the impact of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension

THE IMPACT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR ON JOB PERFORMANCE OF

EXTENSION PERSONNEL

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

By

MOHAMED SAAD ALI

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,

DHARWAD - 580 005

AUGUST, 2013

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD

AUGUST, 2013 (L. MANJUNATH) CHAIRMAN

Approved by : Chairman :

Members : 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(V. S. YADAV)

(CHHAYADEVI A. BADIGER)

(J. G. ANGADI)

(L. MANJUNATH)

(ASHALATHA K. V.)

(K. V. BASAVAKUMAR)

CONTENTS

Sl. No. Chapter particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Leadership in agricultural extension

2.2 Leadership style in agricultural extension

2.3 Transformational leadership

2.4 Innovative behavior

2.5 Job performance

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Population for the study

3.2 Selection of the sample

3.3 Research design

3.4 Variables and measurement

3.5 Procedure of data collection

3.6 Statistical analysis

4. RESULTS

4.1 Development of transformational leadership scale

4.2 Development of innovative behavior scale

4.3 Level of selected demographic characteristics of extension personnel

4.4 Level of transformational leadership among extension personnel

4.5 Level of innovative behavior among extension personnel

4.6 Level of job performance among extension personnel

4.7 Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of transformational leadership

4.8 Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of innovative behavior

4.9 Relationship between independent variables and job performance and extension personnel

4.10 Contribution of selected independent variables towards job performance of extension personnel.

5. DISCUSSION



5.3 Demographic characteristics of the extension personnel



Contd….

Sl. No. Chapter particulars

5.6 Level of extension personnel performance among extension personnel

5.7 Difference of extension personnel on transformational leadership dimensions

5.8 Difference of extension personnel innovative behavior dimensions

5.9 Relationship between independent variables and job performance

5.10 Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

6. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS



6.3 Demographic characteristics of extension personnel






6.9 Relationship between selected independent variables of extension personnel and job performance

6.10 Contribution of selected independent variables towards job performance of extension personnel

6.11 Implications of the present study

6.12 Recommendations

6.13 Future line of research

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

2.1 Dimensions of Transformational Leadership

2.2 Transformational Leadership qualities

1. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of idealized influence with its dimension and also with the scale

2. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of Idealized influence dimension

3. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of individualized consideration with its dimension and also with the scale

4. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of individualized consideration dimension

5. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of inspirational motivation with its dimension and also with the scale

6. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of inspirational motivation dimension

7. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of intellectual stimulation and its dimension and also with the scale

8. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of intellectual stimulation dimension

9. Inter-correlations among the subscales of transformational leadership scale

10. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s α) of transformational leadership of extension personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state

11. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of teaching role and its dimensions with also with the scale

12. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of teaching role dimension

13. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of managerial role with its dimensions and also with the scale

14. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of managerial role dimension

15. Inter-correlations among the subscales for Innovative behavior scale

16. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s α) associated with the innovative behavior score of extension personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state

17. Level of selected demographic characteristics of the extension personnel

18. Level of transformational leadership among the extension personnel

19. Level of innovative behavior among the extension personnel

20. Level of job performance among the extension personnel

21. Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of transformational leadership

22. Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of innovative behavior

23. Correlation coefficients between selected independent variables of the respondents and job performance

24. Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

2.1 Stages of Innovative Work Behavior

1. Distribution of respondents according to their gender

2. Distribution of respondents according to their age

3. Distribution of respondents according to their education

4. Distribution of respondents according to their experience

5. Distribution of respondents according to their In-service Training

6. Distribution of respondents according to their Information seeking behavior

7. Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership

8. Distribution of respondents according to their level of innovative behavior

9. Distribution of respondents according to their level of job performance

10. Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership dimensions

11. Distribution of respondents according to their level of Innovative behavior dimensions

12. Correlation coefficients between selected independent variables of the respondents with their job performance

13. Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No.

Title

I. Interview Schedule

II. Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop Innovative Behavior Scale

III. Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop Transformational leadership Scale

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades new challenges have been faced the agricultural extension organizations such as globalization, climate change and technological advancements, this situation required new leadership behavior and hiring personnel with the brainpower to survive extension organizations in future. Therefore, recruiting and developing highly competent extension professionals is become crucial to extension organization is future success. To remain successful, extension personnel must adapt and improve the quality and skills of extension professionals to transform extension organization. Competencies are the knowledge, attitudes, skills and behavior that make the organization a successful and help the organization adapt to a changing extension performance (Cooper and Graham, 2001; Maddy et al., 2002; Pickett, 1998; Stone and Bieber, 1997). Knowledge and technical competence are necessary, but may not be sufficient to prepare extension personnel for the transition their extension organization (Olson, 2009).

In agricultural extension context, the competencies of extension personnel are leadership development, communication methods and skills, extension program planning, implementation and evaluation, which are necessary to successfully perform extension tasks (Ali et al., 2008). According to Radhakrishna et al. (1994), the leadership role of extension personnel has become an increasingly critical element in the successful performance of extension programs. Therefore, the extension personnel must exhibit appropriate leadership behavior when he is administrating, coordinating, formulating, developing, implementing and evaluating extension programs, as well as development of farmers in rural areas.

In the last 20 years, a new paradigm of leadership has emerged that shifted emphasis from the traditional, or transactional, models of leadership toward the transformational leadership. Transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1990).

The transformational leadership is often linked with managerial effectiveness during organizational change (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Pawar and Eastman, 1997). As well as Transformational leader motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. They set expectations that are more challenging and typically achieve higher performance (Bass, 1996).

Transformational leadership was initially developed by a political scientist named Burns (1978) who was the first scholar to distinguish conceptually between transactional and transformational leadership. Howell and Avolio (1993) noted that Bass (1985) was one of the early scholars who extended the concept of transactional and transformational leadership, based on the work of Burns, to more organizational situations.

Bass (1985) identified four characteristics of transformational leaders: (1) charisma in which the leader is able to provide followers with a vision, transmit a sense mission, gain respect and trust and instill faith in followers; (2) inspiration in which the leader provides examples and patterns for the follower through symbols and images, emotional appeals and communicating high expectations; (3) intellectual stimulation in which the leader stimulates followers to think in new ways, promotes intelligence and rationality and emphasizes problem solving; and (4) individualized consideration in which the leader provides a supportive and coaching environment such that each follower is treated as a respected individual.

Another popular conceptualization of transformational leadership style was that of the leadership challenge (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Kouzes and Posner collected over 1,000 surveys and interviewed numerous middle-level to senior-level managers who described their personal best leadership experience and identified five fundamental leadership practices of transformational leaders. When the leaders in their study moved people beyond expectations, they: (1) challenged the process (2) inspired a shared vision (3) enabled others to act (4) modeled the way and (5) encouraged their hearts.

The new scale for Indian Transformational Leadership (ITL) was developed by Niti and Venkat (2007) they collected over 202; 101 manager–subordinate, survey data were collected and support was found for sound psychometric properties of the new scale, including incremental, discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity. The new scale explained significant variance over

and above the variance explained by the currently existing scale for measuring transformational leadership.

Bradley (2009) in his study on college of agriculture deans, extension personnel and agricultural education teachers perceived that they were more transformational in their leadership style in contrast to transactional and laissez-faire. Within transformational leadership, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration received the highest scores from the respondent groups.

Singer (1985) showed that subordinates in New Zealand preferred working with leaders who were more transformational than transactional.

Waldman et al. (1987) showed that the performance appraisals of subordinates were higher if their leaders had been described as transformational leaders.

Avolio et al. (1988) stated that the positive effect of transformational leadership enhances self-knowledge and increases the performance expectation value to the financial performance of the teams.

Clover (1989) used an abbreviated version of the MLQ to correlate the descriptions of 3,500 subordinates at the U.S. Air Force Academy of their commissioned-officer squadron commanders and various measures of their squadrons’ performance. A transformational leadership score was attained by combining the assessments of the commanders’ charisma, inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. It was found that commanders who received higher ratings in transformational leadership led better-performing squadrons and were more likely to be seen as preferred role models by the cadets.

Bass and Avolio (1989) through their results of the extensive surveys of over 1,500 general managers, leaders of technical teams, governmental and educational administrators, upper middle managers and senior U.S. Army officers that were discussed earlier for charismatic leadership are also relevant for transformational leadership. Subordinates of these leaders, who described their managers on the MLQ, Form 5, as being more transformational, were also more likely to say that the organizations they lead were highly effective. Such transformational leaders were judged to have better relations with higher-ups and to make more of a contribution to the organization that were those who were described only as transactional. Subordinates said they also exerted a lot of extra effort for such transformational leaders. If leaders were only transactional, the organizations were seen as less effective, particularly if most of the leaders practiced passive, reactive management-by-exception (intervening only when standards were not being met). Subordinates said they exerted much less effort for such leaders.

Bass and Avolio (1990) expressed that follower development and follower performance is the targeted outcomes of transformational leadership.

Deluga and Souza (1991) found that performance, job satisfaction and transformational leadership are correlated.

Bass and Avolio (1993) concluded that a style of transformational leadership can provide a positive influence toward performance and attitude of followers.

Lowe et al. (1996) noted that transformational leadership has been shown to have a positive relationship with performance.

In an Indian context, Rai and Sinha (2000) found that the supervisors’ transformational leadership had significant relationship with organizational commitment.

Hetland and Sandal (2003) after conducting a study on a sample of 100 mid-level Norwegian managers employed in five different companies and their followers reported that their study yielded substantial support for the superiority of transformational leadership practices in Norwegian organizations. Across the five companies participating in the study, both private and public, transformational leadership showed strong and consistent links with the three outcome variables, independent of whether subordinates or superiors made the ratings.

Chandna and Krishnan (2009) showed varying results in their comparative analysis of Information Technology (IT) and non-IT sector in India. While transformational leadership was found to have a significantly positive relationship with continuance, as well as normative commitment but significantly negative relationship with affective commitment in non-IT sector, no significant

relationship has been revealed between transformational leadership and any of the dimensions of organizational commitment in the (IT) sector.

Ramachandran and Krishnan (2009) in a cross cultural study reported that transformational leadership was positively related to normative commitment in India and China but not in the United States (US), while it was positively related to affective commitment in the (US). and India but not in China.

Reviewing the previous literature on leadership and job performance reveals that the most significant style of leadership influencing job performance is transformational leadership.

Therefore, in the present study an attempt was made to develop “Transformational Leadership Scale” by attributes perspective at lower-level managers of extension personnel to measure the transformational leadership among extension personnel and determine its influence on job performance of extension personnel.

The other biggest challenge to survive extension organizations in future is not finding or hiring cheap personnel, but rather hiring individuals with the brainpower (both natural and trained) and especially the ability to think creatively. Even in the current economic climate, there is evidence of the increasing importance of innovation during economic downturns innovation is the single most important condition for transforming the crisis into an opportunity.

For extension organizations, innovations are important to enhance the effectiveness of internal processes and the quality of outcomes, to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage and to secure the organization’s long-term survival. Because of these benefits of innovation and due to more flexible work structures, extension organization increasingly expects and need their employees to contribute to change and improvement at work (Tidd et al., 1997). This means that employees are required to reflect on their work practice and pro-actively deal with work-related problems and challenges. For employees who contribute to the development of an innovation, this engagement may bring the benefit of a better fit between conditions and requirements of work and personal needs and competences, an improved collaboration and communication with colleagues and higher levels of job satisfaction and well-being .

Innovation has been considered a human behavior since research on innovation spread from administrative science, communications and anthropology to psychology and sociology in the 1980s (West and Farr 1990). First psychological works on innovation coined the term “innovative behavior”. It can be defined as the intentional generation, promotion and realization of new ideas within a work role, workgroup or organization in order to benefit role performance, the group or the organization. Although closely related to employee creativity, innovative behavior implies more than being creative. Indeed, creative people are not always highly innovative (Nadin, 2012).

The innovative behavior refers to generating novel responses that are useful in dealing with the task at hand (Amabile, 1996). Innovative behavior and performance quality and efficiency are positively correlated (Miron et al., 2004).

Innovative behavior is intended to generate some kind of benefit and has a clearer applied component. Innovative behavior encompasses employee creativity, i.e., the generation of new and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes and procedures and the implementation of the created ideas. More specifically, innovative behavior consists of a set of behavior opportunity exploration and idea generation include looking for and recognizing opportunities to innovate and producing ideas and solutions for the opportunities. Next, championing refers to promoting the generated idea for the purpose of finding support and coalition building. Finally, application makes the supported idea really happen. It includes developing, testing, modifying and commercializing the idea (Nadin, 2012).

Innovative behavior can range from incremental improvements to developing radically novel ideas that affect processes or products across the whole organization (Axtell et al. 2000). While the latter are rather rare and mostly only employees working in the research and development domain are able to contribute in such a manner, the former smaller-scale suggestions and improvements are much more common and concern employees from all areas. Examples of innovative behavior include thinking in alternative ways, searching for improvements, figuring out new ways to accomplish tasks, looking for new technologies, applying new work methods and investigating and securing resources to make new ideas happen. Usually, innovative behavior is not part of the typical job of most employees.

It is identified as extra role behavior, which refers to discretionary behavior that is not specified in the job description but nevertheless attempts to benefit the organization (Katz and Kahn 1978). Employees’ innovative behavior is crucial in many contemporary management principles, such as continuous improvement, corporate entrepreneurship and suggestion programs (Fuller et al. 2006; Sharma and Chrisman, 1999).

Amabile (1996) found that the creativity component of innovative behavior refers to generating novel responses that are useful in dealing with the task at hand.

Miron et al. (2004) found that innovative behavior and performance quality and efficiency are positively correlated.

Sudeshna and Anjali (2009) supportively highlighted that the overall level of innovative work behavior of the managers of modernized organizations was moderately high (M =40.67). The results indicated that the level of innovative work behavior of private-sector managers was significantly higher (M-42.70, F-6.33) in the organization than their counterparts in the public sector because their job depended on their performance. Such innovative work behavior was an adaptive competence that was necessary for the organizational survival in the global market.

Yuan and Woodman (2010) provided that there is empirical support for expected positive performance outcomes being positively related to innovative behavior.

Whereas, empirical evidence suggested that innovative behavior leads to negative outcomes in terms of conflicts with co-workers and stress reactions of employees. These results imply that innovative behavior is rather associated with decreased performance (Janssen, 2000).

Kaurai (2011) proven that there is a positive effect of emotional intelligence on the performance of employees in organizations.

Niharika and Lakshmanan (2013) demonstrated that innovative behavior was positively related to performance (outcomes and efficiency) but via positive mediated effect of bricolage within new product development projects.

From the above studies, it can be concluded that he innovative behavior has positive or negative correlation with job performance.

The present study treated innovative behavior as the independent variable. Because most prior research has treated innovative behavior as the dependent variable (Scott and Bruce 1994; Yuan and Woodman 2010; Basu and Green 1997). And the present study was made an attempt to develop “Innovative behavior Scale” by focusing on extension roles perspective of extension personnel to measure the innovative behavior among extension personnel and determine its influence on job performance of extension personnel.

In conclusion, previous researches relating to transformational leadership and innovative behavior were focused on job performance. There are limited studies tested influences of both transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance. On the basis of this gap, the study based on the effects of both transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance and the study may be one of the first studies that apply to such kind of relation.

The problem

Prior research proved that leadership style and innovative behavior affects employee performance. However, the process of leadership style affects and innovative behavior on performance was not studied extensively. It is important to understand the relationship of transformational leadership, innovative behavior competencies and extension personnel performance.

Objectives

1. To develop the scale to measure transformational leadership among extension personnel

2. To develop the scale to measure innovative behavior among extension personnel

3. To determine the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel

Special features of the investigation

Study will help to identify importance of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on extension personnel performance. It throws light on the transformational leadership and innovative behavior profile of extension personnel context. In addition, the finding of this thesis is very important in relation to promoting transformational leadership and innovative behavior when reform extension organization.

Further, it helps the planners, administrators and extension functionaries to know the transformational leadership and innovative behavior status among extension personnel. The study also provides insight into the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on extension personnel performance. Further, this study will also provide suggestions for training needs for better performance of extension organization.

Limitations of the study

The study has been confined to Dharwad district of Karnataka State and UAS, Dharwad and UAS, Bangalore, respectively comprising varied agro climatic, socio economic and living habits. In spite of these limitations, effort was made by the researcher to keep the study as objective as possible, by following all the norms of scientific research with the help of adequate sampling, using well-structured schedule and making objective measurable.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of the present study was analyzing the influence of transformational leadership

and innovative behavior on job performance of officers and scientists of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS, Dharwad and Bangalore).

The purpose of review of literature is in an order to understand the concept and studies presented by various investigators in dealing with the concepts related to subject of present study. This review of literature has provided an adequate theoretical basis for present study and has helped the researcher to plan the design of the study. In this chapter, the review of literature was carried out under the following headings:




2.3.1 Concept

2.3.2 Dimensions

2.3.3 Qualities


2.4.1 Concept

2.4.2 Dimensions

2.5 Job performance

2.5.1 Levels of job performance

2.5.2 Personal, socio-economic and psychological characters of extension personnel

2.5.3 Transformational leadership and job performance

2.5.4 Innovative behavior and job performance


Paxson et al. (1993) expressed that agricultural extension leadership capacity include; 1. Solving problems, 2. Directing projects or objectives, 3. Forming or work with groups, 4. Planning for group action, 5. Managing meetings, 6. Communication effectively, 7. Developing proficiency in teaching, 8. Mobilizing for group action, 9. Understanding and developing oneself, 10. Understanding financial matters, 11. Understanding leadership, 12. Understanding society and 13. Understanding social change.

Radhakrishna et al. (1991) emphasized that the leadership role of extension personnel has become an increasingly critical element in successful performance of extension programs.

Ladewig and Rohs (2000) believed that extension faces three major leadership challenges. First, many managers today are expected to address issues in areas in which they have limited knowledge and experience. Second, with the emergence of information technology and access to information that is contrary to most hierarchical management structures, new management competencies and styles will be required in every organization. Third, most managers in extension lack any professional training in management competencies and leadership styles.

Shriberg et al. (2005) noted that leadership is crucial in agricultural extension service.

Dubrin (2007) opined that effective organization requires effective leadership and that organizational performance will suffer indirectly in proportion to the extent of neglect of leadership.

Khalil et al. (2008) noted that the success of an extension service organization is reliant on the leader’s ability to optimize human resources.

In field of agricultural extension, leadership deals with developing staff and enhances their job performance. Agricultural extension personnel serves as an administrative leader and coordinator for formulating, developing, implementing and evaluating agricultural extension program as well as develop farmers in managing resources in rural areas. Leader guides the extension education

activities for farmers as groups or individuals towards the purposeful pursuance of given objectives within a particular situation by means of extension communication methods.


White and Lippitt (1960) categorized leadership styles as either autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire.

In today's highly competitive business environment, long term organizational success depends on the development of a stream of transformational leaders' who can guide organizational adaptation to continually changing environments (Bass, 1985, 1998; Kuhnert, 1994).

Spotanski and Carter (1993) found that no significant difference in leadership style of university agricultural education leaders by years of experience in the leadership position.

Bycio et al. (1995) reported that the transformational leaders had strong positive relationships with subordinates’ extra effort, satisfaction with the leader and subordinate-rated leader effectiveness.

Sykes (1995) concluded that the level of education beyond a bachelor’s degree not had any significant influence on the leadership style of county extension directors.

Morrison and Robinson (1997) described that leaders are needed to motivate and inspire employees who have seen traditional expectations.

