Leadership Competencies and Needs of County Extension Directors as Perceived by County and District Extension Directors ...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Leadership Competencies and Needs of County Extension Directors as Perceived by County and District Extension Directors and County Administrators in Florida
Physical Description:
1 online resource (188 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Sanders, Cynthia Bissett
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural Education and Communication
Committee Chair:
OSBORNE,EDWARD WAYNE
Committee Co-Chair:
CARTER,HANNAH S
Committee Members:
PLACE,NICK T
VERGOT,PETE,III
CLOUSER,RODNEY L

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
leadership
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:
Florida Cooperative Extension has been the outreach component of the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). Cooperative Extension is located in all sixty-seven counties in Florida. At the county level, a county Extension director (CED) is responsible for the leadership and management of the local Extension office. CEDs have sometimes begun their new careers without prior leadership training or experience or without a clear understanding of their responsibilities. The inadequate preparation of county Extension directors for effectively meeting the complex leadership challenges inherited within their positions needed addressing. A strong need to identify these leadership competencies has been ignored. To address these problems, the leadership competencies perceived by the CEDs and the DEDs must be identified. The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership competencies of Florida county Extension directors. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to determine the leadership competencies as perceived by county and district Extension directors and county administrators in Florida. This study sought to determine the importance, knowledge, and competence of forty leadership competencies as perceived by county Extension directors. Additionally, this study examined the CED leadership competency needs based on the perceptions of CEDs and county administrators, using the Borich needs assessment model. Findings of this study suggested that the leadership competencies needed by CEDs include both human skills and conceptual skills, and county administrators have similar views on the leadership competencies needed by CEDs. Furthermore, the study revealed that effective CEDs are knowledgeable and proficient in a defined set of 40 leadership competencies. The highest MWDS by CEDs ratings based on importance/knowledge included conflict resolution, saying no when warranted, Extension marketing, time management, and creating a supportive work environment. Given the nature of the data collection, the implications and recommendations resulting from this research can be used to develop educational leadership training opportunities for CEDs.
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 Cynthia Bissett Sanders.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: OSBORNE,EDWARD WAYNE.
Local:
Co-adviser: CARTER,HANNAH S.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046552:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES AND NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AS PERCEIVED BY COUNTY AND DISTRICT EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRAT ORS IN FLORIDA By CYNTHIA B. SANDERS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2014 Cynthia B. Sanders

PAGE 3

To my family: Danny, Summer, & Danny

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am thankful for the family support that I had during this entire doctoral process. As a third generation Gator, I will be the first PhD in a 6th generation Florida cracker family, what an honor. I wish my grandparents were here to celebrate with us, but they are here in spirit. First I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Edward Osborne for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement. I have truly valued his knowledge and words of wisdom. I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Nick Place, Dr. Hannah Carter, Dr. Rod Clouser, and Dr. Pete Vergot. Dr. Place was my m degree committee chair and encouraged me to start this process many years ago. Thanks for the continued encouragement. What a wealth of knowledge and expertise this committee has provided. Thank you so much for being an integral part of this research. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students especially Jessica Gouldthorpe for facilitating my focus groups. Thank you to my fellow county E xtension directors that participated in focus groups and the questionnaire and to our five d istrict Extension d irectors for their participation. I thank God and my family for believing in me and supporting me. God has blessed me with a beautiful and loving family. Working as a full time county E xtension director, mother of two children and being married to a loving husband has been a balancing act for the pa st several years. Thank you for your continued support, I could not have done it without you.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 22 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Introductory Remarks ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Theoretica l Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 Related Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29 Leadership Competencies ................................ ................................ ................ 29 Human Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 31 Coaching and mentoring skills ................................ ................................ ... 32 Communication skills ................................ ................................ ................. 33 Emotional intelligence. ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Conceptu al Skills ................................ ................................ .............................. 35 Visioning skills ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 Organizational knowledge skills ................................ ................................ 38 Environment and culture skills ................................ ................................ ... 40 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 41 3 METHODOLGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Subjectivity Statement ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 46 Qualitative Research ................................ ................................ ........................ 47 Quantitative Research ................................ ................................ ...................... 50

PAGE 6

6 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 52 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 53 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 6 Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57 Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 58 Focus Groups and Interviews ................................ ................................ ........... 58 Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 63 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 65 Demographics for Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ............ 66 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 66 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 66 Human skills ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 Conceptual skills ................................ ................................ ........................ 70 Summary for Objective One ................................ ................................ ............. 74 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 74 Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 74 Human skills ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 Conceptual skills ................................ ................................ ........................ 77 Summary for Objective Two ................................ ................................ ............. 78 Objective Three ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 79 Demographics of CEDs ................................ ................................ .................... 80 Descriptive analysis for CEDs ................................ ................................ .... 80 Demographics of county administrators ................................ ..................... 86 Descriptive analysis for county administrators ................................ ........... 86 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 91 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 127 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 127 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ ................. 127 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 128 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 130 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ 130 Objective One ................................ ................................ ................................ 130 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 131 Objective Three ................................ ................................ .............................. 131 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ 133 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 134 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 135 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 137 Recommendations for Practice ................................ ................................ ...... 137 Recommendations for Research ................................ ................................ .... 138

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 139 B INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 141 C MODERATORS GUIDE ................................ ................................ ........................ 142 D INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ................................ .............................. 144 E CODING ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 145 F INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 147 G E MAIL PRE NOTIF ICATION ................................ ................................ ............... 175 H EMAIL PRE NOTIFICATION TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS ......................... 176 I SECOND, AND THIRD EMAIL REMINDER SENT TO SUBJECTS ..................... 177 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 179 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 188

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Timeline for data collection ................................ ................................ ................. 64 4 1 Frequency and percentage of respondents (CEDs) by demographics ( n =49) .... 93 4 2 Years of leadership experience for CEDs ................................ ........................... 93 4 3 Mean percentage of CED leadership res ponsibility. ................................ ........... 93 4 4 Classification of counties ( n =49) ................................ ................................ ......... 93 4 5 Frequency and percentage of CEDs by primary Extension program area ( n =49) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 94 4 6 CED Highest degree earned ( n =49) ................................ ................................ ... 94 4 7 Frequency and percentage of leadership competency importance as rated by CEDs (n =49) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 95 4 8 Frequency and percentage of CED self per ceived leadership competency knowledge level ( n =49) ................................ ................................ ....................... 97 4 9 Frequency and percentage of CED self perceived leadership competency pro ficiency level ( n =49) ................................ ................................ ....................... 99 4 10 Mean summated scores for importance, knowledge, and proficiency ratings of leadership competencies by CEDs ( n =49) ................................ ................... 101 4 11 Correlations between independent and dependent variables for CEDs (n =49) 102 4 12 Regression of self perceived level of importance, knowledge, and proficiency on selected independent variables for CEDs (n=49) ................................ ........ 103 4 13 Mean weighted discrepancy scores of CEDs for level of importance and level of knowledge based on the Borich Needs Assessment Model ( n =49) .............. 104 4 14 Mean weighted discrepancy scores of CEDs for level of importance and level of proficiency based on the Borich Needs Assess ment Model ( n =49) .............. 106 4 15 Demographics of county administrators ( n =17) ................................ ................ 108 4 16 Leadership experience for county administrators ................................ ............. 108 4 17 C lassification of county for county administrators (n =17) ................................ 108 4 18 County administrator highest degree earned ( n =17) ................................ ........ 109

PAGE 9

9 4 19 Frequency and percentage of leadership competency importance for CEDs as rated by county administrators (n=17) ................................ ......................... 110 4 20 Frequency and percentage of leadership competency knowledge for CEDs by county administrators ( n =17) ................................ ................................ ....... 112 4 21 Frequency and percentage of leadership competency proficiency for CEDs by county administrators ( n =17) ................................ ................................ ....... 114 4 22 Summary of Leadership Competencies as rated by county administrators (n=17) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 116 4 23 Summary comparison of CED and county administrators (CA) ratings of leadership competencies ................................ ................................ .................. 116 4 24 Correlations between independent and dependent variables for county administrators ( n =17) ................................ ................................ ........................ 117 4 25 Regression of CA perceptions of CED level of importance, and proficiency on selected independent variables ( n =17) ................................ ............................. 118 4 26 perceptions of the importance of competencies and proficiency levels needed by CEDs (n=17) ................................ ................................ ................................ 119 4 27 perceptions of knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CEDs ( n =17) ...... 121 4 28 CED and county administrator MWD scores based on perceptions of leadership competency importance and proficiency level need ed by CEDs ..... 123 4 29 CED and county administrator MWD scores based on perceptions of leadership competency importance and proficienc y level needed by CEDs ..... 125

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Conceptual framework for the study of leadership is presented by Moore & Rudd (2004). ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 2 2 A Conceptual Model for the Development of Florida CED Leadership Competencies (Adapted from Moore & Rudd, 2004; Goleman, 1998; and Katz (1955) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 43

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES AND NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AS PERCEIVED BY COUNTY AND DISTRICT EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRAT ORS IN FLORIDA By Cynthia B. Sanders May 2014 Chair: Edward Wayne Osborne Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Florida Cooperative Extension has been the outreach component of the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). Cooperative Extension is located in all sixty seven counties in Florida. At the county level, a county Extension director (CED) is responsible for the leadership and management of the local Extension office. CED s have sometimes begun their new careers without prior leadership training or experience or without a clear understanding of their responsibilities. The inadequate preparation of county Extension directors for effectively meeting the complex leadership chall enges inherited within their positions needed addressing. A strong need to identify these leadership competencies has been ignored. To address these problems, the leadership competencies perceived by the CEDs and the DEDs must be identified. The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership competencies of Florida county Extension directors. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to determine the leadership competencies as perceived by county and district Extension

PAGE 12

12 directors and coun ty administrators in Florida. This study sought to determine the importance, knowledge, and competence of forty leadership competencies as perceived by county Extension directors. Additionally this study examined the CED leadership competency needs based on the perceptions of CEDs and county administrators, using the Borich needs assessment model. Findings of this study suggested that the leadership competencies needed by CEDs include both human skills and conceptual skills, and county administrators have similar views on the leadership competencies needed by CEDs. Furthermore, the study revealed that effective CEDs are knowledgeable and proficient in a defined set of 40 leadership competencies. The highest MWDS by CEDs ratings based on importance/knowledge Given the nature of the data collection, the implications and recommendations resulting from this resea rch can be used to develop educational leadership training opportunities for CEDs.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Over 150 years ago Justin Morrill and Abraham Lincoln conceived the idea of the land grant institut ion. The idea of public service to society has brought research to the nation and the world and has been on the forefront of research for 150 years. Land grant institutions across the United States were the institutions that educate the future leaders of t omorrow. Faculties have been charged with providing research and education, and at the same time, have been responsible for preparing students for citizenship (McDowell, 2001). Land grant institutions have made great accomplishments over the past 150 years providing education, agricultural productivity in the United diplomacy, and economic competiveness have all depended throughout the 20 th century (Kellogg Commission, 1999). Cooperative Extension has been the outreach component of land grant institutions. The Cooperative Extension System (CES) was formalized when the Smith Lever Act was passed by Congress in 1914. Cooperative Extension has been a nationwide organization and a partnership between federal, state, and local governments. The purpose of Cooperative Extension was defined by Rasmussen (1989), who stated that, "The mission of the Cooperative Extension Service is to help people impro ve their lives through an educational process which uses scientific knowledge focused on issues and needs" (p.4). Extension educators have served as change agents to bring researched based information from the land grant institution to the citizens of the local communities. No

PAGE 14

14 other organization in the United States has offered these educational opportunities to the citizens (Seevers, et. al., 1997). Extension has provided solutions to issues in the areas of agriculture, family and consumer science, 4 H you th development, and community development. These educational efforts of Extension agents have helped to provide research based solutions and have helped people become more productive members of society (Seevers, et. al. 1997). The desired outcomes based on educational programming have related to social, economic, or environmental issues within a community. The Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES) was established in 1915 (UF/IFAS website, 2013). Florida Cooperative Extension has been the outreach component of the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). Extension agents in Florida have played an important role in identifying the community needs of county citizens at the grassroots level. Once those needs have be en identified, Extension agents have developed educational programming to provide solutions with research of their location throughout the state, are land et al. 1997, p. 50). In Florida, county Extension agents have been faculty of the University of Florida (UF) and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Florida has maintained the traditional Extension model, with an Extension dean, five district Extension directors (DED) and Extension agents in all 67 counties who report directly to a county Extension director (CED). In Florida, county Extension agents have had split funding, where a percentage of their salary has been paid through the state and the remainder paid by local government (T.Obreza, personal communication,

PAGE 15

15 May 24, 2013). Although each county Extension office in Florida may be different, funding at the local Extension office has been a partnership between local and state gover nment. The local office has traditionally been the center for programming (Seevers, et al., 1997). The basic partnership of the local office has been the board of county commissioners and UF/IFAS administration. County Extension offices have had a great de al of freedom to plan, implement, and evaluate educational programs, based on the needs of the local clientele (Seevers, et al., 1997). At the county level, each office has a c ounty Extension d irector (CED). According to recent University of Florida coun ty Extension director position announcements (IFAS Human Resources), the responsibilities of the county Extension director have included overall leadership and management for the office administrative affairs, both for the county and University of Florida; leadership for county Extension faculty in the development and implementation of educational programs; responsibility for development and implementation educational programs in their respective fields; preparation of reports to the county commission, or i n larger counties, a county manager or division director; and development and maintenance of the county budget for the C ooperative Extension office (IFAS Human Resources). In addition, the CED has been a vital link between field staff and upper levels of a dministration (Radhakrishna, Yoder, and Baggot, 1994). Therefore, the leadership role of CEDs has become an increasingly complex responsibility. d Posner (2002) described leaders as individuals who possess the desire and persistence to lead. Northouse (2007) explained

PAGE 16

16 that a manager produces order and consistency, and a leader produces change and movement. Kouzes and Posner (2002) explained that ef fective leaders posses observable and learnable practices that can be changed over time. Leadership can be defined several different ways, depending on the situation. Katz (1955) in the Harvard Business Review described the three skilled approach to leade rship: technical skill, human skill, and conceptual skill. Katz (1955) defined skill as the ability to translate knowledge into action. Herringer (2002) described a competence as the ability to perform a task using knowledge, education, skill, and past exp erience. According to Pernick (2001), there have been three ways for organizations to determine leadership competencies: use leadership competencies found in theory, develop their own Within the FCES the leadership competencies required for CEDs have not been clearly defined. Furthermore, over the past four years, 24 CEDs were hired in Florida, and of those, only seven had previous leadership or Extension experience (T.Obreza, person al communication, May 24, 2013). In addition, data from the Florida Cooperative Extension CED training showed a need for leadership training for CEDs (FCES, CED Inservice Training, November, 2012). Ladewig and Rohs (2000) found that very few Extension lead organization. Ladewig and Rohs (2000) also suggested that Extension faces three leadership challenges: managers are expected to address issues in which they have limited experience, new ma nagement competencies will be required related to information technology, and most Extension leaders lack professional leadership training. Historically, training programs for Extension administrators (including CEDs)

PAGE 17

17 have included instruction in program p lanning, personnel management, resource allocation and budgeting, advisory committee organization and other managerial skills (Rudd, 2001). At the same time, there has been a lack of training for extension administr ators in leadership skill areas, such as participatory leadership, visioning, communication, innovation, empowerment, and constituent recognition (Rudd, 2001). In 1993 the Personnel and Organization Committee of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy identified sixteen core competenc ies that all Extension professionals should possess (Seevers, et al., 1997). However, the leadership competencies of CEDs had not been defined at the time of this study. What leadership competencies have been needed for CEDs to perform their duties? What has been the perception of Extension administrators of leadership competencies for CEDs? A number of current trends have continued to challenge the effectiveness of the FCES. The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (2000) identified three trends that Extension should address: funding, human capital, and system relevancy. These organizational changes and issues have continued to challenge FCES. Therefore, CEDs must develop their full leadership potential. Parker (2004) explained that leadership i nvolves change. These organizational changes, as well as the day to day leadership roles that CEDs provide, have present ed challenges for effective leaders to overcome. During these times of change, Extension must remain relevant at the grassroots level. Have county extension directors been well prepared for these leadership changes? No doubt change will take place, and in order to make this transition a

PAGE 18

18 success, CEDs at the county level must possess the leadership competencies needed to provide the leader ship to stakeholders, faculty, and staff. The CED has been the vital link between Extension agents and upper levels of administration (Radhakrishna, et al., 1994). The leadership role of CEDs has been a critical element in the success of county Extension programs (Radhakrishna, et al ., 1994). Problem Statement Academic leaders sometimes have begun their new careers without prior leadership training or experience and without a clear understanding of the ambiguity and complexity of their roles (Gmelch, et a l. 1999). The inadequate preparation of county Extension directors for effectively meeting the complex leadership challenges inherited within their positions needed addressing. A strong need to identify these leadership competencies has been ignored. This study sought to define the leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs, DEDs, and county administrators. To address these problems, the leadership competencies perceived by the CEDs and the DEDs must be identified. Therefore, the problem addressed by this research was the lack of formal preparation of county Extension directors for the complex leadership challenges inherent in these positions. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida cou nty Extension directors. The following objectives were developed to guide this study. 1. To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district directors.

PAGE 19

19 2. To identify the leadershi p competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by county administrators. 3. To determine the level of importance of CED leadership competenc ies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators, CED self perceptions of leadership compe tency importance, knowledge and proficiency, and county and proficiency levels needed by CEDs. 4. To determine the relative need for additional training for each CED leadership compet ency as perceived by CEDs and county administrators Significance of the Study Within FCES, identifying the critical leadership competencies required for effectiveness will help in defining the skills leaders need (Pernick, 2001). The sixty four c ounty Extension d irectors in Florida have been constantly faced with leadership challenges and must understand the leadership competencies that are needed to perform their job responsibilities. The identification of these leadership competencies both from county Extension directors and district Extension directors will provide current and future CEDs a better understanding of their leadership role. In addition, knowing this information will be beneficial to the organization in many ways. Results can be used in the recruitment of new county Extension directors and provide direction for future professional development in the leadership skills area. Therefore, the results of this study will be beneficial to all levels of administration, including county, distri ct, and state levels, as well as stakeholders. Florida district Extension directors and state administrators could use the research findings to assist in the hiring of CEDs. Administration at the University of Florida/IFAS, as well as county administratio n, may find this research useful when mentoring or coaching CEDs, as well as during the evaluation process. Through the mentoring of

PAGE 20

20 new CEDs, district Extension directors and county administrators can use the research to aid in developing the leadership q ualities, skills, and competencies needed for CEDs. Where many studies have focused on Extension based competencies, very few have focused on the leadership competencies of CEDs. All levels of administration, as well as stakeholders, may benefit from the findings of this study. By identifying leadership skills needed in leadership positions, as well as determining the leadership needs of current CEDs, better recruitment and retention of CEDs should result. Competent, county Extension leaders have not only been a reflection of their county faculty, staff, and clientele, but the entire Florida Extension organization. Definition of Terms County Extension Agent Professional employees of the state Extension service, faculty of the land grant institution (University of Florida). Extension agents in Florida may be at the county level, multi county level, or regional level. These Extension agents, also known as exten sion educators or county extension faculty, provide research based information to local clientele. (UF/IFAS District Director webpage http://ded.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty ) County Extension Director The administrat ive leader at the local level. CEDs are responsible for daily operations, personnel, budgeting, policies, as well as their own extension programs (Seevers, et. al., 1997). County Extension Office Serves as the local component of the three way county, stat e, and federal partnership. In Florida, county Extension offices are located in all 67 counties. (UF/IFAS Extension webpage http://extension.ufl.edu ) District Extension Director The district, a geographic region of the state, is headed by a director appointed by the dean for Extension in accordance with the University Constitution. The district Extension director serves as chief executive and administrative officer of the district and provides financial planning and policy direction supports county operations, supervises the unit, and conducts faculty evaluations. The district Extension director is

PAGE 21

21 responsible to the dean. (UF/IFAS District Director webpage http://ded.ifa s.ufl.edu/faculty ) Ethnicity Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category of different cultures in society. This study included the following ethnic categories: African American, Asian, Hispanic, and White. (UF/IFAS Human Resources, http://ifas.hr.ufl.edu ) Extension Dean The administrative leader of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service. The dean is responsible for meeting the mission and goals of the University of Florida Extension program and serves o n the UF/IFAS administrative team. (UF/IFAS District Director webpage http://ded.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty ) Extension Partnership The organizational structure of the Cooperative Extension Service. Includes federal, state, and local government partners (Seevers, et. al., 1997). Leadership 2007). Leadership Competency The knowledge, technica l skills, and personal characteristics that lead to improved performance (Stone & Bieber 1977). Rural County A county or area with a population density of less than 100 individuals per square mile or an area defined by the most recent United States Census as rural. (Florida Department of Health, www.doh.state. fl .us/workforce/ rural health/PDFs/ ruralcounties ) Urban County Areas with a population greater than or equal to 50,000 people. (United States Department of Agriculture, www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Rural ) Limitations A limitation of this study was the participants were all from Florida T herefore generaliza tion of the results beyond Florida Extension was a limitation. In addition, these data were self reported and reflected a certain point in time of the data collection.

