Leadership Styles of Agricultural Communications and Information Technology Managers: What Does the Competing Values Framework Tell Us About Them?

Introduction

Although the Cooperative Extension Service has been in existence for almost a century, it must have strong management and leadership to remain a viable organization in a rapidly changing, more complex, and increasingly diverse world marked by limited resources (Smith, 1990). While the terms "management" and "leadership" are often used synonymously, according to Campbell (1997) management refers to ensuring continuing efficient operations of the organization in its current mode. Leadership, in contrast, involves change.

Both skills are desirable and required in today's workplace, and practitioners must use both in what has evolved to be more of an art than a science. According to Belasen (1998), the art of managing and leading organizations today lies in embracing incompatible forces instead of choosing between them.

Ladewig and Rohs (2000) believe that Extension faces three major leadership challenges. First, many managers today are expected to address issues in areas in which they have limited knowledge and experience. Second, with the emergence of information technology and access to information that is contrary to most hierarchical management structures, new management competencies and styles will be required in practically every organization. Third, most managers in Extension lack any professional training in management competencies and leadership styles.

The study described here compared the leadership styles of managers of agricultural communications, information technology, or combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES to identify their leadership strengths as well as potential areas for improvement.

Background

At most institutions, departments that specialize in agricultural communications and information technology support the Cooperative Extension Service. Over half of these units, whether or not they are combined, also support the Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural communications units first appeared in the early 1900s to provide communications leadership and work with all forms of traditional communications, including:

• Media relations,
• Public affairs,
• Publishing,
• Printing,
• Exhibits, and
• Photography.

With the emergence of the WWW, most of these units have also assumed responsibility for Web site development and maintenance.

Information technology units are a much newer phenomenon, many coming into existence around the advent of microcomputers in the early 1980s. These units are responsible for information technology applications and operations, and support business that is efficiently and effectively conducted through the use of state-of-the-art information systems and technologies.

In most states, the agricultural communications and information technology units are separate; however, in some states the two units combined to form one administrative unit under single leadership. Vacin (1991) reported that between 1983 and 1991 11 land-grant universities consolidated their agricultural communications and information technology units, and more consolidations have occurred since then. While to some, combining these two units has seemed justified by emerging technologies that have made the missions of these two units more closely aligned, others do not feel a merger is warranted.

Methodology

Theoretical Basis

The Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn (1988) was selected as the theoretical basis for the study. It defines eight roles, or behaviors, that are required of managers in any organization. While individuals may have preferences and strengths in certain roles, the ultimate goal is to achieve comfort and balance using each of the eight roles. They include:

1. Facilitator: facilitates interaction by being process-oriented
2. Mentor: shows consideration by being caring and empathetic
3. Innovator: envisions change by being creative and clever
4. Broker: acquires resources by being resource-oriented and politically astute
5. Producer: initiates action by being task-oriented and work-focused
6. Director: provides structure by being decisive and directive
7. Coordinator: maintains structure by being dependable and reliable
8. Monitor: collects information by being technically expert

The eight roles each fall into one of four quadrants on a graph created by two axes (Figure 1). The vertical axis ranges from flexibility to control, and the horizontal axis from an internal focus with a longer time horizon to an external focus with a shorter time horizon. Because each axis is a continuum, categories are not mutually exclusive. Each quadrant of the Competing Values Framework represents a major model in organizational theory. These include the rational goal model, the internal process model, the human relations model, and the open systems model.

Figure 1.
Competing Values Framework

Research Questions

Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference among the manager roles preferred by agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES?

Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference between the manager roles preferred by men and women who are agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES?

Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference among the manager roles preferred by agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES, based on other demographic factors, such as: age, education, department structure, units supported, years of employment, years of leadership experience, and region of the country employed?

Design

This study was quantitative and employed a cross-sectional design. Data were collected from each participant once during the data collection period to describe and compare variables at a single point in time.