Maccoby (2000) noted that developing transformational leaders with the ability to create, communicate and gather follower support for a compelling vision is an ongoing concern in organizations.

Athanasaw (2003) reported that the leadership style of senior executives within the federal government differed as a function of years employed in the government system.

Northouse (2004) identified themes related to transformational leadership were: Extension programs need to be designed around the needs of clients; agency leaders must be visionary and inspiring; programs need to help clients maintain dignity and gain technical skills; local leaders must be involved to guarantee program sustainability; and a participatory approach to programming must utilize local knowledge.

Chester (2005) noted that visionary leaders will influence the future of extension in the type of programs offered and how clientele needs are met.

Moore and Rudd (2006) determined that the highest degree earned was a predictor of transactional leadership style among senior leaders in the extension service.

Bradley (2009) found that college of agriculture deans, extension personnel and agricultural education teachers perceived they were more transformational in their leadership style in contrast to transactional and laissez-faire. Within transformational leadership, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration received the highest scores from the respondent groups.

Leadership style refers to the characteristic manner in which an individual leads others. In field of agricultural extension, there are many leadership styles such as autocratic, democratic, visionary, transactional and laissez-faire. But in the last 20 years, a new paradigm of leadership has emerged that shifted emphasis from the traditional, or transactional, models of leadership toward the transformational leadership style.


Bass (1985) identified four characteristics of transformational leaders: (1) charisma in which the leader is able to provide followers with a vision, transmit a sense mission, gain respect and trust and instill faith in followers; (2) inspiration in which the leader provides examples and patterns for the follower through symbols and images, emotional appeals and communicating high expectations; (3) intellectual stimulation in which the leader stimulates followers to think in new ways, promotes intelligence and rationality and emphasizes problem solving; and (4) individualized consideration in which the leader provides a supportive and coaching environment such that each follower is treated as a respected individual.

Another popular conceptualization of transformational leadership style was that of the leadership challenge (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Kouzes and Posner collected over 1,000 surveys and interviewed numerous middle-level to senior-level managers who described their personal best

leadership experience and identified five fundamental leadership practices of transformational leaders. When the leaders in their study moved people beyond expectations, they: (1) challenged the process (2) inspired a shared vision (3) enabled others to act (4) modeled the way and (5) encouraged their hearts.

Howell and Avolio (1993) noted that Bass (1985) was one of the early scholars who extended the concept of transactional and transformational leadership, based on the work of Burns, to more organizational situations.

Yukl (1998) expressed that transformational leadership was initially developed by a political scientist named Burns (1978) who was the first scholar to distinguish conceptually between transactional and transformational leadership.

The new scale for Indian Transformational Leadership (ITL) was developed by Niti and Venkat (2007) they collected over 202; 101 manager–subordinate, survey data were collected and support was found for sound psychometric properties of the new scale, including incremental, discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity. The new scale explained significant variance over and above the variance explained by the currently existing scale for measuring transformational leadership.

Therefore, transformational leadership was developed by Burns since 1978, after that many authors have conceptualized transformational leadership in to their own view.

2.3.1 Transformational leader concept

Den Hartog et al. (1997) holed that Transformational leader aroused awareness of followers, increased confidence and moved followers gradually from concerns for existence to concerns for achievement and growth of group. By working harder for a Transformational leader, his/her followers could develop their skills by using their own decisions and taking greater responsibility.

Bass (1998) stated that Transformational leader help followers grow and develop into leader by responding to individual followers’ needs by empowering them and by aligning the objectives and goals of the individual followers, the leader, the group and by the larger organization. More evidence has accumulated to demonstrate that Transformational leadership can move followers to expected performance, as lead to high levels of followers’ satisfaction and commitment to the group and organization.

Dixon (1998) outlined that Transformational leader motivates individuals to work together for change organization.

Yukl (1998) believed that transformational leadership could be exhibited by anyone in the organization in any type of position. Transformational leadership can occur in the day-to-day acts of ordinary people, but it is not ordinary or common.

Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) concluded that transformational leaders recognize the need for change, create and share compelling visions with employees, guide them through adaptations and inspire them to accomplish the challenging goal of institutionalizing change.

Common themes found in Transformational Leadership research include the leader’s ability to (1) motivate subordinates by focusing on the higher-order needs of purpose, values and morality (2) create and articulate a vision-related and (3) empower others to move toward the shared goal and attend to the concerns and developmental needs of followers goal (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Robbins, 1996; Yukl, 1998).

Yukl (2002) stated that within Transformational Leadership, the followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they were originally expected to do.

Among various leadership perspectives, transformational leadership is often linked with managerial effectiveness during organizational change (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Pawar and Eastman, 1997).

Transformational leadership practices can be taught and learned (Bass, 1990, 1998; Kouzes and Posner, 1987).

Yukl (2002) defined transformational leader as ability to articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses

confidence in his followers, emphasizes values with symbolic actions, leads by example and empowers followers to achieve the vision.

In the light of the above finding some characteristics of Transformational Leadership can be briefed as follows:

i. They are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on people by causing shifts in the beliefs, the needs and the values of followers, so followers can become leaders themselves (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987).

ii. They change the core values of followers for the benefit of the common interest by committing people and seeing them as ends not as means (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

iii. They create self f-confidence in followers by empowering them (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

iv. They create fresh approaches to long-standing problems (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

v. They transform the organization by defining the need for change, creating new visions, mobilizing commitment to these visions and by providing awareness of the organizational vision and goals (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

vi. They work for developing higher level of autonomy, achievement and performance in followers. Hence, they take the risk of being replaced by the followers they trained (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

vii. They tend to direct specific activities as much as to alter moods, to evoke symbolic images and expectations and to inspire desires and objectives (Egri and Herman, 2000).

viii. They are proactive, raise follower awareness for transcendent collective interests and motivate followers to achieve out of range goals (Antonakis et al., 2003).

ix. They inspire followers to go beyond their own self-interests for the good of the organization with their vision (Avolio and Bass, 2004).

x. They heighten the awareness of followers with vision they create and the strategies for reaching them (Avolio and Bass, 2004).

xi. They develop higher level needs for followers such as achievement, autonomy and affiliation, which can be both work and not work related (Avolio and Bass, 2004).

From pervious, transformational leaders someone who can define and relate a vision, has higher morality such as integrity and solidarity and develop others leadership capacity. These attributes help others to grow and achieve higher performance.

Transformational leadership practices can be taught and learned and therefore, it is an important consideration in the context of training and development. Therefore, Transformational leaders are required to deal with change in management in todays dynamic agriculture extension environment.

2.3.2 Transformational leadership dimensions:

Bass (1985) identified four components: of Transformational leadership which are as follows.

2.3.2.1 Idealized influence

Bass (1985) expressed that idealized influence ability to articulate clearly a vision to followers and motivate them to join the vision.

According to Bass (1998) a transformational leader serves as a role model who is admired, respected and trusted. Followers of such charismatic leaders “identify with the leaders and want to emulate them”; perceive them to have “extraordinary capabilities, persistence and determination”; and see them as risk takers who are “consistent rather than arbitrary”.

Bargal (2000) defined idealized influence as the ability of leaders to display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on controversial issues, present their most important values and emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment and ethical consequences of decisions.

Stone et al. (2005) reported that idealized influence has five attributes, 1) integrity 2) respect 3) risk-sharing 4) trust and 5) vision.

Table 2.1: Dimensions of Transformational Leadership

Sl. No.

Bass and Avolio (1994)

Bennis and Nanus (1985)

Kouzes and Posner (1987)

Leithwood and Jantzi (2000)

1. Idealized influence Attention to through vision

Challenging to process

Building vision and goals

2. Individualized consideration

Meaning through communication

Inspire a shared vision

Providing intellectual stimulation

3. Inspirational motivation

Trust trough positioning

Enabling others to act

Offering individualized support

4. Intellectual stimulation

Development of self through positive self-regard

Encouraging the heart

Symbolizing professional practices and values

5. Demonstrating high performance expectations

6. Developing structure to foster participation in decisions

Source [Bass and Avolio (1994), Bennis and Nanus (1985), Kouzes and Posner (1987) and Leithwood and Jantzi (2000)].

Therefore, idealized influence refers to the leaders’ ability to articulate clearly vision, motivate followers to join the vision, do the right things and demonstrate high standard of ethics. In this study, idealized influence is the tendency of strong code of ethics, involve others in taking risk and build clear expectations of organization future.

2.3.2.2 Inspirational motivation

Den Hartog et al. (1997) defined inspirational motivation as the capacity of a leader to act as a model for subordinates. Inspirational motivation refers to the ways leaders take to inspire the followers to achieve both personal and organizational goals.

Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) expressed that inspirational motivation is ability to provide followers with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and undertakings.

Judge and Piccolo (2004) concluded that leaders with inspirational motivation provide meaning for tasks, challenge followers with high standard and communicate optimism about future goal attainment.

Stone et al. (2005) found that inspirational motivation has four attributes, 1) commitment to goals 2) communication 3) enthusiasm and 4) modeling.

Therefore, inspirational motivation refers to the way leaders inspire the followers to achieve both personal and organizational goals, through display optimism and enthusiasm.

In this study, inspirational motivation is defined as potentiality to motivate and inspire extension personnel with commitment, enthusiasm and optimism.

2.3.2.3 Individualized consideration

Bass (1985) noted that individualized consideration has been viewed as a vehicle for developing subordinates’ confidence to tackle problems.

Bass (1999) expressed that individualized consideration is ability to understanding and sharing with others’ concerns and developmental needs and treating each individual uniquely.

Barnett et al. (2001) described that individualized consideration as occurring when leaders develop interpersonal relationships with followers.

Dionne et al. (2004) stressed that individualized consideration refers to treating followers as individuals and not just members of group.

Stone et al. (2005) found that Individualized consideration has four attributes, 1) empowering 2) mentoring 3) listening and 4) personal attention.

Yukl (2006) reported that individualized consideration as support, encouragement and coaching to followers.