PAGE 22

22 Assumptions The researcher made the assumption that participants would answer the questionnaire honestly and in a timely manner. The researcher also assumed that responses provided by the focus group of CEDs would generally reflect the views of the county Extension di rectors. The researcher also assumed variability in the operation and management of a county Extension office. Finally, the researcher assumed that no significant events occurred during the data collection that influenced the respondents at the time of the study. Summary This chapter explained the background of Cooperative Extension and the role it has played in society, as well as the need for a study to define and identify Florida county Extension directors leadership competencies. The purpose of this st udy was to identify the leadership competencies of Florida county Extension directors. All levels of Florida administration may benefit in the identification of these competencies from hiring aspects, training in leadership skills, and retention of CEDs. T he role of leadership has played an integral part of the Florida Extension Service, from the grassroots county Extension directors to the district Extension directors, and finally to the Dean of Florida Extension.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduct ory Remarks Chapter 1 provided the background information that established the need for this research study. The history and background of the Cooperative Extension Service was discussed, as well as the structure and background of FCES. Chapter 1 also disc ussed the importance of leadership competencies needed by CEDs. The purpose of this study was to identify the perceived leadership competencies and needs of Florida county Extension directors. To accomplish this purpose, the study was guided by four object ives, which were to: 1) to identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district directors, 2) to identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors a s determined by county administrators, 3) t o determine the level of importance of CED leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators, CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge and proficiency, and county ad importance, knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CEDs and 4) to determine the relative need for additional training for each CED leadership competency by CEDs and county administrators The purpose o f this chapter is to present the literature related to the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors. Specifically, this chapter will focus on the literature that supports the leadership competencies as perceived by Florida count y Extension directors and Florida Extension district directors, leading to establishing the theoretical and conceptual framework. This chapter is divided into the

PAGE 24

24 following major sections: theoretical framework, conceptual model, related research studies, and summary. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework that guided this research was based on the systems frequently used to identify core skills and characteristics that are essential in successful McClelland (1973) developed a model to define competencies that were specific to a particular job and organization. The enthusiasm for competency mo dels has grown as a the Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) model identified four managerial competencies: (1) intrapersonal skills, (2) interpersonal skills, (3) business skills, and (4) leadership skills. Compete ncy models have been used in human resource management (Shippmann, et al., 2000). The competency approach within human resource management has enabled organizations to identify knowledge, skills, and abilities essential to success (Vakola, et al., 2007). Stone and Bieber (1997) suggested that competencies should be the foundation of improved performance of county Extension professionals. Competency based models enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of Extension employees through career de velopment and training (Cooper and Graham, 2001). Stone (1997) explained that competency models have been used in the identification of competencies and have been associated with higher levels of performance. According to Stone is a highly participatory process, and Extension (1997) competency model identified five stages to building a systems approach to

PAGE 25

25 competency development: (1) identifyi ng the areas of opportunity, (2) targeting potential audiences, (3) collecting competency data and associated behaviors, (4) building competency models, and (5) communicating the new competencies. This research study focused on steps one through four in St approach competency development. Pickett (1998) suggested the most common problems of competency programs are: (1) difficulty in identifying competencies, (2) not allowing sufficient time for the project, (3) resistance by participants, and (4) lack of time management. Abilities, competencies, or skills have been equated with general human capacities related to the performance of tasks (Jones, 2006). Herringer (2002) defined competence as the ability of an individual to p erform a task using his/her knowledge, education, skills, and experience. Athey and Orth (1999) defined a competency as a set of observable performance skills, including individual knowledge, skill s attitudes, and behaviors (p.216). Katz (1955) defined a 33 to perform a learned psychomoto The identification of leadership competencies has provided for individual and organizational growth and has helped organizations as a whole (Pickett, 1998). Pickett (1998) explained the critical responsibility of senior management is to ide ntify the core competencies of the enterprise and to ensure that the competencies required by managers, specialists and the workforce, in general, are adequate (p.104). When organizations identify the skills, knowledge, and abilities and work to develop th ose

PAGE 26

26 skills in their employees, they see an increased need for training and education (Harder et al., 2010). Competency models have been used in Cooperative Extension. For example, Texas AgriLife Extension used the YES model (Stone and Coppernoll, 2004), Michigan State University Extension developed a core competency initiative (Rodgers, et al., 2012), and Ohio State University developed the model of extension education related to core competencies (Scheer, et al., 2006). North Carolina Cooperative Extens ion identified multi level skills important to administrative leaders (Owen, 2004). The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension also identified competencies needed for successful supervisors (Cooper, et al., 2001). Katz (1955) identified three catego ries of skills needed by leaders: technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills (p.34). Technical skills have been more important at lower levels of administration (Goleman, 1998; Katz, 1955). Human skills have been essential throughout all managem ent levels. Conceptual skills have been the term and Gullett, 1975; Katz 1955). tency development and Katz (1955) categories of skills needed by leaders, this research study looked at identifying the leadership skills and competencies needed by Florida CEDs. Moore and Rudd (2005) believed that those responsible for hiring Extension di rectors would find leadership skills important to their job responsibilities. Current Florida Extension directors play a number of different job roles. Competence within these leadership skills has been expected (Moore and Rudd, 2005).

PAGE 27

27 In terms of core co mpetencies for leaders, few studies have focused on Extension. Extension leaders must fulfill a number of different roles, and therefore, must possess leadership competency in many areas (Moore and Rudd, 2004). The successful leaders of FCES will be those who can lead their organization to make adaptability a common way of business. These leadership skills will require leading others to think innovatively and hav e staff that works towards a common goal (Cropper, 1998). Good leadership fosters change that is both transformative and sustainable. It can be concerned with moral or organizational matters. It in the world beyond its walls, or it can determine their internal dynamics of the institution. Most importantly, it requires a worthy goal vision, if you will -but it also requires persistence. (Ekman, 2003) Conceptual Model Guided by the systems approach to competency development as the theoretical frame (Stone, 1997), this study proposed to identify the leadership skills and c ompetencies perceived by Florida county Extension and district Extension directors as well as county administrators Leadership competencies were the bases of this systems approach. Originally, Katz (1955) identified the three categories of skills needed by leaders: technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Goleman (1998) outlined three domains of leadership skills: technical skills, cognitive abilities, and competencies that demonstrate emotional intelligence. Robbins (2001) further adapted the leadership skills domains and identified industry knowledge as a domain skill within the healthcare industry. The conceptual model developed by Moore and Rudd (2004) included human skills, conceptual skills, technical skills, emotional skills, and indu stry knowledge skills,

PAGE 28

28 as shown in Figure 2 1. The conceptual model for this research study was adapted from Moore & Rudd (2004), Goleman (1998), and Katz (1955), and is shown in Figure 2 2. This conceptual model was used to develop the leadership competen cies perceived by Florida Extension directors. A number of different perspectives can be used to study leadership based on the different classification systems of leadership skills (Rudd and Moore, 2005). The leadership competencies found will relate to on e of the four subskills areas. Research has been conducted in the area of management in Extension, but little attention has been given to the area of leadership competencies among Extension directors (Rudd, 2005). For this research study, the emotional skills explained by Goleman (1998) were incorporated into the human skills as emotional intelligence skills. The model uses the skill sets of human and conceptual skills together to identify the CED leadership compete ncies at the base. For purposes of this research, technical skills were not strategic directions of the organization will help Extension anticipate new knowledge, skills an (Stone, 1997). This conceptual model was built around the skills that CEDs need to be effective in the future. t o be truly effective, competency m odels Consistent with Stone and Bieber (1997) the leadership competency based model designed for this research study was based on the following assumptions: (1) the link be tween individual performance and organizational performance drives the system, (2)

PAGE 29

29 competency development is based on participation of CEDs, and (3) the competency model serves as a powerful decision making tool to clarify the knowledge, skills, and behavi ors needed for future CEDs. Moore and Rudd (2004) determined the major leadership skill areas and specific leadership competencies within each skill. Based on the research from Moore and Rudd (2004), the skill sets were determined for both human and conc eptual skills related to leadership competencies of Florida CEDs. The subskill sets that were used to represent human skills were coaching, communication, and emotional intelligence. The subskills that comprised the conceptual skills included vision, orga nizational knowledge, and organizational culture and environment. Related Research The conceptual model presented included the human skills and the conceptual skills, which served as the basis for examining the leadership competencies needed by Florida CE Ds. The related studies found have been broad in terms of leadership skills, and many of the studies cited applied to managers and administrators in the corporate sector. Research within Extension and the leadership skills and competencies related to coun ty Extension directors was lacking in the literature (Moore and Rudd, 2005). Leadership C ompetencies Moore and Rudd (2004) stated that in order for an Extension educator to be as effective and successful as possible, leadership skills are needed. Kouzes a nd Posner (2002) presented five leadership practices of exemplary leadership: (1) model the way, (2) inspire a shared vision, (3) challenge the process, (4) enable others to act, and (5) encourage the heart. This study researched skills that related to eac h of the leadership practices presented by Kouzes and Posner (2002).

PAGE 30

30 Katz (1955) supported the idea that leadership skills and competencies can be learned. Goleman (1998) described the idea that leadership skills can be developed over time. Schreiber and S hannon (2001) believed that leadership development should be a life long endeavor. Kouzes and Posner (2002) believed that leadership is an observable set of skills, and any set of skills can be strengthened if given the motivation and desire. Bennis and Na nus (1985) expressed that some people have some natural leadership abilities, but those abilities can still be enhan ced, and others can be learned. Leadership traits, competencies, and skills of successful leaders showed some commonalities and can be class ified into one or more of the following categories: 1. Conceptual skills 2. Human skills 3. Technical skills 4. Emotional Intelligence skills 5. Industry Knowledge skills The most recent research designs have centered on leadership skills being built upon technical, hum an, and conceptual skills. Goleman (1998) introduced emotional intelligence as a set of leadership skills to be added to the model. Moore and Rudd (2004) surveyed forty nine Extension directors and administrators and found that five of the six perceived le adership skills areas (human skills, conceptual skills, communication skills, technical skills, emotional skills, and industry knowledge skills) were rated between important and very important. The researchers also found that technical skills were rated t he lowest in perceived importance by these groups. Oklahoma Extension professionals developed the Action Leadership Retreat (ALR), where faculty attend a two day developmental experience and participate in simulated exercises on coaching (Kutilek and Earn est, 2001). At the ALR the activities

PAGE 31

31 have centered around 12 leadership skills, including interpersonal skills, communication skills, decision making, planning, and visionary skills. Human Skills Katz (1955) defined human skills as the ability to work with people. Katz (1955) assumptions, and beliefs about other individuals and groups; he is able to see the tz (1955) also stated that human skills are demonstrated in how people communicate with one another. Katz (1955) concluded that leaders must encourage subordinates to express themselves and participate in planning. Lepak and Snell (1999) suggested the main reasons that organizations invest so heavily in leadership has been to enhance their human capital. Goleman (1998) explained in that in order to get individuals to think and act in new asized. These types of skills and abilities may include intrapersonal competence, self awareness, emotional awareness, self confidence, self regulation, and self motivation (Manz and Sims, 1989). From the individual leadership perspective, the importance of these capabilities contributes to individual knowledge and is imperative for leaders (Zand, 1997). Other organizations have believed that, in addition to human capital within their organization, they need skills in social capital as well. The main empha sis in leadership development has been to use these interpersonal skills to build interpersonal competence: social skill, collaboration, building bonds, conflict management, and developing others (Goleman, 1998; McCauley, et al. 1994)

PAGE 32

32 Bruce and Anderson ( 2012) surveyed forty nine Extension agents, including county Extension directors, on the perceived importance of leadership skills and determined that human skills w ere perceived as the most important skill and the one skill in which agents were the most p roficient. Coaching and m entoring s kills Coaching or mentoring has been seen as a subset skill related to human skills. focused form of one on idual performance and enhance organizational goals (Katz & Miller, 1996). Seevers et al. (1996) found that positive experiences, such as mentoring throughout college, provide opportunities that improve the educational retention rate on college campuses, a nd therefore, increase the pool of potential applicants and Extension agents within the field of agricultural sciences. Thach (2002) surveyed 281 executives over three years and found that the overall effectiveness of coaching as perceived by others impact ed leadership effectiveness by 55%. Kutliek and Earnest (2001) concluded that coaching helps employees successfully the relationship between the coach, employee, and organizat ion. The researchers also concluded that through the ALR program at Oklahoma State Extension, Extension professionals improved their overall leadership effectiveness, and peer coaching was more successful over a shorter time frame. County Extension direct ors have served as a coach in mentoring new and seasoned agents. Research revealed that coaching as a dimension of leadership provided the following (Olivero, Bane, et al., 1997):

PAGE 33

33 1. employee career development; 2. increased job satisfaction; 3. improved employee retention; 4. positive cultural assimilation; 5. transfer of training into practice; 6. higher employee loyalty to the organization; 7. improved educational programming; 8. improved ability to deal with change; and 9. better understanding of the Extension political and econ omic climate. employees set goals, determine vision, seek out and use feedback, find and apply (Franz & Wee ks, 2008). Communication skills Several research studies over the last twenty years have related communication competence and other communication attributes to leadership. Greenbaum (1974) developed five priority categories of communication skills for le aders which included: (1) task communication, (2) performance communication, (3) career communication, (4) communication responsiveness, and (5) personal communication. Schultz (1980) found their colleagues, predicted the future emergence as leaders. More recent research has supported the hypothesis that higher performing managers exhibit higher levels of communication hrough Kouzes and Posner (2002) explained that the simple act of listening to what other people say has been important, and leaders that listen are more likely to become ac the importance of face to face leader communication with employees; this face to face

PAGE 34

34 communication develops opportunities for group members to associate across disciplines The researchers also discussed the importance of ongoing communication between administrators and members, which develop s long term relationships and trust (Kouzes and Posner, 2002). Flauto (1999) surveyed 151 leaders and found a strong relationship bet ween competent leaders and those leaders being effective leaders of communication. In addition, the research found a similar relationship between poor communication competence and ineffective leader communication experiences. Bruce & Anderson (2012) surve yed forty nine Extension agents, including county Extension directors, and found that communication skills ranked fifth out of six subskills surveyed county Extension leaders in North Carolina and found that oral communication ranked among the critically important skills for achieving success as an administrative job with strong oral communication skills. Emotional intelligence. According to Bar with environmental demands and pressures on Emotional Quotient Inventory measures five components of emotional intelligence, which include the following (Bar On, 2002): intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress management, and general mood. Intrapersonal skills include assertiveness, self regard, self actualization, independence, and emotional self awareness (Bar On, 2002). Bar On (2002) described interpersonal skills as interpersonal relationships, social responsibility,

PAGE 35

35 and empathy. Adaptability deals wi th problem solving, reality testing, and flexibility (Bar On, 2002). The ability of leaders to manage emotions and relationships has been shown to increase their ability to understand (Bar On, 2002) Merkowitx & Earnest (2006) found that 75% of those attending leadership programs provided by Ohio State Extension indicated their attitude toward others improved, and 90% had used the knowledge gained about their personal emotional intelligence to improve professional relationships. Argabright, et al. (2013) found that emotional intelligence training for Extension professionals enhanced leadership capacity among Extension agents. Gardner and Stough (20 02) researched the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence and found that the outcomes of leadership were highly correlated with the components of emotional intelligence. In addition, the researchers found that the leaders who were ident ified with high emotional intelligence levels were more likely workplace is important for leaders, so that they can influence the feelings of Conceptual Skills whole; and includes recognizing how the various functions of the organization depend on one another, and how changes in any one part affect all the others; and it extends to visualizing the relationship of the individual business to the industry, the community, and

PAGE 36

36 the political, social, skills have been the most important at top management levels, where most of the policy decisions and long term planning actions are required (Hicks and Gullett, 1975; Katz, 1955). Parker (2004) surveyed ninety four past, present, and future managers of agricultural education and communications units at land grant institutions from forty nine states and found that this group of managers most closely resembled the profile of conceptual producers. Quinn (1988) defined this group of conceptual producers as conceptually skilled because they work with ideas and are good at coming up with new ideas and selling them to their staff. Bruce & Anderson (2012) surveyed forty nine Extension agents, including county Extension directors, and found that conceptual skills level of import ance. For purposes of this study visioning skills, organizational knowledge, and environment and culture were researched as subskills of conceptual skills. Visioning skills at is imagined or perceived, that others can be drawn to, and given the necessary essential step in the organizational process, and according to Schaefer (2004),

PAGE 37

37 wo rthwhi le work involves understanding the work and knowing how the work helps Within Extension, as well as private sector businesses, the role of the leader has been to express a vision, get buy what the current leaders create and the vision for what Extension will look like, how Extension will function, and how Extension will serve the needs of a changing society (Fehlis, 2005). Visionary leaders in Extension must know where they are going and why th ey are going in that direction. Bennis (1985) studied ninety successful United States business leaders and concluded that the ability to create a vision that others can believe in and adopt, to market that vision, and bridge the present to the future of t he organization are all leadership skills. Graetz (2000) researched companies in Australia and found that there has been a strong need for leadership that provides a clear vision and focus for the traditional organizations. Effective leadership has been ab out supplying a vision, creating social power, and directing that power so an individual can realize that vision. Along similar lines, House's (1971) Path goal Theory saw the successful leader as someone who engages followers by reconciling their personal goals with those of the group. This theory relates their values, build shared values, align actions with values, and set the example for others to follow. The successful, ef fective leader has the ability to have his or her vision accepted, as well as to motivate followers to work toward a common end (Chemers,

PAGE 38

38 2001). Motivation has been described as one of the most important functions of a county Extension director (Bedeian, 1 993; Higgins, 1994; Kreitner, 1995). Texas A&M Extension surveyed Extension agents and found that 80% of the direction, and 75% suggested that organizational decisions a re made without regard to achieving the strategic plan (Boltes, et al., 1995). A recommendation for Extension leadership has been to implement a communication strategy that describes a vision consistent to all employees (Young et al., 1993). Bennis and Na constituencies in creating a vision of the organization for the future, synthesize the explained that leaders s hould give life to a vision by using language to communicate the shared vision and practice positive communication. Fehlis (2005) stated: A positive future for E xtension depends upon having visionary leaders at all levels. It depends upon selecting individ uals as director, vice president, president or chancellor not just on their professional vitae of past accomplishments, but upon the careful analysis of their visionary leadership skills (p.2) Organizational knowledge skills Organizational learning has bee n defined by Bennis and Nanus (1985) as the process by which an organization obtains and uses new knowledge, tools, behaviors, and values. L earning in Extension occurs at all levels of the organization. Extension agents learn as part of their daily activit ies within the organization, as well as working with clientele. Rowe (2010) believed that the extent to which an organization learns is related to both structural factors and cultural factors. The structural factors are the mechanisms and procedures that allow organizations to use the information (Rowe,

PAGE 39

39 2010). The cultural factors are made up of shared values, leadership, and vision of the organization (Rowe, 2010). Marsick and Watkins (1999) found that the following leadership actions take place at the in dividual, team, organizational, and societal learning levels: 1. create continuous learning opportunities; 2. promote inquiry and dialogue; 3. encourage collaboration and team learning; 4. establish systems to share and capture learning; 5. empower people toward a collec tive vision; 6. connect the organization to its environment; and 7. provide strategic leadership for learning. Rowe (2010) surveyed 93 Extension educators and leaders in Vermont and found that continuous learning, team learning, and systems to capture learning were all significant. The survey by Rowe (2010) provided a baseline to identify strengths and weaknesses of leadership professionals and their knowledge and understanding of their organization. Extension leaders have played an important role in the proces s of managing organizational knowledge. Leaders have provided vision, motivation, systems and structures at all levels of the organization to encourage organizational knowledge us effort on the part of leaders at all levels of the organization to manage three key computing, while Steve Jobs with Apple succeeded as a visionary leader. Bryant (2003) found that managers can make their organizations stronger by managing organizational knowledge effectively. Owen (2004) found that Extension directors in North Carolina

PAGE 40

40 p erceived knowledge of organizational structure as a critical development need in the early careers of being a county Extension director. Environment and culture skills tang ible things that can be found around an organization: the mission statement, the way an office is set up and decorated, official and unofficial signs, the stories people tell, cultures, systems and structures that foster knowledge creation, sharing and cultivation. The inner environment and the culture of an organization can affect the learning process as well as the leadership. Vera and Crossan (2004) examined the relationsh ip of leaders to the organizational environment and found that charismatic leaders are more likely to create a culture that inspires and encourages their staff. When leaders model encouragement within the organization, others follow their example, and the organization then develops a reputation for being a place where people enjoy working (Kouzes and Posner, 2002). Leaders should encourage workers to share their ideas and knowledge by creating a climate that is receptive to new ideas (Bryant, 2003). Carter needs to be generated in an organization where the members feel that they are heard, stated that the goals of an organization help to shape the organizational leaders, as do the context, norms, and values of the organization and determine the effectiveness of a group. County Extension directors have been the grassroots leadership level of Extension have play ed a critical role in supporting and d eveloping an environment and culture that Extension agents and stakeholders feel comfortable with at the county level.

PAGE 41

41 Summary This chapter provided a review of the pertinent literature related to the research problem of this study. A theoretical framework was presented, based on the systems approach to competency development (Stone, 1997). The conceptual model of the study was adapted from Moore and Rudd (2004). This conceptual model contained both human and conceptual sk ills and subsets skills for each. S ubskills in the human skills area were coaching, communication, and emotional intelligence. S ubskills in the conceptual skills area were vision, organizational knowledge, and culture and environment. The related research focused on the theory and importance of leadership skills and competencies of Florida county Extension directors. This research provided support for the major tenets of the Florida CED leadership competency model. These studies provided evidence t hat a systems approach model can serve as the basis conceptual framework of this study. The reviewed studies suggested that human and conceptual skills and their components are a basis for leadership competencies. Although the literature cited in this stud y provided a basis for identifying the needed leadership competencies of CEDs, no comprehensive research has established consensus on these elements.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2 1. Conceptual f ramework for the study of leadership is presented by Moore & Rudd (2004).

