<%BANNER%>

Predicting Leadership Behaviors of Participants in Agricultural-Based Leadership Development Programs

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042390/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Leadership Behaviors of Participants in Agricultural-Based Leadership Development Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: STRICKLAND,ROCHELLE L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: AG -- AGRICULTURE -- EXPERIENTIAL -- IMPACTS -- LEADERSHIP -- OUTCOMES -- THEORY
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes of agricultural-based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural-based leadership development programs in the United States. Specifically, the study utilized the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and selected demographic characteristics to understand what influences alumni of agricultural-based leadership development programs to engage in certain leadership behaviors. A national study of agricultural-based leadership development programs has not been conducted in over 20 years (Howell, Weir, & Cook., 1982). This study identified the outcomes and impacts of agricultural-based leadership development programs through a mixed-methods approach involving a focus group, four individual interviews, and a web-based survey instrument. The focus group participants consisted of the agricultural-based leadership development program directors (n = 24) that attended the 2009 annual meeting for International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leadership. The individual interviews were conducted with four purposefully selected directors based on program characteristics. Outcomes identified in the focus group and interviews included increased networking, relationship, and team building skills, improved communication and social skills, and leadership skills. Medium-term outcomes identified included involvement in the policy development process, leadership roles and responsibilities, and life-long learning opportunities. Program alumni (n = 843) from these same four programs completed the survey instrument. A response rate of 47.7% (n = 402) was received. The dependent variables in this study were the three behaviors identified in the focus group and individual interviews: involvement in policy development, leadership roles, and life-long learning. The independent variables were attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) as well as age, gender, race, marital status, and education. Alumni reported participating somewhat frequently in policy development (M = 3.86, SD = 1.41) and more frequently in leadership roles (M = 4.57, SD = 1.37) and life-long learning opportunities (M = 5.13, SD = 1.20). Multiple linear regression demonstrated that alumni are more likely to engage in the policy development process, take on leadership roles, and engage in life-long learning opportunities if they (a) have a positive attitude about the behavior, (b) felt they had the proper knowledge and skills needed to be effective, and (c) felt influential others would positively support their involvement in the behavior. Attitude is the strongest influencer of engagement for all three behaviors. These three variables explained over 50% of the variation in the alumni engagement of the three identified leadership behaviors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ROCHELLE L STRICKLAND.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Carter, Hannah Sewell.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042390:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042390/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Leadership Behaviors of Participants in Agricultural-Based Leadership Development Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: STRICKLAND,ROCHELLE L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: AG -- AGRICULTURE -- EXPERIENTIAL -- IMPACTS -- LEADERSHIP -- OUTCOMES -- THEORY
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes of agricultural-based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural-based leadership development programs in the United States. Specifically, the study utilized the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and selected demographic characteristics to understand what influences alumni of agricultural-based leadership development programs to engage in certain leadership behaviors. A national study of agricultural-based leadership development programs has not been conducted in over 20 years (Howell, Weir, & Cook., 1982). This study identified the outcomes and impacts of agricultural-based leadership development programs through a mixed-methods approach involving a focus group, four individual interviews, and a web-based survey instrument. The focus group participants consisted of the agricultural-based leadership development program directors (n = 24) that attended the 2009 annual meeting for International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leadership. The individual interviews were conducted with four purposefully selected directors based on program characteristics. Outcomes identified in the focus group and interviews included increased networking, relationship, and team building skills, improved communication and social skills, and leadership skills. Medium-term outcomes identified included involvement in the policy development process, leadership roles and responsibilities, and life-long learning opportunities. Program alumni (n = 843) from these same four programs completed the survey instrument. A response rate of 47.7% (n = 402) was received. The dependent variables in this study were the three behaviors identified in the focus group and individual interviews: involvement in policy development, leadership roles, and life-long learning. The independent variables were attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) as well as age, gender, race, marital status, and education. Alumni reported participating somewhat frequently in policy development (M = 3.86, SD = 1.41) and more frequently in leadership roles (M = 4.57, SD = 1.37) and life-long learning opportunities (M = 5.13, SD = 1.20). Multiple linear regression demonstrated that alumni are more likely to engage in the policy development process, take on leadership roles, and engage in life-long learning opportunities if they (a) have a positive attitude about the behavior, (b) felt they had the proper knowledge and skills needed to be effective, and (c) felt influential others would positively support their involvement in the behavior. Attitude is the strongest influencer of engagement for all three behaviors. These three variables explained over 50% of the variation in the alumni engagement of the three identified leadership behaviors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ROCHELLE L STRICKLAND.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Carter, Hannah Sewell.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042390:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 PREDICTING LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS OF PARTICIPANTS IN AGRICULTURAL BASED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS By LARA ROCHELLE STRICKLAND A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULF ILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Lara Rochelle Strickland

PAGE 3

3 To my family for their continuous support, love, and belief in me

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There have been numerous ind ividuals that have supported me through this journey that certainly deserve much more than a simple acknowledgment. I would like to thank my supervisory committee for being patient, supportive, and incredibly great to work with. Dr. Amy Harder, Dr. Grady R ob erts, and Dr. Alle n Wysocki are a great team and it has been an absolute pleasure to work with all of them. Most importantly I would like to think my advisor, committee chair, role model, life coach, and possibly one of the most amazing women I have ever known, Dr. Hannah Carter. Dr. Carter provided me with more support and guidance than I could have ever imagined. She also supported me when I most needed it and provided me with some truly once in a lifetime experiences. I do not think I could have found a better advisor to guide me through this entire process. The friends that have come and gone over the past four years have made this experience and process much easier, enjoyable, and well worth being here. Crystal Mathews Warnock, Kate Shoulders, Katie A brams, Karen Cannon, Lauri Baker, Marlene Eick, Audrey Vail, Christy Chiarelli, Adrienne Gentry, and Avery Culbertson for being some of the best girlfriends through their support and ability to make me laugh when I needed it most. Thank you to Brian and Su san Schwartz for providing me with a little bit of Aggie Spirit while you were here in Gainesville. A special thank you to Alexa Lamm for her incredible patience, allowing me to ride Sammy, and just understanding me. I could not have made it without each a nd every one of these individuals. A special thank you to my two best friends, Shelby Smith Baugh back home in Texas, and Brian Sapp, the love of my life. Shelby and the Smith family have been true supporters and I appreciate the care packages, especially those with Dublin Dr. Pepper

PAGE 5

5 and fried apple pies. I cannot thank Shelby enough for being my best friend and supporting me even if I did not always make sense. Thank you to Brian Sapp for his constant love, ability to make me laugh and for distracting me w hen I needed it the most. I look forward to see what the future holds for us. My family, Mom, Becca, Granny, Poppy, Aunt Joyce, Uncle Jerry, Uncle Todd, and Uncle Donald Larry, for understanding that even though we have been spread out across the U.S. over the past four years, they are always in my heart. Their support and sacrifices in helping me to reach my goals and continue my education are forever appreciated. I would like to thank my grandparents, Bob and LaVada Wainscott, and Mom for inspiring me to never give up and reminding me that I always have their support. Finally, a tremendous thank you goes to the directors of the International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leadership, especially Dr. Larry Van De Valk, Dr. Joe Williams, and Jack Li ndquist for their assistance in helping to make this research possible. I would like to thank the alumni from the LEAD New York program, Oklahoma Agriculture Leadership Program, and the Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership program. A special thank you to all of the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources alumni. My time here in Florida and appreciation for the agriculture industry was greatly enhanced because of the alumni from the WLIANR. Last, but certainly not least, than k you to Class VII. Class VII made the past three years incredibly memorable.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 20 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ...................... 24 Leadership and Leadership Dev elopment ................................ ................................ ...... 25 Agricultural Based Leadership Development Programs ................................ ............... 27 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 Leadership Development Program Outcomes ................................ ........................ 30 Agricultural based leadership program evaluations ................................ ........ 31 Organizational and community leadership programs ................................ ..... 36 Summary of leadership program outcomes ................................ ...................... 43 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Experiential Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 Adult Learning Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 Theory of Planned Behavior ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 Attitude ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 51 Subjective norm ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 Perceived behavioral control ................................ ................................ ............... 53 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 57 Researcher Subjectivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Three Phases of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 Phase One ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 60 Research design ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60

PAGE 7

7 Research participants ................................ ................................ .......................... 62 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 62 Data collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 63 Data analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63 Phase Two ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 64 Research design ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 64 Research participants ................................ ................................ .......................... 65 Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources (WLIANR) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 66 Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership ................................ ....................... 69 LEAD New York ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 72 Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program ................................ .................... 75 Summary of selected programs ................................ ................................ .......... 76 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 76 Data collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 78 Data analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 78 Phase Three ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 79 Research design ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 79 Research participants ................................ ................................ .......................... 80 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 81 Data collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 85 Data analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 86 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 89 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 90 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 91 Short Term Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ 91 Networking, relationship building, and team building skills ............................ 91 Communication and social skills ................................ ................................ ........ 94 Leadership skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 95 Medium term Outco mes ................................ ................................ ............................. 97 Leadership roles and responsibilities ................................ ................................ 98 Policy development ................................ ................................ ............................ 100 Life long learning ................................ ................................ ................................ 101 Networks ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 103 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 105 Obj ective Three ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 109 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 114 Objective Five ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 117 Objective Six ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 122 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 127 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ .... 128 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 130 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 130

PAGE 8

8 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 133 Objective Three ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 134 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 136 Objective Five ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 137 Objec tive Six ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 139 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 141 Discussions and Implications ................................ ................................ .......................... 143 Re commendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 151 Recommendations for Practice ................................ ................................ ............... 151 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ 158 APPEND IX A FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ................................ .......... 161 B DIRECTOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ............ 162 C WEB BASED SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ........ 163 D INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL FROM DIRECTORS ................................ ......................... 179 E FIRST EMAIL CONTACT WITH SURVEY LINK ................................ ......................... 180 F FIRST EMAIL REMINDER ................................ ................................ .............................. 181 G SECOND EMAIL REMINDER ................................ ................................ ......................... 182 H THIRD EMAIL REMINDER ................................ ................................ .............................. 183 I FINAL EMAIL REMINDER ................................ ................................ .............................. 184 J CODES FOR VARIABLES USED IN CORRELATIONAL AND MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ .............................. 185 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 194

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Differences between leader and leadership development (Day, 2000) ................ 26 2 2 Summary of agricultural based leadership development program outcomes ...... 36 2 3 Sixteen leadership program attributes and outcomes (Eich, 2008) ....................... 39 2 4 Leadership Outcomes of 55 Programs (Russon & Reinelt, 2004) ......................... 42 3 1 Overview of programs selected for phases two and three ................................ ...... 77 3 2 Program alumni with valid, working email addresses ................................ ............... 82 3 3 Survey instrument reliability index scale scores. ................................ ....................... 84 4 1 Summary of focus group and interview results ................................ ....................... 104 4 2 Program and class representation ................................ ................................ ............. 106 4 3 Alumni members age ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 108 4 4 Demographic charac teristics of survey respondents ................................ .............. 108 4 5 Alumni involvement in the policy development process ................................ ......... 110 4 6 Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards involvement in the policy development process ................................ ...................... 110 4 7 Alumni involvement in leadership and volunteer roles ................................ ........... 111 4 8 Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards involvement in leadership roles ................................ ................................ .................. 111 4 9 Alumni ranking of involvement in organ izations ................................ ...................... 112 4 10 Alumni involvement in life long learning opportunities ................................ ........... 112 4 11 Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control and subjective norms towards involvement in the life long learning opportunities ................................ .................. 112 4 12 Leadership behaviors of alumni ................................ ................................ ................. 113 4 13 Comparison of director and alumni perceptions of outcomes ............................... 116 4 14 Magnitudes for interpreting correlations (Davis, 1971) ................................ .......... 117

PAGE 10

10 4 15 Relationships between behaviors in policy development and attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm ................................ ................. 118 4 16 Relationships between behaviors in leadership roles and a ttitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm ................................ ................................ ... 118 4 17 Relationships between behaviors in life long learning and attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm ................................ ................. 119 4 18 Correlations between demographic variables ................................ ......................... 120 4 19 Relationships between theory of planned behavior variables and demograp hic variables ................................ ................................ ................................ 121 4 20 Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in policy development ........ 123 4 21 Regression of variable s on involvement in policy development ........................... 123 4 22 Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in leadership roles .............. 124 4 23 Regression of variables on involvement in leadership roles ................................ 125 4 24 Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in life long learning ............. 126 4 25 Regression of variables on engagement in educational opportunities ................ 126 5 1 Comparison of agricultural based leadership development programs to 4) scan of 55 leadership programs ............................. 149

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 A model of the experiential learning process ................................ ............................. 46 2 2 The theory of planned behavior ................................ ................................ ................... 51 2 3 Conceptual model: Adapted from theory of planned behavior Hi erarchy and experiential learning model ................................ ................................ 56 3 1 Logic Model for Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 3 2 The Wisdom Cycle for the Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership program ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 71 3 3 Concept Map for the LEAD New York Progra m ................................ ........................ 74

PAGE 12

12 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 PREDICTING LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS OF PARTICIPANTS IN AGRICULTURAL BASED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS By Lara Rochelle Strickland May 2011 Chair: Hannah S. Carter Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes o f agricultural based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United States. Specifically, the study utilized the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and selected demographic characteristics to understand what influences alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to engage in certain leadership behaviors. A national study of agricultural based leadership development programs has not been conducte d in over 20 years (Howell, Weir, & Cook ., 1982). This study identified the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs through a mixed methods approach involving a focus group, four individual interviews, and a web based survey instrument. The focus group participants consisted of the agricultural based leadership development program directors ( n = 24) that attended the 2009 annual meeting for International Association of Programs fo r Agricultural Leadership. The individual interviews were conducted with four purposefully selected directors based on program characteristics. Outcomes identified in the focus group and interviews included increased networking, relationship,

PAGE 13

13 and team buil ding skills, improved communication and social skills, and leadership skills. Medium term outcomes identified included involvement in the policy development process, leadership roles and responsibilities, and life long learning opportunities. Program alumn i ( n = 843 ) from these same four programs completed the survey ins trument. A response rate of 47.7 % ( n = 402) was received. The dependent variables in this study were the three behaviors identified in the focus group and individual interviews: involvement in policy development, leadership roles, and life long learning. The independent variables were attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) as well as age, gender, race, marital status, and education. Alumni reported particip ating somewhat frequently in policy development ( M = 3.86, SD = 1.41) and more frequently in leadership roles ( M = 4.57, SD = 1.37) and life long learning opportunities ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.20). Multiple linear regression demonstrated that alumni are more lik ely to engage in the policy development process, take on leadership roles, and engage in life long learning opportunities if they ( a) have a positive attitude about the behavior, ( b) felt they had the proper knowledge and skills needed to be effective, and ( c) felt influential others would positively support their involvement in the behavior. Attitude is the strongest influencer of engagement for all three behaviors. These three variables explained over 50% of the variation in the alumni engagement of the t hree identified leadership behaviors.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The W. K. Kellogg Foundation developed agricultural based leadership programs economic systems, to develop social skills, to be effective spokespeople for their industry or community, to expand individual networks, and to develop future political, civic and organizational leaders 1982 p. 52 ). Following World War II, individuals at Michigan State University (MSU) identified a need for effective rural leadership (Miller, 1976). Dr. Arthur Mauch an agricultural economics professor at MSU organized public policy workshops to deal with agricultural production, community affairs, and international development in the 1950s. Along this same time period, other variations of rural and community development programs were developed which eventually led to the development of the Kellogg Farmers Study Program (Lindquist & McCarty, 2007). The Kellogg Farmers Study Program assumed many Michigan farmers were well developed in technology and management, but lacked in social science and liberal arts knowledge and understanding (Miller, 1976). The advisors of the program felt individuals would be mo re equipped to solve problems facing the rural areas through a broad background in humanities, social sciences, and a better understanding of world economics and politics Along with this concept, the program advisors believed concentrated training experie nce would enhance and accelerate the leadership development process (Miller, 1976). The Kellogg Model of agricultural based leadership programs was based on three main goals: (

PAGE 15

15 activities on the part of young men and women from rural areas who show potential for leadership, ( b) improve problem solving and leadership skills of farmers and persons residing in rural areas and ( c) expand extension programming at land grant universities in the areas of public affairs e p. 5, 1982). Since the development of the Kellogg Farmers Study Program, there have been approximately 45 other programs developed in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, and Australi a based on the Kellogg Model. Today, there are 39 programs within the United States that are members of the International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leadership (IAPAL) along with six others outside of the United States (Waldrum, personal comm unication, October 2010). In 2000, Helstowski reported more than 7,200 alumni for all of the programs. Today, there are more than 9,800 alumni w ithin the United States (Alcorn et al., personal communication, March 2010). While each program has unique chara cteristics, the core and fundamental structure of these programs are the same (Mathews & Carter, 2008). The original Kellogg programs were developed to assist in changing or enhancing pation in the programs (Howell et al., 1982). Miller (1976) conducted an evaluation to determine the extent to which the programs led to involvement in community roles, improved decision making, and communication skills. More recent program evaluations of agricultural leadership development programs have identified similar program outcomes such as increased networks, increased self confidence, and further development and

PAGE 16

16 understanding of leadership responsibilities within communities (Dhanakumar, Rossing, & Campbell, 1996; Earnest, 1996). Carter (1999) conducted an evaluation of the W edgworth L eadership I nstitute for A griculture and N atural R esources (WLIANR) and found participants broadened perspectives through exposure to different cultures, increased netw orks, and further developed critical thinking skills. Kelsey and Wall (2003) found graduates of the O klahoma A griculture L eadership P rogram (OALP) had increased awareness of communities needs. Abbington Cooper (2005) found graduates of the Louisiana S tate U niversity their leadership skills and had a better understanding of U.S. agricultural systems and state issues. Few studies have been able to measure the long term outcomes and impacts o f agricultural based leadership development programs even though more than $111 million has been spent on agricultural based leadership development programs (Helstowski, 2000). As with any program, agricultural based leadership development programs must be Boone, Safrit, & Jones, 2002 p. 231 e Freeman, 2004, p. 204). Outcomes may be short term, medium term, long term or program impacts (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Boone et al. (2002) identified knowledge, atti tudes, skills, and aspirations as short term outcomes and behavioral changes as medium term outcomes. Long term outcomes may also be referred to as

PAGE 17

17 program impacts on the social, economic, and environmental surroundings (W. K. Kellogg Foundation 2004 ). De termining each type of outcome can be challenging for programs such as the agricultural based leadership development programs, but necessary to continue to gain support from program sponsors. The challenge arises due easurable changes to th Moss, 2003 p. 7 ). Often times, there is evidence of change, but establishing proof of what caused the change is the challenge (McLean & Moss 2003 ). Program theory is necessary to guide any program evaluation (R ossi et al., 2004). Identifying leadership program theory is a challenge in a majority of the current literature on agricultural based leadership development programs yet, program theory is important as a basis for formulating and prioritizing an evaluatio n (Rossi et al.). Black and Earnest (2009) identified social learning theory by Bandura (1986) and adult learning theories of Birkenholz (1999), Caffarella (2002), and Knowles (1984) that can be applied to leadership development programs. Agricultural base d leadership development programs can model their facilitation techniques using the experiential learning process developed by Roberts (2006). Finally, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) provides a useful framework to explore potential influences of program alumni to adopt certain leadership behaviors. The Theory of Planned Behavior provides a model about how human action is perceived behavior control (Ajzen, 1991 ). Program directors of agricultural based leadership development programs are seeking to influence participant attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control to have an impact on the

PAGE 18

18 term outcome) that will p otentially have an impact on the agricultural and natural resources industry upon completion of the program (Ajzen 1991 ; Howell et al., 1982). By understanding what the intended program outcomes and impacts are from the perspective of the directors as wel l as what the current attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behaviors of the alumni are, agricultural based leadership development programs can modify programming to reach the outcomes and impacts desired or further enhance the out comes and impacts currently being reported. Statement of the Problem Program effectiveness becomes more difficult to determine when the outcomes of these programs are still unknown (Rossi et al., 2004). Critics of leadership education and leadership develo pment have suggested that little thought is put into the outcomes of leadership development programs (Hustedde & Woodward, 1996) With over 40 agricultural based leadership development programs today, only one in depth evaluation has been conducted to deter mine the outcomes and impacts of these programs (Howell et al., 1982). However, program evaluations have been conducted for many individual programs, most of which only measured short and medium term outcomes ( Abbington Cooper, 2005; Black, 2006; Carter & Rudd, 2000; Dhanakumar, Rossing, & Campbell, 1996; Kelsey & Wall, 2003; Whent & Leising, 1992). Further evaluation is needed for the programs to better understand the outcomes, including short, medium and long term (Rohs & Langone, 1993). Diem and Nikola (2005) recommended further evaluation of leadership programs to determine long term impacts in regards to the agriculture and natural resources industries. Russon and Reinelt (2004) suggested there is knowledge about how

PAGE 19

19 leadership programs affect individu als in terms of skills, capacities, and knowledge. However, there is little research to suggest the development of leadership over time (Russon & Reinelt, 2004). This study will identify outcomes and impacts of four programs within the United States from t he perspectives of both the directors and program alumni. The four programs include the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agricultural Natural Resources of Florida (WLIANR), LEAD New York, Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program (OALP), and Kansas Agricu ltural and Rural Leadership (KARL). As Mathews and Carter (2008) found, while each program has unique characteristics, the core and fundamental structure of these programs are the same (Mathews & Carter, 2008). More specifically, the WLIANR, LEAD New York, OALP, and KARL are similar in program goals and objectives, incorporate a national and grant university. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine outcome s of agricultural based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United States. The following research objectives were used to guide the research: To de scribe the intended outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors. To describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni. To describe the outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program alumni.

PAGE 20

20 To compare a nd contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni. To identify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, atti tudes, subjective norms, and perc eived behavioral control, and engagement in certain leadership behaviors. To determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. Significance of the Study This study will determine the impacts agricultural based leadership development programs have on individuals within the agricultural industry and their behaviors related to policy development, leadership roles, and educational opportunities. Leadership development p rograms should have a clear set of expected outcomes and a means to evaluate those outcomes (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, n.d.). While not all programs have the same characteristics, the four programs used in this study are similar in program structure and fun ction. All four programs reside within a land grant university, have similar program goals and objectives, and include a national and international travel component (KARL, 2010; LEAD New York, 2010; OALP, 2010; WLIANR, 2010). Each of these programs have be en in existence for over 15 years, yet only two evaluations of individual programs have been conducted in this time (Carter & Rudd, 2000; Kelsey & Wall, 2003). Additionally, an evaluation of agricultural based leadership programs on a national scale has no t been conducted in over 20 years, which was based on four of the original Kellogg Model programs in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan and Montana (Howell et al., 1982). There is a clear lack in research on the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based l eadership development programs, especially on a national scale,

PAGE 21

21 despite the fact that millions of dollars are being spent on agricultural based leadership development programs (Helstowski, 2000). Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the follo wing terms have been defined: Agricultural based leadership development program Adult leadership development programs designed to further develop leadership capabilities of participants from the agriculture and natural resources sectors. Alumni An indi vidual who is a former class member that completed the entirety of an agricultural based leadership development program. Attitude A favorable or unfavorable response formed in regards to a given matter (in this case, leadership behaviors) (Ajzen, 1991). Behavioral beliefs Beliefs about the consequences of adopting a behavior (Ajzen, 2002). Behavioral intention Formed by a combination of an attitude toward engaging in a certain leadership behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (Ajz en, 2002). Control beliefs Beliefs concerned with the potential factors that may facilitate or impede the performance of the targeted behavior and the perceived power of t hose factors (Ajzen, 1991; 2006 ). Director The individual in charge of planning, scheduling, and making administrative decisions for an agricultural based leadership development program. Impact The long term changes that can be attributed to a planned program (Boone et al., 2002; Rossi et al., 2004) International Association for Pro grams of Agricultural Leadership (IAPAL) A consortium of leadership programs in the USA and several other countries which focus on the leadership development of individuals, communities, and the agricultural and rural industries. Outcome The state of t he target population or social conditions that a program is expected to change (Rossi et al., 2004); may include knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavioral changes in individuals or social, economic, and environmental changes in communities (Boone et al. 2002).