People are treated individually and differently based on their talents and knowledge and with the intention of allowing them to reach high level of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Shin and Zhou, 2003; Chekwa, 2001).

Therefore, individualized consideration refer to understanding each extension personnel personality and use empowering, mentoring, listening and personal attention skills to treating each individual uniquely. In this study, individualized consideration is defined as the ability to pay special attention to the need and problems of each individual of the group as well as provide empowering and mentoring.

2.3.2.4 Intellectual stimulation

Bass (1998) pointed out that the intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership in particular has been associated with challenging subordinates to be creative, think critically and independently and find novel ways of solving problems while seeking a wide range of opinions before deciding upon solutions.

Leaders with Intellectual stimulation could promote rationality and carful problem solving (Bass, 1990; Bromley et al., 2007).

Coad and Berry (1998) noted that followers should feel free to try out new approaches and their ideas will not be publicly criticized because they differ from those of the leader.

Avolio et al. (1999) described that Intellectual stimulation as getting followers to question the tried and true methods of solving problems by encouraging them to improve upon those methods.

Bass (1999) expressed that intellectual stimulation is ability to make others think about new ways of performing work, new ways for looking at work and to be creative in their own problem-solving methods.

Brown and Posner (2001) found that the intellectual stimulation referred to leaders who challenged their followers’ ideas and values for solving problems.

Therefore, intellectual stimulation refer to ability to make others think about new ways of performing work, to be creative in their own problem-solving and encourage others try new ideas without publicly criticized.

In this study, intellectual stimulation is defined as the capacity to help extension personnel to rethink in rational ways to examine a situation and encourage followers to be creative in their work.

2.3.3 Transformational leadership qualities

Stone et al. (2005) found that Transformational Leadership has following qualities:

2.3.3.1 Integrity

Becker (1998) defined integrity as demonstrating consistency in words and actions that align with morally justifiable value system.

Simons (1999) identified that behavioral integrity is critical component of transformational leadership.

Andy Green (2006) concluded that integrity means avoiding communication that is deceptive, or beneath the dignity of people.

Yukl (2010) stressed that integrity means taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. And he added that integrity has four indicators, 1) honest and truthfulness 2) keeping the promises 3) fulfilling the responsibilities of service and loyalty to followers 4) can be trusted.

To summarize, integrity is critical quality and it has positively correlated with transformational leaders which lead to improve performance of extension personnel. In this study, integrity is the tendency to exhibit ethical standards and accountable for his decisions.

2.3.3.2 Respect

Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) found that transformational leaders has a strong positive relationship with high-quality exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates because of mutual respect.

Bozeman and Ellers (2008) concluded that interpersonal respect between leaders and their followers is highly relevant for productive cooperation in organizations.

Niels and Tilman (2009) defined respect as a person’s attitude towards other people, in whom he/she sees a reason that, in itself, justifies degree of attention and a type of behavior which create in individual a feeling of being appreciated in importance as person.

According to Government of Southern Australia (2010), respectful behavior describes behavior, communications and actions that demonstrate courtesy and collegiality. It is consistent fair treatment in a nondiscriminatory manner with regard for people’s rights and obligations. There are three key themes to behaving respectfully. These are:

1. Respecting differences – acknowledging and valuing differences in colleagues, whether this is their culture, beliefs, values, ideas or characteristics like gender or age.

2. Valuing others – creating a supportive and collaborative team environment where colleagues feel valued and their professional skills and attributes are acknowledged.

3. Positive communication – engaging in open, clear and honest communication, which is two-way and therefore, involves listening as well as talking.

Navid and Ahdieh (2011) defined respect as considering the idea and opinion of each expert in leading process. A respect-oriented leader is one, who can identify the expert people to participate, shares the related information between them and gathers their idea and consolidates them.

Table 2.2: Transformational Leadership qualities

S. No. Functional attributes Accompanying attributes

1. Idealized influence i. Integrity

ii. Respect

iii. Risk-sharing

iv. Trust

v. Vision

2. Individualized consideration vi. Empowering

vii. Listening

viii. Mentoring

ix. Personal attention

3. Inspirational motivation x. Commitment to goals

xi. Communication

xii. Enthusiasm

xiii. Modeling

4. Intellectual stimulation xiv. Problem-solving

xv. Rationality

Source [Stone et al. (2005), Bass (1990) and Bromley et al. (2007)].

In summary, respectful behavior is highly desire by followers, leaders demonstrating consistent fair treatment in a non-discriminatory manner with regard to people’s rights and obligations. In this research, respect is the predisposition to be polite, promote extension personnel achievements and avoid violation right of others.

2.3.3.3 Risk-sharing

Business dictionary defined risk-sharing as risk management method in which the cost of the consequences of a risk is distributed among several participants in an enterprise.

Avolio and Bass (2002) believed that transformational leaders are willing to take and share-risks with followers.

According to United State Legal Dictionary (USLD), a risk sharing partnership is a business arrangement in which consequential costs and benefits are distributed amongst all participating partners. In doing so, partners rely on the commercial success of the business to receive their share of financial benefit from the enterprise while reducing the risk of loss involved if the enterprise loses money.

In conclusion, risk-sharing is to take responsibilities of risk decisions, apply risk management methods and involve others for face risk of change people, system or process, to attain organizational long term benefits. In this study, risk-sharing is defined as the ability to try new things, learn from mistakes and involve in risk with others.

2.3.3.4 Trust

Handy (1995) concluded that research supported a model of organizational trust with five key drivers; 1) competence 2) openness and honesty 3) concern for others 4) reliability and 5) identification.

Rusbult et al. (1998) stated that trust is an underlying sense of interpersonal comfort that provides the feeling that one can interact freely and express thoughts, or opinions without fear of blame, or repercussions.

Dirks and Ferrin (2002) defined trust as an interpersonal phenomena based on relationships between an individual and another person or group.

Trust in leaders has been associated with positive organizational outcomes, job satisfaction and overall performance (Dirks and Skarlicki, 2004; Peterson and Cordery, 2003).

Trust is critical to the effective functioning of groups or teams in organizations (Costa, 2003; Dirks, 2000; Jones and George, 1998; Peterson and Cordery, 2003).

Therefore, trust is critical component of social functioning. It is vital in any interaction involving two or more persons. Trust could demonstrated by self–sacrificial behavior, competency, concern of others and sharing information. Many studies found that trust in leaders has been associated with positive organizational outcome, decrease intention to turnover and improve performance.

In this study, trust is defined as tendency to be believable.

2.3.3.5 Vision

The Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (1995) defined vision as the ability to think about or plan the future with great imagination or wisdom.

Yukl (2006) defended vision as tomorrow’s solutions to today’s problems.

A number of writers have attempted to describe the essential qualities of a successful vision which include; 1) a vision should be simple and idealistic 2) a picture of desirable future 3) the vision should appeal to the values and hopes 4) the vision should be challenging 5) the vision should address basic assumptions about what is important for the organization, how it should relate to the environment and how people should be treated 6) vision should be focused enough to guide decisions and actions (beenis and Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Ponsner, 1995; Nanus, 1992; Tichy and Devanna, 1986).

Hackman and Johnson (2009) stated that transformational leaders communicate visions by creating images, models and metaphors that give meaning and purpose to their followers.

Therefore, vision is one of the most critical attribute that associated with leaders, vision give work meaning, help guide the actions and decision. This will support radical change. In this study, vision is defined as the capacity to provide clear achievable goals for the future of the extension services develop strategic plan and engage an extension program.

2.3.3.6 Commitment to goals

Mowday et al. (1982) defined organizational commitment as having three facets; 1) identification with the values and goals of organization 2) willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization and 3) commitment to stay in the organization.

Transformational leaders build commitment to organizational objectives and empower followers to accomplish objectives by; 1) making follower aware of importance of task outcome 2) orienting followers toward performance beyond established organizational standards and 3) activating higher-order intrinsic needs (Bass, 1985; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Yuki, 2006; Yalnmarino and Dubinsky, 1994).

Jamal (1990) concluded that individuals who are more committed are highly motivated and will experience lower level of occupational stress, less emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

In an Indian context, Rai and Sinha (2000) found that the supervisors’ transformational style had significant relationship with organizational commitment.

Meyer et al. (2002) identified that commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets.

Herold et al. (2008) reported positive relationships between transformational leadership and employee change commitment.

Therefore, commitment to goal refers to giving awareness of task and outcomes importance and orienting followers toward accomplish objectives. In this study, commitment to goals is defined as the behavior which demonstrates loyalty and striving to achieve goals by seeking cooperation between staff.

2.3.3.7 Communication

The leaders develop and empower followers by maintaining two-way communication, delegating tasks and unobtrusively monitoring completion of tasks in order to see if and/or when additional support is needed (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998; Behling and Mcfill, 1996).

Nielsen et al. (2008) explained that transformational leaders impact employee performance through; 1) influence 2) involvement and 3) meaningfulness.

Hackman and Johnson (2009) stated that transformational leaders communicate visions by creating images, models and metaphors that give meaning and purpose to their followers.

Therefore, communication style of leadership would play a major role employee perception and give meaning and purpose to their followers, thus transformational leaders establish meaningfulness in the heart and mind of the employees. In this study, communication is defined as the ability to interpret and present clear and consistent idea/s though multiple channels.

2.3.3.8 Enthusiasm

According to Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (1995), enthusiasm is a strong feeling of excitement and interest in subject and desire to become involved in it.

Bass (1997) defined enthusiasm as the ability to articulate an appealing vision of future, challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.

Sy et al. (2005) reported that expression of strong positive emotions such as enthusiasm and optimism about a new initiative, project, or strategy in another way for leaders to influence follower motivation.

Therefore, enthusiasm is to demonstrate a strong feeling of excitement and interest in employee’s initiative or ideas to fosters better performance, accomplish difficult objectives and face obstacles, difficulties or fatigues. In this study, enthusiasm is defined as the ability to exhibit passion and optimism through body language, voice and words to build confidence and motivate the extension personnel.

