Dec 23, 2002

1

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff AArreeaa ooff EExxppeerrttiissee ((AAOOEE)) TTeeaamm AApppprrooaacchh ttoo AApppplliieedd RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd EExxtteennssiioonn iinn MMiicchhiiggaann

INTRODUCTION

Michigan State University Extension, in partnership with the Michigan Agricultural Experiment

Station, has implemented self-directed area of expertise (AOE) teams as its major educational

development and delivery model. These AOE teams are an outgrowth of our experiences with

previous temporary research/extension teams and quick response professional groups that operated

within traditional line responsibilities for research and extension units. The AOE teams are different

from those teams and group efforts of the past in that they are a continuing means of defining

priority. These AOE teams are more permanent in their life span; more self-directed in their

operation; more tightly linked with public leaders and groups; more integrative of research

demonstration, education design, delivery and evaluation; more dedicated to enhancing their

knowledge skills and capacity; and more empowered with resources.

All support systems including staff development, personnel, budgets, communications, technology

and evaluation were redesigned to serve the educational programming needs of the self-directed

teams. Administratively directed program areas in Extension were eliminated, and their operating

budgets were invested directly to the AOE teams.

Michigan=s AOE teams provide an example of a system wide developmental model that fosters

organizational learning. It is a model that has seamless connections between research and Extension.

Together, the AOE teams decide the best ways to create, apply and transmit new knowledge. The

AOE teams in Michigan reflect an advanced form of self-directed team development.

Theoretical Framework

The philosophy and practice of agricultural extension has changed tremendously over time, in tune

with the changing external environment all over the world. A significant step in this direction at

Michigan State University is the introduction of self directed work teams called Area of Expertise

(AOE) teams that attempt to bring about a seamless interface between Extension and research

(Leholm, Hamm, Suvedi, Gray, & Poston, 1998). The AOE approach has been introduced

Dec 23, 2002

2

particularly keeping in view the future needs of an information-based society where the AOE teams

have considerable opportunities for flexibility, creativity, diversity of experience, and self-direction

to evolve themselves according to the needs and demands of the public at large. This is unlike the

vertically and hierarchically structured traditional organizational set up of agricultural extension

delivery system.

The AOE teams, with a mixture of experts from on-campus and off-campus members, develop their

own micro-vision, mission, and operating procedures, be entrepreneurial to generate their own

resources, and ultimately provide a customer oriented focus and program development in Extension.

The AOE approach, in general, has been observed to be a success (Suvedi, 1996, Leholm et al.,

1998). However, consistent with the characteristics of a learning organization, the MSUE has sought

feedback from the employees to assess the perceptions of various team members on various

objectives of this approach and to gain an insight on future organizational needs to improve its

effectiveness.

For a better understanding of team effectiveness, it is crucial to review findings from past and

current studies in the area of teams, team performance and teamwork. This study was conducted to

determine how the members of AOE Teams perceive the effectiveness of AOE approach to

Extension.

Success of teams depends on the continual input of members, the celebration of creativity, and the

continual questioning and revision of group process (Watson, Johnson, & Merritt, 1998). Interaction

of group members over a period of time provide the opportunity for an increased sense of ownership

and identity, continued commitment to the goals of the group, and striving toward shared outcomes.

Integral to team performance are a number of formation characteristics that need to be addressed:

the correct task, the right people, the correct group size, and external involvement and reward for

both the individual members and the team (Booth, 2001). If organizations truly wish to promote

teamwork, they must identify what it is, assess it, and then reward it via their performance appraisal

systems (Harris & Barnes-Farrell, 1997).

Dec 23, 2002

3

Within the operations of the team, there must be balanced commitment to team members and to

reaching the desired results, which will keep a team together and prospering (Katzenback & Smith,

1993). Team orientation and orientation of the individual are key operational factors related to group

performance. A more connected system of operation will be beneficial, if there is a high level of

interaction among team members and a desire to improve the coordination among members. The

stronger the social identity dynamics, the more likely it is that members will cooperate with each

other and direct additional effort toward group accomplishment (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail,

1994). It is essential to note that empowerment has positive influence on team operations. In order

to feel autonomy in working together for a team, there must also be the commitment by management

to give the group the authority to work on task, the resources to accomplish their desired outcome,

information and communication, and the responsibility and accountability for the activities and

outcome (Fisher, 1993).

Leadership plays a vital role as organizations change from more hierarchical and manager-type

systems to the self-directed team concept. A leader works with the team members to develop the

team, work together to conduct need assessments, develop goals, vision, and assessment. Other key

functions include facilitating external relationships, work through the maze of partnerships, provide

introductions to external stakeholders, facilitate communication, and provide the resources the team

needs for success (Deeprose, 1995).

For the success of a team, the management needs to be involved in team activities, show their

commitment, exhibit trust and display their willingness to cooperate with the team (Harrington-

Mackin, 1994). Within the MSU Extension AOE team system, co-chairs and coaches play a crucial

role in providing organizational support. Team members must place a high value on being a member

of the team and exhibit a high level of acceptance of their peers on the team (Katzenback & Smith,

1993). High-performing work groups need to possess at least some degree of team orientation,

communication, feedback, and coordination (Harris & Barnes-Farrell, 1997). A recognition system

is important because it offers incentives for improving quality and productivity. With recognition

and reward, members feel appreciated and have a great sense of motivation to work harder and

smarter. When an organization is visible in its recognition it shows that the organization believes in

Dec 23, 2002

4

the work of the team members. Recognition is an affirmation that what team members are doing is

good and should continue (Holpp, 1999).

The effectiveness that is based on the cohesiveness of the group is related to the nature of the task.

When it is essential for coordination, communication, and mutual performance, there will tend to be

a stronger relationship between team effectiveness and the way the group works together (Gully, et

al., 1995). Hargrove (1995) argues that effectiveness comes not only from assessing the team’s

performance, but also from assessing the value and skills brought to the team by the individual.

When looking at individual, it is also essential to look how they make decisions, interact with others,

and learn in all parts of their lives. Therefore, team effectiveness measurement is embedded in the

work of the coach and the individual team members. Interdependence is found to be an important

consideration in predicting the effectiveness of work teams (Campion, Papper, and Medsker, 1996).