PAGE 22

22 Perceived behavioral control The perception of how easy or difficult it is to perform or adopt a behavior, relating to the concept of self efficacy (Bandura, 1994; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Salient beliefs The determinants impacting the intentio n of either performing or not performing certain leadership behaviors and outcomes. Humans hold numerous beliefs toward a specific behavior, but typically only attend to a few salient beliefs in any given situation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Subjective norm Beliefs about the normative expectations of other people resulting in perceived social pressure (Ajzen, 2002). Theory of Planned Behavior A model proposing that human action is guided by behavioral beliefs (producing attitudes), normative beliefs (pro ducing subjective norms), and control beliefs (producing perceived behavioral control), which combine to formulate a behavioral intention leading to an actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Limitations of the Study Two populations were used for this study. The fi rst population for this st udy was the directors of agricultural leadership development programs of the International Association of Programs for Agricultural Leadership (IAPAL). The second population were four of the agricultural leadership development pro grams from within the U.S. which were included in the quantitative segment of this study. Therefore, the results can only be generalized to these four programs. Additionally, only alumni with valid, working e mail addresses were surveyed, therefore covera ge error is also a limitation of the study. The focus group included all program directors attending the 2009 IAPAL conference and therefore is transferable to more agricultural based leadership development programs. The survey was researcher developed, th erefore another limitation relates to measurement error. In order to address measurement error, a panel of experts was used to ensure validity of the survey instrument. Additionally, a pilot test of the

PAGE 23

23 instrument with alumni of another similar agricultura l based leadership development program further addressed both validity and reliability of the instrument. The researcher assumes that the participants of the study provided truthful responses, but bias may occur in the responses of the directors and alumn i. Summary Research identifying the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs is limited. Only one national study has been conducted since agricultural based leadership development programs were developed in the 1960s (Howe ll et al., 1982). Chapter 1 provided the background and significance of the problem, as well as the purpose of the study. This study will identify the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by program direct ors and alumni. This study will also investigate the behaviors that program alumni are demonstrating and applying after completion of the agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by program alumni and directors. Finally, this study d etermined the attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control of the program alumni and the influence of these variables on alumni behaviors. Chapter 2 will address the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework for the study. Research on agricu ltural leadership development programs, evaluations, and theory of planned behavior, as well as the four agricultural leadership development programs utilized in this study, will be discussed.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of agricultural based leadership development programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United States. The objectives of this study were to describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni, the intended impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors and alumni, compa re and contrast how the perceptions of the directors align with those of the program alumni, identify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm and leadership behaviors, and determine the influence of selected demographics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on program alumni behaviors. This chapter presents a review of the literature concerned with leadership, leadership development programs, and ou tcomes and impacts of leadership programs. The chapter focuses on agricultural based leadership development programs, program development and evaluation, previous evaluations of leadership programs, and presents the relevant theoretical and conceptual fram eworks. The chapter is divided into the following major sections: leadership and leadership development, agricultural based leadership development programs, program development and evaluation theory, experiential learning, adult learning theories, and the theory of planned behavior.

PAGE 25

25 Leadership and Leadership Development Leadership is one of the most studied, yet least understood subjects (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). There are a wide variety of theoretical approaches to explain the leadership process (Bass & Avol io, 1994; Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Northouse, 2007). Along with the many approaches to leadership, there are also many definitions of leadership. Stogdill (1974) stated that there are as many different definitions of leadership as there are peop le who have tried to define it. Northouse communities ar found leadership development to be embedded into the culture of top companies by comparing global top companies with 530 organizations around the world (Kristick, 2009). Adair (1984) b elieve d the skills of leadership can be learned. Coaching individuals who demonstrate leadership qualities will help them to reach their leadership potential (Taylor, 1962). Leadership development continues to grow within communities, organizations, busine sses, and industries ( Russon & Reinelt, 2004 ). In order to continue to survive in the new economy, employee training and leadership development must be an ongoing process that will have direct and meaningful influence (Kristick, 2009). McCauley, Moxley, an d Van Velsor (1998) defined leadership development as expanding the collective capacity of organizational members to engage effectively in formal titles or authority (Day, 2 000). Leadership processes typically enable groups to work together in meaningful ways (Day 2000 ; McCauley et al. 1998 ). Huestedde and

PAGE 26

26 Woodward (n.d.) also discussed leadership development in terms of capacity building. Capacity building means engaging i ndividuals and organizations to identify issues, resources, and opportunities and enhancing the potential of those individuals to solve problems (Hustedde & Woodward n.d. ). Day (2000) identified the differences between leader development and leadership de velopment, which can be seen in Table 2 1. Leader development focuses on individual capabilities such as self awareness, self regulation, and self motivation (Day 2000 ). Leadership development places more emphasis on the organization, industry, or group a s a whole (Day 2000 ). Table 2 1. Differences between leader and leadership development (Day, 2000) Development Target Comparison Dimension Leader Leadership Capital Type Human Social Leadership Model Individual Relational Personal power Co mmitments Knowledge Mutual respect Trustworthiness Trust Competence Base Intrapersonal Interpersonal Skills Self awareness Social awareness Emotional awareness Empathy Self confidence Service orientation Accurate self image Political awareness Self regulation Social skills Self control Building bonds Trustworthiness Team orientation Personal responsibility Change catalyst Adaptability Conflict man agement Self motivation Initiative Commitment Optimism Leadership development efforts may serve many purposes such as: Expanding the capacity of individuals to be effective in leadership roles and processes, developing the pipe line of leaders within an organization or field, identifying and giving voice to emerging and/or invisible leadership, strengthening the capacity of teams to improve organizational outcomes, supporting the creation of new organizations or fresh approaches to leading, encouraging collaboration

PAGE 27

27 across functions, sectors, and industries, and, creating a critical mass of leaders that can accelerate change in communities and countries to address key issues and problems (Hannum, Ma rtineau, & Reinelt, p. 5, 2007) McCauley et al. (1998) identified three key elements to an effective leadership development experience: assessment, challenge, and support. These three elements provide motivation to learn, grow, and change and the resources for the learning to occur (McC auley et al., 1998). Leadership development programs can provide this developmental experience through classroom type leadership training to activities such as high ropes courses and reflective journaling (Hernez Broome & Hughes, 2004). In 2009, Leadership Excellence (Shelton, 2010) identified the top leadership development programs in the U.S. based on seven criteria: (a) vision/mission, (b ) involvement and participation, (c ) m easurement and accountability, (d ) d esign, content and curriculum, (e ) presenter s presentations, and delivery, (f) take home value, and (g ) outreach. Over 1,000 organizations were reviewed and ranked in seven different categories: large organizations, small to midsize organizations, education/universities, non profit organizations, g overnment/military, independent consultants/trainers/coaches, and large consulting groups (Shelton 2010 ). Leadership programs have been developed for businesses, universities, industries, communities, adults, youth and many other audiences. Agricultural B ased Leadership Development Programs History Leadership development programs in agriculture and natural resources were originally developed to increase the level of awareness for leaders involved in the industries by engaging them in study and experiences (Miller, 1976). The W. K. Kellogg Foundation established the first agricultural based leadership development program in

PAGE 28

28 start the program (Howell et al., 1982). After World War II, individuals at MSU identified the need for effective rural leadership (Miller 1976 ). Dr. Arthur Mauch in agricultural economics, organized workshops to focus on agricultural production, community affairs and international development (Lindqu ist & McCarty, 2007). Other programs were then developed in California and Pennsylvania. Agricultural leadership development and economic systems to develop social sk ills, to be effective spokespeople for their industry or community, to expand individual networks, and to develop future political, These agricultural leadership programs were developed for far mers and persons employed in occupations and professions related to agriculture because it was felt that these individuals had the technical knowledge, but often lacked the background in the social sciences and humanities to deal with issues related to agr iculture and natural resources industries effectively (Howell et al., 1982). With a broad background in humanities, social sciences, and a better understanding of world economics and politics, the advisors of the programs believed individuals would be more equipped to solve problems facing the rural areas. Additionally, the advisors felt the concentrated training experiences would accelerate the leadership development process of the participants (Miller, 1976). Since the development of the Kellogg Farmers S tudy Program, there have been approximately 40 other programs developed in the United States, Canada and Australia (Waldrum, personal communication, October 2010). Thirty seven of these programs are

PAGE 29

29 within the U.S. with more than 9,800 alumni (Alcorn et al ., March 2010, personal communication). More than half of these programs were initiated without support from the Kellogg Foundation (Abington Cooper, 2005). In 2001, more than $111 million total support had been garnered by the 28 reporting U.S. agricultur al/rural leadership programs (Helstowski, 2000). This financial support is generated from a number of sources including corporate grants, alumni donations, state appropriations, private sector agricultural industries and organizations, and university an d f oundation grants (Helstowski, 2000) At the time of this study, 30 of the 43 programs were housed within a university system, while private non profit groups, foundations, and other partnerships conduct the remaining programs (Waldrum, personal communicati on, 2010). A review of all programs in 2000 found most programs are 18 months to two years long and include 25 to 30 people who range in age from 25 to 50 (Helstowski, 2000). Throughout the program, content ranges from local to state, national, and interna tional issues and approximately half of the programs include a national and international study seminar (Helstowski, 2000; Waldrum personal communication, October 2010 ). Each of the agricultural based leadership development programs have unique characteri stics, but the core and fundamental structure tend to be the same (Mathews & Carter, 2008). Based on an evaluation of four of the original Kellogg funded programs, program characteristics determined to be important included: An educational program design w emphasized the analysis of public issues, participants who had leadership potential and a concern for agricultural and/or public affairs, and staff and involved institutions that had a strong commitment to th e attainment of program goals (Howell et al., 1982, p. 51).

PAGE 30

30 The common experiences of many of the U.S. programs include seminars throughout the home state of the program, a national trip to Washington, D. C. and another location within the United States an d an international trip to another country. Leadership Development Program Outcomes Measuring the medium and long term outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs continues to be a challenge because of the difficulty of attri buting measureable changes to the programs (McLean & Moss, 2003). However, Diem (2003 ( a) justify the investment of time and effort, as well as the dedication of public and private funds, ( b) earn and build p rofessional, organizational, and political credibility and support, ( c) yield tangible results that serve as the base for scholarly publications, as well as awards and recognition, and c) satisfy the requirements of political bodies and funding agencies ( p. 1). Rossi et al. (2004) also discussed the importance of measuring program outcomes and impacts. However, identifying the long term outcomes and impacts is often more difficult to measure than short and medium term outcomes and requires a l onger period of time (Diem, 2003 between the leadership program and the end results (Die m, 2003 p. 2). Diem (2003 hy (Rockwell & Bennett, 1995) to identify and measure th inputs such as time, funds, and staff invested. The second level is the activities conducted such as events, programs, sessions or seminars offered. Participation is the third level, which is the number of participants involved in the program. The reactions are what the participants thought of the program, its organizations, and its leader. The top three levels are the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspiration (KASA) changes,

PAGE 31

31 practice changes, a nd social, economic, and environmental (SEE) changes. Practice changes are the behaviors or improved methods of action that have been adopted. The SEE changes are the broader outcomes, effects, and benefits resulting from the changes in practice by the par ticipants (Rockwell & Bennett, 1995). KASA changes may be gained immediately following leadership program delivery. Practice changes however, may take months or years to implement and measure after a program is delivered. The practice changes lead to longe r term social, economic and environmental changes and may take years to assess (Rockwell & Bennett, 1995). Evaluations of various leadership development programs have been conducted to determine the many KASA, Practice, and SEE outcomes (Abbington Cooper, 2005; Black, 2006; Carter & Rudd, 2000; Dhanakumar et al., 1996; Horner, 1984; Kelsey & Wall, 2003; Whent & Leising, 1992). The following is a description of the results found for evaluations of agricultural based leadership development programs as well a s other adult community and organizational leadership development programs. Agricultural based leadership program evaluations Abbington Cooper (2005) conducted a study to determine if graduates from 1988 Development Program had increased their leadership skills and become more involved in agricultural and community issues. Respondents were satisfied with the program and felt the program had met their needs, improved their self confidence, and had a positiv e impact on relationships and leadership competencies. Results also indicated the respondents felt they had a better understanding of issues of the U.S. and Louisiana agricultural systems due to the program and were more involved and influential in both ag riculture and non agriculture issues (Abbington Cooper, 2005).

PAGE 32

32 In 2006, Black conducted a study to determine the individual, organizational, and societal outcomes of the Ohio Leadership, Education, and Development (LEAD) program. At the individual level, r espondents reported outcomes in the areas of personal growth, creative thinking, self confidence, business skills, communication skills, and networking. For organizational outcomes, respondents reported communication skills, and improved management skills. Finally, on the community level there were lower levels of impact such as a decreased involvement in community organizations and leadership roles at the community level (Black 2006 ). An evaluation of the Florida Leadership Program for Agriculture and Natural Resources was conducted by Carter and Rudd (2000) through interviews with participants, participant spouses, and other individuals closely connected to part icipants. Carter and Rudd reported networking, increased leadership skills, broader perspectives, ability to identify issues, appreciation of diverse groups, and a basis for continued learning and development to be common themes identified by all three groups of individuals. N etworking was found to be a major theme for all four areas of evaluation used in this study: people skills, policy development, analytical skills, and personal skills (Carter & Rudd, 2000). Dhanakumar et al. (1996) conducted an evaluation of the Wisconsin Rural Leaders Perspective program (WRLP) using quantitative and qualitative surveys, which were sent to all alumni of the p rogram. Dhanakumer et al. identified ten major themes and patterns from the s urveys. Dhanakumer et al. concluded that: knowledge and skills gained in the areas of communication skill and networking with other community members, alumni quality of decisions and effort in public

PAGE 33

33 affairs and confidence, and active involvement and attention to public issues played greater roles on enhancing alumni leadership effectiveness, and their level of participation in civic and community activities (Conclusion section, 1). The researchers also suggested rural leaders learn best through action and reflection (Dhanakumer et al., 1996). Horner (1984) de scribed the Nebraska Leadership Education/Action Development (LEAD) program and the results of the program after three years of existence. Horner found individuals were holding appointments on state boards and commissions and had been elected for state pro ducer, educational and professional offices. Horner (1984) reported that more individuals were participating in civic, commodity, and educational leadership roles at the local and national levels after completing the program. Kelsey and Wall (2003) conduct ed an evaluation of the Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program to determine if the program contributed to developing leaders for rural community development and if participants had taken an active role in their communities. This study used surveys and fa ce to face interviews to evaluate the program. Respondents to the survey reported the program developed them as leaders to meet the needs of their communities and that they were taking an active role in their communities. Through the interviews, the resear chers found the networking opportunities to be the most important aspects for all of the individuals that were interviewed (Kelsey & Wall, 2003). Whent and Leising (1992) conducted an evaluation of the California Agricultural Leadership Program to determin e the impact the program had on participants using survey research to all program graduates. Respondents reported that the program had made an impact on their personal, career, and leadership development. Whent and Leising reported the program had broadene d the perspectives of participants, increased

PAGE 34

34 their understanding of other cultures and societies, and assisted them in better representing the agricultural industry to other groups. Respondents also reported improved relationships with families and peers, increased networks, leadership skills, and interaction with governmental leaders (Whent & Leising 1992 ). county programs can assist in helping communities deal with social and econ omic changes (Langone, 1992). This study conducted an impact assessment of the program since the inception of the GCLP through a survey. Langone found the program had a positive impact on counties, residents, and local Extension. Additionally, Langone foun d the program had positive impacts on networking, the role of Extension, developing a unified spirit, and involvement. Examples of involvement included the development of task forces, organizations to address issues, and Chambers of Commerce. Additionally, graduates became more active in local and state affairs by serving in political offices a nd school boards. Langone suggested that the greatest impact that community leadership programs have is the development of stronger linkages between individuals in ru ral areas. Diem and Nikola (2005) completed an evaluation of the New Jersey Agricultural Leadership Development Program (NJALDP) in 2003. NJALDP is a two year Extension program to create leaders in the agriculture related professions by assisting them in f urther developing business skills, building an agricultural network, and developing marketing and communication skills. The participants reported having gained knowledge in a wide range of areas such as the federal government process, economic and social i ssues, and characteristics of an effective team. More than 72% of the

PAGE 35

35 respondents reported changes in practices such as being able to speak more effectively, having contacted government officials, media, or others on behalf of agriculture, and having used the network of individuals gained from the program (Diem & Nikola, 2005) Finally, respondents rated the program as very effective and worthwhile (Diem & Nikola, 2005). The Canadian Agriculture Lifetime Leadership Program was evaluated using the Kirkpatric k Framework, which is a four level evaluation framework (McLean & Moss, 2003). The four levels are: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). The evaluation consisted of seminar instruments, a mid point, end of program, and two year po st program questionnaire, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) developed by Kouzes and Posner (1997), and peer evaluation. McLean and Moss stated that behavior changes and impacts were not identified until the two year post program evaluation. Specific behavior changes and impacts were not provided, only evaluation methods (McLean & Moss 2003 ). The Nebraska Leadership Education/Action Development Program (LEAD) participated in an evaluation study conducted by the Gallup organization in 2005 that survey ed alumni, candidates who had been selected for the program but had not yet participated, and those who had applied for the program, but not been selected (Gallup Leadership Institute, 2005). LEAD alumni were more active in a wide variety of organizations, specifically agriculture related organizations. Alumni were also more likely to hold an officer position within those organizations and commit more time in organizational activities. The Gallup Leadership Institute found alumni to have a broader and deepe r perspective of agricultural economics and policy, be more understanding of

PAGE 36

36 influences on society, be more tolerant of individuals not involved in agriculture, and appreciate the relationships that exist between agriculture and other industries compared t o non participants (Gallup Leadership Institute 2005 ). Table 2 2 presents a summary of the outcomes identified through previous evaluations categorized by short, medium, and long term outcomes. Table 2 2. Summary of agricultural based leadership developme nt program outcomes Level of Outcome Short term Medium term Improved leadership competencies Analytical and problem solving skills Improved self confidence Creative thinking Business skills Communication skills Improved management skills Personal growth Positive impacts on relationships Networking skills Appreciation of diverse groups Increased understanding of other cultures and societies Understanding of US and state agriculture systems Ability to identify issues Broader perspectives Increased knowledge of federal government processes, economic and social issues, and characteristics of an effective team Basis for continued learning and development Increase in leadership Participation in public affairs and economic associat ions More involved and influential in ag and non ag Participation in civic and community activities Hold appointments on state boards and commissions Elected to state producer, educational, and professional offices Better representatives for agricultural i ndustry to other groups Increased contact with government officials, media, or others on behalf of agriculture Utilized the network of individuals gained Organizational and community leadership programs approach to leadership development in the United States and traditionally emphasize community education and

PAGE 37

37 76). The following is an overview of evaluations of organizationa l and community leadership programs. Wituk et al. (2003) conducted an evaluation of a statewide two year initiative with the Kansas Community Leadership Initiative (KCLI), which targeted program directors and volunteer board members. The KCLI focused on se rvant leadership and other leadership approaches emphasizing relationships and skills to develop relationships. The research questions focused on insights and lessons learned from experiences, use of leadership skills and concepts within organizations or c ommunities, and challenges and concerns in using the leadership skills. Participants reported an improved appreciation of others and a better understanding of personal leadership approaches. In regards to organizational and community impacts, after partici pating in the KCLI, participants reported making changes in the community leadership programs and taking a more active role in the facilitation process. Additionally, individuals took a more active role in assisting other groups and organizations in their leadership development endeavors. Finally, respondents stated an increased and better appreciation for the relationships within the community (Wituk et al. 2003 ). Sogunro (1997) conducted an evaluation of the Rural Education and Development Association (R EDA) in Alberta, Canada. REDA provides leadership training programs to rural organizations that cannot do so due to capital or expertise. This study used both leadership skills, and changes in attitudes and behaviors. Sogunro found that participants were able to identify more key leadership skills after participating in the program than before. Respondents also reported positive changes in behaviors on the

PAGE 38

38 job such as list ening ability, conducting successful meetings, decision making, and conflict management. Finally, Sogunro discussed the unanticipated outcomes of the program. While the leadership program was designed to improve their leadership on the job, participants re ported more confidence in promoting causes, motivating others, and communicating in their personal and private life as well (Sogunro 1997 ). Fredricks (2003) specifically focused on the networks that were developed by two leadership programs. One program w as a statewide leadership program and the other was a countywide program with similar goals. Respondents from the statewide program reported that the leadership program created and maintained networks that were useful in dealing with issues in the state, b usiness, political, and personal arenas. Alumni also reported having used each of the networks (state, business, political and personal) that the program developed networks in these four areas. Alumni from the countywide program contacted their network of individuals three to five times per year for county and business issues and one to two times per year for political and personal issues. From qualitative interviews with alumn i from the state wide program, Fredricks identified additional themes about the networks: the networks were beneficial because the diversity in backgrounds and that the contact with the networks was usually not planned, but occurred because of their involv ement in similar activities. Eich (2008) reviewed four undergraduate leadership programs in the United States that varied from a leadership course, week long retreats, and service leadership programs. Sixty two interviews were conducted with students, admi nistrators, teachers, alumni, and student staff. The purpose of the study was to develop a theory or model of

PAGE 39

39 high quality leadership programs that makes them successful in student development and learning focusing on program attributes, activities the pro grams used, and student outcomes. Three main clusters of attributes were identified that contribute to student learning participants engaged in building and sustaining a learning community, ( b) student centered experiential learning experiences, and ( c) research 2008, p. 180). Within these three clusters, Eich identified 16 individual attributes and the student outcomes each one leads to which are presented in Table 2 3. Table 2 3. Sixteen leadership program attributes and outcomes (Eich, 2008) Program attribute Outcome Diverse students Collaboration Social capital New ideas and perspectives Experienced practitioners Clarify and broaden leadership thinking Application of lea dership Motivation Modeling educators Holistic development Gain courage to be more authentic and congruent leaders Small groups Positive relationship development within individuals and within groups Practice collaborate leadership through teams Suppo rtive culture Develops courage Expands comfort zones Establishes trust One on one relationships Learn to give and receive feedback Develop better interpersonal relationships Leadership practice Increase self efficacy Understand leadership can be learne d through experience Understand who leaders are and what leadership is Understand organizational leadership, group dynamics, and teamwork Develop skills such as time management and problem solving Reflection activities Develop an understanding of themsel ves, a vision, and a leadership philosophy

PAGE 40

40 Table 2 3. Continued Application in meetings Gain a better understanding of their own personality, leadership style, and strengths as well as self confidence and other skills through experiences Meaningful di scussions Improve listening and speaking skills Episodes of difference Gain new perspectives Understand different ways of leading Become more open minded through a more thorough understanding of the world Civic service Identify passions, interests and strengths Understand and respect others through experiencing and encountering issues Increase their understanding and desire for servant leadership Discovery retreats Gain motivation Renew their level of leadership Flexible design Build practical leade rship skills View leadership through multiple perspectives Values content Acquire greater social awareness through servant leadership Understand leadership and how to apply different models Develop values by modeling program values Systems thinking Sch olarly perspective on leadership applied to leadership practice Leadership development is advanced through program Russon and Reinelt ( 2004 ) conducted a scan of 55 leadership development programs to understand the evaluation process for each program. The leadership programs included fellowship programs, social entrepreneurial programs, community service programs, organizational development programs, community based, grassroots leadership programs, issue and field based programs, and individual skill build ing programs. A diverse range of outcomes were reported by the programs depending on the focus of change and types of activities used by the program. Russon and Reinelt found that leadership programs tend to evaluate more individual and group leadership de velopment outcomes.

