
































Microsoft Word - 211-Final.docx


Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 3, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Matt Benge, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 126B Bryant Hall Gainesville, FL 32611, mattbenge@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5358-3233  

2. Elisha Cash, Graduate Student, University of Florida, ecash@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0930-8322 
 

51 

 

Florida Extension Agents’ Perceived Level of Trust with Their 
County Extension Director 

 
M. Benge1, E. Cash2 

 

 
  

Abstract 

County Extension Directors (CEDs) act as the administrative leader of the county Extension office and 
implement their own educational program. County Extension agents act as the leader of their 
program area and corresponding community audience. Because of the autonomous nature of the 
agents’ work, it is imperative that Extension agents trust their CEDs. The Trust in Leaders Scale (TLS) 
was created to measure person-based trust between leaders and followers through four constructs: 
competence, integrity, benevolence, and predictability. A census study was conducted by 
distributing the TLS to the UF/IFAS Extension agents that report to a CED. Results indicated perceived 
moderate levels of trust between agents and CEDs, and demographic variables did not impact 
whether agents trusted their CED. UF/IFAS Extension should seek to understand the impact of 
moderate trust between county Extension agents and their CED, as research show low trust typically 
leads to lower job satisfaction and higher employee turnover. 
 

Keywords 

Leadership, competence, integrity, benevolence, predictability 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  52 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The Cooperative Extension Service provides practical education to help people, businesses, and 
communities solve problems, develop skills, and build a better future (National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture [NIFA], 2021; Seevers et al., 1997). University of Florida Institute of Food 
and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) County Extension Directors (CED) are Extension agents that 
have both programmatic and administrative responsibilities and serve a critical role as they are 
responsible for their individual Extension programming and are the leader for their local county 
Extension program (UF/IFAS Extension, 2022). CEDs coach, mentor, and serve in a supervisory 
capacity over the other Extension agents in their office, thus defining the relationship between 
a CED and Extension agent differently than relationships amongst other Extension agents. Trust 
has been identified as one of the necessary CED relationships and interpersonal leadership 
competencies through Extension literature (Benge & Harder, 2017; Bruce & Anderson, 2012; 
Cooper & Graham, 2001; Moore & Rudd, 2004; Sanders, 2014).  
 
Within organizations, a climate in which employees feel trusted by their leader significantly 
influences follower work engagement, and that climate can be created through the trustworthy 
behaviors of the leader (Engelbrecht et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2010). Because Extension agents 
have a high level of autonomy in planning, implementing, and evaluating their programs, CEDs 
must delegate leadership and trust that the Extension mission will be accomplished (Franz & 
Townson, 2008). Trust between Extension agents and their CEDs has not been studied in the 
specific context of Cooperative Extension, and therefore it is unknown whether CEDs are 
perceived to be trustworthy by Extension agents. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the outcomes of another party 
based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the 
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 
712). Schoorman et al. (2007) explain that when someone seeks to trust another person or 
group, that person is being vulnerable, opening themselves to risk, and giving up control. 
Though trust does not define a relationship between two or more individuals (Schoorman et al., 
2007), trust does have an impact on that relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).  
 
Trustworthiness was identified by Sanders (2014) as an important leadership competency for 
CEDs to possess. In fact, trust was identified as a top five CED leadership competency by county 
administrators and a top seven competency by other county extension directors (Sanders, 
2014). Benge (2015) is the only known study of trust within Extension, which found that agents 
reported moderate levels of trust regarding their CED. Because the nature of the relationship 
between an Extension agent and their CED is personal, we chose to use the Trust in Leaders 
Scale (TLS) which is derived from person-based trust approach and theory (Adams et al., 2008). 
The TLS is a person-based trust instrument that seeks to capture the essence of trust between a 
leader and their follower using four trust concepts, or antecedents: 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  53 
 

• Competence: The extent to which the person exhibits a group of skills, competencies and 
characteristics that allow them to have influence in some domain. 

• Integrity: The extent to which the person is seen as honorable, and their words match their 
actions.  

• Benevolence: The extent to which the person is seen to be genuinely caring and concerned. 
• Predictability: The extent to which the person’s behavior is consistent. 
 
We chose the TLS for our study because the trust relationship between CEDs and Extension 
agents involve a high amount of interaction and direct contact. Additionally, CEDs and 
Extension agents have shared experience and history, making the TLS and ideal instrument to 
measure trust within Florida. This is the first time the TLS has been used in an Extension 
context.  
 

Purpose 
 

The purpose of our study was to examine the perceptions of trust antecedents between 
UF/IFAS Extension agents and CEDs. Our research objectives were to: 
1. Describe the level of trust between UF/IFAS Extension agents and CEDs. 
2. Determine if significant differences existed among trust antecedents and participant 

characteristics. 
3. Determine if significant relationships existed among trust antecedents and participant 

characteristics. 
 

Methods 
 
We obtained approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board prior to 
conducting our study. Our quantitative study utilized survey methods (Dillman et al., 2009) to 
examine the perceptions of trust antecedents between UF/IFAS Extension agents and CEDs. The 
population of interest for our study was county Extension agents who were not a CED, Regional 
Specialized Agent (RSA), or State Specialized Agent (SSA). We attained the list of UF/IFAS 
Extension agents (N = 349) from the UF/IFAS Extension Business Services Office. After we 
removed CEDs, RSAs, and SSAs from the list, our target population consisted of 246 Extension 
agents.  
 
We used the TLS which consisted of 20 items and yields high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha 
of .97 (Cronbach, 1951). The TLS items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale: 1 = 
Completely disagree, 2 = Very much disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree or 
disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Very much agree, and 7 = Completely agree. The TLS does 
not provide an interpretation of the mean, so we created a mean interpretation as follows: 1.0 
– 2.5 = Very low, 2.6 – 4.0 = Low, 4.1 – 5.5 = Moderate, 5.6 – 7.0 = High. We also added six 
demographic questions, including year of Extension experience, number of years worked with 
their CED, gender, their CED’s gender, Extension district, and if their county was rural or urban. 
We used an expert panel and reliability measures to ensure internal consistency (Ary et al., 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  54 
 

2006; Shavelson, 1996). The five-member expert panel that reviewed the survey included the 
three researchers, one Extension agent, and one CED. We measured the Cronbach’s alpha 
coefficient to ensure the TLS antecedents maintained internal consistency and mirrored the TLS 
alpha levels (see Table 1). 
 
Table 1 
 
Reliability Levels of Trust in Leaders Scale (TLS) Antecedents 
TLS antecedent TLS Alpha Levels Study Alpha Levels 
Competence .95 .98 
Integrity .89 .96 
Benevolence .94 .96 
Predictability .90 .92 

Note. Reliability levels ≥ .80 considered acceptable (Cronbach, 1951). 
 
We used Qualtrics to format and deliver our online questionnaire due to its advantages, such as 
ease in distribution, anonymity, low cost, and access to both the researchers and participants 
(Ary et al., 2006; Dillman et al., 2009). Because our target population was small, we used a 
census sampling procedure to gather as much data as possible (Ary et al., 2006). We used the 
Tailored Design Method (TDM) by Dillman et al. (2009), which yields high response rates, 
reduces sampling error, develops trust with the respondents, and allows the researcher to 
follow scientifically founded survey procedures. In January 2021, we sent a pre-notice letter to 
all Extension agents regarding the study one week prior, an invitation email, and three follow-
up emails. There were 107 Extension agents who completed the survey, which yielded a 
response rate of 44%.  
 
We used descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the data (Ary et al., 2006; Shavelson, 
1996). We used the Pearson r correlation coefficient to examine the strength of association and 
direction between trust antecedents and participant demographic characteristics (Shavelson, 
1996). A value of r = +.70 or higher indicates a very strong association, +.50 to +.69 signifies a 
substantial positive association, +.30 to +.49 is a moderate positive association, +.10 to +.29 
suggests a low positive association, +.01 to +.09 implies a negligible positive association, and a 
.00 r means no association exists (Shavelson, 1996). 
 
There were three limitations of our study. First, respondents may have misinterpreted the 
questions, which would decrease the validity of our results. Second, respondents may not have 
been honest when answering the survey, perhaps out of fear or reporting poor performance. 
We addressed this limitation by informing the respondents the study was anonymous and all 
data collected was secure. The third limitation is the low response rate of our study. To address 
this limitation, Lindner et al. (2001) and Sivo et al., (2006) recommend comparing early to late 
respondents to minimize nonresponse error. We did not identify any significant differences 
between early and late respondents when testing against all of the demographic variables of 
our study. 
 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  55 
 

Findings 
 
Objective One Results 
 
The first objective was to describe the level of trust between UF/IFAS Extension agents and 
CEDs (see Table 2). Participants tended to moderately trust their CED across all four trust 
antecedents. Benevolence was the trust antecedent with the highest reported mean (M = 5.23, 
SD = 1.55), followed by integrity (M = 5.21, SD = 1.52), competence (M = 5.19, SD = 1.47), and 
predictability (M = 5.02, SD = 1.21). The three individual trust items with the highest means 
were “I believe my CED is honest” (M = 5.60, SD = 1.65), “my CED is genuinely concerned about 
my well-being” (M = 5.34, SD = 1.73), and “my CED has my best interests in mind” (M = 5.31, SD 
= 1.62). The three individual items with the lowest means were “I know exactly what my CED 
will do in difficult situations” (M = 4.54, SD = 1.36), “I can anticipate what my CED will do” (M = 
4.91, SD = 1.22), and “my CED puts their words into action” (M = 5.03, SD = 1.67).  
 
Table 2 
 
Index Means and Standard Deviations of UF/IFAS Extension Agents’ level of perceived trust with 
their CED 
Perceived trust with their CED M SD N 
Benevolence 5.23 1.55 107 
Integrity 5.21 1.52 107 
Competence 5.19 1.47 107 
Predictability 5.02 1.21 107 

 
Extension agents reported competence as the lowest reported trust antecedent regarding 
number of years as an Extension agent and their gender (see Table 3). Extension agents that 
have been on the job between 11-15 years reported the highest levels for all four trust 
antecedents of trust among others’ length of years on the job. Regarding gender, female 
Extension agents reported higher levels of benevolence (M = 5.33, SD = 1.53), integrity (M = 
5.25, SD = 1.48), competence (M = 5.07, SD = 1.17), and predictability (M = 5.25, SD = 1.45) than 
their male colleagues.  
 
  



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  56 
 

Table 3 
 
Index Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Characteristics Related to Respondents 
and the TLS Antecedents 
Demographic characteristics 
of respondents 

Benevolence Integrity Competence Predictability 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

Years as an Extension agent         
 0–5 years (n = 39) 5.19 1.68 5.15 1.69 5.08 1.33 5.20 1.67 
 6–10 years (n = 25) 5.08 1.58 5.04 1.51 4.89 1.02 4.96 1.53 
 11–15 years (n = 20) 5.54 1.10 5.43 1.09 5.13 0.96 5.43 1.12 
 More than 15 years (n = 22) 5.27 1.68 5.37 1.56 4.98 1.40 5.25 1.38 
Gender         
 Male (n = 26) 5.10 1.60 5.22 1.59 4.90 1.35 5.14 1.53 
 Female (n = 78) 5.33 1.53 5.25 1.48 5.07 1.17 5.25 1.45 

 
Extension agents reported competence as the lowest report trust antecedent regarding the 
length of their working relationship with their CED and their CED’s gender (see Table 4). 
Regarding their CED’s gender, Extension agents had higher levels of benevolence (M = 5.27, SD 
= 1.73), integrity (M = 5.29, SD = 1.61), competence (M = 5.12, SD = 1.35), and predictability (M 
= 5.24, SD = 1.60) if their CED was female.  
 
Table 4 
 
Index Means and Standard Deviations of CED Demographic Characteristics of Respondents and 
the TLS Antecedents 
Demographic Characteristics 
of Respondents 

Benevolence Integrity Competence Predictability 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

Years working relationship 
between CED and agent 

        

 0–5 years (n = 73) 5.21 1.62 5.21 1.58 5.02 1.19 5.14 1.53 
 6–10 years (n = 19) 5.54 1.22 5.41 1.29 5.22 1.08 5.47 1.25 
 11–15 years (n = 8) 4.70 1.50 4.65 1.28 4.60 1.10 4.75 1.48 
 More than 15 years (n = 6) 5.53 1.80 5.56 1.63 5.03 1.90 5.56 1.47 
CED’s gender         
 Male (n = 53) 5.27 1.35 5.20 1.39 4.95 1.07 5.20 1.34 
 Female (n = 51) 5.27 1.73 5.29 1.61 5.12 1.35 5.24 1.60 

 
Extension agents in the northeast Extension district reported higher trust levels regarding 
benevolence (M = 5.56, SD = 1.44), integrity (M = 5.48, SD = 1.33), competence (M = 5.25, SD = 
1.15), and predictability (M = 5.49, SD = 1.38) than agents from other Extension districts (see 
Table 5). Extension agents serving rural counties reported higher trust levels regarding 
benevolence (M = 5.52, SD = 1.41), integrity (M = 5.57, SD = 1.36), competence (M = 5.16, SD = 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  57 
 

1.23), and predictability (M = 5.52, SD = 1.32), followed by mixed and urban counties, 
respectively.  
 
Table 5 
 
Index Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Characteristics Related to Respondents’ 
Location and the TLS Antecedents 
Demographic characteristics 
of respondents 

Benevolence Integrity Competence Predictability 
M SD M SD M SD M SD 

Extension district         
 Northwest (n = 19) 5.22 1.41 5.24 1.38 5.14 .98 5.29 1.18 
 Northeast (n =21) 5.56 1.44 5.48 1.33 5.25 1.15 5.49 1.38 
 Central (n = 27) 5.41 1.48 5.34 1.54 5.03 1.37 5.47 1.37 
 Southeast (n = 20) 5.07 1.59 5.07 1.59 5.13 1.01 4.71 1.81 
 Southwest (n = 16) 5.26 1.67 5.27 1.46 4.60 1.44 5.20 1.39 
Rural or urban county         
 Rural (n = 30) 5.52 1.41 5.57 1.36 5.16 1.23 5.52 1.32 
 Urban (n = 43) 5.17 1.50 5.09 1.42 4.96 1.12 5.08 1.42 
 Mix (n = 30) 5.28 1.66 5.25 1.65 5.01 1.37 5.22 1.60 

 
Objective Two Results 
 
Our second objective was to determine if significant differences existed between trust 
antecedents and participant characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences 
between the trust antecedents and participants’ demographic characteristics.  
 
Objective Three Results 
 
Our third objectives sought to determine if significant relationships existed between trust 
antecedents and participant characteristics (see Table 6). All four trust antecedents had a very 
strong association with each other; however, none of the antecedents were correlated with any 
of the participant demographics.  
 
  



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  58 
 

Table 6 
 
Correlations Matrix between Trust Antecedents and Participant Demographic Characteristics 
Trust antecedents 
and participant 
demographic 
characteristics  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
1. Benevolence - .94* .79* .88* .07 .01 .06 -.01 -.04 -.06 
2. Integrity  - .79* .89* .09 .01 .10 .03 -.03 -.08 
3. Predictability   - .80* .01 -.03 .06 .07 -.12 -.04 
4. Competence    - .07 .03 .03 .01 -.09 -.07 
5. Years worked 
in Extension     - .49* -.04 -.22* .07 .05 

6. Years working 
relationship      - .03 -.01 .09 .00 

7. Gender       - -.01 -.01 .00 
8. CED’ gender        - .18 -.05 
9. Extension 
district         - .22* 

10. Urban or rural 
county          - 

*p < 0.05 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 

Extension agents reported moderate levels of trust with their CEDs amongst the trust 
antecedents of benevolence, integrity, predictability, and competence. This study’s results 
mirror that of Benge (2015) that found moderate levels of trust using a different trust 
inventory. The first potential reason for moderate trust in this study is the nature of the 
relationship between CED and agent may not require a high level of trust. Though CEDs and 
agents have person-based trust due to high interactions and direct contact (Kramer, 1996), they 
are also colleagues to one another, (UF/IFAS, 2022) potentially affecting the dynamic of the 
relationship and inevitably changing the trust needs between the CED and agent.  
 
The second potential reason for moderate trust could be related to low-quality relationships 
between Extension agents and CEDs. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) explain low-quality 
relationships will have low trust between followers and leaders, whereas high-quality 
relationship yields high trust. Benge and Harder (2017), which is the only strength of 
relationship study in the Extension literature, found that only 60 percent UF/IFAS Extension 
agents perceived they had a quality relationship with their CED. Also, Graen and Uhl-Bien 
(1995) explain that all new relationships start with low-quality interactions and low trust. If 
UF/IFAS Extension has a high amount of agent turnover and refills those positions, the 
relationships between the new Extension agents and CEDs would automatically begin in the 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  59 
 

stranger phase of leadership, which is accompanied by low trust. If the same is true of the 
current study’s participants, this might account for the moderate levels of trust.  
 
A third potential reason for moderate trust could be that Extension agents perceive their CED 
not trusting them to do their job. Katz (1955) explained that CEDs as the “top managers” need 
to use their human and conceptual skills when interacting with their followers and trust the 
agent’s technical skills to do their job. CEDs may need additional training if they are managing 
and supervising Extension agents to ensure they are using appropriate skillsets in their role 
(Sanders, 2014). Additionally, there is an absence within the trust and leadership literature that 
explains how much trust followers should have with their leaders within an organization, which 
makes it difficult to determine if moderate trust levels are standard within organizations.  
 
Unintended outcomes of the study were that female Extension agents and rural Extension 
agents perceived themselves trusting their CED more than male Extension agents and urban 
Extension agents. Though agent gender and location did not demonstrate significant 
differences when analyzing the data, it is noteworthy and could shed light on future research 
and training opportunities.  
 
Regarding recommendations for research, amore thorough examination is needed to 
understand how trust forms and exists between UF/IFAS Extension agents and CEDs. Other 
state Extension systems could employ the TLS to explore if their own system has the same or 
varying levels of trust and to understand if moderate levels of trust in Extension are the norm 
when compared to this study’s context of UF/IFAS Extension.  
 
Regarding recommendations for practice and application, working towards an environment 
where agents and CEDs experience high trust should be a priority for UF/IFAS Extension, as such 
environments support follower’s organizational vision and engagement and ability to 
accomplish goals (Engelbrecht et al., 2017; Winston, 2003; Wong et al., 2010). UF/IFAS 
Extension administration could include a trust measure during the screening and hiring process 
to ensure potential CED hires have the appropriate leadership skillset needed to lead others 
upon entering the job. Organizations that employ leadership education see improved 
situational approaches to leader/follower interactions, skilled leader mentors (Amagoh, 2009), 
and competency-based leader behavior change (Sowcik et al., 2018). Therefore, leadership 
development specialists should be encouraged to provide leadership education (Ricketts et al., 
2012) to both new and seasoned CEDs to ensure a culture of trust is being developed within 
their Extension organization. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
M. Benge - formal analysis, investigation, supervision, writing-original draft; E. Cash - 
investigation, writing-review and editing. 

 
 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  60 
 

References 
 
Adams, B. D., Waldherr, S., & Sartori, J. (2008). Trust in teams scale, trust in leaders scale, 

manual for administration and analyses. Department of National Defense. 
https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc95/p530364_A1b.pdf  

 
Amagoh, F. (2009). Leadership development and leadership effectiveness. Management 

Decision, 47(6), 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910966695 
 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education 

(7th ed.). Thompson-Wadsworth. 
 
