Cooperative Extension faculty, as part of the land grant university system, provides educational services in areas such as agriculture, communities, family and consumer sciences, and youth development to every county in the United States. Extension faculty are expected to fill multiple roles in their careers and family life – roles that demand lots of time and energy.
None of this is news to any of us! As much as the topic of balancing work and family life comes up in general conversation, there are few available research studies on the work and family life of Extension agents (Martin & Morris, 2005). However, a recent study on the work and family life of county Extension agents provides some interesting insights.
Participants
In this study, 298 county Extension agents from a Southeastern state (not Florida!) completed a mail out questionnaire (55% response rate). Of the 298 participants:30.4% were Agricultural Extension facultyAbout twenty-two percent (21.8%) were Extension Agent I (had generally worked less than 8 years in Extension), thirteen percent (12.8%) Extension Agent II (8-15 years in Extension), 33.2% Extension Agent III or IV (15 or more years in Extension), 18.5% State Specialists, 9.1% County/District Specialists, and 2.7% District/State Administrators. Participants reported working an average of 49 hours a week, had been in their present position on average nearly 10 years (9.53 years), had spent a mean of 15 years in the Cooperative Extension Service, and were an average age of 43 years-old.
11.5% were in Family and Consumer Sciences
23% were in 4-H Youth Development
12.1% combined Agriculture/4-H Youth Development
11.1% combined 4-H Youth Development/Family and Consumer Sciences
2% in Expanded Food-Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
9.8% in an “other” category consisting of administrators and specialists.
Fifty-six percent of the sample was male (44% female), and 93% of the sample was white American, with 6% African-American and .3% Hispanic American, and .3% “other”. Although some measures pertained to marriage and family life, all Extension faculty were included in the study regardless of whether they were (married, single, divorced, widowed, or “other”).
Mentionable Measures
Measures of the following variables were included in the survey. Only three measures will be mentioned here – namely, those, which distinguished male from female agents and on which Extension faculty, differed according to their specialty area.Relational Equity
The Relational Equity Index (REI) is a measure of the discrepancy between a spouse’s expectations or ideals for marriage and his or her actual experiences or reality (see Sabatelli, et al., 1985). The degree of fairness a person perceives in a relationship, defined by how much a spouse perceives both parties as contributing to a relationship or whether there is an unfair balance is the main emphasis of the REI. The REI contains 10 items measured on a 5 point, Likert-type scale. Reported internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the REI in this reviewed study was .95.Marital Conflict
The Kansas Marital Conflict Scale (KMCS) (see Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumm, 1985) is composed of 27 items broken down into three subscales: Agenda Building; Arguing; and Negotiation. The KMCS is also on a 5-point Likert-type format and Cronbach’s alpha on the three subscales was found to be: Agenda Building (.90); Arguing (.92); and Negotiation (.92) in this reviewed study.Effect of Job on Family Life Satisfaction
The Effect of Job on Family Life Scale (EJFLS) has 24 items and is in a 6-point Likert-type format ranging from “It affects my life very negatively” to “It affects my family life very positively” (see St. Pierre, 1984 and Lepley, 2003). Internal consistency reliability or Cronbach’s alpha was .90 in the study reviewed.Work Satisfaction
Job satisfaction and degree to which the job environment is pleasant was measured by the Work Satisfaction Scale (WSS) (See Blanding, 1995). The WSS is on a 4-point Likert-type format from “not satisfied at all” to “very satisfied” and has 3 items. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was calculated at .71 in the study.Research Question / Hypotheses
The goal of the study was to examine the relationship between work and family life among Extension faculty, particularly with respect to gender, job responsibility area (such as FCS/4-H), and job title.Hypotheses regard whether:
1) Male and female agents differ with respect to…
2) Job responsibility or specialty area affects an Extension faculty member’s…
3) Whether job title affects an Extension faculty member’s… work satisfaction, parent-child relationship quality, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, marital conflict, relational equity, and effect of job on family life satisfaction.