PAGE 41

41 Individual leadership outcomes included changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and perceptions, changes in behavior, changes in values and beliefs, leadership paths, and relationships. Organizational leadership outcomes included enhanc ing organizational leadership capacity and providing opportunities for youth, program innovation and expansion, and changes in organizational functioning. Broadening leadership participation and collaboration were both community leadership outcomes. Field leadership outcomes included developing future leaders in a field, replication of leadership programs, connections and networking, and policy knowledge. Examples of be nefit families and communities, and institutional cultures and practices that focus on p. 128). Table 2 4 provides an overview of the types of out comes identified by Russon and Reinelt

PAGE 42

42 Table 2 4. Leadership Outcomes of 55 Programs (Russon & Reinelt, 2004 ) Leadership Outcomes Individual Organizational Community Field Systematic Categories and Examples of Outcomes Collaboration and partnership Collaborations, networks, and partnerships C ollaboration, networks, and partnerships Leadership development Culture shifts Communication Development of leadership Community change Development of the field Institutional transformation Courage and confidence Effecting change Community decision mak ing Diversity Policy and policymaking change Cultural competence Leadership and governance Community leadership Knowledge development Collaboration Knowledge development Management Engagement and participation Collaboration with other fields or sectors Leadership in action and demonstrating leadership Programming Knowledge development Collaboration with field Leadership development Sustainability Leadership development Taking action Self awareness and reflective capacity Visibility Public aware ness Visibility of the field Personal development Resource development Perspective development Social capital Professional development Skill development Visibility

PAGE 43

43 Earnest (1996) conducted an evaluation of seven county leader ship programs in post assessment with program participants, in depth interviews with program directors, and focus groups with program alumni. Earnest found that participants impr oved leadership skills and practices through their participation in the program. Alumni reported benefits of the program to be increased networking, a better understanding and ability to interact with others, increased confidence, and an increased motivati on to be actively involved in the community (Earnest 1996 ). The Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) created a leadership development program for future library directors in 2002 (Lipscomb, Martin, & Peay, 2009). The program is design ed to introduce leadership theory and tools for change, critical issues, develop relationships between participants and mentors, person meetings, annual conferences, and web based courses and dis cussions. An evaluation of the program was conducted in 2005 using focus groups, interviews with sponsors, and questionnaires with mentors, participants, and supervisors. Participants reported enhanced leadership skills, credibility, and networks. The rema inder of the evaluation focused on the process and satisfaction of participants rather than outcomes (Lipscomb et al., 2009). Summary of leadership program outcomes The development of networks is a common theme among many of the evaluations of leadership d evelopment programs (Abbington Cooper, 2005; Black, 2006; Carter & Rudd, 2000; Dhanakumar et al., 1996; Diem & Nikola, 2005; Earnest, 1996; Eich, 2008; Fredricks, 2003; Langone, 1992; Lipscomb et a l., 2009; Russon & Reinelt, 2004 ; Whent

PAGE 44

44 & Leising, 1992; Wi tuk et al., 2003). Some leadership programs and organizations specifically target the development of networks (Day, 2000). Networking initiatives should not only develop leaders in knowing what and how, but also assist them in lem can also challenge individuals in their way of thinking by exposing them to new ways of thinking (Day, 2000). An increase in leadership skills such as creative thinking, business skills, problem solvin g skills, and communication skills, increased participation in organization and the policy process, and improved confidence were also continually stated as outcomes of leadership development programs (Abbington Cooper, 2005; Black, 2006; Carter & Rudd, 200 0; Dhanakumar et al., 1996; Diem & Nikola, 2005; Earnest, 1996; Eich, 2008; Kelsey & Wall, 2003; Langone, 1992; Lipscomb et al., 2009; Russon & Reinelt, 2004 ; Sogunro, 1997; Whent & Leising, 1992). Other outcomes identified included a basis for continued l earning and a better understanding of diver se people and issues. Theoretical Framework Agricultural based leadership development programs are primarily based on the Kellogg Model that was developed through the Kellogg Farmers Study Program (Howell et al., 1982). Explicit leadership program theory is difficult to find for many leadership programs (Russon & Reinelt, 2004). However, Black and Earnest (2009) identified and applied a number of adult learning theoris such as social learning theory by Bandura (198 6) and adult learning theories of Birkenholz (1999), Caffarella (2002), and Knowles (1984) to leadership development programs. Roberts (2006) experiential learning process provides agricultural based leadership development programs with model for their fac ilitation techniques. Finally, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985)

PAGE 45

45 provides a useful framework to explore potential influences or outcomes of program alumni to adopt certain leadership behaviors. Additionally, adult educators must know who and why adults participate in adult education activities to better serve adult learners (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Adult education should help people grow and mature (Birkenholz, 1999). Participation in adult education opportunities such as agric ultural based leadership development programs is typically a voluntary action; therefore, understanding the reasons for participating, how adults learn, and what conditions will enhance the learning experiences are increasingly important. Seven factors for why adults participate in educational activities include: improvement of verbal and written communication skills, social contact, educational preparation, professional advancement, improving relationships, social stimulation, and cognitive interest (Boshi er, 1991). There are also barriers to participation with the two most common barriers being time and money (Merriam et al., 2007). However, there are number of adult learning theories allowing adult educators to better understand serve the needs of their l earners. Experiential Learning Roberts (2006) developed a model of the experiential learning process (Figure 2 1) based on the prominent theories of the process of experiential learning (Dewey, 1938; Joplin, 1981; Kolb, 1984), which can be applied to vari ous learning environments, audiences, and settings. This model begins with an initial focus of the learner. Once the initial focus is established, an initial experience is followed. Following the experience, the learner should be engaged in a reflective pr ocess based on their observations. This reflection process allows the learner to make generalizations, which can then be tested

PAGE 46

46 through experimentation of the phenomenon again. This cycle then continues to create another cycle of the experiential learning process (Roberts 2006 ). Figure 2 1. A model of the experiential learning process (Roberts, 2006) Roberts (2006) also developed a model of experiential learning contexts based on the Cone of Experience (Dale, 1946) and the work of Joplin (1981), Steinaker and Bell (1979), and Etling (1993). The context of an experience is defined in four areas: level, experience can be very concrete by actual ly doing such as a direct, purposeful experience or very abstract through verbal and nonverbal symbols. The duration of an experience can be anywhere from a few seconds to several years (Roberts, 2006). Steinaker and Bell (1979) described the intended outc omes of an experience to range from exposure to dissemination. Finally, the setting of an experience can be formal, non formal, and informal (Roberts 2006 ). Merriam et al. (2007) defined a formal c, curriculum driven, and Experience: Initial or Experimentation Reflection Generalization Initial Focu s Next Iteration of Cycle

PAGE 47

47 is structured as well, but occurs outside the classroom. Informal education is structured, spontaneous, and occurs in various settings (Merria m et al. 2007 ). Wituk et al. (2003) conducted a statewide initiative focusing on community leadership program directors and volunteer board members. During the two year initiative, focus was placed on the experiential learni ng process. Day (2000) discusse d experiential learning process and is being used by many organizations opposed to the traditional, lecture based, classroom training, which is only partially effective in developing leadership according to Day (2000). This same process of learning and reflection is often utilized in agricultural based leadership development programs. Ad ult Learning Theory Birkenholz (1999) discussed how adult education should help people grow and mature. Merriam et al. (2007) described five primary orientations to adult learning that all take a different approach to a similar end goal of behavior change. The five orientations are: behaviorist, humanist, cognitivist, social learning (social cognitive), and critical reflection (constructivist). An examination of adult learning theories is necessary to understand the relationship with the experiential learni ng process. Each of the orientations takes a slightly different approach, as do other learning theories such as self directed, transformational, and experiential learning to a similar end goal: behavior change. The follow discussion is an overview of each approach and the similarities and differences to experiential learning. Similar to experiential learning, the humanist orientation to adult learning focuses on experience, choice, creativity, and self realization. Additionally, the educator acts as

PAGE 48

48 a faci litator and takes a needs based, learner centered approach (Merriam et al., 2007). Beard and Wilson (2006) suggested the educator of an experience should consider orien Hierarchy and once reaching each level, individuals will continue to strive for growth because of an intrinsic desire for self improvement (Birkenholz, 1999). When using the hu manist orientation in adult education, there is a general belief that people are inherently good and have an unlimited potential for growth and development (Deschler & Kiely, 1995). The behaviorist orientation focuses on observable behaviors, the learning environment, contiguity, and reinforcement (Merriam et al., 2007). Experiential learning also focuses on the contexts or learning environments in which experiences take place (Beard & Wilson, 2006). The learning environment or context can be modified depe nding on the learners or the intended outcomes. Another similar feature of the behaviorist orientation and experiential learning is the application of games and stimulation to guide the learning process (Beard & Wilson, 2006; Merriam et al., 2007). Socia l learning also has some similarities and differences to experiential learning. Social learning perceives people to learn best by interacting with others (Merriam et al., 2007), while experiential learning uses some observation, the primary method of learn ing is through experiencing a phenomenon. However, social learning does encompass observer reflection, which will lead to the learner modifying his or her own behaviors (Birkenholz, 1999). Finally, in the social learning orientation and experiential

PAGE 49

49 learni ng, mentoring and internships are valued as ways to enhance the learning process (Merriam et al. 2007 ). One of the most closely related adult learning orientations to experiential learning is the cognitive orientation. The cognitive orientation embraces the concept of insight, moment (Merriam et al., 2007). Additionally, previous experiences are an important factor. Both previous experience and new information are mod ified in the process of learning to create a meaningful learning experience (Ausubel, 1967). This is similar to experiential learning, as Dewey (1938) suggested that educators should take the previous experiences and knowledge of the learners into consider ation. Finally, in using the cognitive orientation, discovery learning is valued where students learn actively while the educator serves as a facilitator in the learning process (Bruner, 1965). Experiential learning also focuses on the learners actively ex periencing a phenomenon while the educator serves as a facilitator (Beard & Wilson, 2006). The critical reflection orientation has two key concepts that provide similarities to experiential learning. The first is that through the critical reflection orien tation, it is the Similarly, experiential learning requires the facilitator to use various reflection techniques and methods to further develop and push learners. Finall y, critical reflection focuses on the process of becoming critically aware of how and why adults perceive the world the way they do (Merriam et al. 2007 ). Experiential learning does not require the learning process to reach this level of learning, but pro vides the opportunity for learners to reach this transformative learning if the facilitator believes the learners are capable

PAGE 50

50 and willing to reach this level. Adult learners all learn differently due to the value and belief systems developed from each uniq ue experience and culture, therefore it is important to understand each of the adult learning orientations and how they can be used within the experiential learning process and agricultural based leadership development programs. Theory of Planned Behavior The theory of planned behavior originated from the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and is one of the most widely utilized social psychology behavioral models used in predicting human behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2 001). This theory is a predictive model used to explain and predict behavioral intention in a wide variety of applied contexts (Brain, 2009). Both the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior were developed to predict and explain human behavior in a specific context (Ajzen, 1991). However, the theory of planned behavior has not been applied to leadership related studies to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors. ion of certain salient beliefs related to that behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (2002) stated that behavior is guided by three kinds of salient beliefs: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs are the beliefs about expect ed outcomes produced from a targeted behavior and the associated evaluations of these outcomes. Normative beliefs are the beliefs about normative expectations of important individuals or groups in regards to a targeted behavior. Control beliefs are the bel iefs concerned with the potential factors that may facilitate or impede the performance of the targeted behavior and the perceived power of th ose factors (Ajzen, 1991; 2006 ).

PAGE 51

51 The three salient beliefs correspond with three additional variables of the theor y of planned behavior: attitude toward the targeted behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. The behavioral beliefs are assumed to produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior Normative beliefs result in subjective n orm or perceived social pressure, and control beliefs determine perceived behavioral control Attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control predict the behavioral intention of an individual. Typically, the more favorable the attitude and tention to perform the behavior The intention is the immediate antecedent of the behavior and a (A jzen, 1991; 2002; 2006 ). The theory of planned behavior is modeled below (Figure 2 2): Figure 2 2. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) Attitude An attitude is an evaluation of an attribute and a function of beliefs linking that attribute to o ther characteristics and evaluations of those characteristics (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to Fishbein and Ajzen, attitudes are formed from the beliefs people hold about an object (Ajzen, 1991). Additionally, an attitude has three components: it is learned, it predisposes actions, and the actions are consistently Behavioral Beliefs Control Beliefs Normative Beliefs Attitude toward the behavior Subjective Norm Perceived Behavioral Control Intention Behavior

PAGE 52

52 favorable or unfavorable towards an object or concept. Therefore, individuals tend to favor behaviors believed to have desirable consequences and form unfavorable attitudes towards behaviors with undesirable consequences (Ajzen 1991 a specific behavior (Pierce, Manfredo, & Vaske, 2001, p. 53). In the theory of planned behavior, an attit ude is directed toward engaging in the behavior itself rather than more general attitudes towards objects or concepts. An attitude is a function of the salient, behavioral beliefs one holds about a targeted behavior (Ajzen, 1988). Behavioral beliefs are th e perceived outcomes or consequences of engaging in a behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). For alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs being exposed to a number of speakers, cultures, behaviors, and ideas may cause attitudes towards engag ing in a specific behavior to be adjusted according to the theory of planned behavior. For example, for agricultural based leadership programs that participate in a national government tour to the states capital, a participant may further develop a more po sitive or negative attitude toward contacting their individual policy and decision makers. Subjective norm Subjective norms are the perceived social pressures and are measured by the underlying normative beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). In the theory of planned beha vior, the subjective norms are measured by its underlying normative beliefs (Ajzen). Normative individuals or groups may be a spouse, family, friends, teacher, doctor, supervisor or coworkers

PAGE 53

53 (Ajzen, 2002). In the case of leadership development programs, these individuals may ork. Perceived behavioral control The theory of planned behavior differs from the theory of reasoned action because of the added component of perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral control focuses on the perceived ability to perfo rm a particular behavior and efficacy. More specifically, perceived behavior (Ajzen 1991 ). Ajzen (2002) described control beliefs as the perceived presence of factors that may contribute to or impede engaging in a behavior. Actual behavioral control, which deals with the needed resources, skills, and opportunities to perform the behavior, must be considered to measure percei ved behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). The ability to substitute perceived behavioral control for actual control depends on the level of accuracy of the perceptions. Perceived behavioral control may not be realistic if one has little information about the t argeted behavior, requirements or available resources have changed, or new and unfamiliar components have entered into the situation (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral control adds little to the accuracy of predicting behavior when this is the case (Ajzen 1985; 1991). In the case of agricultural based leadership development program alumni, perceived behavioral control may be adjusted based on the level of knowledge and skills provided through the program experience. In referring to the example provided ea rlier, for a program that visits the state capital, an individual is more likely to have a better understanding of how to contact their policy and decision makers; therefore

PAGE 54

54 according to the theory of planned behavior, this individual would have an increas ed perceived behavioral control due to the knowledge gained. Conceptual Model A conceptual model (Figure 2 3) was created by the researcher to illustrate the relationship between program alumni demographic characteristics, participation in an agricultural based leadership development program utilizing the experiential learning cycle ( Roberts, 2006) attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behaviors Hierarchy (Rock well & Bennet, 1995) As the model shows on the left side, th e demographic variables that influence an agricultural based leadership development program alumni attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behaviors included age, gende r, e ducation, marital status race/ethnicity, and year of program gradua tion Other external variables include the network of individuals in which a program alumni is a part of, their perceptions of what a leadership role or responsibility is, and the particip ation in an agricultural based leadership development program which is guided by the experiential learning cycle of the experience, reflection, and generalization (Roberts, 2006). Each of the four external variables then influences the short term outcomes Knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations are short term outcomes (Rockwell & Bennett, 1995); therefore, attitudes towards engaging in leadership behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived be havioral control are presented in the short term outcomes b ox of the conceptual model The individuals included in the subjective norms include leadership program alumni, program staff, fellow program class members, family members, political leaders, and organizational leaders. Medium term outcomes

PAGE 55

55 are behavior ch anges (Rockwell & Bennett, 1995), therefore the leadership behaviors are have been included in the medium term outcomes box. T he leadership behaviors identified for this study include d involvement in policy development, life long learning, leadership roles and responsibilities and utilizing a number of leadership skills such as Finally, behavior changes influence the long term outcomes of social, economic, and environmen tal changes, which is represented in the final column of the conceptual model.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 2 3. Conceptual m odel: Adapted from theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) Bennett, 1995), and experiential learning model (Roberts 2006)

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 provided an introduction and background of this study on the long term program impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs. An overview of the methodology, limitations assumptions and definitions of k ey terms used in this study were outlined in this chapter. A review of the literature was provided in Chapter 2. The literature focuses on leadership development, agricultural based leadership development programs, the theoretical framework, and evaluating program outcomes and impacts. This chapter explains the methodology used to address each of the research objectives for this study. This chapter also addresses the research design, population, instrumentation development, data collection and analysis. The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes of agricultural based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United Stat es. The following research objectives were used to guide the research: To de scribe the intended outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors. To describe the current demographics of agricultural lea dership development program alumni. To describe the outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program alumni. To compare an d contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development progr ams as perceived by the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni. To identify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, atti tudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control and engagement in certain leadership behaviors.

PAGE 58

58 To determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. Researcher Subjectivity assumptions, and biases, the reader is better able to u nderstand how the data was follows. The topic at hand is closely related to my passion to help the individuals in the agricultural industry continue to grow personally and p rofessionally as well as my own career goals. As part of my graduate school experience, I have had the opportunity to work with the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources (WLIANR) where I solidified my passion for the developm ent of leaders within the agricultural industry. My interest in leadership development began in high school through my participation in the FFA Organization. At Texas A&M University, I was able to obtain a degree in Agricultural Leadership and Development where I became further interested in teaching and working closely with adults in the agricultural industry. Through my Agricultural Leadership (IAPAL) group and realized t hat working as the director of an agricultural leadership development program was the career path I wanted to pursue. Through my work with the WLIANR, I was able to travel to the annual IAPAL meetings and realized the struggles of many of the directors: fu nding for programming and staff support, conducting evaluations, recruitment, and still maintaining quality

PAGE 59

59 programs. This brought me to the desire to determine what the long term program outcomes and impacts are of these programs in order to provide a res earch based fund raising, recruitment, and overall support for the continuation of these programs. Having participated in the IAPAL meetings, I acknowledge that I know the directo rs on a personal level that participate d in this study. One of these individu als is also my advisor and director of the WLIANR, Dr. Hannah Carter. However, the questions used in this study will not be of a personal nature and will only relate to the leadership programs. I also acknowledge that I have many of my own assumptions of w hat the outcomes and impact of an agricultural based leadership development program are, but also know that there is little research to support these assumptions which is why I was interested in conducting this study. Three Phases of the Study The research design of this study was a three part assessment of agricultural based leadership development program outcomes and impacts utilizing both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The three parts of the study included a qualitative focus group of pro gram directors attending the IAPAL annual conference, a qualitative in depth interview with the directors of four agricultural leadership development programs and a quantitative survey instrument developed by the researcher administered to the alumni of t he four agricultural leadership development programs. Both quantitative and qualitative research provides social science researchers with the ability to gain more insight and knowledge about human behavior. Qualitative research seeks to understand and exp lain phenomena and help s to generate theory (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh 2006; Merriam, 1998). Quantitative research can be used to study relationships and cause and effect through objective measurement and numerical

PAGE 60

60 analysis of data (Ary et al., 2006). This study used both qualitative and quantitative research to determine the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs in order to predict the adoption of specific leadership behaviors of future participants. The following sectio ns will describe the research design, participants, instruments, and data collection and analysis for each of the three phases of the study. Phase One Research design A qualitative focus group with the program directors attending the IAPAL annual conferenc e was conducted. The focus group was the first part of the study and provided the foundation for the interview guide to be used with the directors of the four selected agricultural based leadership development programs. Interview questions included the pro p. 11 ). These s tudies typically collect data through interviews, observations, or document ana lysis. Merriam (1995) identified several roles that qualitative research plays: clarifying and understanding phenomena and situations when operative variables cannot be identifi ed ahead of time; finding creative and fresh approaches to looking at over familiar problems; understanding how participants perceive their roles or tasks in an organization; determining the history of a situation; and building theory, hypotheses, or gener alizations (p. 52) In qualitative research, validation is determined through credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Ary et al., 2006). However, Merriam (1995) suggest ed that the rigor of qualitative research should be discussed u sing the same terms as

PAGE 61

61 quantitative research: internal validity, reliability, and external validity. Internal validity can be addressed through multiple strategies such as triangulation, peer examination, riences, assu mptions and biases (Merriam, 1995) each of which were used in this study. A subjectivity statement was developed to The data was triangulated through the focus groups, i ndividual interviews and surveys of the alumni by obtaining data through multiple sources and data collection methods to further establish the credibility of the study (Denzin, 1978). or is never esearch, Merriam (1995) suggested it is wh ich can be used to ensure greater consistency such as triangulation, peer examination, and provi ding an audit trail were all used in this study. Finally, external validity can also be known as reader or user generalizability, which is the extent to which t he reader or user can apply the findings of a study to other situations. Merriam (1995) stated that it is not up to the researcher to generalize the findings to other settings, but should be up to the reader of the research. External validity can be establ ished through a rich, thick description to provide the reader with enough information to determine how closely the research situation matches his or her own situation. Trustworthiness is then established by how well the study does what it was designed to d o (Merriam, 1995). The researcher provided a thorough description

PAGE 62

62 with the use of direct quotes from participants to ensure external validity of the focus group. Focus groups are conducted to listen and gather information from a special type of group in te provide insight into complicated topics where opinions or attitudes are conditional or 1994, p. 45). Rese arch participants The population used in this study included the program directors ( N = 42) affiliated with all 42 IAPAL programs. For the first part of the study, a convenience sample of all program directors attending the 2009 IAPAL annual meeting ( n = 2 4) was used to conduct the focus group. Focus groups typically average in size between one and 20 participants (Creswell, 1998). Participants of focus groups are selected because they have a certain set of characteristics in common which are important to t he topic (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The focus group comprised of program directors of agricultural and rural leadership development programs internationally with a wide range of experiences ranging from six months to 35 years within the programs. The directo rs were from programs throughout the U.S., Scotland, New Zealand, and Canada; most were directors of programs within the U.S. Instrumentation The first instrument was the focus group structured interview guide found in Appendix A. To reduce bias, this inte rview guide was developed by the researcher and committee in addition to an expert in evaluation and an expert in qualitative methods.

PAGE 63

63 The interview guide questions sought to determine the intended outcomes and impacts as perceived by the directors of these agricultural based leadership development programs. These questions were also used to determine what activities/events lead to specific outcomes and when participants and a lumni begin to demonstrate certain intended behaviors. Additionally, the questions sought to determine what types of leadership roles and responsibilities alumni were assuming and if alumni were seeking out additional leadership and educational opportuniti es upon graduation. Data collection Prior to the collection of data, a proposal to conduct the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institution Review Board (IRB) for non medical projects (IRB 02). The proposal was approved (Protocol #2009 U 9 63). Data collection began once IRB approved the study. Participants were informed of their rights as research participants in a letter explaining the purpose and importance of their participation. The participants then signed a copy of the informed consen t letter. The researcher conducted the focus group during the annual IAPAL meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in October of 2009. The focus group was audio and video recorded and later transcribed. A note taker was also used to further triangulate the data c ollected. The focus group data was collected through open ended questions, which allow participants to share personal views and opinions (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Data analysis The focus group transcript was imported into Weft QDA software to be analyzed pr ior to conducting the individual interviews. Analysis of qualitative data involves identifying recurring patterns or themes (Merriam, 1998). The researcher open coded the transcript for possible themes using the constant comparative method of data

PAGE 64

64 analysis developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). The constant comparative method is widely used in all kinds of qualitative studies (Merriam, 1998). Merriam (1998) defined re analyzed to develop meaning, understanding, or insight, which constitute the findings of a study (Merriam, 1998). The constant comparative method requires the researcher to compare data to identify similarities and differences, which then establish cate gories of data. Merriam (1 998) stated that the researcher, the participants, or the literature can establish the names of the categories. Categories should provide the answers to the research questions, be exhaustive of all data, mutually exclusive, sensit izing, and conceptually congruent (Merriam, 1998). The themes identified were used in the development of the survey instrument given to the program alumni. Low inference descriptors, such as direct quotes were selected to enhance the credibility of the st udy. The information provided in this data ana lysis was used in Objectives One and Four: describe the intended impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program rceptions to those outcomes and impacts as reported by the alumni. Phase Two Research design A qualitative semi structured in depth interview with the program directors of four agricultural leadership development programs was the second part of the study. Interviews are one of the most widely used methods of qualitative research used for gathering the opinions, beliefs, and feelings (Ary et al., 2006). Interviews can also be used to further verify an observation such as the data that was collected in the fo cus

PAGE 65

65 group. Similar to the focus group, the researcher provided an audit trail and a rich, thick description to enhance the credibility of the study. The interview data was then compared to the focus group data. Similar to the focus group, the data collecte d in these interviews was used to guide the development of the survey instrument given to the alumni of the four programs. The interviews with the four directors provided more in depth knowledge about the four individual program outcomes and impacts to mak e the survey instrument more relevant. The four programs were similar in multiple aspects such as program objectives, residing within land grant universities, and including national and international travel components which will be further described in the next section. Research participants For phase two of the study, four agricultural based leadership development programs were purposefully selected from the larger population of program directors as described in Phase One. The selection process was based on specific characteristics to assure the programs used were similar in program function and structure. The most common form of sampling in qualitative research is purposive sampling based on the criteria of attributes the researcher finds essential for th e study (Merriam, 1998). Purposive sampling based on the criteria of attributes is common in qualitative research since generalization from a statistical sense is not the goal (Merriam, 1998). The researcher began with a directory of the forty two IAPAL pr ograms and first grant institution ( n = 23). Other characteristics used to identify the four programs included selecting programs that incorporated a national and international study trip and consisted of approximately a two year time period for each class. The programs

PAGE 66

66 selected have been continuous in existence since their inception. Finally, the researcher compared program objectives of the remaining 16 programs. The four prog rams selected to be used in this study were the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Nature Resources (WLIANR), Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program (OALP), LEAD New York, and Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership (KARL). Therefore, th e sample for the in depth interviews ( n = 4) were purposefully selected. The following is a description of the four agricultural based leadership development programs utilized in this study. Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resour ces (WLIANR) The Florida Leadership Program for Agriculture and Natural Resources began on October 1, 1991 (Carter & Rudd, 2000). The program was later renamed in 2003 to become the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources (WLIA NR) after a successful endowment campaign (WLIANR, 2010). This endowment is the primary funding source for the WLIANR. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) at the University of Florida provides additional funding for program staff, univers ity space, and equipment. At the time of this study, the WLIANR had two staff positions, a program director who had a .75 FTE appointment, an executive secretary and one graduate assistant (WLIANR, 2010). The target audience for the WLIANR includes individ uals who have shown leadership potential involved in industries related to private sector Florida agriculture and natural resources. Participants are selected through a three stage process: nomination, application, and interview. From this process, up to 3 0 individuals are chosen to participate in the program as a class (WLIANR, 2010). At the time of this study, the WLIANR had graduated seven classes since its inception with a total of 192

PAGE 67

67 alumni (Carter, personal communication, March 2010). Each class atte nds 11 seminars over a 22 month period. The first year of the program focuses on the local and state agriculture and natural resource issues. The second year focuses on national and international issues. The WLIANR Logic Model can be seen in Figure 3 1. Ea ch of the seminars incorporates the six objectives of the program: To prepare potential leaders to assume greater leadership responsibilities in their organizations, industries, and communities. To assemble individual networks composed of class members, al umni, and program resources for the purpose of developing future industry, organizational, civic and political leaders. agriculture and natural resources sectors. To analyz e complex issues facing individuals interested in areas related to To apply inner personal skills so as to develop a better understanding of people themselves, fellow citizens and their environmen t as to more effectively work with individuals from diverse backgrounds. To create an understanding of social, economic and political systems in which people function and how to work within these systems to effectively bring about change (WLIANR, 2010).