PAGE 43

43 Figure 2 2 A Conceptual Model for the Development of Florida CED Leadership Competencies (Adapted from Moore & Rudd, 2004; Goleman, 1998; and Katz (1955)

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLG Y Chapter 1 provided an introduction and the background of this study relating to the leadership competencies and needs as perceived by County and District Extension directors in Florida. An overview of the methodology used in this study and limitations of the study are outlined in this chapter. A thorough review of relevant literature was provided in Chapter 2. This literature focused on areas which included human leadership skills and conceptual leadership skills. These two broad skills were further div ided into sub skills, which included coaching, communication, emotional intelligence, vision, organizational knowledge, and environment and culture. This chapter explains the methodology and data analysis used in this study. The objectives identified for the study were to: (1) to identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district directors, (2) to identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by county administrators (3) To determine the level of importance of CED leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators, CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge and proficiency, and county importance, knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CED and and (4) to determine the relative need for additional training for each CED leadership competency as perceived by CEDs and county administ rators In this chapter the research design, population, procedures used for data collection, and the statistics used to analyze the data are described.

PAGE 45

45 Subjectivity Statement According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), research ers are never separate from their stud ies Therefore, researcher s must explain personal perspectives that may influence the research or study. There are multiple factors that a researcher may bring to the study that can influence a study including personal background, experiences, or edu cation. This researcher is a sixth generation Floridian, growing up on a citrus and cattle operation. Growing up in Florida, I was very involved in the Florida 4 H program showing cattle. After graduating with a b d egree from the University of Florida in Animal Science and Agricultural Extension and Education, I went to work for a pure bred Angus operation in Florida and became the ranch manager. After about three years, I pursued my teaching degree and taught v ocational a griculture for about f ive years. After getting married I worked as a processing supervisor for Sunnyland, Inc in Thomasville, Georgia. When approached about an Extension position as a livestock agent in Alachua County, Florida, my interest in education was spurred again. I b egan my Florida Extension career 13 years ago as a livestock agent. Following the 1940s. Therefore, Florida Extension runs deep in my roots. In December 2005, I receive d my m d egree in Agricultural Education and Communication from the University of Florida. In 2007, I was offered the opportunity to become the UF/IFAS Alachua County Extension Director. Throughout my career, I have always held leadership positions or roles. Whether F arm B ureau board, supervising ranch workers, supervising 25 workers on the processing line, serving as

PAGE 46

46 the voca tional department chair while teaching, or as a county Extension director, my leadership experie nce has evolved over the years. Today, as the county Extension director, I rely on my leadership skills and competencies every day in dealing with the day to d ay issues with both county and UF/IFAS policies and procedures. These experien ces led me to pursue my doctoral degree in agricultural education and communication at the University of Florida, with an emphasis in Extension administration and leadership. As a full time faculty, I have worked for the past five years to fulfill my degree requirements. With a strong interest in Florida a griculture, Florida Extension, and leadership I decided to study Extension leadership with an emphasis on the leadership com petencies perceiv ed by county Extension director s in Florida. I am a firm believer in education and th e training and education of our Extension agents, particularly the county Extension directors as it relates to leadership skills. Through training and education in the leadership competencies needed by county Extension directors, UF/IFAS can strengthen the leadership within Extension, as well as within our county partnerships. Research Design The research design included both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The advantages of using mixed methods have been widely discussed in the uncertainty of scientific knowledge especially about complex, multipl e determin ed, dynamic social phenomena can be better addressed through the multiple perspectives combining methods in an evaluation study is that the results may represent several

PAGE 47

47 colle ction methods which make them valuable for stakeholders (Greene, et at. 2001) Data in this study were collected through focus groups semi structured interviews, and an electronic questionnaire. Quantitative and qualitative research methods share common ground (Glassford, 1987). In quantitative research more control and objectivity can be exercised, therefore following the scientific method more closely. Both methods seek to discover truth and new ideas. Both qualitative and quantitative research follow an orderly, systematic plan or research design. Quantitative research methods cannot address the full range of problems in the behavioral sciences due to complete control and objectivity, and the data gathering instruments do not answer all the questions of behavioral scientists. Qualitative Research Qualitative research is descriptive, personal, interpretive, and naturalistic. According to Glaser and Straus (1967), qualitative research is designed to develop theory. Qualitative research is usually an in depth study of society or a certain phenomena that takes time. The method used for qualitative research is exploratory or bottom up; the researcher generates a new theory or hypothesis from the data collected. This research is used to understand and inter pret social interactions. The data collected might include transcriptions of interviews, case studies, words, images, personal experience, life stories, observations, or objects that describe moments and Therefore, open ende d responses, interviews, observations, or field notes are the tools for the data collection Many times in qualitative research, the researcher and his/her biases may be known to participants, as the researchers themselves may be a participant within the r esearch. The findings are narrative in nature with contextual description and direct quotations from participants.

PAGE 48

48 There are certain assumptions researchers make when conducting qualitative research. The first assumption is ontology, which includes the res towards the nature of reality. Qualitative research assumes multiple realities and subjectivity as seen by participants in the study. The second assumption is epistemology or the knowledge of what the researcher knows, and the relationship between the researcher and what is being researched (Creswell, 2007, p.17). The third assumption is the notion of values in the research. Qualitative research includes the views of the researcher and allows an open study that may include personal values and biases (Creswell, 2007, p.18). The final assumption of qualitative research as identified by Creswell (2007) is methodology. Creswell (2007) stated the methods of qualitative ecting and analyzing the data. Validity and reliability are also concerns of qualitative research. Ways to control error in qualitative research include internal and external validity; construct validity, objectivity, and reliability measures. Validity is a concern with qualitative research using data collection sources such as interviews and observations. In addition, controlling the reliability of qualitative research is an issue; records of interviews and observations have to be kept, and data gathering procedures must be reliable in order to be replicated. Another issue with qualitative research is that the sample size is usually small not random, and rarely representative of the entire population (Hatch, 2002). Instead, purposive samples are chosen ba of participants (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For qualitative research, reliability is the extent to which a measuring device is consistent in measuring whatever it measures.

PAGE 49

49 The most important indicator of validity in qualitative research is the presence of the internal consistency that is achieved where there is a clear connection between the purpose of the study, the theoretical framework, the methods used to carry out the study, and the results (Gubrium and Koro L junberg, 2005). Lincon and Guba (1981) internal validity, transferability in place of external validity, dependability in place of reliability, and confirmability in p Credibility refers to the truthfulness of the findings Credibility can be established with triangulation (use of multiple sources of data or methods), member checking, peer/colleague examination, researcher subjectivity state ments, and submersion in the research (Merriam, 1995). Dependability or trustworthiness refers to the consistency of the findings over multiple studies Peer review can also be used in qualitative research to enhance both the credibility and the confirmab ility of the findings (Lincoln and Guba, To address trustworthiness, code recoding, inter rater comparisons, and methods of triangulation can be used (Merriam, 1995; Ary, et al., 2006). Transferability relates to the extent the findings can be applie d to other situations. multi stage designs using several sites, cases and model comparisons to the majority are strategies used for transferability (Merriam, 1995, Ary, et al., 2006). To address credibility, trustworthiness, and confirmability with the focus groups and interviews, the moderator reviewed with the participants what was said to ensure accuracy in the responses. This review process is termed member checking (Lincoln

PAGE 50

50 and Guba, 1985). To determine the dependability of the study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), the entire research process and methods were systematically documented. Credibility, transferability, dependability, a nd confirmability measures were addressed throughout the analysis and coding process. Quantitative Research The quantitative segment of this study ha d its ontological roots in realism, and adhere d to the theoretical perspective of positiv ism (Crotty, 200 4). This approach assumes that a truth exists, and th at truth is embedded in the object of the study and can be determined through the process of the scientific method. Quantitative research involves objective measurements, standardized instruments, and a numerical analysis of data to explain a phenomenon (Ary et al., 2006). Quantitative research is based on numbers and statistics with precise measurements using structured and validated data collection instruments. Descriptive survey research was used for t his research, and the four types of validity described by Cronbach (1971) were addressed in the study. Ary et al., (2007) defined validity as the extent to which a survey instrument measures what it is intended to measure. A measure of validity describes h ow well an instrument measures what it was designed to measure (Ary et al., 2006). The reliability and validity of the instruments are important to consider in utilizing survey instruments. This reliability can be measured for the quantitative data using s tatistical software. To minimize measurement error, careful consideration was taken with the layout and design of the questionnaire, as well as the wording of questions (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian, 2009). In an effort to improve the validity of the ins truments, a panel of experts reviewed the instrument. The researcher applied feedback from the panel of experts and made appropriate revisions to the survey instrument.

PAGE 51

51 The threat of instrumentation occurs when an instrument does not measure consistently throughout the course of an experiment (Ary et al., 2006). To address this threat, a panel of experts was used to pilot test the questionnaire to establish face and content validity. Black (1999) described pilot testing as a form of pre testing in which su bjects from the population are given the instrument and asked to provide feedback to determine if the survey instrument is measuring what it is supposed to measure. Internal in the questionnaire was, in fact measuring what it claimed to measure. The total number of county Extension directors who responded were to the survey was 60 (95%) and the total number of county administrators responding was 33 (55%). The researcher cho se to eliminate data for all cases that were missing data for perceived importance, perceived knowledge, perceived competence and those that failed to answer demographic questions. Therefore, incomplete or missing data included eleven questionnaires from t and fourteen from the county administrator s Complete questionnaires were available for 49 county Extension directors ( 78% ), and 17 county administrators ( 28 % ). Several follow up reminders to participants were included in an email to reduce non response error. After eliminating those with incomplete data, the researcher addressed non response error, a comparison of early to late respondents was conducted on the entire sample group for county Extension directors (n= 60 ), and for the county administrators (n= 33 ). Studies and research have shown that non respondents are often similar to late respondents (Ary et al., 2006). There was no significant

PAGE 52

52 difference between early and late respondents based on key variables on the average l eadership competency importance, knowledge, and proficiency and on demographics Population The populations of interest for this study were Florida district Extension directors Florida county Extension directors and Florida county administrators or managers A census was used for the survey instrument, and sixty three CEDs were sent the questionnaire. Two focus groups were conducted in this study. The first focus group included a census of all five Florida district Extension directors, and the second focus group was a purposively selected group of seven Florida CEDs. Patton (2002 ) described a focus group as an interview with a small group of people, usually six to eight people that last from one half hour to two hours. The district directors represe nted the northwest, northeast, central, south central, and south districts of Florida Extension. The second focus group included seven exemplary CEDs, three from rural counties and four from urban counties. CEDs for this focus group were recommended by the district Extension directors. Individual interviews were conducted with two rural and one urban county administrator. Th ose interviews were recommended by the c hairman of the Florida Association of Counties. The questionnaire was e mailed to the full population of sixty three CEDs An up to Although there were sixty seven counties in Florida, three CEDs are multi county, and the researcher eliminated herself as a participant. A census of 6 0 Florida county

PAGE 53

53 administrators was used for the questionnaire. The county administrator e mails were obtained through the Florida Association of Counties website. Instrumentation Three instruments were used for data colle two focus groups is found in Appendix C The interview guide for the three county Appendix D The research on focus groups dated back to 1950s, when Merton used focus groups to ex T he basic principles of focus group methodology have been refined by Patton ( 2002 ). A group can be used to probe the underlying assumptions t hat give rise to particular views directors and CEDs to better understand their perceptions of leadership competencies needed by CEDs. Data derived from the focus groups and interviews provided the foundation for development of the survey instrument found in Appendix F Ary et al., (2006) described a survey as a research technique in which data are gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals or respondents. Su rvey research asks questions about the nature, incidence, or distribution of the variables and/or the relationships among the variables. Based on the content analysis of the focus groups with district directors and CEDs and interviews with county administr ators, a list of forty leadership competencies was identified in the areas of human and conceptual skills These forty competencies were used to develop the survey instrument. The survey instrument for this study was created in and distributed through Qual trics. Qualtrics is survey software that has capabilities for creating and delivering

PAGE 54

54 web based surveys (Qualtrics, 2012). Online surveys have become increasingly more common as more individuals are using new technology and the i nternet (Dillman et. al., 2 009). Data Collection This research project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida (Appendix A) Upon IRB approval, data were collected during the fall 2013 and spring 2014 semester s A copy of the informed consent let ter was signed by the participants (Appendix B ). Participants were al so informed of their rights as research subjects in a cover letter they received explaining the survey and the importance of their participation. group was the first part of the study and provided the foundation for the development of the leadership competencies instrument given to county Extension directors and county administrators Interview questions included their expectations of desired leader ship skills and competencies of county Extension directors and their leadership expectations of county Extension directors. The focus group was led by a moderator conducted on the University of Florida campus, and lasted about ninety minutes. The informat ion provided in this focus group accomplished the first objective of this study. The first focus group with district directors was conducted on October 2, 2013 (See Table 3 1). A second qualitative focus group was used to determine the leadership competen cies as perceived by county Extension directors. This group also provided the foundation for the development of the leadership competencies instrument given to county Extension directors. This focus group was one hour in length, led by a focus group modera tor, and conducted via P olycom with county Extension directors

PAGE 55

55 throughout the state. The second focus group was conducted October 23, 2013 (See Table 3 1). Appendix C ) to conduct the focus group T his focus group was u sed to accomplish the first objective of this study. Three semi structured interviews were conducted by the researcher with county administrators in two rural and one urban count y An interview guide was used by the researcher with several open ended que stions to allow the respondent to respond openly and freely (Appendix D ). The researcher worked individually with each participant to secure a convenient and acceptable meeting time and method of interview. Two interviews were conducted via the telephone, and one interview was face to face. A quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher, based upon findings from the two qualitative focus groups and three interviews and given to all sixty three Florida county Extension directors and sixty county administrators From the content analysis of focus groups and interviews, a list of forty leadership competencies was developed Participants were asked to rate the level of importance, self perceived knowledge level, and self perceived proficiency level of each leadership competency CEDs were asked to rank the importance level of each competency using a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important). CED s were also asked to rank their level of knowledge of each competency u sing a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Little Knowledge) to 5 (High Level of Knowledge). In addition, CED s were asked to rank their competency level using a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Not Competent) to 5 (Very Competent).

PAGE 56

56 This instrument was pilo t tested by a panel of county Extension directors in Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, and North Carolina for content and validity. After pilot testing this instrument and analyzing the data, minor changes were made to the demographics section. This i nstrument was used to accomplish the third and fourth objective s of this study. Descriptive research was used to accomplish objectives one through four. organize, and describe Focus Groups The CED participants were invited to participate with a personal letter from the researcher in advance. This letter explained the purpose and importance of their participation in the focus groups. All participants we re either e mailed an informed consent prior to the session or the informed consent in person. The Appendix C ), which was developed by the researcher and sough t to determine CED leadership competencies and skills as consisted of four parts: (1) welcome/group purpose, (2) group introductions, (3) discussion session, and (4) conclu ding discussion. The discussion session was further divided into categories of questions that related to the leadership competencies of CEDs: (1) opening questions, (2) transition questions, (3) key questions, and (4) ending de was evaluated by a panel of experts for content validity. The focus groups were administered by a moderator and audio recorded. Notes on key comments were taken durin g the process Later all documents were transcribed

PAGE 57

5 7 and analyzed for content. The proc ess of transcription serves as a measure of validity and method of analysis (Mathews, 2010). These documents were organized and formatted in preparation for coding and data analysis. The themes that emerged from the transcriptions of both focus groups were used in the development of the survey instrument. Interviews An interview guide led the semi structured interview s with the three county administrators ( Appendix D ). Interviewees were chosen through a purpos ive sample that includ ed both rural and urban c ounty representation. The researcher worked with the participants in scheduling the interview, whether face to face or via phone Each participant was e mailed an informed consent and asked to return it via email. These interviews took place in the fall o f 2013. The length of the interviews varied from 30 to 45 minutes. At the conclusion of each interview, the researcher briefly reviewed what was said in the interview and asked the respondents if the information was valid. Each interview was recorded and transcribed. In addition, field notes were taken by the researcher during each interview. Survey Instrument The basic survey procedure outlined in Salant and Dillman (2006) guided the development of the survey instrument. The survey procedure was comprised of four separate electronic mailings to both county CEDs and county administrators The first was a personalized notice letter (Appendix G ), which was e mailed to all participants on January 9, 2014 (Table 3 1). This letter, as suggested by Dillm an (2009), was brief, personalized, positively worded, and aimed at building anticipation rather than providing Two separate notice

PAGE 58

58 letters were sent to county Extension directors and coun ty administrators. Dr. Nick Place, UF/IFAS Extension Dean addressed the county administrators in a notice letter ( Appendix H ), and the notice to county Extension directors came from the researcher (Appendix G ). Three days after the pre notice email was se nt, the questionnaire ( Appendix F ) was emailed to participants. The cover letter included critical elements identified by Dillman (2009) to motivate response behavior. These included why this request was useful and important, that answers were confidential participation was voluntary, and who to contact with questions. Exactly one week after the second electronic mailing, a reminder e mail (Appendix I ) was sent to the participants thanking those who had responded to the questionnaire and requesting a respo nse from those who had not yet responded. One week after the third electronic mailing of the survey instrument, a fourth electronic mailing ( Appendix J ) was sent to those who had not responded. This e mail included a personalized letter explaining the im portance of returning the questionnaire, along with the link to the questionnaire. At the time of the initial survey email, each participant was assigned an individual identification number, and all instruments were coded with these identification numbers. As the researcher received the completed instruments, the identification numbers were used to eliminate respondents from future requests. Data Analysis Focus Groups and Interviews w ords spoken by participan (Grudens Schuck, et al., 2004). The focus on language earns focus group methodology

PAGE 59

59 the qualitative label, (Creswell, 1998). The primary data analysis procedure used was comparative analysis. The first step in the analysis of the focus groups and inte rviews was the transcription of the taped recordings of the participants answers to the questions. Both focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by the researcher. Patterns of interrelationships between categories were examined with both focus group transcriptions and interview transcriptions. The objective of the analysis was to determine the relationships, categories and assumptions that informed the respondents view s of the topics discussed (McCracken, 1988). To study the da ta, the researcher separated and sorted the data using qualitative coding. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), coding procedures (1) build rather than test theory; (2) provide researchers with analytic tools for handling data; (3) help researchers con sider alternative meanings to phenomen a ; (4) are systematic and creative; and (5) indentify, develop and relate concepts. Weft QDA was the software used for the qualitative analysis. All text was transcribed and loaded into the program. The data w ere coded and re coded to look for patterns that emerged relating to leadership competencies. The technique of constant comparison was used throughout the analysis process. Glaser and Strauss (1967) described this process as developing conceptual categories and ge neralizing relations among the categories. The transcriptions of the focus groups combined with the interviews developed patterns, which were then organized into themes. The themes found in the responses were subsequently used in the development of the c ompetencies used in the survey instrument given to the sixty

PAGE 60

60 three Florida CEDs and sixty county administrators The information provided by this content analysis was used in objectives one through three. Questionnaire A pilot test of the questionnaire was completed in December of 2013 to tenured professors and the UF/IFAS Dean for Extension, reviewed the instrument for face and content validity prior to the pilot t est. The instrument was piloted with a sample of 12 county Extension directors from five southern states. A response rate of 83 % (n=10) was achieved for the pilot test. Item analysis statistics were run to measure the construct reliability for each construct scale using SPSS 22.0. A reliability coefficient of .80 or higher in the social sciences indicates that the construct is me asuring what it intends to measure (Norcini,1999;Traub, 1994). The 40 item leadership competencies for importance had a reliability coefficient of .96, knowledge had a reliability coefficient of .94, and competence had a reliability coefficient of .87. T h e data analysis of the survey instrument was used to explain and predict the perceived importance level of knowledge, and profieciency of the determined leadership competencies by CEDs, as well as the relative needs the CEDs posse s s ed in the leadership sk ills area. A Likert type scale was used, which assess es attitudes towards a topic by presenting a set of statements about the topic and asking the respondents to indicate whether they strongly agree, agree, are undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree (Ar y, et.al., 2006). Once the survey data were collected, each possible answer was assigned a particular code. Answers to Likert type questions were positive answer. Questio

PAGE 61

61 Descriptive statistics were compiled and analyzed to determine patterns in the data and assess the demographics of the respondents. The demographic information collected from the survey was used to accomplish objectives thre e and four. T o avoid problems with missing data, values were imputed using the Missing Value function of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Independent variables included gender, ethnicity, age, education, years in position, years of previous leadership experience, type of county, percentage of admini strative assignment, primary program area, years in Extension before becoming a CED, number of faculty supervising number of full time employees, and number of program assistants Selected independent variables were used with other data as predictors of Florida CED perceptions of leadership competencies. The dependent variables included the importance of leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and DEDs, the perceived knowledge level of the leadership competencies, and the proficiency level of the lea dership competencies Quantitative data w ere analyzed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows. Standard statistical analysis was performed to calculate the measures of central tendency includ ing mean, mode, frequency, and percentage for each leadership competency. The categorical variables were subjected to frequency analyses. The mean, frequency, and percentage were calculated for the perceived importance level of knowledge, and the proficiency level of the leadership competencies as well as a summated importance

PAGE 62

62 knowledge, and proficiency levels for each set of competencies (human and conceptual). The Borich (1980) needs assessment model was used to determine the relative need for each leade rship competency by CEDs. This calculation used to accomplish the fourt h objective of this study. Borich (1980) developed an approach to conducting educational needs based upon a discrepancy model, whereby the needs are weighted self evaluative a particular topic, individuals will learn the actual need for further education or programming efforts (Waters and Haskell, 1989). The mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS) was used to rank the need for further training for each leadership competency. Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score (MWDS) = [ M Importance Rating (Importance Knowledge Rating)] / Number of Observations Where ( M ) importance rating equals the mean importance rating, (I) is the importance rating, (K) is the knowledge rating, and ( n ) equals the number of observations. The higher the weighted mean discrepancy score th e greater the need for futur e training in this competency The discrepancy score was calculated by comparing the 1 980). product moment correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to determine the direction and strength of the relationship between the continuous and dichotomous

PAGE 63

63 independent variables. Pearson r was calculated to determine the relationship betw een the independent variables and each of the summated scor es for each set of competencies When two variables are highly related in a positive way, the correlation between them approaches +1.00, and when they are highly related in a negative way, the corr elation approaches 1.00 W hen there is little relation between variables, the correlation will be near 0 (Ary, et al., 2006). Multiple regression is a correlational procedure that describes how the mean of the response variable changes according to the value of the explanatory variables (Ary, et al., 2006). Most statistical tests rely upon certain assumptions about the variables used in the analysis. For the multiple regression analysis the following assumptions were met: variables were normally distrib uted, a normal linear relationship was found between the independent and dependent variables, and variables were measured without error using reliability estimates ( see Cronbach alpha values ). Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the percen t of variance in the importance knowledge, and proficiency of the leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs that could be explained by the linear combination of inde pendent variables. Summary This chapter explained the research design and methodology u sed to accomplish the stated objectives. An overview of both qualitative and quantitative research foundations was provided. Research objectives, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis procedures were outlined in the me thodology section. Data analysis included descriptive statistics. The mean, frequency, and percentages were calculated for each leadership competency, as well as a summated score for each set of leadership competencies. In addition, the Borich

PAGE 64

64 model was u sed to determine the highest needs for additional training among the list of leadership competencies. Multiple regression was used to determine the amount of variance in proficiency and importance explained by the combination of selected independent variab les. Results of the study will be presented in the next chapter. Table 3 1 Timeline for data collection Focus Group #1 District Directors Focus Group #2 CEDs Survey Instrument 63 CEDs & 60 County Administrators October 2, 2013 October 23, 2013 January 13, 2014

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Th e purpose of this study was to determine the perceived leadership competencies and needs of Florida county Extension directors. Chapter one provided the background to this study, the problem statement, significance of this study, definitions of key terms and limitations of the study. The following objectives were developed to guide this study. 1. To identify the leadership competenci es needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district directors. 2. To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by county administrators. 3. To identify the level of importance of CED leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators, CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge, and proficiency perceptions of leadership competency importance, know ledge, and proficiency levels needed by CEDs. 4. To determine the relative need for additional training for each CED leadership competency based on the perceptions of CEDs and county administrators Chapter two provided the theoretical framework for this stud y. This framework focused on the systems approach to competency development (Stone, 1997) which guided this research. The conceptual model for this research study was adapted from Moore and Rudd (2004), Goleman (1998), and Katz (1955). This model divides leadership competencies into human and conceptual skills and then further divides these into three subskills (Figure 2 2). The research methodology used in this study was described in Chapter three. The research design, population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis were described.

PAGE 66

66 This chapter will present the findings of the study, which are organized in order of the research objectives. The research included three data collection instruments and the focus groups and interviews which p rovided the foundation for the questionnaire. Demographics for F ocus G roups Focus group participants were comprised of a purposive sample of seven CEDs and the five Florida DEDs. These members held degrees. The CED focus group represented both rural and urban counties. Three of the CED participants ha d over twenty years of Extension experience, and the other four CED participants held from five to twenty years of Extension experience. The five DEDs represent ed the five Extension districts in Florida. Objective One Objective 1: To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district direc tors. Data collected from the focus groups and interviews were used to achieve the first objective of this research. Focus Groups The first focus group with DEDs was held on October 2, 2013. The second focus group was held on October 23, 2013. The transcr iptions from each focus group underwent content analysis using Weft QDA. The content was recorded by each question and all responses were combined. Two major theme areas emerged from the analysis of both focus groups transcriptions human and conceptual sk ills. Both groups were asked to define leadership competencies. Some of the definitions of leadership competencies included, a skill that is needed or required as a leader and that leader is competent in it. So, a competency is simply something that we

PAGE 67

67 w ould expect a leader to have and to do well, or develop. A DED provided the following definition of a leadership competency like having the tools necessary, t hey are the Hu man s kills The competencies found in the human skills theme area included skills related to communication, mentoring, listening, relationships, and interpersonal skills. Both focus groups referred to these human skills as the people skills needed for a CED. A complete list of human skills competencies that were developed from the responses of both focus groups can be found in Appendix E Both focus groups deemed communica tion and listening skills as highly important for CEDs Participants were asked what leadership traits are required of CEDs, and both groups immediately responded that communication is number one. As one both DEDs and CEDs stated how important communication is for CEDs. Both focus groups expressed the importance of communication with staff, county government, direct supervisor s (UF or county), and Extension clientele. A C ED described communication as c ommunication within the office and figuring out what is going on and partnering. Being in touch with the community and making sure the community t he CED must have th e ability to communicate effectively with the staff and faculty members and be able to sometimes pull out what their real concern is, if an issue arises A ll that goes back to the listening skills. Communication skills were described in the CED focus grou communication skills; you know, speaking and writing, using technology . those are very important

PAGE 68

68 skills to look for in this type of job. included oral and writ ten communication skills A CED state mentoring is an important role in terms of helping to guide not only programmatic efforts but also, you know, develop the skills of the individuals in the office and help develop those. coaching skills we is, can the office go on without having the CED mentor anybody? Well, there are some offices that everybody has everybody is not . or nobody has permanent status, then that is not okay The DED focus groups also expressed that mentoring falls under the important duties of the CED. One participant stated th biggest challenge is leading by example, modeling what is excellence in Extension, but also training the people, coaching the people with respect . Each focus group expressed that relationship building is a huge task for CEDs. Fo lks who engage and build relationships with the county government and county commissioners s o, engagement is huge in terms of needs assessment of what the counties are looking fo r A strong emphasis was expressed by a DED on one . the large portion of the criteria that I am looking for is relationship building. Anything that has to do with that, like people ski lls and relationship building, i t is so important in the job that . especially doing as a CED. I t is number one criteria to me Both groups emphasized the importance of building

PAGE 69

69 relationships and maintain ing very good connections with the county government, with stakeholders. Empathy, trust, and honesty were interpersonal skills that were suggested by both focus groups as being important CED leadership trait. Several responses by The trait I am thinking about is trustworthiness and many agreed A nother CED remarked, I thought about some different ways that we build that, one is honesty, being honest with our team members, watching the way that we talk about people . whether it is the way we as CEDs talk about our administration, or others in the office, because if person in a positive light, they could be concerned about how we are talking about them behind their back as well. In agreement another CED commented, being open in our communication, being as open with people with praise as we are when we have criticism so that they can trust us when we are coming to them with something that may need improvement or, you know, something that we would like to see them doing differently In addition the CEDs agreed other traits that Another interpersonal skill that was mentioned was that a CED is a peacemaker. When we talk about being able to treat people fairly, I have found that treating people fairl everybody gets approached exactly a certain way . the same way and that also plays into the way that people in the office are dealing with one another. So, anyway . just kind of setting the tone of peace and I think that setting the example for how people deal with one another b y the way that I deal with them

PAGE 70

70 Conceptual s kills Conceptual skills that were deemed highly important by both focus groups included management of resources, liaison between county government and UF/IFAS Extension, marketing of Extension, visioning, expertise in a program, management of the office, local c lientele involvement, and providing a working environment A complete list of conceptual skills developed from the responses of both focus groups can be found in Appendix E The CED and DED focus groups expressed the importance of resource and budget mana There was also discussion in the DED group that although CED s may not be in charge of allocating funds, they do have to oversee and manage F Dade, somebody else may be doing the function of the budget, but she better know the must to spend twenty percent on that. We need to spend thirty percent on that. We need to One of the first important roles of the CED brought up in the CED focus group was managing the county budget. One I know budget was mentioned, but has the overall progra m grow n . leading the program growth? By that I mean, incorporating all these things that you were talking about . the evaluation processes, mentoring the faculty, providing the resources for everyone to succeed . be it through equipment for ev eryone, new equipment, expanding programming . unless you are . but all of that goes i n, in one Another skill related to resource management only raise money, but also requesting funds and, because

PAGE 71

71 get budgets the entire year and you have got to be strategic in when you do that. And e look towards the c ounty d The idea of CEDs being a liaison between county government and UF/IFAS Extension was brought up in discussion many times. There was a strong notion that the liaison role was very important. In addition, the liaison role also was also seen as important between the CED and the Extension clientele There is this relationship that you build with county government of your relationship with the University of Florida administration . um, your local stakeholders, your advisory group. So, it is really maintaining all those relationships on We serve as a liaison between the county government and the office in terms of programs and that kind of thing The liaison was described as Marketing wa s a leadership competency that was discussed in both groups. Both groups agreed that this competency is needed now more than ever, due to d eclining budgets a presence at the table be ing visible in the community showing up at social events where people see you and that will go The idea of a CED being a visionary and taking risks was discussed in both They need to be a strategic person, a future thinker, look ahe ad a person

PAGE 72

72 A CED commented that an having a vision, having the big vision kind of up f ront and keeping that vision in front of the team and helping team members to keep connecting into especially since we are so diverse in Extension with our program areas so being able t o keep connecting people back to that big vision of who we are at the county level. Both focus groups discussed the fact that CEDs are not just administrative leaders, but also have an Extension programmatic role as well. A CED commented, But we have our own program responsibility, too. And so one of the things that is really key is time management because to do the director role well, you have got to be free and open to help your people. But to do your program with excellence, you have got to have some f ocus. So, that is one of the real juggling acts is to do both, be a leader administrator and have your own program that is strong. you have got to be the educational leader for the whole office and you have got a program yourself, too DEDs di scussed the programmatic efforts of the lack of succession within the organization that the good expert or programmatic Exte nsion agent may not always be the best at leadership. CEDs also disc ussed the importance of having leadership experience

PAGE 73

73 The subject of management versus leadersh ip was heard from both groups. DEDs skills, managing of the budget and people well; these are all managerial, but still, you red to leadership and management. The DEDs believe d either a manager with some balance of it and then in the leadership area, especially they need to understand that they are the leader of not only thei O A DEDs stated that when CEDs Grassroots involvement seemed very i mportant for both focus groups. A DED stated that has created a very positive work environment, is respected by people in the community, and contributes significantly through advisory Another DED commented CEDs expressed the importance of building relationships not only with local government, but your local stak eholders, your ad visory group. So, it is really maintaining all those relationships on a daily ba exemplary County Extension Director elicit s respect from their staff and faculty, that they promote success within the workplace. That they create a positive work he work environment for everybody

PAGE 74

74 wh CEDs mentioned that a leader must create an the CED s talked about their responsibilities to create a working environment my job is to help serve them and make their jobs easier and to help them get the resources that they need to get to do their job, and to do it well. said to be eading people down that path and asking those questions of w hy are we doing it this way, is there a way to do it better? So, I think we kind of need to be that person to en up that Summary for O bjectiv e O ne From the d ata : human skills and conceptual skills Data from the focus groups w ere then combined with data with qualitative data from objective two to create the list of competencies that w as used in the survey instrument. Objective Two Objective two: To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by county adminis trators. Interviews Data collected from the three county administrator interviews were used to achieve the second objective of this research. County administrators from three counties participated in interview s conducted by the researcher. Two interviews were conducted via telephone and one interview was conducted in person The researcher used an interview guide (Appendix D) to conduct the interviews and to determine the

PAGE 75

75 perceptions of leadership competencies needed by county Extension directors. The responses from each of the interviews underwent content analysis using WEFT QDA software. E ighteen competencies (Appendix E) in two theme areas emerged: human skills a nd conceptual skills. Questions during the interview wer e not separated into these two areas, but the responses given by the interview participants were easily categorized into these theme areas. Competencies were eliminated if they were repetitive with the focus group findings. Participants in the interview w ere asked to describe an exemplary leader. One administrator replied, I think an exemplary leader is a servant leader, someone who understands that part of their role, besides sitting in that position in the organization, is to facilitate the growth of the organization and the individuals who work for them, be a mentor. personality, and believes in the organization H involved in the community Human s kills The people skills that the participants referred to included communicat ion, listening, honesty, and respect. Communication was the first answer in all three interviews when asked to discuss some leadership competencies necessary for county Y be decided upon in the community make a judgment.

PAGE 76

76 re not going to meet or exceed. And I think you want somebody who is ever hungry for growth and knowledge within their Honesty was discussed in all three interviews and was deemed to be an important human leadership skill. As one participant s gravitas, he was seen as open, very candid. I thi nk those are kind of cohorts of honesty Another administrator described an exemplary leader as, O when he tells you something you have comfort and a security level associated strongly with the truth. In addition, the discussion of the importance of honesty was strong when an administrat or Respect was also a leadership competency that seemed important to the county they see how this person interacts with the community and its a mutua Related to respect, participants talked about a leader that was loyal and displayed and loyalty is critical and loyalty to the organization and to individuals within the organization, realizing t hat loyalty is framed

PAGE 77

77 admiration or love for a leader than they will ever do out of f ear and intimidation or Conceptual s kills whole The participants in the interviews identified several conceptual skills that were also identified in the focus gro ups. Some of the conceptual skills identified by the county administrators included visionary, community involvement, and organization al needs have a vision for the organ Another commented Included with vision, a participant state d hungry for growth and kn owledge within their determine what the community or your immediate supervisors think you should be Community involve ment and understanding the needs of the clientele w ere important to the county administrators, K nowing their community and willing to get outside of their comfort level to look beyond the normal skill set they come in with or their normal expectations and seeking community input as to how you should grow or change the organization. of course,

PAGE 78

78 One participant expressed ds The organizational knowledge of both county and UF/IFAS was discussed in all three interviews. As stated a county Extension director is, S commission and the county administrator and how you perform your responsibilities, but you also have to un instructor and I guess as an assistant professor level position b y IFAS and the University of Florida. educational body, the corpus of knowledge, of the university into the community, but I H ow do I One participant explained that, ht up in processes instead of really looking lot of times you have to move an organization slowly to achieve what you want to given the culture and the climate within the Another comment match up between IFAS and the counties. I think that it would be helpful if county administrators were asked to provide input into the evaluations of dire Summary for O bjective T wo From the qualitative interviews with county administrators two theme areas emerged : human skills and conceptual skills From these interviews, data w ere

PAGE 79

79 combined with the previous focus groups of district Extension directo rs and county Extension directors. These competencies were then used in the survey instrument emailed to both county Extension directors and county administrators. Objective Three Objective three: To determine the level of importance of CED leadership comp etencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators, CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge, and proficiency, and county and proficiency levels nee ded by CEDs. D ata from the focus groups and interviews resulted in a list of forty competencies that were used in the survey (Appendix E). Literature reviewed in C hapter T wo also supported the identified competencies of human skills and conceptual skills. The competencies were divided into three sections: level of importance, knowledge level, and proficiency level. A Likert type scale for each section was used and participant s were asked to rank level of importance of each competency with 1=not important t o 5=very important. They were asked to rank level of knowledge for each competency with 1=little knowledge to 5=high level of knowledge. Finally they were asked to rank level of competence or proficiency for each with 1=not competent to 5=very competent. T he researcher chose to eliminate cases with missing data for perceived importance, perceived knowledge, perceived proficiency and all dem ographic questions. Therefore, incomplete or missing data included questionnaires from 14 county Extension directors a nd 13 county administrators A total of forty nine county Extension directors completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 78%. A total of seventeen county administrators completed the survey, with a 28 % response rate.

PAGE 80

80 Demographics of CEDs The entire p opulation of sixty three county Extension directors was emailed the questionnaire (Appendix F). An up to date listing of CEDs was obtained from the Table 4 1 provides information on the age, ethnicity, and gender of the c ounty Extension director s Of the forty nine respondents, 14.3% were between the ages of 30 40, 12 2% fell between 41 50, 53.1% were between 51 60, and 20.4% were older than 60. Of those CEDs participating, 51 were male and 49 were female. With regard to e thnicity, 91.8% of respondents were White, 6.1% African American, and 2% were Asian. Table 4 2 provides the years of leadership experience for CEDs. The average number of years as a CED was 10.2 years. The average number of years in Extension before becomi ng a CED was 3.1 years, and the years of previous leadership experience was 4.5 years. Table 4 3 provides the mean percentage of CED leadership responsibilit ies : 34.55% was reported as formally assigned to the CED role, and 53.94% was reported as actually expended to the CED role. Urban counties represented 61.2% of the CEDs, and the rural counties represented 38.8% of the CEDs (Table 4 4). The primary Extension program area for CEDs was agriculture at 46.9%, with family and consumer science next at 22.4% (Table 4 5) T he University of Florida require d at least CEDs, and 12.2% of the respondents held a doctoral degree. Descriptive analysis for CEDs Using SPSS 22.0 for Windows measures of central tendency including mean, mode frequency, and percentage were calculated for each leadership competency. The

PAGE 81

81 categorical variables were subjected to frequency analyses. M ean, frequency, and percentage were calculated for the perceived importance level of knowledge, and the proficiency level of the leadership competencies S ummated importance, knowledge, and proficiency sco re was also calculated for each set of competencies. The first section of the questionnaire was comprised of the forty competencies and participants were asked to ra nk the perceived importance of each. T he overall mean for importance for the set of 40 leadership competencies was 4.4 2 The c ompetency with the highest mean L was the next highest The following scale was used to interpret the mean scores for importance: 1.00 1.49 ( not impo rtant ) 1.50 2.49 ( little importance ) 2.50 3.49 ( somewhat important ) 3.50 4.49 ( important ) and 4.50 5.00 ( very important ) CEDs rated all but one of the 40 competencies as important or very important and 15 of the 40 competencies were rated by CEDs as very important. The next table (Table 4 8) represents the CEDs perceived kno wledge level of the forty competencies. Th e overall mean for CED self perceived knowledge level was 3.94 The highest knowled The following scale was used to interpret the mean scores for knowledge: 1.00 1.49 (little know ledge), 1.50 2.49 ( some knowledge) 2.50 3.49 ( moderate knowledge ), 3.50 4.49 ( substantial knowledge ), and 4.50 5.00 ( high

PAGE 82

82 level of knowledge ). CEDs rated their knowledge of all but four of the 40 competencies as substantial or high level of knowledge. The final competency ra t ing was based on CED self perceived proficiency level for each of the forty competencies (Table 4 9). The overall mean for proficiency was 3. 98 The highest level of proficiency was assigned to (M=4. 67, SD=.52) and the lowest level of proficiency was for The following scale was used to interpret the mean scores for proficiency: 1.00 1.49 (not competent), 1.50 2.49 (little competence) 2.50 3.49 (somewhat competent), 3.50 4.49 (competent), and 4.50 5.00 (very competent). CEDs rated themselves as competent or very competent for all but three of the 40 competencies A mean summated score was calculated for perceived importance, knowledg e, and proficiency levels (Table 4 10). The mean summated score for importance (M= 176.69, SD=12.70 ) w as greater than the mean summated score for self perceived knowledge and self perceived proficiency The mean summated score for proficiency (M=159.57, SD=14.51) was greater than the overall mean summated scores for knowledge (M= 157.94, SD=17.87 ) These scores were used in the correlation and regression analys e s. Table 4 11 provides the correlation matrix for te n independent variables. The co nvention presented by Davis (197 1 ) was used to interpret the magnitude of the correlation coefficients. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the ten independent variables and the three dependent variables. T he summated me an score for perceived level of competence and the summated mean

PAGE 83

83 score for perceived knowledge level had the strongest correlat ion (r=. 86 p<.05). The correlation value indicated a high, positive relationship between perceived knowledge level and perceived proficienc y level. Thus, as perceived knowledge level increased, perceived proficiency level had a strong tendency to also increase. A low, positi ve relationship was found between perceived competency importance and self perceived knowledge ( r= .35 p<.05) as well as the self perceived proficiency (r=.29, p<.05). T he number of full time program assistan ts was substantially and positively correlated with the number of agents (r=. 62 p<.05) T he number of employees under the direct supervision of the CED and the number of full time Extension agents (r=.75, p<.05) w ere highly positively correlated Further a high, positive correlation w as found between the percent age of time formally assigned to the CED role and the percent age of time actually expended in the CED role (r=.77, p<.05). In addition, the percent age of time formally assigned to the CED role and the number of Extension agents was highl y positively correlated (r=.72, p<.05), as well as the percent age of time actually expended and the number of Extension agents (r=.74, p<.05) in the county office. Furthermore, a moderate positive relationship was found between the number of employees and the number of program assistants (r=.58, p<.05) The percent time formally assigned to the CED role had a negative substantial relationship with the classification of the county (r= .46, p<.05) and the percent time actually expended to the CED role also had a negative substantial relationship with the classification of the county (r= .44, p<.05). Regression analysis was used to identify the variables that were the greatest predictors for levels of importance, knowledge, and proficiency The independent v ariables in the regression equation for CEDs were percent time formally assigned to

PAGE 84

84 CED role, percent time actually expended to CED role, classification of county, years served as a CED, number of years in Extension before becoming a CED, years of previous leadership experience, number of employees under direct supervision, number of full time agents under direct supervision, number of full time program assistants, and gender. The dependent variables were the mean summated scores for levels of importance, k nowledge, and proficiency Stepwise selection was used for the multiple regression models. Stepwise selection, or backward selection, is a method where each time a predictor is added to the equation, the predictor with the least contribution is eliminated and then the model is recalculated with the remaining predictors (Arey et al. 2007). The first step is to include all predictors in the equation and calculat e the contribution of each variable The first variable to consider is the one with the largest ab solute value of the Pearson correlation (r). Other factors that are important in the regression model were the value of squared, adjusted R squared, degrees of freedom (df) and the t statistic. he change in y corresponding to a unit change in x would make the greatest contribution for explaining the dependent variable when all other variables in the model are controlled (Freund and Wilson, 2003). The R squared value is the percentage of variation in response (Y) explained by the predictive power of all the explanatory variables in the model. The adjusted R square value is used when a small sample is used. Both R squared and adj usted R squared variables are reported as a decimal and interpreted as a percentage. The t

