Supervisors' and 4-H Youth Development Educators' Perceptions of the Leadership Practices Employed by Educators

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

Interest in the concept of leadership has been steadily increasing for scholars, public and private organizations, and managers since the late 20th century (Nahavandi, 2003; Dubrin, 2001). Kouzes and Posner (1987) noted that leadership is an observable, learnable set of practices. Accepting this statement as true implies that leadership can be taught.

Leadership encompasses a vast array of skills and abilities. These skills and abilities come into play as leaders interact with their peers, subordinates, and supervisors. Cacioppe (1998) demonstrated that there is a need for leadership and positive leadership skills in all organizations not limited to the corporate world. Increasingly, individuals in all fields need greater levels of positive leadership skills to be successful. In today's society, people in positions of leadership are required to not only become skillful in shaping their own preferred futures and fulfilling their own goals but also the futures and goals of their followers as well (Kaagan, 1998).

In the past 15 years, there have been major changes in Extension. Leadership philosophies taught in the programs of the past no longer address the complex problems found in the communities and organizations of today (Sandman & Vandenberg, 1995). The management and leadership skills formerly found at the top of the most wanted list, no longer apply, and new leadership skills are needed for success (Sandman & Vandenberg, 1995).

A significant component of the Cooperative Extension System is the investment in youth development through the 4-H program. The efforts of 4-H are guided by Extension educators focusing on 4-H Youth Development. The 4-H educator's job is to facilitate, coordinate, and lead volunteers who work directly with youth in rural, urban, and suburban areas. 4-H Youth Development educators need to properly meet the needs of young people, their parents, and the volunteer leaders within their programs.

While investigating the leadership practices of Extension educators, it is important to also examine the leadership beliefs held by their supervisors. This assessment is critical so that any gaps between the educators' perception of skills being practiced, the supervisors' observation of skills being utilized, and more effective leadership competencies can be identified and addressed through staff development opportunities. Feife and Schyns (2004) conducted a study that included 213 participants, who were simultaneously leaders and subordinates. This study found that supervisors found their subordinates to be more successful leaders of others when the subordinates practiced similar leadership skills to their own.

These researchers suggest that Extension educators who have mastered various leadership practices are more likely to have a greater impact on citizens in their communities. Because Extension educators reach a large number of people each year, both youth and adults, through educational programs, it is essential to discover if they possess the kinds of leadership skills needed to make them as successful as possible at positively affecting those lives.

Purpose/Objectives

The purpose of the study described here was to investigate leadership practices of Extension educators who have an appointment in 4-H Youth Development to provide direction for leadership staff development efforts. Specifically, the study objectives were to:

1. Identify leadership practices used by Extension educators as reported in a self assessment.

2. Identify leadership practices being observed by the educators' direct supervisor.

3. Investigate what differences exist between the skills reported by the educators and the skills observed by their supervisors.

Methods/Procedures

The target population for the descriptive study was all current Extension educators with a substantial (51% or greater) appointment in 4-H and Youth Development (N₁=79) and their direct supervisors (N₂=79).

The researchers used two instruments to gather data. Bass (1997) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that measures elements of transformational and transactional leadership and organizational outcomes (Brown, Birnstihl, & Wheeler, 1996). Kouzes and Posner (2003) developed the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) measuring leadership practices in five different constructs. The MLQ and LPI measure the competencies leaders are currently using successfully and what areas may provide opportunities for improvement.

The researchers mailed the instruments, consent forms, and a letter of introduction to each individual. A follow-up reminder postcard was sent 4 weeks later. A second survey was sent to non-respondents 4 weeks after the post card. A total of 158 surveys were sent, and 48 surveys were returned by educators for a 61% response rate, and 41 were returned by supervisors for a 52% response rate. All research data were entered and analyzed using the SPSS 12.0 program. Data from on-time respondents was compared with data given by late responders to control for non-response error. No difference was found between groups.

According to its authors, the MLQ and LPI have continually produced valid assessments of leadership practices among managerial leaders. Because study participants are administrators and directors of Extension personnel, the researchers concluded the instruments were valid for purposes of the research study. Based upon data collected, the researchers calculated a post-hoc reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) to measure internal consistency as an indicator of the instruments providing reliable scores. The five constructs of the LPI resulted in a reliability level of .889 (individual constructs measured as: Modeling the Way = .85; Inspiring a Shared Vision = .93; Challenging the Process = .91; Enabling Others to Act = .87; and Encouraging the Heart = .92) and the 12 constructs of the MLQ resulted in a reliability of .83 (Transformational constructs = .933; Transactional constructs = .560; and Outcomes = .905).