PAGE 68

68 INPUTS OUTPUTS Activities Participation OUTCOMES IMPACT Short Medium Longer term What we invest Full time administrative assistant Program director with 60% appointment Part time program coordina tor (20 hours per week) Faculty advisor to provide in kind support Executive director with 10% appointment Office space and supplies provided by IFAS Extension $2 million endowment Program participant fees ($3500 per participant) Support from agricultural industry organizations Support from program alumni Volunteer resource people What we do: S tudy/travel seminars involving about 55 days over twenty two months Nine 3 to 5 day seminars held in selected locations throughout Florida. A 10 to 12 day seminar h eld in Washington, DC, and one other selected region of the nation. A 15 18 i nternational seminar to developed and developing countries. Seminars emphasize understanding of issues as well as basic skills in communications, interpersonal relations, decis ion making and problem solving. Who is reached: Adults, age 25 45, engaged in private industry agriculture within the state of Florida A maximum of 30 program participants every two years. Short term changes we expect: Program graduates have a netw ork of contacts and alliances that allow them to be more productive in both civic and industry involvement. Program graduates directly apply appropriate leadership and communication skills to contribute to the continued success of the organizations with wh ich they are involved. Program graduates understand and share with others the cultural, social, and political factors influencing the economic success and viability of the agricultural industry. Medium term changes we expect: Program alumni seek and accep t new leadership roles within industry and civic organizations. Program alumni provide leadership agricultural marketing and literacy efforts. Individual agricultural businesses in Florida achieve improved economic and strategic succes s. Long term changes we expect : communities are served by civic leaders from the agricultural community. The agricultural industry is a respected, dominant force in industry is strategic ally positioned for continued success in both the domestic and global marketplace. Figure 3 1. Logic Model for Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources (Kaufman, 2006)

PAGE 69

69 Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership In 1989, a group of 20 individuals from all segments of Kansas Agriculture agreed to meet to discuss the need and potential for an educational program designed to build leadership capacity for Kansas agriculture. The Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership (KARL) pr ogram was established in 1990 at Kansas State University (KARL, 2010). Financial support is generated from donors, participant tuition, and Kansas State University. The university provides office space, staff salaries, office supplies, and other day to day operations materials. At the time of this study, KARL staff included a full time program director and on part time administrative specialist. involved as operators of producti on agricultural units or from agribusiness, related 50% of these individuals are within production agriculture. Twenty five percent are from supporting industries and the remaining 25% come from community development, media, and education related areas. Participants are selected through a five stage process: nomination, application, initial screening, interview, and selection. Through this process, up to 30 individuals pre dominately between the ages of 25 and 55 that have demonstrated leadership ability are selected for a class. At the time of this study, KARL had graduated nine classes since its inception with 270 alumni (Lindquist, personal communication March 2010). KARL is a two year study, travel and training program with twelve seminars. The first year of the program focuses on leadership skills and styles, and state and federal government. The second year focuses on international trade and issues. The program utilizes the Experiential Learning Cycle as a model for the two year

PAGE 70

70 experience (Figure 3 2). The following six objectives are incorporated into each of the seminars: Graduates recognize and appreciate their leadership potential. Graduates increase their decision making and analytical skills. Graduates broaden their perspective relative to history, economics, sociology, culture and arts, and will know how those areas relate to the decision making process. Graduates increase their ability to communicate persuasively and effectively. challenges that a more interdependent and interconnected global economy presents to the agricultural industry and rural communities. Graduates will become part of a global network including supporters, previous graduates, and presenters across Kansas and the world (Lindquist, 2010).

PAGE 71

71 Figure 3 2. The Wisdom Cycle for the Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership program

PAGE 72

72 LEAD New York LEAD New York was established in 1 985 at Cornell University (LEAD New York, 2010). Funding is derived from numerous sources. Approximately 28% is provided by Cornell University to assist in the staff salaries and benefits, office space, and office supplies. Eighteen percent is established through an endowment income. Participant tuition covers about 19% of the funding costs. Major donors contribute about 13% of the budget and annual gifts from general fundraising contribute about 22% of the funding. Program staff includes a full time direct or and administrative assistant. The target audience for this program includes individuals age 25 or older directly are no minimum education requirements. Additionally, a limited number of out of state applicants are considered. Participants are selected through a three stage process: an optional nomination, application, and interview. From this process, up to 30 individuals are selected to participate as a class. At the time of this study, twelve classes had graduated from LEAD New York with 344 alumni (Van De Valk, personal communication, March 2010). The program is a 14 seminar, two year program incorporating 50 days of seminars, workshops and field travel, in and out o f New York (LEAD New York, 2010). The conceptual framework for this program was recently developed and included as Figure 3 3. The small blue squares represent individual outcome statements, yellow polygons represent key constructs, and ovals represent rel ated constructs (Van De Valk, 2010). The three main related constructs include skills, reflection, and knowledge/awareness. Within the skills construct, this included skills related to communication skills, developing leadership skills, and networking, rel ationship, and

PAGE 73

73 team building skills. The reflection construct included personal development, challenges and expectations related to the program, and recognizing leadership styles. Finally, the knowledge/awareness construct included broadened knowledge and awareness of food and agricultural systems and political awareness (Van De Valk 2010 ). The following objectives guide the seminars: written communication, and effective li stening, working with media, marketing and promotion, conflict resolution, argumentation and debate, personality type awareness and self assessment, networking, diversity appreciation, teambuilding and teamwork, meeting management, problem identification, collaborative problem solving, critical thinking, systems thinking, and change management, technological literacy and research skills, time management and organization, and commitment to lifelong learning. ibility and service through activities that will help participants understand the policy development process at the local, state, federal and international levels, learning how the policy development process works, how it affects participants and how to in fluence the process. Participants will be challenged and motivated to get involved in the public policy process and community service roles as well as become aware of their To inform participants of relevant issues facing their industry and community. The issues provide the context in which leadership skill development is practiced and public policy is examined. Issues studied depend on the learning needs of the participants and the relevancy to current industry/community challe nges (LEAD New York, 2010).

PAGE 74

74 Figure 3 3. Concept Map for the LEAD New York Program (Van de Valk, 2010) 1. recognizing leadership st yles 2. developing leadership skills 3. communication skills 4. broadened knowledge/awareness (of food & ag system) 5. political awareness 6. personal development 7. challenges & expectations 8. networking, relationships, & teams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 1 04 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Knowledge/awareness Skills Reflection

PAGE 75

75 Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program In November of 1980, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation sponsored a meeting to discuss participate in the meeting where the concept of the Agricultural Leadership Program was explained as it was being conducted in five pilot states. The Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Progr am (OALP) was then established in 1982 at Oklahoma State University through a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (OALP, 2010). However, beginning with Class II, the OALP has been privately funded through contributions from individuals and organization s, alumni, participation fees, Oklahoma Legislature, and the Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension. The Oklahoma Legislature provides approximately $50,000 annually for most years. In 2003 2004, these funds were not change periodically. At the time of this study, program staff included one .75 FTE program director and one .75 FTE secretary. The target audience for this program includes men and women typically between 25 to 45 years of age who are engaged in production agriculture or a related agriculture business that have shown a strong commitment to aspire to a leadership role to benefit Oklahoma agriculture. Related agriculture includes United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees, cooperative extension, agricultural finance, business, and marketing. Participants are selected through a four stage process: nomination (optional), application, two interviews, and selection. From this process, up to 30 individuals are selected to participate in the program as a class. At the time of this study, fourteen classes had graduated from OALP with a total of 401 alumni (Williams, March 2010, personal communication). Each class attends thirteen seminars over two years (OALP, 2010). At the time of this study, no program logic model or conceptual

PAGE 76

76 framework had been developed. The following three program objectives are incorporated into each of the seminars: To assist potential leaders develop a deeper understanding of themselves and of people. This includes personal and g roup study and interaction, improving skills in communications, and developing a commitment to future leadership roles in Oklahoma agriculture. To help potential leaders develop a better understanding of the various systems of economics and government. To help program participants increase and utilize their own knowledge and skills in order to solve problems and to explore opportunities for Oklahoma agriculture (Williams, 2010). Summary of selected p rograms Table 3 1 provides an overview of characteristics of the four programs that were selected for the study. Instrumentation The second instrument used was an individual interview guide developed by the researcher found in Appendix B. In terviews typically use guides that can be highly structured, semi structured, o r unstructured. The interview guide for this study was semi structured allowing the researcher to ask the main questions and respond with additional questions as needed. A panel of experts and an expert in evaluation also reviewed this interview guide. The interview questions were similar to the focus group questions, but also included additional questions about networking and specific activities based on the focus group results. The interview guide questions sought to determine intended outcomes and impact s as perceived by the four directors of the programs selected for the study. These questions were used to develop the survey instrument to be sent to the alumni of the four programs.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3 1 Overview of programs selected for phases two and three WLIANR OALP LEAD NY KARL Year Started 1991 1982 1985 1990 Funding Sources University of Florida Endowment Tuition Donors Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Legislation Donors Cornell University Endowment Tuition Foundation Gifts Annual Gifts Donors Tuition Kansas State University University University of Florida Oklahoma State University Cornell University Kansas State University Emplo yees One .75 FTE Director One Full time Secretary One Graduate Assistant One .75 FTE Director One .75 FTE Secretary One Full time Director One Full time Assistant One Full Time Director & CEO One Part time Administrative Assistant Selection Process Nomina tion Application Interview Selection Nomination (Optional) Application Individual and Spouse Interviews Selection Nomination (Optional) Application Interview Selection Nomination (Optional) Application Initial Screening Interview Selection Number per Clas s Up to 30 Up to 30 Up to 30 Up to 30 Number of Seminars 11 over 22 months 13 over 18 20 months 14 over 24 months 12 over 24 months Classes Graduated 7 14 12 9 Length of Trips Approximately 50 days Approximately 55 days Approximately 50 days Approximate ly 50 days Number of Alumni 192 401 344 270

PAGE 78

78 Data collection r, feelings, or how generally best to ask factual questions that will elicit descriptive information at the beginning and ask for more opinions towards the end of the interview. Finally, the most common way to record the interview data is to tape record the interview (Merriam, 1998), which is how the data was recorded for this study. Additionally, the researcher took notes during each of the interviews. Four qualitative semi structured interviews were conducted with each of the four directors for the purposes of this study. The LEAD New York, OALP, and KARL director interviews were conducted over the phone, while the WLIANR director interview was conducted in person at t he WLIANR office. Experience in their current positions ranged from nine to 34 years. All of the interviews were conducted in March 2010 within the same week. Each interview was 30 minutes to one hour long. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribe d. For this study, member checks were used for the individual interviews. After completing the transcription of each interview, the transcripts were e mailed to each interviewee to assure they were correct prior to analyzing the data Data analysis The ind ividual interview transcripts were imported into Weft QDA software to be analyzed. The data was compared to the focus group analysis and then utilized to develop the survey instrument. Again, the researcher open coded the transcripts for possible themes us ing the constant comparative method of data analysis developed by

PAGE 79

79 Glaser and Strauss (1967). Data was compared between individual interviews as well as between the focus group data. The themes identified through the focus group and individual interviews we re used in the development of the survey instrument given to the program alumni. Low inference descriptors, such as direct quotes were selected to enhance the credibility of the study. The information provided in this data analysis were also used in Objec tives Two and Four: describe the intended impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors and compare and contrast Ph ase Three Research design The third part of the study was a quantitative survey instrument developed by the researcher and administered to the alumni ( n = 843 ) of the four agricultural based leadership development programs that were purposefully selected i n Phase Two. This instrument was used to measure respondent perceptions of program outcomes and impacts as well as alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991). A demographic section was included at the end of the quant itative instrument to collect personal information about the survey respondents. This informati on was used to address the second objective of the study. Quantitative research is classified as experimental or non experimental research. This study used non e xperimental survey research. Survey research was used for the quantitative part of this study and is a form of quantitative research which uses interviews or questionnaires to gather information from groups of individuals (Ary et al.,

PAGE 80

80 2006). Surveys allow opinions, behaviors, and characteristics. Attention must also be given to the validity and reliability of surveys. Ary et al. (2006) and Rossi et al. (2004) describe validity to be the exte nt to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. The four types of validity include internal, statistical conclusion, construct, and external validity (Ary et al. 2006 ). Internal validity es observed in a dependant variable are caused by the independent 2006 p. 291 ). Statistical conclusion validity is concerned with errors in statistical conclusions and therefore, the appropriate use of statistics. Construct validit from the observed subjects, settings, and operations sampled to the constructs that the et al., 2006 p. 630 ), which was establish through Phases One and Two. Finally, Ary et of the inferences about whether the findings of the study would generalize to other 2006, p. 314). Reliability is the extent to which an instrument is consistent in measur ing whatever it measures. Rossi et al. (2004) defined reliability of a measure as the extent to which the same results are produced when using the instrument repeatedly. Research participants Participants were purposefully selected as based on a number of program characteristi cs. T he second population ( N = 1,174 ) consisted of alumni of the four selected programs discussed in Phase Two The researcher first selected programs that n = 23). From this list, the researcher then identified programs that incorporated a national and international study trip and

PAGE 81

81 consisted of approximately a two year time period for each class. Finally, the researcher compared program objectives of the remaining 16 programs and select ed four to be included in the study: Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources (WLIANR), Kansas Agriculture and Rural Leadership (KARL), Oklahoma Agriculture Leadership Program (OALP), and LEAD New York. Of the 1,174 program alum ni, 843 (71.8%) had valid working email addresses, which provided the accessible survey sample of n = 843 individuals for this study Coverage error is a concern if a large number of the population is not accessible. However, a majority of the population f or this study were accessible. Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2008 ) recommend a sample size of 278 with 1,000 individuals in the population frame for this study to achieve a +/ five percent error range. All alumni with valid, working email addresses of th e four programs were included in the accessible survey sample ( n = 843 ) to assure an accurate representation of all alumni from the four programs in the population ( N = 1,174 ). Table 3 2 presents the number of alumni from each class, number of alumni with valid email addresses, and the percentage of alumni with valid email addresses in each class as well as the totals for each program and total population. Kelsey and Wall (2003) conducted a study with graduates of an agricultural based leadership development program and receive d a 43% response rate. Abbington Cooper (2005) utilized a mail survey of graduates of an agricultural based leadership development program and obtained a 53% response rate. Instrumentation The third instrument used in this study was a researcher developed survey instrument, which can be found in Appendix C. The survey instrument addressed three

PAGE 82

82 Table 3 2. Program alumni with valid, working email addresses Program Class Alumni in Each Class Alum ni with Valid Email % with Valid Email KARL I 24 22 91.7 II 23 14 60.9 III 25 18 72.0 IV 27 24 88.9 V 29 23 79.3 VI 31 26 83.9 VII 29 26 89.7 VIII 30 26 86.7 IX 30 29 96.7 Total 248 208 83.9 OALP I 29 12 41.4 II 28 8 28.6 III 29 10 34.5 IV 25 15 60.0 V 28 14 50.0 VI 30 6 20.0 VII 29 9 31.0 VIII 30 16 53.3 IX 28 15 53.6 X 31 26 83.9 XI 30 25 83.3 XII 25 22 88.0 XIII 29 29 100.0 XIV 27 23 85.2 Total 398 230 57.8 LEAD New York I 30 18 60.0 II 30 16 53.3 III 28 16 57.1 IV 30 20 66.7 V 31 12 38.7 VI 28 21 75.0 VII 26 20 76.9 VIII 27 21 77.8 IX 26 18 69.2 X 30 27 90.0 XI 27 26 96.3 XII 30 30 100.0 Total 343 245 71.4 WLIANR I 26 20 76.9 II 26 16 61.5 III 27 23 85.2 IV 27 24 88.9 V 29 27 93.1 VI 22 22 100.0 VII 28 28 100.0 Total 185 160 86.5 Total 1174 843 71.8

PAGE 83

83 behaviors based on the primary themes found in the data from phases one and two: involvement in policy development, leadership roles and responsibilities, and li fe l ong learning. A web based survey instrument was utilized to reduce the costs of the study. Additionally, a majority of the program alumni had valid, working email addresses on file with the program staff and the program directors believed this form of surv ey delivery would be effective as email is the primary form of communication used by the program The survey was pilot tested beginning June 30, 2010 to ensure validity and reliability. A pilot test allows the researcher to test the instrument to determine if the instrument is measuring what it is supposed to measure (Ary et al., 2006). Subjects from the sample population are given the instrument and provide feedback. For this study, a fifth agricultural based leadership development program, the Texas Agric ultural Lifetime Leadership (TALL) program, was selected which also had similar program attributes to the four primary selected programs. The pilot test closed on July 22, 2010. The TALL program consisted of 231 alumni with valid, working e mail addresses. The pilot study o btained a response rate of 55.0 % ( n = 127). The pilot survey consisted of 110 items. Prior to analyzing the data, mean index scale scores were calculated following ) guidelines for attitudes, perceived behavioral con trol, subjective norms, and behaviors. Negatively coded items were recoded so that higher numbers reflected a positive attitude, greater perceived behavioral control, greater subjective norms, and behaviors. The mean of the item scores were then calculated to create an overall index mean score for each variable. The researcher analyzed the reliability each set of items. Davis (1971) provided a correlational threshold breakdown which

PAGE 84

84 states that correlations bet ween 0.50 and .69 are substantial correlations. Therefore, an a priori level of 0.50 was set and items that obtained a correlation less than 0.50 were calculated for each set of items. All constructs obtained an alp eight items were eliminated. Fifteen additional items were eliminated due to a lack of need for the questions and to reduce the length of the survey. s alpha for the policy development index scale scores were all 0.71 or higher. The index scale score s for leadership roles were 0.86 or higher. Finally, for the life or higher. Table 3 3 presents the reliability scores for each index scale for the final instrument Table 3 3. Survey instrument reliability index scale scores. Variable Number of items Policy development Attitude .82 8 Perceived behavioral control .82 9 Subj ective norm .71 3 Leadership roles Attitude .90 10 Perceived behavioral control .87 5 Subjective norm .86 4 Life long Learning Attitude .73 6 Perceived behavioral control .66 5 Subjective norm .74 3 The final instrument included 87 item s. Section one of the instrument included 28 likert like items on a 7 point scale, which addressed respondent attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behaviors in the policy development process. Section two included 26 items. Twenty four of these items were likert like items on a 7 point scale, which addressed respondent attitudes, perceived behavioral control,

PAGE 85

85 subjective norms, and behaviors in leadership roles. One question was a ranking question that asked respondents to rank seven types of organizations in the order in which they were most involved. Finally, one open ended question allowed respondents to list the top three organizations in which they are most involved. Section three included 17 likert like items on a 7 point scale which addressed respondent attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behaviors in life long learning. Section four included eight likert like items on a 4 point scale, which addressed behaviors in a number of behaviors identified in th e focus groups and interviews. Finally, section five gathered demographic characteristics from the respondents included the leadership program and class in which they were affiliated, current age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education level Data collection For the alumni members a revised proposal was submitted to IRB 02 and approve d. Dillman et al. ) survey implementation procedures were used for the data collection of the alumni members. This su rvey procedure consisted of six separ ate contacts with the alumni. The first was a pre notice letter (see Appendix D) on August 6 2010, which explained to the alumni that they would be receiving the survey. The pre notice letter was developed by the researcher, but modified as deemed necessa ry by the program director of each program and sent to the alumni by the directors to their respective programs. The second was the Web based questionnaire mailing (see Appendix E) three days later sent by the researcher using Qualtrics, a web based survey as a survey subject, and a link to the survey. Four days after the second mailing, a follow up email (see Appendix F) was s ent as a reminder to complete the questionnair e

PAGE 86

86 if he/she had not already done so Five days later, another reminder (see Appendix G) with the survey link was sent. Another reminder (see Appendix H) to complete the survey was sent on August 23, 2010 without the survey link. This contact also stated th at the survey would be closing in two days to encourage individuals to complete the survey A final contact was sent two days after the fifth contact (see Appendix I) to all of those who had not responded to give a final notice of the closing. It included a letter again explaining the survey, the importance of their response, and the link to the survey in ) implementation procedures were used to reduce nonresponse error. A response rate of 47.7 % ( n = 402) was obtained. Some re spondents completed less than half of the survey; therefore these cases were deleted due to the practical application of the data. A comparison of early to late respondents was utilized. Lind er, fined operationally and arbitrarily as the later 50% of respondents (p. 242). Therefore, this study defined early respondents ( n = 101) as the first 50% who responded to the survey and late respondents ( n = 101) as the latter 50% of respondents to the sur vey instrument. Early respondents were compared to late respondents on the basis of key variables of interest. No significant differences at the .05 level were found between early and late respondents. Data analysis The survey data analysis was conducted u sing SPSS. Demographic information collected from the survey w as used to accomplish the second research objective: describe the demographics of current agricultural leadership development program alumni. The independent variables of age, gender, class numb er and leadership

PAGE 87

87 program, race, marital status, and educational background were analyzed. Respondents were asked to provide their age, select the gender of male or female, and select the agricultural leadership program and class in which they participated Respondents also selected yes if they were Hispanic or Latino and no if they were not. Race categories of White/Caucasian, African American, Native American, Asian, and Other were provided for respondents to select. Marital status was measured by six cat egories of s ingle married without children, married with children, divorced, separated, and w idowed. Divorced, separated, and widowed were combined into one category for data analysis. Finally, educational background was measured by six categories of high school, s ome col lege, two year college degree, f our year college degree, Masters degree, PhD, and Professional degree (DVM, MD, JD). High school and some colleg e were combined to establish a n o college degree category and respondents with a PhD and p rofes sional degree were also combined for the purposes of the data analysis. Frequencies for each of the demogra phic variables were calculated. For objective three, means and standard deviations of attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behavior in policy development, leadership roles, and life long learning were calculated for each item and overall scale scores Additionally, for items found in section four of the survey instrument, means and standard deviations were calculated for each item. Results were then compared to the qualitative data to address objective four. Correlational statistics were utilized for objective five. coefficient was used to determine multicollinearity between the selected demographic

PAGE 88

88 v ariables and measure possible associations among the demographic variables and the behaviors (Agresti & Finlay, 1997) The demographic variable s were recoded with a one if th e category of was true of the respondent and a zero if the category was untrue of the respondent (see Appendix J) r was used to measure behavioral c ontrol and actual behavior as well as strength of relationship s between the variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). The magnitudes of correlations were explained using corr elations between 0.10 and 0.29 are considered low, correlations between 0.30 and 0.49 are considered moderate, correlations between 0.50 and 0.69 are considered substantial, correlations between 0.70 and 0.99 are considered very high, and a correlation coe fficient of 1.00 is considered perfect (Davis, 1971). Finally, multiple regression was used for objective six to determine the influence the demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control have on the adoption of certain leadership behaviors. Multiple regression is a method of analyzing the variance o f a dependent variable (Agresti & Finlay, 2007 ). The coding used for the correlational statistics were also used for the multiple regression (see Appendix J). The coef ficient of determination is denoted by R Square ( R 2 ). An R 2 of 0.01 represents a weak relationship, an R 2 of 0.09 represents a moderate relationship, and an R 2 of 0.25 represents a strong relationship (Cohen, 1988). Demographic variables were coded with on es and zeros. The following represents the model used for each behavior:

PAGE 89

89 Y 1 2 3 (Subjective 4 5 6 7 (Married without children) + 8 (Married with children) 9 (Divorced Separated, or Widowed 10 (No college degree) 11 (Two y ear college degree 12 (Four year college degree ) + 13 (Masters degree 14 (Doctoral or Professional degree 15 (Pre 1990 ) + 16 (1991 1995 17 (1996 2000 18 (2001 2005 19 (2006 2010) All of the variables were included in the full mo del due to potential hidden effects Variables with a p value below .05 were then removed for the reduced model. Summary This chapter described the research methods that were used in this research design conducted on the long term program impacts and outco mes of agricultural leadership development programs. Chapter 3 also discussed the research design, participants, instrumentation, data collection and analysis for each phase of the study. The research design of this study was a mixed method study utilizing a qualitative focus group and four individual interviews and a quantitative survey instrument. The two populations of this study were the program directors from all IAPAL programs and program alumni of the four selected programs A summary and description of the analysis was discussed. Chapter 4 will provide specific information on the results from the focus group, individual interviews, and survey instrument.

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes of agricultural based lea dership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United States. The objectives of this research were to describe the intended impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors, describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni, describe the impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership developmen t programs as perceived by program alumni, compare and contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni, identify t he relationship between selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control and the engagement in certain leadership behaviors, and determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjectiv e norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. The research study included three phases of different types of data collection, each building upon the previous phase(s). This chapter organizes the findings from all three phases of data collection by the research objectives, rather than through each phase. All 843 alumni from the four selected programs with valid, working email addresses were invited to participate i n the web based survey. With 402 resp ondents, a response rate of 47.7 % was obtained.

PAGE 91

91 Objective One Objective one: To describe the intended impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directo rs. Data collected from the focus group and interviews with the program directors were used to achieve the first objective of this research. Short Term Outcomes A wide range of short term outcomes were identified by the directors throughout the focus group and individual interviews. Three main categor ies of skills were identified: (a ) networking, relations hip, and team building skills, (b ) commun ication and social skills, and (c ) leadership skills. While there are three main categories identified, many of t he outcomes overlap into more than one category. Networking, relationship building, and team building skills The first category identified through the focus groups and interviews was networking, relationship building, and team building skills. When asked a bout the networks in an individual interview, Director 4 stated, fascinated me with this idea of networks being one of the biggest benefits of the to do that. This concep t of networking was further validated through numerous comments in the focus group when asked about the outcomes of t he programs, with Director 5 On an individual leve developing a network. Not being a wallflower, but getting out and meeting people, stated Director 3 (Director 1) and iance (Director 7). Director 1

PAGE 92

92 f leaders that can work with each other and draw Director 1 also of 30 strangers, basic other and saying good Program directors also identified alumni (Director 1). Director 6 shared a story a program he makes better deals with the businesses, his negotiation skills are better, of skills were also identified (Director 1) and included an understanding of to participate in team building activities or launch team building activities within an tated Director 1 in an individual interview. Director 4 general, are able to get along better with Many directors mentioned stronger relationships being developed betwe en families of the participants. builds family ties. We talk about this. And relationships w ith the people you know, family, stated Director 3. Many programs encourage participants to understand how to work with policy makers and Director 4 comfortable and confiden

PAGE 93

93 This understanding and ability to work with others comes from understanding different personality styles thro ugh personality assessments. One specific example provided by Director 11 was about the True Colors assessment: Well, we do the personality inventory we do is through colors and so, after that, for people and talking about instead of being against somebody immediately, might still be against som ebody, but they Other examples of activities that developed networks and relationships included wilderness experiences, cultural sharing, and interviewing individuals within their home comm unities prior to a seminar. Finally, Director 1 explained how he believed the networks begin: answer to how we do that is really, we just get the right people in the room togethe r. So a lot of it goes back to, not so much what we do in our program or the training that we provide, but really goes back before that, it has to do with our recruitment activities, types of applicants that we attract, how we go about selecting our class members, and what we end up with is a class that is very diverse. When asked about the different types or levels of networks, Director 4 in the individual interview described the class as a primary network which is then expanded through alumni and speakers : this group of usually 30 individuals. As the program progresses, as our two year program progresses, their networks increase with, number one, the alumni of the program w ho are active and who participate in different events in the two year program. Throughout the two year experience in our group, they are introduced and, again, develop relationships with other [program] alumni which increases their network. And then in add ition to that, we like to say we average about 350 resource people that come in and interact and speak to our group throughout the two year program.

PAGE 94

94 This description was supported by others describing the networks to look like a spider web, with the indivi dual classes being the center and each class member having a branch that is connected to other networks of individuals. Director 2 a thousand peopl e at a time Finally, the directors addressed the importance of the networks and relationship building on numerous occasions. As Director 1 stated: If the only people you ever work with are the same people in your silo, if you will, access to more creative solutions to problems. Through participation in the shop complaint types of groups, they get into the problem solving groups (Director 2). This is involved because they can de al with the issues that they have to face much more efficiently and more effectively than t hey had before (Director 2). The alumni also recognize the importance of the networks as stated by Director 1 gnize the importance of team building and diversity Communication and social skills (Director 4) was continually identified by the pr ogram directors in both the focus group and the individual interviews as a (Director 2) by participating in an agricultural leadership development program. The participants reported many characteristics and

PAGE 95

95 examples of increased communication skills both verbally and written, better negotiation iciencies (Director 7). Multiple focus group participants identified alumni as becoming better communicators, better listener s, and better spokespeople for the industry. Communication skills included running a meeting, thank you letters, asking questions, speaking to others about their job or industry, and being able to formulate an argument and present the issue to others were just a few examples provided by the directors. This also includes media skills and media relations. Communication skills are Director 17 (Director 7) it s their confidence in commu nication (Director 4). ort of deal with how to behave in a social setting, and how to eat in a fancy stated Director 8 in the focus group. This category was further validated through many other comments in the f ocus group, with Director 9 from the focus group adding, behave in a social gathering, how to put your napkin on a plate and your wine glass and be able to still switch business cards without having greasy chicken wings a ll over t he Leadership skills Director 1 e previous two categories. Director 1

PAGE 96

96 know, how to think critically or how to think strategically about issues, how to be able to lead an organization through change or understa nding the steps in the process of economies, and issues, globalization, negotiation skills, conflict resolution, time management, and self awareness were many of the examples provided in regards to leadership skills. Director 4 the program, but also doing so me traveling and learning and interacting with the irector 10 applying for the program, he stuttered, and he got the confidence and the coaching met and people they have not met. And I think that is part of what enhances the ir confidence (Director 11). Through this confidence, participants begin to feel empowered as a leader, develop (Director 12) (Director 9) and gain the confidence to delegate responsibility to others. e approach to ward Director 1 in the focus group. Focus group participants also discussed an inc (Director 13). Program alumni realize

PAGE 97

97 it, (Director 13). Throughout the focus group, there was continuous agreement and support for an increased understanding and awareness of differences and issues. These differences were in cultures, economies, personalities, perspectives, and diversity as well as issues within and outside of agriculture. This awareness and understanding occurs through a Director 14 (Director 2) or understanding was emphasized by the directors in progressive training experience, by the time the class members f inish with the Director 2 directors believed that because of this global focus an d broader understanding have a way of looking at issues from several different viewpoint s and they have a greater understanding of the importance of compromise in solving problems (Director 2). Director 2 Through the wide range of topics and viewpoints experienced throughout the program, alumni are more prepared and educated on how to deal with their own issues. Medium term Outcomes Behaviors such as involvement in organizations, continui ng education, involvement in the policy development process, and taking on leadership roles and responsibilities were continually identified by the program directors in both the focus

PAGE 98

98 group and interviews. The three main areas identified through the fo cus group and interviews were: (a ) involvement in leadersh ip roles and responsibilities, (b ) involvement in the policy development pro cess, and (c ) seeking out opportunities for further education. Leadership roles and responsibilities The directors of the indi vidual interviews were asked to first define a leadership role or re sponsibility. Director 3 Director 2 defined a leadership role as: An activity whe them into a situation where they can come to a conclusion and solve a problem or They can be an active me mber of the organization and help direct that change who has to move a group of people, and that could be two people, it could be 200 (Direc tor 4) s influencing others for change (Director 1). All four directors mentioned that a leadership role or responsibility did not have to be a formal position. This was further emphasized in the focus group b y Director 7 stating, We talk about school boards, supervisor, appointed and elected positions, the and their spirit of professionalism, whatever it might be, but the importa nt thing is that they are much more engaged after the programs. Other examples of these leadership roles and responsibilities were provided. These included elective or appointed government positions, organizational and school boards both within and outside of agriculture. Overall, the directors in both the focus

PAGE 99

99 (Director 15) after participating in the leadership program. When asked at what level or what types of organizations alumni are most involved, Director 4 However, many did provide examples of leadership roles within state, commodity, and nati onal organizations. Director 1 alumni serve in local leadership roles or organizational leadership roles, and lesser numbers in state level Director 2 agreed and state I would guess a good third of them are heavily involved in local leadership roles. Another third of them are heavily involved in commodity organizations. And another third are i and natural resources, the directors believed that alumni were also serving in leadership roles outside of agriculture and natural resources organizat ions. This was supported by examples of alumni serving on school boards or within government positions. In the individual interview Director 1 The directors believed that organizations choose their board members from the alumni of these agricultural based leadership programs with Director 2 stating that, ting back better leaders in their are involved in numerous leadership roles and responsibilities in a wide range of

PAGE 100

100 organizations. H owever, as Director 7 real measure of our mettle as leadership architects is, are we turning out better people than what we started with ? Policy development Due to the many activities and experiences in the program that are related to the poli cy development process, directors also identified alumni being involved in the policy development process after graduation as a common theme. Alumni graduate from the (Director 9) (Director 11) therefore the directors shared a common belief that they we (Director 7). In the focus group, Director 11 shared a story of an activity that often leads to changes in policies for the sta te: We put them through a legislative process. They have to write a bill for the state legislature according to the exact guidelines of the state legislature. And then they have to present it and they have to get it out of committee. And so they and as a result of this activity, a lot of these folks actually go to their own legislatures and get these bills passed. Many programs have listed increased involvement in the policy development process in the program objectives, which was reinforced by Director 4 in the individual interview by involved, but, again, it probably goes back to their own individual industry groups and issues that arise that would impact their industry Alumni are more willing to become involved in policy development as Director 4 stated, I feel like a great majority of our folks probably have now made a phone call without being prompted by, you know, an e mail alert or something like that, have made a phone call, gone for a visit, you know, actually said, hey, this is impacting me, what can I do to help, on this policy.

PAGE 101

101 Because participants are more confident and comfortable with policy makers, Director 4 believed they were more willing to go speak to the representatives about an issue that expertise on it. Like if they need to talk to a farmer in a certain area, I can be that Finally, the directors in the individ ual interviews were asked to share a specific example of alumni being involved in the policy development process. Director 1 shared this story: Many many many of our alumni lobby on behalf of their own organizations. Just a couple weeks ago, for example, o ne of our current class members, not even an alumnus, but one of our current class members was testifying before the New York State Assembly regarding a wine in grocery stores bill. Currently, New York State does not allow grocery stores to sell wine. Thir ty some odd states around the country do allow that. Of course, New York wineries are interested in seeing that kind of legislation pass because it opens up new markets for their product. So we have a current class member and a couple of my alumni that hav e very actively got a really good shot this year. Life long learning The third major medium term outcome identified by the program directors was the continuation of education after alumni graduate from the programs, which is supported by one quot e from Director 16 in the focus group that the alumni are committed to life additional typ es of continuing educational opportunities in formal and nonformal settings. Some of these opportunities are for formal degrees, while others are participating in other leadership development programs.

PAGE 102

102 When asked about this idea of instilling a desire for continued life long learning, all four directors from the individual interviews agreed and provided examples or stories of alumni asking for additional leadership develop ment opportunities. Director 4 stated: I believe that because of this program they wan t to seek out additional learning. And they tell us that. We do have pretty good evaluation data saying that they, you know, a great majority of the alumni would love to have a [program name] two. A second leadership program that they could go through and, again, maybe not as they love to be able to get into a group of very highly motivated, highly functioning, highly thinking people and, again, bounce ideas around. They like the idea of having speakers brought i n of speakers that they might not hear, necessarily, in their day to day lives, so I believe they try to seek out those opportunities wherever they can. This was further supported by Director 4 stating in this min dset and they like it and they liked their experience in the program and while Director 2 tops and learn and try to solve problems and keep up with t as an important outcome of participation is that our program tends to instill a sense of life long learning or an appreciation for the importance of continuing education. So many of our graduates do go on to seek out additional professional development opp Director 17 Creat ive Leadership and Nuffield. Nonformal opportunities included reading more of things where they would have never picked it up before (Director 1) These also

PAGE 103

103 include p articipating in commodity board training, employer based leadership programs, agribusiness seminars, and other similar leadership training programs within their communities and states. Alumni have also started to create leadership programs within their own businesses and organizations to provide leadership training opportunities for others. This was supported in both the focus group and interviews when asked about continuing education and the concept of be coming life long learners. D irector 4 brought this u leadership irector 4 believed this was directly related to their participation in the progr am by stating: I honestly think, especially the starting of other programs, I thin k that could be lot like the [State Program] which, again, I think is a great thing. Networks As mentioned in the short term outcomes, the development of networks continues to be a reoccurring theme, whether intended or unintended. Therefore, in the individual interviews, the directors were asked about the use of these networks by the alum ni and why they are important to the agriculture and n atural resources industry. D irector 1 used a metaphor to describe the importance of these networks that are developed: You know, it goes back to that old saying that if the only tool you have is a hamme r, then every problem you have starts to look like a nail. You know, and different tools to fix those problems. I think a broadened diverse network helps give us those tools t o solve those problems. Alumni are utilizing the networks developed in the program for their personal and professional lives. Director 1 in the interview

PAGE 104

104 resources and individual class members learn that they have access to resources that r emphasized by Director 4 use of the Individuals and organizations within the industry are also utilizing these ne tworks as described by D irector 4 : Looking at board involvement at the local and stat use our network down in that area to come up with a name of somebody. Table 4 1 provides a summary of the focus group and interview results Table 4 1 Summary of focus group and interview results Short term Networking, relationship building, and team building skills More collaboration among different commodity groups Understanding how to develop personal and professional networks Understanding how to cultivate and maintain relationships Human relation skills Negotiation skills How to participate in team building activities How to respect differences of opinion Develop stronger relationships between families of participants Understanding of how to work with policy makers Increased confidence Understanding different personality styles Desire to associate with other problem solving groups Recognize the imp ortance of team building and networking Communication and social skills Improved verbal and non verbal communication skills Better listening skills Better spokespersons for the industry Ability to run a meeting Develop better public speaking skills Unde rstand proper etiquette Learn how to initiate conversations

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 1. Continued Leadership skills How to think critically and strategically Understanding of differences in cultures, economics, issues, and globalization Improved time management skills Increased self awareness Increased leadership confidence Understand how to lead Willingness to be vulnerable as a leader Develop more positive and proactive view towards change Develop a sense of accountability Establish a global focus Medium term Leader ship roles and responsibilities Serve in elective and appointed government positions Organizational and school boards Within and outside of agriculture Stronger community leaders Involved in organizations at all levels Most at community/local level Several at the state level Less at the national/international levels Policy development Most involved at local level or within industry groups Contact policy and decision makers without being prompted More proactive to contact or educate other s about issues impacting industry Serve as resource person for policy makers Lobby on behalf of own organizations Life long learning Committed to life long learning Seek out formal and nonformal educational opportunities Want to replicate leadership pro gram experiences Read books outside of traditional trade magazines Participate in other leadership programs for counties, boards, or employer based Create leadership programs for other s Networks Utilize the networks established in the program Industry utilizes the networks to fill leadership or board positions in organizations Objective Two Objective two: To describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development p rogram alumni. The survey instrument administered to all 843 alumni

PAGE 106

106 members of the four selected programs with a valid, working email address was used to achieve objective two of this study. Of the 402 alumni members who responded to the survey instrument, 92 (22.9%) were from the KARL program, 111 (27.6%) were from the LEAD New York program, 111 (27.6%) were from the OALP, and 88 (21.9%) were from the WLIANR. As described in chapter 3, KARL has graduated nine classes, LEAD New York has completed 12 classes OALP has completed 14 classes, and the WLIANR has completed seven classes for a total of 42 classes. Each of the 42 classes were represented by t he survey respondents ( see Table 4 2 ). Table 4 2 Program and class representation Program Class Graduation Y ear n % KARL I 1993 11 2.7 II 1995 2 0.5 III 1997 7 1.7 IV 1999 9 2.2 V 2001 14 3.5 VI 2003 10 2.5 VII 2005 13 3.2 VIII 2007 10 2.5 IX 2009 16 4.0 Total 92 22.9 LEAD New York I 1987 5 1.2 II 1989 10 2. 5 III 1991 3 0.7 IV 1993 8 2.0 V 1995 3 0.7 VI 1997 5 1.2 VII 1999 6 1.5 VIII 2001 6 1.5 IX 2003 11 2.7 X 2005 15 3.7 XI 2007 17 4.2 XII 2009 22 5.5 Total 111 27.6

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 2. Continued OALP I 1984 8 2.0 II 1986 6 1.5 III 1988 3 0.7 IV 1990 7 1.7 V 1992 4 1.0 VI 1994 3 0.7 VII 1996 4 1.0 VIII 1998 6 1.5 IX 2000 7 1.7 X 2002 11 2.7 XI 2004 14 3.5 XII 2006 11 2.7 XIII 2008 14 3.5 XIV 2010 13 3.2 Tot al 111 27.6 WLIANR I 1994 9 2.2 II 1996 9 2.2 III 1998 10 2.5 IV 2000 10 2.5 V 2003 16 4.0 VI 2006 10 2.5 VII 2009 24 6.0 Total 88 21.9 Total ( n ) 402 100.0 Note: N = 843 The average age of the respondents was 47 years, with a range of ages from 26 years to 66 years ( see Table 4 3 ). Respondents primarily resided in Florida ( n = 80, 19.9%), Kansas ( n = 87, 21.6%), New York ( n = 103, 25.6%), and Oklahoma ( n = 108, 26.9%). However, individuals also resided in Arkan sas, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. No respondents resided outside of the continental U.S. A majority of the individuals who res ponded to the survey were male ( n = 289, 71.9%), with only 27.1% ( n = 109) being female. Less than 0.7% ( n = 3) were Hispanic or Latino. Ninety six percent ( n = 386) of the resp ondents were

PAGE 108

108 White/Caucasian, 1.0% ( n = 4) were Native American, and 0.5% ( n = 2) reported their Race as Other. A vast majority ( n = 288, 71.6%) of the respondents were married with children, 10.4% ( n = 42) were married without children, 6.0% ( n = 24) were single and had never been married, and 9.7% ( n = 39) were divorced, separated, or widowed. Less than 14% ( n = 54) did not have a four year college degree, as 50% ( n = 201) had completed a four year college degree, 29.4% ( n = 118) had comp degree, and 5.5 % ( n = 22) had completed a Doctoral or Professional (JD, MD, DVM ) degree. Of the respondents, 9.7% ( n = 39) graduated before 1990, 10.7% ( n = 43) graduated between 1991 and 1995, 18.2% ( n = 73) graduated between 1996 and 2000, 27.4% ( n = 110) graduated between 2001 and 2005, and 34.1% ( n = 137) graduated between 20 06 a nd 2010 as seen in Table 4 4 Table 4 3 Alumni members age Variable M SD Range Age 46.9 9.01 26 66 Note: N = 843 ; n = 351 Table 4 4 Demographic characteristics of survey respondents f % State of Residence Florida 80 19.9 Kansas 87 21.6 New York 103 25.6 Oklahoma 108 26.9 Other (AR, CO, DC, GA, ID, IN, MA, MN, NJ, OH, SC, SD, TX, VA, WI) 19 4.7 Gender Male 289 71.9 Female 109 27.1 Hispanic/Latino Yes 3 0.7 No 389 96.8 Race White/Caucasian 386 96.0 Native American 4 1 .0 Other 2 0.5

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 4. Continued Marital Status Single, never married 24 6.0 Married without children 42 10.4 Married with children 288 71.6 Divorced/Separated/Widowed 39 9.7 Education No college degree 33 8.2 2 year college degree 2 1 5.2 4 year college degree 201 50.0 118 29.4 Doctoral/Professional degree 22 5.5 Program Graduation Year Pre 1990 39 9.7 1991 1995 43 10.7 1996 2000 73 18.2 2001 2005 110 27.4 2006 2010 137 34.1 Note: N = 843 Objective Three Objective three: To describe the impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program alumni. Data collected from the survey instrument with the program alumni from the four selected programs were used to achie ve this objective. Questions were on a Likert scale and asked respondents to rate how much they participated in specific behaviors related to being involved in the policy development process, the leadership and volunteer roles they have taken on, and the a mount of continued education they have participated in on a 7 point scale, where 1 = infrequently and 7 = frequently Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms were also measured on a 7 point scale. The survey instrument included a secti on on alumni involvement in the policy development process at all levels (community, state, national or international). The total index mean for policy development behaviors was M = 3.86 ( SD = 1.41) which means on average, alumni were involved in policy d evelopment. Table 4 5 presents the mean

PAGE 110

110 scores of each item as well as the index mean for the set of six items. Survey questions also addressed alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards being involved in the policy develo pment process. The mean index score for attitude was M = 4.99 ( SD = 0.92), perceived behavioral control was M = 4.23 ( SD = 0.94), and subjective norms was M = 4.05 ( SD = 1.21) as presented in Table 4 6. Table 4 5. Alumni involvement in the policy developme nt process M SD I participate in the policy development process. 4.43 1.82 I participate in policy development issues that are not related to my business or organization. 3.55 1.86 I contact my policy and decision makers by email. 3.69 2.05 I contact my policy and decision makers by phone. 3.42 1.99 I contact my policy and decision makers when an issue arises. 4.72 1.73 I participate in political campaigns for candidates. 3.36 2.11 Total Index Mean 3.86 1.41 Note: 7 point scale 1 = infrequently an d 7 = frequently Table 4 6. Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards involvement in the policy development process M SD Attitude 4.99 0.92 Perceived behavioral control 4.23 0.94 Subjective norms 4.05 1.21 Note: 7 p oint scale The second section of the survey instrument asked participants questions about their level of engagement in leadership and volunteer roles at the local, state, commodity or nation and international levels on a 7 point scale, where 1 = infrequen tly and 7 = frequently Table 4 7 presents the item mean score and index mean score ( M = 4.57, SD = 1.37) for the set of five items. The total index score for attitude towards being involved in leadership roles was M = 5.59 ( SD = 0.91), perceived behaviora l control was M = 4.76 ( SD = 1.16), and subjective norms was M = 5.06 ( SD = 1.17) ( see Table 4 8).

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 7. Alumni involvement in leadership and volunteer roles Question M SD I have taken on leadership roles within my local organizations. 5.66 1.54 I serve as a volunteer for my local organizations. 5.48 1.60 I have taken on leadership roles within my commodity or state organizations. 4.64 2.00 I serve as a volunteer for my state or commodity organizations. 4.34 2.00 I serve in leadership roles withi n my national and international organizations. 2.78 1.98 Total Index Mean 4.57 1.37 Note: 7 point scale 1 = infrequently and 7 = frequently Table 4 8. Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards involvement in leadershi p roles M SD Attitude 5.59 0.91 Perceived behavioral control 4.76 1.16 Subjective norms 5.06 1.17 Note: 7 point scale 1 = negative and 7 = positive Section two also asked respondents to rank the types of organizations from 1 to 7 in which they are m ost involved with 1 = most involved and 7 = least involved The organization categories included: community organizations, local government, commodity organizations, state organizations, state government, national organizations, national government, and ot her. Table 4 9 presents the mean scores for each category. Alumni reported being most involved in community organizations ( M = 1.93, SD = 1.36) followed by state organizations ( M = 3.17, SD = 1.24), local government ( M = 3.38, SD = 1.65), and commodity org anizations ( M = 3.41, SD = 1.84). Alumni were less involved in state government ( M = 4.84, SD = 1.18), national organizations ( M = 5.04, SD = 1.55), and national government ( M = 6.52, SD = 1.23). Other responses mostly consisted of religious or church orga nizations.

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 9. Alumni ranking of involvement in organizations Category Ranking M SD Community organizations 1 1.93 1.36 Local government 3 3.38 1.65 Commodity organizations 4 3.41 1.84 State organizations 2 3.17 1.24 State government 5 4.84 1. 18 National organizations 6 5.04 1.55 National government 7 6.52 1.23 Note: N = 348 Section three of the survey instrument included questions about alumni involvement in formal, nonformal, and leadership development educational opportunities on a 7 poi nt scale, where 1 = infrequently and 7 = frequently Table 4 10 presents the mean item scores and total index mean ( M = 5.13, SD = engagement levels in life long learning opportunities. Table 4 11 presents the total index mean scores for alumni attitudes ( M = 5.90, SD = 0.78), perceived behavioral control ( M = 5.38, SD = 0.86), and subjective norms ( M = 5.24, SD = 1.09) towards involvement in life long learning opportunities. Table 4 10. Alumni involvement in life long learning opport unities Question M SD I seek out formal educational opportunities. 4.11 2.03 I seek out nonformal educational opportunities. 5.96 1.25 I seek out opportunities to further develop my leadership skills and abilities. 5.32 1.49 Total Index Mean 5.13 1.20 Note: 7 point scale 1 = infrequently and 7 = frequently Table 4 11. Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms towards involvement in the life long learning opportunities M SD Attitude 5.90 0.78 Perceived behavioral control 5.38 0.86 Subjective norms 5.24 1.09 Note: 7 point scale

PAGE 113

113 The fourth section of the survey instrument addressed additional leadership behaviors identified from the focus group and individual interviews. Table 4 12 shows the means for a set of leadership behaviors in which alumni choose to engage The survey instrument used a 4 point scale for this section that asked respondents to rate how true each statement, where 1 = not at all true of me 2 = somewhat true of me 3 = mostly true of me and 4 = complet ely true of me Alumni reported leadership behaviors such as effectively facilitating meetings ( M = 3.27, SD = 0.73), attending organizational conferences and meetings ( M = 3.38, SD = 0.68), educating others about issues within their community, business or organization ( M = 3.07, SD = 0.79), educating others about agriculture and natural resources ( M = 3.25, SD = 0.77), and providing opportunities for other to take on leadership roles ( M = 3.00, SD = 0.79) to be mostly true of themselves. Alumni also report ed delegating responsibilities to others to be mostly true of themselves ( M = 2.92, SD = 0.79). The two behaviors reported to be somewhat true were establishing and utilizing relationships with the media ( M = 2.44, SD = 1.04) and utilizing new media techno logies ( M = 2.03, SD = 0.97). Table 4 12. Leadership behaviors of alumni Question N M SD I effectively facilitate meetings for my business or organization. 395 3.27 0.73 I delegate responsibilities to others. 396 2.92 0.79 I attend the organizational co nferences and meetings for organizations that I am involved in. 396 3.38 0.68 I educate others about local issues within my community, business, or organization. 395 3.07 0.79 I educate others about the agriculture and natural resources industries. 396 3 .25 0.77 I provide opportunities for others to take on leadership roles. 394 3.00 0.79 I establish and utilize my relationships with the media. 394 2.44 1.04 I utilize new media technologies. 395 2.03 0.97 Note: 4 point scale 1 = Not at all true of me 2 = Somewhat true of me, 3 = Mostly true of me, 4 = Completely true of me

PAGE 114

114 Objective Four Objective four: To compare and contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors alig n with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni. The focus group and interview data discussed in objective two was compared to the survey data discussed in objective three to obtain the results for this objective. A number of similarities were foun d. The directors reported alumni were more willing and would contact policy and decision makers without being prompted, which was consistent with the survey results. Alumni reported contacting their policy and decision makers fairly frequently ( M = 4.72, S D = 1.73). Directors also believed alumni to be active and involved in the policy development process in a number of ways. Alumni reported being frequently involved in the policy development process ( M = 4.43, SD = 1.82). In regards to being involved in le adership roles, the directors stated alumni serve in leadership roles within and outside of agriculture. Most are involved at the local or community levels, with fewer being involved at the state levels, and less involved at the national and international levels. This is consistent with the survey data reported by the alumni. The alumni ranked community organizations first as the type of organization they are most involved, followed by state organizations and local government. National organizations and nat ional government were the lowest type of organization in which alumni are involved. Alumni reported frequent involvement in leadership roles ( M = 5.66, SD = 1.54) and volunteer roles ( M = 5.48, SD = 1.60) in local organizations. Additionally, alumni report ed infrequent involvement within national and international organizations ( M = 2.78, SD = 1.98).