PAGE 85

85 statistic indicates whether there is a statistically difference in the mean scores of the variables that were analyzed (Freund and Wilson, 2003). The three final regression models for predicting the perceived level s of importance, knowledge, and competency are presented in Table 4 12 The predictor thirteen variables that made a significant contribution to the explanation of variance in the perceived importance. The adjusted R 2 value was .11 ( p< .0 5 ) Therefore, this variable explained for 11% of the variance in perceived level of competency importance. The F value of 6.83, whi ch was significant at the .05 level, represents the ratio of the = 36 ) and was statistically significant, which indicate d the standardized regre ssion coefficient made a significant contribution. The adjusted R 2 value (R 2 =. 08 p<.01) indicated how much the variance of the dependent variable (perceived knowledge) was explained by the independent variables entered in the model The F value of 6.97, which was significant at the .05 level represent ed the ratio of the mean squares. was statistically significant For the final regression analysis for perceived proficiency time actually expended in the CED role had an adjust ed R 2 value of .12 T herefore 1 2 % of the variance in the perceived level of proficiency was explained by the model. The F value of 7.47, which was significant at the .05 level, represent ed the ratio of the strength

PAGE 86

86 Demographics of county administrators A census population of sixty county administrators was emailed the questionnaire (Appendix F). An up to date listing of county administrators was obtained from the Florida Association of Counties website. A total of seventeen county administrators completed the survey, with a 28 % response rate. Table 4 15 provides information on the age, ethnicity, and gender of the county administrator participants. Of the seventeen respondents 11.8% were between the ages of 30 40, 29.4% were between 41 50, 29.4% fell between 51 60, and 29.4% were older than 60. Of those county administrators participating, 82.4% were male and 17.6% were female. With regard to ethnicity, 8 2.4% of respondents were White and 17.6% were African American. Table 4 16 provides the years of leadership experience for county administrators. The average number of years as a county administrator was 6.7 ye ars. The average number of years of previous leadership experience before becoming a county administrator was 11.8. The average number of employees for the county administrators was 281 employees. Of the county administrators participating in the study 52 .9% classified their coun ty as rural and 47.1 as urban (Table 4 17) With regard to academic degrees, 23.5% of the participants held a bachelor degree, 64.7% held a masters degree, and 11.8% h eld other professional degrees (Table 4 18) Descriptive analysis for county administrators Using SPSS 22.0 for Windows measures of central tendency including mean, mode frequency, and percentage were calculated for each leadership competency. The

PAGE 87

87 categorical variables were subjected to frequency analyses. M ean, frequency, and percentage were calculated for the perceived importance level of knowledge needed by CEDs and the proficiency level needed by CEDs A mean summated sco re was also calculated for each set of competencies. Like the CED questionnaire, t he first section of the questionnaire was comprised of the forty competencies and participants were asked to indicate their perceived importance of each (Table 4 19) coefficient for this scale was .93 The overall mean for importance for the set of 40 leadership competencies was 4. 42 The competency with the highest mean was having a positive attitude (M=4.92, SD=.24). F air, honest, and trustworthiness 8 SD=. 49 ) had the next highest mean. The competency that received the l owest score for importance rating was 41 SD=. 71 ). The following scale was used to interpret the mean scores for importance: 1.00 1.49 (not important), 1.50 2.49 (little importance), 2.50 3.49 (somewhat important), 3.50 4.49 (important), and 4.50 5.00 (very important). County administrators rated all but one of the 40 competencies as important or very important and 12 of the 40 competencies were rated by county administrators as very important. The next table (Table 4 20) represents the perceptions of the knowledge level needed by f or CEDs for each of forty competencies. The overall mean for knowledge level needed was 4. 17. The three highest rated knowledge competenc relationship building 5 SD= 61 fair, honest, and trustworthiness (M= 4. 65 SD=. 49 ) listeni ng 65 SD= 49 ) Respondents felt the lowest level of knowledge needed by CEDs was for the competency

PAGE 88

88 24 SD=.9 0 ) The following scale was used to interpret the mean scores for knowledge: 1.00 1 .49 (little knowledge), 1.50 2.49 (some knowledge), 2.50 3.49 (moderate knowledge), 3.50 4.49 (substantial knowledge), and 4.50 5.00 (high level of knowledge). County administrators felt that CEDs needed a substantial or high knowledge level for 39 of the 40 competencies The final competency rati ng was the perceptions of the level of proficiency needed by CEDs for each of the 40 competencies (Table 4 21). The overall mean for level of proficiency needed was 4.29 The highest rated for level of perceived proficiency needed was for SD=.44) and the lowest was for (M=3.59, SD=.87). The following scale was used to interpret the mean score s for proficiency: 1.00 1.49 (not competent), 1.50 2.49 (little competence), 2.50 3.49 (somewhat competent), 3.50 4.49 (competent), and 4.50 5.00 (very competent). County administrators felt that CEDs should be competent or very competent in all 40 leaders hip competencies level of importance, knowledge, and proficiency needed by CEDs ( Table 4 22 ) The mean summated score for importance (M= 176.88, SD=10.40 ) w as greater than the me an summated score for perceptions of needed knowledge and proficiency The mean summated score for knowledge level needed by CEDs was 166.94 (SD= 15.52 ) and the mean summated score for needed proficiency was 171.47 (SD= 13.30 ). Table 4 25 provides a correlat ion matrix for five independent variables. The convention presented by Davis (197 1 ) was used to interpret the magnitude of the

PAGE 89

89 Pearson product moment correlation coefficient The mean summated score for level of knowledge needed and the mean summated score for perceived level of importance had the strongest correlation (r=.84, p<.05) The correlation value indicated a high, positive relationship between perceived level of knowledge and the perceived level of importance, indicating that as perceived level of knowledge needed increased, the perceived level of importance also had a strong tendency to increase. A positive, high relationship was found between needed proficiency level and perceived level of knowledge was .7 0 (p<.05) A similar relationship was foun d between the mean summated score for perceived level of i mportance and needed proficiency level (r=.7 0 p<.05) was also positively correlated. Furthermore, a moderate positive relationship was found between t he mean summated score for the level of importa nce and the classification of the county (r=.69, p<.05) This meant that county administrators in urban counties had a strong tendency to assign a higher importance rating to the 40 CED leadership competencies. Regression analysis was used to identify the variables that were the greatest predictors for the levels of importance, knowledge needed and proficiency needed by CEDs The five independent variables that were used as predictors in the regression analysis included classification of county, years ser ved as a county administrator, years of previous leadership experience, number of employees, and gender. Stepwise selection was used as the method for the multiple regression models. Stepwise selection, or backward selection, is a model where each time a p redictor is added to the equation, the predictor with the least contribution is eliminated, and the model is recalculated with the remaining predictors (Arey et al., 2007). The first variable

PAGE 90

90 to consider is the one with the largest absolute value of the Pe arson correlation (r). The other factors that considered in the regression model for county administrat ors were : adjusted R 2 t statistic, Beta value and F value. The three final regression models for the level of competency importance, knowledge needed by CEDs and CED proficiency levels needed as perceived by county administrators are presented in Table 4 25 The variable predictor out of the five variables that made a positive contribution to the explanation of variance in the perceived level of importance The adjusted R 2 value was .43 (p<.05) Therefore this variable explained for 43% of the variance in the perceived level of importance for the 40 competenci es The F value of 12.23, which was significant at the .05 level, represents the ratio of the was statistically significant None of the five independent va riables (classification of county, years served as a county administrator, years of previous leadership experience, number of employees, and gender) made a significant of the CED level of knowledge n eeded by CEDs. For the final regression analysis on county administrators perceptions of the proficiency levels needed by CEDs, adjusted R 2 value of .28 ( p<.05 ) .T herefore 28% of the variance in the perceive d level of competence ratings by county administrators was explained by the population of the county. The F value of 6.95, which was significant at the .05 level, represents the ratio

PAGE 91

91 Objective Four Objective four: To determine the relative need for additional training for each leadership competency as perceived by CEDs and county administrators. For this objective, the Borich needs assessment model (1980) was used to identify the highest priority competencies for additional training for CEDs. A mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS) was calculated for each competency. Th is model (1980) enables res earchers to prioritize leadership competencies so that training needs can be identified. Both the importance/knowledge discrepancy and the importance/ proficiency discrepancy w ere determined. The discrepancy score (DS) was calculated for each participant as t he difference between each rating score [ Discrepancy Score ( DS ) = Importance (score) Knowledge (score) ] or [ Discrepancy Score (DS) = Importance (score) Proficiency (score) ] After the MWDS was calculated for both importance/knowledge and importance/ proficiency each MWD S was ranked highest to lowest. MWD scores were ranked for both CEDs and county administrators based on importance/knowledge ratings and importance/proficiency ratings Using the CED self perceptions of competency importance and knowle dge (Table 4 as the highest professional development need with a MWDS of 4.32. C ounty administrators views of competency importance and CED knowledge needed led to a MWDS of 3.45 for which wa s the highest need competency. professional development needs, using both the CED (MWDS=3.16) and county administrator (MWDS=1.56) data.

PAGE 92

92 The MWDS for importance and proficiency needed by CEDs was also calculat ed for both CEDs and county administrators. For CEDs (Table 4 14) was the highest professional development need among the 40 leadership competencies (MWDS = 4.14) and was the highest professional develop ment need, based on CA data (MWDS = 2.01), (Table 4 27). For both CEDs and self perceptions of proficiency county administrators proficiency needed by CEDs Table 4 28 compares the MWD scores for importance/knowledge, and T able 4 29 compares the scores for importance/ proficiency and county administrators MWD S for both knowledge and proficiency. A positive high correlation was found betwee n the CED MWD S rankings for knowledge and proficiency ( r s =.82 ). A positive high correlation was also found between the county administrator MWD S rankings for knowledge and proficiency ( r s =.60). Using Sp coefficient no relationship was found between the knowledge, MWD scores for CEDs and CAs or the relationship between the MWDS for proficiency for CEDs and CAs.

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 1 Frequency and percentage of respondents (CEDs) by demographics ( n =49) Demographic characteristic f % Age: Less than 30 0 0 30 40 7 14.3 41 50 6 12.2 51 60 26 53.1 More than 60 10 20.4 Ethnicity: White 45 91.8 African American 3 6.1 Asian 1 2.0 Hispanic 0 0 Other 0 0 Gender: Male 25 51.0 Female 24 49.0 Table 4 2 Years of l ead ership experience for CEDs Characteristic n M SD How many years as a CED? 49 10.21 9.75 Years in Extension before becoming a CED? 49 3.18 .95 How many years previous leadership experience? 4 9 4.59 5.94 Table 4 3 Mean percentage of CED l eadership r esponsibility. Characteristic n M SD % Time f ormally a ssigned to CED responsibilities 49 34.55 20.31 % Time a ctually e xpended to CED responsibilities 49 53.94 22.57 Number of full time employees 49 9.86 7.59 Number of full time Extension agents 49 5.20 3.10 Number of full time program assistants 49 1.80 2.25 Table 4 4. Classification of counties ( n =49) Classification of county f % Rural 19 38.8 Urban 30 61.2

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 5 Frequency and percentage of CEDs by p rimary Extension program area ( n =49) Characteristic f % Agriculture 23 46.9 Horticulture 8 16.3 Family Consumer Science 11 22.4 Natural Resources 1 2.0 Sea Grant/Marine 1 2.0 4 H 5 10.2 Table 4 6. CED Highest degree earned ( n =49) Characteristic f % Masters Degree 43 87.8 Doctoral Degree 6 12.2 Other 0 0

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 7 Frequency and percentage of leadership competency importance as rated by CEDs ( n =49) 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22.0 38 77.6 4.78 .42 Time management 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 11 22.4 36 73.5 4.69 .54 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 13 26.5 35 71.4 4.69 .51 Decision making 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 32.7 33 67.3 4.67 .47 Dependability 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 12 24.5 36 73.5 4.71 .50 Empathy 0 0 0 0 5 10.2 34 69.4 10 20.4 4.10 .55 Empowerment 0 0 1 2.0 4 8.2 27 55.1 17 34.7 4.22 .69 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 45 91.8 4.92 .28 Leadership by example 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16.3 41 83.7 4.84 .37 Listening 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 30.6 34 69.4 4.69 .47 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 24 49.0 24 49.0 4.47 .54 Motivation and dedication 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 18 36.7 29 59.2 4.55 .58 Organization 0 0 1 2.0 2 4.1 26 53.1 20 40.8 4.33 .66 Conflict resolution 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 23 46.9 23 46.9 4.41 .61 Professionalism 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 32.7 33 67.3 4.67 .47 Relationship building 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 20 40.8 28 57.1 4.55 .54 Team building 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 17 34.7 29 59.2 4.53 .62 Saying no when warranted 0 0 0 0 5 10.2 18 36.7 26 53.1 4.43 .68 Change implementation 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 27 55.1 18 36.7 4.29 .61 Office management 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 25 51.0 22 44.9 4.41 .57 Employee evaluation 0 0 1 2.0 2 4.1 26 53.1 20 40.8 4.33 .66 Program evaluation 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 28 57.1 17 34.7 4.27 .61 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 1 2.0 6 12.2 30 61.2 12 24.5 4.08 .67 Innovation 0 0 1 2.0 9 18.4 27 55.1 12 24.5 4.02 .72 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 14 38.6 33 67.3 4.63 .57 Note: Response based on Likert type scale from 1= not important, 2=of little importance, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 7 Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 21 42.9 24 49.0 4.41 .64 Creative thinking 0 0 0 0 5 10.2 26 53.1 18 36.7 4.27 .64 Program design and implementation 0 0 0 0 5 10.2 27 55.1 17 34.7 4.24 .63 Resourcefulness 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 22 44.9 25 51.0 4.47 .58 Public speaking 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 22 44.9 24 49.0 4.43 .61 Visioning 0 0 0 0 8 18.3 28 57.1 13 26.5 4.10 .65 Creating a supportive work environment 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 14 28.6 33 67.3 4.63 .57 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 1 2.0 9 18.4 18 36.7 21 42.9 4.20 .82 Leadership of others 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 24 49.0 23 46.9 4.43 .58 Encouraging excellence among employees 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 22 44.9 26 53.1 4.51 .55 Budget Management 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 21 42.9 26 53.1 4.49 .58 Organizational accountability 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 21 42.9 24 49.0 4.41 .64 Staff supervision 0 0 0 0 5 10.2 25 51.0 19 38.8 4.29 .65 Annual reporting 0 0 1 2.0 3 6.1 26 53.1 19 38.8 4.29 .68 County and State emergency management operations 0 0 9 18.4 21 42.9 17 34.7 2 4.1 3.24 .80 Overall Mean 4.42 .59 Note: Response based on Likert type scale from 1= not important, 2=of little importance, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 8 Frequency and percentage of CED self perceived leadership competency knowledge level ( n = 49 ) 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 28 57.1 17 34.7 4.27 .6 1 Time management 0 0 1 2.0 7 1 4 3 3 1 63.3 10 20.4 4.02 .6 6 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 3 1 63.3 1 7 34.7 4.33 .5 2 Decision making 0 0 1 2.0 7 14.3 2 7 55.1 1 4 2 8.6 4. 10 .71 Dependabi lity 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 1 4 2 8.6 3 4 69.4 4.6 7 .52 Empathy 0 0 1 2.0 9 1 8.4 28 57.1 1 1 22.4 4.0 0 .7 1 Empowerme nt 0 0 1 2.0 12 24.5 2 8 57.1 8 16 .3 3. 88 .7 0 Fair, hon est, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 14 2 8.6 3 3 67.3 4.6 3 .56 Leadershi p by example 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 26 53.1 22 44.9 4.4 3 .54 Listening 0 0 1 2.0 6 12.2 3 0 61.2 1 2 24.5 4. 08 .6 7 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 2 4.1 1 5 30.6 23 46.9 9 1 8.4 3.8 0 .79 Motivatio n and dedication 0 0 0 0 9 1 8.4 2 2 44.9 1 8 3 6.7 4.1 8 .7 3 Organization 0 0 1 2.0 17 34.7 2 1 42.9 10 20.4 3.8 2 .7 8 Conflict resolution 1 2.0 5 10.2 17 34.7 23 46.9 3 6.1 3. 45 84 Professio nalism 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 2 0 40.8 2 7 55.1 4.5 1 .58 Relationship building 0 0 0 0 11 22.4 2 7 55.1 1 1 22.4 4.0 0 .6 8 Team building 0 0 1 2.0 1 1 22.4 2 5 51.0 1 2 2 4.5 3.98 .75 Saying no when warranted 1 2.0 5 10.2 1 5 30.6 2 1 42.9 7 14.3 3. 57 .9 4 Change im plementation 0 0 5 10.2 10 20.4 3 3 67.3 1 2.0 3.6 1 .7 0 Office ma nagement 0 0 0 0 14 28.6 2 7 55.1 8 16.3 3. 88 .6 7 Employee evaluation 0 0 0 0 1 5 30.6 2 7 55.1 7 1 4.3 3.8 4 .6 6 Program e valuation 0 0 2 4. 1 11 22.4 3 0 61.2 6 12.2 3. 82 70 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 4 8.2 20 40.8 2 2 44.9 3 6.1 3.4 9 74 Innovatio n 1 2.0 3 6.1 1 4 2 8 .6 2 3 46.9 8 1 6.3 3.69 90 Working w ith key leaders and clientele 0 0 1 2.0 7 1 4.3 2 3 46.9 1 8 3 6.7 4. 18 .7 6 Note: Responses based on Likert type scale from 1 =little knowledge, 2=some knowledge, 3=moderate knowledge, 4=substantial knowledge, 5=high level of knowledge

PAGE 98

98 Table 4 8 Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 1 2.0 6 12.2 1 3 2 6.5 23 46.9 6 12.2 3.5 5 .9 4 Cr eative thinking 0 0 4 8.2 9 18.4 2 7 55.1 9 1 8 .4 3.8 4 .8 3 Pr ogram design and implementation 0 0 2 4. 1 10 20.4 3 2 65.3 5 10 .2 3. 82 68 Resourcefulness 0 0 1 2.0 8 1 6.3 3 0 61.2 1 0 20.4 4.0 0 .68 Pu blic speaking 0 0 0 0 7 14.3 2 6 53.1 16 32.7 4.18 .6 7 Vi sioning 1 2.0 5 10 .2 1 8 3 6.7 19 3 8 .8 6 12.2 3.49 .9 2 Cr eating a supportive work environment 0 0 3 6.1 6 12.2 2 8 57.1 1 2 2 4.5 4.0 0 .79 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 1 2.0 4 8.2 1 7 34.7 2 7 55.1 4.43 .7 4 Le adership of others 0 0 1 2.0 9 1 8.4 3 1 63.3 8 1 6.3 3.9 4 .66 En couraging excellence among employees 0 0 4 8.2 6 12.2 2 7 55.1 1 2 2 4.5 3.9 6 .84 Budget Management 0 0 1 2.0 16 32.7 19 3 8 .8 1 3 2 6.5 3.9 0 .82 Or ganizational accountability 0 0 3 6.1 14 2 8.6 2 4 4 9. .0 8 1 6.3 3.7 6 .8 0 St aff supervision 0 0 1 2.0 15 30.6 22 44.9 1 1 2 2.4 3. 88 78 Annual reporting 0 0 1 2.0 1 0 20.4 2 7 55.1 11 22.4 3.9 8 .72 Co unty and State emergency management operations 4 8.2 7 1 4.3 24 49.0 13 26.5 1 2.0 3.00 .91 Overall Mean 3.95 .73 Note: Responses based on Likert type scale from 1 =little knowledge, 2=some knowledge, 3=moderate knowledge, 4=substantial knowledge, 5=high level of knowledge

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 9 Frequency and percentage of CED self perceived leadership competency proficiency level ( n = 49 ) 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 23 46.9 23 46.9 4.41 .61 Time management 0 0 0 0 15 30.6 27 55.1 7 14.3 3.8 4 .66 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 29 59.2 18 36.7 4.3 3 .55 Decision making 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 34 69.4 12 24.5 4. 18 .5 2 Dependability 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 15 30.6 32 65.3 4.6 1 .5 7 Empathy 0 0 0 0 12 24.5 22 44.9 15 30.6 4.06 .7 5 Empowerment 0 0 0 0 1 3 26.5 32 65.3 4 8.2 3.82 .5 6 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 14 28.6 34 69.4 4.6 7 .5 2 Leadership by example 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 26 53.1 22 44.9 4.43 .54 Listening 0 0 0 0 1 0 20.4 30 61.2 9 18.4 3.9 8 .63 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 3 6.1 10 20.4 28 57.1 8 16.3 3.84 .7 7 Motivation and dedication 0 0 0 0 9 18.4 24 49.0 16 32.7 4.1 4 .71 Organization 0 0 1 2.0 14 28.6 27 55.1 7 14.3 3.8 2 .70 Conflict resolution 0 0 3 6.1 23 46.9 21 42.9 2 4.1 3.4 5 .6 8 Professionalism 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 24 49.0 23 46.9 4.4 3 .58 Relationship building 0 0 1 2.0 10 20.4 29 59.2 9 18.4 3.94 69 Team building 0 0 1 2.0 11 22.4 30 61.2 7 14.3 3.88 .6 7 Saying no when warranted 0 0 2 4.1 20 40.8 21 42.9 6 12.2 3.59 86 Change implementation 1 2.0 4 8.2 11 22.4 30 61.2 3 6.1 3.6 1 .8 1 Office management 0 0 0 0 10 20.4 31 63.3 8 16.3 3.96 .6 1 Employee evaluation 0 0 0 0 1 1 22.4 34 69.4 4 8.2 3.8 6 54 Program evaluation 0 0 1 2.0 11 22.4 32 65.3 5 10.2 3. 84 62 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 2 4.1 15 30.6 29 59.2 3 6.1 3. 67 .66 Innovation 0 0 4 8.2 12 24.5 26 53.1 7 14.3 3.7 3 .8 1 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 0 1 2.0 7 14.3 21 42.9 20 40.8 4.22 .7 7 Note : Responses based on Likert type scaled from 1= not competent, 2=little competence, 3=somewhat competent, 4=competent, 5=very competent