Instrumentation

A two-part instrument was used for this study. Part one, designed by the researcher, was used to collect general demographic information about each survey participant. The information collected, as well as the corresponding variable name in parentheses where appropriate, included:

• The respondents' name;
• Their e-mail address;
• Their job title;
• The institution where they were employed;
• Their department name;
• Whether their department structure was separate or combined (STRUCTURE);
• The units supported by their department (SUPPORT);
• Whether or not they were a manager (MANAGER), and if so, the area(s) they managed (AREAS);
• The number of years they had been employed at the current institution (YEARS);
• The number of years they had work in a leadership role at the current institution (LEADER);
• The total number of years they had worked in a leadership role (TOTAL);
• Their gender (GENDER);
• Their age (AGE);
• Their highest educational degree (EDUCATION); and
• The major for their highest educational degree (MAJOR).

The region of the country that they worked (REGION) was assigned based on the location of the institution where the respondent was employed.

Part two of the survey instrument was the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment developed by Robert E. Quinn (1988), which is comprised of 16 statements. Respondents select the most appropriate response to each statement using a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (very infrequently) to 7 (very frequently). Statements are then paired to form eight scales that characterize leadership behavior; the score for each is calculated by determining the average response to the two statements. The variables for this instrument included responses to the 16 statements (Q1-Q16) and the computed scores for the eight leadership roles (FACILITATOR, MENTOR, INNOVATOR, BROKER, PRODUCER, DIRECTOR, COORDINATOR, MONITOR).

Sampling

The population that this study attempted to draw conclusions about was past, present, and future managers of agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES. To study this population, a sample comprised of the individuals who were currently managers in 49 states and USDA-CSREES was selected. Vermont was omitted because at the time of the study the researcher was the manager of Vermont's combined agricultural communications and information technology unit. The sample was random in that the composition of this group of managers constantly changes, and the individuals surveyed from the period of September 23 to October 31, 2002, comprised a membership of individuals unique to that point in time.

Data Collection

Data collection was entirely electronic. Agricultural communications and information technology managers were initially contacted on September 23, 2002, using e-mail distribution lists available for each group through USDA-CSREES. This preliminary communication introduced the study and included an embedded HTML link to the Web-based survey. The survey collected demographic information on each subject as well as replicating the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment. When respondents finished completing the survey and used the "submit" button the survey was sent to the researcher via e-mail. Follow-up e-mail messages were sent weekly to remind individuals to participate. Data collection took approximately 1 month, concluding on October 31, 2002.

Results

Demographics

Surveys were sent to 100 individuals, and 94 responses (94%) met the criteria of currently being managers and could be used in the study. Respondents were from 48 states as well as CREEES leaders from USDA. Rhode Island did not have these managers on their staff at the time of the study. Categorical variables in this study included AREAS, STRUCTURE, SUPPORT, REGION, GENDER, EDUCATION, and MAJOR, and are summarized in Table 1. Continuous variables in this study included AGE, EMPLOYED, LEADER, and TOTAL, and are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1.
Summary of Categorical Variables AREAS, STRUCTURE, SUPPORT, REGION, GENDER, EDUCATION and MAJOR

Variable	n	%	Missing Cases
AREAS
Agricultural Communications	34	36.2
Information Technology	36	38.3
Both	24	25.5
Total	94	100.0
STRUCTURE
Separate	59	62.8
Combined	35	37.2
Total	94	100.0
SUPPORT
Experiment Station	4	4.3
Extension	23	24.5
Both	65	69.1
Total	92	97.9	2
REGION
Northeast	20	21.3
North Central	21	22.3
Southern	30	31.9
Western	23	24.5
Total	94	100.0
GENDER
Female	31	33.0
Male	63	67.0
Total	94	100.0
EDUCATION
Bachelors	19	20.2
Masters	44	46.8
Doctorate	25	26.6
Other	5	5.3
Total	93	98.9	1
MAJOR
Agricultural Communications	23	24.4
Information Technology	9	9.6
Other	59	62.8
Total	91	96.8	3

 

Table 2.
Summary of Continuous Variables AGE, EMPLOYED, LEADER, and TOTAL

Variable	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Median	Mode	n	Missing Cases
AGE	49.1	8.0	32.0	64.0	49.5	55.0	94	0
EMPLOYED	15.4	9.6	1.0	35.0	15.0	13.0	94	0
LEADER	8.4	7.0	0.0	30.0	6.0	1.0	93	1
TOTAL	12.9	9.1	1.0	37.0	12.0	4.0	88	6

The typical manager was male, age 49, with a Master's degree in a discipline other than agricultural communications or information technology. This individual managed either agricultural communications or information technology, but not both, and the majority of their units supported both the Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricultural Experiment Station.