After analyzing the relationship between leadership constructs and finding high correlations (r values greater than .3), a MANOVA was used to examine overall effect and the result was significant per Hotelling's trace (p<.001). Thus, based on the recommendation of Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), the researchers further analyzed the data using independent t-tests to examine the difference between the educators' perceptions of their leadership practices and the supervisors' observations. Using Levene's test for equality of variances, the assumption of equal variance was met. While the sample for this study was a census, the researchers believe that in the future, the population will not be unlike the current group of individuals. The population is therefore an abstract one, and use of inferential statistics is appropriate (Huck, 2004).

Results

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Transformational Leadership Skills

By engaging in transformational leadership, a leader motivates and inspires followers to a higher level of action and purpose. Educators had an aggregate mean score for the transformational constructs of 3.07 (fairly often), with a minimum score of 2.10 and maximum score of 3.90. Supervisors' aggregate mean score for the transformational constructs was 2.59 (sometimes), with a minimum of .65 and maximum score of 3.65. Overall, educators' ratings of their transformational leadership skills were significantly greater than the supervisors' ratings. Educators rated Individual consideration as the most often used skill. Idealized influence-attributed was rated as the most often used skill by the supervisors. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and comparison scores for transformational leadership skills.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Transactional Leadership Skills

When a leader uses transactional leadership skills, he or she inspires followers to act by offering an exchange of rewards or punishments. The overall mean score for educators on the transactional constructs was a 1.64 (once in a while). Similarly, for supervisors, the overall perception was 1.62 (once in a while). Contingent reward was rated by both educators and supervisors as the most used skill. Overall, there was no significant difference between the scores of the educators and the scores of the supervisors for use of transactional leadership skills. Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and comparisons of the scores for transformational leadership skills.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Leadership Outcomes

When measuring leadership outcomes, the educators had an aggregate mean score of 3.0 (fairly often), with a minimum score of 2.75 and a maximum score of 3.23. This number indicates that more often than not, the educators produce positive leadership outcomes. Supervisors had an aggregate mean score of 2.58 (sometimes). Satisfaction was rated by both educators and supervisors as the outcome most often achieved. Overall, the educators rated themselves significantly higher than they were rated by the supervisors for leadership outcomes (Table 3).

The Leadership Practices Inventory

The LPI, or Leadership Practices Inventory, measures five constructs of leadership skills. The LPI instrument contained 30 items measured on a scale that ranged from 1 "almost never" to 10 "almost always."

Modeling the Way

For the construct of "modeling the way," the educators had an aggregate mean of 7.77 (fairly often). The statement Follows through on promises and commitments that he/she makes had the highest mean score of 8.81 (usually). Ask for feedback on how his/her actions affect other people's performance had the lowest mean score of 6.75 (sometimes). The supervisors had an overall mean of 6.94 (sometimes). Follows through on promises and commitments that he/she makes scored the highest, with a means of 7.88 (fairly often). The statement Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership received the lowest mean score of 6.41 (sometimes). Overall, the educators rated themselves significantly higher than they were rated by their supervisors.

Inspiring a Shared Vision

For the construct of inspiring a shared vision, the educators had an aggregate mean of 7.06 (fairly often). Paints the "big picture" of what we aspire to accomplish had the highest mean score of 7.54 (fairly often). Describes a compelling image of what our future could be like had the lowest mean score of 6.52 (sometimes). The supervisors had an aggregated mean of 6.19 (sometimes). Shows others how their long term interests can be realized by enlisting a common vision had the highest mean score of 6.28 (sometimes), while Describes a compelling image of what our future could be like scored the lowest with a mean of 5.90 (occasionally). Overall, the educators' ratings were significantly higher than were the supervisor's ratings.

Challenging the Process

For the construct of challenging the process, educators had an aggregate mean of 7.45 (fairly often). Makes certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and establish measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on had the highest mean score of 7.71 (fairly often). Challenges people to try our new and innovative ways to do their work scored the lowest, with a mean of 7.13 (fairly often). Supervisors had an overall mean of 6.43 (sometimes). Seeks out challenging opportunities that test his/her own skills and abilities had the highest mean score of 6.76 (sometimes). The statement Asks "what can we learn?" when things don't go as expected had the lowest mean score of 6.20 (sometimes). Overall, the educators rated themselves significantly higher than they were rated by the supervisors.

Enabling Others

The construct of enabling others to act the educators had an aggregate mean of 8.39 (usually). Treats others with dignity and respect had the highest mean score of 9.37 (very frequently). Ensures that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing themselves had the lowest mean score of 7.85 (fairly often). The supervisors had an overall mean of 7.33 (fairly often). The statement Treats others with dignity and respect received the highest mean score of 8.46 (usually), while Ensures that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing themselves received the lowest of 6.55 (sometimes). Overall, the educators' ratings were significantly greater than were the supervisor's ratings.