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 9 Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 1 2.0 4 8.2 11 22.4 21 42.9 12 24.5 3. 80 .98 Creative thinking 0 0 3 6.1 10 20.4 28 57.1 8 16.3 3.8 4 .77 Program design and implementation 0 0 2 4.1 8 16.3 34 69.4 5 10.2 3.8 6 .6 4 Resourcefulness 0 0 1 2.0 6 12.2 34 69.4 8 16.3 4.0 0 .6 1 Public speaking 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 26 53.1 19 38.8 4.3 1 .62 Visionin g 0 0 4 8.2 19 38.8 24 49.0 2 4.1 3. 49 .7 1 Creating a supportive work environment 0 0 0 0 8 16.3 28 57.1 13 26.5 4.10 .65 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 20 40.8 25 51.0 4.4 3 .6 5 Leadership of others 0 0 0 0 7 14.3 32 65.3 10 20.4 4.0 6 59 Encourag ing excellence among employees 0 0 0 0 10 20.4 30 61.2 9 18.4 3.98 63 Budget M anagement 0 0 0 0 6 12.2 28 57.1 15 30.6 4.18 .6 4 Organizational accountability 0 0 2 4.1 7 14.3 31 63.3 9 18.4 3.9 6 .71 Staff su pervision 0 0 1 2.0 8 16.3 34 69.4 6 12.2 3.92 .6 1 Annual r eporting 0 0 0 0 10 20.4 31 63.3 8 16.3 3.96 .61 County a nd State emergency management operations 2 4.1 3 6.1 22 44.9 18 36.7 4 8.2 3.3 9 .8 9 Overall Mean 3.90 .66 Note : Responses based on Likert type scaled from 1= not competent, 2=little competence, 3=somewhat competent, 4=competent, 5=very competent

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 10 Mean s umma ted scores for importance, knowledge, and proficiency ratings of leadership competencies by CEDs ( n =49) Competency Categories Minimum Maximum Sum M SD Importance Sum 150 198 8658 176.69 12.70 Knowledge Sum 106 192 7739 157.94 17.87 Competency Sum 123 193 7819 159.57 14.51

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 11. Correlations between independent and dependent variables for CEDs ( n =49) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sum Imp. Sum Know. Sum Comp. 1.% Time formally assigned r 1 .77* .46* .13 .10 .03 .59* .72* .57* .01 .32* .19 .31* 2.% Time actually expended r 1 .44* .15 .15 .02 .62* .74* .47* .18 .39* .28 .35* 3. Classification of County r 1 .17 .07 .09 .48* .54* .45* .23 .17 20 .29* 4. Years served as CED r 1 .25 .35* .15 .18 .08 20 .14 .22 .13 5. Year s in Extension before CED r 1 .1 9 .03 .19 .15 .07 .13 .1 9 .01 6. Years previous leadership experience r 1 .15 .10 .21 .17 .16 .01 .03 7. Numb er of employees r 1 .75* .58* 20 .14 .11 .12 8. Numb er of full time agents r 1 .62* .07 .13 .20 .06 9. Numb er of full time program assistants r 1 .13 36* .14 .19 10. Gen der r 1 .23 .08 .05 Sum Im portance r 1 .35* .29* Sum Knowledge r 1 86* Sum Competence r 1 Note: (p < 0.05)

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 12. R egression of self perceived level of importance, knowledge, and proficiency on selected independent variables for CEDs (n=49) B t df Sig. R 2 Adj. R 2 Importance: Constant % Time actually expended to CED role Knowledge: Constant % Time actually expended to CED role Proficiency : Constant % Time actually expended in CED role 165.51 .20 144.55 .26 146.57 .25 .36 .32 .37 37.17 2.61 22.22 2.28 28.23 2.73 47 47 47 47 47 47 .00 .01 .00 .0 3 .00 .0 1 .13 .10 .14 .11 .08* .12* Note: F=6.83 (Importance), F=6.97 (Knowledge), F=7.47 ( Proficiency ); (p < 0.05).

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 1 3 Mean weighted discrepancy scores of CEDs for level of importance and level of knowledge based on the Borich Needs Assessment Model ( n =49) Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 1 Conflict resolution 4.32 2 Saying no when warranted 3.80 3 Extension marketing 3.78 4 Time Management 3.16 5 Creating a supportive work environment 2.93 6 Change implementation 2.89 7 Organizational accountability 2.88 8 Listening 2.87 9 Decision making 2.67 10 Budget management 2.66 11 Relationship building 2.51 12 Visioning 2.51 13 Team building 2.50 14 Encouraging excellence among employees 2.49 15 Having a positive attitude 2.44 16 Promoting growth in the organization 2.42 17 Office management 2.34 18 Organization 2.21 19 Leadership of others 2.17 20 Employee evaluation 2.12 21 Resourcefulness 2.10 22 Working with key leaders and clientele 2.08 23 Leadership by example 1.97 24 Program evaluation 1.92 25 Creative thinking 1.83 26 Program design and implementation 1.82 27 Staff supervision 1.75 28 Mentoring and coaching 1.73 29 Communication in oral and written form 1.7 0 30 Motivation and dedication 1.67 31 Empowerment 1.47 32 Fair, honest, and trustworthiness 1.41 33 Innovation 1.31 34 Annual reporting 1.31 35 Public speaking 1.08

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 13. Continued Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 36 County and State emergency management .79 37 Professionalism .76 38 Empathy .42 39 Dependability .19 40 Teaching Extension audiences .94

PAGE 106

106 Table 4 14. Mean weighted discrepancy scores of CEDs for level of importance and level of proficiency based on the Borich Needs Assessment Model ( n =49) Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 1 Conflict resolution 4.14 2 Time management 4.02 3 Saying no when warranted 3.59 4 Listening 3.48 5 Team building 3.09 6 Change implementation 3.08 7 Relationship building 2.92 8 Mentoring and coaching 2.77 9 Extension marketing 2.73 10 Creating a supportive work environment 2.51 11 Visioning 2.47 12 Encouraging excellence among employees 2.35 13 Decision making 2.25 14 Organization 2.07 15 Employee evaluation 2.07 16 Leadership by example 2.03 17 Creative thinking 1.97 18 Resourcefulness 1.96 19 Working with key leaders and clientele 1.95 20 Office management 1.94 21 Organizational accountability 1.94 22 Empowerment 1.87 23 Having a positive attitude 1.82 24 Motivation and dedication 1.82 25 Program evaluation 1.78 26 Promoting growth in the organization 1.71 27 Program design and implementation 1.7 0 28 Communication in oral and written form 1.69 29 Leadership of others 1.6 0 30 Staff supervision 1.54 31 Annual reporting 1.37 32 Budget Management 1.34 33 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 1.18 34 Innovation 1.13 35 Professionalism 1.12

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 14. Continued Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 36 Public speaking 0.53 37 Dependability 0.47 38 Empathy 0.25 39 County and State emergency management operations 0.45 40 Teaching Extension audiences 1.00

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 15. Demographics of county administrators ( n =17) Demographic characteristic f % Age: Less than 30 0 0 30 40 2 11.8 41 50 5 29.4 51 60 5 29.4 More than 60 5 29.4 Ethnicity: White 14 82.4 African American 2 17.6 Asian 0 0 Hispanic 0 0 Other 0 0 Gender: Male 14 82.4 Female 3 17.6 Table 4 16. L eadership experience for county administrators Characteristic n M SD How many years have you served as a county administrator 17 6.72 7.34 How many years previous leadership experience? 17 11.88 7.22 Number of employees under your supervision? 17 281.63 694.96 Table 4 17. Classification of county for county administrators ( n =17) Classification of county f % Rural 9 52.9 Urban 8 47.1

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 18. County administrator highest degree earned ( n =17) Characteristic f % Bachelor Degree 4 23.5 Masters Degree 11 64.7 Other 2 11.8

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 19. Frequency and percentage of leadership competency importance for CEDs as rated by county administrators ( n =17) 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 16 94.1 4.92 .24 Time management 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 8 47.1 8 47.1 4.41 .62 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 13 76.5 4.76 .44 Decision making 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 41.2 10 58.8 4.59 .51 Dependability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 3 17.6 13 76.5 4.71 .59 Empathy 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 9 52.9 3 17.6 3.88 .70 Empowerment 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 7 41.2 8 47.1 4.35 .70 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 16 94.1 4.88 .49 Leadership by example 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 13 76.5 4.76 .44 Listening 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 12 70.6 4.71 .47 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Motivation and dedication 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Organization 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 11 64.7 4 23.5 4.12 .60 Conflict resolution 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 10 58.8 6 35.3 4.29 .59 Professionalism 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52.9 8 47.1 4.47 .51 Relationship building 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35.3 11 64.7 4.65 .49 Team building 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Saying no when warranted 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Change implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Office management 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 8 47.1 4 23.5 3.94 .75 Employee evaluation 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 11 64.7 1 5.9 3.76 .56 Program evaluation 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 11 64.7 4 23.5 4.12 .60 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 12 70.6 2 11.8 3.94 .56 Innovation 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 14 82.4 4.82 .39 Note: Response based on Likert type scale from 1 =not important, 2=of little importance, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 19 Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 0 0 0 0 8 47.1 8 47.1 1 5.9 3.59 .62 Creative thinking 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 8 47.1 7 41.2 4.29 .69 Program design and implementation 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 9 52.9 5 29.4 4.12 .70 Resourcefulness 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 7 41.2 9 52.9 4.47 .62 Public speaking 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 11 64.7 5 29.4 4.24 .56 Visioning 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 8 47.1 6 35.3 4.18 .73 Creating a supportive work environment 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 41.2 10 58.8 4.59 .51 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 0 0 6 35.3 7 41.2 4 23.5 3.88 .78 Leadership of others 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 8 47.1 7 41.2 4.29 .69 Encouraging excellence among employees 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 4 23.5 12 70.6 4.65 .61 Budget Management 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Organizational accountability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 6 35.3 10 58.8 4.53 .62 Staff supervision 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 12 70.6 4 23.5 4.18 .53 Annual reporting 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 13 76.5 1 5.9 3.88 .49 County and State emergency management operations 0 0 2 11.8 6 35.3 9 52.9 0 0 3.41 .71 Overall Mean 4.42 .57 Note: Response based on Likert type scale from 1 =not important, 2=of little importance, 3=somewhat important, 4=important, 5=very important

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 20. Frequency and percentage of leadership competency knowledge for CEDs by county administrators ( n =17) Note: Responses based on Likert type scale from 1 =little knowledge, 2=some knowledge, 3=moderate knowledge, 4=substantial knowledge, 5=high level of knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 10 58.8 5 29.4 4.18 .64 Time management 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 12 70.6 3 17.6 4.06 .56 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 8 47.1 8 47.1 4.41 .62 Decision making 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 6 35.3 9 52.9 4.41 .71 Dependability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 7 41.2 9 52.9 4.47 .62 Empathy 0 0 0 0 7 41.2 6 35.3 4 23.5 3.82 .81 Empowerment 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 6 35.3 6 35.3 4.06 .83 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35.3 11 64.7 4.65 .49 Leadership by example 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 7 41.2 7 41.2 41.2 .75 Listening 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35.3 11 64.7 4.65 .49 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 76.5 4 23.5 4.24 .44 Motivation and dedication 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 6 35.3 8 47.1 4.29 .77 Organization 0 0 1 5.9 1 5.9 11 64.7 4 23.5 4.06 .75 Conflict resolution 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Professionalism 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 5 29.4 11 64.7 4.59 .62 Relationship building 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 4 23.5 12 70.6 4.65 .61 Team building 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 10 58.8 6 35.3 4.29 .59 Saying no when warranted 0 0 1 5.9 2 11.8 7 41.2 7 41.2 4.18 .88 Change implementation 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 8 47.1 7 41.2 4.29 .69 Office management 0 0 1 5.9 2 11.8 11 64.7 3 17.6 3.94 .75 Employee evaluation 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 11 64.7 1 5.9 3.76 .56 Program evaluation 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 12 70.6 4 23.5 4.18 .53 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 10 58.8 2 11.8 3.82 .64 Innovation 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 10 58.8 4 23.5 4.06 .66 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 7 41.2 9 52.9 4.47 .62

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 20. Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 0 0 1 5.9 4 23.5 8 47.1 4 23.5 3.88 .86 Creative thinking 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 7 41.2 6 35.3 4.12 .78 Program design and implementation 0 0 1 5.9 2 11.8 8 47.1 6 35.3 4.12 .86 Resourcefulness 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 9 52.9 6 35.3 4.24 .66 Public speaking 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 8 47.1 4 23.5 3.94 .75 Visioning 0 0 1 5.9 5 29.4 6 35.3 5 29.4 3.88 .93 Creating a supportive work environment 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 10 58.8 6 35.3 4.29 .59 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 1 5.9 3 17.6 9 52.9 4 23.5 3.94 .83 Leadership of others 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 10 58.8 4 23.5 4.06 .66 Encouraging excellence among employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 58.8 7 41.2 4.41 .51 Budget Management 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 7 41.2 7 41.2 4.24 .75 Organizational accountability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 8 47.1 8 47.1 4.41 .62 Staff supervision 0 0 1 5.9 1 5.9 9 52.9 6 35.3 4.18 .81 Annual reporting 0 0 1 5.9 2 11.8 12 70.6 2 11.8 3.88 .70 County and State emergency management operations 0 0 4 23.5 6 35.3 6 35.3 1 5.9 3.24 .90 Overall Mean 4.17 .68 Note: Responses based on Likert type scale from 1 =little knowledge, 2=some knowledge, 3=moderate knowledge, 4=substantial knowledge, 5=high level of knowledge

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 21. Frequency and percentage of leadership competenc y proficiency for CEDs by county administrators ( n =17) Note : Responses based on Likert type scaled from 1= not competent, 2=little competence, 3=somewhat competent, 4=competent, 5=very competent 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % M SD Having a positive attitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52.9 8 47.1 4.47 .51 Time management 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Communication in oral and written form 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 41.2 10 58.8 4.59 .51 Decision making 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 29.4 12 70.6 4.71 .47 Dependability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 3 17.6 13 76.5 4.71 .59 Empathy 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 9 52.9 4 23.5 4.00 .71 Empowerment 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 10 58.8 4 23.5 4.06 .66 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35.3 11 64.7 4.65 .49 Leadership by example 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 41.2 10 58.8 4.59 .51 Listening 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52.9 8 47.1 4.47 .51 Mentoring and coaching 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 10 58.8 5 29.4 4.18 .64 Motivation and dedication 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52.9 8 47.1 4.47 .51 Organization 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 11 64.7 4 23.5 4.12 .60 Conflict resolution 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 7 41.2 8 47.1 4.35 .70 Professionalism 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 47.1 9 52.9 4.53 .51 Relationship building 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 8 47.1 8 47.1 4.41 .62 Team building 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 10 58.8 6 35.3 4.29 .59 Saying no when warranted 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 64.7 6 35.3 4.35 .49 Change implementation 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Office management 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.00 .79 Employee evaluation 0 0 1 5.9 1 5.9 12 70.6 3 17.6 4.00 .71 Program evaluation 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 11 64.7 5 29.4 4.24 .56 Promoting growth in the organization 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 11 64.7 3 17.6 4.00 .61 Innovation 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 13 76.5 4.76 .44

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 21. Continued 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership Competency f % f % f % f % f % M SD Extension marketing 1 2.0 0 0 5 29.4 8 47.1 4 23.5 3.94 .75 Cre ative thinking 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 76.5 4 23.5 4.24 .44 Pro gram design and implementation 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 10 58.8 5 29.4 4.18 .64 Resourcefulness 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 58.8 7 41.2 4.41 .51 Pub lic speaking 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 10 58.8 5 29.4 4.18 .64 Vis ioning 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 10 58.8 4 23.5 4.06 .66 Cre ating a supportive work environment 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 70.6 5 29.4 4.29 .47 Teaching Extension audiences 0 0 1 5.9 4 23.5 7 41.2 5 29.4 3.94 .90 Lea dership of others 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 58.8 7 41.2 4.41 .51 Enc ouraging excellence among employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52.9 8 47.1 4.47 .51 Budget Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 64.7 6 35.3 4.35 .49 Org anizational accountability 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 9 52.9 7 41.2 4.35 .61 Sta ff supervision 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 12 70.6 4 23.5 4.18 .53 Ann ual reporting 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 13 76.5 2 11.8 4.00 .50 County and State emergency management operations 0 0 2 11.8 5 29.4 8 47.1 2 11.8 3.59 .87 Overall Mean 4.29 .58 Note : Responses based on Likert type scaled from 1= not competent, 2=little competence, 3=somewhat competent, 4=competent, 5=very competent

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 22 Summary of Leadership Competencies as rated by county administrators ( n =17) Table 4 23. Summary comparison of CED and county administrators (CA) ratings of leadership competencies Competency Categories Minimum Maximum Sum M SD Importance Sum (CED) 150 198 8658 176.69 12.70 Importance Sum (CA) 158 200 3007 176.88 10.40 Knowledge Sum (CED) 106 192 7739 157.94 17.87 Knowledge Sum (CA) 127 197 2838 166.94 15.52 Competency Sum (CED) 123 193 7819 159.57 14.51 Competency Sum (CA) 147 200 2915 171.47 13.30 Competency Categories Minimum Maximum Sum M SD Importance Sum 158 200 3007 176.88 10.40 Knowledge Sum 127 197 2838 166.94 15.52 Competency Sum 147 200 2915 171.47 13.30

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 2 4 Correlations between independent and dependent variables for county administrators ( n = 17 ) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 Sum Imp. Sum Know. Sum Comp. 1. Classification of County r 1 .36 .44 .36 .18 .69* .45 .60* 2. Years served as CA r 1 .08 .14 .32 .00 .00 .28 3. Years previous leadership experience r 1 .30 .21 .30 .31 .51* 4. Number of employees r 1 .43 .18 .02 .15 5.Gender r 1 .05 .17 .04 Sum Importance r 1 .84* .70* Sum Knowledge r 1 .71* Sum Competence r 1 Note: (p < 0.05).

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 2 5 R egression of CA perceptions of CED level of importance, and proficiency on selected independent variables ( n =17) B t df Sig. R 2 Adj. R 2 Importance: Constant Classification of County Competence: Constant Classification of County 155.13 14.16 148.65 15.06 .68 .58 23.37 3.50 15.87 2.64 15 15 15 15 .00 .00 .00 .02 .47 .33 .43 .28 Note : F=12.23 (Importance), F=6.95 ( Proficiency ); (p < 0.05).

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 2 6 Rank of mean weighted discrepancy scores based on county and proficiency levels needed by CEDs ( n =17) Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 1 Having a positive attitude 3.45 2 Leadership by example 2.52 3 Working with key leaders and clientele 1.7 0 4 Communication in oral and written form 1.68 5 Time management 1.56 6 Creating a supportive work environment 1.35 7 Empowerment 1.28 8 Innovation 1.28 9 Public speaking 1.25 10 Visioning 1.23 11 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 1.15 12 Dependability 1.11 13 Encouraging excellence among employees 1.09 14 Resourcefulness 1.05 15 Leadership of others 1.01 16 Empathy 0.91 17 Decision making 0.81 18 Budget Management 0.78 19 Saying no when warranted 0.77 20 Creative thinking 0.76 21 County and State emergency management operations 0.6 0 22 Organizational accountability 0.53 23 Promoting growth in the organization 0.46 24 Listening 0.28 25 Motivation and dedication 0.26 26 Mentoring and coaching 0.25 27 Organization 0.24 28 Relationship building 0 29 Team building 0 30 Change implementation 0 31 Office management 0 32 Employee evaluation 0 33 Program design and implementation 0 34 Staff supervision 0

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 26. Continued Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 35 Annual reporting 0 36 Teaching Extension audiences 0.23 37 Program evaluation 0.24 38 Conflict resolution 0.25 39 Professionalism 0.53 40 Extension marketing 1.06

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 2 7 Rank of mean weighted discrepancy scores based on county knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CEDs ( n =17) Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 1 Having a positive attitude 2.01 2 Creating a supportive work environment 1.35 3 Empowerment 1.28 4 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 1.15 5 Listening 1.11 6 Relationship building 1.09 7 Communication in oral and written form 0.84 8 Leadership by example 0.84 9 Encouraging excellence among employees 0.82 10 Organizational accountability 0.8 0 11 Time management 0.52 12 Mentoring and coaching 0.51 13 Visioning 0.49 14 Innovation 0.26 15 Resourcefulness 0.26 16 Budget Management 0.26 17 Creative thinking 0.25 18 Public speaking 0.25 19 Dependability 0 20 Organization 0 21 Team building 0 22 Saying no when warranted 0 23 Working with key leaders and clientele 0 24 Staff supervision 0 25 Office management 0.23 26 Promoting growth in the organization 0.23 27 Teaching Extension audiences 0.23 28 Program design and implementation 0.24 29 Conflict resolution 0.25 30 Change implementation 0.25 31 Professionalism 0.26 32 Empathy 0.46 33 Annual reporting 0.46 34 Program evaluation 0.48 35 Motivation and dedication 0.51

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 27. Continued Rank Leadership Competency MWDS 36 Leadership of others 0.51 37 Decision making 0.54 38 County and State emergency management operations 0.6 39 Employee evaluation 0.89 40 Extension marketing 1.27

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 28. CED and county administrator MWD scores based on perceptions of leadership competency importance and proficiency level needed by CEDs Leadership Competency CED CA Having a positive attitude 2.44 3.45 Time management 3.16 1.56 Communication in oral and written form 1.72 1.68 Decision making 2.67 .81 Dependability .19 1.11 Empathy .42 .91 Empowerment 1.47 1.28 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 1.41 1.15 Leadership by example 1.97 2.52 Listening 2.87 .28 Mentoring and coaching 1.73 .25 Motivation and dedication 1.67 .26 Organization 2.21 .24 Conflict resolution 4.23 .25 Professionalism .76 .53 Relationship building 2.51 0 Team building 2.50 0 Saying no when warranted 3.80 .77 Change implementation 2.89 0 Office management 2.34 0 Employee evaluation 2.12 0 Program evaluation 1.92 .24 Promoting growth in the organization 2.42 .46 Innovation 1.31 1.28 Working with key leaders and clientele 2.08 1.7 Extension marketing 3.78 1.06 Creative thinking 1.83 .76 Program design and implementation 1.82 0 Resourcefulness 2.10 1.05 Public speaking 1.08 1.25 Visioning 2.51 1.23 Creating a supportive work environment 2.93 1.35 Teaching Extension audiences .94 .23 Leadership of others 2.17 1.01 Encouraging excellence among employees 2.49 1.09 Budget Management 2.66 .78

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 28. Continued Leadership Competency CED CA Organizational accountability 2.88 .53 Staff supervision 1.75 0 Annual reporting 1.31 0 County and State emergency management operations .79 .60

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 29. CED and county administrator MWD scores based on perceptions of leadership competency importance and proficiency level needed by CEDs Leadership Competency CED CA Having a positive attitude 1.82 2.01 Time management 4.02 .52 Communication in oral and written form 1.69 .84 Decision making 2.25 .54 Dependability .47 0 Empathy .25 .46 Empowerment 1.87 1.28 Fair, honest, & trustworthiness 1.18 1.15 Leadership by example 2.03 .84 Listening 3.48 1.11 Mentoring and coaching 2.77 .51 Motivation and dedication 1.82 .51 Organization 2.07 0 Conflict resolution 4.14 .25 Professionalism 1.12 .26 Relationship building 2.92 1.09 Team building 3.09 0 Saying no when warranted 3.59 0 Change implementation 3.08 .25 Office management 1.94 .23 Employee evaluation 2.07 .89 Program evaluation 1.78 .48 Promoting growth in the organization 1.71 .23 Innovation 1.13 .26 Working with key leaders and clientele 1.95 0 Extension marketing 2.73 1.27 Creative thinking 1.97 .25 Program design and implementation 1.70 .24 Resourcefulness 1.96 .26 Public speaking .53 .25 Visioning 2.47 .49 Creating a supportive work environment 2.51 1.35 Teaching Extension audiences 1.00 .23 Leadership of others 1.60 .51 Encouraging excellence among employees 2.35 .82 Budget Management 1.34 .26

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 29. Continued Leadership Competency CED CA Organizational accountability 1.94 .80 Staff supervision 1.54 0 Annual reporting 1.37 .46 County and State emergency management operations .45 .60

PAGE 127

127 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS A summary of this study and the conclusions drawn from this research are included in this chapter. This includes an overview of the study with the objectives, methodology, and findings. Also provided are the conclusions, implications, and recommendations for fu rther research within this area Overview This study sought to determine the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors (CEDs) as perceived by CED s, district Extension directors, and county administrators. F ocus groups and interviews were used to develop a list of forty leadership competencies for county Extension directors. Pernick (2001) state d there are two advantages of developing leadership within the organization F next gener ation of leaders is groomed by the organization and can instill the culture and supply of leaders with the necessary skills, which makes implementation of the organizati Before developing leadership programs for county Extension directors, the leadership competencies and practices needed to be identified, along with the perceptions of the importance, knowledge, and proficiency of e ach competency. Purpose and O bjectives The problem addressed by this research was the lack of formal preparation of county Extension directors for the complex leadership challenges inherent in these positions. The inadequate preparation of county Extensi on directors for effectively meeting the complex leadership challenges inherited within their positions needed

PAGE 128

128 addressing. A strong need to identify these leadership competencies ha d been ignored. This study examined these leadership competencies as viewed by county Extension directors, district Extension directors, and county administrat ors T he findings of the study were of potential use in tailoring a leadership development program to meet the needs of the county Extension directors. The four o bjectives of the study were: 1. To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension directors as determined by Extension county and district directors. 2. To identify the leadership competencies needed by Florida county Extension director s as determined by county administrators. 3. To determine the level of importance of CED leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge and proficiency and county admi and proficiency levels need ed by CEDs. 4. To determine the relative need for additional training for each CED leadership competency as perceived by CEDs and county administrators Methodo logy The research design of this study was a mixed methods approach using a three part assessment to determine the leadership competencies and needs. The study included two separate focus groups with county Extension directors and district Extension direct ors. The focus groups were lead by a moderator using guide Q uestions definition of a leadership competency, skills needed for an exemplary CED, and the leadership competencies needed by CEDs These focus groups were the first part of the study and were the basis of the leadership competencies contained in the questionnaire In addition, three interviews were conducted by the research er with county administrators from three counties in Florida.

PAGE 129

129 Interview questions foll owed the same format as the modera tors guide for the focus groups Finally, a quantitative survey instrument was developed by the researcher, based upon findings from the qualitative focus groups and interviews. This instrument was sent to sixty three CED s and sixty county administrators in Florida. The instrument had a list of forty leadership competencies divided into three areas : importance, knowledge, and proficiency CED respondents rated the perceived importance, self perceived knowledge, and self p erceived proficiency level for each competency. County administrators rated the importance of each competency for CEDs and the knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CEDs. In addition, a demographic section was included at the end of both quantitative instruments to collect personal information about the respondents. This instrument was reviewed by a panel of experts and pilot tested with ten county Extension directors in the southeast ern U.S. The information collected from focus groups and interviews was used to accomplish the first and second objectives. Responses from both focus groups and interviews were analyzed through content analysis using Weft QDA software. The analysis identified two distinct themes in the responses human skills and conceptual skills The information provided by this analysis was used to develop the forty leadership competencies used in the survey instrument given to county Extension directors and county administra tors. Data analysis from the questionnaire sought to address objective three. Descriptive statistics w ere used in summarizing the perceived importance, knowledge, and proficiency needed for each of the forty competencies. Frequencies were used in describi ng the demographic information. Multiple regression was used to determine

PAGE 130

130 variance in perceptions explained by a combination of independent variables. In addition, the data from the questionnaire w ere also used to identify CED leadership professional deve lopment needs as outlined in objective four Findings Demographics Findings from this study can be applied to the Florida CED population and the Florida county administrator population. T he survey response rates were 78% for CEDs and 28 % for county administrators. T he majority of the respondents were w hite, (CEDs=91.8%, CA= 82.4%). The percentage of male s and females for the CEDs was about equal ( 51 % male, 49 % female ). The percentage of male county administrators was much higher (82.4%) The majority of CEDs were Agricultural agents (46.9%) Urban counties represented a greater percentage of responding CEDs (61%) compared to 38% rural The responding county administrators reported 47% urban counties compared to 52.9 % rural. The majority of CEDs were in the 51 60 age group (53.1%), with the smallest percentage (12.2%) falling in the 41 50 age range. County administrators were equally distributed among the age categories at around 30%, except for the youngest group of 30 40 years (11%). Ob jective One The first objective of this study sought to identify leadership competencies as perceived by county and district Extension directors. This objective was accomplished by two focus groups. The first focus group was conducted with all five district Extension directors. The second focus group was conducted with seven exemplary county Extension directors who were recommended by their district directors. Based on the focus group findings, the leadership competencies divided into two themes: hum an

PAGE 131

131 leadership skills and conceptual leadership skills. In the human leadership skills area there were thirty four competencies were rated by both CEDs and DEDs as important for CEDs. In the conceptual leadership skills area twenty three competencies were rated by CEDs and DEDs as important for CEDs. Combining the two groups and deleting like competencies a list of forty competencies was developed. Objective Two This objective sought to determine the leadership competencies as perceived by county administr ators. Th ese data w ere collected through interviews with three county administrators. A list of CED leadership competencies w as derived from the analysis of the interview responses. R esponses were grouped together and divided into the two theme areas. Dupl icate responses were eliminated and s imilar competencies were combined. Eighteen un duplicated competencies in human leadership skills and conceptual leadership skills were derived from the interviews Objective Three The third research objective was t o de termine the level of importance of CED leadership competencies as perceived by CEDs and county administrators CED self perceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge and proficiency and y importance, knowledge and proficiency levels needed by CEDs. This objective was accomplished using a survey instrument with a Likert type scale. Based on the data from the forty t was perceived as the most imp ortant competency. T he county administrators rated commun fair,

PAGE 132

132 honest, and trustworthiness and in importance for both CEDs and county administrators. CEDs rated the highest self perceived knowledge level for the competency honest, and trustworthiness ounty administrators assigned the highest need rating to the competency and trustworth y were rat ed by CEDs and CAs in the top five competencies according to knowledge possessed or needed by CEDs For perceived proficiency the CEDs ra t ed themselves the highest in and trustworthiness C ounty administrators felt that CEDs should be most proficient at Again there was some overlap in the top five of each in competenc ies possessed/needed by CEDs B in the top five for proficiency level possessed/needed Correlations for the CED mean summated score for the perceived level of knowledge and the mean summated score for the perceived level of importance had the strongest relationship (r=.84,p<.05) of all CED variables examined County administrators mean summated score for CED level of proficiency needed and the mean summated score for CED level of knowledge needed had the strongest correlation (r=.85, p<.05) for all CA variables examined Th ese correlation s indicated a high, positive relationship between CED knowledge level and CED proficiency level as rated by both groups Stepwise multip le r egression was used to determine the percent variance in the dependent variable (competency importance, knowledge level, or proficiency level)

PAGE 133

133 explained by the linear combination of the independent variables for each population. Ten independent variable s were used in the CED regression model s and five independent variables were used for the county administrator model s In the CED regression models all three dependent variables. For perceived importance 11% of the variance was the CED role The same predictor explained 8 % of the variance in self perceived knowledge level and 12% of the var iance in self perceived proficiency level a significant predictor of the variance in the perceived importance (43%) of the CED leadership competencies and the level of p roficiency n eeded by CEDs (28%) Objective Four The final objective of this study was to determine the relative need for additional training for each leadership competency as perceived by CEDs and county administrators. To accomplish this objective, the Borich needs assessment model (1980) was used to calculate the mean weighted discrepancy scores (MWDS) for each competency based on the CED and CA perceptions of competency i mportance/knowledge and importance/ proficiency To calculate the MWDS an E xcel based mean weig hted discrepancy score calculator (Mckim and Saucier, 2011) was used. Based om the CED perceptions of competency importance and knowledge level, the highest need professional development topics were conflict resolution saying no when warranted Extension marketing time management creating a supportive work environment H ighest priorities for professional development training based on CA ratings of competency importance and knowledge

PAGE 134

134 level needed by CEDs were having a positive attitude leadership by example working with key leaders and clientele communication in oral and written form and time management The highest MWD score based on CE Ds ratings of importance/ proficiency included c onflict resol ution t ime management s aying no when warranted listening and building The highest CED professional development needs based on county administrators ratings were having a positive attitude creating a supportive work environment empowerment and fair, honest, and trustworthiness Conclusions Pickett (1998) explained th at the critical responsibility of management is to identify core competencies. M cLelland (1973) suggested that core competencies provide the basis for planning p rofessional development opportunities and screening potential employees for Cooperative Extension. Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn : The leadership competencies needed by CEDs include human skills and conceptual skills. Effective CEDs are knowledgeable and proficient in a defined set of 40 leadership competencies. CEDs and county administrators have similar views on the leadership competencies needed by CEDs. CEDs and county administr ators do not hold similar views about the highest priority professional development needs of CEDs. The majority of CED professional development needs focus on human skills. These include conflict resolution, saying no when warranted, time management, lis tening, creating a supportive work environment, and relationship building. The highest priority conceptual skills for professional development programming include extension marketing, change implementation and visioning.

PAGE 135

135 A low relationship exists between CEDs perceived level of importance of the 40 CED leadership competencies and their self perceived levels of knowledge and proficiency. However, county administrators view these constructs as highly related. The type of county (rural or urban) is a signifi perceptions about the 40 CED leadership competencies. Those in urban counties have a strong tendency to rate the competencies as more important and needed CED proficiency levels as higher. The average CED has limite d experience in Extension before being appointed as a CED. CEDs spend significantly more time than formally assigned carrying out their CED responsibilities. The percent age of time used in executing CED responsibilities is a significant predictor of CED pe rceptions of leadership competency importance, knowledge level, and proficiency. Those who expend more time i n their CED roles tend to assign a higher level of importance and proficiency to the 40 leadership competencies. Implications The identification of the forty leadership competencies with input from CEDs, DEDs, and county administrators will provide current and future CEDs with a better understanding of their leadership role as a CED. In addition, this information will serve the o rganization in several ways. These findings can be shared with current CEDs and used in the recruitment of new CEDs. This research will also provide direction for future professional development in the leadership competencies needed by CEDs. Furthermore, this research can be used to mentor and coach CEDs, as well as during the CED evaluation process of current CEDs. Although the data found that the importance, knowledge, and proficiency level ratings by CEDs and county administrators were high, for the mos t part room for self improvement certainly existed. Although this study provided valuable theoretical and practical insights, limitations of this study must also be mentioned. The census sample used in this study

PAGE 136

136 limits the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, higher response rates were expected from both CEDs and county administrators. One has to remember these are busy people, even though they were reminded with follow up emails. Another explanation of the fairly low response rates for county adm inistrators could have been the email list serve used from the Florida Association of Counties. The database was found to contain errors. In addition, a presentation in advance of the survey distribution at a Florida Association of Counties meeting may hav e perhaps increased the response rate. Looking at the relationship between the CEDs and county administrators perce ptions of each competency several factors played a significant role in the data First, the CEDs were actually performing in these leaders hip roles and us ing these competencies every day. Thus, CEDs were probably more aware of the importance of each competenc y and their own levels of knowledge and proficiency. On the other hand, county administrators were on the outside looking in, and even though they were asked in the survey to evaluate competencies as those required for a county Extension director, it would have been difficult for them to know what was required of CEDs on a day to day basis. I t may have also been difficult for them to mak e a fair and un biased decision without actually rating their own CED When conducting further research in this area, the research er would recommend better communication with county administrators and allowing more time to schedule interviews with county ad ministrators. This research found that CEDs have an average of 3.18 years of Extension experience. This finding contradicts the notion of hiring from within the Extension

PAGE 137

137 organization In addition, CEDs only have 4.59 years of previous leadership experience, and compared to the literature, 4.59 years would be considered low. The majority of the CED respondents were from urban counties, and therefore the perceptions of the forty leadership competencies may be viewed differently than those CEDs from rural counties. The percent time actually expended also may be a ffected by the classification of county. In addition, the personal relationships developed between county administrators and CEDs in rural counties maybe stronger than those in urban counties. This could certainly have an effect on the county views o f Extension and the role of the CED. Recommendations Based upon the finding and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations w ere made: Recommendations for Practice L eade rship professional development programs for county Extension directors should focus on developing all leadership competencies includ ing human and conceptual skills. CED development and advancement programs should be based on the 40 leadership competencies identified in this study. The large difference in the percent age of time CED s actually expend in the ir CED role and the percent age time formally assigned to this role needs to be evaluated by Extension administration CEDs reported spending much more time in their CED role than formally assigned. If CEDs continue to be hired with limited Extension experience, the Florida Cooperative Extension Service should invest significant resources in developing and delivering a high quality training program for new CED s. L eadership training should be provided to current CEDs in the following highest need areas: conflict resolution, time management, listening, saying no when warranted, c reating a supportive work environment Extension marketing, change implementation, communication in both oral and written forms, leadership by example, and leadership by example

PAGE 138

138 Prospective, new, and continuing CEDs should periodically complete a self assessment of the 40 CED leadership competencies and develop a corresponding professio nal development plan. The 40 CED leadership competencies should be used in clarifying the CED role with county administrators. Recommendations for Research Based upon the finding s and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations for further res earch were offered : This study focused on the leadership competencies needed by CEDs in Florida Extension. As Extension changes and moves towards a different organizational structure, stud ies should be conducted in states where clustering has been successful and those findings should be compa re d to the results of this study as they relate to leadership competencies. Further research in the area of leadership competencies should be conducted w ith county administrators and CEDs in Florida Further research at the national level should be conducted on the leadership competencies needed by local Extension leaders in order for them to remain relevant and effective in the future. Because conflict re solution and having a positive attitude were the highest need topics for CED p rofessional development further studies should determine the most effective strategies for developing these leadership skills. F urther research should be conducted to determine the perceptions of CED leadership effectiveness and needs by faculty staff and clientele

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL

PAGE 140

140

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 142

142 APPENDI X C MODERATORS GUIDE Leadership Competencies and Needs as Perceived by County and District Extension Directors in Florida Florida District Extension Directors Group & County Extension Directors Group Locations: Gainesville, FL WELCOME/GROUP PROCESS & PURPOSE (5 minutes) Moderator reads: Hello and welcome to ou r focus group session. Thank you for taking time to join our discussion today My name is Jessica Gouldthorpe and I will be moderating this session. This is Reba Hicks and she is my assistant moderator/note taker. You have been invited here today because w e are interested in having a general discussion with you about Leadership skills and competencies of County Extension Directors. We are very interested in your expertise in this area. in the conversation Please feel free to share your point of view even if it differs from what others have said. Please speak up and only o ne person should talk at a time 10 ion to the next. Sometimes there is a tendency in these discussions for some people to talk a lot and some people not to say much. But it is important for us to hear from each of you today because you have different experiences. So if one of you is sharing We welcome all opinions and will keep them confidential, so please feel free to say what you think. Additionally, we encourage you all to keep this di scussion confidential. However, we cannot guarantee that you all will do so. There is no particular order for the responses, and there are no correct/incorrect answers to any of the questions. This session will be recorded so that we are able to consider your views later. For the sake of clarity, please speak one at a time and be sure to speak loudly and clearly so that our recorders can pick up your comments You can see that we have placed name cards on the table in front of you. That is because we w ill be on a first name basis, but in our later reports there will not be no names attached to comments. You may be assured of confidentiality. Our session will last about one hour and we will take a break half way through If you have your cell phone wi th you, we would appreciate it if you could turn it off while we are in the discussion. I hope that everyone will feel comfort able with the process, and will feel free to share their opinions as we proceed. If you did not fill out a waiver when you arrive d, please see Laura and complete this form before we begin our discussion. Are there any questions before we begin? DISCUSSION SESSION (15 minutes) To begin our discussion today, I would like you to describe an exemplary County Extension Director in your district. o What do you see as the important duties of this position?

PAGE 143

143 o What leadership traits are required of CEDs? o What leadership roles does this CED position require? When the hiring process for a new County Extension Director takes place, what skills do you feel are needed? o How important are leadership skills for County Extension Directors? BREAK --5 min. Defining Leadership Competencies (20 minutes) Describe your definition of a leadership competency. an exemplary CED. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION (10 minutes) your perceptions and feelings toward leadership needs of CEDs : discussed? messages and big ideas that developed from the discussion). The main topics Is this an adequate summary? As was explained at the beginning of the session, the purpose of this focus group was to get your feedback and opinions about leadership competencies of CEDs Have we missed anything or are ther e any other comments at this time? Thank you for taking time out of your day to share your opinions.

PAGE 144

144 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE Leadership Competencies and Needs as Perceived by County and District Extension Directors AND County Administrators in Florida Location s : 3 Rural & Urban Counties in Florida Date: October & November, 2013 In this interview I want to talk to you about your perceptions of leadership competencies of County Extension Directors. To begin our discussion today, I would like yo u to describe an exemplary Leader within your county. o o What leadership traits are required in this position? o Describe an exemplary County Extension Director? When the hiring process for a ne w County Extension Director takes place at the county level, what skills do you feel are needed? o How important are leadership skills for County Extension Directors? Describe your definition of a leadership competency. competencies that are important to become an exemplary CED. CEDs: I am now going to try t Is this an adequate summary? Have we missed anything or are there any other comments at this time? Is there anything you would like to add? Thank you for taking time out of your day to share your opinions.