Trust and respect among members, as well as outside support and recognition for their work, were

critical variables for effectiveness (Chrislip and Larson, 1992).

There has been an increased focus, within the Land Grant University systems, on closer alignment

between education, research and Extension systems in the recent years (Leholm, et al., 1998).

Public university systems have adopted an administrative innovation by adopting team-based

approach to Extension to address the need for downsized work force and to achieve rising

performance expectations (Rizzo, 2001).

Area of Expertise (AOE) team, designed after self-directed work teams in business and industry,

was introduced in 1994. The overarching objective was to energize the University’s capacity to

connect its knowledge resources, through various forms of scholarship and service, with priority

issues as identified by Michigan citizens and other stakeholder groups. Extension leadership

exhibited a strong predisposition for and commitment to shared leadership, strategic forms of

planning, and interdisciplinary, team-based approaches to Extension programming. Specific

objectives underlying this effort included: 1) a desire for more integration and collaboration between

campus specialists and county staff; 2) more integrated, interdisciplinary work across agriculture-

Dec 23, 2002

5

related academic departments; 3) expanded opportunities for county-based Extension agents to

specialize; 4) more relevant Extension programs; 5) quicker responses to constituent issues and

concerns, and 6) more direct involvement of constituents in the development of Extension research

and education programs (Rizzo, 2001).

STUDY OBJECTIVES

One of the main goals of MSU Extension’s moving to the AOE Team approach was to improve the

effectiveness of the organization at meeting its clientele’s changing educational needs. There is a

need for information relative to team effectiveness through the adoption of AOE Teams by MSU

Extension. It was important to assess the perceived effectiveness of the new approach, to identify

any problematic areas, and to develop a plan for future adoptions to meet current and emerging

needs. The impacts of AOE teams on the generation of new knowledge and its dissemination by

citizens need to be documented. Such evaluative studies validate the importance of applied research

and extension as public good and sustain the Experiment Station and Extension partnership.

The purpose of this evaluative study is to document the impact of AOE teams to meet the applied

research and educational needs of Extension customers. The specific objectives are to:

C Describe the organization, operation and management of AOE teams in Michigan.

C Ascertain the degree to which AOE teams have been successful in linking applied research

and extension.

C Assess the attitudes and perceptions of Extension educators toward the functioning of AOE

teams to meet the applied research and educational needs of citizens.

C Provide feedback to administrators and program managers on how AOE teams are

performing, what types of unanticipated impacts have emerged, and to what degree have

AOE teams been able to provide a seamless tie between applied research and Extension.

METHODOLOGY

Dec 23, 2002

6

This study utilized a descriptive survey to gather information needed to address the research

objectives.

Data were collected during the summer of 2000 using a pre-tested questionnaire from a randomly

drawn sample of AOE Team members working in different AOE teams in MSUE (Booth, 2001).

The information was collected on six sets of characteristics that together contribute to AOE team

effectiveness. Another set of statements that yield responses on team creativity, commitment, and

effectiveness was also used to assess the perceptions of participants. These characteristics were

assessed using two kinds of scaling techniques. One kind of scaling asks the respondent the degree

of agreement or disagreement to a statement (Strongly agree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly

Agree) while the other solicits information on the frequency of occurrence of an event or activity

(Rarely, Occasionally, Sometimes, Frequently, and Almost Always). The responses are ranked in

order from 1 to 5, the least indicating strong disagreement or rare occurrence, and the highest

indicating strong agreement or almost always occurring.

Reliability analysis for these scale items indicated the Cronbach alpha coefficient above 0.8,

indicating high reliability and good consistency among the sub items (statements) in each scale.

The research technique used for this study was a descriptive survey. This study was conducted to

test the research hypotheses that follow, based on findings from the literature review. The dependent

variable used in the study was team effectiveness. The independent variables that emerged through

the literature review were measured in the survey. The personal characteristics such as length of

employment, length of membership on an AOE team, location of position, involvement in the

DACUM (Developing a Curriculum) process (Nelson, 1988) and leadership characteristics were

used as control variables.

The target population of this study was all members of agricultural AOE teams operating under

MSU Extension. The population included members working in livestock, dairy, fruits, field crops,

vegetables and nursery/greenhouse AOE teams.

Dec 23, 2002

7

The survey was developed to gather individual-level data that could be aggregated to conduct a team

analysis. The study was conducted using a specially designed mail questionnaire. Questions were

developed based on the review of literature related to teams, team effectiveness, self-managed

teams, group communication, creativity, commitment, leadership, and recognition. The survey also

included a section at the end for open-ended comments. The questionnaire was pre-tested for content

validity with a group of MSU Extension administrators and an advisory group.

An introductory letter was sent to all potential respondents on one week before the questionnaire

was mailed. The first reminder letter was mailed approximately 10 days later to those who had not

returned the survey. The second follow-up was mailed three weeks after the initial questionnaire.

The survey had an overall response rate of 81%.

All data were assigned codes. The data were entered in an SPSS data file for analysis. Simple

descriptive statistics, percentages, frequency counts, the mean, and standard deviation were used to

present the findings on personal characteristics of respondents. Similarly, to present findings on

perceptions of teamwork and team effectiveness, descriptive statistics were used. The inferential

statistics were used to determine significant associations and differences between personal

characteristics including length of employment, involvement in DACUM process, years on an AOE

team, leadership role, and location of assignment within MSU Extension. Information from the

regression analysis was used to cluster the 11 variables together. The outcome was used in the

identification of three models. Multiple regression was used to analyze the relationship between a

dependent variable and independent variables that were theoretically important and that emerged

through the factor analysis. The statistical relationships among the 11 independent variables and the

dependent variable were examined, holding 5 control variables (length of employment, years on an

AOE, current position, involvement in DACUM, and AOE Co-chair responsibility) constant in the

analysis.

RESULTS

Dec 23, 2002

8

General Team Information Survey data was analyzed to determine general team characteristics. These items included

respondent’s primary AOE team, length of employment with MSU or MSUE, length of tenure on

AOE team, membership selection and process, involvement in the DACUM process, current

position, and those who have or are currently serving as co-chair.

