Enhancing the role of the Extension educator in MSUE

Last September, we held a series of all-staff meetings around the state to discuss the recommendations proposed by two task forces who were asked to consider how Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) can improve as an organization with respect to our programs and with respect to our organizational structure. We spent about half of each three-hour session addressing questions submitted by attendees. On several occasions staff asked what the scholarly foundation was for some of the changes that had been recommended. We provided verbal responses to those in the sessions and written responses on the Frequently Asked Questions resource that we provided on the MSUE portal. I’d like to revisit that question and our response to it in discussing one of the key elements in what I think will help our redesign succeed.

An article by Michael Schmitt and Thomas Bartholomay from the University of Minnesota published in the Journal of Extension last April has had a profound impact on my thoughts about our redesign. In their article, Schmitt and Bartholomay documented changes in self-measured satisfaction and effectiveness among agriculture Extension educators from before to after some fundamental changes in the structure of educator positions at University of Minnesota Extension. This is a very well designed study that compares two groups of educators: those who had been assigned a new role as regional Extension educators (REE) and those who remained in the role of a local Extension educator (LEE). The primary difference in assignment was that REEs focused on specialized content education and applied research over a broader geographic area, while LEEs had roles providing broader general education and technical assistance at a local level. In addition, REEs were assigned to work out of regional Extension centers whereas LEEs worked out of county offices. Educators in both groups are supervised by a program leader in the new structure, but previously educators reported to a district director.

What is striking about their findings is that 1) in general REEs felt that they had improved their skills with respect to time management, instruction and programming significantly more than LEEs felt about improvements in their skills; 2) REEs felt that they had improved their effectiveness in collaborating with campus faculty significantly more than LEEs did; 3) both groups felt that their supervisor’s awareness and understanding of their work had increased and REEs’ perception of improvement was significantly greater than that of LEEs’; 4) both groups felt that they committed a greater percentage of their time to applied research and demonstration projects, and REEs felt that they committed a greater percentage of their time to teaching curriculum, but LEEs did not perceive a change in their time committed to teaching; 5) REEs reported greater satisfaction and greater sense of effectiveness in their new positions than LEEs reported.

This summary statement from the paper’s conclusion captures the essence of the study very well: “In fact, counter to common assumption, staff in the study who were most directly affected by restructuring perceived the greatest gains in effectiveness and satisfaction.”

Two years ago, Steve Poindexter, Extension educator from Saginaw County, received the MSU Distinguished Academic Staff Award. During the reception we held in his honor, he stated that the best thing that happened to him in his career was being given the opportunity to specialize his work. In 1997, Steve was assigned to a unique role of “Integrator” to work exclusively on issues related to sugar beet production and processing in Michigan. The partnership that supports his position, Sugarbeet Advancement, provides funding for half of his salary and benefits. Steve has pioneered this position and in doing so, has given us a rich model for how we can better serve the needs of a particular constituent group by focusing their attention to one person who in turn coordinates the involvement of other educators, technicians and campus faculty to address their needs. And understanding the needs of the sugar beet industry really forms the basis of this powerful model. Steve is the point person – the one who is responsible for regularly visiting with representatives of the industry to understand their short-term and long-term needs for research and education programming. He tracks “all things sugar beets” not only in Michigan, but also in Ontario, Ohio, and in other sugar beet growing regions like the Red River valley of Minnesota and the Dakotas and the intermountain region of eastern Washington and Oregon and western Idaho. He knows the experts on campus and at other universities to tap for expertise or to promote research projects needed to address grower concerns. When I heard Steve say that being allowed to specialize meant a great deal to his satisfaction and effectiveness as an Extension professional, I knew we needed to find a way to provide that opportunity to more of our educators and to turn that into even more effective Extension programming for Michigan.

From my perspective, the Minnesota study simply documents – extremely well – what I heard from Steve two years ago.

So how does this relate to our redesign? It’s this simple: we have identified the need for our programs to be more focused and specialized; we have identified the need for our programs to be more up to date and more accessible through technology and other new approaches of delivery; we have identified the need for our programs to link more broadly with the expertise available not only at MSU, but also at other land-grant institutions across the region and nation; we have identified the need for our programs to be more responsive to changes in the issues our constituents face. It seems clear to me that for MSUE to be better in these ways, we need for our educators to be given the same opportunity that Steve Poindexter was given 13 years ago.

Our redesign implements many of the key features from the Minnesota experience:

1) All educators will be given an opportunity to apply for a more specialized assignment within their institute.

2) All educators will be supervised by institute directors who have a programmatic focus rather than a geographic focus to their evaluation and coaching; and their insights will be complemented by joint supervision from a district coordinator who has knowledge of the community setting in which the educator works.

3) All educators and specialists will be expected to develop a robust skill set for communicating by use of the Internet and other technologies.

4) All educators and specialists will be expected to reach beyond state boundaries in seeking expertise, either through technology like eXtension, or through other professional collaboration opportunities.

5) All of our institutes and their project work groups will be expected to build and maintain relationships with their constituent populations such that they can track and adapt to emerging needs as they develop.

It is overly simplistic to think that we will just turn every educator into an “Integrator” in the model that Steve represents. Program areas and project work groups differ in the nature of the audience they serve, the issues they face, and the external resources available to help address the issues. But in each case, we can use the salient elements of the Integrator position pioneered by Steve, along with the findings of the Minnesota study, to develop staffing plans and role assignment descriptions that position us to succeed in our mission.

We have had other experiences with creating opportunities for educator positions to be more specialized, including other “Integrator” positions, district educator positions, or statewide program positions. District educator positions are more specialized in geography, and to some extent in programmatic expertise (e.g., dairy, coastal resource management, nutrition education, farm management). We need to create ways of translating those experiences and enhancing them for our redesign to be successful.

Drs. Michelle Rodgers and Karen Plaut have helped us by developing a model of staffing in animal agriculture that would be more integrative among Extension and research expertise and would build on the strengths gained from specialization. They have been discussing this model with members of animal agriculture Area of Expertise teams to gain insights that can help to strengthen the model, and we have had several discussions within the MSUE Administrative Team about this model. It’s still a model, and still needs refinement, and it may be a model that works well for animal agriculture, but may need adjustment for programming in the Prepare Michigan’s Children and Youth for the Future or Improve Health and Nutrition institutes, but it has given us insights.

In thinking about specialization, we recognize that we need at least two different but equally important kinds of assignments within educator positions: those who serve as a liaison to a particular group of Extension constituents, defined by the constituents’ interest, and those who develop a particular knowledge expertise. In the Sugarbeet Advancement example, the Integrator serves this role as the point person, the one with whom all constituents involved in sugar beet production KNOW they can originate their questions. You might think of this role as that of being a “sales representative” in a company structure – the one who makes and maintains relationships with those we serve within a particular area. We have other examples of educators who have developed a particular knowledge expertise, for example in state and local government or in youth mentoring or in childcare training. Both kinds of educator positions require specialized knowledge, both require the ability to apply knowledge from research, and both will need to collaborate with each other in serving the needs of our constituents.

As we near the time that we will have directors named for each of our new institutes, and with staff having identified the institute in which they wish to be appointed, we will begin the process of identifying the priority project work groups within each institute, identifying the specialized educator and liaison educator roles needed within that work group, and then providing opportunities for staff to apply for those specific assignments within the institute.

I understand that this is a fundamental shift in the way we staff and assign responsibilities. At the same time, it’s clear to me that a) we need to change, b) we’re actually adopting models that we have used previously in limited ways and c) there’s sound scholarship that shows that providing educators an opportunity to specialize in their work will not only increase their effectiveness, but also improve the quality of our programs and the impacts of our work. We still have details to work out, and need to think carefully about how these models apply or need to be modified for different institutes and different work groups within each institute. Your insights and contributions will help us to make the adjustments we will need.

President Simon has charged us with creating Extension for the 21^st Century, and it’s clear to me that these changes are essential to our ability to meet that charge. I look forward to working with you in this creative process and in implementing these important changes.