Benge, M. (2015). The effects of leader-member exchanges and trust on the relationships 

between Extension agents and county Extension directors in Florida [Doctoral 
dissertation, University of Florida]. 
https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/92/61/00001/BENGE_M.pdf   

 
Benge, M., & Harder, A. (2017). The effects of leader-member exchanges on the relationships 

between extension agents and county extension directors in Florida. Journal of Human 
Sciences and Extension, 5(1). https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/631  

 
Bruce, J. A., & Anderson, J. (2012). Perceptions of the training needs of the newest members of 

the Extension family. Journal of Extension, 50(6), Article 6RIB5. 
https://joe.org/joe/2012december/pdf/JOE_v50_6rb5.pdf  

 
Cooper, A. W., & Graham, D. L. (2001). Competencies needed to be successful county agents 

and county supervisors. Journal of Extension, 39(1), Article 1IRB3. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.php  

 
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 

297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 
 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: 

The tailored design method (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
 
Engelbrecht, A. S., Heine, G., & Mahembe, B. (2017). Integrity, ethical leadership, trust and 

work engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 368–379. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0237  

 
Franz, N. K., & Townson, L. (2008). The nature of complex organizations: The case of 

Cooperative Extension. New Directions for Evaluation, 120, 5–14. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.272  

 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  61 
 

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approached to leadership: 
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: 
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–
247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5  

 
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33–42. 

https://hbr.org/1974/09/skills-of-an-effective-administrator  
 
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and 

research. SAGE. 
 
Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science 

research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043  

 
Martínez, S. M., & Dorfman, P. W. (1998). The Mexican entrepreneur: An ethnographic study of 

the Mexican empresario. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28(2), 
97–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1998.11656736  

 
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational 

trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709–734. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/258792  

 
Moore, L. L., & Rudd, R. D. (2004). Leadership skills and competencies for extension directors 

and administrators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3), 22–33. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.03022  

 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (n.d.). Cooperative Extension System. 

https://nifa.usda.gov/cooperative-extension-system  
 
Pops, G. M. (2009). Ethical leadership in turbulent times: Modeling the public career of George 

C. Marshall. Lexington Books. 
 
Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative 

Extension. Iowa State University Press. 
 
Ricketts, K. G., Carter, H. S., Place, N. T., & McCoy, T. (2012). A look inside: Self-leadership 

perceptions of extension educators. Journal of Extension, 50(5), Article 5FEA3. 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2903&context=joe  

 
Sanders, C. B. (2014). Leadership competencies and needs of county Extension directors as 

perceived by county and district Extension directors and county administrators in Florida 
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

 



Benge & Cash  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.211  62 
 

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational 
trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review 32(2), 344–354. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410  

 
Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative 

Extension (2nd ed.). Delmar.  
 
Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon. 
 
Sivo, S. A., Saunders, C., Chang, Q., & Jiang, J. J. (2006). How low should you go? Low response 

rates and the validity of inference in IS questionnaire research. Journal of the 
Association for Information Systems, 7(6), 351–414. https://business.ucf.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/How-Low-Should-You-Go..Low-Response-Rates-and-
the-Validity-of-Inference-in-IS-Questionnaire-Research.pdf  

 
Sowcik, M., Benge, M., & Niewoehner-Green, J. (2018). A practical solution to developing 

county Extension director's leadership skills: Exploring the design, delivery and 
evaluation of an online leadership development program. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 59(3). 139–153. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.03139  

 
University of Florida/Institution of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension. (2022). Major 

responsibilities: County extension director (CED). 
https://extadmin.ifas.ufl.edu/media/extadminifasufledu/agentx2fspecialist/docs/Titles-
of-County-Faculty.pdf  

Winston, B. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders and 
follower interact in a circular model [Research roundtable]. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent 
University.   

 
Wong, C. A., Spence-Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010), Authentic leadership and 

nurses’ voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing 
Management, 18(8), 889–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x   

 
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


