITY CHAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE.........................................................149 L UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................153 M UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION OF FACULTY PARTICIPANTS..........................155 N INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS.................................................................................156 O INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FORM........................................................157 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................159 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................170 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Competencies in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework as identified by the USDA Graduate School...........................................................................................43 2-2 Review of agricultural education research on competencies required for professionals and graduate students.........................................................................47 3-1 Cronbachs Alpha for Exemplary Leadership Practices (n=15)..............................58 4-1 Sources of leadership training of university faculty respondents (n=22).................67 4-2 Graduate agricultural leadership programs as reported by university faculty (n=21)......................................................................................................................68 4-3 Years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses (n=17)..........................................................................................................68 4-4 Business and industry experience of university faculty (n=20)...............................69 4-5 Job areas of industry positions held by university faculty (n=20)...........................69 4-6 Frequency and percentage of highest degree completed by university faculty (n=21).......................................................................................................................70 4-7 Frequency and percentage of area of highest degree completed by university faculty (n=21)..........................................................................................70 4-8 Demographics of industry representatives (n=10)...................................................71 4-9 Frequency and percentage of industry representatives who have hired agricultural education and communication graduates (n=10)..................................71 4-10 Job titles, preferred degrees, and degree areas of positions for which agricultural education and communication graduates are qualified.........................72 4-11 Frequency and percentage of type of company by industry representatives (n=8)..72 4-12 Frequency and percentage of current job titles held by industry representatives (n=10).......................................................................................................................73 ix

PAGE 10

4-13 Years employed in current position and at current company (n=7).........................73 4-14 Mean and standard deviations of perceptions of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22).........75 4-15 Means and standard deviations of exemplary leadership practices required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22)..............76 4-16 Mean and standard deviations of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by industry representatives (n=10)........................79 4-17 Means and standard deviations of perceptions of exemplary leadership practices required for entry-level training and development employment..............................80 4-18 Mean scores of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10)..............................................................................................84 4-19 Mean scores of leadership practices required for entry-level training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10)..............................................................................................85 4-20 Frequency of emergent themes regarding HRD/leadership competencies.............86 4-21 Frequency and percentage of decade of original development of agricultural leadership programs as identified by unit leaders and department chairs (n=7)......88 4-22 Frequency of original degrees offered with a specialization or major in leadership (n=7).........................................................................................................................89 4-23 Current degrees/programs with a leadership specialization or major......................89 4-24 Frequency of target audience of original agricultural leadership programs (n=7).........................................................................................................90 4-25 Frequency of target audience of current agricultural leadership programs (n=7).........................................................................................................90 4-26 Frequency of graduate leadership specialization only (n=8)...................................91 4-27 Frequency of graduate minor in agricultural leadership (n=5)................................91 4-28 Frequency of graduate courses in agricultural leadership programs (n=8)..............91 4-29 Frequency and percentage of total number of graduate students by specialization for Fall 2003 semester..............................................................................................92 4-30 Frequency of trends of graduate enrollment in agricultural leadership over three academic years.........................................................................................................93 x

PAGE 11

4-31 Frequency of companies employing graduate agricultural leadership students.......93 4-32 Frequency of job titles of non-university positions in which graduate students have obtained employment...............................................................................................94 4-33 Frequency of job titles for which M.S..........agricultural leadership students are well prepared....................................................................................................................94 4-34 Frequency of job titles for which Ph.D........agricultural leadership students are well prepared as reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7)................95 4-35 Frequency of projected changes in graduate agricultural leadership courses as reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7)...................................95 4-36 Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 3-5 years as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=6).....................................................96 4-37 Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 5-7 years as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).....................................................96 4-38 Frequency of courses essential for graduate agricultural leadership students as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).....................................................96 4-39 Frequency of eadership inventories/assessment tools in graduate courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).....................................................97 4-40 Frequency of leadership inventories/assessment tools used in graduate courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).....................................................97 4-41 Frequency of required textbooks for graduate leadership courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7)........................................................................98 4-42 Frequency of industry positions held by agricultural leadership faculty as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7)...................................................................98 4-43 Frequency of primary areas of research interests of agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).........................................................................................................................99 4-44 Frequency of professional memberships in leadership organizations (n=7)...........99 4-45 Frequency and percentage of doctoral degree with a leadership education emphasis by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).................................................................100 4-46 Frequency of formal leadership courses completed as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).........................................................................................100 xi

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Leadership Development Model Part A-Developmental Experiences.....................13 2 Leadership Development Model Part BThe Development Process.......................15 3 An instructional system design model (ASTD, 1999).............................................38 4 Conceptual model of the preparation of society-ready graduates for HR/training and development positions (Jones, 2004)............................................48 5 Key components of graduate level agricultural leadership curricula.....................112 xii

PAGE 13

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 ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP GRADUATE STUDENTS PURSUING INDUSTRY CAREERS By Laikhe Tanyara Jones August 2004 Chair: Edward W. Osborne Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. This study recommended a curriculum model to enhance the leadership specialization in agricultural education graduate programs. The populations for the study included university faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses and representatives of agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. The study sample included twenty-two agricultural education faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses and ten human resources professionals employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies, agribusiness firms, and career resource centers. A researcher-developed questionnaire was used to determine the competencies required for training and development and human resources careers. In addition, interviews were conducted with university faculty and industry representatives to determine key components of a graduate agricultural xiii

PAGE 14

leadership curriculum. To determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs, a researcher-developed questionnaire was sent to university faculty and department chairs and unit leaders of graduate agricultural leadership programs. The findings revealed that both academia and industry participants rated the following competencies as most important: communication, leadership, and interpersonal relationship building and collaboration. The lowest rated competencies were contracting, business knowledge, and implementation/support. Based on the interviews, participants recommended that graduate agricultural leadership programs focus on management, youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. A very small number of universities in the nation offered an agricultural leadership specialization in the graduate program. These programs have evolved from agricultural education perspectives and have not fully transitioned to an industry focus. Industry representatives preferred masters students for human resources/training and development positions; thus, the proposed curricula model focused on master level student development. xiv

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION National reports have examined the knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies required to prepare society-ready graduates. The American Society for Training and Development recently conducted a study, Mapping the Future: Shaping New Workplace Learning and Performance Competencies. The competency model included competencies, areas of expertise, and workplace learning and performance roles for training and development professionals (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). The competencies were divided into three clusters: interpersonal, business/management, and personal. The areas of expertise included: designing learning, improving human performance, delivering training, measuring and evaluating, facilitating organizational change, managing the learning function, coaching, managing organizational knowledge, and career planning and talent management (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). The workplace learning and performance roles included learning strategist, business partner, project manager, and professional specialist (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). Increasingly, more graduate students are pursuing careers outside academia (Andruss, 2002; Hartle & Galloway, 1996). According to a recent Dicksons Marketing Academia Labor Market Survey there are twice as many graduate students who are job candidates as there are positions available in the universities surveyed (Adruss, 2002). Hartle and Galloway (1996) asserted that higher education has an obligation to ensure that graduate students have realistic expectations about the job market that awaits them upon graduation. The changing industry demands an influx of graduates who can 1

PAGE 16

2 compete for job positions outside academia. To prepare students for an ever-changing society and workforce, higher education programs must solicit industry perspectives to determine the requisite skills required for industry careers (Hartle & Galloway, 1996). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), employment growth will be concentrated in the service-providing sector of the economy. Specifically, the education and health services sectors represent an industry experiencing the strongest projected employment growth. By 2012 the number of workers gainfully employed in the education and health services industry is projected to increase by 31.8% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). Various studies (Brown & Fritz, 1994; Drucker, 1999; Foster & Pikkert, 1991; Marshall, Patton, & Stocker, 1999; Scanlon et. Al, 1996; Spotanski & Foster, 1989) designed to identify skills and competencies required for business and industry positions have been conducted. According to Drucker (1999), professionals in the 21 st Century must be able to manage using soft skills to relate to others in the workplace. Human resource managers of large American corporations indicate that soft skills are the most important characteristics an employee possesses, in addition to good communication skills and appearance. Among the soft skills were a how can I help attitude, good manners, willingness to take ownership, commitment, initiative, adaptability, teamwork, relationship building through trust and respect for the firm and individuals, and device to advance (Marshall, Patton & Stocker, 1999). A national study of college graduates in food and agricultural sciences found that the factors with the most prevalent impact on employment opportunities for college graduates in food and agricultural sciences are

PAGE 17

3 changing business structure, continued globalization, evolving customer tastes and preferences, and public-policy decisions (Goecker, Whatley, & Gilmore, 1999). Foster and Pikkert (1991) noted that if students in the colleges of agriculture are to be competitive in a world in which technology is rapidly changing, agricultural faculty need to be able to provide their students with the cognitive abilities to solve problems, make decisions, and integrate new technology outside the classroom. To address this concern, colleges of agriculture across the nation have begun revamping their curricula to incorporate industry-identified competencies. In agricultural education, various researchers (Dooley & Lindner, 2002; Goecker, 1992; Place & Jacob, 2001) have examined student competencies required for success in different contexts. In the distance education context, researchers synthesized the competencies required for distance education professionals (Dooley & Lindner, 2002). The clustered core competencies include adult learning theory, technological knowledge and skills, instructional design, communication tools, graphic design, and administrative issues (Dooley & Lindner, 2002). Goecker (1992) indicated that agricultural education graduate students needed high levels of teaching and learning competencies to become effective and productive. Place and Jacob (2001) found that extension employees need resource management to competencies, including time management, workplace, and stress management to become effective professionals. Numerous researchers (Birkenholz et al., 1994; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Fritz & Brown, 1998; Graham, 2001; Hansen et al., 1989; Harris, 1989; Scanlon et al., 1996) have conducted studies to determine the competencies graduate students should possess in order to be marketable. Competencies cited included development of an electronic

PAGE 18

4 portfolio, web design and technology, quality research design, ability to think critically (Rudd, 2000; Torres & Cano, 1995; Whittington & Newcomb, 1993), ability to use problem-solving skills (Dyer & Osborne, 1999), and agricultural literacy (Graham, 2001). Colleges and universities are revamping leadership curricula to incorporate industry trends and requirements. In Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education, the authors contended that agriculture is too important a topic to only be taught to individuals pursuing careers in agriculture. They further recommended that, New curriculum components must be developed and made available to teachers addressing the science basic to agriculture, food, and natural resources; agribusiness; marketing; management; international productivity (National Research Council, 1988). Graduates of undergraduate degree programs in the 21 st Century will be required to possess knowledge of concepts fundamental to literacy, critical thought, mathematics, history, science, values, art experience and appreciation, international perspectives and multicultural experience, in-depth study, how to learning, problem-solving ability, technical skills, practical psychology of interpersonal relations, relevant courses, and practical perspectives on careers (Erpelding & Mugler, 1987; Bjoraker, 1987). Increasingly, colleges of agriculture are seeking an industry perspective when considering curriculum development. Higher education and business partnerships are emerging to address educational reform issues. Tornatsky (2001) recommended the use of a practitioner-orientated approach to better understand and enhance the craft of university-industry technology transfer. Similarly, researchers in organizational leadership are examining the nature of leadership curricula in higher education programs (Crawford, Brungardt, Scott, & Gould,

PAGE 19

5 2002). Approaches to leadership development include the incorporation of adult learning theory (Crawford et al., 2002; Mitchell & Poutiatine, 2001), experiential learning models (Mitchell & Poutiatine, 2001), and action research (Zimmermann-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). According to Crawford et al. (2002), major changes, such as faculty cost and delivery model, will continue to impact degree program requirements for organizational leadership. A review of graduate programs in organizational leadership identified approximately 40 graduate degree programs, including only six programs offering doctoral degrees (Crawford et al., 2002). The study concluded there have been few graduate programs in organization leadership exist that are designed to examine the theoretical perspective of organizational leadership (Crawford et al., 2002). Masters degree requirements for organizational leadership programs were an average of 37 credit hours. Eleven programs required a research component, and nearly all programs had a research or other project requirement (Crawford et al., 2002). Mitchell and Poutiatine (2001) recommended that future efforts to provide opportunities for leadership development should carefully examine how leadership education can be most effective. Leadership education is becoming widespread at the graduate level and is available within specific disciplines such as schools of business administration, education, and public policy. Leadership academic programs are emerging into a new field of study (Bennis & Goldsmith. 1997; Gardner, 1990; Komives et al., 1998; Rost, 1993). Mitchell and Poutiatine (2001) stated that, To meet the challenges presented by our changing society, the United States system of higher

PAGE 20

6 education, specifically graduate programs, must devise practical, efficient, and effective approaches to leadership development (pp. 183). Efforts to revitalize leadership curricula must include a critical review of the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership careers. Currently, there are limited data describing curricula, graduates, placements, and industry needs and preferences to assist faculty and administrators in developing graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula. Problem Statement It is imperative for administrators and instructional designers to dialogue about their perceptions of curriculum areas that are important and to determine ways to improve the delivery of the curriculum. Limited research is available on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership positions. While studies have been conducted on the industry perspective of curriculum revisions necessary to prepare undergraduate students for a competitive job market, few studies have been conducted that address the specific curriculum content areas necessary to prepare graduate students for such positions. Therefore, the problem to be addressed in this study is the limited research available on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership and training and development careers. Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to: 1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses.

PAGE 21

7 2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry representatives. 3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives. 4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and academia representatives. 5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. 6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. Variables The primary independent variables in this study include gender, educational background, experience, years in current position, job title, type of company, leadership courses taught, and business/industry experience. The dependent variables in this study included perceptions of university faculty and industry representatives toward HRD/leadership competencies and exemplary leadership practices for agricultural leadership graduate students, perceptions of university faculty and industry representatives key components of graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula, and profiles of current graduate agricultural leadership programs. Definitions of Terms Key terms in the study were operationally defined as follows: Academia representatives. Agricultural education faculty who teach graduate leadership courses as identified by their unit administrator. Alternatively, the respondent pool was broadened to include chairs or unit administrators of graduate agricultural education programs. Agribusinesses. Agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies categorized under the subheadings, Food Consumer Products, Food Production Food Services, Tobacco, Industrial and Farm Equipment, and Wholesalers, Food, and Grocery ( http://www.fortune.com April 14, 2002).

PAGE 22

8 Agricultural education. Secondary and post-secondary programs designed to prepare education and communication specialists. On the secondary level, agricultural education includes FFA, SAEP, classroom instruction, and laboratory (Phipps & Osborne, 1990). At the post-secondary level, program emphases may include teacher education, adult or Extension education, agricultural communication, leadership, international agriculture programs, and other areas. Agricultural leadership. The process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2001). For the purposes of this study, agricultural leadership refers to a specialization or program emphasis in departments of agricultural education throughout the United States. Agricultural literacy. Knowledge and understanding about our food and fiber system (Leising & Zilbert, 1994). Competences. A cluster of related knowledge, attitudes, and skills that affect a major part of ones job are correlated with job performance that can be measured against standards (Parry, 1998). In this study, competencies measured will include industry-identified competencies relative to graduate employment in leadership positions. E-learning. Instructional content or learning experiences delivered or enabled by technology (ASTD & NGA Center for Best Practices, 2001). For the purposes of this study, e-learning refers to distance education in the private sector. Human resource development. ..the integrated use of training and development, organization development, and career development to improve individual, group, and organizational effectiveness (McLagan, 1989, p. 7). Industry-identified competencies. Competencies that were identified by industry representatives and deemed essential for obtaining gainful employment in training and development. Industry leadership positions. Position titles such as training specialist, training director or manager, change agent, and leadership education specialist. Industry representatives. Human resource professionals employed by agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies that were categorized under the subheadings Food and Consumer Products, Food Production, Food Services, Tobacco, Industrial and Farm Equipment, and Wholesalers, Food and Grocery. ( http://www.fortune.com April 14, 2002). Alternatively, the respondent pool was broadened to include career resources professionals from land-grant colleges and human resource professionals from agribusinesses. Leadership. The process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2001).

PAGE 23

9 Skill. A present, observable competence to perform a learned psychomotor act (Maxine, 1997). In this study, skills were identified by academia and industry representatives. University agricultural leadership participants. University participants who were faculty in graduate agricultural leadership programs. University department chairs/unit leaders. University participants who were department chairs or unit leaders of graduate agricultural leadership programs. University faculty participants. Faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses at land-grant universities Limitations of the Study This study had the following limitations: The population frame for this study included industry representatives of selected Fortune 500 companies with an agriculturally related specialization. Also included in the study were academia representatives from selected departments of agricultural education with leadership programs at land-grant colleges and universities. Data provided by academia and industry representatives represented opinions at a particular point in time. Generalizability of the findings was limited to the respondents participating in this study. Assumptions The following basic assumptions were made in conducting this research study: The respondents were candid and honest in providing their responses to survey items. The survey instruments were completed by the respondents for whom the instruments were intended. The selected university faculty, university agricultural leadership faculty, university department chairs/unit leaders, and industry representatives possessed general knowledge of leadership and its dimensions. Importance of the Study This study examined academia and industry perspectives on Human Resource Development competencies and leadership practices required for graduate students

PAGE 24

10 pursuing training and development employment. Many of the previous studies (Arndt et al., 1997; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Cole & Thompson, 2002; Dodge & Foster, 1990; Fritz & Brown, 1998 Harris, 1989; Scanlon et al., 1996; Schumacher & Swan, 1993; Spontanski & Foster, 1989) conducted in this area focused specifically on curriculum revitalization of undergraduate programs in colleges of agriculture across the nation. As more graduate students pursuing non-academic careers (Andruss, 2002), research efforts to determine the required competencies are imperative. The rapidly changing competency skill sets need to be updated periodically and utilized to update curricula accordingly. Without input from agribusinesses and administrators, curriculum planners will have difficulty modifying current graduate agricultural leadership education programs of study. There is limited research on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership positions. While studies have been conducted on the industry perspective of curriculum revisions necessary to prepare undergraduate students for a competitive job market, few studies have been conducted to identify the competencies required for non-academia careers and to recommend curriculum to prepare society-ready graduates. Thus, it is beneficial to focus research efforts on curriculum development, competency identification and assessment, and dynamics of academia-industry partnerships. This research study is important to both academia and industry audiences involved in leadership development programs. Given the cyclical demand for university faculty and the need for effective leadership in all public and private settings, graduate students should be prepared to compete for non-academic careers. Therefore, research efforts that provide empirical data to support the availability of industry leadership employment and

PAGE 25

11 more fully documented industry leadership perspectives are pertinent and may assist in building a theoretical basis on which departments can improve their leadership programs. From the industry perspective, partnerships with universities will strengthen employees and help to secure qualified graduate students to fill vacancies for leadership and training positions. Summary Chapter one provided the background for studying academia and industry perspectives on the importance of human resource development and leadership competencies. The chapter also included the problem statement, purpose and objectives, variables, definitions of terms, limitations, assumptions, and importance of the study.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. Chapter 1 described the background for studying university faculty and industry perspectives on graduate competencies necessary for training and development employment. Chapter 2 presents a theoretical framework and empirical research relevant to this study. This chapter is subdivided into the following topics: overview of leadership theories, leadership styles, academia and industry partnerships, curriculum development and theory, and human resource development competencies. In addition, a conceptual model of graduate agricultural leadership curricula is presented. Theoretical Framework The Center for Creative Leadership defines leadership development as the expansion of a persons capacity to be effective in leadership processes and roles. According to McCauley, Moxley, and Velsor (1998), this view of leadership is based on the assumptions that: Leadership development involves the development of capacities with an individual. Life experiences cause people to take on leadership roles and participate in leadership processes to fulfill commitments to organizations, social groups, or neighborhoods. People can learn, grow, and change. The Center for Creative Leadership developed a leadership development model that describes the processes that influence leaders effectiveness (see Figure 1). This model 12

PAGE 27

13 illustrates the direct relationships among assessment, challenge, support, and developmental experiences (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Developmental experiences Challenge Support Assessment Figure 1. Leadership Development Model Part A-Developmental Experiences Leadership development should include assessment data (McCauley, Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000). Assessment is important in increasing ones understanding about personal strengths, level of current performance or leadership effectiveness, and development needs. It also provides benchmark data for future development. What am I doing well? Where do I need to improve? What are others views of me? How do my behaviors impact others? How am I doing relative to my goals? Assessment data can be gathered from oneself or from other people (McCauley, Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000). Other sources of assessment include peers in the workplace, bosses, employees, spouses, children, parents, friends, customers, counselors, and organizational consultants. These data can be collected using informal or formal methods. Examples of formal assessments include performance appraisals, customer evaluations, 360-degree feedback, organizational surveys that measure employee satisfaction with managers, and assessments and recommendations from consultants (McCauley, Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000).

PAGE 28

14 Experiences that shape individuals the most are the ones that challenge people. Individuals develop ways of thinking and acting that work for them and make them more comfortable. Challenging experiences force individuals to go beyond their comfort zone and develop new capacities to become successful. The importance of new experiences is highlighted in Hills (1992) study of men and women during their first managerial assignment. The participants found that becoming a manager involved more than just learning new skills and building skills. Rather, it involved a transformation in thinking and feeling in new ways. Assessment and challenge are important factors in leadership development; however, it is also important that support is available to individuals (McCauley, Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000). Assessment data point out the strengths and weaknesses, challenge provides disequilibrium to foster people to change, and support is an indication that efforts to learn and grow are valued. Support can come from other people, including bosses, coworkers, family, friends, professional colleagues, coaches, and mentors (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). The role of these people can range from listening to stories of struggle, identifying with challenges, suggesting strategies for coping, reassuring in times of doubt, inspiring renewed effort, celebrating the smallest accomplishments and cheering from the sidelines. Talking to others about struggles can help people in their personal struggles. Support is a key factor in maintaining motivation to learn and grow (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Similarly, individuals with higher self-efficacy exert more effort in mastering challenges and persevering in difficult situations (Bandura, 1996).

PAGE 29

15 Open communication discussing mistakes, confirming and clarifying lessons taught gives individuals a sense that they are on the right track, the feedback is legitimate, and new ways are making sense of their situations as shared by others. The Center for Creative Leadership further developed the Leadership Development Model Part B (Figure 2) to show the leadership development process. According to this model, an individuals ability to learn impacts leadership development, which impacts the variety of developmental experiences (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Variety of developmental experiences Ability to learnLeadership development Figure 2. Leadership Development Model Part BThe Development Process The leadership development process is based on the assumption that most people take on leadership roles and engage in learning development processes to fulfill commitments to social entities, such as organizations, volunteer or social groups, neighborhoods, and professional groups (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Rather than distinguishing leaders from non-leaders, the model assumes everyone can learn, grow, and change. The ability to learn from experience entails recognizing when new behaviors, skills, or attitudes are needed, engaging in a variety of developmental experiences to learn new skills, and developing and using a variety of learning tactics to acquire new skills, approaches, or attitudes (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). The leadership

PAGE 30

16 development process Part B illustrates how the development experiences and ability to learn have a direct impact on each other. Engaging in developmental experiences can enhance a persons ability to learn (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Leadership Defined Leadership has been widely defined over the years; however, a consensus among researchers has not been established. Researchers have examined leadership from a variety of perspectives; however, there is no universally accepted definition of leadership. The following examples represent the wide gamut of leadership definitions. Kouzes and Posner (1997) defined leadership as the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations. 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 by the leader and his or her followers (p. 1). Rost (1991) defined leadership as an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes (p. 102). Chemers (1997) characterized leadership as process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (p. 1). Similarly, Northouse (2001) synthesized leadership theories into four major conceptualizations: leadership is a process that involves influence, occurs within a group context, and involves goal attainment. Based on these concepts, Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Overview of Major Leadership Theories Leadership has been widely defined and conceptualized as a function of the leader, follower, context, and process. Despite diverse viewpoints, leadership theories can be

PAGE 31

17 classified into major categories: trait approach, behavior approach, and situational approach (Yukl, 1981). Trait approach The trait approach to leadership has emphasized a specific set of traits that only leaders possess (Northouse, 2001). The assumption of the trait approach has been that leaders are born and not made. The trait has been based on the premise that leaders are different, and their difference is based on special gifts and talents. The trait approach to leadership emphasizes the importance of having a leader with a certain set of traits essential to effective leadership (Northouse, 2001). The leaders personality is central to the leadership process. Using the trait approach, leaders analyze their traits to determine strengths and weaknesses and to ascertain how they fit into the organizational structure (Northouse, 2001). One of the earliest systematic attempts to study leadership was the trait approach. The trait approach was based on the assumption that leaders are born with qualities and characteristics necessary for leadership. Research using the trait approach has focused on determining the specific traits that distinguish leaders from followers (Bass, 1990). Stodgills (1974) work identified six categories of personal factors of leadership: capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situation. The strengths of the trait approach to leadership have been appeal, research base, emphasis on leader, and benchmarks for effective leaders (Northouse, 2001; Smith & Peterson, 1988). The trait approach has been appealing because it is based on the premise that leaders are different, and their difference is based on the special gifts and talents they possess. People have a need to view their leader as a gifted individual, and the trait approach satisfies this need. A second strength of the trait approach has been its

PAGE 32

18 research base (Northouse, 2001). The trait approach has more breadth and depth in its research base than any other leadership theory. This research base has produced a body of knowledge and data that emphasize the significance of personality traits in the leadership process. Another strength of the trait approach is the emphasis on leader qualities necessary for effective leadership (Northouse, 2001). Despite the potential weakness by focusing solely on leader qualities, the trait approach has provided an in-depth understanding of how the leaders personality relates to the leadership process. Lastly, the trait approach has provided benchmarks for leadership qualities desired for effective leaders (Northouse, 2001). Using this approach, personality and assessment procedures can be used to provide invaluable information to leaders about their strengths and weaknesses, as well as strategies to improve their leadership effectiveness (Northouse, 2001). Early attempts to identify individual traits led to the conclusion that no single trait can distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Situational approach The situational approach to leadership has addressed the situation as the determinant of leadership abilities. Researchers have studied leadership by examining the influence of the follower and context. Leadership theories in this category include situational leadership, contingency theory, and path-goal theory. The situational approach to leadership was developed by Hershey and Blanchard (1969), whose research was based on Reddins (1967) management style theory. This approach has been widely used in training and development leadership in organizations nationwide (Northouse, 2001). Situational leadership emphasizes the balance between directive and supportive roles of a leader. The leaders task is to analyze a particular situation and determine the

PAGE 33

19 appropriate degree of directive and or supportive behaviors necessary to address employee needs (Northouse, 2001). Transformational and transactional leadership Burns developed the concept of transformational leadership. Burns (1954) further noted that the result of transformational leadership is mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents (pp. 23). Transformational leadership involves a process whereby an individual interacts with followers and creates a connection that increases motivation and morale in both the leader and follower (Northouse, 2001). A transformational leader is attuned to the needs and motives of followers and attempts to help followers reach their fullest potential (Northouse, 2001). Burns provided a comprehensive theory to delineate between transactional and transformational leaders (Bass, 1990). He stated that transactional leaders approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions. Such transactions comprise the bulk of the relationships among leaders and followers, especially in groups, legislatures, and parties (pp. 23). Burns classified transactional leaders as opinion leaders, bargainers, bureaucrats, party leaders, legislative leaders, and executive leaders (Bass, 1990). In contrast, he categorized transformational leaders as intellectual leaders, reform or revolutionary leaders, and heroes (Bass, 1990). According to Burns, transformational leaders recognize the need for the follower to satisfy higher needs, as identified by Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1954).

PAGE 34

20 Theory X and Theory Y McGregor (1960, 1966) formulated two types of organizational leadership Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is an autocratic belief based on the assumption that people are passive and resistant to organizational needs (Bass, 1990). Leaders attempt to direct and motivate people to fit these needs. Theory Y is a democratic belief based on the assumption that people possess motivation and a desire for responsibility; it attempts to arrange organizational conditions to fulfill their needs while directing their efforts toward achieving organizational goals (Bass, 1990). Psychodynamic approach Using a psychodynamic leadership approach, the leaders role is to bring to the consciousness of team players the nature of the transactions and to present these issues in an open forum to generate discussion (Northouse, 2001). Strengths of this approach include leader-follower relationship, universality of the leadership approach, and emphasis on the need for insight on the part of the leader (Northouse, 2001). Criticisms of this approach include research efforts focused on case studies from individual psychiatrists and traditional two-parent family of origin. Northouse (2001) argued that any leadership model based on this approach is likely to be applicable to white, middle-class individuals with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Exemplary Leadership Practices Northouse (2001) synthesized leadership theories into four major conceptualizations as follows: Leadership is a process. Leadership involves influence. Leadership occurs within a group context. Leadership involves goal attainment.

PAGE 35

21 Based on these concepts, Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Researchers have studied leadership and defined it in terms of its process. Kouzes and Posner (1997) interviewed CEO executives regarding their organizational success and personal best leadership experiences. Upon interviewing executives throughout the nation, Kouzes and Posner (1997) categorized the responses to compile five exemplary practices of leadership: Challenge the process Inspire a shared vision Enable others to act Model the way Encourage the heart Leaders who challenge the process are innovative and constantly seek to improve the organization, including its processes. These leaders acknowledge that the leaders who do the work are a good source of ideas. They treat mistakes as learning opportunities (Kouzes and Posner, 1997). This exemplary practice is characterized by leaders who exhibit the following: searching out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes; exploring new and different ways of solving problems or improving processes; going beyond the boundaries of the organization to improve processes; and utilizing opportunities to change the status quo (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). The second exemplary leadership practice is inspiring a shared vision. Leaders seek to mobilize others to strive toward a shared vision. This leadership practice includes the following: envisioning and uplifting a promising future; enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams; communicating and sharing expectations using vivid, clear, and concrete images;

PAGE 36

22 exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities; and envisioning the future of what the organization can become. Enabling others to act involves emphasis on the supportive roles necessary to help others develop (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). This is accomplished by recognizing the achievements of others. Another important aspect of exemplary leadership is modeling the way. Leaders in these roles model behaviors that are acceptable to the organizational culture and achievement of shared goals and objectives. Kouzes and Posner (1997) highlighted the following characteristics of leaders who enable others to act: fostering collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust; strengthening people by giving power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks and offering visible support; providing individuals with as much control over resources as needed to do the job; helping people learn and develop in their work; and listening to diverse points of view. Modeling the way can cause others to want to follow and emulate the leaders behavior. Kouzes and Posner (1997) highlighted the following characteristics of leaders who model the way: setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with shared values; achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment; making the connection between individual performance expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values; planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins; and keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently according to personal values.

PAGE 37

23 Faculty Characteristics A national study of departments of agricultural education revealed that 36 (67%) of the 53 departments surveyed offered courses in leadership and human resource management and development (Fritz & Brown, 1998). The departments that did not offer leadership courses indicated reasons such as resource scarcity, institutional policy barriers and resistance, and lack of student demand. Researchers found that one-half of the faculty taught leadership courses and had traditional agricultural education backgrounds (Fritz & Brown, 1998). Other faculty had agricultural education backgrounds, as well as special training or skills in leadership or management, and the remaining had backgrounds in fields other than agricultural education. To address this concern, researchers recommended that departments provide faculty with specific preparation and academic grounding in the research and behavioral foundations of leadership (p.61). The researchers recommended that departments with leadership education programs employ agricultural education faculty with different educational backgrounds than in the past. Similarly, Newcomb (1993) stated that departments with doctoral programs will serve graduate students well if they encourage them to develop sub-specialties beyond teacher education and extension. Various research studies have examined agricultural education curricular revisions necessary from an industry perspective (Arndt, Barrett, & Bosshammer, 1997; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Scanlon, Bruening, & Cordero, 1996; Harris, 1989; Spontanski & Foster, 1989). Bowen and Thomson (1995) stated that instructors at the secondary and post-secondary levels have been preparing students for entry-level agribusiness employment since the 1960s. Although university faculty groups have prepared students for such

PAGE 38

24 employment, researchers argue that university faculty members have not viewed the agribusiness industry as a prospective clientele audience (Bowen & Thomson, 1995). Industry Characteristics A review of relevant literature revealed that industry characteristics influence curriculum development, including the preparation of society-ready graduates. The following section is divided into the sub-categories: leadership training and development and HRD competencies. Leadershipt and development According to Zemke and Zemke (2001), contemporary leadership development aims to build the capacity of potential leaders to move the organization along a path that will ensure success and survival in a rapidly changing, competitive world. A University of Michigan business school professor asserted that the best leadership development efforts are led by a senior level manager of the organization in support of, rather than in charge of, employees training and development (Zemke & Zemke, 2001). He further identified the following questions for executives who head leadership efforts: Do you have a teachable point of view? Will you spend the time? Are you a role model and a coach? Can you create a learning program with real business projects? Can you blend hard and soft? Can you energize others to learn (Zemke, 2001)? Two studies were conducted determining the educational background required for entry-level training positions. Fulkert (1997) found that typical trainers held at least a Masters degree. Typically their experience was gained through train-the-trainer programs, external seminars and workshops, professional journals and magazines, and

PAGE 39

25 formal on-the-job training (Fulkert, 1997). Dingus (1990) surveyed Fortune 500 executives to determine the competencies of entry-level trainers. His study found that the recommended education requirements as identified by respondents were 78.9 % bachelors, 17.9 % masters, and 0.8% doctoral degrees (Dingus, 1990). HRD competencies Human resource development includes training, organization, and career development. McLagan (1996) purported that the nine roles that trainers must perform are human resource (HR) strategic advisor, HR systems designer and developer, organization change consultant, organization design consultant, learning program specialist, instructor/facilitator, individual development/career consultant, performance consultant, and researcher. Roles of human resources professionals include manager, analyst, selector, designer and developer, implementer, change leader, and evaluator (http://www.astd.org/virtual_community, 2003). McLagans (1983) study Model for HRD Practice highlighted 31 competencies for human resource professionals. This competency list has been heavily supported by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). For the purposes of this study, only 18 of the 31 competencies were deemed relevant to this study. The competencies used for this study are as follows: 1. adult learning; 2. instructional design, 3. performance gap analysis, 4. change management, 5. leadership, 6. industry awareness, 7. buy-in/advocacy, 8. interpersonal relationship building and collaboration, 9. consulting, 10. business knowledge, 11. systems thinking,

PAGE 40

26 12. contracting, 13. project management, 14. awareness of e-learning industry, 15. communication, 16. program evaluation, 17. design and development, and 18. implementation and support. Adult learning. Adult learning involves how adults learn and how they use knowledge, skills, and attitudes (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up this competency include understanding learning styles, problem solving skills, facilitation of self-directed learning, and appreciation of the diverse experiences of adult learners (McLagan, 1983). Instructional design. The instructional systems design (ISD) model is comprised of the following six phases: analysis, design, development, delivery and evaluation (McLagan, 1983). This competency is necessary to create adult education classes that fulfill organizational goals. Knowledge areas that comprise this competency are an understanding of the six phases of the ISD model, integral role of each stage, and learning styles (McLagan, 1983). Skills that make up the competency are gap analysis, evaluation, design, material development, implementation, and support skills (McLagan, 1983). Performance gap analysis. Performance gap analysis entails performing front-end analysis by comparing actual and ideal performance levels in the workplace (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up the competency include: (1) gap analysis skills; (2) intervention selection skills; (3) ability to assess the reasonableness of desired performance levels; (4) ability to present findings of analysis; (5) interviewing skills; (6) focus group facilitation skills; (7) statistical analysis skills; (8) ability to write

PAGE 41

27 valid data collection instrument; and (9) ability to analyze historical documentation (McLagan, 1983). Change management. Change management is helping people adapt to the changes brought on by new technologies and helping them to see the value and benefits of new technologies (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up this competency include: understanding of organizational goals and culture, ability to assess human behavior objectively, interviewing skills, focus group facilitation skills, ability to analyze historical documentation, understanding of factors of human motivation, and ability to discover the root cause of human behavior (McLagan, 1983). Leadership. Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. According to McLagan (1983), leadership is leading, influencing, and coaching others to help them achieve desired results. Specific skills and knowledge relevant to leadership are ability to see the big picture, ability to inspire and motivate others, organizational skills, delegation skills, ability to monitor progress toward organizational goals, understanding of the benefits and risks associated with empowering workers, ability to see ones own behavior as an example for others, and ability to maintain a clear vision for the organizations future (McLagan, 1983). Industry awareness. Industry awareness is an important competency for human resource professionals (McLagan, 1983). It is defined as understanding the current and future climate of the companys industry and formulating strategies that respond to that climate (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up the competency include: (1) knowledge of the companys position within the industry; (2) knowledge of

PAGE 42

28 competitions position within the industry; (3) understanding of future forces affecting the industry; (4) understanding of competition that exists outside the normal bounds of ones industry; and (5) ability to create strategies and contingency plans that allow the organization to have a competitive advantage in this environment (McLagan, 1983). Buy-In/Advocacy. Buy-In or advocacy refers to building ownership and support for workplace initiatives (McLagan, 1983). Specific skills and knowledge required for this competency are negotiation skills, verbal, written and nonverbal communication skills, and ability to understand clearly the subject thats being advocated (McLagan, 1983). Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration. Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration refer to interacting effectively with others in order to produce meaningful outcomes (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up the competency include: (1) ability to assess accurately other peoples needs; (2) understanding of other peoples goals and objectives; (3) understanding of the informal structure of an organization and the demands it places on individuals; (4) ability to respect other peoples values; and (5) verbal, nonverbal, and written communication skills (McLagan, 1983). Consulting. Consulting is helping clients and stakeholders to question their assumptions, determine their needs, and plan implementation strategies for achieving their goals (McLagan, 1983). This competency involves listening skills, understanding of stakeholder concerns, analytical skills, ability to maintain confidentiality, and presentation skills (McLagan, 1983).

PAGE 43

29 Business knowledge. Business knowledge refers to demonstrating awareness of business functions (McLagan, 1983). Specific skills and knowledge that encompass the competency include: ability to see the big picture; understanding of how each section of the business interrelates with others; understanding of the corporations financial resources and limitations; understanding of the various processes that drive the business; understanding of the types of individuals who work within the business; understanding of the history of the business; and understanding of the likely future of the business (McLagan, 1983). Systems thinking. Systems thinking involves recognizing the interrelationships among the driving forces that connect seemingly isolated incidents within the organization (McLagan, 1983). This holistic viewpoint addresses performance problems in order to find the root causes. Skills and knowledge of this competency are ability to organize patterns among events, ability to analyze cause-and-effect relationships accurately, and development of research skills (McLagan, 1983). Contracting. Contracting involves negotiating, organizing, preparing, monitoring and evaluating work performance by vendors or consultants (McLagan, 1983). This competency comprises consensus-building, compromising, and communication skills. It also encompasses the ability to write contracts and requests for proposals, analyze and assess vendor proposals, maintain accurate records, and monitor compliance to contract specifications (McLagan, 1983). Project management. The project management competency includes assessing, planning, negotiating, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating the training delivery process (McLagan, 1983). Effectively managing human capital and financial resources. Skills and knowledge that comprise this competency include:

PAGE 44

30 budgeting organizational return on investment (ROI) scheduling planning consensus building. ability to collaborate on a team communication skills research skills and the ability to assess ideas objectively and determine their relevance to the project (McLagan, 1983). Awareness of e-learning industry. An awareness of e-learning is possessing general knowledge about trends and issues of existing and emerging technologies in training and development (McLagan, 1983). Skills include understanding the history of the industry, knowledge of current and emerging trends, current limitations of technology, cost/benefit analysis skills, networking skills, knowledge of vendors and their standing in the industry, and the ability to understand the practical applications of each technologys features (McLagan, 1983). Communication. The communication competency includes applying effective verbal, nonverbal, and written communications methods to achieve the desired results (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge required for this competency are writing skills, knowledge of proper grammar, listening skills, speaking skills, nonverbal skills, knowledge of diverse communication styles, and understanding of the barriers to effective communication (McLagan, 1983). Program evaluation. Program evaluation is measuring the success of learning interventions (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that comprise this competency are as follows: knowledge of statistics survey instrument design skills

PAGE 45

31 four evaluation levels various types of evaluation various types of measurement what is or isnt important to measure, and evaluate the program within the broader context of the organizational goals (McLagan, 1983). Design and development. Design and development is outlining and creating instructional materials suitable for e-learning. It includes deciding what combination of instructional, presentation, and distribution methods will provide the best program delivery to the learner (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge include the following: Ability to create a design document Ability to create electronic materials Ability to select instructional, presentation, and distribution methods Ability to understand distribution methods Graphic design skills HTML design skills Knowledge of performance objectives Programming and authoring skills Resource identification skills, and Storyboarding skills (McLagan, 1983). Implementation and support. The competency of implementation and support includes coordinating the installation and maintenance of learning technologies (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge of the competency include: Presentation skills Ability to understand distribution methods Ability to setup and use electronic software and hardware Ability to diagnose problems that learners experience with the technologies Ability to coordinate assignments with the technical staff Understanding the design specifications of the hardware and software, and Ability to monitor effectiveness of the hardware and software (McLagan, 1983). Academia and Industry Partnerships Academia and industry partnerships have been beneficial to enhancing the quality of education. Private sector collaboration is a method of providing innovation and

PAGE 46

32 quality education for instructional programs (Sherman, 1983). As federal grants become more competitive, universities across the nation are approaching corporate partners to sponsor research efforts. According to a survey of the Association of University Technology Managers, companies contributed approximately $2.2 billion, or 9.4%, of all research performed at colleges throughout the United States (Basinger, 2001). According to Santoro and Betts (2002), industry-university partnerships can be beneficial in helping firms to generate new knowledge and technologies, including patents, licenses, and non-patented and non-licensed new products and processes. An illustration of a successful industry-university partnership involved Monsanto and Washington University. Monsanto conducted over 50 pharmaceutical research projects that resulted in 16 patents, 24 patents pending, and 5 commercialized products that yielded substantial revenues in 1995 (Petrick & Reischman, 1997). The National Alliance of Business presented the following mutual benefits of partnerships with education and industries: 1. Partnerships provide other individuals and institutions opportunities to perceive another organizations point of view and a chance to win an ally. 2. Partnerships can help build the kind of understanding that creates support. 3. Partnerships represent a means of contributing to quality education programs. The challenge to industry to succeed in an increasingly competitive world market is contingent upon skilled personnel who learn, grow, and adapt to changing markets and technologies. Clearly, industry has a survival stake in quality education. 4. Partnerships bring increased access to knowledge, time, human resources, and financial assistance from other sectors in the community and may well reduce the costs and liability of doing business for each participant (Roth, 1987). An example of a successful tripartite partnership occurred in Illinois and involved the Illinois State Board of Education Department of Adult, Vocational, and Technical Education (DAVTE); Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center; and personnel in the Office

PAGE 47

33 for Vocational, Technical, and Career Education at Northern Illinois University (NIU). The partners joined forces to provide educational equity through an initiative titled Womens Access to Nuclear Technology (Project WANT). Project WANT developed five principles using the works of Hemmings (1984), the Council on Foundations (1986), and Open Entries (1986). The guidelines were as follows: Identify the focus of the partnership. Create a team of stakeholders. Scrutinize the many facets of the issue. Carry through the action plan. Maintain a high level of flexibility (Tornatzky, 2001). The Southern Technology Council (STC) examined benchmarking research on the topic of university-industry relationships. In a recent longitudinal study, the STC team conducted benchmarking as a behaviorist approach that includes: (1) identifying an important domain of organizational activity; (2) gathering performance data; (3) identifying and describing best practices used in exemplary organizations to enhance performance in that domain of activity; and (4) encouraging the adoption of those practices among organizations participating in the benchmarking effort. The Southern Technology Council highlighted best practices for university-industry relationships, which included utilizing practical data from competitive programs and rewarding faculty participation in technology transfer (Tornatzky, 2001). Corporate sponsorship of education becomes most appealing when the goals and objectives of both industry and education are acknowledged. Corporate donors want their contributions to be reciprocated by the preparation of well-educated and trained individuals upon whom they can recruit to ensure business success (Roy, 1994).

PAGE 48

34 Corporations are collaborating with colleges to provide management education programs for their executive staff. An example of a successful partnership between John Deere and Indiana University Kelly School of Management included university-offered online courses for corporate finance executives. Meister (2003) described the industry-identified expectations of corporate-college partnerships: The days when corporations passively fund tuition-assistance programs are coming to an end. Now, businesses are managing education through strategic relationships with universities to meet their needs for high-quality management education. Corporations are becoming the customers of education and, as such, are managing university partnerships to meet very specific requirements. I have called these requirements the five Cs of corporate-college partnerships: customer service and e-learner support services, cohort-based learning, customized programs, content, and cost-effective pricing. To summarize this section, academia and industry partnerships are essential in providing a quality higher education to students who will compete for agricultural leadership and related jobs. These partnerships need to be established, maintained, and fostered in a way that is practical and beneficial to all parties involved. In addition, these partnerships should be reviewed and analyzed to determine strategies to enhance and develop the curriculum offerings in post-secondary education programs. Curriculum Development Overview of curriculum theories This section provides an overview of curriculum theories relevant to post-secondary agricultural education programs. The application of curriculum theory affects how the curriculum is delivered, content is taught, and the learning outcomes of students are reached. According to Dewey (1944) learning is based upon experience and begins at the learners comprehension level.

PAGE 49

35 The American higher education system has been accused of failing to encourage students to think critically. Freire (1970) criticized educators of being bankers of knowledge who deposit information to be withdrawn as needed. Similarly, Halpern (1984) stated, Traditionally instruction in how to think has been a neglected component in American education (p. ix). Many colleges and universities have identified the use of thinking skills as a prominent objective. Black (1966) recognized the diversity of educational philosophies and synthesized them into four categories: traditionalist, progressive, learning product, and learning process. The traditionalist approach emphasizes subject-centered learning and is authoritarian and hierarchical. This approach also emphasizes products that are objectively measured. The progressive approach acknowledges the individual and places emphasis on the transmission of social heritage. Designing curriculum using the learning product approach involves an emphasis on producing a given set of skills, knowledge, and competencies in a typical student. The learning process emphasizes the individual but recognizes the role of transmitting the cultural heritage. Tylers rational model Tyler formulated a curriculum development model commonly known as the Tyler Rational Model. Tylers model is based upon the idea that the process of curriculum development rests with the educational program. To develop an effective curriculum, Tyler asserted that programs must identify their purpose, goals, and objectives, and then design curricula to fulfill these goals and objectives (Tyler, 1949). With this model, Tyler (1949) focused curriculum design to satisfy specific purposes or objectives. He proposed the following rationale for consideration from the educational programs perspective for developing an effective curriculum:

PAGE 50

36 What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained (Tyler, 1949)? Tyler (1949) argued that educational objectives need to be well defined; however, he contended that many educational programs do not have concise purposes, goals, or objectives. The objectives established become the premise upon which curriculum is established. Further, he believed that in certain circumstances, curriculum development should begin with a debate over the educational program. Sharpes and Dewey agreed that each entity can serve as the basis for curriculum, but each entity is independent of the influences of the learners, society, and subject disciplines (Sharpes, 1988). Gagnes model Competency-based education and instructional design reflect the transmission position. These models reduce the curricular components into elements that are clearly defined and measurable. Gagnes model is designed to provide a basis for accountability (Gagne & Briggs, 1979). His model included the following twelve (12) steps: (1) analyzing needs; (2) analyzing goals and objectives; (3) analyzing alternate ways to meet needs; (4) designing instructional components; (5) analyzing resources and restraints; (6) constraining removal action; (7) selecting or developing materials; (8) designing student-performance assessment; (9) field testing and evaluating; (10) adjusting, revising and evaluating further; (11) providing a summary evaluation system; and (12) implementing the plan (Gagne & Briggs, 1979).

PAGE 51

37 The instructional systems design (ISD) is a systematic approach to training (See Figure 3). The ISD model includes people, technology, material, and time. This training approach consists of five processes: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate, or ADDIE (ASTD, 1999). The first step of the ISD model is to analyze the educational program or department. This process also involves creating a task inventory of all tasks and building performance measures for the tasks to be trained. Other aspects of this process include cost estimation, selection of instructional setting, and compilation of a task inventory (ASTD, 1999). The second phase of the ISD model is design. During this phase, learning objectives, expected behaviors, and sequence and structure of the learning objectives are developed. Upon completion of the design phase, it is necessary to develop the instruction. This process also involves a review of existing materials, synthesis of materials, and validation of the appropriateness of the instruction to meet the goals and objectives. Implementation involves conducting the training or educational program (ASTD, 1999). Finally, an evaluation must be conducted to determine if a program meets stated goals and objectives. Evaluation is an essential part of this model because it determines how programs will be delivered and implemented in the future (ASTD, 1999). In summary, curriculum planning efforts should incorporate a holistic perspective involving faculty, students, administrators, alumni, and leaders in agricultural business

PAGE 52

38 Design Analysis Implementation Input Process Feedback Figure 3. An instructional system design model (ASTD, 1999) and industry (Bjoraker, 1987). Several curriculum design and planning models can be identified to assist faculty and administrators in improving the quality of degree programs and graduates. Each curriculum model emphasizes the importance of the product and the process. Trends in curriculum reform in agricultural sciences The North Central Curricular Project, comprised of representatives from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and University of Minnesota, initiated discussion forums to dialogue about curriculum changes. This project yielded the publication Curricular Innovation for 2005: Planning for the Future of Food and Agricultural Sciences (Krantz, 1996). This publication became widely used, as it documented conceptual and policy issues relevant to curriculum revitalization in the agricultural sciences. Two years later another publication, titled Educating for a Global Perspective: International Agricultural Curricula for 2005 (1989), was published. The publication highlighted strategies applicable for the implementation of global curricula in colleges of agriculture nationwide (Lunde, 1987).

PAGE 53

39 The Curricular Revitalization Project, also known as CRP, brought together various stakeholders to address curriculum development issues as a team (Lunde, 1987). Acknowledging the unique needs of different groups, including employers, farmers, environmentalists, students, college faculty, and administrators. CRP established the following guidelines to direct the curricular development model: Carefully consider institutionally specific educational trends and the unique ethos and strengths of the institutional and external environments; and At every step of the revitalization process, consult the stakeholders about the curriculum (Lunde, 1987). Colleges of agriculture across the nation are recognizing the need to solicit an industry perspective to adequately prepare students for agricultural leadership positions (Dodge & Foster, 1990; Smith, 1989; Love & Yoder, 1989; McKinley, Birkenholz, & Steward, 1993; Schumacher & Swan, 1993). Increasingly, departments of agricultural education are revitalizing curricula to reflect industry perspectives. Agricultural education departments have begun to include industry representatives in the curriculum planning process (Coorts, 1987; Etling, 1994; Fritz & Brown, 1998; Graham, 2001). Crawford, Brungardt, Scott, and Gould (2002) studied graduate programs in organizational leadership nationwide. Credit hours required for the degree ranged from 30 to 58 credit hours. In addition, the number of faculty in graduate organizational leadership programs ranged from 3 to 26. The study concluded that organizational leadership programs are in the early stages of development (Crawford et al., 2002). Curriculum revisions in leadership education programs include transformational leadership approaches and interpersonal leadership development. Leadership education and training are based on traditional leaders traits, styles, and behaviors; however, recent education and training programs have expanded to incorporate leaders thought

PAGE 54

40 processes, application approaches to complex social environments, and interpersonal human dynamics that define educational and human service organizations (Aiken, Prue, & Hasazi, 1999). The Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program at the University of Vermont revised its doctoral program to meet the needs of leaders in both educational and human service organizations within an interprofessional learning environment (Corrigan & Bishop, 1997). Curriculum development of this program included changes in program content, learning experiences, core course competencies, faculty resources and development, and instructional strategies. The theoretical framework for this program revolved around learning outcomes, such as knowledge, skills, values, and commitments necessary to be interprofessional leaders (Corrigan & Bishop, 1997). In summary, various efforts to enhance curricula in colleges of agriculture nationwide were cited. In an effort to keep up with industry trends and requirements, university faculty and administrators are collaborating to determine curricula changes necessary to prepare competitive graduates. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive review of current curricula, industry requirements and trends must be pursued. The solicitation of the industry perspectives is essential to adequately prepare graduates for agricultural industry leadership. Research efforts to expand the knowledge base should incorporate academia and industry perspectives. Competency defined Competency is defined as a cluster of related knowledge, attitudes, and skills that affects a major part of ones job (Parry, 1998). Similarly, Davis, Naughton, and Rothwell (2004) stated the following: Competencies encompass clusters of skills, knowledge, abilities, and behaviors required for people to succeed (p. 28).

PAGE 55

41 Competency is correlated with job performance that can be measured against standards and enhanced through training and development (Parry, 1998). Competencies are important to study to establish benchmarking data (Parry, 1998), develop curricula models, and determine job-specific competencies (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). In training and development, competency models are used to clarify organization-specific competencies to improve human performance and align individual capabilities with organizational core competencies (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Competency assessment Competency assessment is defined as the process of comparing individuals in a job category, department, industry, or organization to the competency model for the targeted group (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Competencies can be assessed using the three common methods, including 360-degree feedback, assessment labs, and interactive multimedia (Parry, 1998). First, 360-degree feedback is used to evaluate performance with ratings by the individuals peers, manager, and work group or anyone who knows the person well. Using assessment labs, an individual assumes a new role and interacts with trained evaluators who fill other roles. Interactive media can be used wherein individuals view video modules, respond to several situations, and are assessed based on their responses (Parry, 1998). Competency models Various research efforts in competency modeling have been undertaken in public education and government to study competency modeling. Three major efforts are the Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) study, the voluntary Skills standard, and the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999).

PAGE 56

42 One major government initiative is the Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) study. The study, commissioned by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, was designed to determine the skills needed by young people to succeed in the workforce. The SCANS researchers examined the workforce demands of young people in the manufacturing, health services, retail trade, accommodations and food service, and office services sectors. The researchers conducted behavioral event interviews (BEI) with approximately five people in each of the fifty occupations across the aforementioned five sectors of the U.S. economy. The studys results have been instrumental, particularly in two-year community college curriculum development efforts (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Another major governmental initiative in competency modeling was Voluntary National Skills Standard. In 1996, the National Skills Standards Board awarded grants to industry and research groups, including BioScience, Healthcare, Human Services, Chemical Process, Heavy Highway Construction, Photonics, Electronics, Hospitality and Tourism, and Retail Trade. The goal of this initiative was to improve the integration of academic and industry recognized skill standards (Rothwell & Linddholm, 1999, p. 101). The third major governmental initiative in competency modeling was Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF). Original research for the LEF was conducted with over 20,000 supervisors, managers, and executives in the U.S. Federal Government. In 1995, the Leadership Effectiveness Framework, including the assessment tool (the Leadership Effectiveness Inventory [LEI]) was given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School. The LEF is comprised of twenty-seven competencies essential for governmental

PAGE 57

43 leadership and has been widely used for training and development initiatives with federal executives (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). The United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School developed the leadership effectiveness inventory, a systematic assessment tool designed to measure competency and determine developmental needs for organizations and individuals in public service (USDA Graduate School, 2003). The leadership effectiveness inventory was designed to gain feedback from the participant and five peers to eliminate perceptual biases. There are twenty-seven competencies that comprise the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF) which are divided into the categories: leading change, leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions/communication (see Table 2-1). The USDA Graduate School recommends that the inventory be used by individuals planning their own leadership development, organizations reengineering for greater effectiveness, and trainers identifying priorities and developing curriculum (USDA Graduate School, 2003). The competencies listed below are used in executive leadership development. Table 2-1. Competencies in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework as identified by the USDA Graduate School. Core Competencies Sub-Competencies Leading Change Vision External awareness Creativity and innovation Strategic thinking Continual learning Resilience Flexibility Service motivation Leading People Change management Cultural awareness Team building Technology management

PAGE 58

44 Table 2-1. Continued. Core Competencies Sub-Competencies Results-Driven Accountability Problem-solving Decisiveness Customer service Entrepreneurship Business Acumen Financial management Human resources management Technology management Building Coalitions Communication Oral Communication Written communication Influencing/negotiating Partnering Political savvy Interpersonal skills Student Characteristics Numerous studies (Goecker, 1992; Moody, 2001; Scanlon, 1996; Sprecker & Rudd, 1997; Timko et al., 1991) in agricultural education have been conducted to identify specific competencies necessary for students to possess within various contexts. According to Goecker (1992), agricultural education graduate students needed, but did not possess, higher levels of teaching and learning competencies to be effective and productive professionals. Timko, Linhardt, and Stewart (1991) examined the communication strategies of international students and found that they have challenges regarding communication and social competencies. Other studies have examined agricultural leadership acquisition from the student perspective (Radhakrishna & Bruening, 1994; McKinley, Birkenholz, & Stewart, 1993).

PAGE 59

45 Requisite skills required by industry In 1990, the Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) studied the skills need by young people to succeed in the world of work, specifically in the areas of manufacturing, health services, retail trade, accommodations and food service, and office services. The purpose of this commission was to encourage high-skill, high-wage employment. Numerous research studies have identified the requisite skills and competencies required by agribusiness employers. Many research studies emphasize the importance of communication and human relation skills. Other studies indicate the importance of problem-solving or critical thinking skills (Scanlon et al., 1996; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Birkenholz et al., 1994), business management skills (Scanlon et al., 1996; Brown & Fritz, 1994), computer technology skills (Harris, 1989), and other technical skills (Merritt & Hamm, 1994; Harris, 1989). Leadership training and development According to Clark (2001), conservation biology curricula need to be updated and expanded to prepare students to become successful leaders and practitioners in biodiversity conservation. Current curricula in conservation biology place too much emphasis on positivism and technical competence rather than on problem-focused analysis, contextuality, and actual interdisciplinary methods (Clark, 2001). Similarly, Newcomb (1993) asserted that graduate students are adequately prepared as scientists but need to develop their leadership capacity. According to Graham (2001), agricultural education curricula can be modified to provide students with the skills and abilities necessary for industry leadership by obtaining feedback from industry to prepare society-ready graduates. Ensuring that

PAGE 60

46 graduate students are prepared for positions in teaching, research, and communication areas is essential for increasing students marketability and enhancing business partnerships. Leadership development is most effectively cultivated through relevant work and learning experiences that shape the individual (Zemke & Zemke, 2001). Various research efforts have found that agribusiness employers require that students have adequate work experiences in order to be competitive. According to Harris (1989), industry employers value experience obtained from farm backgrounds, industry internships, cooperative education programs, and extracurricular activities. Competencies Moody (2001) recommended leadership competencies that should be incorporated into agricultural and natural resources curriculum. Agricultural education faculty indicated that the leadership development content should include opportunities for students to define leadership, identify leadership characteristics and traits, and assess their personal leadership style (Moody, 2001). Leadership competencies deemed important for the development of an agricultural and natural resources curriculum include increased students awareness of their behavioral preferences; understanding their strengths and opportunities for improvement; appreciating differences; identifying opportunities and strategies for improving self-confidence; understanding and practicing effective listening; listing short-term and life goals; identifying and assessing personal values; identifying sources of and strategies for gaining non-coercive power and influence in relationships; and practicing using interpersonal skills to improve personal performance, the quality of relationships, and helping others (Moody, 2001).

PAGE 61

47 A review of literature revealed that colleges of agriculture nationwide are revamping curricula to reflect an industry perspective. The aggregate findings of these studies are presented in Table 2-2. As shown in the table, the studies represented are not in total agreement of the competencies and skills required by the agribusiness industry. The most prevalent competencies and skills desired by agribusiness representatives are critical thinking, communication, business and economics, interpersonal, and human relations (Dooley & Lindner, 2002; Graham, 2001; Linder & Dooley, 2002). Table 2-2. Review of agricultural education research on competencies required for professionals and graduate students. Authors Population Core Competencies Dooley & Lindner (2002) Doctoral students Adult learning theory Distance education Technological knowledge Instructional design Communication skills Graphic design Administrative issues Graham (2001) Arkansas Teamwork Alumni Decision-making Leadership Initiative Access/use of Internet Presentation skills Lindner & Dooley (2002) Doctoral students Teaching strategies Distance education Foundations knowledge Applications knowledge International knowledge Conceptual Model for the Study The conceptual model shown below illustrates the factors influencing an agricultural leadership graduate students competitive edge for HR/training and development employment (see Figure 4). As shown in the model, the key factors include

PAGE 62

48 faculty characteristics, partnerships, industry characteristics, curriculum, and student characteristics. Each combined factor plays an important role in student competitiveness. Faculty Characteristics Leadership education and training Leadership assessment Leadership theoretical perspective Business and industry experience Familiarity with industry Performance appraisals Years of teaching experience Research interests StudentCharacteristics Leadership Development process Interpersonal skills Problem-solving Extracurricular activities Exemplary leadership practices Communication skills Leadership assessment Job preparation skills Work ethic Technology saavy Industry Characteristics Needs Employment opportunities Familiarity with graduate agricultural leadership programs Preparation of new employees Performance expectations of employees Characteristics of hiring agent Partnerships Strategic Relationships Shared vision Time Access Resources Focus Communication Negotiation Target audiences Curriculum Learning Environment Agricultural Leadership Courses Supplemental Courses o Educational psychology, communication, distance education, cultural diversity, public relations, psychology, sociology, organizational leadership, organizational behavior Technical Expertise o HRD Competencies o Exemplary Leadership Practices o USDA Graduate Competencies o Business orientation o Leadership assessment o Communication skills Figure 4. Conceptual model of the preparation of society-ready graduates for HR/training and development positions (Jones, 2004). The conceptual model presented above is drawn from Gagnes model for competency-based education. The model addresses three of twelve steps for building curricula: (1) analyzing needs, (2) analyzing goals and objectives, and (3) analyzing alternate ways to meet needs of students (Gagne, 1979). Since the conceptual model is presented as merely a guide, the remaining nine steps of the Gagne model can be addressed by individual curriculum planners. The preparation of society-ready graduates prepared for HR/training and development jobs is multi-faceted and involves the influence of faculty characteristics, partnerships, industry characteristics, curriculum attributes, and student characteristics.

PAGE 63

49 The model depicts a circular relationship to show that the relationships of each factor are interdependent. Faculty characteristics directly impact curriculum content of agricultural education programs. For instance, university facultys leadership education and training determine familiarity with leadership theorists and leadership assessments deemed essential for professional development. Thus, the theoretical perspective on leadership determines how university faculty select required textbooks, incorporate leadership assessment, and determine theoretical foundations for leadership courses. The faculty characteristics directly impact the curriculum which impacts student characteristics. Any agricultural leadership curricula should include agricultural education and supplemental courses upon which students can build leadership knowledge. Leadership and supplemental courses can provide opportunities for students to interact with guest speakers, participate in group projects, and develop leadership potential. Therefore, students are influenced by exposure to developmental experiences which enhance leadership development. Additionally, the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a student impact the leadership developmental experiences (assessment, challenge, and support). The student characteristics can also influence the course offerings. University faculty members in agricultural education and communication have begun revamping curricula to incorporate industry perspectives (Graham, 2001; Moody, 2001). Similarly, industry characteristics can be influenced by familiarity with agricultural education and communication departments. Academia and industry partnerships are beneficial to enhancing the quality of education. Incorporation of private sector collaboration is a method of providing

PAGE 64

50 innovation and quality education for instructional programs (Sherman, 1983). Both faculty and industry groups are involved in leadership education in various contexts. This commonality presents opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships. Therefore, the existence of partnerships is influenced by the characteristics of industry and faculty. Summary The review of literature revealed that there have been limited research efforts examining the industry perspective on necessary curriculum revisions for the agricultural leadership component. This research study addressed the concern by soliciting an industry perspective from individuals representing a gamut of agribusinesses and related business occupations to determine their perspective on curricula changes necessary to adequately prepare graduate students to compete for leadership positions. Numerous studies examining the skills and competencies required by agribusiness corporations in the late 80s and early 90s were cited. Additional research efforts should be conducted to update the current research base to include empirical data on the marketability of agricultural education graduate students for industry leadership positions. It was noted in the research that curriculum development in post-secondary agricultural education programs should include all involved stakeholders. Each group has a unique contribution to make, however, they must come together to synthesize their interests toward a common goal of curriculum revitalization The literature base in the areas of training and development and agricultural education has limited information on methods of establishing and maintaining partnerships between academia and industry entities. Few collaborative efforts could be cited. More research is needed in this area to expand the knowledge base in this area.

PAGE 65

51 A review of literature revealed the following deficiencies: (1) a lack of empirical data providing evidence on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership positions; (2) few documented strategies on enhancing graduate curricula in agricultural education to reflect industry trends; (3) limited research on specific strategies to incorporate industry-identified competencies into agricultural education curricula; and (4) limited research on effective strategies for establishing and maintaining partnerships with agribusinesses.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapter 1 provided an overview of competencies required for society-ready graduates. The chapter included background for studying human resource development and leadership competencies required for graduate students in agricultural leadership. Other topics included definition of terms, limitations, assumptions, and importance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to: 1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. 2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry representatives. 3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives. 4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and academia representatives. 5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. 6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. Chapter 2 presented a discussion of previous research related to this study. Chapter 2 discussed literature in the following areas: (1) leadership and leadership development, 52

PAGE 67

53 (2) academia-industry partnerships, (3) curriculum theory, and (4) competencies. Theoretical frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and empirical research relevant to this study were also presented. This chapter summarizes the research design, procedures, population and sample, instrumentation, and data collection for this study. Population and Sample The populations for the study included university faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses (N=35) and industry representatives from Fortune 500 companies. The industry representatives (N=86) were human resource professionals employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies categorized by industry including, Food and Consumer Products, Forest and Paper Products, Food Production, Industrial and Farm Equipment, Tobacco, and Waste Management ( http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/index.html 2002). This was a census study so data were sought from all members of the population. In addition, two university career resources professionals and three human resource professionals employed at agribusinesses were also included as industry representatives. The career resource professionals were nominated by university faculty participating in the study. The industry human resource professionals were nominated by pilot participants in the study. It was deemed necessary to include human resources and career services professionals because of their familiarity with hiring practices, attributes of college graduate entering the profession, and industry perspectives on leadership competencies. Five university faculty were selected from the twenty-two faculty respondents for participation in a long interview. Ten industry representatives were randomly selected

PAGE 68

54 for participation a long interview. Only five participants responded, and the remaining five participants were selected based on nominations from the pilot participants. Seven agricultural leadership faculty indicated that they were in departments with graduate agricultural leadership programs; these faculty members provided data on profiles and trends of their graduate agricultural leadership curricula through an additional questionnaire (see Appendix L). Seven department chairs/unit leaders representing the thirty-five agricultural leadership programs were invited to participate in the study. The department chairs/unit leaders provided data on profiles and trends of their graduate agricultural leadership program through an additional questionnaire (see Appendix K). Instrumentation A web-based survey was developed by the researcher as a self-reporting questionnaire consisting of three parts: (a) human resources development competencies; (b) exemplary leadership practices; and (c) company or program information. The first part of the survey contained 18 of the 31 human resource development (HRD) competencies as identified by McLagan (1983). Only 18 of the 31 HRD competencies generalizable to training and development positions were deemed relevant to this study. The thirteen HRD competencies not included were management competencies specific to an instructional technologist position. The eighteen competencies studied were: (1) adult learning; (2) instructional design; (3) performance gap analysis; (4) change management; (5) leadership; (6) industry awareness; (7) buy-in/advocacy; (8) interpersonal relationship building and collaboration; (9) consulting; (10) business knowledge; (11) systems thinking; (12) contracting; (13) project management; (14) awareness of e-learning industry; (15) communication; (16) program evaluation; (17) design and development;

PAGE 69

55 and (18) implementation and support. Respondents were asked to rank the competencies deemed to be important for beginning employees who hold graduate degrees. The 5-point Likert-type scale used was as follows: 1=not important, 2=of little importance, 3=moderately important, 4=very important, and 5=extremely important. The second part of the survey instrument contained five constructs (challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging the heart, modeling the way, and enabling others to act) measuring the five exemplary leadership practices as identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997). Respondents were asked to rank the competencies deemed to be important for beginning training and development employees who hold graduate degrees. The 5-point Likert-type scale used was as follows: 1=not important, 2=of little importance, 3=moderately important, 4=very important, and 5=extremely important. The third section differed based on whether or not it was an academia or industry survey. For the industry group, the section asked respondents to answer questions concerning whether or not their company had previously hired agricultural education graduates, current positions applicable to agricultural education graduates, job titles, preferred degrees, and qualifications required. The section also included highest degree obtained, type of company, gender, area of degree, job title, and number of years employed with the company. For the academia survey, the third section included questions concerning agricultural leadership specialization, number of years teaching graduate leadership, business industry experience, job title, number of years of industry experience, area of degree, highest degree obtained, and gender.

PAGE 70

56 Research Design This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative research method used was descriptive, survey research. The qualitative research method used was long interviews. A mixed-methods study allows the researcher to combine rich text with numerical data providing scope and breadth to a study (Creswell, 1994; Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). Creswell noted that a mixed-method study is a study combining at least one quantitative method and one qualitative method in data collection, analysis, and reporting findings. The advantages of conducting a mixed-methods study are utilization of a plethora of methods or instruments (triangulation); the results of one research method complement the other methods allowing for multi-facets of the phenomenon and sequential use of methods that build on each other. All of these advantages result in breadth and depth of the phenomenon being studied (Green et al., 1989; Creswell, 1994; Sydenstricker-Neto, 1997). The quantitative portion of this research used descriptive, survey research methods to collect data. Descriptive surveys are advantageous because of the large amounts of data that can be collected in a timely and cost effective manner (Dillman, 2000). The advantages of utilizing web surveys include elimination of paper, postage, mailing, and data entry costs (Dillman, 2000). According to Dillman (2000), Web surveys in contrast, not only have a more refined appearance to which color may be added, but also provide survey capabilities far beyond those available for any other type of self-administered questionnaire (pp. 354). The advantages of electronic surveys are interaction between the respondent and the research, as well as formatting options, such as drop-down boxes (Dillman, 2000). Drop

PAGE 71

57 down boxes with long lists of answer choices can be used for convenient coding of answers that would otherwise be asked in an open-minded manner (Dillman, 2000). Dillman (2000) recommended sending a pre-notice e-mail message, since it is easy to discard an e-mail message before reading it. The purpose of this notification is leaving a positive impression of importance so that the respondent will not immediately discard it. The qualitative portion of the study used interviews to explore the employability of graduate students in agribusiness industry careers. The interviews used semi-structured questions (Glesne, 1999) to obtain a broad perspective on competencies required for training and development employment. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Additional data such as cultural reflection, field notes, journal entries, and e-mails provided by some academia and industry participants were also analyzed. Validity and Reliability According to Oppenheim (1969), a panel of experts should be selected to agree on the content validity of the statements in a questionnaire. Oppenheim (1969) stated that content validity, based on experts judgment, is essential. Thus, a panel of experts from the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida was used to establish content and face validity of the instrument used in the study. Based on the comments and suggestions made by the panel of experts (see Appendix A), the researcher modified or reworded some statements for clarity. Threats to internal validity include history, maturation, pre-testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection of subjects, experimental mortality, and selection-maturation interaction (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2000). This study had one threat to internal validity differential selection of subjects. To address the potential

PAGE 72

58 threat, academia respondents were selected from the population frame, American Association of Agricultural Educators (AAAE) directory, and industry respondents were selected from the population frame, agriculturally-related Fortune 500 companies. Each respondent was selected using a random number generator. Due to the low response rate of the industry respondents, each was asked to participate in an interview. To establish internal consistency, the researcher pilot tested the survey instrument with university agricultural education faculty and industry participants of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences career fair. The researcher entered the resulting data into the computer and analyzed them using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to calculate Cronbachs reliability coefficient. The Cronbachs Alpha reliability test was used to determine if the survey instrument was sufficiently constructed to obtain internal consistency for the study. The Cronbach Alpha score for the HRD competencies was .85. Kouzes and Posner (1997) exemplary leadership practices yielded the following construct scores: Table 3-1. Cronbachs Alpha for Exemplary Leadership Practices (n=15) Leadership Practice Challenging the process .84 Inspiring a shared vision .76 Enabling others to act .78 Modeling the way .80 Encouraging the heart .79 The Cronbach Alpha score for the 18 human resource dev elopement competencies was .85. According to Ary et al. (1996), if the measurement results are used for making a

PAGE 73

59 decision about a group or for research purposes, a reliability coefficient of at least .50 is acceptable. Therefore, the survey instrument met the requirement for internal consistency. Pilot Study A pilot study was used to verify the internal and external reliability of the instrument. Both university faculty and industry representatives were recruited to pilot test the questionnaire. University faculty participants in the pilot study were faculty in agricultural education departments nationwide. The industry representatives for the pilot study were selected from a population frame of participants of the 2002 College of Agricultural and Life Sciences career fair attendees (N=30). Pilot participants were not members of the population and did not participate in the study. Web surveys were e-mailed to industry respondents (n=30). A response rate of 50% (n=15) was received for the pilot study over a three-week time period. A few minor suggestions were given by the pilot study participants. Upon completion of the pilot survey, there were slight mechanical and typographical adjustments necessary to refine the instrument to ensure clarity and understanding. To further explore industry perspectives on leadership and human resource development competencies required for graduate students pursuing industry employment in agribusinesses, the researcher interviewed five career fair participants. Pilot study participants (n=5) were industry employees at the 2002 College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) career fair. The data consisted of two long interviews and one focus group with three industry participants. Based on the findings from these interviews, the human resources perspective proved to be comprehensive. Thus, human resource

PAGE 74

60 professionals were included in this study to provide direct knowledge about the competencies and skills required for industry hiring trends and required competencies. Data Collection A pre-notification e-mail or postcard was sent to university faculty and industry representatives. On May 9, 2003, the Web survey was e-mailed to university faculty participants (N=35). Due to the unavailability of industry representatives complete contact information, the researcher sent hard copies of the questionnaire to sixty-one industry representatives and e-mailed the questionnaire to twenty-five respondents of the total population (N=86). The researcher mailed a cover letter, a copy of the instrument, and a self-addressed, stamped, return envelope to sixty-one industry subjects on May 9, 2003. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, ensured anonymity, and requested participation in the study (see Appendix F). The cover letter also gave directions for completing and returning the questionnaire and stated that participation in the study was strictly voluntary. Each instrument contained a code number for follow-up purposes only. One week after the initial mailing, on May 16, 2003, a second e-mail and mailing was sent to university faculty and industry representative non-respondents. The researcher then sent a postcard reminder, a second cover letter, and another survey instrument to the remaining non-respondents on May 23, 2003. On June 7, 2003, a third mailing and e-mailing to university faculty and industry representatives was conducted. Since the response rate for industry representatives was low, follow-up calls were made to every non-respondent to determine if the surveys were received and to find out whether or not they would be willing to participate in the study.

PAGE 75

61 To increase the industry representative response rate, the panel of experts (see Appendix A) recommended revising the cover letter to include an administrators endorsement. The cover letter was revised to emphasize the importance of the study in maintaining university and industry linkages crucial to preparing society-ready graduates. The letter was signed by the Associate Dean for Academic Programs in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida (see Appendix I). The letter urged industry representatives to contact the researcher even if participation was prohibited due to a company survey policy. As a result, industry representatives informed the researcher of their inability to participate due to company survey policies prohibiting their participation in university research studies (n=30) or policies against participation in internet surveys (n=5). On July 11, 2003, another mailing was sent to industry non-respondents that included a cover letter, postcard, and a survey instrument. Another five industry representatives informed the researcher that they were unable to participate due to a company policy prohibiting their participation in university-related research. Alternatively, companies with policies against internet surveys were mailed a paper version of the survey. Other strategies used to increase response rate were conducting follow-up telephone calls and e-mails, sending reminder post cards, and mailing paper versions of the survey (Dillman, 2000). According to Dillman (2000), a combination of these strategies should increase the response rate. Employing these various strategies yielded final response rates of 73% for university faculty and 20% for industry representatives. Non-response error was a threat to the findings of the study because of the difficulty in securing the participation of the industry representatives.

PAGE 76

62 Qualitative research component Due to the low industry response rate, it was deemed necessary to incorporate a qualitative component to add to the depth of this study. The purpose of the interviews was to further explore the scope and nature of training and development opportunities for agricultural education and communication graduate students. Five university faculty were selected from the original twenty-two faculty participants using a random number generator. The ten industry representatives were selected; of which, five were selected using a random number generator, and five were selected from nominations from pilot participants. Given the low industry response rate, the researcher interviewed human resources and career resource professionals familiar with agribusinesses to explore the competencies required for industry employment. The researcher e-mailed the selected participants to solicit participation and schedule a telephone interview. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Data were analyzed by common themes. Profiles and trends of graduate agricultural leadership programs To address the low industry response rate in this study, a second survey was developed by the researcher and approved by a panel of experts (see Appendix A). The purpose of the survey was to gather information on the development of agricultural leadership programs, existence of agricultural leadership specializations, employment trends of recent graduates, and the leadership education background of university. The questionnaire was mailed to university faculty and department chairs/unit leaders of selected agricultural education programs on January 26, 2004. Ten respondents replied that they would not participate in the study for various reasons such as time constraints (n=1), program focus relative to teacher education only (n=2), no graduate program on

PAGE 77

63 leadership (n=4), sabbatical leave (n=1) and no longer teaching leadership (n=2). Two surveys were undeliverable to the e-mail addresses. E-mail follow-ups were conducted for three weeks. Additionally twenty telephone calls were conducted to increase response rates. Low response rates The researcher took the appropriate measures as recommended by Dillman (2000) to increase response rates. Examples of methods used to increase response rates were: use of a deadline, survey appearance, pre e-mail, telephone follow-ups, availability of paper and Web survey formats, availability of survey results, revision of the cover letter, appealing, questionnaire color, and ensured confidentiality (Dillman, 2000). Similar studies (Fulkert, 1997; Mahoric, 1997) examining the scope and nature of competencies required for training and development careers have yielded low response rates as well. Data Analysis Procedures Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of item responses, were calculated. Open-ended questions contained in the qualitative portion of the study were analyzed via content analysis and categorized into response patterns based upon theoretical components of HRD/leadership competencies. The responses were grouped into emergent themes. The results of the data analyses are reported in Chapter 4. The following measures were utilized to ensure confidentiality of responses; respondents were assigned a code number to allow for follow-up purposes only. Data collected through the web-based survey was analyzed with the following procedures:

PAGE 78

64 1. Questionnaires were reviewed for missing data. If data were missing on an individual item, it was coded as missing and not used in the statistical computations. 2. Data were electronically submitted into a database. Data were then transferred into text files. 3. Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported on the variables. Summary This chapter has described both the quantitative and qualitative research methods used in this study. Online data collection and mailed instruments were used to collect data from thirty-two respondents, twenty-two agricultural education faculty and ten industry representatives. Data analysis procedures included descriptive statistics and content analysis. The next chapter will report the findings of the study.

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 described the background for studying academia and industry perspectives on graduate competencies necessary for training and development employment. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to: 1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. 2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry representatives. 3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives. 4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and academia representatives. 5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. 6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. Chapter 2 provided a theoretical framework, and empirical research relevant to this study. An extensive review of agricultural leadership and training/development literature was presented. Topics addressed included overview of leadership theories, leadership styles, university faculty and industry partnerships, curriculum development and theory, and human resource development competencies. 65

PAGE 80

66 Chapter 3 described the quantitative and qualitative research methodology used to conduct this study. Specifically, research design, population and sample, instrumentation, procedures, and data analysis were discussed. Chapter 4 summarizes the demographic data and is organized by the six research objectives. Data are reported for university faculty, agricultural leadership faculty, department chairs/unit leaders, and industry representatives who participated in this study. Overview of University and Industry Participants The purpose of this section is to clarify the terminology used to distinguish the university and industry groups. Throughout this chapter, university participants in this study will be described as follows: university faculty (n=22), agricultural leadership faculty (n=8), and university department chairs/unit leaders (n=8). University faculty (n=22) refers to the original respondents who provided data regarding the human resource development and leadership competencies. Agricultural leadership faculty (n=8) refers to respondents who provided data on the history and development of their graduate agricultural leadership curriculum. University department chairs/unit leaders (n=8) refer to respondents who were department chairs or unit leaders of graduate agricultural leadership programs. The term industry representative (n=10) will be used to reference representatives of human resources of Fortune 500 companies (n=5), agribusiness firms (n=3), and career services professionals (n=2).

