Stress: Professional Development Needs of Extension Faculty

This study was designed to identify workplace and individual factors that cause stress in the lives of Extension professionals and to determine baseline needs assessment data for professional development in the area of balancing work and family. A census-survey questionnaire (74% response rate) was utilized to explore balancing work and personal life issues among the population of University of Florida Extension faculty. It was found that some faculty have stress under control while others are experiencing high levels of stress; county faculty perceived slightly higher stress than state faculty but this difference was not significant. Respondents reporting greater use of formal planning, planning for meetings, and “to do” lists tended to have lower stress scores. For Extension faculty, spending more time with family served as a coping mechanism for minimizing stress. Any stress inducing situations disclosed in this study can be improved upon through proactive professional development. Professional development programs and inservice training focusing on workday planning may help faculty cope with the stress and pressure of an Extension career. Greater organizational effectiveness can be achieved through employees being able to manage stress and work pressure via positive workplace skills. Introduction and Theoretical Framework Job stress, time management, and balancing work and personal life are issues that educators in the field of Cooperative Extension constantly struggle with. An Extension career can be very rewarding personally and professionally, as well as very demanding. Extension educators are able to bring about tremendous positive impact among individuals and communities through locally provided education and information. Yet for many, an Extension career is known for long hours, travel, frequent night and weekend work, and working with problems, issues and needs of others. Personal and professional balance and high job demands are not new issues for Extension. The demands and stress of Extension and its effect on people have been studied for several years (Fetsch & Pergola, 1991; Riggs & Beus, 1993; Fetsch & Kennington, 1997). Each of these papers has served to document and reinforce the difficulties that Extension professionals have had with stress, burnout, depression, time management, and balancing personal and professional responsibilities. The dilemma was recognized nationally by United States Department of AgricultureCooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA-CSREES) as early as 1981. As part of a national position paper on Cooperative Extension’s role in strengthening American families, a national Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) task force was also charged with examining the impact of stress and personal and professional balance within the Extension organization. The group determined that this was a critical issue, and as such, recommended that Extension’s administrators needed to “critically examine their policies and practices and the resultant effects upon the family life of Extension employees” (ECOP Task Force, 1981, p. 3). Fetsch and Kennington (1997) summarized a number of studies that specifically addressed these concerns within Extension. They found that stress and burnout existed within Extension organizations in all of the states studied; some studies noted a direct relationship between professional stress and family problems. The problem existed across all program areas with various levels of Place & Jacob Stress: Professional Development... Journal of Agricultural Education 97 Volume 42, Issue 1, 2001 significance. They concluded that Extension professionals could attain overall improvement through the use of stress and time management strategies. Furthermore, they concluded that organizational policies and practices that lead to higher levels of stress must be modified and programs must be implemented for increasing coping skills and productivity of Extension professionals. These conclusions closely parallel recommendations made for other business areas (Abernathy, 1999; Hitchin, 1999; Vincola, 1998). Stress has been associated with mental tension and/or strain and is generally viewed as a nonspecific response of the body to a stimulus. The subjective feeling of stress is derived from a stimulus (stressor) and from environmental demands (Krannich et al., 1988). Individuals have unique reactions to stressors due to differing modes of coping, mediation, and other adaptive capabilities. Stress can manifest itself in physical outcomes. For example, stress has been shown to affect the immune, endocrine, digestive, and cardiovascular systems (Pearlin, 1989). Similarly, evidence suggests it also negatively impacts mental health (NMHA, 1988). Alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, neurosis, and depression are frequently cited as some of the more common psychological impacts of stressors (Pearlin, 1989). Although there are many causes of stress, within the workplace there are three primary sources: the employee’s personal life characteristics, the work conditions and environment, and situations occurring within the job itself (Kirkpatrick, et. al. 1996). Within the context of the organization, Kirkpatrick has identified seven categories that may be stressinducing: competition for resources; task interdependence; jurisdictional ambiguity; status problems; communication barriers; individual traits; and miscellaneous factors such as role conflicts, volume of work, work schedules, insufficient authority, deadlines, organizational pettiness, and inadequate training. A number of these items are interrelated with personal perceptions of time pressure, and abilities in workday planning, and managing others. Time management and work habits have been at the core of job stress and balancing personal and professional lives for quite some time. Studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s