PAGE 115

115 Finally, the directors believed alumni were committed to life long learning. They stated that alumni seek out many types of educational opportunities and attem pt to recreate their leadership program experiences. This was also consistent with the survey data. Alumni reported mostly being involved in nonformal educational opportunities ( M = 5.96, SD = 1.25) and leadership development opportunities ( M = 5.32, SD = 1.49). Table 4 13 presents the perceptions of the directors and alumni responses.

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 13. Comparison of director and alumni perceptions of outcomes Results from focus group and interviews Results from survey Involvement in policy development Most i nvolved at local level or within industry groups Contact policy and decision makers without being prompted More proactive to contact or educate others about issues impacting industry Serve as resource person for policy makers Lobby on behalf of own organiz ations Report fairly frequent involvement in policy development ( M = 3.86, SD = 1.41) Have positive attitudes towards being involved in policy development ( M = 4.99, SD = 0.92) Have the knowledge and skills necessary to be involved ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.94) Co ntact policy and decision makers when issues arise ( M = 4.72, SD = 1.73) Involvement in leadership roles Serve in elective and appointed government positions Organizational and school boards Within and outside of agriculture Stronger community leaders In volved in organizations at all levels Most at community/local level Several at the state level Less at the national/international levels Report positive attitudes towards serving in leadership roles ( M = 5.59, SD = 0.91) Believe to have the necessary skills and knowledge to serve in various positions ( M = 4.76, SD = 1.16) Per rankings, primarily involved in local and state organizations, followed by local government Frequently take on leadership ( M = 5.66, SD = 1.54) and volunteer roles ( M = 5.48, SD = 1.60) within local organizations Few serve at national and international levels ( M = 2.78, SD = 1.98) Involvement in life long learning Committed to life long learning Seek out formal and nonformal educational opportunities Want to replicate l eadership program experiences education programs Read books outside of traditional trade magazines Participate in other leadership programs for counties, boards, or employer based Create leadership progr ams for others Frequently participate in nonformal and leadership development opportunities ( M = 5.32, SD = 1.49) Seek out formal e ducational opportunities ( M = 4.11, SD = 2.03) Have positive attitudes towards continuing education ( M = 5.90, SD = 0.78) Hav e support and necessary skills and knowledge to participate in life long learning opportunities ( M = 5.38, SD = 0.86)

PAGE 117

117 Objective Five Objective five: To identify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, a nd the perceived behavioral control and the engagement in certain leadership behaviors. The selected demographic variables were class graduation year, age, gender, marital status, and education. Survey instrument data from the alumni were used to obtain th e results for objective five. The magnitudes of the correlations were presented and discussed using the correlation magnitudes suggested by Davis (1971). Table 4 14 presents the describing magnitudes for interpreting correlations. Table 4 14. Magnitudes fo r interpreting correlations (Davis, 1971) R Description 1.0 0 Perfect 0.70 0.99 Very High 0.50 0.69 Substantial 0.30 0.49 Moderate 0.10 0.29 Low 0.01 0.09 Negligible Pearson correlations were used to describe the relationships between the dependent variables. Table 4 15 presents the correlations for the attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and alumni behaviors related to the policy development process. A very high correlation was found between attitude and actual behavio r ( r = .70). Substantial correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control ( r = .68) and behavior and perceived behavioral control ( r = .66 ). Moderate correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control ( r = .4 0), subjective norm and perceived behavioral control ( r = .38), and subjective norm and behavior ( r = .44).

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 15. Relationships between behaviors in policy d evelopment and attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm Variable Attitude Perceived behavioral control Subjective norm Behavior Attitude -.68 .40 .70 Perceived behavioral control -.38 .66 Subjective norm -.44 Behavior -As presented in Table 4 16 a very high correlation was found between attitude and behavior s ( r = .71) related to serving in leadership and volunteer roles within organizations at the community, state, national and international levels. Substantial correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control ( r = .61) and perceived behavioral control and behavior ( r = .56). A moderate correlation was found between attitude and subjective norm ( r = .46), perceived behavioral control and subjective norm ( r = .30), and subjective norm and behavior ( r = .48). Table 4 16. Relationships be tween behaviors in leadership role s and attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm Variable Attitude Perceived behavioral control Subjective norm Behavior Attitude -.61 .46 .71 Perceived behavioral control -.30 .56 Subjective norm -.48 Behavior -Table 4 17 presents the correlations between alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and behaviors related to engagement in life long learning opportunities. A substantial correlation was found between a ttitude and subjective norm ( r = .50), attitude and behavior ( r = .63), and subjective norm and behavior ( r = .53). Moderate correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control (r = .40) and perceived behavioral control and behavior ( r = .42). A

PAGE 119

119 low correlation was found between perceived behavioral control and subjective norm ( r = .27). Table 4 17. Relationships between behaviors in life long learning and attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm Variable Attitude P erceived behavioral control Subjective norm Behavior Attitude -.40 .50 .63 Perceived Behavioral Control -.27 .42 Subjective Norm -.53 Behavior -Spearman variables and the relationships between selected independent variables and the dependent variables. There were no significant relationships between demographic variables ( see Table 4 18). As presented in Table 4 19 all of the correlations between variables were low or negligible correlations.

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 18. Correlations between demographic variables Var. Variable Var. Variable Var. Variable 1 Age 7 No college degree 13 1991 1995 2 Gender 8 Two year college degr ee 14 1996 2000 3 Single, never married 9 Four year college degree 15 2001 2005 4 Married without children 10 Masters degree 16 2006 2010 5 Married with children 11 Doctoral or Professional degree 6 Divorced, separated or widowed 12 Pre 1990 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 -.05 .17 .18 .16 .09 .08 .02 .05 .02 .02 .36 .28 .14 .05 .49 2 -.16 .16 .23 .05 .07 .07 .01 .02 .05 .17 .03 .05 .12 .06 3 -.09 .42 .09 .00 .03 .05 04 .01 .05 .02 .04 .01 .06 4 -.57 .12 .02 .08 .03 .02 .01 .12 .04 .08 .00 .17 5 -.55 .00 .04 .02 .02 .04 .12 .03 .05 .01 .11 6 -.02 .00 .01 .03 .07 .03 .11 .04 .03 .06 7 -.07 .31 .20 .07 .04 .05 .0 5 .04 .05 8 -.24 .12 .06 .04 .06 .05 .02 .05 9 -.66 .25 .04 .01 .11 .05 .06 10 -.16 .03 .04 .09 .04 .00 11 -.04 .05 .06 .00 .01 12 -.11 .15 .20 .24 13 -.16 .21 .25 14 -.29 .34 15 -.44 16 -

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 19 Relationships between theory of planned behavior variables and demographic variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Policy Development Attitude .07 .10 .00 .09 .04 .03 .10 .09 .12 .00 .05 .01 .02 .02 .07 .08 Perceived behavioral control .05 .09 .03 .04 .00 .00 .13 .09 .08 .05 .03 .05 .00 .03 .01 .05 Subjective norm .08 .04 .05 .06 .03 .06 .13 .01 .18 .07 .08 .05 .03 .05 .02 .01 Behavior .15 .11 .05 .09 .08 .01 .11 .06 .09 .04 .0 8 .00 .06 .06 .06 .03 Leadership Roles Attitude .12 .07 .08 .01 .02 .03 .06 .06 .07 .03 .09 .04 .08 .00 .06 .13 Perceived behavioral control .07 .00 .09 .01 .03 .03 .05 .07 .02 .08 .08 .08 .02 .08 .04 .09 Subjectiv e norm .06 .07 .10 .03 .07 .01 .03 .09 .08 .07 .08 .04 .11 .06 .03 .08 Behavior .03 .03 .06 .02 .02 .00 .05 .06 .06 .06 .12 .01 .03 .05 .07 .01 Life Long Learning Attitude .06 .12 .06 .01 .08 .06 .04 .01 .19 .13 .19 .05 .09 .03 .07 .17 Perceived behavioral control .05 .01 .04 .01 .04 .01 .01 .03 .16 .11 .14 .00 .02 .07 .03 .10 Subjective norm .00 .09 .05 .01 .07 .05 .01 .07 .17 .13 .18 .04 .14 .02 .03 .08 Behavior .05 .12 .04 .01 .04 .02 .05 .1 0 .17 .10 .20 .06 .06 .04 .04 .15

PAGE 122

122 Objective Six Objective six: To determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. The selected demographics included graduation year, age, gender, marital status, and education. Multiple regression of the survey instrument data was utilized to complete objective six. For involvement in the policy development process, the constant represents alumni members with the following demographic characteristics: male, married with children, has a four year college degree, and graduated from the agricultural leadership development program between 2006 and 2010 For the full model, t he adjusted R 2 was 0.55 therefore the variables of interest explained 55% of the variation in alumni engagement in policy d evelopment behaviors (see Table 4 20). There was no change in the adjusted R 2 for the reduced model, which only included attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms as the predictor variables for alumni behaviors in policy development. Table 4 21 shows the variables and regression coefficients for the involvement in policy development mod el. For the full model, t he alumni attitude ( b = .64 p = .00 ), perceived behavioral control ( b = .47 p = .00 ), and subjective norms ( b = .18, p = .00 ) contributed significantly to alumni engaging in behaviors related to the policy development process. Pe rsonal characteristics di d not have a significant impact and were therefore removed from the reduced model. For the reduced model, the alumni attitude ( b = .66, p = .00 ), perceived behavioral control ( b = .46, p = .00 ), and subjective norms ( b = .18, p = 00 ) contributed significantly to alumni engagement in behaviors related to the policy development process.

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 20 Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in policy development Model Sum of squares df Mean square F p Full Regression 393.6 5 16 24.60 27.27 .00 Residual 295.91 328 .90 Total 689.56 344 Reduced Regression 382.33 3 127.44 141.45 .00 Residual 307.23 341 .90 Total 689.56 Model fit statistics R R 2 Adj. R 2 SE Full .76 .57 .55 .95 Reduced 75 .55 .55 .95 Table 4 21 Regression of variables on involvement in policy development Full model Reduced model Variable b p b p ( Constant ) 2.36 -2.11 -Attitude .64 .00 .66 .00 Perceived behavioral control .47 .00 .46 .00 Subje ctive norm .18 .00 .18 .00 Age .01 .50 Female .04 .78 Marital Status Single .36 .11 Married without children .12 .48 Married with children --Divorced, separated, or widowed .12 .53 Education No college degree .06 .75 Two year college degree .08 .76 Four year college degree --Masters degree .00 .98 Doctoral degree .13 .57 Program Graduation Year Pre 1990 .16 .48 1991 1995 .24 .25 1996 2000 24 .15 2001 2005 .02 .90 2006 2010 --No te: denotes p < .05 Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm on a scale of 1 7, 1 = more negative or low, 7 = more positive or high

PAGE 124

124 The second behavior was involvement i n leadership roles and responsibilities. The constant for this model repre sents alumni members that are male, married with children, have a four year college degree, and graduated from an agricultural leadership development program between 2006 and 2010 T he adjusted R 2 for the full model was .58 therefore the selected variables explained 58 % of the variation in alumni participation in leadership and volunteer roles within their organizations ( see Table 4 22 ). The adjusted R 2 for the reduced model was .57; therefore the alumni attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and graduation year explained 57% of the variation in participation in leadership roles. Table 4 22. Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in leadership roles Mode l Sum of squares df Mean square F p Full Regression 363.00 16 22.69 28.45 .00 Residual 261.58 328 .80 Total 624.57 344 Reduced Regression 354.06 5 70.81 88.74 .00 Residual 270.52 339 .80 Total 624.57 Model fit statis tics R R 2 Adj. R 2 SE Full .76 .58 .56 .89 Reduced .75 .57 .56 .89 For the reduced model, a lumni attitude ( b = .73 p = .00), perceived behavioral control ( b = .27 p = .00), and subjective norm ( b = .20 p = .00) contributed significantly to the e ngagement in behaviors related to participating in leadership and volunteer roles model. Agricultural leadership development program graduation year was the only demographic characteristic to significantly contribute to the model. Those alumni who graduate d between 1991 and 1995 ( b = .49 p = .00 ) and between 1996 and 2000 ( b =

PAGE 125

125 .36 p = .01 ) reported higher levels of involvement in leadership roles. Table 4 23 presents the variables and regression co efficients for the model s Table 4 23 Regression of varia bles on involvement in leadership roles Full model Reduced model Variable b p b p (Constant) 2.37 -1.96 -Attitude .75 .00 .73 .00 Perceived behavioral control .27 .00 .27 .00 Subjective norm .19 .00 .20 .00 Age .01 .44 Fem ale .13 .27 Marital Status Single .12 .59 Married without children .08 .62 Married with children --Divorced, separated, or widowed .05 .76 Education No college degree .0 9 .61 Two year college degree 3 3 .16 Four year college degree --Masters degree .01 .91 Doctoral degree .1 6 47 Program Graduation Year Pre 1990 36 .09 1991 1995 52 .01 .49 .00 1996 2000 44 .01 .36 .01 2001 2005 10 .46 2006 2010 --Note: denotes p < .05 Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm on a scale of 1 7, 1 = more negative or low, 7 = more positive or high For involvement in life life learning opportunities, the constant repre sent s alumni members that are male, married with children, hold a four year degree and graduated from an agricultural leadership development program be tween 2006 and 2010 The selected variables for the full model explained 53 % of the variation in alumni parti cipation in educational opportunities with an adjusted R 2 of .53 ( see Table 4 24 ). However, the selected variables for the reduced model explained 51% of the variation in alumni participation with an adjusted R 2 of .51.

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 24. Regression model and fit statistics for involvement in life long learning Model Sum of squares df Mean square F p Full Regression 260.58 16 16.29 22.87 .00 Residual 233.55 328 .71 Total 494.13 344 Reduced Regression 251.44 4 62.86 88.07 .00 Residual 242.69 3 40 .71 Total 494.13 Model fit statistics R R 2 Adj. R 2 SE Full .73 .53 .50 .84 Reduced .71 .51 .50 .84 For the reduced model, a lumni attitude ( b = .65 p = .00), perceived behavioral control ( b = .26, p = .00), and subjective norm ( b = .30, p = .00) contributed significantly to the participation level of alumni in educational opportunities model. Education level also contributed significantly to t he model. Those alumni with a two year college degree ( b = .47 p = .03) reported low er levels of participation in educa tional opportunities. Table 4 25 presents the variables and regression coefficients for the two model s Table 4 25 Regression of variables on engagement in educational opportunities Full model Reduced model Variable b p b p (Constant) .99 -1.69 -Attitude .61 .00 .65 .00 Perceived behavioral control .27 .00 .26 .00 Subjective norm .31 .00 .30 .00 Age .01 .08 Female .13 .24 Marital Status Single .11 .58 Married without children .21 .17 Married with children --Divorced, separated, or widowed .14 .41 Education No college degree .27 .12 Two year college degree .46 .04 .47 .03 Four year college degree --Masters degree .0 4 .70 Doctoral degree .26 .23 Program Graduation Year Pre 1990 .09 .67 1991 1995 .16 .40 1996 2000 .01 .96 2001 2005 .15 .24 2006 2010 --Note: denotes p < .05 Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm on a scale of 1 7, 1 = more negative or low, 7 = more positive or high

PAGE 127

127 Summary This chapter presented the findings of this study, organized by objectives. The resea rch objectives were: (a ) describe the intended impacts and outc omes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors (b ) describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni (c ) describe the impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership developmen t programs a s perceived by program alumni, (d ) compare and contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni, (e ) id entify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control and the engagement in cer tain leadership behaviors, and (f ) determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitude s, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. The next chapter will discuss the conclusions and recommendations that were drawn from this study.

PAGE 128

128 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION S This chapter summarizes this study and discusses the conclusions, implications, and recommendations that have been drawn from this study. The first section of the chapter provides an overvie w of the study, including the purpose and objectives, methodologies, and findings. The remainder of the chapter discusses the conclusions from the findings, implications of the findings, and recommendations for practice and future research for agricultural based leadership development programs. The problem that was addressed by this study was to better understand the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs. The literature review showed a number of short term outcomes, fewe r medium term outcomes, and no long term outcomes of agricultural based leadership development programs. The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes of agricultural based leadership programs in order to predict the adoption of leadership behaviors of participants after participating in agricultural based leadership development programs in the United States. The following research objectives we re used to guide the research: (a ) describe the intended outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership dev elopment programs as perceived by program directors (b ) describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni (c ) describe the outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership development programs a s perceived by program alumni, (d ) compare and contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reporte d by alumni, (e ) identify the relationship between

PAGE 129

129 sel ected demographic characteristics, atti tudes, subjective norms, perc eived behavioral control, and engagement in cer tain leadership behaviors, and (f ) determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain leadership behaviors. This study utilized a focus group of agricultural leadership development program directors four individual interviews with director s from four selected agricultural leadership development programs and a survey instrument with alumni of the four selected agricultural leadership development programs to collect data. The focus group and individual interviews were guided with a semi stru ctured interview guide, which asked a number of questions regarding the intended outcomes and impacts as perceived by the program directors. The survey instrument assessed the program alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and be haviors in regards to involvement in the policy development process, participation in leadership roles and responsibilities, and engagement in life long learning opportunities. Demographics were also obtained through the survey instrument. The population u sed in this study included the program directors ( N = 42) and program alumni ( N = 1,174 ) affiliated with the four selected programs Three subsets of this population were then used. For the first part of the study, a convenience sample of all program direc tors attending the 2009 IAPAL annual meeting ( n = 24) was used to conduct the focus group. Part two of the study utilized four directors that were purposefully selected to participate in the individual interviews. Finally, part three of the study used the alumni with valid, working email addresses ( n = 843 ) from the four

PAGE 130

130 selected programs, Oklahoma Agriculture Leadership Program (OALP), LEAD New York, Kansas Agriculture and Rural Leadership (KARL), and Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natu ral Resources (WLIANR) with valid, working e mail addresses. Responses w ere obtained from 402 of the 843 alumni members, for an overall response rate of 47.7 %. Summary of Findings Objective One Objective one: To describe the intended impacts and outcomes o f agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program directors. Numerous outcomes were identified in the data from the focus group and individual interviews. Short term outcome s included three major themes: (a ) networking, relations hip, a nd team building skills, (b ) commun ication and social skills, and (c ) leadership skills. The medium term outcomes identified were: (a ) involvement in leadersh ip roles and responsibilities, (b ) involvement in t he policy development process, (c ) engagement i n life lo ng learning opportunities, and (d ) alumni use of networks. Networking, relationship, and team building skills emerged in the focus group and interviews as an outcome of agricultural based leadership development programs. The directors believed tha (Director 1) and ging a more powerful allegiance (Director 7). Once these networks are developed (Director 2) and of team building and diversity (Director 1). The directors also stated relationships are strengthened through participation in the programs.

PAGE 131

131 Communication skills, both verbal and nonverbal, were a consistent outcome iden tified by the directors. Numerous examples were provided such as negotiation skills, listening skills, writing thank you letters, introducing speakers during program sessions, media relation skills, and asking questions. Social skills were also included in this category of skills. These included proper etiquette, how to initiate conversations, how to exchange business cards, and how to interact with others in a social or business setting. The third category of short term outcomes identified was leadership s kills, which includes a wide range of cognitive skills. Directors believed alumni have an increased level of confidence, better critical thinking skills, more understanding of different cultures, economies, and issues, as well as more self awareness and ti me management skills after participating in an agricultural leadership program. As Director 12 stated, level of confidence and improved overall leadership skills. The dir ectors of the individual interviews defined a leadership role or responsibility as any position or activity in which an individual is responsible for influencing others for change. The directors in the focus group reinforced this idea that a leadership rol e does not have to be a titled position as Director 7 involved in a number of organizations both within and outside of agriculture and natural resources and at the community, state, and national levels. The directors also shared that agricultural businesses, organizations and industry groups choose their

PAGE 132

132 organizational board members because they are alumni of an agricultural leadersh ip development program. Alumni involvement in policy development also emerged as a medium term outcome or behavior. Most involvement in policy is within the organizations or industry groups that alumni are currently involved in, which was stated by Directo r 1 was a shared belief by D irector 1 again, it probably goes back to their own individual industry groups and issues that arise comfortable and willing to participate in the policy development process. (Director 17) was a commo nly shared belief by the directors in both the focus group and individual interviews. Alumni tend to seek out additional educational opportunities to re create their agriculture f life long (Director 1) in nonformal education such as reading books outside of their traditional tr ade magazines. This importance for continuing education is often seen as many alumni develop their own leadership programs for their organization or business. The final medium term outcome identified was the use of the networks developed through the agricu ltural leadership development programs. These networks are important to the agriculture and natural resources industries because alumni use the relationships and expertise of fellow alumni to better work with issues within their own

PAGE 133

133 businesses and organiza members learn that they have access to resources that they previously did not have and (Director 1) when an issue arises. Additionally, organizations look to th e program alumni to fill leadership roles within their organizations. Objective Two Objective two: To describe the current demographics of agricultural leadership development program alumni. Ninety two (22.9%) of the respondents were KARL alumni, 111 (27.6 %) of the respondents were LEAD New York alumni, 111 (27.6%) of the respondents were OALP alumni, and 88 (21.9%) of the respondents were WLIANR alumni. All of the classes from each program were represented. A majority of the respondents ( n = 137, 34.1%) gr aduated between 2006 and 2010. One hundred and ten (27.4%) graduated between 2001 and 2005, 73 (18.2%) graduated between 1996 and 2000, 43 (10.7%) graduated between 1991 and 1995, and 39 (9.7%) graduated before 1990. The age of the respondents ranged from 26 years to 66 years, with an average age of 46.9 years. One hundred eight (26.9%) of the respondents currently reside in Oklahoma, 103 (25.6%) of the respondents reside in New York, 87 (21.6%) of the respondents reside in Kansas, 80 (19.9%) of the respond ents reside in Florida, and 19 (4.7%) reside in other states within the continental U.S. Two hundred eighty nine (71.9%) of the respondents were male and 109 (27.1%) were female. Only three (0.7%) of the respondents reported being Hispanic or Latino. In re gards to race, 96% ( n = 386) were White/Caucasian, 1% ( n = 4) were Native American, and 0.5% ( n = 2) reported their race as Other.

PAGE 134

134 In regards to marital status, 24 (6.0%) were single and had never been married, 42 (10.4%) were married without children, and 288 (71.6%) were married with children and 39 (9.7%) were divorced, separated, or widowed Educatio n levels were also obtained. Thirty three (8.2%) had no college degree and 21 (5.2% ) had a two year college degree Half of the respondents ( n = 201) had a four year college degree, 29.4% ( n = and 5.5% ( n = 22) had a Doctoral or Professional degree. Objective Three Objective three: To describe the impacts and outcomes of agricultural leadership development programs as perceived by program alumni. Three behaviors were identified through the focus group and interview results and measured on the survey instrument for objective three: involvement in the policy development process, leadership role and responsibilities, and life long lea rning opportunities. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = infrequently and 7 = frequently the overall mean for alumni being involved in the policy development process was 3.86 ( SD = 1.41). reported a mean of 4.43 ( SD = 1.82), which is higher than the index mean of 3.86 ( SD = 1.41). Alumni are more likely to contact policy and decision makers when an issue arises ( M = 4.72, SD = 1.73). Alumni do not regularly participant in polit ical campaigns ( M = 3.36, SD = 2.11) or issues that are not related to their businesses and organizations ( M = 3.55, SD = 1.86). Additionally, alumni reported positive attitudes towards being involved in the policy development process ( M = 4.99, SD = 0.92) as well has high total mean scores for perceived behavioral control ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.94) and subjective norms ( M = 4.05, SD = 1.21).

PAGE 135

135 Alumni participate more in leadership ( M = 5.66, SD = 1.54) and volunteer ( M = 5.48, SD = 1.60) roles within their commun ity organizations than within state and commodity organization ( M = 4.34, SD = 2.00). Alumni also reported infrequent participation in leadership roles within national and international organizations ( M = 2.78, SD = 1.98). Overall, alumni reported particip ating in leadership roles and responsibilities somewhat frequently ( M = 4.57, SD = 1.37), but most participate at the local level. Alumni attitudes towards being involved in leadership and volunteer roles on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = more negative and 7 = more positive, were mostly positive ( M = 5.59, SD = 0.91). Subjective norms were also high ( M = 5.06, SD = 1.17) followed by alumni perceived behavioral control ( M = 4.76, SD = 1.16). The amount of participation in leadership roles and responsibilities decreases at each level. This was further supported through the organizational rankings where 1 = most involved and 7 = least involved Alumni reported participating in community organizations the most ( M = 1.93, SD = 1.36) Alumni ranked state organizatio ns ( M = 3.17, SD = 1.24) and local government ( M = 3.38, SD = 1.65) as the next type of organiz ations they are most involved followed by commodity organizations ( M = 3.41, SD = 1.84) Alumni are the least involved in state government ( M = 4.84, SD = 1.18) national organizations ( M = 5.04, SD = 1.55) and national government ( M = 6.52, SD = 1.23) Some alumni added church and religious organizations in the O ther category. Similar to participating in leadership roles, alumni also reported engaging in educat ional opportunities frequently ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.20). Most participate in nonformal educational opportunities ( M = 5.96, SD = 1.25) and those focused on developing leadership skills and abilities ( M = 5.32, SD = 1.49). Fewer participate in

PAGE 136

136 formal education al opportunities, but alumni do still participate ( M = 4.11, SD = 2.03). Alumni also had positive attitudes towards being involved in life long learning opportunities ( M = 5.90, SD = 0.78). Perceived behavioral control ( M = 5.38, SD = 0.86) and subjective norm ( M = 5.24, SD = 1.09) towards participating in life long learning opportunities were high. A fourth section of the survey asked about a number of leadership behaviors such as facilitating meetings, delegating, attending organizational conferences, and educating others. Scores were on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = not at all true of me and 4 = completely true of me Alumni reported attending organizational conferences and meetings for their organizations to be mostly true ( M = 3.38, SD = 0.68). Responden ts also reported being able to effectively facilitate meetings ( M = 3.27, SD = 0.73). In regards to educating others about issues within their organizations or about the agricultural and natural resources industries, alumni reported that this was too was m ostly true. Alumni also reported that they provide opportunities for others to take on leadership roles ( M = 3.00, SD = 0.79). Items with lower scores included establishing and utilizing relationships with the media ( M = 2.44, SD = 1.04) and utilizing new media technologies ( M = 2.03, SD = 0.97). Alumni reported that both statements were only somewhat true. Objective Four Objective four: To compare and contrast how the outcomes and impacts of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived b y the program directors align with those outcomes and impacts as reported by alumni. The results from o bjective one and three were compared. Comparisons of only the three behaviors identified and assessed on the survey were utilized, as the alumni were not questioned

PAGE 137

137 on the many other outcomes identified by the directors. There were no differences between the outcomes as perceived by the directors and the outcomes reported by the alumni. Therefore, the results from the director focus group and individual in terviews were comparable to the alumni survey results in regards to the three behaviors. The directors stated that alumni were willing and do contact their policy and decision makers. On the survey, alumni reported contacting their policy and decision make rs frequently ( M = 4.72, SD = 1.73). Alumni also reported on being involved in the policy development process ( M = 4.43, SD = 1.82), which is consistent with what the directors stated in the focus group and interviews. Directors believed alumni to mostly b e involved in leadership roles within the local and community organizations, which was comparable to the alumni rankings of the organizations as community organizations were ranked number one and alumni reported being involved frequently in leadership role s ( M = 5.56, SD = 1.54) and volunteer roles ( M = 5.48, SD = 1.60). Alumni also reported a mean index score of 5.13 ( SD = 1.20) for being involved in life long learning opportunities. This is consistent with the directors believing alumni participate in a w ide range of life long opportunities in a number of settings. Objective Five Objective five: To identify the relationship between selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control and the engagement in certain leadership behaviors. The relationships were measured r The first behavior addressed was alumni involvement in the policy development process. Very high, positive correlations ( r = .70) w ere found between alumni attitude

PAGE 138

138 and behavior. Substantial positive correlations were also found between alumni attitudes and perceived behavioral control ( r = .68) as well as perceived behavioral control and behavior ( r = .66 ). Positive, moderate correla tions were found between the alumni attitudes and subjective norms ( r = .44), perceived behavioral control and subjective norms ( r = .38), and subjective norms and behavior ( r = 40). In regards to the demographic variables, age, gender, marital status, and education, correlational analysis found only low or negligible correlations ( r < .29) between alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behavior in the policy development process. Therefore, attitude had the strongest relations hip with alumni involvement in the policy development process, followed by perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms. Correlations between independent variables and alumni involvement in leadership roles and responsibilities were also analyzed. A very high, positive correlation was found between alumni attitudes and behavior ( r = .71 ) Substantial positive correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control ( r = .61 ) as well as perceived behavioral control and behavior ( r = .5 6 ). Finally, a moderate, positive correlation was found between attitude and subjective norm ( r = .46 ), perceived behavioral control and subjective norm ( r = .30 ), and subjective norm and behavior ( r = .48 ). Therefore, there are strong relationships betwee n the three predicting variables found in the theory of planned behavior, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms, as suggested by Ajzen (1991). Low and negligible correlations were found between the demographic variables and alumni a ttitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and behavior related to involvement in leadership roles.

PAGE 139

139 The third behavior addressed was engagement in life long learning opportunities. Positive, substantial correlations were found between alumni attitudes and subjective norms ( r = .50), attitudes and behavior ( r = .63), and subjective norms and behavior ( r = .53). Moderate positive correlations were found between attitude and perceived behavioral control ( r = .40) and perceived behavioral control and behavior ( r = .42). A low, positive correlation was found between perceived behavioral control and subjective norm ( r = .27). Therefore, alumni attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control have a strong relationship with alumni engage ment in life long learning opportunities as well. Low and negligible correlations were found between the demographic variables and alumni attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and behaviors related to engagement in life long learning opp ortunities. Objective Six Objective six: To determine the selected demographic characteristics, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls that influence alumni of agricultural based leadership development programs to adopt certain lead ership behaviors. Multiple regression was used to determine the influences of certain variables on alumni behaviors. For the first behavior, attitude, perceived behavioral co ntrol, and subjective norm, had a positive effect on alumni involvement in the pol icy development process in the full model No demographic variables had a significant effect on alumni behavior in policy development. Attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm were included in the reduced model. A ttitude towards being in volved in th e policy development process had the most effect ( b = .66, p = .00) followed by perceived behavioral control ( b = .46, p = .00). Subjective norm ( b = .18, p = .00) had the least amount of effect on

PAGE 140

140 alumni involvement in the policy development process of t he three independent variables. In the full model, t he independent variables that have a significant impact on involvement in leadership roles and responsibilities are alumni attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and program graduation year. After removing the other independent variables for the reduced model a ttitude ( b = .73, p = .00) towards being involved in leadership role s had the strongest effect on alumni behavior. Perceived behavioral control ( b = .27, p = .00) and s ubjective norm ( b = .20, p = .00) also have a positive signific ant effect on alumni behavior. Program g raduation year, specifically t hose that graduated between 1991 to 1995 ( b = .49, p = .00) and 1 996 to 2000 ( b = .36, p = .01) were the only demographic variable s to have a significant effect on alumni involvement in leadership roles within organizations. The final behavior, engagement in life long learning opportunities, was significantly affected by alumni attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjecti ve norm, and education in the full model For the reduced model, a ttitude ( b = .65, p = .00) had the most significant effect on alumni engagement in life long learning opportunities. Perceived behavioral control ( b = .26, p = .00) and subjective norm ( b = .30, p = .00) also had a significant effect on alumni behavior. Alumni that have a two year college degree ( b = .47, p = .03) are less likely to engage in life long learning opportunities. No other demographic variables had a significant effect on alumni engagement in life long learning opportunities. For all three behaviors measured, alumni attitude had the most significant effect on alumni engagement in each of the three behaviors. Perceived behavioral control and

PAGE 141

141 subjective norm also had significant pos itive effects on alumni for all three behaviors. Of the demographic variables, age and gender did not have a significant effect on an y of the three alumni behaviors, while education level and program graduation year did have significant effects on alumni e ngagement in the three leadership behaviors. Conclusions A number of conclusions were drawn based upon the findings of the study. In regards to the demographics of the respondents, more males have participate d in the four selected agricultural leadership d evelopment programs than females. Additionally, there is little diversity in regards to race as a majority of the respondents were White/Caucasian. While education is not a requirement for participation in any of the four agricultural leadership developmen t programs, a majority of the alumni have a four year college degree or higher. Finally, over half of the alumni are married with children. Alumni gain a number of skills through their participation in the programs. These skills typically include networkin g, relationship, and team building skills, communication and social skills, and other leadership skills. Through the participation in the program and the development of these skills, alumni develop an increased confidence in their leadership abilities, whi ch allows them to then engage in a number of behaviors. The three primary behaviors identified include involvement in policy, leadership roles, and continuing education, where they implement and use the skills learned through the program. In regards to par ticipation in leadership roles and responsibilities, most alumni are involved at the local or community level. Fewer alumni are involved at the state level and even less at the national and international levels. Alumni of agricultural lead ership developmen t programs continue to seek out additional educational opportunities after

PAGE 142

142 participating in the program. Most of these educational opportunities are nonformal, such as extension programs, reading more books, or agribusiness seminars. Alumni also participat e in opportunities, which allow them to further develop their leadership skills and abilities, such as community leadership programs, commodity board training, or other similar leadership programs. Some alumni take their agriculture leadership program expe riences and then develop similar leadership programs for their own businesses and organizations. A number of other leadership behaviors alumni engag e in include effectively facilitating meetings, educating others about issues, educating others about the ag riculture and natural resources industry, and delegating responsibilities to others. Overall, there was consistency between the outcomes identified by the directors and the outcomes reported by the alumni. Alumni attitudes, perceived behavioral control, an d subjective norms have a significant relationship with engagement in the three behaviors measured. Attitude showed to have the strongest relationship with alumni involvement in the policy development process, leadership roles, and life long learning. None of the selected demographics show a significant relationship with alumni engagemen t in any of the thre e behaviors; therefore, individual demographic characteristics are not important in determining alumni beh aviors after participating in one of the four s elected agricultural leadership development progra ms. Similar to the relationships, attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm have the most effect on alumni involvement in policy development, leadership roles, and life long learning. Atti tude towards all three behaviors had the strongest effect As alumni

PAGE 143

143 attitudes become more positive their participation in policy, leadership roles, and educational opportunities also increase. Therefore, it can be concluded that attitude towards certain leadership behaviors is the most influential in predicting alumni engagement in policy development, leadership roles, and life long learning. Perceived behavioral control a nd subjectiv e norm have a similar positive effe ct as attitude on alumni behavior s. As alumni perceived behavioral control and subjective norms increase, their participation in policy development, leadership roles, and educational opportunities also increase. For alumn i involvement in the policy development process, none of the selected demographic characteristics had a significant effect on alumni behavior. For alumni involvement in leadership roles, alumni that graduated from an agricultural leadership development pro gram 10 to 20 years ago are more likely to be engaged in leadership roles than those who graduated over 20 years ago or those that gr aduated less than 10 years ago. Therefore, it can be concluded that alumni that g raduated less than 10 years ago have not t aken on leadership roles and responsibilities, but will increase their participation 10 to 20 years after graduating from their respective agricultural leadership development program. Alumni that graduated over 20 years ago, have served in leadership roles but decrease their involvement over time. For alumni involvement in life long learning opportunities, alumni that have a two year college degree are less likely to participate in life long learning opportunities than those alumni with a four year college degree Discussions and Implications With 1,174 alumni having graduated from the four agricultural leadership development programs, only 843 (71.8%) had valid working email addresses Even

PAGE 144

144 though email is the primary form of communication between program directors and program alumni, there is a large number ( n = 331, 28.2%) of alumni who are not included in program updates, news, and day to day communication in regards to their respective agricultura l leadership development program This eliminates a numbe r of opportunities for program directors to reach alumni about fund raising, recruitment, and continued program improvements. Additionally, alumni without a valid working email address on file with the program director are further disconnected from other a lumni thus negating networking opportunities The results of this study showed there was little diversity in demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and education, and few minorities represented in the data, even though all 42 of the classes fro m the four programs were represented. The lack of diversity of demographic characteristics suggests that the selection process for each of the four programs targets a select group of individuals that are similar The four selected programs target individua ls who are involved in the agricultural and natural resources industries that have shown leadership potential, a strong commitment to the industry, and who will be actively engaged in leadership roles (KARL, 2010; LEAD New York, 2010; OALP, 2010; WLIANR, 2 010). Individuals in agricultural leadership development programs are selected to participate because they are up and coming leaders or because their organizations want them to participate in order to become more effective within the organization, business or industry. Others that have been nominated may choose to self select themselves out of the application process due to other commitmen ts, a lack of interest cultural beliefs, or other personal beliefs

PAGE 145

145 Regarding the directors perceptions of outcomes a nd impacts, they identified a wide range of skills, knowledge, and behaviors that alumni develop and implement throughout and after their program experiences. These skills or short term outcomes, included communication skills, networking and relationship b uilding skills, as well as a wide range of other leadership skills which are consistent with previous research on agricultural leadership development programs (Carter & Rudd, 2000; Howell et al., 1982; Whent & Leising, 1992). M any of these skills are cons d evelopment and leadership development. Agricultural based leadership development programs do place emphasis on many leader development targets such as developing intrapersonal skills, self awareness, self regulation, and self motivation (Day, 2000). However, agricultural based leadership development programs also focus on leadership development, which includes developing interpersonal skills, social awareness, and social skills (Day 2000 ). Social awarenes s includes political awareness, empathy, and service orientation, all of which were identified in the results of this study. Social skills include building bonds, team orientation, becoming a change catalyst, and conflict management (Day 2000 ), which were also identified as outcomes in this study. Behaviors or medium term outcomes identified included involvement in policy development, leadership roles, and life long learning. Abbington Cooper (2005) also identified that alumni take on leadership roles and responsibilities after completing their leadership program experiences. Kelsey and Wall (2003) determined that agricultural leadership programs do not produce community leaders. However, this research shows that alumni are most involved within community or ganizations per the alumni and

PAGE 146

146 directors. Alumni also have positive attitudes and high levels of perceived behavioral contro l and subjective norms. Alumni are most involved within organizations at the community level This may be due to access, convenience peer pressure, and the personal and organizational benefit. Community organizations are more accessible to individuals compared to state, national, or international organizations. There are numerous leadership and volunteer opportunities available for al umni to engage in within their own communities. Community organizations are also more convenient for alumni to participate in, due to the simple reason of geograph y. subjective no rms, i ndividuals typically participate in leadership and volunteer roles because their peers have asked them to or their peers are also engaged in the therefore alumni ar e participating in the community organizations as well. By participating in community organizations, alumni are also able to see the immediate benefit to themselves and their business or organization. However, in state, national, and international organiza tions, the benefits may be more difficult for the alumni to identify. Being able to see the immediate benefits of participating in community organizations develops to be more positive towards engaging in the behavior because t hey are able to see positive outcomes. Alumni involvement in policy development has been demonstrated in other agriculture leadership program research (Carter & Rudd, 2000) which is consistent with the findings of this study While no long term outcomes w ere identified, it can be implied

PAGE 147

1 47 that because alumni are involved in the policy development process, this has long term impacts on social, economic, and environmental systems. Of the three behaviors, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm mean scores were the lowest for involvement in policy development. Behaviors with higher attitude, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm scores indicated higher levels of engagement in each of the behaviors, which is consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). According to the directors, most of this involvement is within local government or within industry groups when an issue arises that will have an impact on their sector of the industry. Alumni are more likely to be involved in organizations that they believe will have an added benefit to them an d their sector of the industry. consistent with alumni re sponses on the survey. Alumni engage in educational opportunities that are formal, nonformal, or focus on further leadership development. This implies that alumni value continuing their education to further develop themselves as leaders within their families, businesses, and organizations. Ag ain, agricultural leadership development programs target individuals who have shown the potential to continue to develop as leaders, which includes further developing themselves and others through additional educational opportunities. Alumni also participa te in educating others about issues within their communities and the agriculture and natural resources industries. Directors mentioned conducting media training for program participants. However, the level of alumni actually establishing and utilizing thei r relationships with the media was lower compared to other behaviors such as attending organizational conferences

PAGE 148

148 and meetings, facilitating meetings, and educating others on issues. Similarly, alumni do not use new media technologies often. This suggests alumni may not have positive attitudes, the necessary knowledge and skills needed, the support or pressure from others to engage in these behaviors (Ajzen, 1991) or alumni are not required to engage in this behavior Many organizations wit hin in the agricu ltural industry may have public relations or communications directors that work with the media; therefore alumni are not finding themselves to be put in situations where they are required to work with the media. Finally, alumni reported not utilizing new m edia technologies su ch as blogs or podcasts implying alumni do not have positive attitudes, the necessary skills and knowledge, or support and pressure from others to use new technologies. Increased knowledge and skills, positive attitudes, and social pres sure will increase alumni use of new technologies (Ajzen, 1991). Russon and Reinelt (2004 ) provided an overview of the outcomes of 55 leadership programs. Table 5 1 provides the table developed by Russon and Reinelt along with a comparison to the outcomes of agricultural based leadership development programs. Agricultural leadership development programs provide a number of outcomes that are similar to other types of leadership programs. However, agricultural leadership development programs may be more capab le of developing and impacting the leader, organizations, and communities because they provide experiences that encourage collaboration, networking, and partnerships amongst individuals within organizations and communities, personal communication skills, e ffect change within the leader, organization, and communities, create community leadership, and provide personal perspective, professional, knowledge, and skill development opportunities

PAGE 149

149 Table 5 1. Comparison of agricultural based leadership development progra ) scan of 55 leadership programs Leadership Outcomes Individual Organizational Community Field Systematic Agriculture Categories and Examples of Outcomes Collaboration and partnership Collaborations, networks, and pa rtnerships Collaboration, networks, and partnerships Leadership development Culture shifts Collaborations, networks, and partnerships Communication Development of leadership Community change Development of the field Institutional transformation Communic ation Courage and confidence Effecting change Community decision making Diversity Policy and policymaking change Confidence Cultural competence Leadership and governance Community leadership Knowledge development Collaboration Effecting change Knowle dge development Management Engagement and participation Collaboration with other fields or sectors Policy and policymaking change Leadership in action and demonstrating leadership Programming Knowledge development Collaboration with field Leadership de velopment Leadership development Sustainability Leadership development Taking action Knowledge development Self awareness and reflective capacity Visibility Public awareness Visibility of the field Engagement and participation Personal development Resource development Community leadership Perspective development Social capital Personal development Professional development Perspective development Skill development Professional development Visibility Skill development Social capital Cultural competence Collaboration with other fields or sectors Taking action

PAGE 150

150 With all of the demographic variables having low or negligible relationships with alumni behaviors, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjecti ve norms, one would assume attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms are not as important. However, demographics and diversity are key in establishing more collaboration, social capital or networking opportunities and new i deas and perspectives (Eich, 2008). While demographic characteristics may have little to no significant effect on alumni behaviors, it may have an effect on the overall program experience and further establishes the networks which were identified as an ou tcome by the program directors The multiple linear regression modeling results of this study suggests that the demographics of program participants are not as important in determining their level of engagement in policy, leadership roles, or life long lea rning. Alumni are more likely to engage in these behaviors if they ( a) have a positive attitude about the behavior, ( b) felt they had the proper knowledge and skills needed to be effective, and ( c) felt influential others would positively support their inv olvement in the behavior which are all consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) Attitude is the strongest influencer of engagement for all three behaviors. This implies agricultural leadership development programs are able to influenc e alumni behaviors when directors focus on developing positive attitudes, increasing alumni knowledge and skills in regards to serving in leadership and volunteer roles, and assisting in establishing an increased level of support from alumni businesses, or ganizations, families, and other peers. Alumni that graduated 10 to 20 years ago are more likely to engage in leadership and volunteer roles than those who graduated over 20 years ago or alumni who

PAGE 151

151 graduated less than 10 years ago. The four agricultural le adership development programs are intensive, two year travel and study programs that require a large amount of time and focus on the part of the participants This implies that after graduating from an agricultural leadership development program, alumni de crease their level of involvement in leadership and volunteer roles for a few years in order to refocus and identify wh ere they can be most effective. Based on the results of this study, alumni then increase their participation in leadership and volunteer roles within 10 to 20 years after graduation. Recommendations Recomme ndations for practice and future research are provided as a result of measuring the outcomes of agricultural based leadership development programs as perceived by the program directors an d alumni as well as the attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms of the alumni. Recommendations for Practice Based on the results of this study, there are several recommendations for practice for agricultural l eadership development pro grams. A large number of alumni did not a have valid, working email address on file. This eliminates a large number of alumni from the immediate communication channel used by the program directors. Therefore, program directors and staff should establis h a stronger database of alumni contact information. One recommendation is to establish an online database for each of the programs should for alumni to update their contact information online without having to continually contact the program director or progr am staff each time an email or physical address changes. Security and privacy issues may be an issue, therefore measures, such as a private log in, should be taken to ensure alumni contact information is only

PAGE 152

152 accessible to the program directors, staff, and other alumni. For programs concerned with this issue or that do not have the finances necessary for an online database, program directors and staff should make attempts to contact alumni through the postal service encouraging alumni to update their contac t information. In regards to the demographics, the average respondent was predominately a white/ Caucasian male, married with children, held a four year college degree, and graduated within the past ten years. Based on the demographics, directors should t arget and recruit more diverse audiences such as race, gender, and education levels. Eich (2008) found that high quality leadership programs consist of diverse students, which leads to collaboration, social capital or networking and new ideas and perspect ives. More diverse participants will expand the networks and thought processes of the participants therefore enhancing the quality of the participant experiences over the course of the agricultural leadership development program Additionally, the program director will have access to different groups of alumni within the agricultural a nd natural resources industries to further diversify the programming over the two year program experience. Demographics should not be utilized as part of the selection criter ia for a n individual participant because the impact on the individual participants is not influenced by their personal demographic characteristics. Age is important for maturity, experience, and commitment; therefore, agricultural leadership development pr ograms should continue to maintain a minimum age requirement. Otherwise, gender, race, and marital status have little to no effect on the individual level of involvement in policy, leadership roles, or life long learning and should therefore not be a conce rn in selecting individual

PAGE 153

153 participants other than for diversity of thought for the group as this was identified as important for developing the networks. Diversity in participants within a class or cohort does have an impact on the outcomes of the program overall due to the differences in perspective s knowledge of the industry or issues, previous experiences, and cultures that each individual participant brings with them For example, a Hispanic, female, from South Florida involved in vegetable productio n will have different perspectives, knowledge, previous experiences, and cultures compared to a White, male, from the Florida Panhandle involved in the timber industry. By including individuals from different backgrounds and sectors of the agricultural and n atural resources industries in the program, these individuals expand their personal and professional networks as well as better understand the differences between them selves, how to work with individuals who are different from themselves, and expands the networks within the agricultural and natural resources industries. Education level should continue to not be a requirement in selecting participants since this only had a significant effect on alumni engagement in life long learning opportunities within t wo categories of education level, some college and professional degrees. As attitude was the construct that most influenced an alumni to engage in all three behaviors, directors of these programs should focus programming on influencing participant attitude s to become more positive towards being involved in policy, taking on leadership roles and responsibilities within organizations, and continuing their education both formally and nonformally. Positive attitudes can be accomplished by continuing to provide participants with a wide range of speakers, experiences, and the time to reflect upon those experiences. Reflection allows participants to develop an understa nding of