AOE Teams:

As can be seen from the Fig-1, the respondent’s are distributed in six AOE Teams. These are Dairy

(n=30), Field Crops (n=36), Livestock (n=25), Fruits (n=23), Vegetables (n=12), and Nursery&

Greenhouses (n=19). The respondents not belonging to any of these teams are grouped in another

category “other” (n=17). There are 166 respondents in total in the survey of which 162 responses are

valid. Apparently, the Field Crops team is the biggest team with 36 members participating in the

survey and the AOE team Vegetables is the smallest with just 12 members representing it.

Fig-1 Respondents by Primary AOE Team (n=162)

dairy19%

livestock15%

field crops23%

fruits14%

vegetables7%

nursery/g'house12%

other10%

Dec 23, 2002

9

AOE Teams Participant’s Employment Characteristics:

There is a wide variation in the length of employment with MSUE, as well as their years of

experience on AOE Teams among the participants. The length of employment with MSUE ranged

from 0.20 years to 42 years, with a mean, median and standard deviation of 12.1, 10.0, and 9.2 years

respectively. Similarly in case of years on AOE Team, the range is 15 years, i.e., we have

respondents with as low as less than one year to the ones with as high as 15 years working on AOE

Teams. The average however is five years. Most team members have about 3 years of employment

(68 %) experience with MSUE, indicating that they have a working knowledge of goals, policies,

and procedures.

As indicated in Fig-2, on an average, members of nursery and green houses, vegetables, and other

teams have higher number of years of employment with MSUE and higher years of experience in

AOE teams. However, ANOVA indicated that the differences in the length of Employment with

MSUE (F=1.495, p = 0.183) and years on AOE Team (F=1.641, p = 0.140) across different AOE

Teams are not statistically significant.

Length of employment with MSUE and Years on AOE Team show a moderate association (r =

0.544).

Dec 23, 2002

10

10.5

3.9

10.6

4.6

10.7

3.8

12.0

4.2

15.4

5.4

15.4

5.1

15.7

4.9

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Nu

mb

er o

f Y

ears

dairylivestock

field crops

fruitsvegetables

nursery

other

AOE Team

Fig-2 Employement Characteristics of the Respondents- Mean Values

Length of employment withMSUE Years on AOE Team

AOE Teams Participant’s Employment Characteristics:

The details of participants with reference to their current position (on campus or off campus),

whether a member of AOE Team, involvement in DACUM, and whether they are currently or ever

held a Co-Chair position are given in Table-1.

While 94 % of the respondents are currently members of AOE Teams and about 60 % of them are

off campus members, about 50 % of them are not involved in DACUM and 70% of them have not

held Co-Chair position so far.

Table-1 Participant Characteristics-Responses in Percent by AOE Team

Dairy Livestock Field crops Fruits

Vegeta-bles

Nursery/green house

Other Total

on campus 53.3 64.0 5.6 60.9 58.3 31.6 29.4 40.7 Current position

off campus 46.7 36.0 94.4 39.1 41.7 68.4 70.6 59.3

Dec 23, 2002

11

Yes 89.3 96.0 97.1 91.3 91.7 94.7 100.0 94.2

No 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.9 Currently Member of AOE Team? Not sure 7.1 4.0 2.9 4.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 3.8

Yes 30.0 32.0 41.7 34.8 72.7 50.0 58.8 41.9

No 56.7 64.0 50.0 52.2 27.3 50.0 41.2 51.3 Involvement in DACUM

Not sure 13.3 4.0 8.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9

Yes 20.7 48.0 25.7 17.4 33.3 44.4 31.3 30.4 Currently or ever AOE Co-Chair? No 79.3 52.0 74.3 82.6 66.7 55.6 68.8 69.6

There is variation in terms of these characteristics across different teams. In relation with what is

their current position, field crop respondents indicated that almost 95% of them have off-campus

position; whereas livestock team this is only 36%. It is also worth noting that about 7% of the

respondents in Dairy AOE Team are not sure of their membership in AOE.

In relation with DACUM involvement, 72% of participants in the vegetable team indicated

positively whereas this is as low as 30% in case of Dairy Team. Livestock, and Fruits Teams closely

follow this with 32% and 34% of their respective members involving in DACUM. In case of Field

Crops and Nursery& Greenhouse Teams, the proportion of members not involved in DACUM is

50%.

When asked about their current or past position as Co-chair, only 17.4% of the members in Fruits

Team responded ‘yes’ where as in case of Livestock Team, this is as high as 48%. The other Teams

represent positions in between these two ends.

Independent samples “t” test was conducted to see if the length of employment is significantly

different between the members that show different employment characteristics. As can be observed

from table- 2, on-campus respondents, respondents that are involved in DACUM and those that are

currently holding or in past held Co-Chair position have significantly higher length of employment

with MSUE.

Table-2 Independent samples “t” test

Length of employment with MSUE vs. other job characteristics

Dec 23, 2002

12

N Mean SD t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

on campus 65 14.36 10.66 2.46 159 0.02 Current position off campus 96 10.75 7.97

yes 67 17.73 7.75 7.59 147 0.00 Involvement in DACUM no 82 7.78 8.13

yes 48 15.53 9.44 2.93 155 0.00 Currently or ever AOE co-chair no 109 10.89 9.00

Similarly, respondents that are involved in DACUM and those that are currently holding or in past

held Co-Chair position have significantly higher number of years of experience on AOE Teams.

However, there is no significant difference in the years of experience on AOE Team between on

campus and off campus participants.

Years on AOE Team vs. other job characteristics

N Mean SD t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

on campus 63 4.73 2.27 1.72 157 0.09 Current position

off campus 96 4.14 2.03

yes 67 5.54 1.87 7.03 146 0.00 Involvement in DACUM no 81 3.37 1.88

yes 48 5.57 1.85 4.85 153 0.00 Currently or ever AOE co-chair no 107 3.89 2.06

Participation in team formation

The following table (Table-3) the perceptions of AOE Team members with reference to certain

processes in AOE team formation. It is worth noting that there is a high degree of positive opinion

about various AOE Team formation processes. About 56% of team members indicated that they

actively participated in formulation of the team mission. Similarly, about 58% of team members

assisted in development of the operational guidelines for their team. Moreover, 75% of AOE team

members said they were self-selected for team membership. About 86.6% felt that they had good

information to become a member and 70% found the process to join clear.