Encouraging the Heart

In the final construct, encourage the heart, the educators had an aggregate mean of 8.26 (usually). Praises people for a job well done had the highest mean score, with 8.65 (usually). Makes sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the success of our projects scored the lowest, with a mean score of 7.96 (fairly often). Supervisors had an aggregate mean of 7.22 (fairly often). Publicly recognizes people who exemplify commitment to shared values had the highest mean score of 7.54 (fairly often). Makes it a point to let people know about his/her confidence in their abilities had the lowest mean score of 6.78 (sometimes). Overall, the educators' ratings were significantly greater than were the supervisor's ratings. Table 4 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and comparisons of each of the LPI leadership constructs.

Summary and Conclusions

The study described here examined the leadership practices of Extension 4-H Youth Development educators as reported in a self assessment and as observed and reported on by educators' direct supervisors.

The finding of no significant difference between scores of educators and supervisors (both reported this use as "once in a while") reported for transactional leadership skills demonstrates a strong agreement between the perceptions of the educators and the observations of the supervisors. Based on these reported scores, this group of educators does not employ transactional leadership skills with regularity. The only exception is their use of contingent reward, which the group utilizes and supervisors observe much more frequently.

The finding of a significant difference between scores for transformational leadership skills, leadership outcomes, and each of the constructs of the LPI illustrates a difference in the perceptions of the educators and the observations of the supervisors. Based on these reported scores, educators perceive that their use of these skills is significantly higher than what supervisors observe. This is in line with the findings of Bass and Yammarino (1989), who found that leaders tend to rate themselves higher than they are rated by others.

Recommendations and Implications

In the age of shrinking budgets, we in Extension continue to hear, "We need to do more with less." The recommendations and implications for all areas of Extension are directly tied to that call.

The results of the study described here provide Extension with key areas where need for leadership development currently exists. These researchers recommend that Extension provide professional development opportunities for educators, within specific areas, thus stimulating more effective practices within our organization. These opportunities must take place in a series of regional/multi-county and statewide formats, attended by both the educators and their supervisors.

By having both types of individuals attend, workshop facilitators can create a common understanding of leadership practices, thus a more effective evaluation of their use. Engaging in these efforts encourages both the educators and supervisors to reform their practices, philosophies, and behaviors to better serve clientele groups of all ages. Specifically, this research team recommends the following professional development opportunities.

• Extension educators need professional development in serving as role models and mentoring for both youth and adult models. Educators interact more and more with volunteers of all ages. In providing them with the ways and means to become more adept at these types of roles, we enable them to cultivate a strong volunteer community within our Extension organization. Volunteers will identify, in our educators, the behaviors we want for them to utilize with our client base. Training content should focus on setting a strong example by maintaining high personal standards, creating a sense of purpose among and between educators and their volunteers, and helping educators, supervisors and volunteers understand and communicate the values of the organization.

• Extension educators need professional development in discovering and using creative and innovative ways to reward their follower group. Educators should focus on moving away from using contingent rewards and towards ways to inspire and motivate their follower group to continue in their service of the organization. Examples of how followers can be creatively rewarded should be provided, and participants should share ideas among the group.

• Extension educators need professional development in creating a vision for the organization that educators, supervisors, youth, and volunteers can share. Educators should be thinking about the future and focusing their thoughts on our organization's positive characteristics and learning methodologies that enable them to communicate those positive attributes to clientele groups.

References

Bass, B.M. (1997). New paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1989). Transformational leaders know themselves better. (ONR Tech. Rep. No. 5). Binghamton: State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.

Boyd, B.L. (2004). Extension Agents as administrators of volunteers: Competencies needed for the future. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a4.shtml

Brown, W., Birnstihl, E.A., & Wheeler, D.W. (1996). Leading without authority: An examination of the impact of transformational leadership Cooperative Extension work groups and teams. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996october/a3.html

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cacioppe, R. (1998). An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership development programs. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19(1). 44-53.

The College of Agricultural Sciences. (2004). VIP fact sheet for volunteers. Available at: http://pa4h.cas.psu.edu/VIPFactSheets-04/vip.html

Dubrin, A.J. (2001). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Feife, J., & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity related to organizational outcomes? The Case of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Outcomes, 10 (4).

Huck, S.W. (2004). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2003). The leadership practices inventory (LPI)-Deluxe facilitator's guide package. Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.

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

Nahavandi, A. (2003). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Sandmann, L.R., & Vandenberg, L. (1995). A framework for 21st century leadership. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/a1.html

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon