Chris Lavergne
graduate student
Texas A&M University

Tracy Rutherford
Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University

Background

On April 25, 2002, K-State Research and Extension issued to its employees five proposed organizational core values including (1) integrity, (2) communication, (3) scholarship, (4) leadership, and (5) inclusion. Each of these values included value statements explaining how to apply individual values to daily tasks. Personnel were encouraged to use each value in their daily workplace procedures.

This study had two objectives. The researchers sought to (1) determine organizational values of Kansas State Research and Extension personnel and add validity to the identified values that will be representative of Kansas State Research and Extension and (2) investigate possible relationships between individuals’ expressed values and their age, gender, race, job tenure in K-State Research and Extension Service, level of formal education, program area responsibility, and position within the organization.

Similar studies have been conducted by Extension services in North Carolina (Safrit, 1990), Ohio (Conklin, Jones, & Safrit, 1992), Florida (Williams, 1984), Minnesota (Barker, 1994), and New Mexico (Seevers, 2000).

For the purpose of this study an organization is defined as a collection of (usually) hierarchically-arranged individuals linked in an overall structure characterized by task specialization and horizontal differentiations among individuals to accomplish a series of interconnected tasks (Drasgow & Schmitt, 2002). Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations states that in researching an organization it is vital to begin with the individuals who make up the organization, and that knowledge of an organization is developed from an accumulated knowledge of individuals (Drasgow & Schmitt, 2002).

Organizational values are important in clarifying what the organization stands for, as well as in creating a clear corporate mission and goals. According to William D. Hitt, every organization is guided by certain beliefs or values. These values communicate to all members “what we stand for” and “what is important to us” (Hitt, 1988).

Milton Rokeach defines a value as a single belief that transcendentally guides actions and judgments across specific objects and situations and beyond immediate goals to more ultimate end-states of existence. A value is a standard or yardstick to guide actions, attitudes, comparisons, evaluations, and justifications of self and others (Rokeach, 1968).

One sign of a healthy organizational culture is congruence between the organization’s statement of values and the daily behavior of its members. Conversely, one sign of an organizational culture in trouble is lack of congruence between the organization’s statement of values and the daily behavior of its members (Hitt, 1988). The researchers in this study set out to determine if the proposed value statements issued by K-State Research & Extension were congruent with the personal values of the individuals who make up the organization.

A solid values audit should give Kansas State University Research and Extension administrators an idea of how the stated organizational values agree with employee’s individual values, and whether employees perceive the organization as demonstrating these values on a day-to-day basis, through policy and practice.

While all organizations have core values, whether stated or unstated, it is important that these values are harmonious with the employee’s values. A lack of congruence is a sign of an unhealthy organization. Hitt outlines three examples of discordance in organizational values.
1. Incongruity between the statement of organizational values and the tangible understanding of these values on the part of the members.
2. Incongruity between the values of one unit and those of another unit within the same organization.
3. Incongruity between the statement of organizational values and the behavior of the organization’s leaders (Hitt, 1988).

Method

The population consisted of all employees and supporting collaborators listed in the most recent Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service directory, (N=1,375). The survey was distributed to the complete population to provide an opportunity for participant self-selection. The sample provided a point-in-time perception of the core values. Responses were received from 261 employees, a response rate of 19%. Responses were divided between three primary responsibilities teaching, research, and extension. Fifteen (15) respondents did not specify primary responsibilities; twenty-six (26) responses were received from teaching personnel, forty-two (42) from research personnel, and one-hundred and seventy-eight (178) from extension personnel. Table 1 compares the demographics of the respondents to all KSRE personnel.

Table 1. Demographics

A survey instrument containing 40 value statements was developed to assess the organizational values. The questionnaire was similar to the mail questionnaire used in the New Mexico Cooperative Extension study (Seevers, 2000). In section one, two four-point Likert scales were utilized. The respondent was asked to rate the degree to which he/she values the statement and to rate the degree to which they perceive the value to be evident in the organizational policies and procedures. Response categories ranged from 1 to 4, with 1 representing “never value” or “not evident;” and 4 representing “always value” or “extremely evident.”

Section 2 of the instrument provided demographic information of the respondents. This included major program area of responsibility, job classification, tenure with K-State Research and Extension, highest level of formal education, gender, ethnicity, and age (Seevers, 2000).

The Kansas State University Research and Extension intranet, a privately maintained computer network that can be accessed only by employees, was used to provide a convenient and secure method for faculty and staff to complete the questionnaire. Because of the convenience factor and novelty, Internet response rates are typically higher than mail or telephone surveys (Buddenbaum & Novak, 2001). A hard copy was made available for those who requested it. Thirty-one employees opted to use a hard copy.

Two mailings from campus are distributed to county Research and Extension personnel each week. Cover letters were sent to both campus personnel and those off campus on June 5, with a deadline of June 21. Due to low response rates, the deadline was extended to July 3, 2002. Campus mail was utilized for on-campus employees. Reminders were distributed via the Tuesday letter on June 18 and June 25. The Tuesday letter is a weekly update of organizational information sent to all K-State Research and Extension personnel. This e-mail served as a thank you, while referencing the intranet availability and an online PDF version of the survey (Dillman, 2001).

Three challenges faced during the data collection period included (1) many employees did not know how to access their intranet account (2) two departments within the College of Agriculture use departmental servers, and (3) the research project was conducted during the summer, excluding the large number of K-State Research and Extension personnel with nine-month appointments and respondents on vacation during the survey period, causing a potential threat to external validity and experimental mortality. The researchers believe that these three components contributed to the low response rate.

Results

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) software was used to analyze the returned data. To evaluate objective 1, determine organizational values of K- State Research and Extension personnel and add validity to the identified values that will be representative of K-State Research and Extension the forty value statements were divided into the original five proposed values, (1) integrity, (2) communication, (3) scholarship, (4) leadership, and (5) inclusion.

Table 2. Value statements included in five established values

Personal value statements were ranked according to the percentage of respondents that rated the statement as “always value” (Seevers, 2000.) Responses were averaged to determine which value statements received the most “always value” rating. The New Mexico study selected values in which 75% or more of the respondents rated the value as “extremely valued”. For this study, values receiving at least a 70% rating were chosen as the most valued statements. Eleven value statements achieved this ranking, with value statement percentages ranging from 72.4% to 93.1%. Of the top 11 statements, the percentage of respondents rating the value as “extremely evident” in K-State Research and Extension policies and procedures ranged from as low as 12.6% to a high of 31.4%.

Table 3. Top personal value statements as perceived by personnel

An incongruity existed between K-State Research and Extension personnel’s personal values and how they perceived the value demonstrated in organizational policies and procedure. The highest ranked values on the “Personal Value” scale were ranked significantly lower on the “Value Evident in K-State Research & Extension” scale. The highest ranked value statements were represented in the value of integrity.

Spearman’s rho was used to determine significant correlations between the values and selected demographic variables (Table 4 & 5). A few significant values were found at the .05 level. (Poindexter & McCombs, 2000).

Table 4. Correlations between identified K-State Research and Extension organizational core values and selected demographic variables.

*Significant at the .05 level 

Table 5. Correlations between values evident in policies and procedures and selected demographic variables

*Significant at the .05 level 

Although significant correlations existed between ethnicity and scholarship, it should be noted that 93.1% of respondents were classified in the same ethnicity category. A significant, negative correlation existed between job classification and scholarship.

Only one significant correlation existed in the perceived values in Research and Extension policies and procedures. Education and Inclusion had a perfectly negative relationship. This researcher interprets that to mean that personnel with higher educations found less inclusion in policy and procedure. This could be because researchers are less likely to collaborate when they reach the doctoral or post-doctoral level.

Conclusions

There is an incongruity between personnel’s individual values and how they perceive the value as being evident in K-State Research and Extension policies and procedures. The eleven highest ranked personal values did not receive as high a rating in the “evident in policy and procedure” category.

In order for the public to have a positive perception of K-State Research and Extension and its values, the employees need to first recognize that what they value is demonstrated in policy and procedure. It is recommended that K-State Research and Extension administrative personnel review the results of this survey and implement action through annual conference, retreats and other gatherings to add validity to the value statements. Focus groups and committees, similar to the organizational core values group, should be formed to determine why some of the values Research and Extension personnel value are not seen in policy and procedure.

Many of the highest rating personal values involved integrity. Employees need to see that their organization values integrity in its day-to-day practices. This can be done through recognition, incentives, and simply walking the talk.

One of the challenges was the lack of employee use of the intranet. Steps need to be taken to make the intranet a valuable resource for employees. Two large departments within the organization, agricultural economics and biological and agricultural engineering, utilize their own server, which results in a lack of intranet use and division in the organization.

In the New Mexico study, a follow-up study was recommended to determine if value priorities have shifted and to assess the extent employees perceive that any discrepancies between perceived values and organizational practices have lessened (Seevers, 2000).

Regarding this study, a follow-up study in three to five years would be beneficial in determining whether current Research and Extension personnel’s perceptions of Research & Extension procedure and policy have changed.