It is worth noting, however, that about 20% of team members said they felt pressured to join.

Dec 23, 2002

13

Table-3 Participation in Team Formation-Responses in Percent by AOE Team

Dairy Livestock

Field Crops Fruits Vegetables

Nursery /greenhouse Other Total

No 50.0 45.8 40.6 57.1 36.4 31.6 41.2 44.0 Mission formulation Yes 50.0 54.2 59.4 42.9 63.6 68.4 58.8 56.0

No 38.5 33.3 50.0 52.4 30.0 42.1 41.2 42.3 Operational guidelines Yes 61.5 66.7 50.0 47.6 70.0 57.9 58.8 57.7

No 34.6 39.1 9.1 33.3 18.2 10.5 35.3 25.3 Self-selected membership Yes 65.4 60.9 90.9 66.7 81.8 89.5 64.7 74.7

No 8.3 8.7 17.9 28.6 18.2 5.3 6.3 13.4 Felt like I had good info to be member Yes 91.7 91.3 82.1 71.4 81.8 94.7 93.8 86.6

No 88.5 95.7 71.0 85.7 72.7 78.9 64.7 80.4 Felt pressured to join AOE team Yes 11.5 4.3 29.0 14.3 27.3 21.1 35.3 19.6

No 16.7 29.2 25.8 42.9 36.4 31.6 35.3 29.9 Find process to join clear

Yes 83.3 70.8 74.2 57.1 63.6 68.4 64.7 70.1

There is some degree of variation among different AOE Teams with respect to the members’

opinion about the team formation processes. For example, while only 31.6% of the respondents in

Nursery & Greenhouses team felt they had not actively participated in the formulation of team

mission, this response is as high as 57.1% in case Fruits and 50% in case of Dairy Teams

respectively.

While 90.9% of respondents in Field Crops Team felt that they are self–selected to be members of

their team, this figure came down to 60.9% in case of Livestock Team. It also appears that a high

percent of members (42.9%) in the Fruits Team do not find the process to join clear unlike their

counter parts in other teams. Similarly, about 35.3% of members in “other” AOE Teams feel that

they are pressured to join AOE Team.

Perceptions Response Summary Statistics

The following table indicates the summary of statistics for the sets of characteristics used to

determine the AOE team effectiveness.

Dec 23, 2002

14

Table:4 Perceptions on AOE Team Characteristics: Response Summary Statistics

Valid N Missing Mean Median SD Min Max Team Creativity, Commitment

and Effectiveness 148 18 3.59 3.63 0.47 1.40 4.60 Operational Characteristics 160 6 3.65 3.80 0.56 1.00 5.00 Personal & Org (occurrence) 160 6 3.78 3.88 0.69 1.50 5.00 Personal & Org. characteristics 156 10 3.78 3.82 0.53 1.82 5.00 Leadership 157 9 3.71 3.82 0.66 1.45 5.00 Recognition & Reward 157 9 3.44 3.50 0.66 1.00 5.00 Research & Extension 146 20 3.33 3.36 0.84 1.57 5.00

In general there is a high positive response for the all the sets of characteristics used in the survey as

can be seen from the means of summated scale scores. The categories “research and extension”, and

the “personal and organizational characteristics” (occurrence of various items) exhibit high standard

deviation indicating wide variation. The means on their own, however, do not indicate a true picture

of the distribution of responses. For example, with equal responses of strongly agree and strongly

disagree, which are diverse opinions, the mean would be 3, and taken just on its face value, would

give us a false impression of the responses as neutral.

Thus, there is a need to look into individual items to a get an in depth picture of the diversity

reported by the respondents. The tables from 4-11 present data in a format that allows the diversity

of perception among the respondents identified.

Team Creativity, Commitment, and Effectiveness

As can be seen in Table-5, in general, the respondents gave a positive opinion, either agreeing or

strongly agreeing to the positively worded statements on team creativity, commitment, and

effectiveness. There is only one statement for which the majority of respondents expressed

disagreement, “adequate communication between teams” (52%). It is however, worth noting that a

significant proportion of the respondents felt neutral about some of the statements. These are: “team

members work together to compliment each other’s strengths”(25%), “increased expertise in

process skills” (44%), “increase expertise-technical knowledge” (27%), “members encourage

respect divergent views” (29%) and “members invite out of box thinking”(31%).

There is only one statement that is negatively stated, “AOE model has not had an impact on program

effectiveness”, for which the majority (70%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Dec 23, 2002

15

Table 5-Team Creativity, Commitment, and Effectiveness

Responses % (N =148)* Mean (std. dev.)

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

Members willing to assist me 1 10 57 32 4.20 (.65) Members take time to enjoy 8 33 50 9 3.61 (.76) High degree of cooperation 1 6 20 53 20 3.85 (.82) Members work together to compliment 1 7 25 49 18

3.77 (.85)

Adequate communication between teams 6 46 32 14 2

2.60 (.88)

Team is well respected by clients 1 6 20 55 19 3.86 (.80) Team is well respected by colleagues 1 3 24 54 18

3.84 (.79)

AOE model has not had impact 21 49 12 16 2 2.28 (1.02) AOE model has created better working 2 4 25 47 22

3.82 (.88)

Increase expertise-process skills 2 12 44 40 3 3.30 (.78) Increase expertise-technical knowledge 2 8 27 48 15

3.64 (.91)

Increase expertise-individual growth/development 2 5 24 57 12

3.72 (.80)

Individual team members are competent 1 1 8 62 28

4.16 (.66)

Members strive to think new directions 1 8 23 53 15

3.73 (.83)

Members brainstorm ideas 1 5 18 60 16 3.85 (.77) Members invite out of box thinking 2 9 31 46 12 3.55 (.90) Members review alternative ideas 1 8 23 54 14 3.71 (.84) Show commitment to team goals 1 8 24 56 11 3.67 (.81) Invite outside resource persons to add to thinking 2 11 33 42 12

3.52 (.91)

Encourage respect divergent views 1 10 29 53 7 3.56 (.80) *Scale mean = 3.59, Std. dev.= 0.47

The responses indicate that while in general people have a high opinion of the AOE model and

various components of team creativity, commitment and effectiveness, lack of adequate

communication seems to be a major stumbling block. The responses also point toward some

possible measures to improve ways team members can complement each other’s strengths, support

“out of box” thinking, and provide opportunities for improving process skills.

Dec 23, 2002

16

Operational Characteristics

The responses of the participants with regard to their opinions on various operational characteristics

of AOE Teams are given in Table-6. “Receive information about the activities of other teams from

the Coach” is the point of disagreement expressed by a larger percent of respondents compared to

other points. “Members have adequate guidelines”, and “members receive info from co-chairs”,

have also received fairly high disagreements or neutral observation by a significant proportion of the

respondents, indicating that a good number of people have concerns with these issues. This clearly

points to a communication gap.

Table 6 -Operational Characteristics

Responses % (N =160)* Mean

(std. dev.)

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

Members have adequate guidelines 1 15 26 53 5 3.48 (.83) Members cooperate on tasks 1 3 15 70 11 3.87 (.68) Members express feelings openly 2 5 21 55 17 3.80 (.83) Members deal with conflict 1 7 32 53 7 3.57 (.76) Members communication with co-chairs 1 9 24 55 11 3.67 (.81) Members receive info from co-chairs 1 8 20 59 12 3.73 (.82) Receive info about activities from coach 11 33 33 19 4 2.71 (1.00) Actively listen during discussions 2 2 22 64 10 3.79 (.72) Find support for their professional growth 1 4 20 57 18

3.87 (.79)

Members participate in in-service training 1 3 12 64 20

4.00 (.71)

*Scale mean = 3.65, Std. dev.= 0.56 Personal and Organizational Support Characteristics

There are almost no negative responses to various statements under the theme personal and

organizational support characteristics of the AOE teams (Table-7). More than 50% of the

respondents felt that these instances are taking place either frequently or almost always. Significant

proportions of respondents, however, have not felt some of these characteristics occurring “

frequently” or “almost always”. These are: “provide constructive feedback” (48%), “reflect upon

and learn team experience” (43%), and “willing to be entrepreneurial” (42%). These observations

indicate some scope for improvement in these areas.

Table 7- Personal and Organizational Support Characteristics

Dec 23, 2002

17

Responses % (N =160)* Mean (std. dev.)

Rarely

Occasionally Sometimes

Frequently

Almost always

Members fully participate 1 4 33 49 13 3.70 (.77) Treat each other with respect 1 1 10 45 43 4.31 (.72) Share responsibilities 1 6 25 47 21 3.82 (.85) Reach decisions through consensus 1 4 22 45 28 3.96 (.87) Give each other praise 2 8 30 38 22 3.69 (.98) Provide constructive feedback 2 10 36 36 16 3.55 (.93) Reflect upon and learn team experience 2 10 31 43 14 3.58 (.91) Willing to be entrepreneurial 4 12 26 45 13 3.52 (.98) *Scale mean = 3.78, Std. dev.= 0.69

Rarely = less than 10% of the time, Occasionally = 10-30% of the time, Sometimes = 30-50% of the

time, Frequently = 50-80% of the time, and Almost Always = 80-99% of the time.

Personal and Organizational Support Characteristics

A majority of the respondents observed positively for the personal and organizational support

characteristics (Table-8). About 18% of them however, disagreed to having adequate resources to

accomplish goals, a major deviation compared to other characteristics. Similarly, for the item “team

members are willing to take risks”, 34% of the respondents remained neutral and 9% of them

disagreed.

Table 8- Personal and Organizational Support Characteristics

Responses % (N = 156)* Mean (std. dev.)

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

Members demonstrate openness to ideas 1 4 17 70 8

3.78 (.69)

Members trust other team members 1 5 21 57 16

3.83 (.77)

Adequate resources to accomplish goals 3 16 27 44 10

3.43 (.95)

Members tried new things 7 17 54 22 3.91 (.81) Support decisions outside meetings 1 3 24 59 13

3.79 (.74)

Have adequate technical information 6 20 62 12

3.80 (.72)

Feel respected by others 1 3 22 61 13 3.83 (.71) Discuss differences without 1 9 29 53 8 3.59 (.79)

Dec 23, 2002

18

judgment Contribute to budget decision 2 4 31 45 18 3.74 (.86) Willing to take risks 1 8 34 39 18 3.64 (.90) Provided opportunities for training 1 1 13 53 32

4.16 (.71)

*Scale mean = 3.78, Std. dev.= 0.53

Leadership Characteristics

It is evident from the Table –9 below, that while 30% of the respondents felt they have not taken any

leadership role, 21% of them preferred to be neutral.

Table 9- Leadership Characteristics

Responses % (N = 157)* Mean (std. dev.)

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

Effective leadership 3 12 22 50 13 3.58 (.96) Team uses shared leadership 2 5 23 52 18 3.81 (.85) Leadership shared by members 2 6 22 53 17 3.79 (.86) I have taken leadership 7 23 21 31 18 3.30 (1.21) I provide direction to team 2 10 24 50 14 3.62 (.93) I share my opinions 4 10 60 26 4.07 (.72) I influence team decisions 2 9 26 47 16 3.64 (.93) I am satisfied by amount of influence 1 11 22 47 19

3.73 (.92)

Co-chairs make sure needed training 1 15 30 40 14

3.51 (.95)

Co-chairs encourage individual design and performance 2 4 26 46 22

3.82 (.90)

Members use people's skills abilities & talents 1 6 19 56 18

3.84 (.81)

*Scale mean = 3.71, Std. dev.= 0.66

Similarly for characteristics such as “effective leadership” “I influence team decisions”, “Co chairs

make sure that the team has the training needed”, “I provide direction to team” and, “C-chairs

encourage individual design and performance” a high proportion of the respondents either disagreed

or opted to be neutral. A high proportion of “disagree” and “neutral” responses in these areas

indicate the need for improvement.

