An Analysis of Split-Director Administrative Positions Within Ohio State University Extension

Introduction

Across the nation, Extension systems are undergoing dramatic change, responding not only to funding demands but also to the changing dynamics of county needs and assets. Most state Extension systems use a system of County Extension Directors within county-based Extension Offices. The Director assumes local program oversight, leadership of county budget preparations and financial management, management of personnel related functions, and building positive legislative relations.

Research conducted by Cambell, Grieshp, Sokolow, & Wright (2004) assessing the role of County Directors within the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) system found 60% of Director time is spent on administrative functions and 40% on programmatic functions. 60.9% of UCCE Directors report spending more time on administrative duties than their job descriptions indicate.

A research project conducted with Georgia Extension Service Directors found the managerial skills most important to the role as County Director are: communication, public relations, leading, planning, and establishing and maintaining a good office image (Whiteside & Bachtel, 1987).

To address the increased demands of office administration and leadership, and to benefit from the diverse skill base of an office team, some Ohio State University Extension offices have implemented a shared administrative position. The goal of the research project described here was to evaluate this concept of team-administration as applied within OSU Extension.

Research Questions

What are the characteristics of the individuals serving in a split-Director role (years in Extension, program area, number of people sharing the role, size of office, size of county, etc.)?

How do Extension Educators serving in the County Director (Chair) role perceive a split-appointment of this administrative/leadership position is working in their county unit?

Methods and Procedures

The sample group included all county Extension educators sharing a Chair (Director) appointment in county Extension offices in Ohio. As of October 1, 2004, there were 16 offices (out of 88 counties) and 36 educators sharing a Director position within Ohio. Those sharing a Director position were identified by the OSU Extension Human Resources Web site <http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~directory/searchpers.php>.

An on-line research instrument was comprised of Likert-type and open-answer questions analyzing perceptions and effectiveness of split-chair arrangements in participating counties. Several characteristic questions were included to evaluate subsets of the sample. A group of four Extension Educators/County Directors reviewed the instrument for content and face validity.

The instrument was reviewed and approved by the Ohio State University Human Subjects Review Process. All responses were voluntary and remained confidential. All educators splitting the Director role within Ohio's counties were invited to participate (n=36). The four co-authors of the research chose not to participate in the survey. Of the remaining 32 split-Directors in the sample, 27 completed the Zoomerang on-line survey for a completion percentage of 81%.

An invitation to participate in the research with a link to the Web-based survey was sent to all educators participating in a split-Director arrangement. The survey was available for participation for a period of 2 weeks. A reminder was sent to the sample via email communication 1 week before the survey was closed to encourage additional participation.

Results

Characteristics of Individuals Serving in a Split-Director Role

The first component of this research was to analyze individuals and counties that employ a split-Director position within Ohio State University Extension. According to Table 1, the most prevalent program area represented by Directors serving in the split-Director role is Agriculture/Natural Resources, with 44% of respondents (n=12). Thirty-seven percent (n=8) of split Chairs dedicated a majority of their position to the FCS program area and 22% of those serving in a split-Chair role represented the 4-H Youth Development area.

Those serving in the split-Director role had an average of 15.6 years of experience with Ohio State University Extension (Table 2). The mean number of years the Director position has been split was 3.9 years, and the mean office size was 7.3 FTE. The majority of the counties that used the split-Director option were smaller in size (Table 3). Fifty-nine percent (n=16) of those responding indicated that their county population was under 50,000 residents. The Directors spent an average of 8.2 hours on their roles.

Perception of How Split-Appointments Are Working

Those serving a split-Director role were asked to evaluate their perception of the split-Chair arrangement on six areas. Results for each of the six questions are summarized in Table 6. When rating the effectiveness of the shared Chair on overall arrangement of job responsibilities, the majority of respondents indicated that it was either "extremely effective" (30%, n=8) or "very effective" (52%, n=14).

The majority of Co-Directors rated the effectiveness of the shared Director arrangement related to positive work environment in positive terms. The "extremely effective" rating was selected by 22% (n=6), the "very effective" rating was chosen by 52% (n=14), and "somewhat effective" rating was indicated by 15% (n=4).

Conclusions/Implications

Administrative functions within Extension have changed dramatically. While new technologies have created administrative efficiencies, the amount of time devoted to administrative functions at the Extension Director level has increased. At the same time, administrative functions can be compartmentalized, creating opportunity for a shared Director arrangement at the county level.

This analysis provides insight into the effectiveness of the shared Director model for consideration within Extension system. The model doesn't work for every county Extension system. Yet, where a county system includes two or more educators with a desire to make it work, the shared Director model is superior to the alternative.

The analysis was based on a satisfaction survey of 27 Extension educators serving in the County Director role. The results found that the vast majority of survey participants were very satisfied with the shared Director arrangement, believing it provided for a positive work environment and benefited all concerned.

The results indicate that the effectiveness of the shared Director model can be attributed to a synergy that develops when diversified skills and personalities are assembled. Effectiveness increases when functions are adequately matched to an educator's roles, interests and abilities.

The team-focused, shared-Director model has inherent benefits, such as providing for increased accountability and presenting a unified front, which enhances effectiveness and outreach efforts. This model is synonymous with Extension goals and values.

References

Campbell, D., Grieshp, J., Sokolow, A., & Wright, J. (2004). Supporting the critical administrative leadership role of County Directors. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/a3.shtml

Ohio State Extension Organizational Resources. Available at: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~directory/searchpers.php

Whiteside, J.E. & Bachtel, D.D. (1987). Stepping up - Training Extension County Director. Journal of Extension [On-line], 25(1), Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987spring/a4.html