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX E CODING Human Skills Theme from CED & DED Focus Groups O p en Codes Axial Codes Communication Listening Communication Skills Speaking Ethically Guiding Fair Honesty Professional Ethics Respect Trust Values Customer Service Pati ence Personality/Attitude Positive Attitude Know when to say no Lead by example Relationships Servant Leader Servant spirit Coaching Mentoring Coach/Mentor Team builder Balance Critical Thinking Decisive Dependability Empathy Flexible Interpersonal Skills Motivated Multi task Open Minded Problem Solver

PAGE 146

146 Conceptual Skills Theme from Focus Groups Open Codes Axial Codes Active advisory committee Community Needs Connected with clientele Needs of Community Knows Stakeholders Change Agent Economic Development Innovative Visionary Outside the Box Visionary Day to day management Emergency Operations IT Support Liaison (County & UF) Management of Budget Organizational Management Time Managem ent Timely Reporting Understands Policies Organizational Skills Expert in Program Programmatic Efforts Teacher Evaluator Facilities Growth Promotes Staff growth Organizational growth Environment/Culture Resources Work environment Marketing of Extension Public Relations Marketing & Public Relations Political Savvy

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX F INSTRUMENT

PAGE 148

148 Q3 Rank the Level of Importance of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Not Important Of Little Importance Somewhat Important Important Very Important Having a positive attitude Time management Communication in oral and written form Decision making Dependability Empathy Empowerment Fair, honest, & trustworthiness Leadership by example Listening Mentoring and coaching Motivation and dedication Organization Conflict resolution Professionalism Relationship building Team building Saying no when warranted Change implementation Office management

PAGE 149

149 Q4 Rank the Level of Importance of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Not Important Of Little Importance Somewhat Important Important Very Important Employee evaluation Program evaluation Promoting growth in the organization Innovation Working with key leaders and clientele Extension marketing Creative thinking Program design and implementation Resourcefulness Public Speaking Visioning Creating a supportive work environment Teaching Extension audiences Leadership of Others Encouraging excellence among employees

PAGE 150

150 Budget management Organizational accountability Staff supervision Annual Reporting County and State emergency management operations

PAGE 151

151 Q5 Rank Your Knowledge Level of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Little Knowledge Some Knowledge Moderate Knowledge Substantial Knowledge High Level of Knowledge Having a positive attitude Time management Communication in oral and written form Decision making Dependability Empathy Empowerment Fair, honest, & trustworthiness Leadership by example Listening Mentoring and coaching Motivation and dedication Organization Conflict Resolution Professionalism Relationship Building Team building Saying no when warranted Change implementation Office management

PAGE 152

152 Q6 Rank Your Knowledge Level of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Little Knowledge Some Knowledge Moderate Knowledge Substantial Knowledge High Level of Knowledge Employee evaluation Program evaluation Promoting growth in the organization Innovation Working with key leaders and clientele Extension marketing Creative thinking Program design and implementation Resourcefulness Public speaking Visioning Creating a supportive work environment Teaching Extension audiences Leadership of others Encouraging excellence among employees

PAGE 153

153 Budget management Organizational accountability Staff supervision Annual Reporting County and State emergency management operations

PAGE 154

154 Q7 Rank Your Competence Level of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Not Competent Little Competence Somewhat Competent Competent Very Competent Having a positive attitude Time Management Communication in oral and written form Decision making Dependability Empathy Empowerment Fair, honest, and trustworthiness Leadership by example Listening Mentoring and coaching Motivation and dedication Organization Conflict resolution Professionalism Relationship Building Team building Saying no when warranted Change implementation Office management

PAGE 155

155 Q8 Rank Your Competence Level of each Leadership Competency based on your perception as a County Extension Director. Not Competent Little Competence Somewhat Competent Competent Very Competent Employee evaluation Program evaluation Promoting growth in the organization Innovation Working with key leaders and clientele Extension marketing Creative thinking Program design and implementation Resourcefulness Public Speaking Visioning Creating a supportive work environment Teaching Extension audiences Leadership of others Encouraging excellence among employees

PAGE 156

156 Budget management Organizational accountability Staff supervision Annual Reporting County and State emergency management operations

PAGE 157

157

PAGE 158

158

PAGE 159

159

PAGE 160

160

PAGE 161

161 County Administrator Instrument

PAGE 162

162 Q3 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Importance Level of each of the following competencies for UF/IFAS County Extension Directors. Not Important (1) Of Little Importance (2) Somewhat Important (3) Important (4) Very Important (5) Having a positive attitude (1) Time management (2) Communication in oral and written form (3) Decision making (4) Dependability (5) Empathy (6) Empowerment (7) Fair, honest, & trustworthiness (8) Leadership by example (9) Listening (10) Mentoring and coaching (11) Motivation and dedication (12) Organization (13) Conflict resolution (14) Professionalism (15) Relationship building (16) Team building (17) Saying no when warranted (18)

PAGE 163

163 Change implementation (19) Office management (20)

PAGE 164

164 Q4 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Importance Level of each of the following competencies for UF/IFAS County Extension Directors. Not Important (1) Of Little Importance (2) Somewhat Important (3) Important (4) Very Important (5) Employee evaluation (21) Program evaluation (22) Promoting growth in the organization (34) Innovation (23) Working with key leaders and clientele (24) Extension marketing (25) Creative thinking (26) Program design and implementation (27) Resourcefulness (28) Public Speaking (29) Visioning (30) Creating a supportive work environment (31) Teaching Extension audiences (32) Leadership of Others (33) Encouraging excellence among

PAGE 165

165 employees (46) Budget management (47) Organizational accountability (48) Staff supervision (49) Annual Reporting (50) County and State emergency management operations (51)

PAGE 166

166 Q5 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Knowledge Level needed by UF/IFAS County Extension Directors for each of the leadership competencies below. Little Knowledge (1) Some Knowledge (2) Moderate Knowledge (3) Substantial Knowledge (4) High Level of Knowledge (5) Having a positive attitude (1) Time management (2) Communication in oral and written form (3) Decision making (4) Dependability (5) Empathy (6) Empowerment (7) Fair, honest, & trustworthiness (8) Leadership by example (9) Listening (10) Mentoring and coaching (11) Motivation and dedication (12) Organization (13) Conflict Resolution (14) Professionalism (15) Relationship Building (16) Team building (17) Saying no when

PAGE 167

167 warranted (18) Change implementation (19) Office management (20)

PAGE 168

168 Q6 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Knowledge Level needed by UF/IFAS County Extension Directors for each of the leadership competencies below. Little Knowledge (1) Some Knowledge (2) Moderate Knowledge (3) Substantial Knowledge (4) High Level of Knowledge (5) Employee evaluation (21) Program evaluation (22) Promoting growth in the organization (33) Innovation (23) Working with key leaders and clientele (24) Extension marketing (25) Creative thinking (26) Program design and implementation (27) Resourcefulness (28) Public speaking (29) Visioning (30) Creating a supportive work environment (31) Teaching Extension audiences (32) Leadership of others (34) Encouraging excellence

PAGE 169

169 among employees (35) Budget management (36) Organizational accountability (37) Staff supervision (38) Annual Reporting (39) County and State emergency management operations (40)

PAGE 170

170 Q7 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Competence Level needed by UF/IFAS County Extension Directors for each of the competencies below. Not Competent (1) Little Competence (2) Somewhat Competent (3) Competent (4) Very Competent (5) Having a positive attitude (1) Time Management (2) Communication in oral and written form (3) Decision making (4) Dependability (5) Empathy (6) Empowerment (7) Fair, honest, and trustworthiness (8) Leadership by example (9) Listening (10) Mentoring and coaching (11) Motivation and dedication (12) Organization (13) Conflict resolution (14) Professionalism (15) Relationship Building (16) Team building (17)

PAGE 171

171 Saying no when warranted (18) Change implementation (35) Office management (19)

PAGE 172

172 Q8 Based on your perceptions as a County Administrator, rate the Competence Level needed by UF/IFAS County Extension Directors for each of the competencies below. Not Competent (1) Little Competence (2) Somewhat Competent (3) Competent (4) Very Competent (5) Employee evaluation (20) Program evaluation (21) Promoting growth in the organization (22) Innovation (23) Working with key leaders and clientele (24) Extension marketing (25) Creative thinking (26) Program design and implementation (27) Resourcefulness (28) Public Speaking (29) Visioning (30) Creating a supportive work environment (31) Teaching Extension audiences (32) Leadership of others (33) Encouraging excellence among

PAGE 173

173 employees (51) Budget management (52) Organizational accountability (53) Staff supervision (54) Annual Reporting (55) County and State emergency management operations (56) Q9 Classification of your county Urban Rural Q10 How many years have you served as a County Administrator? Q11 Your highest degree earned Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree Other Q12 How many years did you hold a leadership position in an organization or agency prior to becoming a county administrator? Q13 The number of employees under your direct supervision.

PAGE 174

174 Q14 Your age Less than 30 30 40 41 50 51 60 More than 60 Q15 Your Ethnicity White African American Asian Hispanic Other ____________________ Q16 Gender Male Female

PAGE 175

175 APPENDIX G E MAIL PRE NOTIFICATION Dear County Extension Director, Cindy Sanders is the UF/IFAS Extension Alachua County Director; she is also a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida in the Agricultural Education and Communication by County Extension Directors, District Extension Directors and County Administrators in leadership competencies. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. This research w ill be valuable to CEDs, the outcomes will hopefully provide us with some valuable information on what competencies are needed for CEDs, and the need for future trainings in these areas. Your answers will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law Your name will not be used in any report or presentation. Please note that each respondent is sent a unique survey link to the online questionnaire but this is only to track response rates and send email reminders. Your participation is voluntary. We b elieve that there are no risks to you from participating in this study. There are also no direct benefits or compensation to you for participating. If you have questions about your rights, contact the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gain esville, FL 32611 2250. If you have any questions or concerns about the survey, please call Cindy Sanders at ______ Thank You for your participation. Sincerely, Cindy Sanders, UF/IFAS Extension Alachua County Director

PAGE 176

176 APPENDIX H EMAIL PRE NOTIFICATION TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX I SECOND, AND THIRD EMAIL REMINDER SENT TO SUBJECTS Dear County Extension Directors, First, I want to thank those that have completed the CED Leadership Survey, your participation is important as a CED I want to remind you if you have not completed the survey to please take about 10 minutes to complete the survey now. This research is vital to your role in Extension as a County Director. Thank You, Cindy Sanders Follow this link to the Survey: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_79YVDcFBUDWPaOV Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL} Follow the link to opt out of future emails: D ear County Administrators, First, I would like to thank those that have already completed the survey, your support is greatly appreciated. If you have not completed the survey please take about 10 minutes to complete, your participation is important in st rengthening our UF/IFAS Extension and County partnership. Thank You, Cindy Sanders, UF/IFAS Extension Alachua County Director Follow this link to the Survey: https://ufl.qualt rics.com/SE/?SID=SV_dhD0GTCfV4LrjPD Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL}

PAGE 178

178 Dear CEDs, You are receiving this e mail because I do not have record of you completing the Extension Leadership Survey. You certainly are not obligated to complete the survey; this is simply a reminder message. Your participation in this survey is vital to our leadership role as a CED. It will take approximately 10 minutes of your time. This survey will be active until February 3, 2104. Tha nk You, Cindy Sanders Follow this link to the Survey: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_79YVDcFBUDWPaOV Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://Surv eyURL} Follow the link to opt out of future emails: ${l://OptOutLink?d=Click here to unsubscribe} Dear County Administrators, You are receiving this e mail because I do not have record of you completing the Extension Leadership survey. You certainly are not obligated to complete the survey; this is simply a reminder message. It will take approximately 10 minutes of your time. Your participation is vital to the UF/IFAS Extension partnership. Thank You, Cindy Sanders, UF/IFAS Extension Alachua County Direc tor Follow this link to the Survey: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_dhD0GTCfV4LrjPD Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://SurveyURL} Follow the link to opt out of future emails: ${l://OptOutLink?d=Click here to unsubscribe}

PAGE 179

179 LIST OF REFERENCES Argabright, K., King, J., Cochran, G. (2013). Leadership Institute: Building Leadership Capacity Through Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Extension 51(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2013april/iw3.php Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2007). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Athey, T.R. & Orth, M.S. (1999). Emerging competency methods for the future. Human Resource Management 38(3), 215 226. Barge, J.K.(1994). Leadership Communication Skills for Organizations and Groups New Bar On, R. (2002). EQ I: Bar On emotional quotient inventory technical manual. Toronto, C anada: Multi Health Systems. Bedian, A.G. (1993). Management (3 rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:Har per and Row Publishers, INC. Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences London: Sage Publications. Boltes, B., Lippke, L., & Gregory, E. (1995). Employee Satisfaction in Extension: A Texas Study. Journal of Extension 33(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995/October/rb1.php Borich, G.D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow up studies. Journal of Teacher Education 32(3), 39 42. Brodeur, C., Higgins, C., & Galindo Gonzales, S. (2011). Designing a Competency Based New County Extension Personnel Training Program: A Novel Approach. Journal of Extension 49(3). Available at: www.joe.org/ joe/2011june/a2.php Bruce, J.A, Anderson, J. (2012). Perceptions of the Training needs of the Newest Members of the Extension Family. Journal of Extension 50(6). Available at: http://www.joe.o rg/jow/2012december/rb5.php Bryant S E (2003) The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9:32 44. Carter, H. (2004). Leadership Expectations and Perceptions of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. Dissertation, University of Florida.

PAGE 180

180 Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackw ell handbook of social psychology: Group processes Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Cooper, A. & Graham, D. (2001). Competencies Needed to be Successful County Agents and County Supervisors. Journal of Extension 39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.php Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (2 nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. Educational measurement (2d ed.). Washington: American Council on Education. Crotty, M., (2004). The Foundations of Social Research. London,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Day, D. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly ,Volume 11, Issue 4, Winter 2000, Pages 581 613. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (3 rd Edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Eckman, R. (2003). Standing up when it matters. CIC Newsletter, April 2, 2003. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (2002). The Extension System: A vision for the 21 st century. Washington, D.C., National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Fehlis, C.P. (2005) A call for visionary leadership. Journal of Extension, 43(1). Available at: htt p://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/comm1.php Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6 (1/2), 86 97. Freund, R., Wilson, W. (2003). Statistical Methods. San Diego, CA: American Press. Franz N., Weeks, R. (2008). Enhancing Extension Coaching: Navigating the Triangular Relationship. Journal of Extension, 46(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008october/tt1.php

PAGE 181

181 Gardner, L., Stough, C. (2002). Examining the rela tionship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23(2), 68 78. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago. Aldine. Glassford, R.G. (1987). Methodological reconsiderations: The Shifting Paradigms. Quest 39(3),295 312. Gmelch, W.H., Wolverton, H., Wolverton ,M.L. & Sarros, J.C. (1999). The academic dean: An imperiled species searching for balance. Research in Higher Education, 40 (6), 717 740. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93 102. Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic Ch ange Leadership, Management Decision. Management & Marketing Research. University Press, West Yorkshire, England. Greene, J., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation 7(1), 25 44. Greenbaum H. (1974). The audit of organization communication. Academy of Management Journal 17, 739 754. Grudens Schuck, N., Allen, B., & Larson, K. (2004) Focus Group Fundamentals. Methodology Brief PM 1989b. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension. Gubri um, E., Koro Ljungberg, M. (2005). Contending with Border Making in the Social Constructionist Interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(5), 689 715. Harder, A., Place, N.T., & Sheer, S.D. (2010). Towards a competency based Extension Education Curriculum: A delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education 51(3), 22 32. Doi:10.5032/jae.2009.03022 Hatch, A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings. Albany:State University of New York Press. asuring staff competence. Nursing Management 33(2), 22. Hicks, H. G. & Gullett, C.R. (1975). Organizations: Theory and behavior. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Higgins, J.M. (1994). The Management Challenge (2 nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 182

182 Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9, 74 78 Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169 180. Holmes, J., Schnurr, S, & Marra, M. (2007). Leadership and communication: discursive evidence of a workplace culture change. Discourse & Communication 1(4), 433 451. House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 1 6, 321 338. House, R.J., Rizzo, J.R., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Roe conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrators Science Quarterly 15(2), 150 163. Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Manageme nt Learning and Education, 2 74 84. Jones, D. (2006). Leadership in colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences: An Examination of Leadership Skills, Leadership Styles, and Problem Solving Styles of Academic Program Leaders. Dissertation UF. Available at: http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0013806 Katz, R.L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Bu siness Review 33(1), 33 42. Katz, J.H., F.A. Miller (1996). Coaching leaders through culture change Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 48 (1996), pp. 104 114. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6 th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kutilek, L., & Earnest, G. (2001). Supporting professional growth through mentoring and coaching. Journal of Extension 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/jow/2001august/rb1.html Ladewig, H., & Rohs, F.R. (2000). Southern Extension Leadership Development: Leadership development for a learning organization. Journal of Extension Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/a2.php

PAGE 183

183 Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human resource capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review 24 31 49. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Linder, J., & Dooley, K. (2002). Agricultural Education Competencies and Progress Toward a Doctoral Degree. Journal of Agricultural Education 43(1). Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1989). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Marsick, J.J. & Watkins, K.E. (1999). Facilitating Learing Organizations: Making Learning Count. Aldershot, England: Grower. Mathews, C. (2010). Volunteer Leaders h ip in the U.S. Beef Industry. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041590/00001 McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCauley, C.D., Ruderman M.N., Ohlott, P.J., & Morrow, J.E. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 544 560. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1 14. McDowell, G. (2001). Land grant universities and Extension into the 21 st century. Ames, IA:Iowa State University Press. McKim, B., & Saucier, R. (2011). An Excel Based Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score Calculator. Journal of Extension, 49(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/tt8.php Merkowitz, R.F., Earnest, G. (2006). Emotional Intelligence: A Pathway to Self Understandingand Improved Leadership Capacities. Journal of Extension 44 (4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/iw3.php Merriam, S.B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Journal of Lifelong Learning 4, 51 60.

PAGE 184

184 Moore, L. L. & Rudd, R. D. (2004). Leadership skills and competencies for extension directors and administrators. Journal of Extension 45(3), 22 33. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001 Moore, L. L. evaluation of leadership skill areas. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46 (1), 69 79. Morden, T. (1197). Leadership as vision. Management Decision 35(9), 668 676. Norcini, J.J., Jr. (1999). Standards and reliability in evaluation: When rules of thumb Academic Medicine 74(10), 1088 1090. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Obreza, T. (2013). Personal Interview May 24, 2013. Olivero, G., Bane, D. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personal Management 26(4). Owen, M. (2004). Defining key sub competencies for Administrative County Lea ders. Journal of Extension 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/rb3.php Parker, K.L. (2004). Leadership Styles of Agricultural Communications and Information Technology Managers: What Does the Competing Values Framework Tell Us About Them? Journal of Extension, 42(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004februrary/a1.php Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, California:Sage. Penley, L., Alexander, E., Jernigan, I., Henwood, C. (1991). Communication Abilities of Managers: The Relationship to Performance. Journal of Management 17(1), 57 76. Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a l eadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public Personnel Management, 30 (4), 429 444. Pickett, L. (1998). Competencies and Managerial Effectiveness: Putting Competencies to Work. Public Personnel Management, 27(1), 103 115. Qualtrics. (201 2). Academic solutions. Retrived from http://www.qualtrics.com/academicsolutions Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc., Publishers.

PAGE 185

185 Radhakrishna, R., Y oder, E., Baggett, C. (1994). Leadership Effectiveness of County Extension Directors. Journal of Extension 32(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/rb2.php Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taki ng the University to the People Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Robbins, C.J., Bradley, E.H., & Spicer, M. (2001). Developing leadership in healthcare administration: A competency assessment tool. Journal of Healthcare Management 46(3), 188 199. Robinson, N. (1999). The use of focus group methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 29 (4),905 913. Rodgers, M. S., Hillaker, B., Haas, B., Peters, C.(2012). Taxonomy for Assessing Evaluation Competencies in Extension. Journal of Extension 50 (4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012august/a2.php Rowe, E. (2010). Looking at Extension as a Learning Organization. Journal of Extension 48(4). Rudd, R.D. (2001). Perceptions of self and others. Proceedings of the 27 th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference (pp.81 91). San Diego, CA: Association for Career and Technical Education. Sa lant, P., & Dillman, D. (2007). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley Co.: New York, NY. Schaefer, K.M.(2004). Using business literature to illustrate the power of the team. Nurse Educator, 29(5), 217 219. Scheer, S., Ferrari, T., Earnest, G., Co nner, J. (2006). Preparing Extension Journal of Extension, 44(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/a1.php Schreiber, B., & Shannon, J. (2001). Developing library leaders for the 21st century. In Winston, M. D. (Ed.), Leadership in the Library and Information Science Professions: Theory and Practice (pp. 35 57). Bingamton, NY: Haworth Press. Schultz, B. (1980) Communicative correlates of perceived leaders. Small Group Behavior, 11(2), 175 191

PAGE 186

186 Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., Conklin, N. (1997). Education Through Cooperative Extension. Albany, New York: Delmar Publishers. Shippmann, J., Ash,R., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J.,Pearlman, K. Preien, E, & Sanchez, J. (2000). The practice of competency modeling, Personnel Psychology vol. 53, 730 740. Journal of Extension ,35(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997april/tt2.php Stone, B.B. & Bieber, S. (1997). Competencies: A new language for our work. Journal Of Extension 35(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/comm1.php Stone, B. & Coppernoll, S. (2004). You, extension, and success: A competency based professional development system. Journal of Extension 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/iwl.shtml Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Thach, E.C. 2002. The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedb ack on leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 23(4), 205 214. Traub, R.E. (1994). Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. University of Florida/IFAS District Extension Director Website. (2013). Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://ded.ifas.ufl.edu/ University of Florida/IFAS Extension Website. (2013). Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http ://ifas.ufl.edu/index.php University of Florida/IFAS Human Resources. (2013). Retrieved June 26, 2013, from http://ded.ifas.ufl.edu/ Vakola, M., Soderquist, K.E., & Prastacos, G.P. (2007). Competency management in support of organizational change. International Journal of Manpower 28(3/4), 260 275. Vera, D., Crossan, M. (2013). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review 29(2), 222 240.

PAGE 187

187 Waters, R.G., & Haskell, L.J. (1989). Identifying staff development needs of cooperative extension faculty using a modified Borich needs assessment model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(2), 26 32. Young, M., Post, J.D. (1993). How leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics 22(1), 31 41. Zand, D. (1996). The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, Trust, and Power New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 188

188 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cynthia B issett Sanders was born 1968, in Winter Haven, Florida. She is the daughter of Glenn and Marjorie Bissett. She began her love of agriculture early in life working in the cow pens, or in the citrus grove. Growing up she was actively involved in bot h 4 H and FFA. Upon graduation from Santa Fe High School, Alachua, FL., she began her college career at Santa Fe College, Gainesville, FL. After receiving her A ssociate of S cience degree, she transferred to the University of Florida, where she earned a bac 1991. In 1991, she started her career as a ranch manager of a local purebred Angus operation. After three years as a ranch manager, she pursued her agricultural teaching degree and taught vocational agriculture for one year before getting married. After marriage, she moved to South Georgia, where she was a processing supervisor for Sunnyland Meats. In 1997, she returned to Florida to continue teaching at Santa Fe High School, Alachua FL. In 2001, she was offered the Alachua County Livestock Extension agent agricultural education and communication at the University of Florida. After graduating with her M.S. in 2005, she became the Alachua County Extension director. In 2009, she began working her doctoral program in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at UF. Her research studied CED leadership competencies and is directly related to the wo rk that she does as a CED. Upon graduation she will use this research to work with other faculty in developing leadership training opportunities for CEDs.