Dec 23, 2002

19

Recognition and Reward Table 10 - Recognition and Reward Responses % (N = 157)* Mean

(std. dev.) Strongl

y disagre

e Disagr

ee Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Co chairs recognize performance 2 13 30 45 10 3.47 (.90) Co chairs encourage initiative & action 1 7 23 55 14

3.73 (.82)

Team seeks and receives feedback 3 19 50 24 4

3.09 (.83)

Others look to high innovation 2 16 32 41 9 3.38 (.94) Feedback indicates performing well 3 7 36 44 10

3.51 (.86)

I have been recognized for individual performance 7 25 28 28 12

3.12 (1.14)

Team has been recognized for effort 2 12 36 35 15

3.48 (.96)

Work has been personally rewarding 3 7 25 46 19

3.70 (.95)

*Scale mean = 3.44, Std. dev.= 0.66 Indicating a high degree of communication problem, 22% of the respondents disagreed with the

statement ‘Team seeks and receives feedback”, while 50% responded neutrally to the same

statement (Table-10). There also appears to be a problem with regard to recognition of individual

contribution. Only 40% either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I have been

recognized for individual performance”, 28% responded neutrally to this same statement and 32%

either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Research and Extension Linkages

The responses of the participants toward their perceptions on research and extension linkages are

given in Table-11. As can be seen from the table, a significant proportion (>40%) of those surveyed

responded that they rarely co-authored a journal article or served on a proposal review team or

presented a research report. Perhaps this may be due to the high preponderance of respondents from

off campus (59%) and field based personnel in various AOE team. There seems to be, however,

interest and involvement in research, as can be observed by the responses of the majority of

Dec 23, 2002

20

respondents regarding issues on involvement with research. When it came specifically to interaction

with MAES researchers, 23% felt the involvement only as rarely, 10% as occasionally and 11% as

neutral. Travel support had a scattered reaction, with a many of the respondents (48%) opting to be

neutral or saying rarely or occasionally.

Table 11 -Research and Extension Linkages Responses % (N = 146)* Mean

(std. dev.)

Rarely Occasionally

Sometimes

Frequently

Almost always

Research is integral to team program design 5 15 26 42 12

3.41 (1.03)

Clientele needs are considered in research 1 6 13 49 31

4.04 (.85)

Educational programs based on research 1 4 13 48 34

4.09 (.86)

I am collaborator with MSU research projects 12 8 17 28 35

3.66 (1.35)

I have co-authored journal articles 41 11 11 15 22

2.64 (1.63)

I have co-authored Extension pubs 35 14 11 18 22

2.77 (1.60)

I have served on proposal review team 45 17 8 14 16

2.40 (1.54)

I participate in research conferences 19 15 12 28 26

3.26 (1.47)

I participate in applied research projects 17 9 11 31 32

3.51 (1.45)

I presented a research report 49 6 5 15 25 2.62 (1.74)

I interact with MAES researchers 23 10 11 30 26 3.28 (1.51)

AOE team interacts with non-Extension faculty 7 15 29 36 13

3.33 (1.10)

Campus specialists are readily available 3 8 17 48 24

3.84 (.96)

Travel support is available for team projects 10 11 27 34 18

3.40 (1.19)

*Scale mean = 3.33, Std. dev.= 0.84

Dec 23, 2002

21

Independent samples “t”- tests were conducted to see if the perceptions of AOE field crop team

members differ by AOE member characteristics such as whether the respondent is in on-campus or

off-campus position, served as co-chair or not, and whether involved in DACUM or not. It is worth

reiterating that in the sample, 41% respondents represent on campus positions, 42% are involved in

DACUM and 30% are holding or held Co-Chair positions. The summary of “t” test results is given

below.

Table-12 t-test for Equality of Means in the Responses Based on Current Position

Current Position n Mean SD T

Sig. (2-tailed)

on campus 58 3.50 0.42 Team Creativity, Commitment and Effectiveness off campus 88 3.66 0.43

-2.17 0.03

on campus 64 3.55 0.56 Operational Characteristics off campus 94 3.73 0.47

-2.16 0.03

on campus 65 3.67 0.69 Personal & Org (occurrence) off campus 93 3.86 0.64

-1.74 0.08

on campus 61 3.70 0.53 Personal & Org. characteristics off campus 93 3.85 0.48

-1.87 0.06

on campus 64 3.63 0.73 Leadership off campus 91 3.77 0.58

-1.27 0.20

on campus 63 3.28 0.69 Recognition & Reward off campus 92 3.56 0.57

-2.84 0.00

on campus 60 3.92 0.67 Research & Extension off campus 86 2.90 0.66

9.04

0.00

As can be seen from the Table –12, there is significant difference between the on campus and off

campus respondents in respect of their opinions on Teams creativity, commitment and effectiveness;

recognition & Reward, and Research & Extension characteristics pertaining to AOE Teams. It is

also worth noting that except for research and extension linkages, the means of off-campus

respondent’s are higher than that of on-campus respondents. For the theme research and extension

linkages, the on-campus members had higher mean, indicating gave higher rating by them.

Table-13 t-test for Equality of Means in the Responses Based on involvement in DACUM

Dec 23, 2002

22

Involvement in DACUM n Mean SD t

Sig. (2-tailed)

yes 60 3.62 0.46 Team Creativity, Commitment and Effectiveness no 75 3.60 0.42

0.30 0.76

yes 65 3.70 0.54 Operational Characteristics no 81 3.65 0.48

0.54 0.59

yes 65 3.80 0.65 Personal & Org (occurrence) no 81 3.81 0.67

-0.13 0.90

yes 66 3.83 0.54 Personal & Org. characteristics no 78 3.78 0.48

0.57 0.57

yes 66 3.85 0.70 Leadership no 78 3.62 0.60

2.14 0.03

yes 65 3.53 0.69 Recognition & Reward no 79 3.39 0.60

1.36 0.18

yes 60 3.22 0.82 Research & Extension no 75 3.43 0.85

-1.41 0.16

The ‘t’ test for equality of means in respect of participant’s involvement in DACUM (Table-13)

however, indicated that significant difference occurring between those involved in DACUM and not

involved only in respect of leadership characteristics. The members involved in DACUM on an

average had higher mean.

The ‘t’ test conducted to see the difference in the means based upon holding Co-chair position

(Table–14), similarly indicated significant difference only in respect of the themes Leadership and

Personal & Organizational characteristics. In both the cases, the means of those who are holding or

who held Co-chair positions in the past had higher means, indicating that they positively responded

to these statements compared to those that did not take up this Co-chair position.

Table-14 t-test for Equality of Means in the Responses Based on Holding AOE Co-chair Position

Currently or ever AOE co-chair n Mean SD t

Sig. (2-tailed)

yes 45 3.67 0.36 Team Creativity, Commitment and Effectiveness no 97 3.58 0.46

1.18 0.24

Dec 23, 2002

23

yes 47 3.79 0.46 Operational Characteristics no 108 3.61 0.54

1.94 0.05

yes 47 3.86 0.64 Personal & Org (occurrence) no 107 3.75 0.69

0.89 0.38

yes 47 3.94 0.46 Personal & Org. characteristics no 104 3.73 0.52

2.37 0.02

yes 47 4.06 0.57 Leadership no 104 3.57 0.62

4.64 0.00

yes 48 3.60 0.71 Recognition & Reward no 104 3.39 0.59

1.92 0.06

yes 45 3.46 0.84 Research & Extension no 98 3.26 0.84

1.29 0.20

A correlation analysis was performed to see if there is any association between the responses of the

participants (using the summated scores) and the respondents’ employment characteristics such as

length of employment with MSU and years on AOE Team. No significant association was observed

in any case.

Relationships Between Dependent and Independent Variables Relationships were analyzed between the dependent variable (Question 4-Team Effectiveness) and

other independent variables (Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) using summated scales to study the

relationships.

Table- 15 Correlation Coefficient (Pearson) Values between Team

Effectiveness and Other Independent Variables.

Operational Characteristics 0.80**

Personal & Org (occurrence) 0.76**

Personal & Org. characteristics 0.82**

Leadership 0.75**

Recognition & Reward 0.73**

Research & Extension 0.21* **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Dec 23, 2002

24

According to the Pearson correlations analysis (Table 15) we can indicate that the scale means of the

independents variables “operational characteristics”, “personal support characteristics”,

“organizational support characteristics”, “leadership characteristics”, and “recognition and reward”

show a very strong and significant association with the dependent variable (according to Davis,

1971). Analysis of this same table shows that “research and extension linkages” shows only a

moderate but significant association with the dependent variable.

These correlations show clearly that respondents who grade higher the value of “operational

characteristics”, “personal support characteristics”, “organizational support characteristics”,

“leadership characteristics”, and “recognition and reward” are more likely to have a higher

perception about AOE Team creativity, commitments and effectiveness.

Regression Analysis

Model Summary

.835a .697 .682 .2406Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), Research & ExtensionLinkages, Recognition & Reward, Personal &Organizational (frequency), Operational Characteristics,Leadership, Personal & Organizational (agreement)

a.

ANOVAb

15.710 6 2.618 45.247 .000a

6.828 118 5.787E-0222.538 124

RegressionResidualTotal

Model1

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Predictors: (Constant), Research & Extension Linkages, Recognition & Reward,Personal & Organizational (frequency), Operational Characteristics, Leadership,Personal & Organizational (agreement)

a.

Dependent Variable: Team Effectivenessb.

Dec 23, 2002

25

Coefficientsa

1.047 .175 5.975 .000.149 .080 .179 1.853 .066.171 .049 .272 3.491 .001.260 .098 .311 2.646 .009

7.634E-02 .067 .114 1.141 .2563.451E-02 .059 .052 .580 .563-2.08E-03 .028 -.004 -.074 .941

(Constant)Operational CharacteristicsPersonal & Organizational (frequency)Personal & Organizational (agreement)LeadershipRecognition & RewardResearch & Extension Linkages

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Team Effectivenessa.

Qualitative Analysis:

The survey concluded with a request for additional comments that respondents felt would be

appropriate for the study. An overall review of these comments using qualitative analysis

approaches revealed perceptions that coincided with those identified in the quantitative component

of the survey.

Communication is an area of concern that is addressed by a large percentage of the total responses.

Approximately 38%, 18 of the total 47 responses directly addressed the issue of communication.

While there were some comments about good communication, at least three fourths of the responses

in this area cited a need for improved communication. Most frequently cited was the need for

improved communication among or between teams. Some comments mentioned the need for better

communication among team members, or better communication with the faculty representative.

There was however, enough consistency in the comments to suggest a significant portion of the

respondents would like to see better communication among teams. These comments reflect a

concern that showed up in the quantitative analysis for the statement, “There is adequate

communication between our team and other AOE teams” wherein 52% of the survey responses

either strongly disagreed or disagreed.

The issue of reward emerged in eight of the comments. This is not only significant in the number of

times it was mentioned, but also in the consistency of the comments. There comments indicate

Dec 23, 2002

26

some respondents do not see a clearly defined reward system to recognize individual success. More

than one comment indicated the respondent did not feel they received recognition for their work.

Tied closely to this were comments that indicated there is no incentive to take on a leadership role

since there is no clear reward for the extra responsibilities.

Individual recognition and reward also emerged from the survey data as an area that could be

improved. Sixty two per cent of the field crop team members remained neutral or did not agree with

the statement, “I have been recognized by MSUE for my individual performance. Lack of

individual recognition may be a contributing factor in willingness to serve as co-chair. While

emphasis may be placed upon team success and recognition, perhaps the area of individual

recognition should be examined within this framework.

Summary

Judging by their own perceptions, AOE team members are satisfied that they are doing a good job.

While areas for improvement emerge from the survey data, most team members feel respected by

colleagues and clients and feel their work with the team has been personally rewarding. Several

positive statements about teamwork received widespread agreement. Consider the following

perceptions:

More than 70% of team members surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements,

“Our team is well respected by MSU colleagues with whom we interact”, “Our team is well

respected by clients with whom we work.”

Similarly, 70% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement; “The AOE

team delivery model has not had an impact on program effectiveness.” 89% consider that AOE

Team members are willing to assist them. 75% of them find support for their professional growth.