Results
Hypothesis 1: Males and females only differed in one family relationship area. Female Extension faculty’s scores of relationship equity (measured by the REI) were significantly lower than males’ (Mann-Whitney non parametric t-test, p < .000). The researchers note that this finding points to female Extension faculty perceiving less equity or fairness in their marital relationship than do male Extension faculty (Martin & Morris, 2005). Hypothesis 2: Extension faculty differed significantly by specialty or employment responsibility in the following areas: relationship equity (F = 3.57, p < .002); marital conflict (F = 2.18, p < .045); and effect of job on family life satisfaction (F = 4.45, p < .000). Family and Consumer Science agents had significantly lower levels of marital conflict than those with dual appointments in Agriculture/4-H Youth or Family and Consumer Sciences/4-H Youth. Family and Consumer Science Agents also perceived significantly higher levels of marital equity than Agriculture/4-H Youth agents. 4-H Youth Development faculty had a significantly more positive view of the effect of their work on family life than Agricultural Extension faculty and combined Family and Consumer Sciences/4-H Youth Extension faculty. It is unknown whether these differences are a function of the job responsibilities involved in each specialty area (e.g., dual responsibilities versus one area of concentration) and/or the background in family life and youth development that Family and Consumer Science as well as 4-H Youth Development faculty have been exposed to. Hypothesis 3: A noteworthy finding is that District/State Administrator Extension faculty differed significantly in their work satisfaction from Extension Agents I (F = 2.44, p < .002); Extension Agents II (F = 3.14, p < .000), and Extension Agents III or IV (F = 2.24, p < .002). This finding makes sense in light of high turnover rates among early career Extension faculty (usually within 3-5 years). District/State Administrators are expected to be more invested and committed to Cooperative Extension as compared to career entry Extension faculty. However, it is less easy to explain the differences between District/State Administrators and Extension faculty who have been in their careers from 8-15 or more years. According to the researchers (Martin & Morris, 2005), the results were as expected, particularly when comparing Extension faculty on their specialized areas; a number of prior studies support differences among agents on work and family life satisfaction by employment responsibility. Martin and Morris (2005) suggest using multi-method studies, for example, qualitative interviewing combined with quantitative methodology (mail surveys), as well as higher order quantitative analyses (structural equation modeling), to tap into reasons for these differences among Extension faculty by gender, specialty area, and position or title. Limitations
A limitation in the study, according to the authors, is that respondents largely represent rural areas (Martin & Morris, 2005). Moreover, the sample is limited in terms of ethnic diversity. Cultural influences on commitment to family life and relationships outside work may provide new insights and findings. Work culture or climate is also an area to study with respect to how such climate differs by employment or specialty area. Although Extension faculty from a diversity of family forms were represented in the sample (single parents, divorced, widowed, single), there was an emphasis on characteristics of the marital (perhaps extending to premarital) relationship as a representation of family life. Including additional measures of family commitment and relationships as they are affected by the work environment would more appropriately characterize a diversity of family forms. Moreover, collecting data from the spouses (or significant others/family members) of county Extension faculty will increase the comprehension of results, particularly with respect to perceptions of marital equity (Martin & Morris, 2005).Implications
What might these findings mean for Cooperative Extension in Florida, the Southeast, and the United States?Encouraging family life education professionals (usually FCS Agents) to conduct workshops serving Extension faculty in other specialty areas on relationship education (Martin & Morris, 2005), as well as other community audiences.
Having youth development educators facilitate workshops with Extension faculty in other disciplines (e.g., Agriculture/4-H) on how to address the developmental needs of youth at the programmatic and personal/familial level
Creating supportive, family-friendly work environments at the organizational level, with the input of family life educators. (Martin & Morris, 2005)
Offering new faculty workshops on stress and time management. More seasoned county faculty - those in the field seven or more years - can help educate newer employees during these workshops by generating discussion and providing illustrated examples. Outside of the workshop setting, more experienced faculty can mentor new Extension faculty.
From: Martin, A.B., & Morris, M.L. (November, 2005). Work/family variable relationships of county Extension agents. Unpublished manuscript presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual conference, Phoenix, AZ.
For more information contact:
April B. Martin, M.S.Extension Agent
DeKalb County
PO BOX 88
Smithville, TN 37166
Phone: (615)-597-4945
Fax: (615)-597-1421
Email: amartin3@utk.edu
Additional references (from Martin & Morris, 2005):
Blanding, L.G. (1995) Relational quality and household division of labor as predictors of marital, parental, and work satisfaction for dual-earner men and women .A Dissertation. University of Tennessee, 1 - 136.
Boltes, B., Lippke, L, & Gregory E. (1995). Employee satisfaction in extension: a Texas study. Journal of Extension, 33, 1-3.
Bowen, C, Radhakrishna, R., & Keyser, R. (1994). Job satisfaction and commitment of 4-H agents. Journal of Extension, 32, 1-3.
Eggeman, K., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1985). Assessing spouses perceptions of Gottman's temporal form of marital conflict. Psychological Reports, 57, 171-181.
Fetsch, R.J. & Kennington, M.S. (1997). Balancing work and family in cooperative extension: history, effective programs, and future directions. Journal of Extension, 35:1, 1 - 7.
Igodan, O.C. & NewComb, L.H. (1986). Are you experiencing burnout? Symptoms and coping strategies for extension professionals. Journal of Extension, 24, 4 - 7.
Kelser, K. (1989). Job satisfaction and perceived in-service needs of Iowa cooperative extension personnel. Dissertation. Iowa State University.
Lepley, T. (2003). Work, Life, and Effect of Job on Family Satisfaction of Texas Extension Agents. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.
Lobel, S.A. (1992). A value-laden approach to integrating work and family life. Human Resource Management, 31:3, 249 - 265.
Martin, A. & Morris, M.L. (2002). Work/Family variables influencing the work satisfaction of Tennesee Extension Agents. Paper published in the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings in Honolulu, HI.
Riggs, K., Beus, K. (1993). Job satisfaction in extension. Journal of Extension, Summer, 15-17.
Sabatelli, R.M. & Cecil-Pigo, E.F. (1985). Relational independence and commitment in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, (4), 931-937
Schumm, W.R, Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.D., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the kansas marital satisfaction scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 381 - 387.
St. Pierre, T.L. (1984). The relationship between work and family life of county extension agents in Pennsylvania. A dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.
Strazdins, L. & Broom, D.H. (2004). Acts of love and work: Gender imbalance in emotional work and women’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 25:3, 356-358.
Thomas, L.T., & Ganster, D.C. ( 1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410.
Umberson, D. (1989). Relationships with children: Explaining parents' psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 999 - 1012.
Yang, N. (1998). An international perspective on socioeconomic changes and their effects on life stress and career success of working women. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 15-21.