2.3.3.9 Modeling

Kouzes and Posner (1997) defined that transformational leaders modeling the way through; 1) setting the example 2) promoting consistence progress and 3) building commitment.

Rafik (2012) suggested that leader lead modeling the way by;1) present clear beliefs 2) practicing what preach 3)clarify to followers what core values and behavior should be emulated 4) given different level of follower maturity and nature of the task and 5) break goals down in small manageable chunks to achieve small wins.

Therefore, modeling refer to set example for staff by recognizing contributions, celebrating small accomplishments and clarify to followers what core values and behavior may have be emulated. In this study, modeling is defined as the act with integrity, exhibit faith in principles, have courage to navigate difficult situations and make tough decisions.

2.3.3.10 Empowering

Wellins et al. (1991) defined empowerment as process of delegating both the authority and responsibility to subordinate which develops a sense of control over job being done by the employee.

Spreitzer (1996) suggested that successful empowering leader include 1) low role ambiguity 2) span of control 3) social support 4) access to important organizational information 5) access to resources and 6) participative environment.

Venkat (2006) concluded that empowerment is the philosophy which believes in enriching people’s job and giving power to exercise control over and take responsibility for outcomes of efforts.

Sitaram and Chandan (2011) concluded that empowerment helps to create autonomy for employees, allows the sharing of responsibility and power at all levels, builds employee self-esteem and energize the workforce for better performance.

Therefore, empowering is considered as management technique such as delegation and participative which used to build self-esteem and energize work force for better performance. In this study, empowering is defined as the allowing extension personnel to act and give them equal opportunity to learn and succeed.

2.3.3.11 Listening

Hunsaker and Allessandra (1986) found that listening is more than the physical process of hearing. It is an intellectual and emotional process in which one integrates all the three skills in the search of meaning.

Atwater (1992) identified three things a listener can do to convey empathy; 1) show desire to understand the person 2) reflect the person’s feelings or felt meaning 3) pace the person’s sensory and nonverbal behavior.

Gregory (1999) argued that active listening requires that we listen not only for the content of the speakers message, but more importantly, for the intent and feeling of message as well. The active listener shows the listener, both verbally and non-verbally that they truly interested and listing. They are usually skillful questioners, but never interrupt and are always looking for verbal and visual cues that signify the other person has something to say.

Therefore, listening is important skill that all effective leaders need for success, through given time to listen with empathy, skillful questioners and never interrupt. Therefore, this skill builds trust and commitment and creates an environment for success. In this study, listening is defined as the ability to give attention, asks appropriate questions, does not interrupt the speaker and understand as another person feels.

2.3.3.12 Mentoring

Noe (1988) stated that mentoring provide both career development and psychosocial support functions to protégés.

Yukl (1990) argued that psychosocial functions parallel leadership behavior such as supporting, motivating and inspiring coaching, counseling and developing.

Mentors are typically defined as experienced individuals with advanced knowledge who are committed to providing assistance and progress to their protégé’s career (Hunt and Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985).

Clutterbuck (2004) noted that mentor supports and guides the individual as part of a developmental path through; 1) helps to open doors 2) shares experience 3) provide contact /resources and 4) widen networking opportunities.

Therefore, mentor provides both career development and psychosocial support in formal or informal ways, through supporting, motivating and inspiring coaching, counseling and developing. The outcome of mentoring is enhancing employee ability to undertake calculated risks to advance their careers. In this study, mentoring is defined as the ability to helps extension personnel to grow and develop by sharing experiences and providing velar understanding of career requirements.

2.3.3.13 Personal attention

Avolio and Bass (1991) suggested that leader gives personal attention to followers and makes each feel valued and important.

Howell and Hall-Menenda (1999) reported that transformational leaders need to have considerable face time with followers to provide followers with individual attention and develop close working relationship with them to be effective.

Hoffman and Frost (2006) concluded that leader who gives personal attention to subordinates, reflect the behavior of treating each employee as an individual and initiate an interest in the long-term development of each employee.

Therefore, personal attention refer to dealing with different people who have different needs to keep welfare of followers, produce higher level of confidence and overall job satisfaction. In this study, personal attention is defined as act to be a friend, respect individual variation and dealing with extension personnel concern.

2.3.3.14 Problem-solving

George (2000) described that leaders who understand their own emotions and emotions of their followers may be more skilled at solving-problems and encouraging their followers to engage in problem-solving.

Kirton (2003) defined problem solving as an ability to “solve critical, complex problems in challenging environments.

Tiina (2005) suggested that transformational leaders tend to solve problem by applying and adopt past experience.

Transformational leaders achieve the greatest performance from subordinates since they are able inspire their subordinates to raise their capabilities towards success and develop subordinates’ innovative problem-solving skill (Bass, 1985; Yammarino and Bass, 1990).

Therefore, problem-solving skill is ability to define problems as well as generate and implement potentially effective solutions through involve employee in decision process and help them to look at old problems in new ways. In this study, problem-solving is defined as the capacity to make logical decisions and initiates new ways to provides solutions for both individual and organizational problems.

2.3.3.15 Rationality

Bass (1990) stated that the intellectual stimulating leader encourages followers to try new approaches but emphasizes rationality.

Edward and Steven (2002) stressed that stereotype of the rational decision makers is a person who can set aside his/her personal feeling (emotions) and calmly calculate the best course of action to deal with the problem or opportunity.

Therefore, rationality refers to take calculated decision without care to emotions. In this study, rationality is defined as the ability to demonstrate analytical skill, follow procedures in taking decision or solving problem on the basis of reasonable evidence.


Scott and Bruce (1994) expressed that individuals’ innovative behavior in the workplace include actions such as seeking out new ideas, championing ideas at work and securing funds/planning for the implementation of ideas. And they reported that the connotation of innovative

behavior is to generate innovative output and benefit to the organization. Employee’s behavior aimed towards making new products, processes and services are included in such behavior.

Employees’ innovative behavior is crucial in many contemporary management principles, such as continuous improvement corporate entrepreneurship and suggestion programs (Fuller et al., 2006; kaizen, 1986; Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Unsworth, 2000).

Axtell et al. (2000) emphasized that innovative behavior can range from incremental improvements to developing radically novel ideas that affect processes or products across the whole organization.

Janssen (2000) concluded that innovative behavior goes beyond creativity to include the adoption, production and implementation of novel and useful ideas. And they expanded that the ability to continuously innovate and improve products, services and work processes is nowadays crucial for organizations. Individual employees need to be both willing and able to innovate if a continuous flow of innovations is to be realized.

Innovative behavior differs from creativity, which is “the production of new and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes and procedures (Farr and Ford 1990; Jong and Den Hartog, 2010).

The idea that actions of individual employees are of crucial importance for continuous innovation and improvement is not just found in academic literature on innovation, but also stressed in work on several other popular management principles, such as total quality management and corporate entrepreneurship (Van de Ven, 1986; Janssen, 2000; Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; McLoughlin and Harris, 1997).

Yuan and Woodman (2010) noted that innovative behavior comprises the introduction and application of new technologies and new work methods that are “better” than existing ones.

Nadin (2012) stated that examples of innovative behavior include thinking in alternative ways, searching for improvements, figuring out new ways to accomplish tasks, looking for new technologies, applying new work methods and investigating and securing resources to make new ideas happen.

Innovative behavior goes beyond creativity to include the adoption, production and implementation of novel and useful ideas. Innovative behavior is crucial for any organization which helps in continuous improvement, suggests programs, thinking in alternative ways, finding new ways to accomplish task, looking for new technologies, applying new work methods and investigating and securing resources to make new ideas happen.

2.4.1 Innovative behavior concept

Innovative behavior (IB) refers to the individual level of innovation. Innovative behavior can be seen as a set of employee behavior that stimulates innovation and that in turn increases organizational performance (De Jong, 2007; Damanpour, et al., 1989).

Innovative behavior is dynamic because of the complex relations between past work activities and outcomes and the activities carried out in present and future (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2000; Scott and Bruce, 1994).

The definition of innovative behavior (IB) is described by different researchers. They all describe some way of an individual’s behavior to achieve the exploration, generation, championing and application or implementation of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010; Scott and Bruce, 1994).

King and Anderson (2002) expressed that innovative behavior focuses on the actual activities that are carried out to develop a new product, service or work process by breaking down the innovation process into a number of activities. In its most simple form, activity-stage models distinguish between just two phases: initiation and implementation. Initiation is a divergent phase, including activities such as the recognition of problems and thinking about ways to improve things. This phase results in more suggestions for innovations, such as new products, services or work processes. Implementation is a convergent phase directed towards the development and launch of innovations in order to acquire their benefits. The dividing line between the two phases is believed to be the point of the first adoption of the innovation; that is, the point at which the decision is made to implement the idea.

Anderson et al. (2004) identified that activity-stage models have been heavily criticized for being simplistic. In the past decades many have stressed that innovation is an iterative, non-linear, disjunctive, cyclical happening; often stressful for those involved either as initiators or those affected by the implementation.

De Jong (2006) defined Innovative behavior as Individuals’ behavior directed toward the initiation and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures within a work role, group or organization.

Some models describe the pre-adoption process in much more detail, focusing on activities such as idea generation, screening and evaluation, others concentrate on what happens after the decision to implement is made, finally, some researchers use models with more detailed attention for both phases (Rogers, 1983; Mumford, 2000).

Jeroen and Deanne (2008) expressed that innovative behavior as individuals’ behavior directed towards the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures.

Gerhard (2012) defined innovative behavior as the sum of physical and cognitive work activities carried out by employees in their work context, either solitarily or in a social setting, in order to accomplish a set of tasks required for achieving the goal of innovation development.

Yeoh and Rosli (2013) noted innovative behavior as an employee’s action directed at the generation, application and implementation of novelty ideas, products, processes and methods to his or her job position, departmental unit, or organization. Examples of such behavior include seeking out new technologies, recommending new strategies to achieve goals, applying new work methods and procuring support and resources to implement novelty ideas.