PAGE 154

154 themselves and the experience (Eich, 2008; Roberts, 2006) Specifically, within policy de velopment, field trips speakers, and visits to the offices of policy and decision makers will enhance one s attitude as they realize it may not be as difficult to work with these individuals. Agricultural leadership development programming should also foc us on developing increased knowledge and awareness, an understanding of how to utilize the skills and knowledge gained, and practicing targeted leadership behaviors. Alumni gain a number of skills and have positive attitudes towards utilizing the skills an d knowledge gained from the program. However, more opportunity to practice utilizing the skills and knowledge are needed to further increase alumni perceived behavioral control. For example, program directors should provide program participants more opport unities to serve in leadership roles while participating in the leadership program such as vents and introducing speakers. Participants should also be provided the opportunity to assist in choosing the seminar curriculum and content national and international trip destinations, and other program logistics that will best meet their needs. This may further enhance their abilities as a leader within their own businesses, organizations, and industries. Eich (2008) suggested quality lead ership programs provide opportunities for leadership practice in order to increase self efficacy, understand who leaders are and what leadership is, understand organizational leadership, group dynamics, and teamwork, and develop skills such as time managem ent. Providing opportunities for participants to engage in leadership roles within the progr am experience will also develop more positive attitude s towards serving in other leadership roles within their

PAGE 155

155 own organizations. As participants increase their per sonal confidence, their attitude towards th at behavior will become more positive Program participants should have responsibilities prior to and after each seminar as well. Prior to each seminar, program participants should conduct research on the topics o f the seminar. Each participant should be assigned a topic and be in charge of providing a briefing to their fellow class members. After each seminar, program participants should be required to continue their reflection process on an individual basis throu gh journaling or writing newsletters for others to read. Additionally, program directors should encourage participants to seek out opportunities to share their communi confidence and ability to speak to others as well as increase the awareness of others about the agricultural leadership development program and the agricultural and natural resources industries therefore increasing the level of support from participant peers or subjective norms per Ajzen (1991) en gagement in each of the behaviors. Many agricultural leadership development programs provide s kills training such as public speaking ; yet it is typically the responsibility of the participant to then apply those skills outside of the program experience Ag riculture leadership programming should provide more opportunities to allow participants to practice their communication skills, leadership skills, and networking skills. Communication skills can be practiced through introducing speakers

PAGE 156

156 and leading discus sions and reflections for their fellow classmates. Taking participants to events or meetings to socialize and share their leadership program experiences with others that are not involved in the leadership program can develop networking and communication sk ills. By utilizing these skills in a more controlled environment with the support of other participants and the program director and staff participants may feel more comfortable in applying these skills outside of the program in their personal and profess ional lives Alumni reported low engagement levels in establishing and utilizing their relationships with the media. P rogram directors should reassess the value of conducting activities such as media training. If media training is important for the leaders within the agriculture industries, more emphasis should be placed on this training session as well as more time for participants to practice this behavior. Howev er, if the organizations and industry already have individuals, such as a communications direc tor, in place that work with the media, media training is not as important for the agricultural leadership development programs to focus their efforts on. While the topic is important, the amount of time spent on media training can be reduced and utilized for other topics of interest. Alumni also reported their use of new media technologies to be somewhat limited With the amount of technology being utilized by society, agricultural leadership programs need to assist program participants in adopting technol ogy and understanding how to best utilize technology in their personal and professional lives. This should begin with understanding how properly utilize email, blogs, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Many large agricultural industry groups ar e utilizing social networking to communicate with their stakeholders and the public. Agricultural

PAGE 157

157 leadership development program directors and participants should also utilize these online tools to increase communication between program stakeholders and in crease program awareness to others that may have an interest in the program. Leadership development programs exist within other contexts outside of the agricultural and natural resources industries (Earnest, 1996; Fredric ks, 2003; Russon & Reinelt, 2004 ; S ogunro, 1997; Wituk et al., 2003). However, many of these programs have not been in existence as long as agricultural leadership development programs. Additionally, other industries such as healthcare education, or business do not have a leadership progra m model similar to the Kellogg Model utilized by the agricultural leadership development programs. Other industries should adopt a similar leadership development program model to develop leaders throughout the ir industries The industries can identify the desired leadership behaviors and focus leader ship development programming utilizing the theory of planned behavior and experiential learning process (Ajzen, 1991; Roberts, 2006). Finally, if agricultural leadership development programs want to continue to be successful progr am directors must evaluate and compare their programs utilizing the seven criteria developed by Shelton (2010): (a) vision/mission, (b ) involvement and participation, (c ) m easurement and accountability, (d ) de sign, content, and curricul um, (e ) presenters presentations, and deliv ery, (f) take home value, and (g ) outreach. This study addressed part of the third criteria, measurement and accountability. However, there i s still much to be done to assure agricultural based lead ership develop ment programs are serving the agricultural and natural resources industries as the top leadership development programs in the United States

PAGE 158

158 Recommendations for Future Research Research with other agriculture leadership programs is essential to further ass ess the outcomes of these programs as well as the influencing factors of these outcomes. There are a number of additional studies and follow up research that should be conducted to further assess agricultural leadership development program outcomes. In reg ards to demographics, there were few respondents from the mi nority groups. Therefore, follow up qualitative research should be targeted towards the less represented groups in this stud y, such as alumni who are not white/Caucasion, male, married with childr en, and do not have a four year degree, to better understand what they gain from participating in the programs as well as how they are utilizing those skills. This will provide a more thorough understanding of the needs for all of the target audiences part icipating in agricultural based leadership development programs. Those individuals that graduated prior to 2001 should also be targeted to better understand how they utilized their agricultural leadership development program experience. This research shoul d be expanded to other agricultural leadership development programs in the United States to provide access to a larger population. Follow up interviews should be conducted with survey respondents from each of the four programs. Individuals should be select ed based upon their level of engagement in each of the three behaviors. Alumni with both high and low levels of engagement should be targeted to gain a better understanding of why some individuals choose to engage in policy development, leadership roles an d responsibilities, and continuing their education. Based on the importance of the networks and utilization of the networks developed through agricultural leadership development programs, more research should be

PAGE 159

159 conducted on the effects of these networks. As this continues to be identified by the directors as an important outcome, it is important to further understand how alumni are utilizing their networks and why they are important. The directors provided some insight into this phenomenon, but more resear ch with the alumni of the program should be conducted. Qualitative research is recommended to address this issue to gain more insight into the ways in which the networks are used and to understand the more long term effects this has on the industry. The pr ogram directors can be utilized to provide contacts to the individual alumni members to further share how the networks have impacted them and their industry. Additionally, the directors can provide further detail about how the networks have impacted the ag ricultural leadership development program as well. Research is needed to better understand more of the medium and long term outcomes of agricultural based leadership programs. This study only focused on three of the behaviors identified by the program dire ctors. However, there are a number of others behaviors and long term outcomes to be addressed that were discussed in the qualitative section of this study Directors stated a number of examples of how alumni are utilizing their networks, are involved in po licy development, or serve in leadership roles. This qualitative data should be used to follow up with alumni through interviews and better understand the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the alumni behaviors Additionally, understanding what influences alumni to engage in these behaviors is important, therefore continuing to use the theory of planned behavior in the assessment of these behaviors is needed.

PAGE 160

160 Lastly, research needs to be conducted with a comparison group to determine the differe nces in those that participate in agricultural leadership development programs and those that do not similar to the study conducted on the Nebraska Leadership Education/Action Development Program (Gallup Leaders hip Institute, 2005). T he theory of planned b ehavior can be used to determine if non participants engage in certain targeted leadership behaviors and if attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms have the same effect on non participants engagement in leadership behaviors.

PAGE 161

161 APPENDI X A FOCUS GROUP INTERVIE W GUIDE Good evening everyone! Thank you for joining me today. As you know, we are here today to discuss the program impacts of the agricultural based leadership programs that each of you direct. I have asked each of you here today to participate because you are the experts and individuals who create the programming for your programs. Are there any questions before we begin? What are the overall impacts and outcomes of your agricultural leadership programs? Becoming a little more fo cused on individual participants, what specific changes have you seen in participants as they progress through your program? program What types of organizations do your graduates as sume leadership roles in? What impact did your program have on them moving into this role? Typically, how long after graduation or completing the program do you believe that it takes for participants to fully demonstrate and apply what they learned in the program through leadership roles ? What other types of leadership development programs or educational activities do you see your alumni participating in?

PAGE 162

162 APPENDIX B DIRECTOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE During the focus group in Wyoming there were sev eral activities/experiences specifically on what these activities and seminars are doing for the participants. Tell me what are the specific skills that you as a director feel the participants are learning and developing while a part of the program? program. First off, what do you consider to be a leadership role or responsibility? Networks of individual s have been identified as a major outcome of agriculture leadership programs. Can you first talk about how these networks of individuals are built? It is clear that these networks and leadership skills gained from the program have made an impact on the ind ividuals, but how has the alumni network in your state helped your program? How have they made an impact on the policy development within the agriculture and natural resources? After participants graduate from the program, what other types of leadership de velopment programs or educational activities do you see the alumni participating in?

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX C WEB BASED SURVEY INSTRUM ENT

PAGE 164

164

PAGE 165

165

PAGE 166

166

PAGE 167

167

PAGE 168

168

PAGE 169

169

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173

PAGE 174

174

PAGE 175

175

PAGE 176

176

PAGE 177

177

PAGE 178

178

PAGE 179

179 APPENDIX D INITIAL CONTACT EMAI L FROM DIRECTORS August 6, 2 010 Dear LEAD New York Alumni, Rochelle Strickland, a PhD student at the University of Florida is conducting her research on the outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership programs. Rochelle has worked closely with the Florida program for the past t hree years and has a deep interest in the future and success of these programs. As was the case with my own doctoral research, I believe that through her research we will gain valuable insight about our leadership development efforts, which in turn will pr ovide direct benefits to the LEAD New York Program. I have participated in the first two stages of her dissertation research and am asking each of you to participate in her study as well by completing the survey that she will be sending to you early next week. Responding to the survey should be very simple by clicking on the link that she provides. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete and all of your responses will be kept completely confidential. Should you have any questions for Roc helle, please feel free to contact her at ( 979 ) 571 3067 or rotel20 @ufl.edu Your responses are greatly appreciated! Sincerely, Larry Larry Van De Valk, PhD Director, LEAD New York

PAGE 180

180 APPENDIX E FIRST EMAIL CONTACT WITH SURVEY LINK August 9, 2010 Dear LE AD New York Alumni I am writing to ask for your help in understanding the outcomes and impacts of state agricultural leadership development programs such as the LEAD New York program. As Larry mentioned last week, I am currently a PhD student at the Univ ersity of Florida. My doctoral research is on agricultural leadership development programs as I have a deep interest in the future and success of these programs. We are continually working towards making these programs better, and the best way we have of l earning about the outcomes is by asking alumni like you to share your thoughts and opinions. Larry and I are excited about this study and look forward to hearing what you have to say. We are hoping that you will be able to complete the questionnaire on th e Internet so that we can summarize results more quickly and accurately. Completing the survey is easy: just click on the link or enter the web page address in your Internet browser and begin the survey. Follow this link to the Survey: Fo llow the link to opt out of future emails: The questions should take about 20 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. If you have any questions about this survey, or you have difficulties with the Internet, I am happy to help and can be reached by telephone at (Office) 352 392 0502 ext 238 (Cell) 979 571 3067 or by email at rotel20 @ufl.edu This study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review board. If you h ave questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact them by telephone at 352 392 0433. By taking a few minutes to share what you have been doing since your leadership program experience you will be helping us out a great deal. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses. Many Thanks, Rochelle Strickland Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 181

181 APPENDIX F FIRST EMAIL REMINDER August 13, 2010 Good morning LEAD New York Alumni! Earlier this week, I se nt you a survey about the outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership programs. Your responses to this survey are greatly appreciated and important to continue to make these programs better. I just spent the past two days in Virginia presenting the fir st two phases of my research to stakeholders as they are trying to begin their own program. Many expressed interest in hearing the results from the alumni survey portion of the study as well. Therefore, I hope that you will take the time to complete it and provide your responses for the betterment and future of these programs as a whole. If you did not receive the survey, please let me know and I will be happy to resend you the link. If you have already started the survey, you can click on the link again a nd continue where you left off. The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. All of your answers will remain confidential. Again, I greatly appreciate your help in completing this survey. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions about the survey or research project at rotel20 @ufl.edu All my best, Rochelle Strickland Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 182

182 APPENDIX G SECOND EMAIL REMINDE R August 18, 2010 Good morning LEAD New York Alumni, I know you are all very busy individuals, but w anted to take a quick minute to remind you to please take the survey on ag leadership program outcomes. Through this research, we are hoping to gain a better understanding of the longer term outcomes such as how you are using the knowledge and/or skills yo u may have gained through the program. The survey will be closing next Wednesday (8/25) Myself and Larry would greatly appreciate your time in completing the survey! The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete and all of your answers will remain confidential. If you have already started the survey, you will be able to continue where you left off. Follow this link to the Survey: Follow the link to opt out of future emails: ${l://OptOutLink} Thank you for your patience and time! Pl ease feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions about the survey or research project at rotel20 @ufl.edu. Sincere thanks, Rochelle

PAGE 183

183 APPENDIX H THIRD EMAIL REMINDER August 23, 2010 Dear LEAD New York Alumni, Just a quick reminder that the survey on outcomes and impacts of agriculture leadership development programs will be closing this Wednesday! If you haven't had a chance to complete the survey, your responses would be greatly appreciated! If you still have not received the link, pl ease let me know and I'll be happy to forward your individual link to you. If you already started the survey, you will be able to continue where you left off. The survey will take between 10 20 minutes to complete. All my best, Rochelle

PAGE 184

184 APPENDIX I FIN AL EMAIL REMINDER August 25, 2010 Dear LEAD New York Alumni, This is the final reminder to take the survey on outcomes of agricultural leadership programs. I know many of you are busy and travel quite a bit, but your responses are very important and grea tly appreciated. The results of this study will be presented and utilized by many programs not only within New York and Florida, but other states and countries such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Scotland, and Spain. The survey will be closing today Please take 10 20 minutes to complete the survey by clicking on the link below. Remember, if you have already started the survey, you will be able to continue where you left off. And as always, your responses will remain completely confidential. Follow this link to the Survey: Thank you again for your time and patience! If you have any comments or questions, I would love to hear from you at rotel20 @ufl.edu. All my best, Rochelle

PAGE 185

185 APPENDIX J CODES FOR VARIABLES USED IN CORRELATIONA L AND MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS Variable Code Gender Male = 1 Female = 0 Single, never married Yes = 1 No = 0 Married without children Yes = 1 No = 0 Married with children Yes = 1 No = 0 Divorced, separated, or widowed Yes = 1 No = 0 No college degree Yes = 1 No = 0 Two year college degree Yes = 1 No = 0 Four year college degree Yes = 1 No = 0 Masters degree Yes = 1 No = 0 Doctoral or Professional degree Yes = 1 No = 0 Pre 1990 Yes = 1 No = 0 1991 1995 Yes = 1 No = 0 1996 2000 Yes = 1 No = 0 2001 2005 Yes = 1 No = 0 2006 2010 Yes = 1 No = 0 Attitude 1 7, 1 = more negative, 7 = more positive Perceived behavioral control 1 7, 1 = low, 7 = high Subjective norm 1 7, 1 = low, 7 = high Behavior 1 7, 1 = low, 7 = high

PAGE 186

186 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbington Cooper, M. (2005). leadership development program, 1988 2004 (Unpublished doctoral dissertatio n). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Adair, J. (1984). The skills of leadership New York, NY: Nichols Publishing. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for social sciences (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. K uhl and J. Beckman (Eds.). Action Control: From cognition to behavior 11 39. Heidelberg Germany : Springer. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizati onal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (1), 179 211. doi: 10.1016/0749 5978(91)90020 T Ajzen, I. (2002 ). Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (4 ), 665 6 83. doi: 10.1111/j.1559 1816.2002.tb00236.x Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved from http://www.people.umass.edu/ajzen/pdf/tpb intervention.pdf Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understa nding attitudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta analytical review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 4 0 (4) 471 499. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Ausubel, D. P. (1967). Learning theory and classroom practice Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studi es in Education Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Pyschological Review, 84 (2), 191 215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1994). Self efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed ), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4 71 81. New York, NY: Academic Press.

PAGE 187

187 Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control New York, NY: Freeman. Bass B. M., & Avolio J. A. (1994). Improving organiz ational effectiveness through transformational leadership Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers (2 nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page. Benn is, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge New York NY: Harper and Row Publications, Inc. Black, A. M. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of an Ohio statewide agricultural leadership program ( Un published doctoral disserta tion) O hio State University, Columbus, OH. Black, A. M., & Earnest, G. W. (2009). Measur ing the outcomes of leadership development programs. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16 (2), 184 196. doi: 10.1177/1548051809339193 Birkenholz, R. J. (1999). Effective adult learning Danville, IL: Interstate. Boone, E. J., Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual programming model (2 nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Boshier, R. (1991). Psychometric properties of the alternative form of the education participation scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (3), 150 167. doi: 10.1177/0001 848191041003002 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York NY : Harper and Row. Brain, R. (2009). Predicti ng engagement in a conservation easement agreement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. Bruner, J. S. (1965). The process of education Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (2 nd ed.). San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass. Carter, H. (1999). Evaluation of the Florida leadership program for agriculture and natural resources. ( s) University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 188

188 Carter, H., & Rudd, R. D. (2000). Evaluation of the Florida leadership program for agriculture and natural resources. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 50 (1), 193 199. Cohen, J. (198 8). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dale E. (1946) Audio visual methods in teaching New York, NY: The Dry den Press. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581 613. doi: 10.1016/S1048 9843(00)00061 8 Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York NY : McGraw Hill. Deschler, D. J., & Kiely, E. (1995). Facilitating adult learning sourcebook: Adult learning and the extension educator. Cornell University, NY: Depar tment of Education. Dhanakumar, V. G., Rossing, B., & Campbell, G. R. (1996). An evaluation of the Wisconsin rural leaders perspective program. Journal of Extension, 1 (34). Retreived from http://www.joe.org/00/joe/1996june/rb3. Dewey, J. (1938). Experi ence and education New York NY : Simon and Schuster. Diem K. G. (2003). Program development in a political world Journal of Extension, 41 (1), Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february /a6.php Diem, K. G., & Nikola, M P. (2005). Evaluating the impa ct of a community agricultural leadership development program. [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, 43 (6). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/rb5.php Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Earnest, G. W. ( 1996). Evaluating community leadership programs. Journal of Extension, 34 (1 ), Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/00/1996feb/rbl

PAGE 189

189 Eich, D. (2008). A grounded theory of high quality leadership programs: Perspectives from student leadership development progr ams in higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15 (2), 176 187. doi: 10.1177/15480518083 24099 Etling, A. (1993). What is nonformal education? Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (4), 72 76. doi: 10.5032/jae.1993.04072 Fishbe in, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Francis, J. J., et al. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behav ior: A manual for health services researchers United Kingdom: Center for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle. Fredricks, S. M. (2003). Creating and maintaining networks among leaders: An exploratory case study of two leadership training p rograms. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10 (1), 45 54. doi: 10.1177/10717919030 1000104 Gallup Leadership Institute. (2005). Nebraska LEAD Program: Follow up study Nebraska Agricultural Leadership Council, Inc. Lincoln, NE: Universit y of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://lead.unl.edu/followup.htm Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory Chicago IL : Aldine. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers New York NY : Longman. Hannum, K., Marti neau, J. W., & Reinelt C. (2007). The handbook of leadership development evaluation San Francisco, CA: Center for Creative Leadership. Helstowski, L. (2000). The legacy of the ag leadership development program: Rich heritage cultivates future opportun ities (FSRD 4010 Item #534). Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Hernez Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present and futur e. Human Resource Planning, 27 (1), 24 33. Horner, J. T. (1984). Developing effective agr icultural leaders. Journal of Extension, 22 (6). Retrieved from http://j oe.org/joe/1984november/a3.html Howell, R. E., Weir, I. L., & Cook, A. K. (1982). Development of rural leadership: Problems, procedures, and insights Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellog g Foundation.

PAGE 190

190 Hustedde, R. J., & Woodward, A. (1996). Designing a rural leadership program and curriculum (IP 54). Lexington KY : University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Ex periential Education, 4 (1), 17 20. Kansas Ag ricultural and Rural Leadership [KARL]. (2010). Kansas agriculture and r ural l eadership: KARL program Retrieved from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/karl/Desktop Default.aspx?tabid=1 Kaufman, E. (2006). Logic model for the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Gainesville, FL: Univers ity of Florida. Kelsey, K. D., & Wall, L. J. (2003). Do agricultural leadership programs produce leaders? A case study of the impact of an agricultura l leadership program on Journal of Agricultural Education, 44 (4), 35 46. doi: 10.5032/jae.2003.04035 Kirkpatrick D. L. (1994) Evaluating training programs: The four levels San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Kno wles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3 rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Leadership practices inventory: Tra San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Leadership practices inventory San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass Pfeiffer. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3 rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kristick, J. (2009 ). Filling the leadership pipeline. Train ing and D evelopment 48 52. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Langone, C. A. (1992). Building community leadership. Journal of Extension, 30 (4), Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a7.php/

PAGE 191

191 LE AD New York. (2010). Lead New York: The Empire state food and agricultural leadership institute Retrieved from http://www.leadny.org/ Linder, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). The handling of nonresponse in agricultural education. Journal o f Agricultural Education, 42 (4), 43 53. doi: 10.5032/jae.2001.04043 Lindquist, J., & McCarty, T. (2007, October). The quest for leaders. Kansas Agricultural and Rural Leadership Retrieved from http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/quest_for_ leaders.htm Lipscomb, C. E., Martin, E. R., & Peay, W. J. (2009). Building the next generation of leaders: The NLM/AAHSL Leadership Fellows Program. Journal of Library Administration, 49 (8), 847 867. Mathews, C., & Carter, H. (2008). Agricultural leadership programming: A r eview of literature and recommendations for future r esearch. Proceedings from Association of Leadership Educators 2008 Conference Spokane, WA. McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (1998). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. program. The Canadian Journal of Progr am Evaluation, 18 (1), 1 23. Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Pennsylvania Association for Adult and Continuing Education Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4 51 60. Merria m, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adult hood: A comprehensive guide (3 rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Miller, H. (1976). The Kellogg Farmers Study Program: An experience in leadership development Battle Creek, MI, W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leade rship: Theory and practice (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 192

192 Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program [OALP] (2010). OALP: Oklahoma Agricultural Leadership Program Retrieved from http://oalp.okstate.edu/ index.asp Pierce, C. L., Manf redo, M. J., & Vaske, J. J. (2001). Social science theories in wildlife management. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, & W. F. Siemer (Ed.), Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America, 39 56. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society. Rockwell, K., & Bennett, C. (1995). Targeting outcomes of programs: A hierarchy for targeting outcomes and evaluating their achievement Retrieved from http://citnews.unl .edu/TOP/english/overviewf.html Rohs, F. R., & Langone, C. A. (1993). Increased accuracy in measur ing leadership impacts. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 4 (1), 150 158. doi: 10.1177/107179199700400113 Roberts, T. G. (2006). A philosophical examination of experiential learning theory for agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultura l Education, 47 (1), 17 29. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.01017 Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Russon, C., & Reinelt, C. (2004). The results of an ev aluation scan of 55 leadership development programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10 (3), 105 107. doi: 10.1177/107179190401000309 Shelton, K. (2010). 2009 Best in leadership development. Leadership Excellence Retrieved from http://w ww.leade rexcel.com/best_ranking.html Sogunro, O. A. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development: Lessons from a leadership training program. Evaluation Review, 21 (6), 713 737. doi: 10.1177/ 0193841X9702100605 Steinaker, N., & Bell, M. (1979). The experiential taxonomy: A new approach to teaching and learning New York NY : Academic Press. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research New York NY : Free Press. Taylor, J. (1962). How to select and develop le aders New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Van De Valk, L. J. (2010). Program theory in leadership development: A structured conceptualization exercise for the LEAD New York Program (Unpublished doctoral di ssertation). Cornell University, Cornell, NY.

PAGE 193

193 Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources [WLIANR] (2010). Wedgworth Leadership Institute: Developing leadership for Florida agriculture and natural resources Retrieved from http://wlianr.ifas.ufl.edu/ Whent, L. S., & Leising, J. G. (1992). A twenty year evaluation of the California agricultural leadership program. Journal of Agricultural Education 33 (3), 32 39. doi: 10.5032/jae.1992.03032 Wituk, S., Warren, M., Heiny, P., Clark, M. J., Power, C., & Meissen, G. (2003). Developing communities of leaders: Outcomes of a statewide initiative. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (4), 76 86. doi: 10.1177/107179190300 900407 W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (n. d.). Building leadership capacity for the 21 st century: A report from global leadership scans. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation, Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/ ViewDoc.aspx?fld=PDFFile&CID=0&ListID=28&ItemID=1483800&LanguageID=0 W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic m odels to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation, Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/ Pub3669.pdf

PAGE 194

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rochelle Strickland was born an d raised in Texas. She grew up in the small town of Stephenville known for its dairy farms and cowboys. She graduated with her bachel griculture leadership and d evelopment from Texas A&M University in December of 2006. Upon graduation, Roche lle moved to Florida t o begin eadership at the University of Flor ida. Her thesis research focused on the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership styles of leaders within Florida agriculture. In additi on to her research and studies, Rochelle has served as the Program Coordinator for the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agr iculture and Natural Resources. After obtaining her ma Rochelle began pursuing her Ph.D. in the same program. As a Ph .D. student, Rochelle served as the lead instructor for an undergraduate oral communication class.