PAGE 81

67 Description of University Faculty Respondents Gender Thirty-five university faculty participants made up the original population for this study. Of the thirty-five university faculty, five responded by declining participation in the study. Of the remaining thirty university faculty, twenty-two provided data for this study. Of the twenty-two university faculty respondents, nineteen (86%) were male, and three (14%) were female. The aforementioned percentage is representative of the agricultural education profession, where approximately 89% are male (American Association for Agricultural Educators Directory, 2003). Sources of leadership training University faculty in this study received their leadership training from a plethora of sources (see Table 4-1). A majority of university faculty received leadership training from personal reading and professional conferences/workshops. Fifty percent of the respondents reported that they had received leadership training via corporate seminars. Few respondents indicated that they received leadership training from extension in-service training (n=6) and sabbatical leaves (n=2). Other sources of leadership training included audio and videotapes (n=1), courses (n=2), FFA (n=2), professional activities (n=1), military service (n=1), National Extension Leadership Development (NELD) (n=1), practical experience (n=1), and research (n=2). Table 4-1. Sources of leadership training of university faculty respondents (n=22). Sources of leadership training Frequency Percent Extension in-service training 6 27.3 Sabbatical leave 2 9.1 Corporate professional development seminars 11 50.0 Personal reading 20 90.9 Conferences/workshops 19 86.4 Other 10 45.5 Note: The total percentage is greater than 100 due to multiple responses.

PAGE 82

68 Graduate agricultural leadership programs University faculty respondents were asked whether or not their department offered a graduate agricultural leadership degree. One-third of the respondents indicated that their department offered a graduate agricultural leadership degree (Table 4-2). Table 4-2. Graduate agricultural leadership programs as reported by university faculty (n=21). Offer agricultural leadership Number Percentage Yes 7 33.3 No 14 66.7 Agricultural leadership teaching experience University faculty respondents were asked to indicate their years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses, and results ranged from 1 to 20 years. The findings shown in Table 4-3 reveal that the average number of years of experience was 7.12 years. Of the 17 university faculty respondents, few were beginning teachers, and most of them had been teaching graduate-level agricultural leadership courses for over 3 years. Table 4-3. Years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses (n=17). Years Frequency Percentage 1 3 17.6 2 2 11.8 3 1 5.9 4 1 5.9 5 1 5.9 6 2 11.8 7 2 11.8 11 1 5.9 12 1 5.9 13 1 5.9 20 2 11.8

PAGE 83

69 Business/Industry work experience The majority of university faculty in this study indicated that they had worked in business/industry jobs prior to becoming a professor (see Table 4-4). Table 4-4. Business and industry experience of university faculty (n=20). Business/industry experience Frequency Percentage Yes 13 59.1 No 7 31.8 Table 4-5 illustrates the industry jobs previously held by university faculty. The job titles were grouped into the following categories: training and development (n=5), management (n=6), sales (n=4), skilled labor (n=2), residence life director (n=1), and research director (n=1). The majority of university faculty (n=15) held training and development, management, or sales positions; all of which provide employees with an orientation of the business world. Table 4-5. Job areas of industry positions held by university faculty (n=20). Industry job areas Frequency Training and Development 5 Management 6 Sales 4 Skilled labor 2 Residence life director 1 Research director 1 Highest degree obtained University faculty participants were asked to indicate their highest degree completed (see Table 4-6). Nearly all of the university faculty respondents held a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree. This finding is consistent with the Fritz and Brown (1998) study which found that the majority (92%) of university faculty teaching leadership courses held doctoral degrees.

PAGE 84

70 Table 4-6. Frequency and percentage of highest degree completed by university faculty (n=21). Highest degree completed Frequency Percentage Masters degree 1 4.8 Ed.D. 4 19.0 Ph.D. 16 76.2 Area of Highest Degree University faculty participants were asked to indicate the area of the highest degree earned. Responses varied from education to agriculture to other degree areas. More than half of the respondents (57.2%) earned their highest degree in education, and one-third of the respondents (33.3%) earned their highest degree in agriculture. Few respondents (9.5%) held degrees in areas outside of education or agriculture (see Table 4-7). Table 4-7. Frequency and percentage of area of highest degree completed by university faculty (n=21). Degree Area Frequency Percentage Education 12 57.2 Agriculture 7 33.3 Other 2 9.5 Description of Industry Representatives Initially, the industry representatives included human resource professionals from agricultural Fortune 500 companies only. Due to the low response rate, the definition of industry representatives was expanded to include agribusiness and governmental representatives. Industry representatives providing data for the quantitative portion of this study included human resources professionals from agricultural Fortune 500 companies (n=5), agribusiness firms (n=3), and career resource professionals (n=2). Demographic Data The industry representatives were mostly male (see Table 4-8). Seventy percent were males (n=7), and thirty percent were female (n=3). Similarly, there were more male

PAGE 85

71 university faculty respondents (86%) than female university respondents (14%) in this study. The industry representatives were asked to report their highest degree earned (see Table 4-8). The majority of the respondents (60%) held at least a bachelors degree. The remaining 40% held a high school diploma (10%), associate (10%), master (30%), or education doctorate degree (10%). Respondents earned their degrees from various areas, including engineering (25%), human resources (12.5%), agriculture (12.5%), business (12.5%), and communication/journalism (12.5%). Table 4-8. Demographics of industry representatives (n=10). Variable grouping Frequency Percentage Gender Male 7 70 Female 3 30 Degree High school diploma 1 10 Associate degree 1 10 Bachelors degree 4 40 Masters degree 3 30 Ed.D. 1 10 History of hiring agricultural education graduates Industry representatives were asked to indicate if they hired agricultural education and communication graduates for jobs within their company (see Table 4-9). Six of the industry representatives indicated that they have previously hired agricultural education graduates with a leadership emphasis, and four indicated that they had not. Table 4-9. Frequency and percentage of industry representatives who have hired agricultural education and communication graduates (n=10). Hired AEC graduates Frequency Percentage Yes 6 60 No 4 40

PAGE 86

72 Training and development career opportunities for agricultural education graduates Industry representatives were asked to list the current positions for which graduate students in agricultural education would be strong competitors or preferred candidates. Four positions for which agricultural education graduates would be strong competitors or preferred candidates were listed by respondents (see Table 4-10). The various job titles provided required a minimum of a bachelors or masters degree. Table 4-10. Job titles, preferred degrees, and degree areas of positions for which agricultural education and communication graduates are qualified. Job Titles Degree Degree Area Assistant Director for Career MS Counseling, Student Personnel, Events Higher Education or related field Production Management Trainee BS, MS Animal Science, Agribusiness Assistant Director of Experiential MS Counseling, Student Personnel, Learning Higher Education or related field Assistant Director, Employee MS Counseling, Student Personnel, Relations and Research or related field Assistant Director Client Services MS Counseling, Student Personnel, or related field Company type The industry representatives worked for companies such as industrial and farm equipment (n=2), food and grocery (n=1), career development and planning education (n=1), human resources consulting (n=1), and manufacturing (n=3) (see Table 4-11). Table 4-11. Frequency and percentage of type of company by industry representatives (n=8). Type of Company Frequency Percentage Industrial and Farm Equipment 2 25 Food and Grocery 1 12.5 Education, Career Development /Planning 1 12.5 Human Resources Consulting 1 12.5 Manufacturing 3 37.5

PAGE 87

73 Current job titles Of the ten industry representatives, five (50%) held positions as a manager, four (40%) as director, and one (10%) as an assistant director (see Table 4-12). These were the current positions held by respondents in their companies. Table 4-12. Frequency and percentage of current job titles held by industry representatives (n=10). Job titles Frequency Percentage Manager 5 50 Director 4 40 Assistant Director 1 10 Years employed in current position and at company Industry representatives were asked to indicate the number of years they have been employed in their current position and the number of years employed at their present company (see Table 4-13). Three respondents (37.5%) indicated that they were employed in their current position for two years, and two respondents (25%) indicated that they have been employed in their current position for five years. One respondent (12.5%) reported that he/she had worked for one year, and another respondent (12.5%) indicated he/she had been employed for 20 years in current position. The time employed at a particular company ranged from 2 to 25 years, with three-fourths of the respondents working at their present company for six or more years. Table 4-13. Years employed in current position and at current company (n=7). Variable grouping Frequency Percentage Years in current position 1 1 12.5 2 3 37.5 5 2 25 20 1 12.5 Years employed at company 1-5 2 25 6-10 1 12.5 11-15 3 37.5 21-25 1 12.5

PAGE 88

74 Job titles of industry representatives The industry representatives (n=10) held various job titles within their company prior to obtaining their current position. The job titles included Assistant Director for Careers (n=1), Engineering Designer (n=1), Human Resource Representative (n=2), Human Resource Consultant (n=1), Supervisor of Human Resources (n=1), Manager (n=2), Marketing Representative (n=1), Production Trainer (n=1), and National Accounts Sales (n=1). Job titles held at other related companies included Director of Human Resources (n=1), Human Resources Manager (n=2), Supervisor (n=1), and Manager (n=1). Objective One Objective one sought to ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. University faculty felt that nearly all of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very or extremely important. University faculty respondents were asked to rate eighteen human resource development competencies on a Likert-type scale with a range of one to five, with 5 representing extremely important. The summated mean score for the university faculty rating of the HRD competencies was 70.80, indicating an overall rating of the 18 HRD competencies as very important (see Table 4-14). Individual mean ratings for the eighteen HRD competencies (McLagan, 1983) ranged from 3.09 to 4.77. University faculty (n=22) rated sixteen competencies as very important or extremely important. The communication competency was rated the highest (M=4.77, Extremely important) and also had one of the lowest standard deviations (.61) of the 18 HRD competencies

PAGE 89

75 comprising the scale. The remaining two competencies, business knowledge and contracting, were rated as moderately important. University faculty did not rate any of the competencies as not important or of little importance. Table 4-14. Mean and standard deviations of perceptions of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) HRD Competencies M SD Communication 4.77 .61 Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration 4.67 1.20 Leadership 4.41 .85 Industry awareness 4.33 1.02 Program evaluation 4.23 .53 Instructional design 4.18 .80 Change management 4.14 .99 Adult learning 4.09 .97 Buy-In/Advocacy 3.95 1.09 Design and development 3.91 1.06 Project management 3.77 1.02 Systems thinking 3.73 1.03 Consulting 3.68 1.09 Awareness of e-learning industry 3.55 .86 Implementation and support 3.50 1.06 Performance gap analysis 3.50 .86 Business knowledge 3.27 .94 Contracting 3.09 1.02 Summated mean 70.80 Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00) University faculty respondents (n=22) were asked to rate twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices identified by Kouzes & Posner (1997). Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set of five Likert-type items, with representing extremely important. The summated mean scores for university faculty are reported in Table 4-15. The summated mean scores for leadership competencies (McLagan, 1983) ranged from 20.50 to 21.52, placing all the five exemplary practices in the very important range. In addition, faculty ratings

PAGE 90

76 of all but two of the twenty-five items representing exemplary leadership practices fell into the very important range. The other two items-setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with shared values and being as dedicated as you expect others to be were rated as extremely important. Table 4-15. Means and standard deviations of exemplary leadership practices required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22). Leadership Practices M SD Challenging the process Searching out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate and improve 4.27 .94 Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes 4.05 1.05 Exploring new and different ways of solving problems or improving processes 4.38 1.02 Going beyond boundaries of the organization to improve processes 4.00 .98 Utilizing opportunities to change the status quo 3.86 1.04 Inspiring a shared vision Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 4.18 .66 Enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams 3.95 .95 Communicating and sharing expectations using vivid, clear, and concrete images 3.91 .97 Exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities 4.32 .95 Envisioning the future of what the organization can become 4.23 .97 Enabling others to act Fostering collaboration 4.27 .63 Cooperative goals and building trust 4.09 1.02 Strengthening people by giving power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support 3.86 .89 Providing individuals with as much control over resources as needed to do the job 4.05 .95 Listening to diverse points of view 4.23 .97 Modeling the way Setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with shared values 4.68 .57 Achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment 4.24 .62 Making the connection between individual performance expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values 4.23 .75

PAGE 91

77 Table 4-15. Continued Leadership Practices M SD Planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins 4.14 .77 Keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently according to personal values 4.18 .96 Encouraging the heart Recognizing individual contributions to the success of every project 4.18 .91 Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 4.09 .87 Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 4.50 .80 Providing team members with support and appreciation for their contributions 4.24 .83 Recognizing people who exemplify commitment to shared values 4.18 .85 Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00) *Summated means of exemplary practices Challenging the process 20.81 Inspiring a shared vision 20.69 Enabling others to act 20.50 Modeling the way 21.50 Encouraging the heart 21.40 Qualitative Interviews To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected university faculty (n=5). One university faculty respondent indicated that his or her department has core leadership competencies built into the curriculum. When asked about the competencies required for training and development positions, this respondent replied: We use eight leadership competencies communication, diversity, visioning, mentoring, professionalism and ethics, problem-solving, teamwork, and working with change. Similarly, another respondent stated: I think it is imperative that graduate students have the following competencies: communication, oral and written, research, ability to conduct persuasive presentations, and the ability to utilize negotiation skillsThey also need to have an understanding of the land-grant philosophy, research and statistics classes, ability to write critical reports for funding, an understanding of international

PAGE 92

78 development as well as diversity-an understanding of how people from different backgrounds can work together. Most respondents used the words influence (n=4) or motivate (n=3) when describing leadership competencies necessary for training and development positions. One respondent defined leadership in terms of a learning process. a learning process by which an individual garnishes information to deal with various challengesto plan the work and work the plan to bring about change. Another university faculty respondent stated that leadership entails: learning about people and learning how to motivate people. Another university faculty respondent provided a definition of leadership that included the terms, influence, planned change, potential, and goals. This respondent commented: my definition of leadership centers around influence. Its a persons abilitydefinitely not necessarily a title a person carries, but leadership is a persons ability to influence others to bring about hopefully planned change to reach whatever goals, proficiencies, or customer service or whatever to be able to influence others to reach their potential and the goals of the organization. The similar responses indicate that university faculty generally had the same or similar conceptions about the nature of leadership. One university faculty respondent indicated that the department did not have much contact with industry due to the large size of the program. The responsibility for career planning and industry partnerships rested solely with the university career center instead of the department. we use the university career center and we rely on our students to find their own employment opportunities. We dont have interaction with industry because we rely on our students to do this because our program is so big. So the students when they get their internships and final employment job, we really leave that up to them. We are very student-centered

PAGE 93

79 Objective Two Objective two sought to ascertain the HRD/leadership competencies necessary for graduate students pursuing training and development employment, as perceived by selected industry representatives (see Table 4-16). Industry representatives felt that ten of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very important, and one competency-leadership-was rated as extremely important. The industry representatives rated seven of the HRD competencies as moderately important. Table 4-16. Mean and standard deviations of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by industry representatives (n=10) HRD Competencies M SD Leadership 4.60 .52 Communication 4.40 .84 Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration 4.40 .84 Change management 4.30 .67 Buy-In/Advocacy 4.10 .99 Business knowledge 3.80 .63 Performance gap analysis 3.70 .95 Industry awareness 3.70 .82 Adult learning 3.70 .67 Systems thinking 3.60 .84 Project management 3.50 .85 Consulting 3.40 1.26 Instructional design 3.30 .95 Program evaluation 3.20 1.03 Contracting 2.80 1.14 Awareness of e-learning industry 2.70 1.06 Implementation and support 2.70 1.25 Design and development 2.60 .97 Summated mean 67.17 Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00) Industry representatives (n=10) were asked to rate twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). The five exemplary leadership practices were challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1997).

PAGE 94

80 Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set of five Likert-type items, with representing extremely important. Mean scores for industry representatives are reported in Table 4-17 and ranged from 3.63 to 4.88. Table 4-17. Means and standard deviations of perceptions of exemplary leadership practices required for entry-level training and development employment as rated by industry representatives (n=10). Leadership Practices M SD Challenging the process Searching out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate and improve 4.13 .84 Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes 3.75 .47 Exploring new and different ways of solving problems or improving processes 4.13 .64 Going beyond boundaries of the organization to improve processes 3.63 .74 Utilizing opportunities to change the status quo 4.00 .53 Inspiring a shared vision Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 3.75 1.04 Enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams 3.88 .64 Communicating and sharing expectations using vivid, clear, and concrete images 4.00 .76 Exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities 4.25 .46 Envisioning the future of what the organization can become 3.88 .64 Enabling others to act Fostering collaboration 4.13 .64 Strengthening people by giving power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support 3.75 1.04 Providing individuals with as much control over resources 3.25 .89 Listening to diverse points of view 4.38 .52 Modeling the way Setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with shared values 4.38 1.06 Achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment 3.63 .52 Making the connection between individual performance expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values 4.13 .35 Planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins 3.75 .46 Keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently according to personal values 3.88 .99

PAGE 95

81 Table 4-15. Continued Leadership Practices M SD Encouraging the heart Recognizing individual contributions to the success of every project 4.00 .76 Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 3.88 .65 Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 4.88 .35 Providing team members with support and appreciation for their contributions 4.38 .52 Recognizing people who exemplify commitment to shared values 4.13 .99 Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00) *Summated means of exemplary leadership practices Challenging the process 19.30 Inspiring a shared vision 19.40 Enabling others to act 19.80 Modeling the way 19.60 Encouraging the heart 21.70 Qualitative Interviews To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected industry representatives (n=10). When asked about the competencies required for training and development employment, one respondent replied: One has to be.flexible, maybe thats not a good word. One has to adjust to change and have insight or vision. It is also important to be able to direct even when things are not going right according to your opinion or by procedure. It goes back to motivation because you have got to get them there. Another industry representative indicated that training and development employment requires communication, work ethic, and experience. When asked about the competencies required for training and development, one respondent recommended: Encourage the students to learn communication, good communication skills. Our jobs require a lot of work ethic. Its management, but its not a sit-behind-the-desk job. This goes back to experience. Definitely have the students participate in the student training positions because some positions require this first before getting the job. Thats why students need to start early.

PAGE 96

82 I think mostly they [industry] want to find students who have demonstrated leadership roles and they have taken on responsibility where the student can demonstrate the example or the change or the effect and sometimes that is very difficult. We have some strong leaders, but that is difficult to quantify but I think the employers look for a group of activities. Hopefully when they get to the interview process through a series of questions [employers] can identify the persons communication abilities and how they communicate and might communicate with others. In that case they want to see what the student has done. So if they have been an officer in an organization or they have had a special project or working on a research project with a group of people and can demonstrate that the team has achieved some goal, not necessarily won an award but was able to start a project, put it together, and show the end product. I think those are the kinds of things [were] trying to identify. Another industry representative highlighted the importance of interaction with industry as a means of knowing what is required for training and development employment. When asked about recommendations to prepare students for gainful employment in the training and development profession, one respondent suggested: I guess one would be while they are in school, get out and talk to companies, even though they may not be in a job search mode. Talk to HR and different types of staff members to find out (most of these companies are happy to talk to them)find out exactly early on if the student does this to determine if there are needs and areas the company representatives can help guide them as to the courses. Instead of going through and taking a bunch of courses and then going out looking for a job, start early finding out exactly what are the needs and of course trying to align those with career interests. Another industry representative highlighted the importance of interaction with industry as a means of knowing what is required for training and development employment. The respondent recommended: Students need courses like sociology that address understanding people, relating to cultures, working with small farmers, Hispanic farmers, etc. You have to develop an understanding of their culture. You may have to meet with them based on when they can meet given their time schedule even if it is 7 a.m. So students should take any course that teaches them how to deal with any culture other than what they are used to. Also, any professional development that can be taken would be good. This goes back to the leadership skills which is a plus.

PAGE 97

83 One industry representative reiterated the importance of having general business orientation to be competitive for training and development employment. It depends on what type of position we are talking about. A lot of them [agribusinesses] try to get someone in an internship or co-op; thats a big plus where they have already gotten some general business orientation. They are more likely to hit the ground running than someone who has the skill set but may not have the general business orientation. Another industry representative highlighted the importance of appropriate experiences and courses in helping students prepare for industry employment. The respondent was familiar with the agricultural education degree program and spoke highly about the advantages of the flexibility in the degree. Make sure the students get experiences early in their academic life, and make sure they are exposed to the different careers in the agency. I recommend that they be required to do an internship. I also recommend that they be diversified. AgEd gives students a diverse background. Make sure the degree is not limited. For example, one student was a good match for the organization, but the individual had not had the minimal soil and plant science courses she needed. Taking courses in only one area pigeon holes the student to one area. Encourage the students to learn communication, good communication skills. Our jobs require a lot of work ethic. One respondent emphasized the importance of communication as a major part of leadership ability. Probably and this is part of leadership is the ability to communicate effectively because if you cant communicate, you are not going to be able to lead. You know someone who possesses a positive attitude, you know, people-oriented and focused on the needs of the people that they are leading and be sensitive to their needs. Of course, they have to be confident in whatever functional area they are in. Objective Three Objective three sought to compare and contrast the perceptions of university faculty and industry representatives toward HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain training and development employment. Based on the quantitative data, university faculty and industry representatives felt that a

PAGE 98

84 large majority of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very or extremely important (item means of 3.50 or higher) (see Table 4-18). The university faculty surveyed rated thirteen HRD competencies higher than the industry representatives rated the HRD competencies, and the faculty summated mean was slightly higher-70.80 versus 67.17. However, again both university faculty and industry representatives rated a large majority of the 18 HRD competencies as very or extremely important. University faculty rated communication, interpersonal relationship building and collaboration, and leadership competencies as more important than industry Table 4-18. Mean scores of HRD competencies required for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10) HRD Competencies Faculty Mean Industry Mean Communication 4.77 4.40 Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration 4.67 4.40 Leadership 4.41 4.60 Industry awareness 4.33 3.70 Program evaluation 4.23 3.20 Instructional design 4.18 3.30 Change management 4.14 4.30 Adult learning 4.09 3.70 Buy-In/Advocacy 3.95 4.10 Design and development 3.91 2.60 Project management 3.77 3.50 Systems thinking 3.73 3.60 Consulting 3.68 3.40 Awareness of e-learning industry 3.55 2.70 Implementation and support 3.50 2.70 Performance gap analysis 3.50 3.70 Business knowledge 3.27 3.80 Contracting 3.09 2.80 Summated mean 70.80 67.17 Scale: 1=not important; 2=of little importance; 3=moderately important; 4=very important; 5=extremely important

PAGE 99

85 representatives rated them, while industry representatives rated leadership, interpersonal relationship building and collaboration, communication, change management, and buy-in/advocacy competencies as more important. University faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10) were asked to rate twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). The five exemplary leadership practices were challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set of five Likert-type items. The summated mean scores for university faculty and industry representatives are reported in Table 4-19 and ranged from 20.50 to 21.52 and 19.30 to 21.70, respectively. Although university faculty rated four of the five exemplary practices slightly higher than industry representatives, both groups reported that the five exemplary practices are very important in the preparation of agricultural leadership graduate students for industry HRD/training and development positions. Table 4-19. Mean scores of leadership practices required for entry-level training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10) Leadership Practices University faculty Industry representatives M M Challenging the process 20.81 19.30 Inspiring a shared vision 20.59 19.40 Enabling others to act 20.50 19.80 Modeling the way 21.52 19.60 Encouraging the heart 21.43 21.70 Scale for interpreting summated means: Not important (5.00-7.45); Of little importance (7.50-12.45); Moderately important (12.50-17.45); Very important (17.5-22.45); Extremely important (22.50-25.00) The qualitative interviews from both the university faculty and industry representatives were transcribed and analyzed according to themes. The following table shows the frequency of the most commonly used words in the transcription. Both

PAGE 100

86 industry and university faculty used the words communication, interpersonal, teamwork, and leadership most frequently. Themes that emerged from the interviews were logged and tabulated to further explore similarities and differences in responses (see Table 4-20). Leadership, communication, influence, experience, interpersonal, and change themes were repeatedly mentioned in the industry interviews. The industry representatives highlighted the importance of internships and work experiences, development of interpersonal skills, and effective communication. Similarly, the university faculty respondents highlighted the themes communication, leadership, interpersonal, experience, and influence. Table 4-20. Frequency of emergent themes regarding HRD/leadership competencies. Theme Industry (n=10) University faculty (n=5) Totals Communication 25 15 40 Interpersonal 10 8 18 Teamwork 5 4 9 Leadership 35 12 47 Influence 13 4 17 Motivation 5 3 8 Experience 10 5 15 Change 5 2 7 Flexibility 3 1 4 Respect 4 2 6 Confident 3 3 6 Objective Four Objective four sought to identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and university faculty representatives. To accomplish this objective, respondents (n=15) were interviewed to gain further insight about the competencies required for training and development employment as well as curriculum recommendations.

PAGE 101

87 Telephone or personal interviews were conducted with five university faculty and ten industry representatives to determine their perspectives on developing graduate agricultural leadership curricula. University faculty respondents recommended that graduate agricultural leadership programs should include the following components: management, youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. Recommendations from industry representatives included utilizing careers services for job preparation, conducting informational interviews with company representatives, obtaining internship/co-op experience or some general business orientation, searching career websites to determine hiring trends and issues, and taking the appropriate courses. The industry representatives noted that there is a continuing demand for students pursuing training and development careers. A respondent stated that: while the economy has not been very robust in the last year or so, we see a continuing demand for students in the HR function. Thats probably going to increase. We are already starting to see more activity in the hiring area, particularly in the area of recruiting is probably where we see the greatest demand. another area that I have seen other students go in to is marketing and sales; there is a high demand. Industry representatives emphasized the importance of students starting early in choosing courses and interviewing business professionals. Recommended courses were sociology, psychology, and other courses pertaining to dealing with people from cultures outside of your comfort zone. Other recommended course content areas included an understanding of the land-grant philosophy, research and statistics classes, ability to write critical reports for funding, an understanding of international development, and diversity.

PAGE 102

88 Objective Five Objective five sought to propose a model for graduate-level HR/leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. A review of literature revealed that few studies that have specifically addressed graduate competencies (Dooley, 2002; Graham, 2001) in the context of training and development employment. Since this model was based on the literature review and findings, it will be discussed in chapter five. Objective Six Objective six sought to determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. University department chairs/unit leaders (n=7) were asked to provide background information on the year when graduate agricultural leadership courses were offered. Respondents were also asked to report the year when leadership specializations were first offered. The findings revealed that some departments began offering agricultural leadership courses from the 1940s, while others offered their first agricultural leadership course as late as 2000. However, leadership specializations have only been offered since the 1980s (see Table 4-21). Table 4-21. Frequency and percentage of decade of original development of agricultural leadership programs as identified by unit leaders and department chairs (n=7). Characteristic Frequency Percentage First leadership course taught (n=8) 1940-1949 1 12.5 1970-1979 2 25.0 1980-1989 3 37.5 1990-1999 1 12.5 20001 12.5 First leadership specialization offered 1980-1989 2 28.6 1990-1999 1 14.3 20004 57.1

PAGE 103

89 University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to indicate which degrees or programs in graduate agricultural leadership were offered originally (see Table 4-22). Programs initially offered Bachelor of Science (n=3), Master of Science (n=1), and Doctor of Philosophy (n=1) degrees (see Table 4-24). Other programs offered a seminar (n=3) or certificate in agricultural leadership (n=1). The studys findings revealed that most programs offered either leadership degrees or specializations through the Bachelor of Science degree (n=3) or through seminars (n=3) when the programs first offered agricultural leadership. Table 4-22. Frequency of original degrees offered with a specialization or major in leadership (n=7). Original degrees/programs Frequency Bachelor of Science 3 Master of Science 1 Doctor of Philosophy 1 Certificate program 1 Seminars 3 Agricultural Leadership Degree and Program Information University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to indicate the current degrees or programs with a leadership specialization or major (see Table 4-23). Departments offered Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees. Additionally, departments offered certificate programs and/or seminars with leadership emphases. The majority of departments offered at least a Bachelor of Science degree (n=6). Table 4-23. Current degrees/programs with a leadership specialization or major. Degree Frequency Bachelor of Science 6 Master of Science 3 Doctor of Philosophy 3 Certificate program 3 Seminars 2

PAGE 104

90 Original Target Audience University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to specify which target audiences were included in the original leadership programs (see Table 4-24). Originally, agricultural leadership programs targeted audiences such as extension agents (n=5), community leaders (n=7), teachers (n=4), and industry professionals (n=7). Few programs initially targeted farmers (n=1) and government/agency officials (n=2). Table 4-24. Frequency of target audience of original agricultural leadership programs (n=7). Departmental clientele Frequency Extension agents 5 Farmers 1 Teachers 4 Community leaders 7 Industry professionals 7 Government/agency officials 2 University department chairs/unit leaders indicated the target audience of current leadership programs. Table 4-25 shows that emphases on extension agents, community leaders, community leaders, and industry professionals have remained a priority, with a growing emphasis on governmental/agency officials. Table 4-25. Frequency of target audience of current agricultural leadership programs (n=7). Departmental clientele Frequency Extension agents 7 Farmers 1 Teachers 5 Community leaders 6 Industry professionals 6 Government/agency officials 4 Graduate agricultural leadership specialization University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to indicate whether or not the leadership specialization was a stand alone program emphasis (see Table 4-26). Based on

PAGE 105

91 the responses, some programs (n=5) offered other specializations, such as teacher education. Only three programs had exclusive graduate-level leadership specializations. Table 4-26. Frequency of graduate leadership specialization only (n=8). Leadership specialization Frequency Yes 3 No 5 Other Combined with teacher education 3 No response 2 Graduate leadership minor offered University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to indicate whether or not the agricultural leadership programs offered a graduate minor (see Table 4-27). None of the agricultural leadership programs offered a graduate minor. Table 4-27. Frequency of graduate minor in agricultural leadership (n=5) Graduate minor offered Frequency Yes 0 No 5 Graduate Agricultural Leadership Curriculum Graduate Leadership Courses University department chairs/unit leaders indicated that a wide variety of courses in agricultural leadership were offered at the graduate level (see Table 4-28). The courses were divided into the following major categories: leadership development and theories (n=11), organizational leadership (n=4), foundation (n=5), change management (n=4), and leadership in a diverse society (n=2). Others included environmental leadership (n=1) and research in leadership education (n=1). Table 4-28. Frequency of graduate courses in agricultural leadership programs (n=8). Course Categories and Titles Frequency Leadership Development and Theories Leadership Development 3 Theoretical Foundations of Leadership 1

PAGE 106

92 Table 4-28. Continued. Course Categories and Titles Frequency Leadership Development and Theories Youth Leadership 2 Volunteer leadership 3 Seminar in Leadership Education 1 Classic Figures in Leadership 1 Organizational Leadership Developing leadership capacity in organizations 1 Supervisory leadership 1 Leading Agricultural Agencies & Organizations 1 Critical Thinking & Decision Making 1 Foundations of Agricultural Leadership Education Advanced Methods in Agricultural Education 2 Principles of Adult Education 1 Philosophy of Agricultural Education 1 Program Evaluation 1 Change Management Methods of Technological Change 1 Transfer of Technology by Institutions 1 Methodology of Planned Change 1 Leading Change in Rural America & Beyond 1 Leadership in a Diverse Society Leadership in Cross-Cultural Systems 1 Leadership & Communication Competencies in a Global Society 1 Miscellaneous Environmental Leadership 1 Research in Leadership Education 1 Graduate Student Data by Specialization University department chairs/unit leaders from eight agricultural leadership programs reported a total of 327 graduate students (see Table 4-29). The data were Table 4-29. Frequency and percentage of total number of graduate students by specialization for Fall 2003 semester. Specializations Frequency Percentage Leadership 116 35.5 Communication 11 3.4 Extension 38 11.6 Teacher education 75 22.9 Other 82 25.1 Youth and Family Education 5 1.5 Total 327 100.0

PAGE 107

93 reported by specializations, including leadership (35.5%), communication (3.4), extension (11.6%), other (25.1%), and youth and family education (1.5%). The majority of graduate students had leadership specializations. Graduate Student Data Trends University department chairs/unit leaders reported the total number of masters and doctoral students in agricultural leadership over a three year program (see Table 4-30). The number of M.S. students in agricultural leadership rose from the 2001-2002 academic year (n=51) to the 2002-2003 academic year (n=104); however, the total number of graduate students studying agricultural leadership declined from the 2002-2003 academic year (n=104) to the 2003-2004 academic year (n=65). The number of Ph.D. students steadily rose from the 2001-2002 academic year (n=5) to the 2003-2004 academic year (n=38). Table 4-30. Frequency of trends of graduate enrollment in agricultural leadership over three academic years. Program Totals 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 MS 51 104 65 PhD 5 34 38 Total 56 138 107 Companies Hiring Graduate Agricultural Leadership Students University department chairs/unit leaders reported the companies that have hired graduate students with agricultural leadership specializations (see Table 4-31). The data Table 4-31. Frequency of companies employing graduate agricultural leadership students. Companies Frequency Cedars Youth Services 1 Missouri Department of Conservation 1 Gallup 1 Universities 4 Williams Gard Center 1 Nebraska Bankers Association 1 Churches 1

PAGE 108

94 above show that graduate students have obtained employment with a variety of companies (n=4), state departments (n=1), universities (n=4), and churches (n=1). Job Titles of Graduate Agricultural Leadership Students University department chairs/unit leaders reported that graduate agricultural leadership students have obtained employment in non-university positions (see Table 4-32). Job titles were varied and included staff manager, assistant director, director, associate director of training, corrections counselor, director of organizational development, and education director. Table 4-32. Frequency of job titles of non-university positions in which graduate students have obtained employment. Job Title Frequency Staff development manager 1 Assistant director 1 Director 1 Associate director of training 1 Corrections counselor 1 Director of organizational development 1 Education director 1 Perceptions of Job Titles for Which Graduate Agricultural Leadership Students Are Well Prepared University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to indicate the job title(s) for which masters students in agricultural leadership are well prepared (see Table 4-33). Table 4-33. Frequency of job titles for which M.S. agricultural leadership students are well prepared. Job Title Frequency Education/Training Specialist 4 HR Manager 3 Leadership Educator 3 Director of Education/Training Programs 3 Program Evaluator 2 Respondents reported that masters students are well prepared to become an education/training specialist (n=4), HR manager (n=3), leadership educator (n=3),

PAGE 109

95 director of education/training programs (n=3), and program evaluator (n=2). Similarly, university department chairs/unit leaders indicated that doctoral-level agricultural leadership students were well prepared for six job titles (see Table 4-34). Respondents reported that master-level agricultural leadership students were well prepared to become an education/training specialist (n=3), HR manager (n=2), leadership educator (n=3), director of education/training programs (n=3), and program evaluator (n=3). Table 4-34. Frequency of job titles for which Ph.D. agricultural leadership students are well prepared as reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7). Job Title Frequency Education/Training Specialist 3 HR Manager 2 Leadership Educator 3 Director of Education/Training Programs 3 Program Evaluator 3 Projected Changes in Agricultural Leadership Courses Agricultural leadership faculty respondents indicated whether or not changes in graduate courses could be projected (see Table 4-35). Four respondents projected changes in graduate courses. Specifically, one respondent reported that one change would be the addition of an undergraduate minor in leadership studies. Table 4-35. Frequency of projected changes in graduate agricultural leadership courses as reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7). Course changes Frequency Yes 2 No 4 Projected Changes in Required Competencies Agricultural leadership faculty respondents indicated whether or not changes in graduate competencies could be projected during the next three to five years (see Table 4-36). The projected changes in competencies as suggested by three respondents were

PAGE 110

96 increased emphases on technology proficiency and a more pluralistic view of cultural diversity. The other three respondents project no changes in competencies. Table 4-36. Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 3-5 years as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=6). Project changes in competencies Frequency Yes 3 No 3 Agricultural leadership faculty respondents indicated whether or not changes in graduate competencies could be projected during the next five to seven years (see Table 4-37). Only one respondent projected changes in graduate competencies; however, six respondents did not project any changes in competencies. One respondent stated that a projected change is the development of a graduate leadership course. Table 4-37. Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 5-7 years as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Project competency changes Frequency Yes 1 No 6 Recommended Courses for Graduate Agricultural Leadership Students The agricultural leadership faculty identified courses essential for graduate agricultural leadership students (see Table 4-38). The graduate courses included Table 4-38. Frequency of courses essential for graduate agricultural leadership students as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Courses Frequency Leadership development theories 3 Learning organizations 2 Leadership and gender 1 Leadership and culture 1 Educational research 1 Data analysis 1 Human growth and development 1 Instructional strategies 1 Program planning and evaluation 1 Do not know 1

PAGE 111

97 leadership development theories, learning organizations, leadership and gender, leadership and culture, educational research, data analysis, human growth and development, instructional strategies, and program planning and evaluation. One agricultural leadership faculty participant responded, do not know. Leadership Inventories/Assessment Tools The agricultural leadership faculty were asked if leadership inventories or assessment tools were used in graduate courses (see Table 4-39). Of the six respondents, four indicated that they use leadership inventories or assessment tools in graduate courses. Only two respondents indicated that inventories or assessment tools were not used in graduate courses. Table 4-39. Frequency of eadership inventories/assessment tools in graduate courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Use inventories/assessment tools Frequency Yes 4 No 2 The four respondents who utilized leadership inventories/assessment tools reported using a variety of assessments. Leadership inventories or assessment tools used in graduate courses included situational leadership (n=1), Maslow Motivation Questionnaire (n=1), Leadership Practice Inventory (n=2), and measurement of leadership styles (n=2). Table 4-40. Frequency of leadership inventories/assessment tools used in graduate courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Inventories/assessment tools Frequency Situational leadership 1 Maslow Motivation Questionnaire 1 Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) 2 Measurement of leadership styles 2

PAGE 112

98 Required Textbooks for Graduate Leadership Courses Agricultural leadership faculty utilize a variety of required textbooks (n=16) to teach graduate leadership courses (see Table 4-41). Table 4-41. Frequency of required textbooks for graduate leadership courses as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Author Textbook Frequency Shriberg Practicing Leadership 1 Lussier Leadership Theory and Practice 1 Nortthouse Leadership 1 Collins Good to Great 1 Bennis Organizing Genius 1 Daft Leadership Experience 1 Maxwell The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership 1 Johnson Who Moved My Cheese 1 Beyond Race and Gender 1 Blake et al. Leadership Dilemmas-Grid Solutions 1 Covey Seven Habits of Highly Effective People 1 Covey Principle-Centered Leadership 1 Addison On Becoming a Leader 1 Knowles et al. The Adult Learner 1 Collins & Porras Built to Last 1 Buford & Lindner HRM in Local Government 1 Leadership Education and Training Background of University Faculty The agricultural leadership faculty were asked if they had held previous industry positions. The majority previously worked as a leadership educator (n=5). Other industry positions were education/training specialist (n=1), human resources manager Table 4-42. Frequency of industry positions held by agricultural leadership faculty as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Industry position held Frequency Education/Training Specialist 1 HR Manager 1 Leadership Educator 5 Director of Education/Training Programs 1 Program Evaluator 1 Farm manager 1

PAGE 113

99 (n=1), director of education/training programs (n=1), program evaluator (n=1), and farm manager (n=1). Primary areas of research interests The primary areas of research interests as reported by of agricultural leadership faculty are listed in Table 4-43. Table 4-43. Frequency of primary areas of research interests of agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Research areas Frequency Youth leadership 2 Extension 1 Competency assessment and development 1 Training and development 3 Other Effectiveness of leadership 1 Effects of culture in leadership 1 Small and limited resource farming 1 Quality of life 1 Professional memberships in leadership organizations Agricultural leadership respondents (n=7) reported involvement in various professional leadership organizations (see Table 4-47). The professional leadership Table 4-44. Frequency of professional memberships in leadership organizations (n=7). Professional leadership memberships Frequency Agricultural Education American Association of Agricultural Educators 5 Farm Bureau 1 NACTA 1 AIAEE 2 Leadership Association of Leadership Educators 1 Honor Societies Gamma Sigma Delta 1 Alpha Zeta 1 Phi Delta Kappa 1 Other MANRRS 1 Rotary International 1

PAGE 114

100 organizations were divided into the sub-categories: agricultural education (n=9), leadership (n=1), honor societies (n=3), and others (n=2). Leadership emphasis in doctoral degree The majority of agricultural leadership faculty obtained a Ph.D. degree that had no leadership education emphasis. Only two of the seven respondents (28.6%) had a leadership emphasis in their doctoral degree program. Table 4-45. Frequency and percentage of doctoral degree with a leadership education emphasis by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7) Ph.D. leadership emphasis Frequency Percentage Yes 2 28.6 No 5 71.4 Formal leadership courses Agricultural leadership faculty reported the formal leadership courses previously taken (see Table 4-46). The leadership courses were divided into the following sub-categories: leadership development and theories (n=8), program development (n=4), adult and extension education (n=2), research (n=2), and leadership in a diverse society (n=2). In addition, some university faculty respondents took specialized on-the-job leadership training (n=3). Thus, the agricultural leadership faculty in this study developed their leadership knowledge from a variety of leadership knowledge areas. Table 4-46. Frequency of formal leadership courses completed as reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). Course Category and Focus Frequency Leadership Development and Theories Youth leadership/advisement 4 Leadership development theories 3 Industrial leadership 1 Program Development Curriculum development 1 Program Planning and Evaluation 1 Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 1

PAGE 115

101 Table 4-46. Continued. Course Category and Focus Frequency Program Development Instructional Technology 1 Adult and Extension Education Adult education 1 Advanced Extension Administration 1 Research Educational research 1 Data analysis 1 Leadership in a Diverse Society Human Growth and Development 1 Multicultural education 1 Specialized leadership training Army Leadership 2 ESCOP Leadership Development 1 Administrative Leadership 1 Summary Demographic data were gathered and tabulated to ensure a better understanding of agricultural leadership programs, university faculty, and industry representatives in the study. The majority of university faculty respondents were males, had at least 3 years of experience teaching leadership courses, had prior industry work experience, earned at least a Masters degree, and received informal leadership training. This chapter provided an overview of research findings based on qualitative interviews and online questionnaires. Chapter 5 will provide a more detailed discussion of the results. Further, it will draw the conclusions of the study and make recommendations from the results presented in this chapter.