In conclusion, the innovative behavior is the ability to explore, generate, champion and apply new services, work process and introduce new and useful ideas. These activities of employees will help to accomplish a set of both organization and individual goals, the performance of organization finally.

2.4.2 Dimensions of innovative behavior

Kanter (1988) stated three stages of innovative behavior, namely idea generation, coalition building and implementation.

Janssen (2000) noted a slightly different name to some stages: idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization.

Kleysen and Street (2001) distinguished five stages of innovative behavior, namely; idea exploration, generation, formative investigation, championing and application.

Jong and Den Hartog (2010) adopted four stages of innovative behavior namely idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing and idea implementation.

We here propose that idea generation and opportunity recognition as distinct dimensions of IWB. Creativity literature has repeatedly indicated that the recognition of problems and the generation of ideas involve distinct cognitive abilities (Runco and Chand, 1994; Basadur, 2004).

The innovative behavior has four dimensions namely; 1) opportunity exploration 2) idea generation 3) championing and 4) application. Some people contribute more to the early stages of the innovation process and others might be more successful in the later stages.

2.4.2.1 Opportunity exploration

Kanter (1988) stated that awareness of a need (opportunity) is one element; ability to construct new ways to address the need is a second.

Kleysen and Street (2001) defined opportunity exploration as the metaphor of travelling extensively through innovation opportunities in order to learn or discover more about them.

Innovation usually starts with the detection of performance gaps - mismatches between actual and potential performance. Literature shows that the realization of something new begins with a person identifying opportunities (Parnes et al., 1977; Basadur, 2004).

Opportunity exploration includes behavior such as looking for ways to improve current product, services or processes, or trying to think about current work processes, product or services in alternative ways (Zaltman et al., 1973; Farr and Ford, 1990).

Kleysen and Street (2001) distinguished four different behavior that are considered as important for idea exploration: 1) paying attention to opportunity sources 2) looking for opportunities to innovate 3) recognizing opportunities and 4) gathering information about opportunities.

Basadur (2004) stated that idea exploration refers to looking for ways in which current problems can be solved and how the organization can capitalize on new opportunities.

Leonard and Swap (2005) noted that the discovery of opportunities may seem difficult, but some people do appear to be consistently ‘lucky’ implying that their exploration behavior is different.

Ozgen and Baron (2007) described that opportunities can be discovered in a variety of sources, not limited to business contacts but also informal contacts such as relatives.

De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) expressed that the first stage of the innovation process normally starts with an employee who discovers an opportunity or problem to be solved within the organization.

Yeoh and Rosli (2013) concluded that opportunity exploration is identifying new opportunities, which usually lie in events that are nonlinear, tumultuous and opportunistic. Thus, in the initiation stage, the role played by the knowledge workers can be vital in the process of developing better understanding about clients and opportunities. Opportunity exploration includes paying attention to an opportunity or problem, then gathering related information to discover the reasons of gap.

2.4.2.2 Idea generation

Kanter (1988) perceived that of ‘kaleidoscopic thinking’. In a kaleidoscope a set of fragments form a pattern that is not locked into place. If the kaleidoscope is shaken or twisted, or the angle of the perspective is changed, the same fragments form an entirely new pattern. It is an apt metaphor for the generation of ideas to satisfy opportunities, because the kaleidoscope allows people to shake reality into a new pattern. Idea generation often consists of rearranging already existing pieces of knowledge, physical capital and other resources to create a new possibility.

In general the case with innovation, idea generation may relate to new or improved products, procedures, services and organizational forms (Damanpour, 1991; Van de Ven, 1986).

Mumford (2000) defined idea generation as a free flowing activity where applications, implications and consequences are identified and then shaped through refinement into a new idea or set of ideas. And he mentioned that ultimately individuals are the source of all ideas. Idea generation includes behavior directed at generating concepts for the purpose of improvement.

Kleysen and Street (2001) stated that required for idea generation and for the additional investigation of ideas which is here seen as part of idea generation. These are generating ideas, solutions, representations and categories of opportunities, generating associations and combinations of ideas and information and formulating, experimenting and evaluating ideas and solutions. Also they mentioned that idea generation occurs when knowledge workers were able to direct their behavior towards concept generations for improvement purpose.

The generation of ideas may relate to new products, services or processes, the entry of new markets, improvements in current work processes, or in general terms, solutions to identified problems (Zaltman et al., 1973; Van de Ven, 1986).

De Jong (2007) defined very clear definitions for idea generation is seen as the combination and reorganization of information and existing concepts to solve problems and/or to improve performance.

De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) described that it as the activity of generating ideas to specific situations, which simultaneously increases specificity for new ideas.

Idea generation is the ability to look at the opportunity or problem from different perspective of angle and apply combination or reorganization of gathered information to existing new way to improve performance or solve problem.

2.4.2.3 Championing

Kanter (1988) identified that once a creative idea has taken shape it must be ‘sold’. Although ideas can have some legitimacy, especially when they fill a performance gap, it is uncertain if ideas will result in successful new applications.

Shane (1994) stressed that as a consequence there often is a need for coalition building in order to implement innovations. Champions are the ones who put effort into creative ideas. They are individuals in informal roles that push creative ideas beyond roadblocks in their organizations.

Maute and Locander (1994) emphasized that the socio-political behavior that are involved in the innovation process.

Kleysen and Street (2001) stated that the necessary for individuals involved in the stage of idea championing include; 1) mobilizing resources, 2) persuading and influencing, 3) pushing and negotiating and 4) challenging and risk-taking.

Howell and Shea (2001) concluded that once ideas are generated they need to be promoted in the organization. Since they are usually completely new and thus unknown territory for employees.

Jones (2004) explained that innovations are usually accompanied by new tasks or ways of usage. When ideas are proposed, recipients will first explore how it will affect them or their functioning. In case their current knowledge and skills would be outdated, resistance is more likely. Second, people have a general tendency to perceive information selectively, i.e. consistent with their existing views. This implies that extremely innovative ideas receive no priority. A third source of resistance is a shared preference for familiar actions and events. People have a built-in tendency to return to their original behavior, a tendency that sabotages change.

Howell et al. (2005) argued that champions are individuals that in an active, informal and enthusiastic manner promote innovations, by converting social and political pressures imposed by an organization to its advantage.

The definition of Howell et al. (2005) included all these aspects by stating that idea championing refers to finding support for the innovation by expressing enthusiasm and confidence about its success, being persistent, also under adversity and getting the right people involved.

De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) determined that championing is refer to what extent employees try to persuade others to involve in supporting innovative ideas and application determines to what extend an employee implements ideas. And they expressed that most ideas have the goal of improving performance or are an interesting opportunity for the organization, their benefits compared to the costs are not clear and resistance will occur.

Championing includes behavior related to finding support and building coalitions, such as persuading and influencing other employees and pushing and negotiating (Zaltman et al., 1973; Van de Ven, 1986; Howell and Higgins, 1990; King and Anderson, 2002).

Kheng et al. (2013) defined championing or idea promotion as a social-political behavior that involved behavior of mobilizing resources, persuading and influencing, pushing and negotiating, challenging and risk-taking which are essential to realizing the potential of ideas, solutions and innovations.

Championing is the ability to getting support from right people by expressing enthusiasm and confidence to generated ideas and give transparency detail about benefits compared with disadvantages on performance.

2.4.2.4 Application

Bandura (1982) concluded that a characteristic that helps to get ideas implemented is self-efficacy. This construct is defined as individuals’ self-perceptions about their ability to produce and to regulate events in life.

Van de Ven (1986) argued that the implementation of innovations leads to eliminations, replacements or transformations of existing arrangements.

Farr and Ford (1990) stated that self-efficacy is related to individuals’ perception that change can be successfully implemented in a given situation. They concluded that those with serious doubts about their capability to succeed, on the other hand, are more likely to avoid the activity, exert little effort and give up quickly. Since individual innovation may involve both uncertainties about future

outcomes as well as possible resistance from others affected by change, individuals do not possess a reasonable amount of self-efficacy are less likely to put effort into implementing innovations.

Greenwood and Hinings (1996) found that radical innovation involves the busting loose from an existing orientation, which refers to exploring opportunities and new ways in which problems can be solved, whereas incremental innovation is referred to as fine-tuning an existing orientation. This means that especially for radical innovations, first stage of IWB, idea exploration, is of crucial importance and the other steps will follow then.

Klein and Sorra (1996) stated that the main cause of organizations that do not reap the intended benefits from their adopted innovations, is implementation failure, not innovation failure. This stage is therefore of crucial importance because without a successful implementation, there is no innovation.

Kleysen and Street (2001) explained that stage consists of the activities associated with modification of the innovation and the organization when the idea is becoming a routine. The behavior necessary for successfully implementing ideas in the organization are; 1) implementing, 2) modifying and 3) routinizing.

Kleysen and Street (2001) found that by stating that considerable effort and a result-oriented attitude are crucial behavior for implementing ideas.

It often requires considerable effort from individuals to transform ideas into practical propositions. Application means doing what is needed to transform ideas into reality. It includes behavior such as developing new products or work processes and testing and modifying them (e.g. Van de Ven, 1986; Kanter, 1988; West and Farr, 1990).

Heidemann et al. (2006) found that the development of radical innovation was directly connected to the proactive exploration of new opportunities in terms of new markets, new possibilities of applications or new technologies. In contrast, incremental innovation focuses on improving existing situations and merely skips the idea exploration stage. However, the other stages are here important as well.

Parker et al. (2006) expressed that to be an aspect of IWB, such behavior need to be proactive, i.e. self-starting (doing something without being told or without an explicit role requirement) and persistent (overcoming barriers to bring about change). Also they emphasized that strong perceptions of self-efficacy result in individuals’ approaching tasks with enthusiasm, expending great amounts of effort on task accomplishment and persistence in the face of obstacles.

Kheng et al. (2013) defined idea implementation as developing, modifying, commercializing and routinizing an innovative idea.

Application is the crucial stage of innovative behavior, it needs enthusiasm expanding a great amount of effort in developing, modifying, testing and commercializing generated idea.

Figure 1.1: Stages of Innovative Work Behavior

Sources (Elles, 2012)

2.5 Job performance

According to Davis (1949), how an individual performs in a given position as distinct from how he/she is supposed to perform, is called his role. The role is the manner in which a person actually carries out the requirements for his position. It is the dynamic aspect of status of office as such is always influenced by factor other than the stipulations of the position itself.

Cummings (1972) prefers to use the term staff assessment and thinks that overall objectives of staff assessment is to improve the efficiency of an enterprise by attempting to mobilize the best possible efforts from the individuals employed in it.

According to Dwivedi (1982), performance appraisal involves comparison of performance measures of different individuals holding similar areas of work responsibilities and relate the determination of worth of these measures for the accomplishment of organizational goals.

Bharadwaj et al. (1989) stated that job performance is the extent of performance of the job in view of expectations as stated in the job chart.

Subbarao and Rao (1990) stated that the purposes of performance appraisal are:

1. To create and maintain a satisfactory level of performance

2. To contribute to the employee growth and development through training, self and management development programs

3. To help the superiors to have a proper understanding about the subordinates

4. To guide to job changes with the help of continuous ranking

5. To facilitate fair and equitable compensation based on performance

6. To provide information for making decisions regarding lay off, retirement etc.

7. To ensure organizational effectiveness through correcting employees for standard and improved performance and suggesting the change in employee behavior. Review of literature shows that appraisal of job performance of workers in different industries, firms and organizations has been done with the help of job performance chart (McNeill, 1960; Sengupta, 1966).

Daft (1994) stated that a “performance appraisal comprises the steps of observing and assessing employee performance, recording the assessment and providing feedback to the employee”. It is the manner in which a supervisor delivers the assessment that can have a biggest impact on the employee. The evaluation must be a good balance between positives and negatives in order to encourage employees to change their job performance.

According to Terry and Israel (2004), employee performance is the key to the success of most organizations and must therefore be evaluated. Measuring job performance is the process of determining how closely a record of behavior and/or outcomes that could have been achieved during the period and then assigning it a corresponding number. In relation to performance they suggest that extension agents must develop and maintain skills in assessing and responding to the needs of clienteles, which can ensure that clienteles receive the most current and accurate information.

Vijayaragavan and Singh (2006) pointed out, that performance is a process of evaluating employee in carrying given tasks in order to guide and develop the employee’s potential.

According to K-STATE (2006), performance review is an important, ongoing process to enhance extension agent effectiveness. Work quality and productivity of extension agent performance standards in extension work is defined by eight elements consisting of quality of work, dependability, work schedule, work habits, work allocation, poise and composure, work organization and customer satisfaction.

Chen and Silverthorne (2008) identified that there are three types of performance measurement. One is the measure of output rates, amount of sales over a given period of time, the production of a group of 26 employees reporting to manager and so on. The second type of measure of performance involves ratings of individuals by someone other than the person whose performance is being considered. The third type of performance measures is self-appraisal and self-ratings. As a result, the adoption of self-appraisal and self-rating techniques are useful in encouraging employees to take an active role in setting his or her own goals.

Job performance is nothing but the staff assessment and to improve the efficiency of an organization by attempting to mobilize the best possible efforts from the individuals employed in it. There are different methods to measure job performance such as output rating, neutral rating and self-rating.

2.5.1 Levels of job performance

Dhakhore and Bhilegoankar (1987) found that 69.17 per cent of the Veterinary Extension Personnel in Maharashtra had medium level of job performance, whereas 15.83 per cent and 15.00 per cent of the extension personnel were found to have high and low level of performance, respectively.

Siddaramaiah and Shivalingegowda (1987) reported that 50.00 per cent of extension guides working under the university extension system in Karnataka belonged to the high performance category.

Hegde and Channegowda (1989) in their study concluded that a large number (68.70 %) of Agricultural Assistants working under Agricultural Extension Project in Karnataka had medium level of job performance, while 15.00 and 16.30 per cent of them had high and low performance category, respectively.

Narasimhagowda (1989) reported that 52.22 per cent of Assistant Horticultural Officers in Karnataka belonged to the high job performance category, while 48.78 per cent belonged to low performance category.

Nataraj (1989) studied the job performance of Assistant Directors of Agriculture in Karnataka and concluded that 72.00 per cent of the Assistant Directors were in medium job performance category.

Nagi Reddy (1990) reported that 63.33 per cent of Agricultural Officers working under Training and Visit system Andhra Pradesh belonged to the medium category of job performance, whereas 20.00 and 16.67 per cent of them belonged to high and low performance category, respectively.

Halkatti (1991) in his study on job performance level of Agricultural Assistants working under Training and Visit system concluded that 71.85 per cent of the Agricultural Assistants belonged to medium job performance category, while, 13.59 and 14.56 per cent of them belonged to low and high category, respectively.

Thippeswamaiah (1991) reported that 60.80 per cent of subject matter specialists working under National Agriculture Extension Project belonged to medium job performance category, followed by 21.60 per cent in low and 17.60 per cent in the high performance category.

Rath (1992) reported that 78.00 per cent of the Subject Matter Specialists under Training and Visit system in Orissa were in medium job performance category, while, 21.00 per cent in high job performance and only one per cent of the Subject Matter Specialists were in low job performance category.

Venkateshprasad and Hanumanthappa (1992) in their study of job performance of Seed Farm Managers in Karnataka found that 54.00 per cent were in low performance category and 46.00 per cent in high performance category.

Ram Bhal et al. (1993) reported that female extension personnel are inadequate. The results of multiplicative effect indicated that in all the tests more than 12.00 per cent of female extension personnel increased cereal yield by 29.58 per cent, farmers income by 159.61 per cent, agricultural income and fertilizer consumption by 113.89 per cent. Less than 12.00 per cent of extension female personnel of total extension personnel may not be significant for agricultural development.

Rahad et al. (1995) found that none of the Village Extension Workers working under Training and Visit system in Maharashtra performed poorly, whereas 0.42, 10.83, 48.92 and 48.33 per cent of Village Extension Workers were found to perform either below average, average, good and excellent, respectively.

Jaiswal et al. (1997) in their study indicated that 59.00 per cent of the Rural Extension Officers in Maharashtra belonged to medium category of job performance, followed by 22.00 per cent in low and 19.00 per cent in the high job performance category.

Sandhu and Raghbir (1997) reported that characteristics namely; rural background and field work orientation were strongly related to job performance. Agriculture Extension Officers posted at a distance of 60 km from their home were found to have the highest performance. There is need to make provisions for more opportunities in the job with regard to recognitions and rewards like certificates, appreciations etc. Need for time to time in-service training and reference courses for the AEO.

Vijayalakshmi (1997) concluded that, majority 63.12% of the Anganwadi workers had ‘medium’ level of job performance, while there was more or less equal percentage of respondents (18.15 and 18.75) with low and ‘high’ level of performance.

Prabhakar et al. (1998) noted that a majority 60.00 per cent of Horticultural Assistants in Karnataka were under low performance category, while remaining 40 per cent were under high performance category.

Lipi Das and Mishra (1999) identified that efforts are needed to educate and train women according to the employment category. This obviously requires rational and major changes in the national educational policies for the women in our country. Emphasis was given by the respondents to self-employment. A realistic planning for the nature of education and training required for women need to be done which will best serve the interest of all concerned i.e., the working women, the concerned institutions and hopefully the whole country.

Mohan (2000) expressed that majority 85.36 per cent of AAO’s working under KSDA belonged to medium performance category, while 14.63 per cent were in high performance category.

From the previous studies, it can be inferred that the job performance level ranged between high and medium compare with low performance.

2.5.2 Personal, socio-economic and psychological characters of extension personnel

2.5.2.1 Age

Hegde (1984) in his study found that 41.3 per cent of Agricultural Assistants working under Training and Visit system in Karnataka were in the age group of less than 36 years, closely followed by 37.5 per cent and 21.75 per cent of Agricultural Assistants in middle age (36-45 years) and high (above 45 years) age group, respectively Jahagirdar (1987) reported that 61 per cent of Subject Matter Specialists working under Training and Visit system in Karnataka were in the lower age group, while 39 per cent were in higher age group.

Srinath (1987) noted study revealed that 57.00 per cent of District Horticultural Officers and 74.00 per cent of Assistant Directors of Horticulture in Karnataka belonged to the middle age group (36-50 years), while 34.00 per cent of District Horticultural Officers and 20.00 per cent of Assistant Directors of Horticulture belonged to the old age group (above 50 years). Only 9.00 per cent and 6.00 per cent of District Horticultural Officers and Assistant Directors were in young age group (35 years and below), respectively.

Manimegalon (1990) observed that 46.88 per cent of Assistant Directors of Agriculture under National Agriculture Extension Project in Karnataka were in the higher age bracket, followed by 40.43 in middle age group and rest 12.69 per cent in the young age group.

Girija et al. (1994) found that 30.00 per cent of Agricultural Officers in Karnataka belonged to younger age group (less than 26 years), while 39.00 per cent were in the age group of 27-29 years and 31.00 per cent of Agricultural Officers were in the above 30 years of age group.

Patel et al. (1994) reported that 49.00 per cent of Rural Agricultural Extension Officers working under Training and Visit system in Madhya Pradesh belonged to the age group of 31-45 years, while 37.00 per cent were below 30 years of age and 14.00 per cent of them were above 35 years of age.

Mohan (2000) revealed that 51.21 per cent of AAOs were in the age group of 35-50 years, while 12.68 per cent were above 50 years of age and remaining were below 35 years of age.

From these studies, it can be concluded that the majority age of respondents ranged between 31 and 50 years, which indicated that respondents are in middle group of age.

2.5.2.2 Education

Hegde (1984) identified that 58.75 per cent of Agricultural Assistants in Dharwad district of Karnataka had education up to SSLC and 41.25 per cent had education up to PUC and Bachelor’s degree.

Rao (1985) in his study pointed out that 52.73 per cent of Assistant Agricultural Officers working under Agriculture Extension Project in Karnataka were with the qualification of SSLC with gram Sevaka training, while 42.27 per cent of Assistant Agricultural Officers were either B.Sc. or M. Sc. (Agri.) graduates.

Srinath (1987) reported that 60.00 per cent of District Horticultural Officers and 50.00 per cent of Assistant Directors of Horticulture in Karnataka were agriculture graduates.

Manimegalon (1990) found that 46.48 per cent of Assistant Directors of Agriculture working under National Agricultural Extension Project in Karnataka had either diploma or licentiateship in agriculture, followed by graduates 40.03 per cent and rest 12.69 per cent were post graduates.

Girija et al. (1994) reported that a high majority of 93.00 per cent Agricultural Officers in Karnataka were graduates, while the remaining seven per cent were post graduates.

Patel et al. (1994) from their study reported that 67.00 per cent of Rural Agriculture Extension Officers working in Training and Visit system in Madhya Pradesh had low level of education qualification (up to higher secondary, level), while 33.00 per cent had high educational qualification (graduation and above).

Mohan (2000) revealed that a majority 60.97 per cent of the AAOs were matriculate, 3.65 per cent of them had received education up to pre university level, while 6.09 per cent were basic arts/science graduates, remaining were either B.Sc. (Agri.) or M. Sc. (Agri.) graduates.

From the above studies, it can be inferred that the majority qualification of respondents was SSLC compared by graduate and post graduates, which indicated that respondents have low qualification.

2.5.2.3 Experience

Chhabra (1979) reported that scientists with less experience were found to be more satisfied with their job.

Rao and Sohal (1982) reported that 32.00, 35.00 and 33.00 per cent of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in Andhra Pradesh were equally distributed in low (below 4 years), medium (4-11 years) and high (above 11 years) experience groups, respectively.

Hegde (1984) in his study on Agricultural Assistants under Training and Visit system in Karnataka found that 42.50 per cent of Agricultural Assistants had less than 10 years of experience and 57.50 per cent had more than 10 years of experience.

Prasannakumar (1985) in his study on Assistant Agricultural Officers working under Training and Visit system in Karnataka found 27.00 per cent of Assistant Agricultural Officers had medium service, while 26.00 per cent and 47.00 per cent had low and high service, respectively.

Rao (1985) found that 67.27 per cent of Assistant Agricultural Officers under Agriculture Extension Project in Karnataka had high experience, while 36.36 per cent had low level of experience.

Jahagirdar (1987) reported that 60.00 per cent of Subject Matter Specialist working under Training and Visit system in Karnataka had less experience in their present position, while 40.00 per cent had more experience.

Manimegalon (1990) in his study of Assistant Directors of Agriculture working under National Agriculture Extension Project reported that 36.17 per cent of Assistant Directors belonged to the medium experience category. While, 40.81 and 17.02 per cent belonged to high and low experience categories, respectively.

Aqumaqu (1995) showed that the principal component of job satisfaction was work experience factors with need satisfaction exercising the greatest predictive ability.

Lindholm (1997) revealed that years of teaching experience was a great motivating factor to provide satisfaction.

Mohan (2000) reported that majority (75.66%) of the AAOs had medium level of experience, while 14.63 and 9.75 per cent had high and low experience.

From previous studies, it can be concluded that the experience of majority respondents was belonged to high and middle experience between 4.5 -10 and 11 years respectively, which indicated that respondents have minimum 5 years of experience.

2.5.2.4 Training

Jahagirdar (1987) reported that 59 per cent of Subject Matter Specialists under Training and Visit System belonged to high training category, while 41 per cent belonged to the category with low training.

Nataraj (1989) in this study on Assistant Director of Agriculture working under National Agricultural Extension Project found that 57 per cent received less training while 43 per cent received more training.

Balasubramanian and Perumal (1991) from their studies on fisheries extension personnel in Tamil Nadu observed that majority (66%) of respondents attended 1-2 trainings, 29.00 per cent attended 3-4 training and only five per cent had attended 5-6 trainings.

Patel et al. (1994) reported that majority (93%) of Rural Agricultural Extension Officers working under T and V system in Madhya Pradesh were professionally untrained.

Mohan (2000) showed that 14.65 per cent of AAOs had received training for more than 6 months duration while 17.07, 29.26, 13.41 and 12.19 per cent of them received in service training for 4 to 6 months, 2 to 4 months, 1 to 2 months and less than 1 month duration, respectively. Nearly per cent of the AAOs had not undergone any training at all.

From thesis studies, it can be inferred that the in-service training for majority of the respondents was low level of in-service training, which indicated that training for respondents ranged between 1 and 2 months.

2.5.2.5 Information seeking behavior

Jahagirdar (1987) found that 60.00 per cent of subject matter specialists in Karnataka had high level of mass media exposure while per cent had low exposure.

Mohankumar (1987) in his study reported that 57.47 per cent of Assistant Agricultural Officers under National Agricultural Extension Project in Karnataka had low exposure to mass media, while 42.33 per cent had high exposure to mass media.

Nataraj (1989) in his study on Assistant Directors of Agriculture and that 54.00 per cent of the Assistant Directors had high mass media participation and 46.00 per cent had low mass media participation.

Mohan (2000) found that 73.17 per cent of the AAOs had medium level of information seeking behavior.

From previous studies, it can be concluded that the information seeking behavior of majority respondents was belonged to high and medium level of information seeking category.

2.5.3 Transformational leadership and Job performance

Singer (1985) showed that subordinates in New Zealand preferred working with leaders who were more transformational than transactional.

Waldman et al. (1987) showed that the performance appraisals of subordinates were higher if their leaders had been described as transformational leaders.

Avolio and Bass (1988) stated that the positive effect of transformational leadership is enhances self-knowledge, increasing the performance expectation value to the financial performance of the teams.

Bass and Avolio (1989) found that the extensive surveys of over 1,500 general managers, leaders of technical teams, governmental and educational administrators, upper middle managers and senior U.S. Army officers that were discussed earlier for charismatic leadership are also relevant for transformational leadership. Subordinates of these leaders, who described their managers on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Form 5, as being more transformational, were also more

likely to say that the organizations they lead were highly effective. Such transformational leaders were judged to have better relations with higher-ups and to make more of a contribution to the organization that were those who were described only as transactional. Subordinated said they also exerted a lot of extra effort for such transformational leaders. If leaders were only transactional, the organizations were seen as less effective, particularly if most of the leaders practiced passive, reactive management-by-exception (intervening only when standards were not being met). Subordinates said they exerted much less effort them their leaders.

Clover (1989) used an abbreviated version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to correlate the descriptions of 3,500 subordinates at the U.S. Air Force Academy of their commissioned-officer squadron commanders and various measures of their squadrons’ performance. A transformational leadership score was attained by combining the assessments of the commanders’ charisma, inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. It was found that commanders who received higher ratings in transformational leadership led better-performing squadrons and were more likely to be seen as preferred role models by the cadets.

Bass and Avolio (1990) expressed that follower development and follower performance is the targeted outcomes of transformational leadership.

Deluga and Souza (1991) found that performance, job satisfaction and transformational leadership are correlated.

Bass and Avolio (1993) concluded that a style of transformational leadership can provide a positive influence toward performance and attitude of followers.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) concluded that relationship between transformational leadership and follower performance has only rarely been demonstrated, because most prior studies have had static, correlational, or no experimental designs.

Lowe et al. (1996) noted that transformational leadership has been shown to have a positive relationship with performance.

Bass et al. (2003) data were collected from 72 light infantry rifle platoon leaders of U. S. Army. In contrast with earlier research, both contingent reward and transformational leadership of the platoon leader equally predicted performance. Results with the platoon sergeant were more in line with prior research. By articulating clear standards and expectations for performance and showing recognition to platoon members for specific milestones achieved, platoon leaders may establish a basis for working together that prepares the unit to function in an environment where knowing what to do, when to do it and with whom is essential to successful performance. It is also interesting to note that the sergeant’s transformational leadership was more predictive of unit performance than the platoon leader’s transformational leadership, although this difference was not significance. There are several plausible explanations for this result. First, sergeants in the U. S. Army typically have more daily contact with platoon members and would likely have a greater effect on platoon members’ training and perhaps their overall performance. Second, sergeants typically have greater tenure in the Army than platoon leaders, as well as more experience in combat. In combination, this may result in sergeants receiving greater respect from members of the platoon and, in turn, having more of an impact on the platoon’s performance. Third, sergeants come up through the ranks and members of the platoon may have identified with them more easily as compared with the platoon leader, increasing their motivation to perform at the Joint Readiness Training center. Finally, sergeants are given more authority to act in today’s U. S. Army as compared with the past; also potentially contributing to how predictive the sergeant’s leadership was of unit performance.

Hetland and Sandal (2003) a sample of 100 mid-level Norwegian managers employed in five different companies and their followers participated in this survey. The results of this study yielded substantial support for the superiority of transformational leadership practices in Norwegian organizations. Across the five companies participating in the study, both private and public, transformational leadership showed strong and consistent links with the three outcome variables, independent of whether subordinates or superiors made the ratings.

Judge and Piccolo (2004) explained that transformational leadership correlates with individual- and team-level job performance.

A number of studies have suggested that transformational leadership has a profound positive influence on subordinates’ effort and satisfaction. This positive influence has been observed in a

variety of contexts including that of health care , commerce, military and education (Podsakoff et al., 1990 and Hoover, 1991).

Other studies have indicated a positive effect on subordinate performance (Howell and Frost, 1989) particularly in a group or team situation (Avolio et al., 1988; