Note to the reader: This blog post was originally posted on November 11, 2017 when I was working for the 4-H Youth Development Program, which is facilitated through the University of California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. I thought what I wrote back then was fairly insightful, so I wanted to bring it over to my personal blog to share with my community here. I hope you enjoy!
With any long-standing organization come established traditions, rituals, and a rich history. The 4-H Youth Development Program is no exception. Started in 1902 in a small town in Ohio, 4-H originated as a way for agricultural researchers to teach new agricultural developments to the future generation of farmers. As the organization grew, it acquired a uniform, a pledge, a moto, its own lingo, and a variety of traditions and rituals. 4-H found strength in its identity as a grassroots, community-led volunteer program, building a successful program with over six million members in the United States today.
A few years back, the California State 4-H, run through the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, made some changes to the structure of the program. In response to National 4-H’s recommendations, California State 4-H created a strategic plan that would standardize the 4-H experience across each of the counties within the state. These changes caused an immediate ripple in the county led 4-H programs. Whereas previously each county maintained control over program direction and policy development, that authority was now given to the state level. Within months of announcing the strategic plan, the state office released several new policies in one document titled “4-H Steps to Success”. Two changes stood out from the rest: attendance was no longer mandatory, and the 4-H uniform was no longer required. The state office received immediate pushback from volunteers and county offices alike.
The political frame captures the many power shifts highlighted during this transition. As the manager in a political environment, the state office did not properly address stakeholder’s concerns before setting the agenda. “The agenda must convey a direction while addressing concerns of major stakeholders” (Bolman & Deal, p. 209). It is also clear that the state office launched a new initiative without mapping the political climate of the current program. The state office saw themselves as pro-change, while they saw volunteers as opposing to change and county staff as neutral to change (as seen in Table 1 at end of article). Contrarily, 4-H volunteers and county staff saw themselves as pro-change with more power over the program than the state office perceived (as seen in Table 2 at end of article). State initiatives were launched under the assumption that volunteers would push back against any change. When mapping the political terrain, it can be seen that conflict is less centered on resistance to change than it is about resistance to the power shift.
There are also symbolic influences present in this situation. An organization’s culture is communicated through symbols, such as rituals and ceremonies (Bolman & Deal, p. 248). Although the 4-H Youth Development Program has a logo, its most distinctive symbol is the 4-H uniform. During official 4-H events, all 4-H youth dress head to toe in white, accented by a green hat and green scarf/tie. Wearing the 4-H uniform is a communal ritual at each event that shows cohesion among members by knowing they are a part of a larger community. When policy made the uniform no longer mandatory, members, volunteers, and county staff felt as if a part of their identity was being taken away. Another factor contributing to the loss of culture was the shift in county office’s symbolic role. Before the new structure, county offices acted as the “priest” for the 4-H program (Bolman & Deal, p. 281). County staff would maintain traditions, listen to concerns, approve different ideas, and address conflict. In the restructuring of decision making power, county offices lost many of these abilities. The numerous changes to decade-old traditions and rituals affected the morale of stakeholders.
Reflecting on the change initiative, it can be seen that many of the conflicts could have been avoided if the California State 4-H Office consulted stakeholders to assess concerns and suggestions prior to creating a strategic plan. A few months after the roll-out, the state office retroactively sought out feedback from stakeholders and explained the reasoning behind the policy changes. Stakeholders were able to see that many of the policies were in response to pressures from National 4-H, and were able to understand that these changes come with being a part of a public policy ecosystem (Bolman & Deal, p. 234). The state office also explained other policies were changed to make the program access able for all youth. For example, the state office explained that by removing the mandatory uniform requirement, youth who could not afford to buy the uniform could still participate in 4-H without being penalized. By the state office becoming more transparent in their actions, both volunteers and 4-H staff were able to move past their frustrations by reminding themselves of the purpose that brings them together: Engaging youth to reach their fullest.
REFERENCES
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Table 1
The Political Map as Seen by the CA State 4-H Office: Volunteer Opposition to Change
Table 2
The Political Map as Seen by the 4-H Volunteers and County Staff: Equitable Power.
The Dagmar Perspective 
Leave a comment