PAGE 116

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Chapter 1 described the background for studying academia and industry perspectives on graduate competencies necessary for training and development employment. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to: 1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. 2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry representatives. 3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives. 4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and academia representatives. 5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. 6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. Chapter 2 presented a discussion of previous research related to this study. Chapter 2 discussed literature in the following areas: (1) leadership and leadership development, (2) academia-industry partnerships, (3) curriculum theory, and (4) competencies. Theoretical frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and empirical research relevant to this study were also presented. Chapter 3 presented a review of methodology used in this 102

PAGE 117

103 study. Chapter 4 summarized the research design, procedures, population and sample, instrumentation, and data collection for this study. Chapter 5 will present the findings of the study based on data from university faculty, agricultural leadership faculty, and industry representatives. Problem Statement Various competency studies (Birkenholz et al., 1994; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Fulkert, 1997; Hansen et al., 1989; Harris, 1989; Mahoric, 1997; Moody, 2001; Scanlon et al., 1996) have been conducted in previous years; however, there was limited research related to graduate-level competencies required for training and development careers. Since research in the context of graduate-level competencies was limited, literature from related fields was reviewed for methodology. Limited research was available on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership positions. While studies have been conducted on the industry perspective of curriculum revisions necessary to prepare undergraduate students for a competitive job market, few studies have been conducted that address the specific curriculum content areas necessary to prepare graduate students for such positions. Therefore, there was a need to study and explain the marketability of graduate students in agricultural education graduates for industry leadership and training and development careers. Population and Sample The populations for the study were university faculty and industry representatives. The university population included self-identified faculty in agricultural education and related programs (as listed in the membership directory of the American Association for Agricultural Education) who taught graduate leadership courses (N=35). The university

PAGE 118

104 faculty sample (n=22) included respondents who provided data regarding the HRD/leadership competencies and exemplary practices. Additionally, agricultural leadership faculty and department chairs/unit leaders provided data to enhance the knowledge base on graduate agricultural leadership program development. Departmental chairs/unit leaders of agricultural education departments listed in the American Association of Agricultural Educators Directory were invited to participate in this study. Based on recommendations from the expert panel (see Appendix A), programs with graduate-level agricultural leadership programs were selected. The agricultural leadership faculty (n=7) provided data on the history and development of their graduate agricultural leadership curriculum. University department chairs/unit leaders (n=7) were respondents who were department chairs or unit leaders of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs. The industry population (N=86) for this study included representatives of human resources departments of agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. It was deemed necessary to include human resources professionals from agribusiness firms (n=3) and career services professionals (n=2) because of their familiarity with hiring practices, attributes of college graduate entering the profession, and industry perspectives on leadership competencies. Review of Methods The study was conducted using descriptive, survey research and long interviews. The independent variables were gender, educational background, years in current position, job title, type of company, leadership courses taught, required textbooks, business/industry experience, primary area of research interest, membership in professional leadership organizations, major of highest degree, formal leadership courses

PAGE 119

105 taken, and leadership emphasis of Ph.D. Other independent variables addressed the history of original leadership program, and employment trends of graduate agricultural leadership students. The primary dependent variables in this study were perceptions of university faculty and industry representatives regarding the importance of HRD competencies and exemplary leadership practices needed for industry leadership positions. Data were collected through online and mail questionnaires as well as long interviews. The quantitative portion of the study included data from university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10). The qualitative data were obtained via both university faculty (n=5) and industry representatives (n=10). Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data for interpretation, respectively. Summary of Results Description of University and Industry Respondents University faculty (N=35) self-identified as teaching graduate-level agricultural leadership courses were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire on HRD/leadership competencies required for graduate agricultural leadership students seeking industry leadership positions. The majority of university faculty respondents (n=22) were males (n=19, 86.4%), had experience teaching graduate leadership courses (M=7.1 years), and also had experience working in business/industry (n=13, 59.1%). In addition, all but one university faculty member participating in the study held a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree. Industry representatives (N=86) were also asked to complete a web-based questionnaire on HRD/leadership competencies required for graduate agricultural leadership students. Those industry representatives (n=10) who provided data for study

PAGE 120

106 were mostly males (n=7), held either bachelors (n=4) or masters degrees (n=3), and obtained degrees in various areas, such as engineering (n=2), human resources (n=1), agriculture (n=1), business (n=1), and communication/journalism (n=1). Of the ten industry representatives, six respondents reported that their companies had hired agricultural education and communication graduates. The industry representatives worked for companies classified as industrial/farm equipment (n=2), food/grocery (n=1), career development/planning (n=1), human resources consulting (n=1), and manufacturing (n=3). Some industry representatives worked in companies that had previously hired graduates of agricultural education and communication programs (n=6). To determine the history of agricultural leadership programs, agricultural leadership faculty (n=7) and departmental chairs/unit leaders (n=8) were surveyed. The majority of agricultural leadership programs (n=5) began between 1970 and 1989, yet the first graduate leadership specializations were added later in the 1980s (n=2), 1990s (n=1), and 2000s (n=4). Originally, most programs offered either a bachelors degree (n=3) or seminars (n=3). Objective One Objective one sought to ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. University faculty (n=22) rated 16 of the 18 competencies as very important or extremely important. The remaining two competencies, business knowledge and contracting, were rated as moderately important. None of the 18 HRD competencies were rated as not important or of little importance by university faculty.

PAGE 121

107 University faculty (n=22) were asked to rate twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices identified by Kouzes & Posner (1997). Perceptions about the importance of each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set of five Likert-type items. The five highest rated HRD competencies reported by university faculty were communication (M=4.77), interpersonal relationship building and collaboration (M=4.67), leadership (M=4.41), industry awareness (M=4.33), and program evaluation (M=4.23). The summated mean scores for the leadership practices ranged from 20.50 to 21.52, indicating that all five exemplary practices were rated by university faculty as very important. To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected university faculty (n=5). When asked about the competencies relevant to HRD/leadership competencies relevant to graduate students, one respondent commented: I think it is imperative that graduate students have the following competencies: communication, oral and written, research, ability to conduct persuasive presentations, and the ability to utilize negotiation skillsThey also need to have an understanding of the land-grant philosophy, research and statistics classes, ability to write critical reports for funding, an understanding of international development as well as diversity-an understanding of how people from different backgrounds can work together. Another university faculty respondent provided a definition of leadership that included the terms, influence, planned change, potential, and goals. This respondent stated: my definition of leadership centers around influence. Its a persons abilitydefinitely not necessarily a title a person carries, but leadership is a persons ability to influence others to bring about hopefully planned change to reach whatever goals, proficiencies, or customer service or whatever to be able to influence others to reach their potential and the goals of the organization.

PAGE 122

108 Objective Two Objective two sought to ascertain the HRD/leadership competencies necessary for graduate students pursuing training and development employment, as perceived by selected industry representatives. The five highest rated HRD competencies as reported by industry representatives were leadership (M=4.60), communication (M=4.40), interpersonal relationship building and coalition (M=4.40), change management (M=4.30), and buy-in/advocacy (M=4.10). Industry representatives felt that 11 of the 18 HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very or extremely important. The industry representatives rated the remaining seven HRD competencies as moderately important. To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected industry representatives (n=10). When asked about the competencies required for training and development employment, one respondent replied: One has to be.flexible, maybe thats not a good word. One has to adjust to change and have insight or vision. It is also important to be able to direct even when things are not going right according to your opinion or by procedure. It goes back to motivation because you have got to get them there. We use eight leadership competencies communication, diversity, visioning, mentoring, professionalism and ethics, problem-solving, teamwork, and working with change. Another industry representative highlighted the importance of interaction with industry as a means of knowing what is required for training and development employment. When asked about recommendations to prepare students for gainful employment in the training and development profession, one respondent suggested: I guess one would be while they are in school, get out and talk to companies, even though they may not be in a job search mode. Talk to HR and different types of

PAGE 123

109 staff members to find out (most of these companies are happy to talk to them)find out exactly early on if the student does this to determine if there are needs and areas the company representatives can help guide them as to the courses. Instead of going through and taking a bunch of courses and then going out looking for a job, start early finding out exactly what are the needs and of course trying to align those with career interests. Industry representatives (n=10) were also asked to rate twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997). Perceptions about the importance of each exemplary practice were measured with a set of five Likert-type items. The summated mean scores for the leadership practices ranged from 19.30 to 21.70, indicating that all five exemplary practices were rated as very important by industry representatives. Objective Three Objective three sought to compare and contrast the perceptions of importance by university faculty and industry perspectives toward HRD/leadership competencies necessary for agricultural education graduate students to obtain training and development employment. University faculty and industry representatives felt that most of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very or extremely important (see Table 4-18). The university faculty surveyed rated thirteen HRD competencies higher than the industry representatives rated those HRD competencies, and the faculty summated mean was slightly higher-70.80 versus 67.17. However, overall both groups rated the set of 18 competencies as very important. Both university faculty and industry representatives rated communication, interpersonal relationship building and collaboration, and leadership competencies as the three highest rated competencies; however, the fourth and fifth highest rated competencies differed. University faculty rated industry awareness and program

PAGE 124

110 evaluation as the fourth and fifth highest rated competencies, whereas industry representatives rated change management and buy-in/advocacy as the fourth and fifth highest rated competencies. University faculty and industry representatives also gave similar ratings of importance to the five exemplary leadership practices as identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997). Overall, university faculty rated the exemplary practices slightly higher, with the exception of challenging the process, which was rated slightly lower. University faculty rated the exemplary leadership practices as follows: modeling the way (M=21.52), encouraging the heart (M=21.43), challenging the process (M=20.81), inspiring a shared vision (M=20.59), and enabling others to act (M=20.50). Industry representatives rated the exemplary leadership practices as follows: encouraging the heart (M=21.70), enabling others to act (M=19.80), modeling the way (M=19.60), inspiring a shared vision (M=19.40), and challenging the process (M=19.30). Objective Four Objective four sought to identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by industry representatives and university faculty. To accomplish this objective, fifteen respondents were interviewed to gain further insight about the competencies required for training and development employment and to obtain curriculum recommendations. Recommendations from industry representatives (n=5) included utilizing careers services for job preparation, conducting informational interviews with company representatives, obtaining internship/co-op experience or some general business orientation, searching career websites to determine hiring trends and issues, and taking the appropriate courses.

PAGE 125

111 University faculty (n=5) reported various components of graduate level agricultural leadership curricula. The responses were grouped into the following categories: management, youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. Objective Five Objective five sought to propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on the literature review findings of the study. Respondents suggested that graduate agricultural leadership curricula should include the following basic components: program characteristics, faculty characteristics, partnerships/strategic relationships, curriculum, student characteristics, business-orientation of students, and industry characteristics. The model shown in Figure 5 depicts the interrelated components of graduate-level agricultural curricula. Program characteristics of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs and faculty characteristics are interdependent. For example, the target audience of an agricultural leadership program may directly influence a university faculty members familiarity with industry. Similarly, faculty characteristics and curriculum components are interdependent, as faculty build their professional knowledge and expertise based on the courses taught. The curriculum impacts student characteristics and vice versa. Students continue to build their skill set based on the curriculum, and the curriculum is typically revised to meet the student needs as well. Student characteristics determine the business orientation experiences of students who go above and beyond the required course requirements and gain first-hand knowledge about the business world through internships, work experiences, leadership education and training, and informational interviewing. Such experiences influence industry characteristics, such as familiarity with graduate-level

PAGE 126

112 agricultural leadership programs. This conceptual model is a guide for developing graduate level agricultural leadership curricula and accounts for the attainment of experience, education, and professional development at various stages in career development. The partnerships/strategic relationships are determined by faculty and industry characteristics and are indirectly related. Industry characteristics influence the curriculum offered as faculty obtain business experiences and update curriculum offerings based upon on industry needs and perspectives. Faculty Characteristics Leadership education and training Leadership assets Leadership theoretical perspectives Business and industry experience Performance appraisals Years of teaching experience Research interests Student Characteristics Leadership Development process Interpersonal skills Problem-solving Extracurricular activities Exemplary leadership practices Communication skills Leadership assessment Job preparation skills Work ethic Technology saavy Industry Characteristics Employment opportunities Hiring trends Familiarity with graduate agricultural leadership programs Years of experience in current position Preparation of new employees Performance expectations of employees Characteristics of hiring agent Partnerships Strategic Relationships Shared vision Time Access Resources Focus Communication Negotiation Target audiences Curriculum Learning Environment Agricultural Leadership Courses (Leadership Development and Theories, Organizational leadership, Foundations of agricultural leadership education, change management, leadership in a diverse society) Supplemental Courses o Educational psychology, communication, distance education, cultural diversity, public relations, psychology, sociology, organizational leadership, organizational behavior Technical Expertise o Leadership development process o Interpersonal skills o Human resource development competencies o Exemplary leadership practices o Communication skills o Leadership assessment o Job preparation skills o Work ethic o Technology Program Characteristics Leadership specialization Agricultural leadership courses Agricultural leadership program/curriculum Target audience Enrollment trends Business-Orientation of Students Internships Work experiences Leadership education and training Informational interviewing Figure 5. Key components of graduate level agricultural leadership curricula.

PAGE 127

113 Objective Six Objective six sought to determine the history of agricultural leadership programs. University department chairs/unit leaders were asked to provide background information on the year when graduate agricultural leadership courses were offered. Respondents were also asked to report the year when graduate leadership specializations were first offered. The majority of agricultural leadership programs (n=5) began between 1970 and 1989, yet the first graduate leadership specializations were added later in the 1980s (n=2), 1990s (n=1), and 2000s (n=4). Originally, most programs offered either a Bachelors degree (n=3) or seminars (n=3). At the time of data collection responding department chairs/unit leaders reported that their departments currently offer Bachelor of Science (n=6), Master of Science (n=3), and Doctor of Philosophy (n=3) degrees with a focus on agricultural leadership. Additionally, departments offered certificate programs (n=3) and/or seminars (n=2) with leadership emphases. The target audience of current leadership programs at the time of the study included extension agents, farmers, teachers, community leaders, industry professionals, and governmental officials. Based on the responses, most responding programs (n=5) offered other specializations, such as agricultural teacher education. Only three of the 15 programs had exclusive leadership specializations. None of the agricultural leadership programs offered a graduate minor. Discussion and Implications Twenty-one agricultural education programs reported offering graduate level agricultural leadership course work, and just seven of these twenty-one programs offered graduate-level leadership specializations. Surprisingly, only three of the seven programs

PAGE 128

114 offered leadership as a stand-alone specialization, whereas other programs offered leadership specializations combined with teacher education. Only three independent leadership specializations suggest that we may not have the capacity as a profession to aggressively pursue graduate agricultural leadership, especially at the Ph.D. level. A similar study conducted by Fritz and Brown (1998) found that 19 of the 55 departments of agricultural education (undergraduate and graduate programs) did not offer leadership and human resource management courses due to resource scarcity, institutional policy barriers and resistance, and lack of student demand. University faculty should continue revamping graduate curricula to ensure that students are strong competitors for relevant employment opportunities. None of the five respondents of Fortune 500 companies reported that they had hired employees who had completed a graduate agricultural leadership degree. The data on this variable obtained in this study do not fully describe the scope of employment opportunities in training and development. Traditional agricultural education programs primarily focus on the preparation of teachers. Given this focus, secondary agriculture teachers appear to be identifiable clientele/stakeholders of agricultural education programs. Thus, program emphases that are indirectly related to teacher education that involve clientele/stakeholders other than teacher educators may be challenging to implement, due to incompatible departmental or institutional goals. Faculty members teaching graduate leadership courses have acquired leadership education and training from various sources. Many of these faculty members appear to have developed their expertise in leadership during their tenure as faculty members. The leadership literature is rapidly expanding, making it quite easy to expand ones

PAGE 129

115 knowledge and perspectives in leadership through self-study. Seminars and workshops are also plentiful, and in most cases, affordable. However, these faculty members should maintain an ongoing dialogue to ensure that the popular literature does not find its way into graduate curricula at the expense of leadership theory and practice grounded in empirical research. Surprisingly, over one-half of the faculty respondents had some experience in business and industry. However, the data obtained in this study do not fully describe the nature and timeliness of these experiences due to the mixed industry population that included human resource professionals of agribusinesses (n=3) and career resource professionals (n=2). Ideally, faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses should have had industry experience in a leadership/HRD/management position. This experience would provide a rich context for their teaching and support an accurate portrayal of the nature of leadership/HRD positions in industry. Agricultural leadership faculty taught graduate courses in leadership development and theories, organizational leadership, foundations of agricultural leadership education, change management, and leadership in a diverse society; however, agricultural leadership faculty members had formal leadership courses in leadership development and theories, adult and extension education, program development, research, leadership in a diverse society, and specialized leadership training. Agricultural leadership educators are faced with teaching courses in change management and diversity, even though they took few courses in these subject areas. Thus, agricultural leadership educators may need to deepen and expand their expertise in these areas. They are faced with the challenge of embarking upon their own professional development to meet the needs and expectations

PAGE 130

116 of their universities, departments, and stakeholders. However, achievement of such needs and expectations will vary from university to university, but the emerging curriculum demands suggest that improvement is essential for adequately preparing society-ready graduates. Objective One Objective one sought to ascertain the perceptions of university faculty toward HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing industry training and development positions. University faculty rated the 18 HRD competencies as very or extremely important. This finding is not surprising given the university facultys leadership education training and background and years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses (M=7.1). The 18 HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) can easily be incorporated into graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula. Of the 18 HRD competencies, eight competencies (communication, leadership, interpersonal relationship building/collaboration, teamwork, adult learning, instructional design, program evaluation, and project management) easily fit within the context of graduate-level agricultural leadership. Communication and leadership appear to be well-represented in the current coursework offered by departments of agricultural education. Interpersonal relationship building/collaboration and teamwork competencies can be infused into the existing curriculum by requiring students to interact with industry and community leaders and to conduct group leadership projects. The implementation of competencies, such as change management, industry awareness, business knowledge, consulting, and awareness of e-learning, will require input from industry, Extension, and community leaders. Departments of agricultural education with few leadership faculty

PAGE 131

117 may struggle to implement all of these competencies and incorporate an industry perspective. Since many of the competencies require the use of cognitive thinking abilities, the development of curricula that place emphasis on how to think versus what to think is essential. This is supported by research highlighting the importance of applications knowledge (Lindner & Dooley, 2002) essential for students in agricultural education. University faculty members have ample teaching experience to provide students with leadership theory and practice grounded in empirical research. However, university faculty can only expose students to the relevant knowledge and empirical research regarding leadership development; some of the responsibility for developing the requisite skills to be successful rest with the student. University faculty respondents rated twenty-five items representing the five exemplary practices identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997). The summated mean scores ranged from 20.50 to 21.52 for each practice, indicating that university faculty agreed that the exemplary leadership practices are very important for graduate students pursuing training and development employment. Three of the five exemplary leadership practices (inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, and modeling the way) easily fit within the context of graduate-level agricultural leadership. Incorporating the exemplary leadership practices, challenging the process and encouraging the heart, may pose some challenges due to the internal nature of a persons leadership philosophy. For example, teaching a graduate student to challenge the process and encourage the heart may not be feasible given the nature of the exemplary leadership practices. Implementing these exemplary

PAGE 132

118 practices effectively may require input from extension and community leaders. Thus, creating a learning environment that provides students with more opportunities to utilize the exemplary leadership practices is important. Objective Two Objective two sought to ascertain the HRD/leadership competencies necessary for graduate students pursuing training and development employment, as perceived by selected industry representatives. Industry respondents rated only the competency leadership as extremely important. Ten competencies (communication, interpersonal relationship building and collaboration, change management, buy-in/advocacy, business knowledge, performance gap analysis, industry awareness, adult learning, systems thinking, and project management) were rated very important, and seven competencies (consulting, instructional design, program evaluation, contracting, awareness of e-learning industry, implementation/support, and design/development) were rated as moderately important. This finding is consistent with research studies of Drucker (1999) and Marshall et al. (1999) that support the importance of soft skills in the workplace. Human resource managers of large American corporations indicate that soft skills are the most important characteristics an employee possesses, in addition to good communication skills and appearance. Soft skills identified by human resource managers of large American corporations were defined as having a how can I help attitude, good manners, willingness to take ownership, commitment, initiative, adaptability, teamwork, relationship building through trust and respect for the firm and individuals, and device to advance (Marshall, Patton & Stocker, 1999). Industry respondents in this study placed priority on leadership competencies when considering graduate students as potential candidates for training and development positions.

PAGE 133

119 Industry representatives rated twenty-five items representing the five exemplary practices identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997). The summated mean scores ranged from 19.30 to 21.70. This finding indicates that industry representatives agreed that four exemplary leadership practices (enabling others to act, modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, and challenging the process) were very important and one exemplary leadership practice (encouraging the heart) was extremely important. Objective Three Objective three sought to compare and contrast the perceptions about university faculty and industry self-identified perspectives on HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students pursuing training and development employment. Overall, the university faculty rated the 18 HRD competencies slightly higher than industry representatives (70.80 versus 67.17), although both groups rated a large majority of the competencies as very important. University faculty and industry representatives also held similar perceptions about the importance of exemplary leadership practices. The university faculty rated the exemplary leadership practices from 20.50 to 21.52; whereas, the industry representatives rated the exemplary leadership practices from 19.30 to 21.70. Both groups rated all five exemplary practices as very important. This finding may be explained by the experience level of both university faculty and industry representatives. University faculty had an average of 7.1 years of experience teaching graduate-level agricultural leadership courses, while industry representatives had less than five years of experience working in the current position. Future practice should address building partnerships to strengthen familiarity with agricultural leadership programs as well as industrys expectations. Academia-industry

PAGE 134

120 partnerships have not been well-documented in the agricultural education profession. In terms of graduate agricultural leadership curriculum development, few research efforts can be cited. Findings from this study show that some academia partnerships involved career services/alumni professionals instead of university faculty. University partnerships with industry may also be forged around areas of interest beyond curriculum development. The challenge of identifying industry representatives for this study is an indication that human resource personnel of Fortune 500 companies may not be the best group with which to gauge partnerships. Who are the clientele and/or stakeholders with which agricultural leadership educators should pursue partnerships? This answer to this question is challenging given the newness of agricultural leadership programs and limited resources available to sustain graduate-level, stand-alone leadership specializations. Perhaps it is more appropriate and worthwhile to involve extension and community leaders in the curriculum development of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs. Perhaps extension and community leaders are more accessible than industry leaders and more apt to become involved with agricultural leadership programs due to the emphasis on academic and community leadership development. Industry representatives reported hiring agricultural education and communication graduate students from agricultural leadership programs. While graduate students in agricultural leadership are being hired for some training and development positions, it is unclear whether or not hiring trends in training and development are steady. Objective Four Objective four sought to identify key components of a graduate-level agricultural leadership curriculum as recommended by university faculty and industry representatives.

PAGE 135

121 Recommendations from industry representatives included job preparation using career services, informational interviews, internships/work experiences or some general business orientation, market trend research, and appropriate coursework. These responses were focused more on strategies for securing employment in industry rather than curriculum components of the graduate agricultural leadership program. This might suggest that the industry respondents in the study were unfamiliar with then nature and content of graduate programs in agricultural leadership. One note of caution when considering the data obtained from industry representatives is the mixed industry population which included human resource professionals of agribusinesses (n=3) and career resource professionals (n=2). Recommendations from university faculty included the incorporation of leadership, communication, research, presentation, negotiation, and ability to work with diverse groups. The recommendations from the university faculty are representative of the leadership courses taken in their Ph.D. programs. Also, the years of teaching experience may have influenced the recommendations as well. On the other hand, the industry representatives recommendations have to be reviewed carefully and generalized to the population studied. Agricultural leadership is a new and emerging specialization in agricultural education. With only a few programs self-identified as an agricultural leadership program, more work needs to be done to reach consensus about what components to include in a graduate-level agricultural leadership program. The few agricultural leadership faculty and industry representatives in the study held different views about the components of graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula.

PAGE 136

122 Objective Five Objective five sought to propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on research and findings of the study. Course content primarily focuses on leadership development and theories. Other content areas include foundations of agricultural leadership education, organizational leadership, and change management. Few specific courses are offered in global/diversity in leadership. It is possible that programs offered supplemental courses or infused the subject matter into the coursework. More masters students (n=220) than Ph.D. students (n=77) enrolled during the 2001-2004 academic years pursued agricultural leadership specializations. There are some positions for which graduate students in agricultural education and communication are qualified. Graduate students in agricultural leadership education and related programs have previously obtained gainful employment in HR/training and development positions. Feedback from industry respondents in this study suggest that masters students maybe more preferred for training and development positions than doctoral students. Thus, future practice should incorporate business-orientation experience as a part of master-level agricultural leadership programs. The graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula proposed in this study includes faculty characteristics, student characteristics, industry partnerships/strategic relationships, business orientation of students, curriculum components, and program characteristics. One limitation of the model is the incorporation of business orientation for graduate students, particularly masters students. Without input from industry clientele/stakeholders, it will be difficult to provide students with knowledge about the business world, including job descriptions and expectations. It is up to each individual

PAGE 137

123 university and department of agricultural education to identify the appropriate clientele/stakeholders pertinent to building the curricula. The business orientation of students pursuing non-academia employment is essential. Business orientation can be incorporated by requiring masters level students to complete internship and/or work experiences relevant to their learning goals. Applying adult learning principles would involve students actively participating in their expected learning goals and outcomes. Business orientation would not be limited to internship and work experiences, but it could also include conducting informational interviews, volunteer projects, and/or community service campaigns. Utilizing a semi-structured learning experience would provide students with an opportunity to enhance their business knowledge as well as their career planning/development goals. Six of the ten industry representatives indicated that their company had previously hired agricultural education and communication graduates. Thus, there may be additional opportunities to enhance the publicity promoting agricultural leadership programs, especially to industry audiences. Further, determining reasons that companies have not previously hired agricultural education and communication graduates can be explored for further research. University faculty members members acquired their Ph.D. degrees which focused primarily in youth leadership development and leadership development and theories. Few (n=2) respondents took adult education courses. University faculty need to build their expertise in business orientation to better prepare students for non-academia employment. To effectively prepare society-ready graduates, agricultural leadership faculty may need additional leadership training to expand their leadership knowledge and

PAGE 138

124 expertise. Thus, building partnerships with other academic units or industries may prove useful in expanding new and evolving agricultural leadership programs. Based on the literature review, organizational leadership is a similar academic area upon which to build curricula and incorporate industry perspectives. Curriculum development of agricultural leadership programs should incorporate opportunities for students to develop their knowledge and understanding of the business worlds requirements and expectations. Obtaining such experience will require training beyond agricultural leadership course offerings. Industry values experiences that orient students with the professional business world; thus, it is imperative the curriculum provide such opportunities for students to be adequately prepared for training and development employment. Low response rates Competency studies may generate low industry response rates as was the case with this study. Similar competency studies (Fulkert, 1997; Mahoric, 2001; Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999) have yielded response rates similar to the one in this study. According to Rothwell, Sanders, and Soper (1999), the low-response rate of industry respondents is typical, since companies usually do not want to divulge competency information. Some industry representatives indicated that they were unable to participate in the research study due to company policy. Other reasons for low response rate could be attributed to non-existent partnerships, time, and the increase of spam e-mails. Objective Six Objective six sought to determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs. Graduate agricultural leadership programs have gradually emerged from agricultural education programs over the past 24 years. However, few additional faculty

PAGE 139

125 FTEs have been allocated to support this initiative. Thus, in many cases, graduate agricultural leadership programs have been initiated by shifting personnel and fiscal resources away from agricultural education and related other programs. Unless these shifts have been accompanied by careful planning and administration of these programs, the result may be a splintered effort that leaves the original and new graduate leadership programs short of desired quality and scope standards. The reality of these resource limitations, coupled with the findings of this study, suggests that where such resource constraints exist, graduate agricultural leadership programs may be most effectively provided at the masters degree level. In the small number of programs that have significant resources allocated for agricultural leadership academic programs, PhD programs in agricultural leadership may be possible. Agricultural leadership programs, especially at the graduate level, are new and emerging programs. Surprisingly, only three of seven programs offered leadership as a stand alone specialization. In most instances where a graduate-level leadership specialization was offered, it was offered as a combined specialization, especially teacher education. Conclusions Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Very few agricultural education and communication departments offer graduate level degrees and/or specializations in agricultural leadership and relatively few university faculty teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. Graduate agricultural leadership programs have grown out of agricultural education perspectives, and faculty teaching in these programs have not made an adequate commitment to integrate industry perspectives into their leadership curricula. 2. Agricultural leadership programs originally offered bachelors degrees and seminars; eventually only a small number of these programs offered a graduate specialization in agricultural leadership. Target audiences are diverse and include

PAGE 140

126 industry, community leaders, teachers, extension agents, and more recently, governmental/agency official audiences. 3. University faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses advance their leadership expertise through personal study, conferences, workshops, and corporate seminars. 4. Agricultural leadership academic programs are very young, with much of that program history focused on the undergraduate academic programs and courses. Agricultural leadership programs were originally offered as Bachelor of Science degrees and seminars in leadership for various target audiences. Graduate level study in agricultural leadership has only become available in the past 15 years and still remains limited to a very small number of institutions. 5. The majority of faculty teaching graduate level agricultural leadership courses are males and have previous business and industry experience in training and development, particularly in management and sales. 6. Most of industry respondents in this study held a masters degrees or less and had been employed less than five years in their current position. 7. Graduates of agricultural education programs with a leadership emphasis are accepting positions in business and industry in human resources development. Masters degrees are preferred, with positions in career services, education, research, and employee/client relations available to graduates in this field. Job titles include manager, director, and assistant/associate titles. 8. University faculty and industry representatives believe that all 18 HRD competencies (McLagan, 1983) are very/extremely important as preparation for HR/training and development positions. 9. University faculty and industry representatives agree that the 18 HRD competencies are either very important or extremely important. 10. University faculty and industry representatives agree that the 5 exemplary leadership practices are very important; however, industry representatives feel that encouraging the heart was extremely important. 11. Agricultural leadership faculty teach courses in leadership development and theories, organizational leadership, foundations, and research. Recommendations for Practice Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made: 1. Graduate agricultural leadership curricula should incorporate the 18 HRD competencies (McLagan, 1983) and exemplary practices as identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997).

PAGE 141

127 2. Graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula should incorporate program characteristics, faculty characteristics, partnerships/strategic relationships, curriculum, student characteristics, business orientation of students, and industry characteristics. 3. Agricultural leadership faculty should continue to expand their knowledge base in organizational and personal leadership development in academia and industry contexts to in order to prepare society-ready graduates in the future. 4. The development of graduate agricultural leadership curricula should involve input from university and/or college career service professionals who can provide additional insight on industry hiring trends and competency requirements. 5. Graduate students pursuing industry training and development careers should participate in business and industry experiences during their academic program to broaden their leadership knowledge. Faculty teaching in graduate agricultural leadership programs should strengthen partnerships with industry in order to improve curricula and business orientation of students. 6. Departments of agricultural education should continue establishing and maintaining partnerships with other departments, including career resources. 7. This study focused on the leadership specialization within the agricultural education degree program. Perhaps future efforts should also include the agricultural communications perspective, given the emphasis on marketing, public relations, and industry partnerships. Recommendations for Future Research Researchers should continue to build the knowledge base on strategies on improving response rates in general. Dillman (2000) has documented several strategies used by researchers; however, these strategies need to be refined and reported. A longitudinal study should be conducted to determine the graduate students perspective on the competencies required for training and development careers. Follow-up studies should be conducted periodically to determine the status of agricultural leadership programs in the profession of agricultural education. Few national studies (Brown & Fritz, 1994 & Fritz & Brown, 1998; Moody, 2001) on curriculum development efforts in agricultural leadership can be cited. This study should be replicated in three years to determine if training and development employment opportunities and desired competencies are similar. Research on competency development in agricultural education should address the challenges of using competency models. Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) stated that the challenges include ambiguity of terms and definitions, past-oriented competency models, and time-rigor trade off. One way to avoid the past-oriented competency

PAGE 142

128 models is to consider the external forces that drive organizations which include the competitive, customer, supplier and distributor, economic, social, market, and legal sectors (Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999). Further research is necessary to determine if competencies for beginning employees are similar or in contrast to the competencies for experienced employees in HR/training and development positions. Future research in this area should incorporate agricultural communication departments as stakeholders. The advantages include more industry contact, marketing background, and increased likelihood of graduates entering industry jobs.

PAGE 143

APPENDIX A EXPERT PANEL Dr. Edward W. Osborne, Professor and Chair Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-0540 Dr. Tracy Irani, Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-0540 Dr. Nick T. Place, Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-0540 Dr. Howard Ladewig, Professor Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-0540 Dr. Josephine Turner, Professor Department of Family, Youth, and Community Sciences P.O. Box 110310; 3002 McCarty Hall D Gainesville, Florida 32611-0310 129

PAGE 144

APPENDIX B UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE Part I: Human Resource Development Competencies Below is a list of competencies required for human resource development leadership professionals (McLagan, 1983). Please indicate the competencies you deem to be most important for beginning employees in organizations like yours who hold graduate degrees. Rank each of the 18 competencies by importance using the scale below. Scale: 1=Not important 2=Of little importance 3=Moderately important 4=Very important 5=Extremely important 1. Adult learning: Understanding how adults 1 2 3 4 5 learn and how they use knowledge, skills and attitudes 2. Instructional design: Using the instructional 1 2 3 4 5 model (analysis, design, development, delivery and evaluation) to create adult education classes that fulfill organizational goals 3. Performance gap analysis: Performing front1 2 3 4 5 end analysis by comparing actual and ideal performance levels in the workplace 4. Change management: Helping people adapt to 1 2 3 4 5 the changes brought on by new technologies and helping them to see the value and benefits of new technologies 5. Leadership: Leading, influencing, and 1 2 3 4 5 coaching others to help them achieve desired results 6. Industry awareness: Understanding the 1 2 3 4 5 current and future climate of the companys

PAGE 145

industry and formulating strategies that respond to that climate 7. Buy-In/Advocacy: Building ownership and 1 2 3 4 5 support for workplace initiatives 8. Interpersonal relationship building and 1 2 3 4 5 collaboration: Interacting effectively with others in order to produce meaningful outcomes 9. Consulting: Helping clients and stakeholders 1 2 3 4 5 to question their assumptions, determine their needs, and plan implementation strategies for achieving their goals 10. Business knowledge: Demonstrating 1 2 3 4 5 awareness of business functions and how business decisions affect financial and non financial work results 11. Systems thinking: Recognizing the 1 2 3 4 5 interrelationship among the driving forces that connect seemingly isolated incidents within the organization 12. Contracting: negotiating, organizing, 1 2 3 4 5 preparing, monitoring, and evaluating work performed by vendors and consultants 13. Project management: Assessing, planning, 1 2 3 4 5 negotiating, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating the delivery process 14. Awareness of e-learning industry: Having 1 2 3 4 5 a general understanding of trends within e-learning and knowing the existing and emerging technologies 15. Communication: Applying effective verbal, 1 2 3 4 5 nonverbal, and written communication methods to achieve desired results 16. Program evaluation: Measuring the success 1 2 3 4 5 of learning interventions 131

PAGE 146

17. Design and development: Outlining and 1 2 3 4 5 creating instructional materials suitable for electronic dissemination 18. Implementation and support: Coordinating 1 2 3 4 5 the installation and maintenance of learning Part II: Exemplary Leadership Practices Below is a list of exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). Please indicate the competencies you deem to be most important for beginning employees who hold graduate degrees. Rank each of the 5 leadership practices by importance using the scale below. Scale: 1=Not important 2=Of little importance 3=Moderately important 4=Very important 5=Extremely important 1. Challenging the process: a. Searching out challenging opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 to change, grow, innovate, and improve b. Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from 1 2 3 4 5 mistakes c. Exploring new and different ways of 1 2 3 4 5 solving problems or improving processes d. Going beyond the boundaries of the 1 2 3 4 5 organization to improve processes e. Utilizing opportunities to change the 1 2 3 4 5 status quo 2. Inspiring a shared vision: a. Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 1 2 3 4 5 b. Enlisting others in a common vision by 1 2 3 4 5 appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams c. Communicating and sharing expectations 1 2 3 4 5 using vivid, clear, and concrete images d. Exhibiting enthusiasm about future 1 2 3 4 5 132

PAGE 147

possibilities e. Envisioning the future of what the 1 2 3 4 5 organization can become 3. Enabling others to act: a. Fostering collaboration by promoting 1 2 3 4 5 b. Cooperative goals and building trust 1 2 3 4 5 c. Strengthening people by giving 1 2 3 4 5 power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support d. Providing individuals with as much control 1 2 3 4 5 over resources as needed to do the job e. Helping people learn and develop in their 1 2 3 4 5 work f. Listening to diverse points of view 1 2 3 4 5 4. Modeling the way: a. Setting the example by behaving in ways 1 2 3 4 5 consistent with shared values b. Achieving small wins that promote consistent 1 2 3 4 5 progress and build commitment c. Making the connection between 1 2 3 4 5 individual performance expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values d. Planning thoroughly by dividing projects 1 2 3 4 5 into achievable steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins e. Keeping people and projects on task by 1 2 3 4 5 behaving consistently according to personal values 5. Encouraging the heart: a. Recognizing individual contributions to the 1 2 3 4 5 success of every project b. Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 1 2 3 4 5 133

PAGE 148

c. Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 1 2 3 4 5 d. Providing team members with support and 1 2 3 4 5 appreciation for their contributions e. Recognizing people who exemplify 1 2 3 4 5 commitment to shared values Part III: Program Information 1. Please list the titles of graduate course(s) in leadership that you teach. 2. Does your department offer graduate degree(s) with a leadership specialization? Yes No 3. Please indicate the number of years you have taught graduate leadership courses at the university level 4. Have you had any experience working in the business industry? If so, please specify the job title. Yes No Job Title __________________________________ (Please specify.) 5. From what sources have you developed your current level of expertise in leadership? (Check all that apply.) Extension in-service training Sabbatical leave Corporate professional development seminars Personal reading Conferences/workshops Other 6. Please indicate the number of years you were employed in this position. ____________________ 7. Please indicate the area of your degree. Engineering Human Resources Agriculture Business Liberal Arts Technology 134

PAGE 149

Communication Journalism Other __________________________ (Please specify.) 8. Please indicate the highest level of degree obtained. Bachelors Masters Doctorate 9. Gender (Check one.) Female Male 135

PAGE 150

APPENDIX C INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE Part I: Human Resource Development Competencies Below is a list of competencies required for human resource development leadership professionals (McLagan, 1983). Please indicate the competencies you deem to be most important for beginning employees in organizations like yours who hold graduate degrees. Rank each of the 18 competencies by importance using the scale below. Scale: 1=Not important 2=Of little importance 3=Moderately important 4=Very important 5=Extremely important 1. Adult learning: Understanding how adults 1 2 3 4 5 learn and how they use knowledge, skills and attitudes 2. Instructional design: Using the instructional 1 2 3 4 5 model (analysis, design, development, delivery and evaluation) to create adult education classes that fulfill organizational goals 3. Performance gap analysis: Performing front-end 1 2 3 4 5 analysis by comparing actual and ideal performance levels in the workplace 4. Change management: Helping people adapt to 1 2 3 4 5 the changes brought on by new technologies and helping them to see the value and benefits of new technologies 5. Leadership: Leading, influencing, and coaching 1 2 3 4 5 others to help them achieve desired results 6. Industry awareness: Understanding the current 1 2 3 4 5 and future climate of the companys industry and formulating strategies that respond to that climate 136

PAGE 151

137 7. Buy-In/Advocacy: Building ownership and support 1 2 3 4 5 for workplace initiatives 8. Interpersonal relationship building and 1 2 3 4 5 collaboration: Interacting effectively with others in order to produce meaningful outcomes 9. Consulting: Helping clients and stakeholders 1 2 3 4 5 to question their assumptions, determine their needs, and plan implementation strategies for achieving their goals 10. Business knowledge: Demonstrating awareness 1 2 3 4 5 of business functions and how business decisions affect financial and non financial work results 11. Systems thinking: Recognizing the 1 2 3 4 5 interrelationship among the driving forces that connect seemingly isolated incidents within the organization 12. Contracting: negotiating, organizing, 1 2 3 4 5 preparing, monitoring, and evaluating work performed by vendors and consultants 13. Project management: Assessing, planning, 1 2 3 4 5 negotiating, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating the delivery process 14. Awareness of e-learning industry: Having 1 2 3 4 5 a general understanding of trends within e-learning and knowing the existing and emerging technologies 15. Communication: Applying effective verbal, 1 2 3 4 5 nonverbal, and written communication methods to achieve desired results 16. Program evaluation: Measuring the success of 1 2 3 4 5 learning interventions 17. Design and development: Outlining and 1 2 3 4 5 creating instructional materials suitable for electronic dissemination 137

PAGE 152

138 18. Implementation and support: Coordinating 1 2 3 4 5 the installation and maintenance of learning technologies Part II: Exemplary Leadership Practices Below is a list of exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). Please indicate the competencies you deem to be most important for beginning employees who hold graduate degrees. Rank each of the 5 leadership practices by importance using the scale below. Scale: 1=Not important 2=Of little importance 3=Moderately important 4=Very important 5=Extremel y im p ortant 1. Challenging the process: a. Searching out challenging opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 to change, grow, innovate, and improve b. Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from 1 2 3 4 5 mistakes c. Exploring new and different ways of 1 2 3 4 5 solving problems or improving processes d. Going beyond the boundaries of the 1 2 3 4 5 organization to improve processes e. Utilizing opportunities to change the 1 2 3 4 5 status quo 2. Inspiring a shared vision: f. Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 1 2 3 4 5 g. Enlisting others in a common vision by 1 2 3 4 5 appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams h. Communicating and sharing expectations 1 2 3 4 5 using vivid, clear, and concrete images i. Exhibiting enthusiasm about future 1 2 3 4 5 possibilities j. Envisioning the future of what the 1 2 3 4 5 organization can become 138

PAGE 153

139 3. Enabling others to act: k. Fostering collaboration by promoting 1 2 3 4 5 l. cooperative goals and building trust 1 2 3 4 5 m. Strengthening people by giving 1 2 3 4 5 power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support n. Providing individuals with as much control 1 2 3 4 5 over resources as needed to do the job o. Helping people learn and develop in their 1 2 3 4 5 work p. Listening to diverse points of view 1 2 3 4 5 4. Modeling the way: q. Setting the example by behaving in ways 1 2 3 4 5 consistent with shared values r. Achieving small wins that promote consistent 1 2 3 4 5 progress and build commitment s. Making the connection between 1 2 3 4 5 individual performance expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values t. Planning thoroughly by dividing projects 1 2 3 4 5 into achievable steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins u. Keeping people and projects on task by 1 2 3 4 5 behaving consistently according to personal values 5. Encouraging the heart: v. Recognizing individual contributions to the 1 2 3 4 5 success of every project w. Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 1 2 3 4 5 x. Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 1 2 3 4 5 y. Providing team members with support and 1 2 3 4 5 appreciation for their contributions z. Recognizing people who exemplify 1 2 3 4 5 commitment to shared values 139

PAGE 154

140 Part III: Company Information 1. Has your company previously recruited students with who hold graduate degrees in agricultural leadership? Yes No 2. Has your company previously hired employees with graduate degrees in agricultural education with a leadership emphasis? Yes No 3. Are there current positions (vacant or filed) in your company for which graduate students in agricultural education with the above preparation would be strong competitors or preferred candidates? Yes No ___________________________________________ (Please specify the job title(s).) ___________________________________________ (Please specify the job title(s).) 4. For each job, please specify the preferred degree and qualifications required. Job Title Degree Preferred Qualifications 5. Please indicate the preferred degree required for training and development or human resource positions. High school diploma Associate degree Bachelors degree Masters degree Specialist Ph.D. Post-doctoral 6. Please indicate the type of company with whom you work: Food Consumer Products Food Production Food Services Tobacco Industrial and Farm Equipment 140

PAGE 155

141 Wholesales Food and Grocery Other ___________________ (Please specify.) 7. Gender (Check one.) Female Male 8. Please indicate your highest degree completed. (Check one.) High school diploma Associate degree Bachelors degree Masters degree Specialist Ph.D. Postdoctoral 9. Please indicate the area of your degree. Engineering Human Resources Agriculture Business Liberal Arts Technology Communication Journalism Other __________________________ (Please specify.) 10. Please indicate your job title. (Check one.) CEO President Senior Vice President, Human Resources Vice President Manager Director Other ____________________________ (Please specify.) 11. Please indicate the number of years you have been employed with your company. _______________ 141

PAGE 156

APPENDIX D UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTION GUIDE The Department of Agricultural Education and Communication prepares students to serve as educational and communication specialists with a leadership focus in the Agriculture and Natural Resources industries. At the undergraduate level students complete courses in program planning and evaluation, teaching methods, personal leadership development, selling, human resource management, and marketing and campaign strategies. Graduate courses include in-depth study in these major areas and also typically include educational technology, distance education and foundational work in educational psychology. 1. Does your department have a leadership specialization? Agricultural leadership degree? 2. Do these graduates work in academia or industry careers typically? 3. What are examples of the industry careers that students pursue? Are there other opportunities are available for students with industry leadership interests? 4. Which courses most adequately prepare students for non-academia careers? 5. What does leadership mean to you? 6. What leadership skills should students pursuing industry careers possess? 7. What recommendations would you make to educators who are preparing students for training and development and human resources careers? 8. Additional comments/questions? 142

PAGE 157

APPENDIX E INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE The Department of Agricultural Education and Communication prepares students to serve as educational and communication specialists with a leadership focus in the Agriculture and Natural Resources industries. At the undergraduate level students complete courses in program planning and evaluation, teaching methods, personal leadership development, selling, human resource management, and marketing and campaign strategies. Graduate courses include in-depth study in these major areas and also typically include educational technology, distance education and foundational work in educational psychology. 1. Provide an overview of career options in your company relevant to a student majoring in agricultural education with a leadership specialization. 2. Are there current positions (filled or vacant) in your company for which students with the above preparation would be strong competitors or even preferred? 3. If so, what are the job titles, qualifications, and responsibilities? 4. What does leadership mean to you? 5. What leadership skills do these positions require? 6. What types of coursework and or competencies demonstrate leadership skill potential? 7. What is the demand for graduates with these skills in your company or on an annual basis? What degree(s) are preferred? Required? (BS, MS, or PhD) 8. What is the demand for these types of graduates for your industry on a statewide or regional basis? 9. What opportunities for advancement exist in your company for these types of employees? 10. What are the key components of a graduate agricultural leadership curriculum? 11. Additional comments/questions? 143

PAGE 158

APPENDIX F PRE-EMAIL NOTIFICATION May 7, 2003 Dear Dr. Adams: I am conducting a research study about the value of a graduate degree in Agricultural and Leadership Education in agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. This study will help to determine the preferred competencies for industry careers as perceived by university faculty and industry professionals. Within the next couple of days, an online version of the survey will be sent to you at this same e-mail address. Your participation in this research study will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by telephone at (352) 392-0502 Ext. 226 or by e-mail at ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Laikhe Jones, Graduate Research Assistant Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32607-0540 Tel: (352)392-0502 Ext. 226 Fax: (352) 392-9585 E-mail: ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu 144

PAGE 159

APPENDIX G E-MAIL NOTIFICATION May 9, 2003 Dear Dr. Fanno: I am conducting a research study about the value of a graduate degree in Agricultural and Leadership Education for employment in agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. This study will help to determine competencies required for industry careers as perceived by university faculty and industry professionals. Your input will assist us in improving our graduate curricula. To participate in this study, complete the online study available at http://aecweb.ifas.ufl.edu/ltjones/academiasurvey.htm. Your survey code number is please enter it in the box labeled 'insert code here'. The survey will only take 15 minutes to complete! Should you desire a paper version of this survey, please provide me with your mailing address. I am also enclosing a copy of the institutional review board protocol which requires your signature. This can be completed and returned electronically or by mail. Your response by May 16, 2003 will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions about this research study, please contact me by telephone at (352) 392-0502 Ext. 226 or by e-mail at ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu. Thank you for your assistance! Sincerely, Laikhe Jones, Graduate Research Assistant Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32607-0540 Tel: (352)392-0502 Ext. 226 Fax: (352) 392-9585 E-mail: ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu 145

PAGE 160

APPENDIX H REMINDER E-MAIL NOTIFICATION June 6, 2003 Dear Dr. Jackson, You recently received an online survey requesting your opinions about the competencies required for graduate students pursuing industry careers. If you have already completed the online survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so today by accessing the survey at: http://aecweb.ifas.ufl.edu/ltjones/academiasurvey.htm. Enter your survey code, which is 815. We are especially grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to share your experiences that we can understand how to improve graduate agricultural leadership curricula. If you did not receive a survey, or if the previous e-mail was deleted, please contact us by telephone at (352) 392-0502 Ext. 226 or by e-mail at ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu. Sincerely, Laikhe Jones, Graduate Research Assistant Department of Agricultural Education and Communication P.O. Box 110540; 305 Rolfs Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32607-0540 146

PAGE 161

APPENDIX I COVER LETTER TO INDUSTRY RESPONDENTS July 11, 2003 Mr. James Farrell, Chief Executive Officer Illinois Tool Works 3600 West Lake Ave. Glenview, IL 60625-5811 Dear Mr. Farrell: In an effort to prepare society-ready graduates from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida, I have endorsed a study to examine the competencies needed by graduates who pursue entry-level training and human resources positions. Your participation in this study will be beneficial to us in preparing suitable graduates fro employment in companies like yours. You may participate in this study by: Completing and returning the enclosed survey and institutional review board form; Participating in a telephone interview (Please return the enclosed postcard); or Completing a questionnaire online at http://aecweb.ifas.ufl.edu/industrysurvey.htm Enter the survey code 500. If for some reason you are unable to participate in this study, please contact Laikhe Jones, and she will remove your name and contact information from the participant list. Upon completion of this study, summary findings will be forwarded to you if you request. Should you have further questions concerning this research, contact Laikhe Jones at (352) 392-0502 Ext. 226 or ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu Sincerely, E. Jane Luzar, Associate Dean College of Agricultural and Life Sciences 147

PAGE 162

APPENDIX J COVER LETTER FOR SECOND MAILING January 27, 2004 Dear Dr. Flores: This is to request your participation in a study being completed by Laikhe Jones, UF PhD candidate. The focus of Laikhe's study has been to determine professional opportunities in non-university settings for students completing graduate degrees in agricultural leadership. Laikhe originally sought input from human resources directors in agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. However, as is often the case with this population, she received a disappointing response from these subjects. In fact, many replied that their company policies prohibited them from participating in the study. However, this situation has presented the opportunity for Laikhe to more closely examine the development of graduate programs in agricultural leadership across the U.S. Your assistance is crucial to successful completion of this important study. We have very little research to guide our efforts to prepare graduate students for training and development and human resources education positions in non-university settings, yet this currently appears to be an active placement arena for our graduates with even greater potential for future. You may participate in this study by completing the attached brief questionnaire. Upon completing the questionnaire, be sure to save the file with your answers and e-mail the attachment to Laikhe Jones at ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu. If for some reason you are unable to participate in this study, please contact Laikhe Jones, and she will remove your name and contact information from the participant list. Should you have further questions concerning this research, contact Laikhe Jones at (352) 337-1711 or ltjones@mail.ifas.ufl.edu. Sincerely, Ed Osborne Professor and Chair Laikhe Jones Ph.D. Candidate 148

PAGE 163

APPENDIX K UNIVERSITY CHAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE Agricultural Leadership Program History The following questions are designed to gain feedback about the history of your agricultural leadership program. Please respond to each question. Note: For each item, double-click the highlighted text field and type your answer in the field labeled default text. Then click ok. For items that you are asked to check a box, double-click the box you wish to select. Select checked located under the heading default value. Then click ok. 1. Year when first course in leadership was taught? 2. Year when leadership was first offered as a specialization or major? 3. Number of faculty teaching courses in leadership when leadership was first offered as a specialization or major? 4. Original degrees/programs offered with a specialization or major in leadership? (Check all that apply.) BS MS Ph.D. Certificate program Seminars 5. Current degrees/programs offered with a specialization or major in leadership? (Check all that apply.) BS MS Ph.D. Certificate program Seminars 6. Original target audience? Extension agents Farmers Teachers Community leaders Industry professionals 149

PAGE 164

150 Government/agency officials Other (Please specify.) Other (Please specify.) 7. Current target audience? Extension agents Farmers Teachers Other (Please specify.) Other (Please specify.) 8. Does your program offer leadership as a graduate specialization? Yes No 9. Is the leadership specialization a stand alone area of study? Yes No a. If no, please indicate the specialization(s) that is (are) combined with leadership? 10. Does your program offer a graduate minor in agricultural leadership? Yes No 11. List the graduate leadership courses offered by your department. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Employment Trends of Graduate Agricultural Leadership Students The following questions are designed to gain feedback about the employment trends of your recent leadership graduates. Please respond to each question. Note: For each item, double-click the highlighted text field and type your answer in the field labeled default text. Then click ok. For items that you are asked to check a box, double-click the box you wish to select. Select checked located under the heading default value. Then click ok. 150

PAGE 165

151 1. Please list the total number of graduate students in your department for each of the following areas in Fall 2003: a. Leadership b. Communication c. Extension d. Teacher education e. Other (Please specify). f. Other (Please specify). g. Total (Please specify). Note: The following questions pertain only to graduate students in your agricultural leadership program. 2. Please provide placement data for your graduate students in your leadership programs for the last three academic years (2000-2003). a. Graduate Leadership Program Number of Students (2001-02) Number of Students (2002-03) Number of Students (2003-04) M.S. Ph.D. Certificate program (if applicable) Total Students in Leadership b. Please list the companies and or agencies in which have taken employment in the last 3 years. (Ex. John Deere, Cargill, Department of Education, etc.) graduate students c. Please list the job titles of non-university positions in which graduate students have obtained employment in the last 3 years? 3. For which jobs do you feel the masters degree students in your leadership program are well prepared? (Check all that apply.) Education/Training Specialist Yes No HR Manager Yes No Leadership Educator Yes No Director of Education/Training Programs Yes No Program Evaluator Yes No Other (please specify) Other (please specify) 4. For which jobs do you feel the doctoral degree students in your leadership program are well prepared? Education/Training Specialist Yes No HR Manager Yes No Leadership Educator Yes No 151

PAGE 166

152 Director of Education/Training Programs Yes No Program Evaluator Yes No Other (please specify) Other (please specify) 152

PAGE 167

APPENDIX L UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE Graduate Agricultural Leadership Curriculum The following questions are designed to gain feedback on your graduate agricultural leadership program. Please respond to each question. Note: For each item, double-click the highlighted text field and type your answer in the field labeled default text. Then click ok. For items that you are asked to check a box, double-click the box you wish to select. Select checked located under the heading default value. Then click ok. 1. Do you project any changes in course offerings in the near future? Yes No b. If yes, please describe the projected changes. 2. What courses other than those currently offered in your department do you feel are essential for graduate students specializing in leadership? 3. Do you foresee any changes in the required competencies in the next 3-5 years? Yes No c. If yes, please describe the projected changes. 4. Do you foresee any changes in the required competencies in the next 5-7 years? Yes No d. If yes, please describe the projected changes. 5. What are the required textbooks for your leadership course(s)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Do you utilize leadership inventories or assessment tools in your course? Yes No 153

PAGE 168

154 e. If yes, which leadership inventories or assessment tools do you use in your course(s)? Leadership Education and Training The following questions are designed to gain feedback on your leadership background. Please respond to each question. Note: For each item, double-click the highlighted text field and type your answer in the field labeled default text. Then click ok. For items that you are asked to check a box, double-click the box you wish to select. Select checked located under the heading default value. Then click ok. 1. Which of the following industry positions have you held? (Check all that apply). Education/Training Specialist HR Manager Leadership Educator Director of Education/Training Programs Program Evaluator Other (Please specify.) Other (Please specify.) 2. What are your primary areas of research interests? Youth leadership Curriculum development Extension Competency assessment and development Training and development Other (please specify) Other (please specify) 3. List your memberships in professional leadership organizations. 4. What was the major of your highest degree? 5. Did your doctoral degree program have a leadership education emphasis? Yes No 6. What formal leadership courses have you completed? 154

PAGE 169

APPENDIX M UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION OF FACULTY PARTICIPANTS 1. California Polytechnic State University 2. Clemson University 3. Iowa State University 4. North Carolina A&T State University 5. Ohio State University 6. Oklahoma State University 7. Oregon State University 8. Pennsylvania State University 9. South Carolina State University 10. South Dakota State University 11. Texas A&M University 12. Texas Tech University 13. University of Delaware 14. University of Florida 15. University of Nebraska-Lincoln 16. Utah State University 155

PAGE 170

APPENDIX N INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS 1. Bowater 2. Briggs & Stratton 3. Caterpillar 4. Clemson University Career Services 5. International Game Technology 6. Job Hog.net 7. ProFac Cooperative 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service 9. University of Florida Career Resource Center 10. Perdue Farms 156

PAGE 171

APPENDIX O INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FORM 157

PAGE 172

158

PAGE 173

LIST OF REFERENCES Aiken, J. A., Prue, J., & Hasazi, S. B. (1999, Summer-Fall). Leadership preparation: Designing and planning for interpretive doctoral education and practice. Journal of Leadership Studies, 67-75. American Association for Agricultural Educators. (2003). AAAE Directory. Gainesville, FL: Author. American Society for Training and Development & NGA Center for Best Practices. (2001, June). A vision of e-learning for Americas Workforce: Report of the Commission on Technology and Adult Learning. Author. Arndt, L. L., Barrett, L. A. & Bosshamer, B. K. (1997). Employer assessment of the skill preparation of students from the college of agricultural sciences and natural resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Implications for teaching and curriculum. NACTA Journal, 41(4), 47-53. Andruss, P. L. Job market for PhDs gets tougher. Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(16). Ary, D., Jacobs, C. J., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education. (5 th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace. Balschweid, M., Thompson, G., & Cole, R. L. (1999). An analysis of a combined quantitative/qualitative approach for conducting research in agricultural education. Proceedings of the 26 th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, 445-455. Bandura, A. (1996). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barbian, J. (2001, November). How much are you worth? Training, 60-68. Barrick, R. K. (1993, Fall). A conceptual model for a program of agricultural education in colleges and universities. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(1), 10-16. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press. Basinger, J. (2001, June). College presidents urged to nurture relationships with businesses. Chronicle of Higher Education, A27. 159

PAGE 174

160 Bassi, L. J., Ludwig, J., McMurrer, D. P., and Van Buren, M. (2000, September). Profiting from learning: Do firms investments in education and training pay off? Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Bennis, W. & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beauchamp, G. A. (1983). Curriculum theory (3 rd ed.). Wilmette, IL: The Kaag Press. Birkenholz, R. J. & Schumacher, L. G. (1994). Leadership skills of college of agriculture graduates. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 1-8. Black, H. (1966). A four-fold classification of educational theories. Educational Theory, 16(3), 281-291. Blezek, A. G. & Dillon, R. D. (1991). Perceptions of agribusiness leaders toward agricultural education in Nebraska. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 34-39. Bowen, B. E. & Thomson, J. S. (1995). AG*SAT: An internal distance education alterative. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(1), 15-23. Brown, F. W. & Fritz, S. M. (1994). Determining the breadth of leadership and human resource management/development offerings in post-secondary departments of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(3), 1-5. Bruening, T. H. & Scanlon, D. C. (1995, March). Communications and business curricular needs of agribusiness employees. NACTA Journal, 28-31. Burns, T. (1954). The direction of activity and communication in a departmental executive group. Human Relations, 7, 73-97. Center for Creative Leadership. (1998). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development. Jossey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco, CA. Chafee, J. (1992, Spring). Critical thinking skills: The cornerstone of developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 2-8. Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clark, T. W. (2001, February). Developing policy-orient curricula for conservation biology: Professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 31-39. Cole, L. & Thompson, G. (2002, March). Satisfaction of agri-business employers with college graduates they have hired. NACTA Journal, 34-38.

PAGE 175

161 Coorts, G. D. (1987, June). Updating todays college curriculum for tomorrows agriculture. NACTA Journal, 31(2), 20-21. Corrigan, D. & Bishop, K. K. (1997). Creating collaborative family-centered and community-based education, social services, and health systems. Social Work in Education. Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C. L., Scott, R. F., & Gould, L. V. (2002). Graduate programs in organizational leadership: A review of programs, faculty, costs, and delivery methods. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 64-74. Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In G. Cizek (Ed.) Handbook of educational policy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999, Spring). The modified delphi technique-A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2), 15-30. Dare, D. E. & Leach, J.A. (1999, Spring). Preparing tomorrows HRD professionals: Perceived relevance of the 1989 competency model. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2). Retrieved June 30, 2002, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v15n2/ Davis, P., Naughton, J., & Rothwell, W. (2004, April). New roles and competencies for the profession: Are you ready for the next generation? T+D: Better Performance through Workplace Learning, 55, 26-36. DeVaul, R. A. & Knight, J. A. (1994). Leadership training in medical education. Medical Teacher, 16(1), 47-52. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: John Willey & Sons, Inc. Dingus, B. W. (1990). Competencies of entry level trainers as expected by executives of Fortune 500 companies. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 9033547). Dodge, G. & Foster, R. (1990, June). Interpersonal skill development instruction for colleges of agriculture. NACTA Journal, 34(2), 26-29. Dooley, K. E. & Lindner, J. R. (2002). Competency-based behavioral anchors as authentication tools to document distance education competencies. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(1), 24-35. Drew, R. & Wah, L. (1999). Making leadership development effective. Management Review, 8(9), 88-89.

PAGE 176

162 Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21 st Century. Butterworth-Heinemann. Dyer, J. E., Lacey, R., & Osborne, E. W. (1995). Participation in supervised agricultural experience programs: A synthesis of research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(1), 6-13. Dyer, J.E. & Osborne, E.W. (1999). Effects of student learning styles on short and long-term retention of subject matter using various teaching approaches. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40 (2), 11-18. Dyer, J. E. & Osborne, E. W. (1996). Effects of teaching approach on problem-solving abilities of agricultural education students with varying learning styles. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(4), 36-43. Erpelding, L. H. & Mugler, D. J. (1987). Characteristics needed of agricultural college graduates in 2005. In E. Porath (Ed.), Curricular innovation for 2005: Planning for the future of our food and agricultural sciences Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Central Region Curricular Committee. Eberle, P. R. & Beck, R. J. (1998). Assessing undergraduate skills and characteristics for developing curricula in agricultural economics. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings. Knoxville, TN: American Agricultural Economics Association. Etling, A. (1994, Spring). Leadership for nonformal education. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 1(1), 16-24. Finch, C. R. & Crunkilton, J. R. (1993). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education. (4 th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fortune (2002b). Fortune 500 the list. Available online at on May 14, 2002 at http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/index.html Foster, R., Bell, L., & Erskine, N. (1995). The importance of selected instructional areas in the present and future secondary agricultural education curriculum as perceived by teachers, principals, and superintendents sin Nebraska. Journal of Agricultural Education 36(3), 1-7. Foster, R. M. & Pikkert, J. J. (1991, December). Perceptions of agriculture college faculty regarding integration of higher order level skills in curriculum. NACTA Journal, 35(4), 23-25. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Fritz, S. M. & Brown, F. W. (1998). Leadership education courses and programs in departments of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(3), 57-62.

PAGE 177

163 Fulkert, R. F. (1997). Competencies required to be a trainer: A delphi study. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 9729142). Gagne, R. & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design. (2 nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Galvin, T. (2001, October). Industry Report 2001. [Special Edition]. Training, 40-75. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press. Glenn, J. M. (2001, February). The giving and the taking: Business-education partnerships come of age. Business Education Forum, (55), 3, 6-8,10,12. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (2 nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Goecker, A. D., Whatley, C. M., & Gilmore, J. L. (1999). Employment opportunities for college graduates in the food & agricultural sciences agriculture, forestry and natural resources, veterinary medicine, 2000-2005. Washington, DC: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Purdue University School of Agriculture. Retrieved May 2, 2002 from http://faeis.tamu.edu/supplydemand/ Goecker, A. D. (1992). Priorities for college and university agricultural education faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 1-7. Graham, D. (2001). Are we preparing the society ready graduates? Proceedings of the 28 th Annual National Education Research Conference. New Orleans, LA. 269-281. Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274. Grint, K. ed. (1997). Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Hackman, M. Z., Olive, T. E., Guzman, N., Brunson, D. (1999, Winter-Spring). Ethical considerations in the development of the interdisciplinary leadership studies program. Journal of Leadership Studies, 36. Retrieved on May 8, 2002 at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu Hall, D. W. (1995). Graduate student teaching credentials: Potential value to new Ph.D.s in obtaining employment. NACTA Journal, 39(2), 9-11. Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

PAGE 178

164 Hansen, H., Holmes, W. L., & Jimmerson, R. (1989). Background, education, and non-technical competency needs for agricultural workers in central Washington. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(3), 14-22. Harbstreit, S. R. (1987). Educational needs of employers of urban agribusinesses. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 8728811). Harris, K. (1989, June). Skills and characteristics needed by undergraduates choosing a career in agricultural sales. NACTA Journal, 33(2), 39-43. Hartle, T. W. & Galloway, F. J. (1996). Too many PhDs? Too many MDs? Change, 28(5), 26-33. Hemmings, M. B. (1984). Next steps in public-private partnerships. ED 253 702. Hill, L.A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Senior Press. Jimmerson, R. M. (1991, June). Teaching leadership: Principles and approaches for an undergraduate leadership course. NACTA Journal, 50-53. Johnson, D. M., Ferguson, J. A., & Lester, M. L. (1999). Computer experiences, self-efficacy and knowledge of students enrolled in introductory university agriculture courses. Journal of Agricultural Education, (40), 2, 28-37. Kelsey, K. D. (2001). A model for gathering stakeholder input for setting research priorities at the land-grant university. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2), 18-27. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. (3 rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication. Lankard, B. A. (1995). Business and education partnerships. Paper presented to the Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Digest No. 156. Columbus, Ohio. Lankard, B. A. (1992). Employability-The fifth basic skill. ERIC Digest No. 104. Clerninghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Lankard, B. A. (1995). New ways of learning in the workplace. ERIC Digest No. 161. Lankard, B. A. (1995). Business/industry standards and vocational program accountability. ERIC Digest No, 157.

PAGE 179

165 Lankard, B. A. (1999). Corporate/school partnerships: Learner centered or business centered? (Available from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 836). Leising, J. G. & Zilbert, E. E. (1994). Validation of the California agriculture literacy framework. Proceedings of the 1994 Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Dallas, TX. Lindner, J. R. (2001). Competency assessment and human resource management performance of county extension chairs in Ohio. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 21-31. Litzenberg, K. K., Gorman, W. D., & Schneider, V. E. (1983). Academic and professional programs in agribusiness. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 1060-1064. Love, G. M. & Yoder, E. P. (1989, June). An assessment of undergraduate education in American colleges of agriculture. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture. Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., Hodgetts, R. M., Luthans, B. C. (2001). Positive approach to leadership (PAL) implications for todays organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 3-20. McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Velsor, E. V. (Eds.). (1998). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McGregor, D. (1960, 1966). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McKinley, B. G., Birkenholz, R. J., & Stewart, B. R. (1993). Characteristics and experiences related to the leadership skills of agriculture students in college. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(3), 76-83. McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. (4 volumes). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Mahoric, M. L. (1997). Competencies of masters degree graduates: Whats missing? Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 9810018). Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. Maxine, D. (1997). Are competency models a waste? Training and Development, 51(10), 46-49. Merritt, R. H. & Hamm, M. W. (1994). Agricultural and natural resources curriculum renewal at Cook College, Rutgers University. Journal of Natural Resources Life Sciences Education, 23, 112-118.

PAGE 180

166 Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers. Mitchell, M. M. & Poutiatine, M. I. (2001, Winter). Finding an experiential approach in graduate leadership curricula. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(3), 179-185. Monk, D., Davis, P., & Peasley, D., Hillman, P., & Yarborough, P. (1996). Meeting the needs of CALS students for computing capabilities: Final report of the Ad Hoc committee on College of Agriculture and Life Sciences student computing competencies. Ithaca, NY: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. Moody, L. D. (2001). Identifying and prioritizing agriculture and natural resources curriculum needs of Nebraska secondary and post-secondary institutions. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 3022653). Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. 2 nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Morrison, M. R. & Edwards, M. R. (1987). The right stuff for productivity in agribusiness employment. Agribusiness, 31, 377-383. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Tthe imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. National Governors Association Task Force on College Quality. (1986). College quality section of Time for Results: The Governors 1991 Report on Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 33(1), 79-90. National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture, new directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Newcomb, L.H. (1993). Transforming university programs of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(1), 1-10. Neumann, B. R. & Banghart, S. (2001). Industry-university consulternships. an implementation guide. International Journal of Educational Management, (15)1, 7-11. Nirenberg, J. (1998, Winter). Myths we teach, realities we ignore: Leadership education in business schools. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(i1), 82-88. Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership Theory and Practice. 2 nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA. Oppenheim, A.N. (1969). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books.

PAGE 181

167 Parry, S. B. (1998). Just what is a competency? Training, 35(6), 58-64. Phipps, L.J. & Osborne, E.W. (1988). Handbook on agricultural education in public schools. Interstate Publishers, Inc.: Danville, IL. Place, N. T. & Jacob, S. (2001). Stress: Professional development needs of extension faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 95-103. Porter, S. R. & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579-588. Radhakrishna, R. B. & Bruening, T. H. (1994). Pennsylvania study: employee and student perceptions of skills and experiences needed for careers in agribusiness. NACTA Journal, 38(1), 15-18. Reddin, W. J. (1967). An integration of leader-behavior typologies. Group Organization Studies, 2, 282-295. Rost, J.C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Roth, G. L. (1987). Yours is more equal than mine: A successful industry/education partnership. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 13-19. Rothwell, W. & Kazanas, H. (1993). The complete AMA guide to management development: Training, education, development. New York: AMACOM. Rothwell, W. J. & Lindholm, J. E. (1999). Competency identification, modeling and assessment in the USA. International Journal of Training and Development, 3(2), 90-105. Rothwell, W. J., Sanders, E. S., & Soper, J. G. (1999). ASTD models for workplace learning and performance: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Roy, D. A. (1994). New partnering for higher education and the corporate sector. AGB Occasional Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 845). Russell, D. H. (1999). Perceptions of urban agriculture education stakeholders toward curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(04A), 449. Santoro, M. D. and Betts, S. C. (2002, May-June). Making industry-university partnerships work. Research*Technology Management. Scanlon, D. C., Bruening, T. H., Cordero, A. (1996). An industry perspective on changes needed in agricultural education curricula. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(2), 17-23.

PAGE 182

168 Schumacher, L. (1990). Perceived leadership abilities of students enrolled in college of agriculture (survey instrument). Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. Schumacher, L. G. & Swan, M. K. (1993). Need for formal leadership training in a land-grant college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(3), 1-9. Sharpes, D. K. (1998). Curriculum traditions and practices. New York: St. Martins Press. Slocombe, J. W. & Baugher, E. E. (1988). Revitalizing agricultural curricula. NACTA Journal, 32(3), 8-10. Sims, R. R. & Sims, S. J. (1989, November/December). American colleges and training for industry. Industrial and Commercial Training, 21(6), 3-8. Smith, M. F. (1989, June). Curricular changes for colleges of agriculture: Student perceptions and future trends. NACTA Journal, 33(2), 17-20. Smith, P. B. & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organizations, and culture: An event management model. Sage Publication: London. Spontanski, D. R. & Foster, R. M. (1989). Agribusiness skills required by agriculture students as perceived by Nebraska vocational agriculture instructors and agribusiness managers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(3), 2-7. Sprecker, K. J. & Rudd, R. D. (1997). Opinions of instructors, practitioners, and alumni concerning curricular requirements of agricultural communication students at the University of Florida. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(1), 6-13. Stewart, B. R., Langhari, L., and Gott, R. (1983). Administrators perceptions of professional education competencies need by teachers of vocational agriculture. Journal of American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24(3), 25-30. Stodgill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press. Sutton, J. P. & de Olieveira, P.C. (1995) Differences in critical thinking skills among students. (Available through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 147). Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (1997). Research design and mixed-method approach: A hands on experience. Available online at http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/tutorial/Sydenstricker/bolsa.html Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development: Theory into practice ( 3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 183

169 Thach, E. C. & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57-79. Timko, J., Lindhart, R. E., & Stewart, B. R. (1991). Educational needs of international graduate students in agriculture and education as perceived by University of Missouri-Columbus graduate faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(4), 44-51. Torres, R. M. & Cano, J. (1995). Examining cognition level of students enrolled in a college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(1), 46-54. Tornatzky, L. G. (2001, June). Benchmarking university-industry technology transfer: a six year retrospective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3). Chicago, IL: Technology Transfer Society. Available online: May 2, 2002 at http://www.kluweronline.com. Trexler, C. J., Johnson, T., & Heinze, K. (2000). Elementary and middle school teacher ideas about the agri-food system and their evaluation of agri-system stakeholders suggestions for education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(1), 30-38. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Whittington, M. S. & Newcomb, L. H. (1993). Aspired cognitive level of instruction, assessed cognitive level of instruction, and attitude toward teaching at higher cognitive levels. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(2), 55-62. Yammarino, F., Skinner, S.J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 613-639. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zemke, R. & Zemke, S. (2001, August). Where do leaders come from? Identifying stable leaders in an unstable economy. Training, 38(8), 44-48. Zimmermann-Oster, K. & Burkhardt, J. C. (1999). (Eds.). Leadership in the making: Impact and insights from leadership development programs in U. S. colleges and universities. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

PAGE 184

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Laikhe Jones was born on April 9, 1974, in Durham, North Carolina. She participated in a summer research apprenticeship program, at North Carolina A&T State University, that sparked her interest in a career in agriculture. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural education from North Carolina A&T State University in May of 1992. During each summer, she participated in internships with USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cornell Environmental Science Undergraduate Research Program (CESURE), Dupont Agricultural Products, and Franklin-Vance-Warren Opportunity, Inc. Shortly after graduation, Ms. Jones pursued a Master of Science degree, in agricultural and extension education at Michigan State University, which was completed in August 1998. While at Michigan State University, she participated in a summer study abroad program in Swaziland, Lesotho, and South Africa. She then worked as an instructor at North Carolina A&T State University. In August 2000, Ms. Jones began work on a Doctor of Philosophy degree in agricultural education and communication at the University of Florida. 170


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001294/00001

Material Information

Title: Academia and industry perspectives on leadership and human resource development competencies required for agricultural leadership graduate students pursuing industry careers
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Jones, Laikhe Tanyara ( Dissertant )
Osborne, Edward W. ( Thesis advisor )
Irani, Tracy ( Reviewer )
Place, Nick ( Reviewer )
Turner, Josephine ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Agricultural Education and Communication

Notes

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. This study recommended a curriculum model to enhance the leadership specialization in agricultural education graduate programs. The populations for the study included university faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses and representatives of agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. The study sample included twenty-two agricultural education faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses and ten human resources professionals employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies, agribusiness firms, and career resource centers. A researcher-developed questionnaire was used to determine the competencies required for training and development and human resources careers. In addition, interviews were conducted with academia and industry representatives to determine key components of a graduate agricultural leadership curriculum. The findings revealed that both academia and industry participants rated the following competencies as most important: communication, leadership, and interpersonal relationship building and collaboration. The lowest rated competencies were contracting, business knowledge, and implementation/support. Based on the interviews, participants recommended that graduate agricultural leadership programs focus on management, youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. A very small number of universities in the nation offered an agricultural leadership specialization in the graduate program. These programs have evolved from agricultural education perspectives and have not fully transitioned to an industry focus.
Subject: agricultural, curricula, leadership
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 184 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

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: UFE0001294:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001294/00001

Material Information

Title: Academia and industry perspectives on leadership and human resource development competencies required for agricultural leadership graduate students pursuing industry careers
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Jones, Laikhe Tanyara ( Dissertant )
Osborne, Edward W. ( Thesis advisor )
Irani, Tracy ( Reviewer )
Place, Nick ( Reviewer )
Turner, Josephine ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Agricultural Education and Communication

Notes

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives. This study recommended a curriculum model to enhance the leadership specialization in agricultural education graduate programs. The populations for the study included university faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses and representatives of agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. The study sample included twenty-two agricultural education faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses and ten human resources professionals employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies, agribusiness firms, and career resource centers. A researcher-developed questionnaire was used to determine the competencies required for training and development and human resources careers. In addition, interviews were conducted with academia and industry representatives to determine key components of a graduate agricultural leadership curriculum. The findings revealed that both academia and industry participants rated the following competencies as most important: communication, leadership, and interpersonal relationship building and collaboration. The lowest rated competencies were contracting, business knowledge, and implementation/support. Based on the interviews, participants recommended that graduate agricultural leadership programs focus on management, youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. A very small number of universities in the nation offered an agricultural leadership specialization in the graduate program. These programs have evolved from agricultural education perspectives and have not fully transitioned to an industry focus.
Subject: agricultural, curricula, leadership
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 184 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

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: UFE0001294:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR
AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP GRADUATE STUDENTS PURSUING INDUSTRY
CAREERS