On the average, managers had been employed at the current institution for more than 15 years and had been in a leadership position at this institution for more than 8 years, although including other institutions the total number of years they had spent in leadership positions was closer to 13 years. The mode for LEADER and TOTAL (1 and 4, respectively) is noteworthy because it is much smaller than either the mean or median of each, indicating that many respondents were relative newcomers in their position.

The breakdown of GENDER by the areas managed is shown in Table 3. It shows that while females equal males as managers of agricultural communications units (18% each), they comprise less than one third of the managers of information technology units or combined agricultural communications and information technology units (9% percent to 30%, and 6% to 19%, respectively).

Table 3.
Gender of Survey Respondents by Areas Managed

GENDER	Combined n (%)	Agricultural Communications n (%)	Information Technology n (%)	Total n (%)
Male	18 (19.15)	17 (18.09)	28 (29.79)	63 (67.02)
Female	6 (6.38)	17 (18.09)	8 (8.51)	31 (32.98)
Total	34 (36.17)	36 (38.30)	24 (25.53)	94 (100.00)

Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment

Nine respondents did not complete all 16 questions in the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment, resulting in 12 missing values. Rather than delete these records from the study, the missing values were predicted using multiple regression.

Statements one through sixteen were paired and the scores averaged to create eight managerial roles:

• Facilitator (statements seven and sixteen),
• Mentor (statements one and ten),
• Innovator (statements four and twelve),
• Broker (statements three and thirteen),
• Producer (statements six and fifteen),
• Director (statements five and eleven),
• Coordinator (statements eight and fourteen), and
• Monitor (statements two and nine).

On a scale of 1 to 7, the mean score for these eight roles was lowest for monitor (3.8), followed by coordinator (4.7), mentor (5.1), broker and director (5.3), innovator (5.7), facilitator (5.8), and producer (6.0). The standard deviation for each score ranged from 0.9 to 1.4. The mean (m) and standard deviation (s) of the eight scores are plotted on a radar chart in Figure 2 to show the average leadership profile of the survey respondents.

Figure 2.
Radar Chart of Average Competing Values Framework Leadership Profile

Research Question One

Among this group of managers, one-way analysis of variance did not indicate that there was a difference in the means of the eight leadership roles based on the areas managed by an individual. There were no significant differences (p<.05) among managers of agricultural communications, information technology, or combined agricultural communications and information technology units for any of the eight roles.

Research Question Two

One-way analysis of variance indicated that in this group of managers, gender influenced the producer role, with women having a significantly higher mean score than men (p<.0492). The mean score for females was 6.3 with a standard deviation of 0.7, while the mean score for males was 5.8 with a standard deviation of 1.1. The means of the other seven roles were not significantly different between men and women.

Research Question Three

Analysis of variance did not find differences in the leadership roles based on level of education, major for highest degree, structure of the unit, or units supported by the department the individual managed. Pearson correlation coefficients did not find an association between the eight roles and age, years of employment at the current institution, years in leadership at the current institution, or total years in leadership positions.

The region of the country, however, influenced the coordinator role, with the Southern region having a significantly higher mean score than other regions (p<.0491). Fisher's LSD indicated that the Southern region scored significantly higher in the coordinator role than the North Central and Western regions, but not the Northeastern region. The mean score for the Southern region was 5.1 with a standard deviation of 0.9, the mean score for the North Central region was 4.3 with a standard deviation of 1.4, the mean score for the Western region was 4.3 with a standard deviation of 1.2, and the mean score for the Northeast region was 4.9 with a standard deviation of 1.3.

Discussion

To Merge or Not to Merge?

In this study, 18 of the states, or 36%, had combined agricultural communications and information technology units. This is an increase from the 11 states that Vacin reported having merged units in his 1991 study. In most cases, the on-going justification for combining units has been the similarity in their missions, brought even closer through their shared use and reliance on emerging technologies. While this has made sense to some people, especially in an era of eroding budgets, others have resisted such mergers vigorously.