documented that people’s work efficiency declines after eight hours of work (Mackenzie, 1972). Unfortunately, many people get into a habit of thinking “there is always tonight” for taking work home or staying late to get things done, thereby stretching work beyond the normal workday. Other early studies also showed that people who overemphasize their work at the expense of their family and marriage will eventually attain lower job performance (Mackenzie, 1972). A more recent study conducted by the Franklin Covey Company describes similar workplace problems. The study reported that 83 percent of Americans want to be more organized, 50 percent feel guilty about taking time off from work, and 62% often eat lunch while they continue to work (Abernathy, 1999). People are trying to get more done (with work and family) in less time, which frequently leads to burnout and extreme frustration (Abernathy, 1999; Meikins, 1998; Perlow, 1999). Meikins (1998) found that some people feel extremely rushed and pressured at home, and as a result they may spend more time in the workplace for escape and personal gratification, which only exacerbates the situation. Coping and mediation are mechanisms that can mitigate the negative effects of stress. Coping is an individual action, but is learned from one's reference group, in this case one's colleagues. Mediators are essentially social supports that help alleviate or lessen stress (Pearlin, 1989). Most of the research on coping and mediation has been psychological in nature, with a clear emphasis on the individual. This body of research has shown that locus of control beliefs are critical to coping. If people believe that they have control of good and bad outcomes in their life (high locus of control), they can effectively reduce stress. Krause (1987) found that locus of control beliefs buffer stress to a limited extent, and that efforts at enhancing locus of control (empowerment) by individuals actually eroded such beliefs. Similarly, Mirowsky Place & Jacob Stress: Professional Development... Journal of Agricultural Education 98 Volume 42, Issue 1, 2001 and Ross (1990) found that genuine control reduces stress, and most other coping methods are not as effective. Time management is generally seen as an effective means whereby individuals can control stress. The issues of job stress, time management, and balancing one’s personal and professional life is a significant dilemma in today’s society and for Extension. These issues cause tremendous costs to organizations in employee medical problems, down time, sick days, job apathy, and lost productivity. For individuals these issues result in lowered wages, lessened job enthusiasm, depression, and familial difficulties. Extension must address these issues to attract and retain leading professionals, if it intends to continue as a principal provider of nonformal educational programs. Purposes and Objectives The goal of this study was to identify workplace and individual factors that increase or reduce stress in the lives of Extension professionals. The study was designed for determining baseline needs assessment data for professional development in the area of balancing work and family. By identifying sources and personal characteristics that are associated with stress, professional development efforts can be directly targeted to address high priority issues in this area. To meet this goal, the study had two objectives: (a) to develop indices of stress and workplace habits, and (b) to identify the relative strength of work place skills and individual and family demographics in perceived stress level using a multiple regression model. Methods and Procedures A census-survey questionnaire was developed to explore balancing work and personal life issues among the population of University of Florida Extension faculty. The questionnaire consisted of 82 items divided into three parts. Sections of the questionnaire included perceptions of the nature of Extension work; stress, time management, and other work habits; and personal and family demographics. A panel of 15 experts consisting of University of Florida county and state faculty with Extension knowledge and/or experience was utilized for evaluation of content and face and validity. Thirty-five state and county faculty participated in pilot testing the instrument. Suggested changes, clarifications, and improvements were subsequently incorporated into the instrument prior to its actual use. In February of 2000, the questionnaire was mailed to 422 county and state Extension faculty. Following the total design method (Dillman, 1978), a postcard follow-up and a second mailing of the instrument was conducted in March. A third mailing was not initiated because the targeted instrument precision level of +/3 percent was achieved and time constraints did not allow for further follow-up. Results from the survey were reported at the annual Florida Associations of Extension Professionals meeting, which created the time barrier. There were 314 completed and usable questionnaires, for a 74 percent response rate. Subsequent data analysis showed no significant differences among early and late respondents. Multiple linear regression with ordinary least squares (OLS) was employed for this analysis. OLS regression enables the modeling of the dependent variable as a function of the independent variables. Two models were utilized to determine the combined effect of each set of variables (work place skills, and individual and household demographics) on the dependent variable (stress). In the following analyses, the work place skills variables (workday planning, time pressure, and managing others) were entered in model one, with the seven individual and household demographic items (age, income, gender, house work, time spent with family, working partner, and state or county appointment). Finally, the reduced model containing all of the statistically significant independent variables was examined.