70% feel that leadership is shared by members and 65% opine that the work as a team member has

been personally rewarding.”

These positive responses indicate a high level of team member satisfaction with major goals and

operating procedures. One function of this analysis, however, is to also identify areas that may be

strengthened.

Dec 23, 2002

27

Communication can be improved between and among AOE teams. Only 16% of respondents agreed

that there was adequate communication among teams. Further research should be done to determine

possible ways to improve communication.

Personal rewards may be a valuable addition to team recognition. Perhaps a system can be

developed and implemented to recognize individuals without detracting from teamwork.

Fewer than 50% of team members currently co-author journal articles, extension publications, have

served on a proposal review team, or presented a research report. The team concept could be

enhanced by greater collaboration in research and presenting outcomes of that research. Related to

both communication and research participation is the fact that a significant number of team members

(23%) rarely interact with MAES researchers.

When examining all teams it appears that on-campus team members significantly perceive

effectiveness differently from off-campus team members. This would indicate the need for more

balanced team assignments for different AOE teams.

These correlations show clearly that respondents who grade higher the value of “operational

characteristics”, “personal support characteristics”, “organizational support characteristics”,

“leadership characteristics”, and “recognition and reward” are more likely to have a higher

perception about AOE Team creativity, commitments and effectiveness.

While most team members respond that the AOE approach is working well for them and their

clients, with continued evaluation and dedication to improve areas not yet fully satisfied, the AOE

can progressively look forward to a bright and productive future.

Dec 23, 2002

28

References:

Bennett C. and K. Rockwell. ATargeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP): An Integrated Approach to Planning and Evaluation.@ Class notes in AG*SAT Graduate Course in Program Evaluation in Adult Education and Training, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1995.

Fink, A. How to Sample in Surveys. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1995.

Fisher, K. 1993. Leading Self-Directed Work Team. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guikema, D. 1994. AAreas of Expertise - Editorial.@ Michigan Association of Extension Agents Newsletter, Fall

Hathaway, Irene, et al. 1994. AArea of Expertise: Final Report for MSU Extension.@ East Lansing: MSU Extension, April 1.

Krueger, R. A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1995.

Leholm, A.; et al 1998. AArea Of Expertise Teams: The Michigan Approach to Applied Research and Extension.@ East Lansing: Michigan state University extension.

Mueller, D.J. Measuring social attitudes. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986.

Orsburn, J.D., et al. 1990. Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge. Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin.

Patton, M. Q. Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, 1997.

Quick, T. 1992. Successful Team Building. New York: AMACOM.

Salant, Priscilla and Dillman, Don A. How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley and Sons. 1994.

Stake, Robert E. The Art of case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.

Suvedi, M. 1996. Farmers= perspectives on Michigan State University Extension: Summary report. East Lansing: MSU Extension Program Support Systems.

Wholey, J.S.; Harty, H.P. and K. E. Newcomer (eds.). Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.

Worthen, Blaine R., Sanders, James R. and Jody L. Fitzpatrick. Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman, 1997.

Yin, R.K. Case study research: design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 5. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1984.

Dec 23, 2002

29

AOE Team-wise Analysis

The responses of different AOE teams according to the AOE team to which they belong, such as

Dairy, Livestock, Field Crops, Fruits, Vegetables, Nursery& Greenhouses, and Other were analyzed

separately. The results are given in Annexure-1 to VII.

A close observation of the summated scales for various AOE Team characteristics across various

teams indicate that in general the theme Personal and Organizational characteristics received a

higher mean in all teams. The lowest score was in Recognition & Reward theme for Livestock,

Fruits, and Vegetables Teams where as the lowest score was in Research and Extension for other

Teams.

In order to test if the responses of the participants on various characteristics of AOE Team show

significant differences based upon the AOE Team to which they belong, a one-way ANOVA was

conducted.

ANOVA

.507 6 8.458E-02 .445 .84826.233 138 .19026.741 1441.374 6 .229 .849 .534

40.481 150 .27041.855 1562.485 6 .414 .930 .475

66.762 150 .445

69.247 156

3.103 6 .517 2.096 .05736.019 146 .24739.122 1522.747 6 .458 1.101 .365

61.116 147 .41663.863 1536.790 6 1.132 3.019 .008

55.107 147 .37561.897 1537.908 6 1.318 1.962 .075

93.397 139 .672101.306 145

Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotalBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotalBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotalBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotalBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotalBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

Team Effectiveness

OperationalCharacteristics

Personal &Organizational(frequency)

Personal &Organizational(agreement)

Leadership

Recognition & Reward

Research & ExtensionLinkages

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Dec 23, 2002

30

The results of ANOVA, as presented above, indicate that the difference in rating by members across

different teams is significant only in case of Recognition & Reward theme (t= 3.01 @ 0.00

significance level).

Analysis for homogenous subsets (Tukey’s B given below) indicated that the responses of

vegetables team and field crops team differ in this respect. Apparently, the vegetables team gave a

low rating for items in Recognition & Reward.

Recognition & Reward

Tukey B a,b

10 3.150017 3.2132 3.213224 3.2188 3.218828 3.4464 3.446422 3.4716 3.471619 3.4934 3.493434 3.7757

Primary AOE teamvegetablesotherlivestockdairyfruitsnursery/greenhousefield crops

N 1 2Subset for alpha = .05

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 19.247.a. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are notguaranteed.

b.

Independent sample “t” tests were conducted to check the significance in difference of means

across various AOE Teams.

In respect of current position (on-campus ~ off-campus) for Team Creativity, Commitment and

Effectiveness, no difference in any Team was observed except for the Fruits AOE Team.

However, in respect of Research & Extension, almost all Teams have shown significant differences

between on campus and off campus participants.

For differences based on involvement in DACUM, only the Dairy AOE Team showed significant

differences in respect of Personal & Organizational Characteristics, Leadership and Recognition &

Reward.

Similarly for differences based upon of holding Co-Char position, the Teams Dairy, Field Crops,

Vegetables, Nursery and Green Houses showed significant differences for the characteristics under

Leadership.

Dec 23, 2002

31

T should be noted that in many AOE Teams, the sample size is small, and hence the analysis on

AOE Team basis may not be a true representation actual situation.