In light of the current study, which concluded that managers of agricultural communications units and information technology units are not significantly different in any of the eight manager roles, merging may be less painful than many would believe. The majority of managers did not receive formal education in the discipline they are managing anyway, so leadership qualities and experience may be more important for managers than a working knowledge of all the disciplines in the combined unit, as Vacin (1991) suggested is a requirement. The outcome of this study, which determined that managers of agricultural communications units, information technology units, and combined information technology units are more similar than different, may help defuse the issue of whether or not to merge.

Achieving Strength and Balance in Leadership Roles

On a scale of 1 to 7, managers in this study assessed themselves to be above the midpoint for each of the eight leadership roles. While the scores were high, indicating self-perception is quite good, Quinn (1988) suggests the goal is to become a "master manager" by excelling in each of the eight roles. The first implication is obvious, that all managers will become adept in each role. The second implication is somewhat subtler, that good managers will achieve balance in executing all eight roles.

The managers in this study had the lowest average scores in the coordinator and monitor roles, the two roles that comprise the internal process model. Leaders who have a tendency towards a conservative, cautious style characterize this model. The coordinator is expected to maintain the structure and flow of the system, and the monitor is expected to know what is going on in the unit, to determine whether people are complying with the rules, and to see if the unit is meeting its quotas.

While managers may view these attributes as negative, they are important roles to be comfortable in, and should be used in concert with the other six roles to be an effective manager. In this study, managers from the Southern region demonstrated more strength than some other regions in the coordinator role. These results could reflect a more conservative, traditional nature associated with the South.

The group of managers in this study most closely resembled the profile of effective managers Quinn (1988) called "conceptual producers," who also score lowest in the coordinator and monitor roles. Quinn characterizes this group as conceptually skilled because they work well with ideas and are particularly good at coming up with new ideas and selling them. Like many managers matching this profile, the individuals in this study had a higher level of graduate education and were in the upper-middle levels of management. According to Quinn, although these people tend to pay little attention to details they are highly trained, conceptually skilled, production-oriented managers who are clearly seen as effective. Leadership training, however, could make them even better.

Changing the Face of the Typical Manager

In this study, the majority of managers were men. According to Goering (1990), male leadership has typically dominated USDA-CSREES and its state partners. More women have advanced to positions of leadership in agricultural communications than information technology. Traditionally, more women have been attracted to careers such as writing, editing, and media relations than information technology. Men have more heavily dominated information technology as a discipline since its inception. In drawing from their existing pools of managers, combined units are also more likely to be managed by a man.

A goal of USDA-CSREES and its state partners should be to recruit, hire, and advance more females to change the typical profile of these managers to be more gender neutral. While the women in this study had leadership styles that were for the most part, comparable to men, they also had strengths that could improve the overall profile of these leaders.

In particular, these women exemplified the rational goal model, characterized by leaders who are predisposed towards a directive, goal-oriented style reflected in the producer and director roles. They were stronger producers than their male counterparts, being more inclined to be task-oriented and work-focused and to have high interest, motivation, energy, and personal drive. Clearly, rather than being a drawback as future USDA-CSREES state partners leaders, women are a potential asset that should be tapped.

References

Belasen, A. T. (1998). Paradoxes and leadership roles: Assessing and developing managerial competencies. Available at: http://www.esc.edu/ESConline/Across_ESC/Forumjournal.nsf/ web+view/8CEDA4FD8DBF9952852567CA0066523E?opendocument

Campbell, R. R. (1997). Leadership: Getting it done. Available at: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/RCampbell/Leadership/chapter3b.htm

Goering, L. A. (1990). Women in Extension management. Journal of Extension [On-line],28(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/a7.html

Ladewig, H., & Rohs, F. R. (2000). Southern Extension leadership development: Leadership development for a learning organization. Journal of Extension [On-line],38(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/a2.html

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Smith, K. L. (1990). The future leaders in Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut1.html

Vacin, G. L. (1991). To merge or not to merge: Observations and recommendations. Journal of Applied Communications, 75(2), 51-55.