By

LAIKHE TANYARA JONES


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Laikhe Tanyara Jones

































This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Zelma Jones, and the memory of the
late William Alexander Jones.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ed Osborne, whose support and guidance was

consistent from start to finish. I would also like to thank my other committee members

(Drs. Tracy Irani, Nick Place, Howard Ladewig, and Josephine Turner). Their

encouragement, support, and recommendations were greatly appreciated. Thanks go to

Dr. Jeff Soper, University of Tampa faculty, for broadening my understanding of the

training and development arena. I am indebted to my parents and extended family for

their generous and undying support of my academic and professional goals. I truly thank

my Mt. Carmel church family for their support and prayers. Special thanks go to Cheryl

McFadden; words cannot express how much I appreciate her assistance with typing and

formatting this document after my disk crashed. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Rudolph

Tripp, Annette Williams, Sekeenia Haynes, and Tracy Bookhard for supporting me

throughout this process.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

LIST O F TA B LE S .................... ................................... .... .... ...... ...... ....... ix

L IST O F F IG U R E S .... ...... ................................................ .. .. ..... .............. xii

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

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Problem Statem ent .................. ......................................... ...... ...... .. ..
P purpose and O bjectiv es............................................................................... ........ .6
V ariab les .................................................................................... . 7
D definitions of Term s .................................................. ......... .. ...... .. 7
L im stations of the Study ............................................................... ....................... 9
A ssum options .............................................................. 9
Im portance of the Study ............................................................................... ...... ..9
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 1 1

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

T heoretical F ram ew ork .............................................. ........................... ........... 12
Leadership D defined .................. .................................................. 16
Overview of Major Leadership Theories ............... ......................................16
Trait approach................................................... 17
Situational approach ............. ... .......... ....................... ................ ........ ......18
Transformational and transactional leadership..................................................19
T heory X and T heory Y ........................................................... .....................20
Psychodynam ic approach ............................................................................. 20
Exem plary Leadership Practices........................................... .......................... 20
Faculty Characteristics....... .......... ........................ .. ........... .... ...... 23
In du story C h aracteristics ................................................................... .....................24
Leadership and develop ent.................................................... ...... ........ 24
HRD com petencies .................. ............................ .... .. .. .. ........ .... 25
A cadem ia and Industry Partnerships ................................... .................................... 31
C urriculum D evelopm ent ........................................ ............................................34


v









Overview of curriculum theories..................................... ......... ............... 34
Tyler's rational m odel ............ ........ ... .............. .. ......... .................... 35
G agne's m odel ................................... ............................36
Trends in curriculum reform in agricultural sciences............... ............... 38
Com petency defined .................. ............................. .... .. .. .. ...... .... 40
C om petency assessm ent ......................................................... ................ ..... 41
C om petency m odels .......................... .................. ... ...... .. .... ...........4 1
Stu dent C characteristics ....................................................................... ..................44
Requisite skills required by industry ....................................... ............... 45
Leadership training and development ...................................... ............... 45
C om petencies ................................................ ... ......... ..... 46
C onceptual M odel for the Study ..................................................................... ...... 47
Sum m ary ...................................... ................. ................. .......... 50

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y .......................................................................... .....................52

P population and Sam ple .............................. ........................ .. ...... .... ...... ...... 53
Instrumentation ............... ......... .......................54
R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 5 6
V alidity an d R eliab ility ......................................................................................... 57
P ilo t S tu d y ................................................................5 9
D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 6 0
Qualitative research com ponent ...................................................... 62
Profiles and trends of graduate agricultural leadership programs .......................62
L ow resp on se rates .................................................................... .......... .. .. 6 3
D ata A analysis Procedures ......... .......... ......... ......... .................................. 63
Sum m ary ........... ........................................ ............... 64

4 R E SU L T S .. ............................................................................................6 5

Overview of University and Industry Participants ...............................................66
Description of University Faculty Respondents............................. ...............67
Gender ................ ........ .......................67
Sources of leadership training .............................................................67
Graduate agricultural leadership programs ...............................................68
Agricultural leadership teaching experience ................. ...................68
Business/Industry work experience...........................................................69
Highest degree obtained ................. ..................... ... .... ........... 69
A rea of H highest D egree......... ................. ........................... .................. 70
Description of Industry Representatives ......... ......... ..... ..............70
History of hiring agricultural education graduates.................... ...... ......... 71
Training and development career opportunities for agricultural education
g ra d u a te s ........................................................................................... 7 2
C om pany type ........................................ .................... .. ......72
Current job titles ............... ................. .............. .........73
Years employed in current position and at company .................................73
Job titles of industry representatives ......... ... ......... ... ...... ......... 74










Objective One ............... ......... .................. 74
O bjectiv e T w o ................................................................7 9
O bjectiv e T h ree ................................................................83
Objective Four ............... ......... .................. 86
Objective Five ............... ......... .................. 88
O bjectiv e S ix ...............................................................8 8
O original target audience ................. ...........................90
Graduate agricultural leadership specialization .......................................90
Graduate leadership m inor offered................................ ............... 91
Graduate Agricultural Leadership Curriculum ...... ........ ..................91
Primary areas of research interests .......................................................99
Professional memberships in leadership organizations..............................99
Leadership emphasis in doctoral degree .........................................100
Formal leadership courses ............................ ....................100
S u m m a ry ............. ................. ................. .................................................1 0 1

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................ ... ........102

Problem Statement ......................... ...................103
Population and Sam ple ............................. ........... ......... .......................103
Review of Methods ................. .. ..... ....... ..........104
Summary of Results..................................... ........ ......... 105
Description of University and Industry Respondents ................................ .. 105
Objective One ................. ......... ........ .........106
O bjectiv e T w o ......... ... ..... ..................................... ............................108
O objective Three ........................... ......................................... 109
Objective Four .... ........................................ 110......... .... 10
O bjectiv e F iv e .......... .... ..... ..... .. .................. ... .................... 111
Objective Six ..................... ......... ................................ 113
Discussion and Implications .... ............. ................................113
Objective One ......................................... 116.......... ...116
O objective T w o ......... ......... ............... ................ ............................118
O bjectiv e T h ree ..................................................... .............................. 1 19
Objective Four ............................................. .......................... 120
O bjectiv e F iv e ......... ........... .............................................. .....................122
L ow R response R ates ........... .... ....... ........................ ...... .. ............ 124
O objective Six ........................ .................... .. .. .. .... ... ...... ..... 124
C on clu sion s................................................................ 12 5
Recommendations for Practice ............................................... .................126
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................... 127

APPENDIX

A E X PE R T P A N E L .........................................................................................129

B UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE.................................... ................130









C IN D U STRY Q U ESTION N A IRE ............................................................................136

D UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTION GUIDE .......................................... 142

E INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................... ............................. ....... 143

F PRE-EMAIL NOTIFICATION.....................................................144

G E-M AIL N OTIFICA TION .............. .... .. ......... ... ..................... ............... 145

H REMINDER E-MAIL NOTIFICATION......................................................146

I COVER LETTER TO INDUSTRY RESPONDENTS ................. ... ............. 147

J COVER LETTER FOR SECOND MAILING....................................................... 148

K UNIVERSITY CHAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE ............................... ...............149

L UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE............................153

M UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION OF FACULTY PARTICIPANTS..........................155

N INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS ....................................................... .... ........... 156

O INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FORM ...............................1.57

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ........................................................................ ................... 159

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 170
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

2-1 Competencies in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework as identified by the
U SD A G graduate School. ........................................ ............................................43

2-2 Review of agricultural education research on competencies required for
professionals and graduate students ....................................................................... 47

3-1 Cronbach's Alpha for Exemplary Leadership Practices (n=15) ...........................58

4-1 Sources of leadership training of university faculty respondents (n=22)...............67

4-2 Graduate agricultural leadership programs as reported by university faculty
(n=21) ............................................................... ...... ..... ......... 68

4-3 Years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership
courses (n= 17). .........................................................................68

4-4 Business and industry experience of university faculty (n=20). ............................69

4-5 Job areas of industry positions held by university faculty (n=20). ..........................69

4-6 Frequency and percentage of highest degree completed by university faculty
(n = 2 1) ............................................................................................. 7 0

4-7 Frequency and percentage of area of highest degree completed by
university faculty (n=21) ........................................................................ 70

4-8 Demographics of industry representatives (n=10). .......................... ...............71

4-9 Frequency and percentage of industry representatives who have hired
agricultural education and communication graduates (n=10). ..............................71

4-10 Job titles, preferred degrees, and degree areas of positions for which
agricultural education and communication graduates are qualified.......................72

4-11 Frequency and percentage of type of company by industry representatives (n=8)..72

4-12 Frequency and percentage of current job titles held by industry representatives
(n= 10). .............................................................................. 73









4-13 Years employed in current position and at current company (n=7).......................73

4-14 Mean and standard deviations of perceptions of HRD competencies required
for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22).........75

4-15 Means and standard deviations of exemplary leadership practices required for
training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22). .............76

4-16 Mean and standard deviations of HRD competencies required for training and
development positions as rated by industry representatives (n=10) ......................79

4-17 Means and standard deviations of perceptions of exemplary leadership practices
required for entry-level training and development employment..............................80

4-18 Mean scores of HRD competencies required for training and development
positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry
representative es (n= 10) ................................................................. .......... .... 84

4-19 Mean scores of leadership practices required for entry-level training and
development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry
representative es (n= 10) ................................................................. .......... .... 85

4-20 Frequency of emergent themes regarding HRD/leadership competencies. ............86

4-21 Frequency and percentage of decade of original development of agricultural
leadership programs as identified by unit leaders and department chairs (n=7).....88

4-22 Frequency of original degrees offered with a specialization or major in leadership
(n= 7). ................................................................................ 89

4-23 Current degrees/programs with a leadership specialization or major ....................89

4-24 Frequency of target audience of original agricultural leadership
program s (n=7) .........................................................................90

4-25 Frequency of target audience of current agricultural leadership
program s (n=7) .........................................................................90

4-26 Frequency of graduate leadership specialization only (n=8). ................................91

4-27 Frequency of graduate minor in agricultural leadership (n=5) ..............................91

4-28 Frequency of graduate courses in agricultural leadership programs (n=8) .............91

4-29 Frequency and percentage of total number of graduate students by specialization
for Fall 2003 sem ester. ........................................ ........................ 92

4-30 Frequency of trends of graduate enrollment in agricultural leadership over three
academy ic years. .......................................................................93









4-31 Frequency of companies employing graduate agricultural leadership students.......93

4-32 Frequency of job titles of non-university positions in which graduate students have
obtained em ploym ent. ...................... .. .... ................ ............................. 94

4-33 Frequency of job titles for which M. S.......... agricultural leadership students are well
p re p a re d .......................................................................... 9 4

4-34 Frequency of job titles for which Ph.D ........agricultural leadership students are well
prepared as reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7). ...............95

4-35 Frequency of projected changes in graduate agricultural leadership courses as
reported by university department chairs/unit leaders (n=7). ................................95

4-36 Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 3-5 years as
reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=6).................................................96

4-37 Frequency of projected changes in competencies during the next 5-7 years as
reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).................................................96

4-38 Frequency of courses essential for graduate agricultural leadership students as
reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).................................................96

4-39 Frequency of leadership inventories/assessment tools in graduate courses as
reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).................................................97

4-40 Frequency of leadership inventories/assessment tools used in graduate courses as
reported by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7).................................................97

4-41 Frequency of required textbooks for graduate leadership courses as reported by
agricultural leadership faculty (n=7) ......................................................................98

4-42 Frequency of industry positions held by agricultural leadership faculty as reported
by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7). ............. .......................... ............... 98

4-43 Frequency of primary areas of research interests of agricultural leadership faculty
(n= 7). ................................................................................ 99

4-44 Frequency of professional memberships in leadership organizations (n=7)...........99

4-45 Frequency and percentage of doctoral degree with a leadership education emphasis
by agricultural leadership faculty (n=7)...................................................... 100

4-46 Frequency of formal leadership courses completed as reported by agricultural
leadership faculty (n= 7). ........................................ ........................................ 100
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1 Leadership Development Model Part A-Developmental Experiences................... 13

2 Leadership Development Model Part B-The Development Process.....................15

3 An instructional system design model (ASTD, 1999) ..........................................38

4 Conceptual model of the preparation of society-ready graduates for
HR/training and development positions (Jones, 2004). ........................................48

5 Key components of graduate level agricultural leadership curricula..................... 112















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

ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR
AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP GRADUATE STUDENTS PURSUING INDUSTRY
CAREERS

By

Laikhe Tanyara Jones

August 2004

Chair: Edward W. Osborne
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-

level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives.

This study recommended a curriculum model to enhance the leadership specialization in

agricultural education graduate programs. The populations for the study included

university faculty teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses and representatives of

agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies. The study sample included twenty-two

agricultural education faculty who teach graduate agricultural leadership courses and ten

human resources professionals employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies,

agribusiness firms, and career resource centers. A researcher-developed questionnaire

was used to determine the competencies required for training and development and

human resources careers. In addition, interviews were conducted with university faculty

and industry representatives to determine key components of a graduate agricultural









leadership curriculum. To determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership

programs, a researcher-developed questionnaire was sent to university faculty and

department chairs and unit leaders of graduate agricultural leadership programs.

The findings revealed that both academia and industry participants rated the

following competencies as most important: communication, leadership, and interpersonal

relationship building and collaboration. The lowest rated competencies were contracting,

business knowledge, and implementation/support. Based on the interviews, participants

recommended that graduate agricultural leadership programs focus on management,

youth organizations, organizational leadership, and personal leadership development. A

very small number of universities in the nation offered an agricultural leadership

specialization in the graduate program. These programs have evolved from agricultural

education perspectives and have not fully transitioned to an industry focus. Industry

representatives preferred master's students for human resources/training and development

positions; thus, the proposed curricula model focused on master level student

development.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

National reports have examined the knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies

required to prepare society-ready graduates. The American Society for Training and

Development recently conducted a study, "Mapping the Future: Shaping New Workplace

Learning and Performance Competencies." The competency model included

competencies, areas of expertise, and workplace learning and performance roles for

training and development professionals (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). The

competencies were divided into three clusters: interpersonal, business/management, and

personal. The areas of expertise included: designing learning, improving human

performance, delivering training, measuring and evaluating, facilitating organizational

change, managing the learning function, coaching, managing organizational knowledge,

and career planning and talent management (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). The

workplace learning and performance roles included learning strategist, business partner,

project manager, and professional specialist (Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004).

Increasingly, more graduate students are pursuing careers outside academia

(Andruss, 2002; Hartle & Galloway, 1996). According to a recent Dickson's Marketing

Academia Labor Market Survey there are twice as many graduate students who are job

candidates as there are positions available in the universities surveyed (Adruss, 2002).

Hartle and Galloway (1996) asserted that higher education has an obligation to ensure

that graduate students have realistic expectations about the job market that awaits them

upon graduation. The changing industry demands an influx of graduates who can









compete forjob positions outside academia. To prepare students for an ever-changing

society and workforce, higher education programs must solicit industry perspectives to

determine the requisite skills required for industry careers (Hartle & Galloway, 1996).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), employment growth will be

concentrated in the service-providing sector of the economy. Specifically, the education

and health services sectors represent an industry experiencing the strongest projected

employment growth. By 2012 the number of workers gainfully employed in the

education and health services industry is projected to increase by 31.8% (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2004).

Various studies (Brown & Fritz, 1994; Drucker, 1999; Foster & Pikkert, 1991;

Marshall, Patton, & Stocker, 1999; Scanlon et. Al, 1996; Spotanski & Foster, 1989)

designed to identify skills and competencies required for business and industry positions

have been conducted. According to Drucker (1999), professionals in the 21st Century

must be able to manage using "soft skills" to relate to others in the workplace. Human

resource managers of large American corporations indicate that soft skills are the most

important characteristics an employee possesses, in addition to good communication

skills and appearance. Among the soft skills were a "how can I help" attitude, good

manners, willingness to take ownership, commitment, initiative, adaptability, teamwork,

relationship building through trust and respect for the firm and individuals, and device to

advance (Marshall, Patton & Stocker, 1999). A national study of college graduates in

food and agricultural sciences found that the factors with the most prevalent impact on

employment opportunities for college graduates in food and agricultural sciences are









changing business structure, continued globalization, evolving customer tastes and

preferences, and public-policy decisions (Goecker, Whatley, & Gilmore, 1999).

Foster and Pikkert (1991) noted that if students in the colleges of agriculture are to

be competitive in a world in which technology is rapidly changing, agricultural faculty

need to be able to provide their students with the cognitive abilities to solve problems,

make decisions, and integrate new technology outside the classroom. To address this

concern, colleges of agriculture across the nation have begun revamping their curricula to

incorporate industry-identified competencies.

In agricultural education, various researchers (Dooley & Lindner, 2002; Goecker,

1992; Place & Jacob, 2001) have examined student competencies required for success in

different contexts. In the distance education context, researchers synthesized the

competencies required for distance education professionals (Dooley & Lindner, 2002).

The clustered core competencies include adult learning theory, technological knowledge

and skills, instructional design, communication tools, graphic design, and administrative

issues (Dooley & Lindner, 2002). Goecker (1992) indicated that agricultural education

graduate students needed high levels of teaching and learning competencies to become

effective and productive. Place and Jacob (2001) found that extension employees need

resource management to competencies, including time management, workplace, and

stress management to become effective professionals.

Numerous researchers (Birkenholz et al., 1994; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Fritz &

Brown, 1998; Graham, 2001; Hansen et al., 1989; Harris, 1989; Scanlon et al., 1996)

have conducted studies to determine the competencies graduate students should possess

in order to be marketable. Competencies cited included development of an electronic









portfolio, web design and technology, quality research design, ability to think critically

(Rudd, 2000; Torres & Cano, 1995; Whittington & Newcomb, 1993), ability to use

problem-solving skills (Dyer & Osborne, 1999), and agricultural literacy (Graham, 2001).

Colleges and universities are revamping leadership curricula to incorporate industry

trends and requirements. In Understanding Agriculture: New Directionsfor Education,

the authors contended that agriculture is too important a topic to only be taught to

individuals pursuing careers in agriculture. They further recommended that, "New

curriculum components must be developed and made available to teachers addressing the

science basic to agriculture, food, and natural resources; agribusiness; marketing;

management; international productivity" (National Research Council, 1988). Graduates

of undergraduate degree programs in the 21st Century will be required to possess

knowledge of concepts fundamental to literacy, critical thought, mathematics, history,

science, values, art experience and appreciation, international perspectives and

multicultural experience, in-depth study, how to learning, problem-solving ability,

technical skills, practical psychology of interpersonal relations, relevant courses, and

practical perspectives on careers (Erpelding & Mugler, 1987; Bjoraker, 1987).

Increasingly, colleges of agriculture are seeking an industry perspective when

considering curriculum development. Higher education and business partnerships are

emerging to address educational reform issues. Tornatsky (2001) recommended the use

of a practitioner-orientated approach to better understand and enhance the craft of

university-industry technology transfer.

Similarly, researchers in organizational leadership are examining the nature of

leadership curricula in higher education programs (Crawford, Brungardt, Scott, & Gould,









2002). Approaches to leadership development include the incorporation of adult learning

theory (Crawford et al., 2002; Mitchell & Poutiatine, 2001), experiential learning models

(Mitchell & Poutiatine, 2001), and action research (Zimmermann-Oster & Burkhardt,

1999). According to Crawford et al. (2002), major changes, such as faculty cost and

delivery model, will continue to impact degree program requirements for organizational

leadership.

A review of graduate programs in organizational leadership identified

approximately 40 graduate degree programs, including only six programs offering

doctoral degrees (Crawford et al., 2002). The study concluded there have been few

graduate programs in organization leadership exist that are designed to examine the

theoretical perspective of organizational leadership (Crawford et al., 2002). Master's

degree requirements for organizational leadership programs were an average of 37 credit

hours. Eleven programs required a research component, and nearly all programs had a

research or other project requirement (Crawford et al., 2002).

Mitchell and Poutiatine (2001) recommended that future efforts to provide

opportunities for leadership development should carefully examine how leadership

education can be most effective. Leadership education is becoming widespread at the

graduate level and is available within specific disciplines such as schools of business

administration, education, and public policy. Leadership academic programs are

emerging into a new field of study (Bennis & Goldsmith. 1997; Gardner, 1990; Komives

et al., 1998; Rost, 1993). Mitchell and Poutiatine (2001) stated that, "To meet the

challenges presented by our changing society, the United States system of higher









education, specifically graduate programs, must devise practical, efficient, and effective

approaches to leadership development" (pp. 183).

Efforts to revitalize leadership curricula must include a critical review of the

marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry leadership careers.

Currently, there are limited data describing curricula, graduates, placements, and industry

needs and preferences to assist faculty and administrators in developing graduate-level

agricultural leadership curricula.

Problem Statement

It is imperative for administrators and instructional designers to dialogue about

their perceptions of curriculum areas that are important and to determine ways to improve

the delivery of the curriculum. Limited research is available on the marketability of

agricultural education graduates for industry leadership positions. While studies have

been conducted on the industry perspective of curriculum revisions necessary to prepare

undergraduate students for a competitive job market, few studies have been conducted

that address the specific curriculum content areas necessary to prepare graduate students

for such positions. Therefore, the problem to be addressed in this study is the limited

research available on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for industry

leadership and training and development careers.

Purpose and Objectives

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-

level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives.

To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to:

1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty
who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses.









2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry
representatives.

3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary
for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and
development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives.

4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as
recommended by industry and academia representatives.

5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on
research and findings of the study.

6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs.

Variables

The primary independent variables in this study include gender, educational

background, experience, years in current position, job title, type of company, leadership

courses taught, and business/industry experience. The dependent variables in this study

included perceptions of university faculty and industry representatives toward

HRD/leadership competencies and exemplary leadership practices for agricultural

leadership graduate students, perceptions of university faculty and industry

representatives' key components of graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula, and

profiles of current graduate agricultural leadership programs.

Definitions of Terms

Key terms in the study were operationally defined as follows:

* Academia representatives. Agricultural education faculty who teach graduate
leadership courses as identified by their unit administrator. Alternatively, the
respondent pool was broadened to include chairs or unit administrators of graduate
agricultural education programs.

* Agribusinesses. Agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies categorized under
the subheadings, Food Consumer Products, Food Production Food Services,
Tobacco, Industrial and Farm Equipment, and Wholesalers, Food, and Grocery
(http://www.fortune.com, April 14, 2002).









* Agricultural education. Secondary and post-secondary programs designed to
prepare education and communication specialists. On the secondary level,
agricultural education includes FFA, SAEP, classroom instruction, and laboratory
(Phipps & Osborne, 1990). At the post-secondary level, program emphases may
include teacher education, adult or Extension education, agricultural
communication, leadership, international agriculture programs, and other areas.

* Agricultural leadership. The process whereby an individual influences a group to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2001). For the purposes of this study,
agricultural leadership refers to a specialization or program emphasis in
departments of agricultural education throughout the United States.

* Agricultural literacy. Knowledge and understanding about our food and fiber
system (Leising & Zilbert, 1994).

* Competences. A cluster of related knowledge, attitudes, and skills that affect a
major part of one's job are correlated with job performance that can be measured
against standards (Parry, 1998). In this study, competencies measured will include
industry-identified competencies relative to graduate employment in leadership
positions.

* E-learning. Instructional content or learning experiences delivered or enabled by
technology (ASTD & NGA Center for Best Practices, 2001). For the purposes of
this study, e-learning refers to distance education in the private sector.

* Human resource development. "..the integrated use of training and development,
organization development, and career development to improve individual, group,
and organizational effectiveness" (McLagan, 1989, p. 7).

* Industry-identified competencies. Competencies that were identified by industry
representatives and deemed essential for obtaining gainful employment in training
and development.

* Industry leadership positions. Position titles such as training specialist, training
director or manager, change agent, and leadership education specialist.

* Industry representatives. Human resource professionals employed by
agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies that were categorized under the
subheadings Food and Consumer Products, Food Production, Food Services,
Tobacco, Industrial and Farm Equipment, and Wholesalers, Food and Grocery.
(http://www.fortune.com, April 14, 2002). Alternatively, the respondent pool was
broadened to include career resources professionals from land-grant colleges and
human resource professionals from agribusinesses.

* Leadership. The process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a
common goal (Northouse, 2001).









* Skill. A present, observable competence to perform a learned psychomotor act
(Maxine, 1997). In this study, skills were identified by academia and industry
representatives.

* University agricultural leadership participants. University participants who
were faculty in graduate agricultural leadership programs.

* University department chairs/unit leaders. University participants who were
department chairs or unit leaders of graduate agricultural leadership programs.

* University faculty participants. Faculty who teach graduate agricultural
leadership courses at land-grant universities

Limitations of the Study

This study had the following limitations:

* The population frame for this study included industry representatives of selected
Fortune 500 companies with an agriculturally related specialization. Also included
in the study were academia representatives from selected departments of
agricultural education with leadership programs at land-grant colleges and
universities.

* Data provided by academia and industry representatives represented opinions at a
particular point in time.

* Generalizability of the findings was limited to the respondents participating in this
study.

Assumptions

The following basic assumptions were made in conducting this research study:

* The respondents were candid and honest in providing their responses to survey
items.

* The survey instruments were completed by the respondents for whom the
instruments were intended.

* The selected university faculty, university agricultural leadership faculty, university
department chairs/unit leaders, and industry representatives possessed general
knowledge of leadership and its dimensions.

Importance of the Study

This study examined academia and industry perspectives on Human Resource

Development competencies and leadership practices required for graduate students









pursuing training and development employment. Many of the previous studies (Arndt et

al., 1997; Brown & Fritz, 1994; Cole & Thompson, 2002; Dodge & Foster, 1990; Fritz &

Brown, 1998 Harris, 1989; Scanlon et al., 1996; Schumacher & Swan, 1993; Spontanski

& Foster, 1989) conducted in this area focused specifically on curriculum revitalization

of undergraduate programs in colleges of agriculture across the nation. As more graduate

students pursuing non-academic careers (Andruss, 2002), research efforts to determine

the required competencies are imperative. The rapidly changing competency skill sets

need to be updated periodically and utilized to update curricula accordingly.

Without input from agribusinesses and administrators, curriculum planners will

have difficulty modifying current graduate agricultural leadership education programs of

study. There is limited research on the marketability of agricultural education graduates

for industry leadership positions. While studies have been conducted on the industry

perspective of curriculum revisions necessary to prepare undergraduate students for a

competitive job market, few studies have been conducted to identify the competencies

required for non-academia careers and to recommend curriculum to prepare society-ready

graduates. Thus, it is beneficial to focus research efforts on curriculum development,

competency identification and assessment, and dynamics of academia-industry

partnerships.

This research study is important to both academia and industry audiences involved

in leadership development programs. Given the cyclical demand for university faculty

and the need for effective leadership in all public and private settings, graduate students

should be prepared to compete for non-academic careers. Therefore, research efforts that

provide empirical data to support the availability of industry leadership employment and









more fully documented industry leadership perspectives are pertinent and may assist in

building a theoretical basis on which departments can improve their leadership programs.

From the industry perspective, partnerships with universities will strengthen employees

and help to secure qualified graduate students to fill vacancies for leadership and training

positions.

Summary

Chapter one provided the background for studying academia and industry

perspectives on the importance of human resource development and leadership

competencies. The chapter also included the problem statement, purpose and objectives,

variables, definitions of terms, limitations, assumptions, and importance of the study.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-

level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives.

Chapter 1 described the background for studying university faculty and industry

perspectives on graduate competencies necessary for training and development

employment.

Chapter 2 presents a theoretical framework and empirical research relevant to this

study. This chapter is subdivided into the following topics: overview of leadership

theories, leadership styles, academia and industry partnerships, curriculum development

and theory, and human resource development competencies. In addition, a conceptual

model of graduate agricultural leadership curricula is presented.

Theoretical Framework

The Center for Creative Leadership defines leadership development as the

expansion of a person's capacity to be effective in leadership processes and roles.

According to McCauley, Moxley, and Velsor (1998), this view of leadership is based on

the assumptions that:

* Leadership development involves the development of capacities with an individual.
* Life experiences cause people to take on leadership roles and participate in leadership
processes to fulfill commitments to organizations, social groups, or neighborhoods.
* People can learn, grow, and change.

The Center for Creative Leadership developed a leadership development model that

describes the processes that influence leaders' effectiveness (see Figure 1). This model









illustrates the direct relationships among assessment, challenge, support, and

developmental experiences (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).

Support
Assessment Challenge Su






Developmental experiences


Figure 1. Leadership Development Model Part A-Developmental Experiences

Leadership development should include assessment data (McCauley, Moxley, &

VanVelsor, 2000). Assessment is important in increasing one's understanding about

personal strengths, level of current performance or leadership effectiveness, and

development needs. It also provides benchmark data for future development.

* What am I doing well?
* Where do I need to improve?
* What are others' views of me?
* How do my behaviors impact others?
* How am I doing relative to my goals?

Assessment data can be gathered from oneself or from other people (McCauley,

Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000). Other sources of assessment include peers in the

workplace, bosses, employees, spouses, children, parents, friends, customers, counselors,

and organizational consultants. These data can be collected using informal or formal

methods. Examples of formal assessments include performance appraisals, customer

evaluations, 360-degree feedback, organizational surveys that measure employee

satisfaction with managers, and assessments and recommendations from consultants

(McCauley, Moxley, & VanVelsor, 2000).









Experiences that shape individuals the most are the ones that challenge people.

Individuals develop ways of thinking and acting that work for them and make them more

comfortable. Challenging experiences force individuals to go beyond their comfort zone

and develop new capacities to become successful. The importance of new experiences is

highlighted in Hill's (1992) study of men and women during their first managerial

assignment. The participants found that becoming a manager involved more than just

learning new skills and building skills. Rather, it involved a transformation in thinking

and feeling in new ways.

Assessment and challenge are important factors in leadership development;

however, it is also important that support is available to individuals (McCauley, Moxley,

& VanVelsor, 2000). Assessment data point out the strengths and weaknesses, challenge

provides disequilibrium to foster people to change, and support is an indication that

efforts to learn and grow are valued. Support can come from other people, including

bosses, coworkers, family, friends, professional colleagues, coaches, and mentors

(McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). The role of these people can range from

listening to stories of struggle, identifying with challenges, suggesting strategies for

coping, reassuring in times of doubt, inspiring renewed effort, celebrating the smallest

accomplishments and cheering from the sidelines. Talking to others about struggles can

help people in their personal struggles. Support is a key factor in maintaining motivation

to learn and grow (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). Similarly, individuals with

higher self-efficacy exert more effort in mastering challenges and persevering in difficult

situations (Bandura, 1996).









Open communication discussing mistakes, confirming and clarifying lessons taught

gives individuals a sense that they are on the right track, the feedback is legitimate, and

new ways are making sense of their situations as shared by others.

The Center for Creative Leadership further developed the Leadership Development

Model Part B (Figure 2) to show the leadership development process. According to this

model, an individual's ability to learn impacts leadership development, which impacts the

variety of developmental experiences (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).


Variety of -
developmental
experiences Leadership
development


Ability to learn E


Figure 2. Leadership Development Model Part B-The Development Process

The leadership development process is based on the assumption that most people

take on leadership roles and engage in learning development processes to fulfill

commitments to social entities, such as organizations, volunteer or social groups,

neighborhoods, and professional groups (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).

Rather than distinguishing leaders from non-leaders, the model assumes everyone can

learn, grow, and change.

The ability to learn from experience entails recognizing when new behaviors, skills,

or attitudes are needed, engaging in a variety of developmental experiences to learn new

skills, and developing and using a variety of learning tactics to acquire new skills,

approaches, or attitudes (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). The leadership









development process Part B illustrates how the development experiences and ability to

learn have a direct impact on each other. Engaging in developmental experiences can

enhance a person's ability to learn (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).

Leadership Defined

Leadership has been widely defined over the years; however, a consensus among

researchers has not been established. Researchers have examined leadership from a

variety of perspectives; however, there is no universally accepted definition of leadership.

The following examples represent the wide gamut of leadership definitions. Kouzes and

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

shared aspirations." 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 by the leader and his or her followers" (p. 1). Rost (1991) defined leadership as "an

influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect

their mutual purposes" (p. 102). Chemers (1997) characterized leadership as "process of

social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the

accomplishment of a common task" (p. 1).

Similarly, Northouse (2001) synthesized leadership theories into four major

conceptualizations: leadership is a process that involves influence, occurs within a group

context, and involves goal attainment. Based on these concepts, Northouse (2001)

defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals

to achieve a common goal.

Overview of Major Leadership Theories

Leadership has been widely defined and conceptualized as a function of the leader,

follower, context, and process. Despite diverse viewpoints, leadership theories can be









classified into major categories: trait approach, behavior approach, and situational

approach (Yukl, 1981).

Trait approach

The trait approach to leadership has emphasized a specific set of traits that only

leaders possess (Northouse, 2001). The assumption of the trait approach has been that

leaders are born and not made. The trait has been based on the premise that leaders are

different, and their difference is based on special gifts and talents.

The trait approach to leadership emphasizes the importance of having a leader with

a certain set of traits essential to effective leadership (Northouse, 2001). The leader's

personality is central to the leadership process. Using the trait approach, leaders analyze

their traits to determine strengths and weaknesses and to ascertain how they fit into the

organizational structure (Northouse, 2001). One of the earliest systematic attempts to

study leadership was the trait approach. The trait approach was based on the assumption

that leaders are born with qualities and characteristics necessary for leadership.

Research using the trait approach has focused on determining the specific traits that

distinguish leaders from followers (Bass, 1990). Stodgill's (1974) work identified six

categories of personal factors of leadership: capacity, achievement, responsibility,

participation, status, and situation.

The strengths of the trait approach to leadership have been appeal, research base,

emphasis on leader, and benchmarks for effective leaders (Northouse, 2001; Smith &

Peterson, 1988). The trait approach has been appealing because it is based on the

premise that leaders are different, and their difference is based on the special gifts and

talents they possess. People have a need to view their leader as a gifted individual, and

the trait approach satisfies this need. A second strength of the trait approach has been its









research base (Northouse, 2001). The trait approach has more breadth and depth in its

research base than any other leadership theory. This research base has produced a body

of knowledge and data that emphasize the significance of personality traits in the

leadership process.

Another strength of the trait approach is the emphasis on leader qualities necessary

for effective leadership (Northouse, 2001). Despite the potential weakness by focusing

solely on leader qualities, the trait approach has provided an in-depth understanding of

how the leader's personality relates to the leadership process. Lastly, the trait approach

has provided benchmarks for leadership qualities desired for effective leaders

(Northouse, 2001). Using this approach, personality and assessment procedures can be

used to provide invaluable information to leaders about their strengths and weaknesses,

as well as strategies to improve their leadership effectiveness (Northouse, 2001). Early

attempts to identify individual traits led to the conclusion that no single trait can

distinguish leaders from non-leaders.

Situational approach

The situational approach to leadership has addressed the situation as the

determinant of leadership abilities. Researchers have studied leadership by examining

the influence of the follower and context. Leadership theories in this category include

situational leadership, contingency theory, and path-goal theory. The situational

approach to leadership was developed by Hershey and Blanchard (1969), whose research

was based on Reddin's (1967) management style theory. This approach has been widely

used in training and development leadership in organizations nationwide (Northouse,

2001). Situational leadership emphasizes the balance between directive and supportive

roles of a leader. The leader's task is to analyze a particular situation and determine the









appropriate degree of directive and or supportive behaviors necessary to address

employee needs (Northouse, 2001).

Transformational and transactional leadership

Burns developed the concept of transformational leadership. Burns (1954) further

noted that the result of transformational leadership is mutual stimulation and elevation

that "converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents" (pp. 23).

Transformational leadership involves a process whereby an individual interacts with

followers and creates a connection that increases motivation and morale in both the

leader and follower (Northouse, 2001). A transformational leader is attuned to the needs

and motives of followers and attempts to help followers reach their fullest potential

(Northouse, 2001).

Burns provided a comprehensive theory to delineate between transactional and

transformational leaders (Bass, 1990). He stated that transactional leaders

approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes,
or subsidies for campaign contributions. Such transactions comprise the bulk of the
relationships among leaders and followers, especially in groups, legislatures, and
parties (pp. 23).

Burns classified transactional leaders as opinion leaders, bargainers, bureaucrats, party

leaders, legislative leaders, and executive leaders (Bass, 1990). In contrast, he

categorized transformational leaders as intellectual leaders, reform or revolutionary

leaders, and heroes (Bass, 1990). According to Burns, transformational leaders recognize

the need for the follower to satisfy higher needs, as identified by Maslow's Hierarchy of

Needs (1954).









Theory X and Theory Y

McGregor (1960, 1966) formulated two types of organizational leadership -

Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is an autocratic belief based on the assumption that

people are passive and resistant to organizational needs (Bass, 1990). Leaders attempt to

direct and motivate people to fit these needs. Theory Y is a democratic belief based on

the assumption that people possess motivation and a desire for responsibility; it attempts

to arrange organizational conditions to fulfill their needs while directing their efforts

toward achieving organizational goals (Bass, 1990).

Psychodynamic approach

Using a psychodynamic leadership approach, the leader's role is to bring to the

consciousness of team players the nature of the transactions and to present these issues in

an open forum to generate discussion (Northouse, 2001). Strengths of this approach

include leader-follower relationship, universality of the leadership approach, and

emphasis on the need for insight on the part of the leader (Northouse, 2001). Criticisms

of this approach include research efforts focused on case studies from individual

psychiatrists and traditional two-parent family of origin. Northouse (2001) argued that

any leadership model based on this approach is likely to be applicable to white, middle-

class individuals with Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Exemplary Leadership Practices

Northouse (2001) synthesized leadership theories into four major

conceptualizations as follows:

* Leadership is a process.
* Leadership involves influence.
* Leadership occurs within a group context.
* Leadership involves goal attainment.









Based on these concepts, Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an

individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

Researchers have studied leadership and defined it in terms of its process. Kouzes

and Posner (1997) interviewed CEO executives regarding their organizational success

and personal best leadership experiences. Upon interviewing executives throughout the

nation, Kouzes and Posner (1997) categorized the responses to compile five exemplary

practices of leadership:

* Challenge the process
* Inspire a shared vision
* Enable others to act
* Model the way
* Encourage the heart

Leaders who "challenge the process" are innovative and constantly seek to improve

the organization, including its processes. These leaders acknowledge that the leaders

who do the work are a good source of ideas. They treat mistakes as learning

opportunities (Kouzes and Posner, 1997). This exemplary practice is characterized by

leaders who exhibit the following:

* searching out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve
* experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes;
* exploring new and different ways of solving problems or improving processes;
* going beyond the boundaries of the organization to improve processes; and
* utilizing opportunities to change the status quo (Kouzes & Posner, 1997).

The second exemplary leadership practice is inspiring a shared vision. Leaders

seek to mobilize others to strive toward a shared vision. This leadership practice includes

the following:

* envisioning and uplifting a promising future;
* enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and
dreams;
* communicating and sharing expectations using vivid, clear, and concrete images;









* exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities; and
* envisioning the future of what the organization can become.

Enabling others to act involves emphasis on the supportive roles necessary to help

others develop (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). This is accomplished by recognizing the

achievements of others. Another important aspect of exemplary leadership is modeling

the way. Leaders in these roles model behaviors that are acceptable to the

organizational culture and achievement of shared goals and objectives. Kouzes and

Posner (1997) highlighted the following characteristics of leaders who enable others to

act:

* fostering collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust;

* strengthening people by giving power away, providing choice, developing
competence, assigning critical tasks and offering visible support;

* providing individuals with as much control over resources as needed to do the job;

* helping people learn and develop in their work; and

* listening to diverse points of view.

Modeling the way can cause others to want to follow and emulate the leaders'

behavior. Kouzes and Posner (1997) highlighted the following characteristics of leaders

who model the way:

* setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with shared values;

* achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment;

* making the connection between individual performance expectations and
organizational mission, vision, and values;

* planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable steps, thus creating
opportunities for small wins; and

* keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently according to personal
values.









Faculty Characteristics

A national study of departments of agricultural education revealed that 36 (67%) of

the 53 departments surveyed offered courses in leadership and human resource

management and development (Fritz & Brown, 1998). The departments that did not

offer leadership courses indicated reasons such as resource scarcity, institutional policy

barriers and resistance, and lack of student demand.

Researchers found that one-half of the faculty taught leadership courses and had

traditional agricultural education backgrounds (Fritz & Brown, 1998). Other faculty had

agricultural education backgrounds, as well as special training or skills in leadership or

management, and the remaining had backgrounds in fields other than agricultural

education. To address this concern, researchers recommended that departments provide

faculty with "specific preparation and academic grounding in the research and behavioral

foundations of leadership" (p.61). The researchers recommended that departments with

leadership education programs employ agricultural education faculty with different

educational backgrounds than in the past. Similarly, Newcomb (1993) stated that

"departments with doctoral programs will serve graduate students well if they encourage

them to develop sub-specialties beyond teacher education and extension."

Various research studies have examined agricultural education curricular revisions

necessary from an industry perspective (Arndt, Barrett, & Bosshammer, 1997; Brown &

Fritz, 1994; Scanlon, Bruening, & Cordero, 1996; Harris, 1989; Spontanski & Foster,

1989).

Bowen and Thomson (1995) stated that instructors at the secondary and post-

secondary levels have been preparing students for entry-level agribusiness employment

since the 1960s. Although university faculty groups have prepared students for such









employment, researchers argue that university faculty members have not viewed the

agribusiness industry as a prospective clientele audience (Bowen & Thomson, 1995).

Industry Characteristics

A review of relevant literature revealed that industry characteristics influence

curriculum development, including the preparation of society-ready graduates. The

following section is divided into the sub-categories: leadership training and development

and HRD competencies.

Leadershipt and development

According to Zemke and Zemke (2001), "contemporary leadership development

aims to build the capacity of potential leaders to move the organization along a path that

will ensure success and survival in a rapidly changing, competitive world." A University

of Michigan business school professor asserted that the best leadership development

efforts are led by a senior level manager of the organization in support of, rather than in

charge of, employees' training and development (Zemke & Zemke, 2001). He further

identified the following questions for executives who head leadership efforts:

* Do you have a teachable point of view?
* Will you spend the time?
* Are you a role model and a coach?
* Can you create a learning program with real business projects?
* Can you blend hard and soft?
* Can you energize others to learn (Zemke, 2001)?


Two studies were conducted determining the educational background required for

entry-level training positions. Fulkert (1997) found that typical trainers held at least a

Master's degree. Typically their experience was gained through train-the-trainer

programs, external seminars and workshops, professional journals and magazines, and









formal on-the-job training (Fulkert, 1997). Dingus (1990) surveyed Fortune 500

executives to determine the competencies of entry-level trainers. His study found that the

recommended education requirements as identified by respondents were 78.9 %

bachelor's, 17.9 % master's, and 0.8% doctoral degrees (Dingus, 1990).

HRD competencies

Human resource development includes training, organization, and career

development. McLagan (1996) purported that the nine roles that trainers must perform

are human resource (HR) strategic advisor, HR systems designer and developer,

organization change consultant, organization design consultant, learning program

specialist, instructor/facilitator, individual development/career consultant, performance

consultant, and researcher. Roles of human resources professionals include manager,

analyst, selector, designer and developer, implementer, change leader, and evaluator

(http://www.astd.org/virtual_community, 2003).

McLagan's (1983) study 'Model for HRD Practice' highlighted 31 competencies

for human resource professionals. This competency list has been heavily supported by

the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). For the purposes of this

study, only 18 of the 31 competencies were deemed relevant to this study. The

competencies used for this study are as follows:

1. adult learning;
2. instructional design,
3. performance gap analysis,
4. change management,
5. leadership,
6. industry awareness,
7. buy-in/advocacy,
8. interpersonal relationship building and collaboration,
9. consulting,
10. business knowledge,
11. systems thinking,









12. contracting,
13. project management,
14. awareness of e-learning industry,
15. communication,
16. program evaluation,
17. design and development, and
18. implementation and support.

Adult learning. Adult learning involves how adults learn and how they use

knowledge, skills, and attitudes (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up

this competency include understanding learning styles, problem solving skills, facilitation

of self-directed learning, and appreciation of the diverse experiences of adult learners

(McLagan, 1983).

Instructional design. The instructional systems design (ISD) model is comprised

of the following six phases: analysis, design, development, delivery and evaluation

(McLagan, 1983). This competency is necessary to create adult education classes that

fulfill organizational goals. Knowledge areas that comprise this competency are an

understanding of the six phases of the ISD model, integral role of each stage, and

learning styles (McLagan, 1983). Skills that make up the competency are gap analysis,

evaluation, design, material development, implementation, and support skills (McLagan,

1983).

Performance gap analysis. Performance gap analysis entails performing front-

end analysis by comparing actual and ideal performance levels in the workplace

(McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up the competency include: (1) gap

analysis skills; (2) intervention selection skills; (3) ability to assess the reasonableness of

desired performance levels; (4) ability to present findings of analysis; (5) interviewing

skills; (6) focus group facilitation skills; (7) statistical analysis skills; (8) ability to write









valid data collection instrument; and (9) ability to analyze historical documentation

(McLagan, 1983).

Change management. Change management is helping people adapt to the

changes brought on by new technologies and helping them to see the value and benefits

of new technologies (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up this

competency include: understanding of organizational goals and culture, ability to assess

human behavior objectively, interviewing skills, focus group facilitation skills, ability to

analyze historical documentation, understanding of factors of human motivation, and

ability to discover the root cause of human behavior (McLagan, 1983).

Leadership. Northouse (2001) defined leadership as a process whereby an

individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. According to

McLagan (1983), leadership is leading, influencing, and coaching others to help them

achieve desired results. Specific skills and knowledge relevant to leadership are ability to

see the big picture, ability to inspire and motivate others, organizational skills, delegation

skills, ability to monitor progress toward organizational goals, understanding of the

benefits and risks associated with empowering workers, ability to see one's own behavior

as an example for others, and ability to maintain a clear vision for the organization's

future (McLagan, 1983).

Industry awareness. Industry awareness is an important competency for human

resource professionals (McLagan, 1983). It is defined as understanding the current and

future climate of the company's industry and formulating strategies that respond to that

climate (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up the competency include:

(1) knowledge of the company's position within the industry; (2) knowledge of









competition's position within the industry; (3) understanding of future forces affecting

the industry; (4) understanding of competition that exists outside the normal bounds of

one's industry; and (5) ability to create strategies and contingency plans that allow the

organization to have a competitive advantage in this environment (McLagan, 1983).

Buy-In/Advocacy. Buy-In or advocacy refers to building ownership and support

for workplace initiatives (McLagan, 1983). Specific skills and knowledge required for

this competency are negotiation skills, verbal, written and nonverbal communication

skills, and ability to understand clearly the subject that's being advocated (McLagan,

1983).

Interpersonal relationship building and collaboration. Interpersonal

relationship building and collaboration refer to interacting effectively with others in order

to produce meaningful outcomes (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that make up

the competency include: (1) ability to assess accurately other people's needs; (2)

understanding of other people's goals and objectives; (3) understanding of the informal

structure of an organization and the demands it places on individuals; (4) ability to

respect other people's values; and (5) verbal, nonverbal, and written communication

skills (McLagan, 1983).

Consulting. Consulting is helping clients and stakeholders to question their

assumptions, determine their needs, and plan implementation strategies for achieving

their goals (McLagan, 1983). This competency involves listening skills, understanding of

stakeholder concerns, analytical skills, ability to maintain confidentiality, and

presentation skills (McLagan, 1983).









Business knowledge. Business knowledge refers to demonstrating awareness of

business functions (McLagan, 1983). Specific skills and knowledge that encompass the

competency include:

* ability to see the big picture;
* understanding of how each section of the business interrelates with others;
* understanding of the corporation's financial resources and limitations;
* understanding of the various processes that drive the business;
* understanding of the types of individuals who work within the business;
* understanding of the history of the business; and
* understanding of the likely future of the business (McLagan, 1983).

Systems thinking. Systems thinking involves recognizing the interrelationships

among the driving forces that connect seemingly isolated incidents within the

organization (McLagan, 1983). This holistic viewpoint addresses performance problems

in order to find the root causes. Skills and knowledge of this competency are ability to

organize patterns among events, ability to analyze cause-and-effect relationships

accurately, and development of research skills (McLagan, 1983).

Contracting. Contracting involves negotiating, organizing, preparing, monitoring

and evaluating work performance by vendors or consultants (McLagan, 1983). This

competency comprises consensus-building, compromising, and communication skills. It

also encompasses the ability to write contracts and requests for proposals, analyze and

assess vendor proposals, maintain accurate records, and monitor compliance to contract

specifications (McLagan, 1983).

Project management. The project management competency includes assessing,

planning, negotiating, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating the training delivery

process (McLagan, 1983). Effectively managing human capital and financial resources.

Skills and knowledge that comprise this competency include:









* budgeting
* organizational
* return on investment (ROI)
* scheduling
* planning
* consensus building.
* ability to collaborate on a team
* communication skills
* research skills and
* the ability to assess ideas objectively and determine their relevance to the project
(McLagan, 1983).

Awareness of e-learning industry. An awareness of e-learning is possessing

general knowledge about trends and issues of existing and emerging technologies in

training and development (McLagan, 1983). Skills include understanding the history of

the industry, knowledge of current and emerging trends, current limitations of

technology, cost/benefit analysis skills, networking skills, knowledge of vendors and

their standing in the industry, and the ability to understand the practical applications of

each technology's features (McLagan, 1983).

Communication. The communication competency includes applying effective

verbal, nonverbal, and written communications methods to achieve the desired results

(McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge required for this competency are writing skills,

knowledge of proper grammar, listening skills, speaking skills, nonverbal skills,

knowledge of diverse communication styles, and understanding of the barriers to

effective communication (McLagan, 1983).

Program evaluation. Program evaluation is measuring the success of learning

interventions (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge that comprise this competency are

as follows:

* knowledge of statistics
* survey instrument design skills









* four evaluation levels
* various types of evaluation
* various types of measurement
* what is or isn't important to measure, and
* evaluate the program within the broader context of the organizational goals
(McLagan, 1983).

Design and development. Design and development is outlining and creating

instructional materials suitable for e-learning. It includes deciding what combination of

instructional, presentation, and distribution methods will provide the best program

delivery to the learner (McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge include the following:

* Ability to create a design document
* Ability to create electronic materials
* Ability to select instructional, presentation, and distribution methods
* Ability to understand distribution methods
* Graphic design skills
* HTML design skills
* Knowledge of performance objectives
* Programming and authoring skills
* Resource identification skills, and
* Storyboarding skills (McLagan, 1983).

Implementation and support. The competency of implementation and support

includes coordinating the installation and maintenance of learning technologies

(McLagan, 1983). Skills and knowledge of the competency include:

* Presentation skills
* Ability to understand distribution methods
* Ability to setup and use electronic software and hardware
* Ability to diagnose problems that learners experience with the technologies
* Ability to coordinate assignments with the technical staff
* Understanding the design specifications of the hardware and software, and
* Ability to monitor effectiveness of the hardware and software (McLagan, 1983).

Academia and Industry Partnerships

Academia and industry partnerships have been beneficial to enhancing the quality

of education. Private sector collaboration is a method of providing innovation and









quality education for instructional programs (Sherman, 1983). As federal grants become

more competitive, universities across the nation are approaching corporate partners to

sponsor research efforts. According to a survey of the Association of University

Technology Managers, companies contributed approximately $2.2 billion, or 9.4%, of all

research performed at colleges throughout the United States (Basinger, 2001).

According to Santoro and Betts (2002), industry-university partnerships can be

beneficial in helping firms to generate new knowledge and technologies, including

patents, licenses, and non-patented and non-licensed new products and processes. An

illustration of a successful industry-university partnership involved Monsanto and

Washington University. Monsanto conducted over 50 pharmaceutical research projects

that resulted in 16 patents, 24 patents pending, and 5 commercialized products that

yielded substantial revenues in 1995 (Petrick & Reischman, 1997).

The National Alliance of Business presented the following mutual benefits of

partnerships with education and industries:

1. Partnerships provide other individuals and institutions opportunities to perceive
another organization's point of view and a chance to win an ally.

2. Partnerships can help build the kind of understanding that creates support.

3. Partnerships represent a means of contributing to quality education programs. The
challenge to industry to succeed in an increasingly competitive world market is
contingent upon skilled personnel who learn, grow, and adapt to changing markets
and technologies. Clearly, industry has a survival stake in quality education.

4. Partnerships bring increased access to knowledge, time, human resources, and
financial assistance from other sectors in the community and may well reduce the
costs and liability of doing business for each participant (Roth, 1987).

An example of a successful tripartite partnership occurred in Illinois and involved

the Illinois State Board of Education Department of Adult, Vocational, and Technical

Education (DAVTE); Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center; and personnel in the Office









for Vocational, Technical, and Career Education at Northern Illinois University (NIU).

The partners joined forces to provide educational equity through an initiative titled

Women's Access to Nuclear Technology (Project WANT). Project WANT developed

five principles using the works of Hemmings (1984), the Council on Foundations (1986),

and Open Entries (1986). The guidelines were as follows:

* Identify the focus of the partnership.
* Create a team of stakeholders.
* Scrutinize the many facets of the issue.
* Carry through the action plan.
* Maintain a high level of flexibility (Tornatzky, 2001).

The Southern Technology Council (STC) examined benchmarking research on the

topic of university-industry relationships. In a recent longitudinal study, the STC team

conducted benchmarking as a behaviorist approach that includes: (1) identifying an

important domain of organizational activity; (2) gathering performance data; (3)

identifying and describing best practices used in exemplary organizations to enhance

performance in that domain of activity; and (4) encouraging the adoption of those

practices among organizations participating in the benchmarking effort. The Southern

Technology Council highlighted best practices for university-industry relationships,

which included utilizing practical data from competitive programs and rewarding faculty

participation in technology transfer (Tornatzky, 2001).

Corporate sponsorship of education becomes most appealing when the goals and

objectives of both industry and education are acknowledged. Corporate donors want

their contributions to be reciprocated by the preparation of well-educated and trained

individuals upon whom they can recruit to ensure business success (Roy, 1994).









Corporations are collaborating with colleges to provide management education

programs for their executive staff. An example of a successful partnership between John

Deere and Indiana University Kelly School of Management included university-offered

online courses for corporate finance executives. Meister (2003) described the industry-

identified expectations of corporate-college partnerships:

The days when corporations passively fund tuition-assistance programs are coming
to an end. Now, businesses are managing education through strategic relationships
with universities to meet their needs for high-quality management education.
Corporations are becoming the customers of education and, as such, are managing
university partnerships to meet very specific requirements. I have called these
requirements the five Cs of corporate-college partnerships: customer service and e-
learner support services, cohort-based learning, customized programs, content, and
cost-effective pricing.

To summarize this section, academia and industry partnerships are essential in

providing a quality higher education to students who will compete for agricultural

leadership and related jobs. These partnerships need to be established, maintained, and

fostered in a way that is practical and beneficial to all parties involved. In addition, these

partnerships should be reviewed and analyzed to determine strategies to enhance and

develop the curriculum offerings in post-secondary education programs.

Curriculum Development

Overview of curriculum theories

This section provides an overview of curriculum theories relevant to post-

secondary agricultural education programs. The application of curriculum theory affects

how the curriculum is delivered, content is taught, and the learning outcomes of students

are reached. According to Dewey (1944) learning is based upon experience and begins at

the learner's comprehension level.









The American higher education system has been accused of failing to encourage

students to think critically. Freire (1970) criticized educators of being "bankers of

knowledge" who deposit information to be withdrawn as needed. Similarly, Halpern

(1984) stated, "Traditionally instruction in how to think has been a neglected component

in American education" (p. ix). Many colleges and universities have identified the use of

thinking skills as a prominent objective.

Black (1966) recognized the diversity of educational philosophies and synthesized

them into four categories: traditionalist, progressive, learning product, and learning

process. The traditionalist approach emphasizes subject-centered learning and is

authoritarian and hierarchical. This approach also emphasizes products that are

objectively measured. The progressive approach acknowledges the individual and places

emphasis on the transmission of social heritage. Designing curriculum using the learning

product approach involves an emphasis on producing a given set of skills, knowledge,

and competencies in a typical student. The learning process emphasizes the individual

but recognizes the role of transmitting the cultural heritage.

Tyler's rational model

Tyler formulated a curriculum development model commonly known as the Tyler

Rational Model. Tyler's model is based upon the idea that the process of curriculum

development rests with the educational program. To develop an effective curriculum,

Tyler asserted that programs must identify their purpose, goals, and objectives, and then

design curricula to fulfill these goals and objectives (Tyler, 1949). With this model,

Tyler (1949) focused curriculum design to satisfy specific purposes or objectives. He

proposed the following rationale for consideration from the educational program's

perspective for developing an effective curriculum:









* What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

* What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these
purposes?

* How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

* How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained (Tyler, 1949)?


Tyler (1949) argued that educational objectives need to be well defined; however,

he contended that many educational programs do not have concise purposes, goals, or

objectives. The objectives established become the premise upon which curriculum is

established. Further, he believed that in certain circumstances, curriculum development

should begin with a debate over the educational program. Sharpes and Dewey agreed

that each entity can serve as the basis for curriculum, but each entity is independent of the

influences of the learners, society, and subject disciplines (Sharpes, 1988).

Gagne's model

Competency-based education and instructional design reflect the transmission

position. These models reduce the curricular components into elements that are clearly

defined and measurable. Gagne's model is designed to provide a basis for accountability

(Gagne & Briggs, 1979). His model included the following twelve (12) steps: (1)

analyzing needs; (2) analyzing goals and objectives; (3) analyzing alternate ways to meet

needs; (4) designing instructional components; (5) analyzing resources and restraints; (6)

constraining removal action; (7) selecting or developing materials; (8) designing student-

performance assessment; (9) field testing and evaluating; (10) adjusting, revising and

evaluating further; (11) providing a summary evaluation system; and (12) implementing

the plan (Gagne & Briggs, 1979).









The instructional systems design (ISD) is a systematic approach to training (See

Figure 3). The ISD model includes people, technology, material, and time. This training

approach consists of five processes: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate,

or ADDIE (ASTD, 1999).

The first step of the ISD model is to analyze the educational program or

department. This process also involves creating a task inventory of all tasks and building

performance measures for the tasks to be trained. Other aspects of this process include

cost estimation, selection of instructional setting, and compilation of a task inventory

(ASTD, 1999).

The second phase of the ISD model is design. During this phase, learning

objectives, expected behaviors, and sequence and structure of the learning objectives are

developed. Upon completion of the design phase, it is necessary to develop the

instruction. This process also involves a review of existing materials, synthesis of

materials, and validation of the appropriateness of the instruction to meet the goals and

objectives. Implementation involves conducting the training or educational program

(ASTD, 1999).

Finally, an evaluation must be conducted to determine if a program meets stated

goals and objectives. Evaluation is an essential part of this model because it determines

how programs will be delivered and implemented in the future (ASTD, 1999).

In summary, curriculum planning efforts should incorporate a holistic perspective

involving faculty, students, administrators, alumni, and leaders in agricultural business











Input Process




Analysis Design Implementation




Feedback

Figure 3. An instructional system design model (ASTD, 1999)

and industry (Bjoraker, 1987). Several curriculum design and planning models can be

identified to assist faculty and administrators in improving the quality of degree programs

and graduates. Each curriculum model emphasizes the importance of the product and the

process.

Trends in curriculum reform in agricultural sciences

The North Central Curricular Project, comprised of representatives from the

University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and University of

Minnesota, initiated discussion forums to dialogue about curriculum changes. This

project yielded the publication Curricular Innovation for 2005: Planningfor the Future

of Food andAgricultural Sciences (Krantz, 1996). This publication became widely

used, as it documented conceptual and policy issues relevant to curriculum revitalization

in the agricultural sciences. Two years later another publication, titled Educatingfor a

Global Perspective: International Agricultural Curriculafor 2005 (1989), was published.

The publication highlighted strategies applicable for the implementation of global

curricula in colleges of agriculture nationwide (Lunde, 1987).









The Curricular Revitalization Project, also known as CRP, brought together various

stakeholders to address curriculum development issues as a team (Lunde, 1987).

Acknowledging the unique needs of different groups, including employers, farmers,

environmentalists, students, college faculty, and administrators. CRP established the

following guidelines to direct the curricular development model:

* Carefully consider institutionally specific educational trends and the unique ethos and
strengths of the institutional and external environments; and
* At every step of the revitalization process, consult the stakeholders about the
curriculum (Lunde, 1987).

Colleges of agriculture across the nation are recognizing the need to solicit an

industry perspective to adequately prepare students for agricultural leadership positions

(Dodge & Foster, 1990; Smith, 1989; Love & Yoder, 1989; McKinley, Birkenholz, &

Steward, 1993; Schumacher & Swan, 1993). Increasingly, departments of agricultural

education are revitalizing curricula to reflect industry perspectives. Agricultural

education departments have begun to include industry representatives in the curriculum

planning process (Coorts, 1987; Etling, 1994; Fritz & Brown, 1998; Graham, 2001).

Crawford, Brungardt, Scott, and Gould (2002) studied graduate programs in

organizational leadership nationwide. Credit hours required for the degree ranged from

30 to 58 credit hours. In addition, the number of faculty in graduate organizational

leadership programs ranged from 3 to 26. The study concluded that organizational

leadership programs are in the early stages of development (Crawford et al., 2002).

Curriculum revisions in leadership education programs include transformational

leadership approaches and interpersonal leadership development. Leadership education

and training are based on traditional leaders' traits, styles, and behaviors; however, recent

education and training programs have expanded to incorporate leaders' thought









processes, application approaches to complex social environments, and interpersonal

human dynamics that define educational and human service organizations (Aiken, Prue,

& Hasazi, 1999).

The Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program at the University of

Vermont revised its doctoral program to meet the needs of leaders in both educational

and human service organizations within an interprofessional learning environment

(Corrigan & Bishop, 1997). Curriculum development of this program included changes

in program content, learning experiences, core course competencies, faculty resources

and development, and instructional strategies. The theoretical framework for this

program revolved around learning outcomes, such as "knowledge, skills, values, and

commitments necessary to be interprofessional leaders" (Corrigan & Bishop, 1997).

In summary, various efforts to enhance curricula in colleges of agriculture

nationwide were cited. In an effort to keep up with industry trends and requirements,

university faculty and administrators are collaborating to determine curricula changes

necessary to prepare competitive graduates. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive

review of current curricula, industry requirements and trends must be pursued. The

solicitation of the industry perspectives is essential to adequately prepare graduates for

agricultural industry leadership. Research efforts to expand the knowledge base should

incorporate academia and industry perspectives.

Competency defined

Competency is defined as a cluster of related knowledge, attitudes, and skills that

affects a major part of one's job (Parry, 1998). Similarly, Davis, Naughton, and Rothwell

(2004) stated the following: "Competencies encompass clusters of skills, knowledge,

abilities, and behaviors required for people to succeed" (p. 28).









Competency is correlated with job performance that can be measured against

standards and enhanced through training and development (Parry, 1998). Competencies

are important to study to establish benchmarking data (Parry, 1998), develop curricula

models, and determine job-specific competencies (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). In

training and development, competency models are used to clarify organization-specific

competencies to improve human performance and align individual capabilities with

organizational core competencies (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999).

Competency assessment

Competency assessment is defined as the process of comparing individuals in a job

category, department, industry, or organization to the competency model for the targeted

group (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Competencies can be assessed using the three

common methods, including 360-degree feedback, assessment labs, and interactive

multimedia (Parry, 1998). First, 360-degree feedback is used to evaluate performance

with ratings by the individual's peers, manager, and work group or anyone who knows

the person well. Using assessment labs, an individual assumes a new role and interacts

with trained evaluators who fill other roles. Interactive media can be used wherein

individuals view video modules, respond to several situations, and are assessed based on

their responses (Parry, 1998).

Competency models

Various research efforts in competency modeling have been undertaken in public

education and government to study competency modeling. Three major efforts are the

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) study, the voluntary

Skills standard, and the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (Rothwell & Lindholm,

1999).









One major government initiative is the Secretary's Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills (SCANS) study. The study, commissioned by the U.S. Secretary of

Labor, was designed to determine the skills needed by young people to succeed in the

workforce. The SCANS researchers examined the workforce demands of young people

in the manufacturing, health services, retail trade, accommodations and food service, and

office services sectors. The researchers conducted behavioral event interviews (BEI)

with approximately five people in each of the fifty occupations across the aforementioned

five sectors of the U.S. economy. The study's results have been instrumental,

particularly in two-year community college curriculum development efforts (Rothwell &

Lindholm, 1999).

Another major governmental initiative in competency modeling was Voluntary

National Skills Standard. In 1996, the National Skills Standards Board awarded grants to

industry and research groups, including BioScience, Healthcare, Human Services,

Chemical Process, Heavy Highway Construction, Photonics, Electronics, Hospitality and

Tourism, and Retail Trade. The goal of this initiative was to "improve the integration of

academic and industry recognized skill standards" (Rothwell & Linddholm, 1999, p.

101).

The third major governmental initiative in competency modeling was Leadership

Effectiveness Framework (LEF). Original research for the LEF was conducted with over

20,000 supervisors, managers, and executives in the U.S. Federal Government. In 1995,

the Leadership Effectiveness Framework, including the assessment tool (the Leadership

Effectiveness Inventory [LEI]) was given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate

School. The LEF is comprised of twenty-seven competencies essential for governmental









leadership and has been widely used for training and development initiatives with federal

executives (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999).

The United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School developed the

leadership effectiveness inventory, "a systematic assessment tool designed to measure

competency and determine developmental needs for organizations and individuals in

public service" (USDA Graduate School, 2003). The leadership effectiveness inventory

was designed to gain feedback from the participant and five peers to eliminate perceptual

biases. There are twenty-seven competencies that comprise the Leadership Effectiveness

Framework (LEF) which are divided into the categories: leading change, leading people,

results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions/communication (see Table 2-1).

The USDA Graduate School recommends that the inventory be used by individuals

planning their own leadership development, organizations reengineering for greater

effectiveness, and trainers identifying priorities and developing curriculum (USDA

Graduate School, 2003). The competencies listed below are used in executive leadership

development.

Table 2-1. Competencies in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework as identified by the
USDA Graduate School.
Core Competencies Sub-Competencies

Leading Change Vision
External awareness
Creativity and innovation
Strategic thinking
Continual learning
Resilience
Flexibility
Service motivation
Leading People Change management
Cultural awareness
Team building
Technology management









Table 2-1. Continued.

Core Competencies

Results-Driven




Business Acumen


Building Coalitions
Communication


Sub-Competencies

Accountability
Problem-solving
Decisiveness
Customer service
Entrepreneurship
Financial management
Human resources management
Technology management

Oral Communication
Written communication
Influencing/negotiating
Partnering
Political savvy
Interpersonal skills


Student Characteristics

Numerous studies (Goecker, 1992; Moody, 2001; Scanlon, 1996; Sprecker &

Rudd, 1997; Timko et al., 1991) in agricultural education have been conducted to identify

specific competencies necessary for students to possess within various contexts.

According to Goecker (1992), agricultural education graduate students needed, but did

not possess, higher levels of teaching and learning competencies to be effective and

productive professionals. Timko, Linhardt, and Stewart (1991) examined the

communication strategies of international students and found that they have challenges

regarding communication and social competencies. Other studies have examined

agricultural leadership acquisition from the student perspective (Radhakrishna &

Bruening, 1994; McKinley, Birkenholz, & Stewart, 1993).









Requisite skills required by industry

In 1990, the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS)

studied the skills need by young people to succeed in the world of work, specifically in

the areas of manufacturing, health services, retail trade, accommodations and food

service, and office services. The purpose of this commission was to encourage high-skill,

high-wage employment.

Numerous research studies have identified the requisite skills and competencies

required by agribusiness employers. Many research studies emphasize the importance of

communication and human relation skills. Other studies indicate the importance of

problem-solving or critical thinking skills (Scanlon et al., 1996; Brown & Fritz, 1994;

Birkenholz et al., 1994), business management skills (Scanlon et al., 1996; Brown &

Fritz, 1994), computer technology skills (Harris, 1989), and other technical skills (Merritt

& Hamm, 1994; Harris, 1989).

Leadership training and development

According to Clark (2001), conservation biology curricula need to be updated and

expanded to prepare students to become successful leaders and practitioners in

biodiversity conservation. Current curricula in conservation biology place too much

emphasis on positivism and technical competence rather than on problem-focused

analysis, contextuality, and actual interdisciplinary methods (Clark, 2001). Similarly,

Newcomb (1993) asserted that graduate students are adequately prepared as scientists but

need to develop their leadership capacity.

According to Graham (2001), agricultural education curricula can be modified to

provide students with the skills and abilities necessary for industry leadership by

obtaining feedback from industry to prepare society-ready graduates. Ensuring that









graduate students are prepared for positions in teaching, research, and communication

areas is essential for increasing students' marketability and enhancing business

partnerships.

Leadership development is most effectively cultivated through relevant work and

learning experiences that shape the individual (Zemke & Zemke, 2001). Various

research efforts have found that agribusiness employers require that students have

adequate work experiences in order to be competitive. According to Harris (1989),

industry employers value experience obtained from farm backgrounds, industry

internships, cooperative education programs, and extracurricular activities.

Competencies

Moody (2001) recommended leadership competencies that should be incorporated

into agricultural and natural resources curriculum. Agricultural education faculty

indicated that the leadership development content should include opportunities for

students to define leadership, identify leadership characteristics and traits, and assess

their personal leadership style (Moody, 2001).

Leadership competencies deemed important for the development of an agricultural

and natural resources curriculum include increased student's awareness of their

behavioral preferences; understanding their strengths and opportunities for improvement;

appreciating differences; identifying opportunities and strategies for improving self-

confidence; understanding and practicing effective listening; listing short-term and life

goals; identifying and assessing personal values; identifying sources of and strategies for

gaining non-coercive power and influence in relationships; and practicing using

interpersonal skills to improve personal performance, the quality of relationships, and

helping others (Moody, 2001).









A review of literature revealed that colleges of agriculture nationwide are

revamping curricula to reflect an industry perspective. The aggregate findings of these

studies are presented in Table 2-2. As shown in the table, the studies represented are not

in total agreement of the competencies and skills required by the agribusiness industry.

The most prevalent competencies and skills desired by agribusiness representatives are

critical thinking, communication, business and economics, interpersonal, and human

relations (Dooley & Lindner, 2002; Graham, 2001; Linder & Dooley, 2002).

Table 2-2. Review of agricultural education research on competencies required for
professionals and graduate students.
Authors Population Core Competencies
Dooley & Lindner (2002) Doctoral students Adult learning theory
Distance education Technological knowledge
Instructional design
Communication skills
Graphic design
Administrative issues

Graham (2001) Arkansas Teamwork
Alumni Decision-making
Leadership
Initiative
Access/use of Internet
Presentation skills

Lindner & Dooley (2002) Doctoral students Teaching strategies
Distance education Foundations knowledge
Applications knowledge
International knowledge

Conceptual Model for the Study

The conceptual model shown below illustrates the factors influencing an

agricultural leadership graduate student's competitive edge for HR/training and

development employment (see Figure 4). As shown in the model, the key factors include








48



faculty characteristics, partnerships, industry characteristics, curriculum, and student


characteristics. Each combined factor plays an important role in student competitiveness.




Faculty Characteristics Partnerships Industry Characteristics
Leadership educationandtraining StrategicRelationships U Needs
Leadership assessment U Shared vision U Employment opportunities
Leadership theoretical perspective U Time U Famlharity with graduate agricultural
Business and industryexperience U Access leadership programs
SFamiliaritywith industry U Resources U Preparationofnew employees
Performance appraisals 0 Focus U Performance expectations of employees
Years ofteachmg experience U Communication U Characterstics of hiring agent
Researchinterests B Negotiation
0 Target audiences


Curriculum
Learnmg Environment
L Agricultural Leaderslup Courses
Supplemental Courses
o Educational psychology, communcation, distance education, cultural diversity, pubhec relations,
psychology, sociology, organizational leadership, organuzational behavior
STechnical Expertise
o HRD Competencies
o Exemplary Leadersuhp Practices
o USDA Graduate Competencies
o Business orientation
o Leadership assessment
o Communication skills

Student Characteristics
Leadership Development process
Interpersonal skills
Problem-solving
SExtracumcular activities
Exemplary leadership prachlces
SCommunication skills
Leadership assessment
Job preparation skills
SWork ethic
Technology saavy




Figure 4. Conceptual model of the preparation of society-ready graduates for
HR/training and development positions (Jones, 2004).


The conceptual model presented above is drawn from Gagne's model for


competency-based education. The model addresses three of twelve steps for building


curricula: (1) analyzing needs, (2) analyzing goals and objectives, and (3) analyzing


alternate ways to meet needs of students (Gagne, 1979). Since the conceptual model is


presented as merely a guide, the remaining nine steps of the Gagne model can be


addressed by individual curriculum planners.


The preparation of society-ready graduates prepared for HR/training and


development jobs is multi-faceted and involves the influence of faculty characteristics,


partnerships, industry characteristics, curriculum attributes, and student characteristics.









The model depicts a circular relationship to show that the relationships of each factor are

interdependent.

Faculty characteristics directly impact curriculum content of agricultural education

programs. For instance, university faculty's leadership education and training determine

familiarity with leadership theorists and leadership assessments deemed essential for

professional development. Thus, the theoretical perspective on leadership determines

how university faculty select required textbooks, incorporate leadership assessment, and

determine theoretical foundations for leadership courses.

The faculty characteristics directly impact the curriculum which impacts student

characteristics. Any agricultural leadership curricula should include agricultural

education and supplemental courses upon which students can build leadership

knowledge. Leadership and supplemental courses can provide opportunities for students

to interact with guest speakers, participate in group projects, and develop leadership

potential. Therefore, students are influenced by exposure to developmental experiences

which enhance leadership development. Additionally, the knowledge, skills, and abilities

of a student impact the leadership developmental experiences (assessment, challenge, and

support). The student characteristics can also influence the course offerings.

University faculty members in agricultural education and communication have

begun revamping curricula to incorporate industry perspectives (Graham, 2001; Moody,

2001). Similarly, industry characteristics can be influenced by familiarity with

agricultural education and communication departments.

Academia and industry partnerships are beneficial to enhancing the quality of

education. Incorporation of private sector collaboration is a method of providing









innovation and quality education for instructional programs (Sherman, 1983). Both

faculty and industry groups are involved in leadership education in various contexts.

This commonality presents opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships. Therefore,

the existence of partnerships is influenced by the characteristics of industry and faculty.

Summary

The review of literature revealed that there have been limited research efforts

examining the industry perspective on necessary curriculum revisions for the agricultural

leadership component. This research study addressed the concern by soliciting an

industry perspective from individuals representing a gamut of agribusinesses and related

business occupations to determine their perspective on curricula changes necessary to

adequately prepare graduate students to compete for leadership positions.

Numerous studies examining the skills and competencies required by agribusiness

corporations in the late 80s and early 90s were cited. Additional research efforts should

be conducted to update the current research base to include empirical data on the

marketability of agricultural education graduate students for industry leadership

positions.

It was noted in the research that curriculum development in post-secondary

agricultural education programs should include all involved stakeholders. Each group

has a unique contribution to make, however, they must come together to synthesize their

interests toward a common goal of curriculum revitalization

The literature base in the areas of training and development and agricultural

education has limited information on methods of establishing and maintaining

partnerships between academia and industry entities. Few collaborative efforts could be

cited. More research is needed in this area to expand the knowledge base in this area.






51


A review of literature revealed the following deficiencies: (1) a lack of empirical

data providing evidence on the marketability of agricultural education graduates for

industry leadership positions; (2) few documented strategies on enhancing graduate

curricula in agricultural education to reflect industry trends; (3) limited research on

specific strategies to incorporate industry-identified competencies into agricultural

education curricula; and (4) limited research on effective strategies for establishing and

maintaining partnerships with agribusinesses.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Chapter 1 provided an overview of competencies required for society-ready

graduates. The chapter included background for studying human resource development

and leadership competencies required for graduate students in agricultural leadership.

Other topics included definition of terms, limitations, assumptions, and importance of the

study.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of graduate-

level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry representatives.

To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to:

1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university faculty
who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses.

2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry
representatives.

3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary
for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and
development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives.

4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as
recommended by industry and academia representatives.

5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on
research and findings of the study.

6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs.

Chapter 2 presented a discussion of previous research related to this study. Chapter

2 discussed literature in the following areas: (1) leadership and leadership development,









(2) academia-industry partnerships, (3) curriculum theory, and (4) competencies.

Theoretical frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and empirical research relevant to this

study were also presented.

This chapter summarizes the research design, procedures, population and sample,

instrumentation, and data collection for this study.

Population and Sample

The populations for the study included university faculty teaching graduate

agricultural leadership courses (N=35) and industry representatives from Fortune 500

companies. The industry representatives (N=86) were human resource professionals

employed at agriculturally related Fortune 500 companies categorized by industry

including, Food and Consumer Products, Forest and Paper Products, Food Production,

Industrial and Farm Equipment, Tobacco, and Waste Management

(http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/index.html, 2002). This was a census study so data

were sought from all members of the population. In addition, two university career

resources professionals and three human resource professionals employed at

agribusinesses were also included as industry representatives. The career resource

professionals were nominated by university faculty participating in the study. The

industry human resource professionals were nominated by pilot participants in the study.

It was deemed necessary to include human resources and career services professionals

because of their familiarity with hiring practices, attributes of college graduate entering

the profession, and industry perspectives on leadership competencies.

Five university faculty were selected from the twenty-two faculty respondents for

participation in a long interview. Ten industry representatives were randomly selected









for participation a long interview. Only five participants responded, and the remaining

five participants were selected based on nominations from the pilot participants.

Seven agricultural leadership faculty indicated that they were in departments with

graduate agricultural leadership programs; these faculty members provided data on

profiles and trends of their graduate agricultural leadership curricula through an

additional questionnaire (see Appendix L). Seven department chairs/unit leaders

representing the thirty-five agricultural leadership programs were invited to participate in

the study. The department chairs/unit leaders provided data on profiles and trends of

their graduate agricultural leadership program through an additional questionnaire (see

Appendix K).

Instrumentation

A web-based survey was developed by the researcher as a self-reporting

questionnaire consisting of three parts: (a) human resources development competencies;

(b) exemplary leadership practices; and (c) company or program information. The first

part of the survey contained 18 of the 31 human resource development (HRD)

competencies as identified by McLagan (1983). Only 18 of the 31 HRD competencies

generalizable to training and development positions were deemed relevant to this study.

The thirteen HRD competencies not included were management competencies specific to

an instructional technologist position. The eighteen competencies studied were: (1) adult

learning; (2) instructional design; (3) performance gap analysis; (4) change management;

(5) leadership; (6) industry awareness; (7) buy-in/advocacy; (8) interpersonal relationship

building and collaboration; (9) consulting; (10) business knowledge; (11) systems

thinking; (12) contracting; (13) project management; (14) awareness of e-leaming

industry; (15) communication; (16) program evaluation; (17) design and development;









and (18) implementation and support. Respondents were asked to rank the competencies

deemed to be important for beginning employees who hold graduate degrees. The 5-

point Likert-type scale used was as follows: 1=not important, 2=of little importance,

3=moderately important, 4=very important, and 5=extremely important.

The second part of the survey instrument contained five constructs (challenging the

process, inspiring a shared vision, encouraging the heart, modeling the way, and enabling

others to act) measuring the five exemplary leadership practices as identified by Kouzes

and Posner (1997). Respondents were asked to rank the competencies deemed to be

important for beginning training and development employees who hold graduate degrees.

The 5-point Likert-type scale used was as follows: 1=not important, 2=of little

importance, 3=moderately important, 4=very important, and 5=extremely important.

The third section differed based on whether or not it was an academia or industry

survey. For the industry group, the section asked respondents to answer questions

concerning whether or not their company had previously hired agricultural education

graduates, current positions applicable to agricultural education graduates, job titles,

preferred degrees, and qualifications required. The section also included highest degree

obtained, type of company, gender, area of degree, job title, and number of years

employed with the company. For the academia survey, the third section included

questions concerning agricultural leadership specialization, number of years teaching

graduate leadership, business industry experience, job title, number of years of industry

experience, area of degree, highest degree obtained, and gender.









Research Design

This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The

quantitative research method used was descriptive, survey research. The qualitative

research method used was long interviews.

A mixed-methods study allows the researcher to combine rich text with numerical

data providing scope and breadth to a study (Creswell, 1994; Green, Caracelli, &

Graham, 1989). Creswell noted that a mixed-method study is a study combining at least

one quantitative method and one qualitative method in data collection, analysis, and

reporting findings. The advantages of conducting a mixed-methods study are utilization

of a plethora of methods or instruments (triangulation); the results of one research

method complement the other methods allowing for multi-facets of the phenomenon and

sequential use of methods that build on each other. All of these advantages result in

breadth and depth of the phenomenon being studied (Green et al., 1989; Creswell, 1994;

Sydenstricker-Neto, 1997).

The quantitative portion of this research used descriptive, survey research methods

to collect data. Descriptive surveys are advantageous because of the large amounts of

data that can be collected in a timely and cost effective manner (Dillman, 2000). The

advantages of utilizing web surveys include elimination of paper, postage, mailing, and

data entry costs (Dillman, 2000). According to Dillman (2000),

Web surveys in contrast, not only have a more refined appearance to which color
may be added, but also provide survey capabilities far beyond those available for
any other type of self-administered questionnaire (pp. 354).

The advantages of electronic surveys are interaction between the respondent and the

research, as well as formatting options, such as drop-down boxes (Dillman, 2000). Drop-









down boxes with long lists of answer choices can be used for convenient coding of

answers that would otherwise be asked in an open-minded manner (Dillman, 2000).

Dillman (2000) recommended sending a pre-notice e-mail message, since it is easy

to discard an e-mail message before reading it. The purpose of this notification is leaving

a positive impression of importance so that the respondent will not immediately discard

it.

The qualitative portion of the study used interviews to explore the employability of

graduate students in agribusiness industry careers. The interviews used semi-structured

questions (Glesne, 1999) to obtain a broad perspective on competencies required for

training and development employment. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed.

Additional data such as cultural reflection, field notes, journal entries, and e-mails

provided by some academia and industry participants were also analyzed.

Validity and Reliability

According to Oppenheim (1969), a panel of experts should be selected to agree on

the content validity of the statements in a questionnaire. Oppenheim (1969) stated that

content validity, based on experts' judgment, is essential. Thus, a panel of experts from

the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of

Florida was used to establish content and face validity of the instrument used in the study.

Based on the comments and suggestions made by the panel of experts (see Appendix A),

the researcher modified or reworded some statements for clarity.

Threats to internal validity include history, maturation, pre-testing, instrumentation,

statistical regression, differential selection of subjects, experimental mortality, and

selection-maturation interaction (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2000). This study had one

threat to internal validity differential selection of subjects. To address the potential









threat, academia respondents were selected from the population frame, American

Association of Agricultural Educators (AAAE) directory, and industry respondents were

selected from the population frame, agriculturally-related Fortune 500 companies. Each

respondent was selected using a random number generator. Due to the low response rate

of the industry respondents, each was asked to participate in an interview.

To establish internal consistency, the researcher pilot tested the survey instrument

with university agricultural education faculty and industry participants of the College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences career fair. The researcher entered the resulting data into

the computer and analyzed them using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) to calculate Cronbach's reliability coefficient. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability

test was used to determine if the survey instrument was sufficiently constructed to obtain

internal consistency for the study. The Cronbach Alpha score for the HRD competencies

was .85. Kouzes and Posner (1997) exemplary leadership practices yielded the following

construct scores:

Table 3-1. Cronbach's Alpha for Exemplary Leadership Practices (n=15)
Leadership Practice

Challenging the process .84

Inspiring a shared vision .76

Enabling others to act .78

Modeling the way .80

Encouraging the heart .79


The Cronbach Alpha score for the 18 human resource dev elopement competencies

was .85. According to Ary et al. (1996), if the measurement results are used for making a









decision about a group or for research purposes, a reliability coefficient of at least .50 is

acceptable. Therefore, the survey instrument met the requirement for internal

consistency.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was used to verify the internal and external reliability of the

instrument. Both university faculty and industry representatives were recruited to pilot

test the questionnaire. University faculty participants in the pilot study were faculty in

agricultural education departments nationwide. The industry representatives for the pilot

study were selected from a population frame of participants of the 2002 College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences career fair attendees (N=30). Pilot participants were not

members of the population and did not participate in the study.

Web surveys were e-mailed to industry respondents (n=30). A response rate of

50% (n=15) was received for the pilot study over a three-week time period. A few minor

suggestions were given by the pilot study participants. Upon completion of the pilot

survey, there were slight mechanical and typographical adjustments necessary to refine

the instrument to ensure clarity and understanding.

To further explore industry perspectives on leadership and human resource

development competencies required for graduate students pursuing industry employment

in agribusinesses, the researcher interviewed five career fair participants. Pilot study

participants (n=5) were industry employees at the 2002 College of Agricultural and Life

Sciences (CALS) career fair. The data consisted of two long interviews and one focus

group with three industry participants. Based on the findings from these interviews, the

human resources perspective proved to be comprehensive. Thus, human resource









professionals were included in this study to provide direct knowledge about the

competencies and skills required for industry hiring trends and required competencies.

Data Collection

A pre-notification e-mail or postcard was sent to university faculty and industry

representatives. On May 9, 2003, the Web survey was e-mailed to university faculty

participants (N=35). Due to the unavailability of industry representatives' complete

contact information, the researcher sent hard copies of the questionnaire to sixty-one

industry representatives and e-mailed the questionnaire to twenty-five respondents of the

total population (N=86). The researcher mailed a cover letter, a copy of the instrument,

and a self-addressed, stamped, return envelope to sixty-one industry subjects on May 9,

2003. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, ensured anonymity, and

requested participation in the study (see Appendix F). The cover letter also gave

directions for completing and returning the questionnaire and stated that participation in

the study was strictly voluntary. Each instrument contained a code number for follow-up

purposes only.

One week after the initial mailing, on May 16, 2003, a second e-mail and mailing

was sent to university faculty and industry representative non-respondents. The

researcher then sent a postcard reminder, a second cover letter, and another survey

instrument to the remaining non-respondents on May 23, 2003. On June 7, 2003, a third

mailing and e-mailing to university faculty and industry representatives was conducted.

Since the response rate for industry representatives was low, follow-up calls were made

to every non-respondent to determine if the surveys were received and to find out

whether or not they would be willing to participate in the study.









To increase the industry representative response rate, the panel of experts (see

Appendix A) recommended revising the cover letter to include an administrator's

endorsement. The cover letter was revised to emphasize the importance of the study in

maintaining university and industry linkages crucial to preparing society-ready graduates.

The letter was signed by the Associate Dean for Academic Programs in the College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida (see Appendix I). The letter

urged industry representatives to contact the researcher even if participation was

prohibited due to a company survey policy. As a result, industry representatives

informed the researcher of their inability to participate due to company survey policies

prohibiting their participation in university research studies (n=30) or policies against

participation in internet surveys (n=5).

On July 11, 2003, another mailing was sent to industry non-respondents that

included a cover letter, postcard, and a survey instrument. Another five industry

representatives informed the researcher that they were unable to participate due to a

company policy prohibiting their participation in university-related research.

Alternatively, companies with policies against internet surveys were mailed a paper

version of the survey. Other strategies used to increase response rate were conducting

follow-up telephone calls and e-mails, sending reminder post cards, and mailing paper

versions of the survey (Dillman, 2000). According to Dillman (2000), a combination of

these strategies should increase the response rate. Employing these various strategies

yielded final response rates of 73% for university faculty and 20% for industry

representatives. Non-response error was a threat to the findings of the study because of

the difficulty in securing the participation of the industry representatives.









Qualitative research component

Due to the low industry response rate, it was deemed necessary to incorporate a

qualitative component to add to the depth of this study. The purpose of the interviews

was to further explore the scope and nature of training and development opportunities for

agricultural education and communication graduate students.

Five university faculty were selected from the original twenty-two faculty

participants using a random number generator. The ten industry representatives were

selected; of which, five were selected using a random number generator, and five were

selected from nominations from pilot participants. Given the low industry response rate,

the researcher interviewed human resources and career resource professionals familiar

with agribusinesses to explore the competencies required for industry employment. The

researcher e-mailed the selected participants to solicit participation and schedule a

telephone interview. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Data were

analyzed by common themes.

Profiles and trends of graduate agricultural leadership programs

To address the low industry response rate in this study, a second survey was

developed by the researcher and approved by a panel of experts (see Appendix A). The

purpose of the survey was to gather information on the development of agricultural

leadership programs, existence of agricultural leadership specializations, employment

trends of recent graduates, and the leadership education background of university. The

questionnaire was mailed to university faculty and department chairs/unit leaders of

selected agricultural education programs on January 26, 2004. Ten respondents replied

that they would not participate in the study for various reasons such as time constraints

(n=l), program focus relative to teacher education only (n=2), no graduate program on









leadership (n=4), sabbatical leave (n=l) and no longer teaching leadership (n=2). Two

surveys were undeliverable to the e-mail addresses. E-mail follow-ups were conducted

for three weeks. Additionally twenty telephone calls were conducted to increase

response rates.

Low response rates

The researcher took the appropriate measures as recommended by Dillman (2000)

to increase response rates. Examples of methods used to increase response rates were:

use of a deadline, survey appearance, pre e-mail, telephone follow-ups, availability of

paper and Web survey formats, availability of survey results, revision of the cover letter,

appealing, questionnaire color, and ensured confidentiality (Dillman, 2000). Similar

studies (Fulkert, 1997; Mahoric, 1997) examining the scope and nature of competencies

required for training and development careers have yielded low response rates as well.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations

of item responses, were calculated. Open-ended questions contained in the qualitative

portion of the study were analyzed via content analysis and categorized into response

patterns based upon theoretical components of HRD/leadership competencies. The

responses were grouped into emergent themes. The results of the data analyses are

reported in Chapter 4.

The following measures were utilized to ensure confidentiality of responses;

respondents were assigned a code number to allow for follow-up purposes only. Data

collected through the web-based survey was analyzed with the following procedures:









1. Questionnaires were reviewed for missing data. If data were missing on an
individual item, it was coded as missing and not used in the statistical
computations.

2. Data were electronically submitted into a database. Data were then transferred into
text files.

3. Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported on the variables.

Summary

This chapter has described both the quantitative and qualitative research methods

used in this study. Online data collection and mailed instruments were used to collect

data from thirty-two respondents, twenty-two agricultural education faculty and ten

industry representatives. Data analysis procedures included descriptive statistics and

content analysis. The next chapter will report the findings of the study.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Chapter 1 described the background for studying academia and industry

perspectives on graduate competencies necessary for training and development

employment. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of

graduate-level agricultural leadership programs by university faculty and industry

representatives. To accomplish this goal specific objectives were to:

1. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by university
faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses.

2. Ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies for graduate students
pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by selected industry
representatives.

3. Compare and contrast the importance of HRD/leadership competencies necessary
for agricultural education graduate students to obtain employment in training and
development as perceived by university faculty and industry representatives.

4. Identify key components of a graduate level agricultural leadership curriculum as
recommended by industry and academia representatives.

5. Propose a model for graduate-level agricultural leadership curricula based on
research and findings of the study.

6. Determine the profile of graduate agricultural leadership programs.

Chapter 2 provided a theoretical framework, and empirical research relevant to this

study. An extensive review of agricultural leadership and training/development literature

was presented. Topics addressed included overview of leadership theories, leadership

styles, university faculty and industry partnerships, curriculum development and theory,

and human resource development competencies.









Chapter 3 described the quantitative and qualitative research methodology used to

conduct this study. Specifically, research design, population and sample,

instrumentation, procedures, and data analysis were discussed.

Chapter 4 summarizes the demographic data and is organized by the six research

objectives. Data are reported for university faculty, agricultural leadership faculty,

department chairs/unit leaders, and industry representatives who participated in this

study.

Overview of University and Industry Participants

The purpose of this section is to clarify the terminology used to distinguish the

university and industry groups. Throughout this chapter, university participants in this

study will be described as follows: university faculty (n=22), agricultural leadership

faculty (n=8), and university department chairs/unit leaders (n=8). University faculty

(n=22) refers to the original respondents who provided data regarding the human resource

development and leadership competencies. Agricultural leadership faculty (n=8) refers to

respondents who provided data on the history and development of their graduate

agricultural leadership curriculum. University department chairs/unit leaders (n=8) refer

to respondents who were department chairs or unit leaders of graduate agricultural

leadership programs. The term industry representative (n=10) will be used to reference

representatives of human resources of Fortune 500 companies (n=5), agribusiness firms

(n=3), and career services professionals (n=2).









Description of University Faculty Respondents

Gender

Thirty-five university faculty participants made up the original population for this

study. Of the thirty-five university faculty, five responded by declining participation in

the study. Of the remaining thirty university faculty, twenty-two provided data for this

study. Of the twenty-two university faculty respondents, nineteen (86%) were male, and

three (14%) were female. The aforementioned percentage is representative of the

agricultural education profession, where approximately 89% are male (American

Association for Agricultural Educators Directory, 2003).

Sources of leadership training

University faculty in this study received their leadership training from a plethora of

sources (see Table 4-1). A majority of university faculty received leadership training

from personal reading and professional conferences/workshops. Fifty percent of the

respondents reported that they had received leadership training via corporate seminars.

Few respondents indicated that they received leadership training from extension in-

service training (n=6) and sabbatical leaves (n=2). Other sources of leadership training

included audio and videotapes (n=l), courses (n=2), FFA (n=2), professional activities

(n=l), military service (n=l), National Extension Leadership Development (NELD)

(n=l), practical experience (n=l), and research (n=2).

Table 4-1. Sources of leadership training of university faculty respondents (n=22).
Sources of leadership training Frequency Percent
Extension in-service training 6 27.3
Sabbatical leave 2 9.1
Corporate professional development seminars 11 50.0
Personal reading 20 90.9
Conferences/workshops 19 86.4
Other 10 45.5
Note: The total percentage is greater than 100 due to multiple responses.









Graduate agricultural leadership programs

University faculty respondents were asked whether or not their department offered

a graduate agricultural leadership degree. One-third of the respondents indicated that

their department offered a graduate agricultural leadership degree (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. Graduate agricultural leadership programs as reported by university faculty
(n=21).
Offer agricultural leadership Number Percentage
Yes 7 33.3
No 14 66.7

Agricultural leadership teaching experience

University faculty respondents were asked to indicate their years of experience

teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses, and results ranged from 1 to 20 years.

The findings shown in Table 4-3 reveal that the average number of years of experience

was 7.12 years. Of the 17 university faculty respondents, few were beginning teachers,

and most of them had been teaching graduate-level agricultural leadership courses for

over 3 years.

Table 4-3. Years of experience teaching graduate agricultural leadership courses (n=17).
Years Frequency Percentage
1 3 17.6
2 2 11.8
3 1 5.9
4 1 5.9
5 1 5.9
6 2 11.8
7 2 11.8
11 1 5.9
12 1 5.9
13 1 5.9
20 2 11.8









Business/Industry work experience

The majority of university faculty in this study indicated that they had worked in

business/industry jobs prior to becoming a professor (see Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. Business and industry experience of university faculty (n=20).
Business/industry experience Frequency Percentage
Yes 13 59.1
No 7 31.8

Table 4-5 illustrates the industry jobs previously held by university faculty. The

job titles were grouped into the following categories: training and development (n=5),

management (n=6), sales (n=4), skilled labor (n=2), residence life director (n=l), and

research director (n=l). The majority of university faculty (n=15) held training and

development, management, or sales positions; all of which provide employees with an

orientation of the business world.

Table 4-5. Job areas of industry positions held by university faculty (n=20).
Industry job areas Frequency
Training and Development 5
Management 6
Sales 4
Skilled labor 2
Residence life director 1
Research director 1

Highest degree obtained

University faculty participants were asked to indicate their highest degree

completed (see Table 4-6). Nearly all of the university faculty respondents held a Ph.D.

or Ed.D. degree. This finding is consistent with the Fritz and Brown (1998) study which

found that the majority (92%) of university faculty teaching leadership courses held

doctoral degrees.









Table 4-6. Frequency and percentage of highest degree completed by university faculty
(n=21).
Highest degree completed Frequency Percentage
Master's degree 1 4.8
Ed.D. 4 19.0
Ph.D. 16 76.2

Area of Highest Degree

University faculty participants were asked to indicate the area of the highest degree

earned. Responses varied from education to agriculture to other degree areas. More than

half of the respondents (57.2%) earned their highest degree in education, and one-third of

the respondents (33.3%) earned their highest degree in agriculture. Few respondents

(9.5%) held degrees in areas outside of education or agriculture (see Table 4-7).

Table 4-7. Frequency and percentage of area of highest degree completed by university
faculty (n=21).
Degree Area Frequency Percentage
Education 12 57.2
Agriculture 7 33.3
Other 2 9.5

Description of Industry Representatives

Initially, the industry representatives included human resource professionals from

agricultural Fortune 500 companies only. Due to the low response rate, the definition of

industry representatives was expanded to include agribusiness and governmental

representatives. Industry representatives providing data for the quantitative portion of

this study included human resources professionals from agricultural Fortune 500

companies (n=5), agribusiness firms (n=3), and career resource professionals (n=2).

Demographic Data

The industry representatives were mostly male (see Table 4-8). Seventy percent

were males (n=7), and thirty percent were female (n=3). Similarly, there were more male









university faculty respondents (86%) than female university respondents (14%) in this

study.

The industry representatives were asked to report their highest degree earned (see

Table 4-8). The majority of the respondents (60%) held at least a bachelor's degree. The

remaining 40% held a high school diploma (10%), associate (10%), master (30%), or

education doctorate degree (10%). Respondents earned their degrees from various areas,

including engineering (25%), human resources (12.5%), agriculture (12.5%), business

(12.5%), and communication/journalism (12.5%).

Table 4-8. Demographics of industry representatives (n=10).
Variable grouping Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 7 70
Female 3 30
Degree
High school diploma 1 10
Associate degree 1 10
Bachelor's degree 4 40
Master's degree 3 30
Ed.D. 1 10

History of hiring agricultural education graduates

Industry representatives were asked to indicate if they hired agricultural education

and communication graduates forjobs within their company (see Table 4-9). Six of the

industry representatives indicated that they have previously hired agricultural education

graduates with a leadership emphasis, and four indicated that they had not.

Table 4-9. Frequency and percentage of industry representatives who have hired
agricultural education and communication graduates (n=10).
Hired AEC graduates Frequency Percentage
Yes 6 60
No 4 40









Training and development career opportunities for agricultural education
graduates

Industry representatives were asked to list the current positions for which graduate

students in agricultural education would be strong competitors or preferred candidates.

Four positions for which agricultural education graduates would be strong competitors or

preferred candidates were listed by respondents (see Table 4-10). The various job titles

provided required a minimum of a bachelor's or master's degree.

Table 4-10. Job titles, preferred degrees, and degree areas of positions for which
agricultural education and communication graduates are qualified.
Job Titles Degree Degree Area
Assistant Director for Career MS Counseling, Student Personnel,
Events Higher Education or related field
Production Management Trainee BS, MS Animal Science, Agribusiness

Assistant Director of Experiential MS Counseling, Student Personnel,
Learning Higher Education or related field

Assistant Director, Employee MS Counseling, Student Personnel,
Relations and Research or related field

Assistant Director Client Services MS Counseling, Student Personnel,
or related field

Company type

The industry representatives worked for companies such as industrial and farm

equipment (n=2), food and grocery (n=l), career development and planning education

(n=l), human resources consulting (n=l), and manufacturing (n=3) (see Table 4-11).

Table 4-11. Frequency and percentage of type of company by industry representatives
(n=8).
Type of Company Frequency Percentage
Industrial and Farm Equipment 2 25
Food and Grocery 1 12.5
Education, Career Development /Planning 1 12.5
Human Resources Consulting 1 12.5
Manufacturing 3 37.5









Current job titles

Of the ten industry representatives, five (50%) held positions as a manager, four

(40%) as director, and one (10%) as an assistant director (see Table 4-12). These were

the current positions held by respondents in their companies.

Table 4-12. Frequency and percentage of current job titles held by industry
representatives (n=10).
Job titles Frequency Percentage
Manager 5 50
Director 4 40
Assistant Director 1 10

Years employed in current position and at company

Industry representatives were asked to indicate the number of years they have been

employed in their current position and the number of years employed at their present

company (see Table 4-13). Three respondents (37.5%) indicated that they were

employed in their current position for two years, and two respondents (25%) indicated

that they have been employed in their current position for five years. One respondent

(12.5%) reported that he/she had worked for one year, and another respondent (12.5%)

indicated he/she had been employed for 20 years in current position. The time employed

at a particular company ranged from 2 to 25 years, with three-fourths of the respondents

working at their present company for six or more years.

Table 4-13. Years employed in current position and at current company (n=7).
Variable grouping Frequency Percentage
Years in current position
1 1 12.5
2 3 37.5
5 2 25
20 1 12.5
Years employed at company
1-5 2 25
6-10 1 12.5
11-15 3 37.5
21-25 1 12.5









Job titles of industry representatives

The industry representatives (n=10) held various job titles within their company

prior to obtaining their current position. The job titles included Assistant Director for

Careers (n=l), Engineering Designer (n=l), Human Resource Representative (n=2),

Human Resource Consultant (n=l), Supervisor of Human Resources (n=l), Manager

(n=2), Marketing Representative (n= 1), Production Trainer (n= 1), and National Accounts

Sales (n=l). Job titles held at other related companies included Director of Human

Resources (n=l), Human Resources Manager (n=2), Supervisor (n=l), and Manager

(n= 1).

Objective One

Objective one sought to ascertain the importance of HRD/leadership competencies

for graduate students pursuing HR/training and development positions as perceived by

university faculty who teach graduate-level agricultural leadership courses. University

faculty felt that nearly all of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983)

were very or extremely important.

University faculty respondents were asked to rate eighteen human resource

development competencies on a Likert-type scale with a range of one to five, with 5

representing extremely important. The summated mean score for the university faculty

rating of the HRD competencies was 70.80, indicating an overall rating of the 18 HRD

competencies as very important (see Table 4-14). Individual mean ratings for the

eighteen HRD competencies (McLagan, 1983) ranged from 3.09 to 4.77. University

faculty (n=22) rated sixteen competencies as very important or extremely important. The

"communication" competency was rated the highest (M=4.77, Extremely important) and

also had one of the lowest standard deviations (.61) of the 18 HRD competencies









comprising the scale. The remaining two competencies, business knowledge and

contracting, were rated as moderately important. University faculty did not rate any of

the competencies as not important or of little importance.

Table 4-14. Mean and standard deviations of perceptions of HRD competencies required
for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22)
HRD Competencies M SD
Communication 4.77 .61
Interpersonal relationship
building and collaboration 4.67 1.20
Leadership 4.41 .85
Industry awareness 4.33 1.02
Program evaluation 4.23 .53
Instructional design 4.18 .80
Change management 4.14 .99
Adult learning 4.09 .97
Buy-In/Advocacy 3.95 1.09
Design and development 3.91 1.06
Project management 3.77 1.02
Systems thinking 3.73 1.03
Consulting 3.68 1.09
Awareness of e-learning industry 3.55 .86
Implementation and support 3.50 1.06
Performance gap analysis 3.50 .86
Business knowledge 3.27 .94
Contracting 3.09 1.02
Summated mean 70.80
Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately
important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00)

University faculty respondents (n=22) were asked to rate twenty-five items

representing the five exemplary leadership practices identified by Kouzes & Posner

(1997). Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set

of five Likert-type items, with "5" representing "extremely important. The summated

mean scores for university faculty are reported in Table 4-15. The summated mean

scores for leadership competencies (McLagan, 1983) ranged from 20.50 to 21.52, placing

all the five exemplary practices in the "very important" range. In addition, faculty ratings









of all but two of the twenty-five items representing exemplary leadership practices fell

into the "very important" range. The other two items-"setting the example by behaving

in ways consistent with shared values" and "being as dedicated as you expect others to

be" were rated as "extremely important."

Table 4-15. Means and standard deviations of exemplary leadership practices required
for training and development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22).
Leadership Practices M SD
Challenging the process
Searching out challenging opportunities to change,
grow, innovate and improve 4.27 .94
Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes 4.05 1.05
Exploring new and different ways of solving problems
or improving processes 4.38 1.02
Going beyond boundaries of the organization to improve
processes 4.00 .98
Utilizing opportunities to change the status quo 3.86 1.04
Inspiring a shared vision
Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 4.18 .66
Enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to
their values, interests, hopes, and dreams 3.95 .95
Communicating and sharing expectations using vivid,
clear, and concrete images 3.91 .97
Exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities 4.32 .95
Envisioning the future of what the organization can become 4.23 .97
Enabling others to act
Fostering collaboration 4.27 .63
Cooperative goals and building trust 4.09 1.02
Strengthening people by giving power away, providing
choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and
offering visible support 3.86 .89
Providing individuals with as much control over resources
as needed to do the job 4.05 .95
Listening to diverse points of view 4.23 .97
Modeling the way
Setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with
shared values 4.68 .57
Achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and
build commitment 4.24 .62
Making the connection between individual performance
expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values 4.23 .75









Table 4-15. Continued
Leadership Practices M SD
Planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable
steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins 4.14 .77
Keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently
according to personal values 4.18 .96
Encouraging the heart
Recognizing individual contributions to the success of every
project 4.18 .91
Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 4.09 .87
Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 4.50 .80
Providing team members with support and appreciation
for their contributions 4.24 .83
Recognizing people who exemplify commitment to shared
values 4.18 .85
Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately
important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00)
*Summated means of exemplary practices
Challenging the process 20.81
Inspiring a shared vision 20.69
Enabling others to act 20.50
Modeling the way 21.50
Encouraging the heart 21.40

Qualitative Interviews

To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and

development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected university faculty

(n=5). One university faculty respondent indicated that his or her department has core

leadership competencies built into the curriculum. When asked about the competencies

required for training and development positions, this respondent replied:

We use eight leadership competencies ... communication, diversity, visioning,
mentoring, professionalism and ethics, problem-solving, teamwork, and working
with change.

Similarly, another respondent stated:

I think it is imperative that graduate students have the following competencies:
communication, oral and written, research, ability to conduct persuasive
presentations, and the ability to utilize negotiation skills... They also need to have
an understanding of the land-grant philosophy, research and statistics classes,
ability to write critical reports for funding, an understanding of international









development as well as diversity-an understanding of how people from different
backgrounds can work together.

Most respondents used the words "influence" (n=4) or "motivate" (n=3) when

describing leadership competencies necessary for training and development positions.

One respondent defined leadership in terms of a learning process.

... a learning process by which an individual garnishes information to deal with
various challenges...to plan the work and work the plan to bring about change.

Another university faculty respondent stated that leadership entails:

...learning about people and learning how to motivate people.

Another university faculty respondent provided a definition of leadership that

included the terms, influence, planned change, potential, and goals. This respondent

commented:

... my definition of leadership centers around influence. It's a person's ability-
definitely not necessarily a title a person carries, but leadership is a person's ability
to influence others to bring about hopefully planned change to reach whatever
goals, proficiencies, or customer service or whatever to be able to influence others
to reach their potential and the goals of the organization.

The similar responses indicate that university faculty generally had the same or

similar conceptions about the nature of leadership. One university faculty respondent

indicated that the department did not have much contact with industry due to the large

size of the program. The responsibility for career planning and industry partnerships

rested solely with the university career center instead of the department.

... we use the university career center and we rely on our students to find their own
employment opportunities. We don't have interaction with industry because we
rely on our students to do this because our program is so big. So the students when
they get their internships and final employment job, we really leave that up to them.
We are very student-centered...









Objective Two

Objective two sought to ascertain the HRD/leadership competencies necessary for

graduate students pursuing training and development employment, as perceived by

selected industry representatives (see Table 4-16). Industry representatives felt that ten

of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very important, and one

competency-"leadership"-was rated as extremely important. The industry representatives

rated seven of the HRD competencies as moderately important.

Table 4-16. Mean and standard deviations of HRD competencies required for training
and development positions as rated by industry representatives (n=10)
HRD Competencies M SD
Leadership 4.60 .52
Communication 4.40 .84
Interpersonal relationship
building and collaboration 4.40 .84
Change management 4.30 .67
Buy-In/Advocacy 4.10 .99
Business knowledge 3.80 .63
Performance gap analysis 3.70 .95
Industry awareness 3.70 .82
Adult learning 3.70 .67
Systems thinking 3.60 .84
Project management 3.50 .85
Consulting 3.40 1.26
Instructional design 3.30 .95
Program evaluation 3.20 1.03
Contracting 2.80 1.14
Awareness of e-learning industry 2.70 1.06
Implementation and support 2.70 1.25
Design and development 2.60 .97
Summated mean 67.17
Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately
important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00)

Industry representatives (n=10) were asked to rate twenty-five items representing

the five exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). The five exemplary

leadership practices were challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling

others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1997).









Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were measured with a set of five

Likert-type items, with "5" representing "extremely important." Mean scores for

industry representatives are reported in Table 4-17 and ranged from 3.63 to 4.88.

Table 4-17. Means and standard deviations of perceptions of exemplary leadership
practices required for entry-level training and development employment as
rated by industry representatives (n=10).
Leadership Practices M SD
Challenging the process
Searching out challenging opportunities to change,
grow, innovate and improve 4.13 .84
Experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes 3.75 .47
Exploring new and different ways of solving problems
or improving processes 4.13 .64
Going beyond boundaries of the organization to improve
processes 3.63 .74
Utilizing opportunities to change the status quo 4.00 .53
Inspiring a shared vision
Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future 3.75 1.04
Enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to
their values, interests, hopes, and dreams 3.88 .64
Communicating and sharing expectations using vivid,
clear, and concrete images 4.00 .76
Exhibiting enthusiasm about future possibilities 4.25 .46
Envisioning the future of what the organization can become 3.88 .64
Enabling others to act
Fostering collaboration 4.13 .64
Strengthening people by giving power away, providing
choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and
offering visible support 3.75 1.04
Providing individuals with as much control over resources 3.25 .89
Listening to diverse points of view 4.38 .52
Modeling the way
Setting the example by behaving in ways consistent with
shared values 4.38 1.06
Achieving small wins that promote consistent progress and
build commitment 3.63 .52
Making the connection between individual performance
expectations and organizational mission, vision, and values 4.13 .35
Planning thoroughly by dividing projects into achievable
steps, thus creating opportunities for small wins 3.75 .46
Keeping people and projects on task by behaving consistently
according to personal values 3.88 .99









Table 4-15. Continued
Leadership Practices M SD
Encouraging the heart
Recognizing individual contributions to the success of every
project 4.00 .76
Celebrating team accomplishments regularly 3.88 .65
Being as dedicated as you expect others to be 4.88 .35
Providing team members with support and appreciation
for their contributions 4.38 .52
Recognizing people who exemplify commitment to shared
values 4.13 .99
Scale for interpreting item means: Not important (1-1.49); Of little importance (1.50-2.49); Moderately
important (2.50-3.49); Very important (3.50-4.49); Extremely important (4.50-5.00)
*Summated means of exemplary leadership practices
Challenging the process 19.30
Inspiring a shared vision 19.40
Enabling others to act 19.80
Modeling the way 19.60
Encouraging the heart 21.70

Qualitative Interviews

To further explore the HRD/leadership competencies required for training and

development, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected industry

representatives (n=10). When asked about the competencies required for training and

development employment, one respondent replied:

One has to be....flexible, maybe that's not a good word. One has to adjust to
change and have insight or vision. It is also important to be able to direct even
when things are not going right according to your opinion or by procedure. It goes
back to motivation because you have got to get them there.

Another industry representative indicated that training and development

employment requires communication, work ethic, and experience. When asked about the

competencies required for training and development, one respondent recommended:

Encourage the students to learn communication, good communication skills. Our
jobs require a lot of work ethic. It's management, but it's not a sit-behind-the-desk
job. This goes back to experience. Definitely have the students participate in the
student training positions because some positions require this first before getting
the job. That's why students need to start early.









I think mostly they [industry] want to find students who have demonstrated
leadership roles and they have taken on responsibility where the student can
demonstrate the example or the change or the effect and sometimes that is very
difficult. We have some strong leaders, but that is difficult to quantify but I think
the employers look for a group of activities. Hopefully when they get to the
interview process through a series of questions [employers] can identify the
person's communication abilities and how they communicate and might
communicate with others. In that case they want to see what the student has done.
So if they have been an officer in an organization or they have had a special project
or working on a research project with a group of people and can demonstrate that
the team has achieved some goal, not necessarily won an award but was able to
start a project, put it together, and show the end product. I think those are the kinds
of things [we're] trying to identify.

Another industry representative highlighted the importance of interaction with

industry as a means of knowing what is required for training and development

employment. When asked about recommendations to prepare students for gainful

employment in the training and development profession, one respondent suggested:

I guess one would be while they are in school, get out and talk to companies, even
though they may not be in a job search mode. Talk to HR and different types of
staff members to find out (most of these companies are happy to talk to
them)... find out exactly early on if the student does this to determine if there are
needs and areas the company representatives can help guide them as to the courses.
Instead of going through and taking a bunch of courses and then going out looking
for a job, start early finding out exactly what are the needs and of course trying to
align those with career interests.

Another industry representative highlighted the importance of interaction with

industry as a means of knowing what is required for training and development

employment. The respondent recommended:

Students need courses like sociology that address understanding people, relating to
cultures, working with small farmers, Hispanic farmers, etc. You have to develop
an understanding of their culture. You may have to meet with them based on when
they can meet given their time schedule even if it is 7 a.m. So students should take
any course that teaches them how to deal with any culture other than what they are
used to. Also, any professional development that can be taken would be good.
This goes back to the leadership skills which is a plus.









One industry representative reiterated the importance of having "general business

orientation" to be competitive for training and development employment.

It depends on what type of position we are talking about. A lot of them
[agribusinesses] try to get someone in an internship or co-op; that's a big plus
where they have already gotten some general business orientation. They are more
likely to hit the ground running than someone who has the skill set but may not
have the general business orientation.

Another industry representative highlighted the importance of appropriate

experiences and courses in helping students prepare for industry employment. The

respondent was familiar with the agricultural education degree program and spoke highly

about the advantages of the flexibility in the degree.

Make sure the students get experiences early in their academic life, and make sure
they are exposed to the different careers in the agency. I recommend that they be
required to do an internship. I also recommend that they be diversified. AgEd
gives students a diverse background. Make sure the degree is not limited. For
example, one student was a good match for the organization, but the individual had
not had the minimal soil and plant science courses she needed. Taking courses in
only one area pigeon holes the student to one area. Encourage the students to learn
communication, good communication skills. Ourjobs require a lot of work ethic.

One respondent emphasized the importance of communication as a major part of

leadership ability.

Probably and this is part of leadership is the ability to communicate effectively
because if you can't communicate, you are not going to be able to lead. You know
someone who possesses a positive attitude, you know, people-oriented and focused
on the needs of the people that they are leading and be sensitive to their needs. Of
course, they have to be confident in whatever functional area they are in.

Objective Three

Objective three sought to compare and contrast the perceptions of university faculty

and industry representatives toward HRD/leadership competencies necessary for

agricultural education graduate students to obtain training and development employment.

Based on the quantitative data, university faculty and industry representatives felt that a









large majority of the HRD competencies as identified by McLagan (1983) were very or

extremely important (item means of 3.50 or higher) (see Table 4-18). The university

faculty surveyed rated thirteen HRD competencies higher than the industry

representatives rated the HRD competencies, and the faculty summated mean was

slightly higher-70.80 versus 67.17. However, again both university faculty and industry

representatives rated a large majority of the 18 HRD competencies as very or extremely

important. University faculty rated communication, interpersonal relationship building

and collaboration, and leadership competencies as more important than industry

Table 4-18. Mean scores of HRD competencies required for training and development
positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry representatives
(n=10)
HRD Competencies Faculty Mean Industry Mean
Communication 4.77 4.40
Interpersonal relationship
building and collaboration 4.67 4.40
Leadership 4.41 4.60
Industry awareness 4.33 3.70
Program evaluation 4.23 3.20
Instructional design 4.18 3.30
Change management 4.14 4.30
Adult learning 4.09 3.70
Buy-In/Advocacy 3.95 4.10
Design and development 3.91 2.60
Project management 3.77 3.50
Systems thinking 3.73 3.60
Consulting 3.68 3.40
Awareness of e-learning industry 3.55 2.70
Implementation and support 3.50 2.70
Performance gap analysis 3.50 3.70
Business knowledge 3.27 3.80
Contracting 3.09 2.80
Summated mean 70.80 67.17
Scale: l=not important; 2=of little importance; 3=moderately important; 4=very important; 5=extremely
important









representatives rated them, while industry representatives rated leadership, interpersonal

relationship building and collaboration, communication, change management, and buy-

in/advocacy competencies as more important.

University faculty (n=22) and industry representatives (n=10) were asked to rate

twenty-five items representing the five exemplary leadership practices (Kouzes & Posner,

1997). The five exemplary leadership practices were challenging the process, inspiring a

shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart

(Kouzes & Posner, 1997). Perceptions about each exemplary leadership practice were

measured with a set of five Likert-type items. The summated mean scores for university

faculty and industry representatives are reported in Table 4-19 and ranged from 20.50 to

21.52 and 19.30 to 21.70, respectively. Although university faculty rated four of the five

exemplary practices slightly higher than industry representatives, both groups reported

that the five exemplary practices are very important in the preparation of agricultural

leadership graduate students for industry HRD/training and development positions.

Table 4-19. Mean scores of leadership practices required for entry-level training and
development positions as rated by university faculty (n=22) and industry
representatives (n=10)
Leadership Practices University faculty Industry representatives
M M
Challenging the process 20.81 19.30
Inspiring a shared vision 20.59 19.40
Enabling others to act 20.50 19.80
Modeling the way 21.52 19.60
Encouraging the heart 21.43 21.70
Scale for interpreting summated means: Not important (5.00-7.45); Of little importance (7.50-12.45);
Moderately important (12.50-17.45); Very important (17.5-22.45); Extremely important (22.50-25.00)

The qualitative interviews from both the university faculty and industry

representatives were transcribed and analyzed according to themes. The following table

shows the frequency of the most commonly used words in the transcription. Both









industry and university faculty used the words communication, interpersonal, teamwork,

and leadership most frequently.

Themes that emerged from the interviews were logged and tabulated to further

explore similarities and differences in responses (see Table 4-20). Leadership,

communication, influence, experience, interpersonal, and change themes were repeatedly

mentioned in the industry interviews. The industry representatives highlighted the

importance of internships and work experiences, development of interpersonal skills, and

effective communication. Similarly, the university faculty respondents highlighted the

themes communication, leadership, interpersonal, experience, and influence.

Table 4-20. Frequency of emergent themes regarding HRD/leadership competencies.
Theme Industry (n=10) University faculty (n=5) Totals
Communication 25 15 40
Interpersonal 10 8 18
Teamwork 5 4 9
Leadership 35 12 47
Influence 13 4 17
Motivation 5 3 8
Experience 10 5 15
Change 5 2 7
Flexibility 3 1 4
Respect 4 2 6
Confident 3 3 6

Objective Four

Objective four sought to identify key components of a graduate level agricultural

leadership curriculum as recommended by industry and university faculty representatives.

To accomplish this objective, respondents (n=15) were interviewed to gain further insight

about the competencies required for training and development employment as well as

curriculum recommendations.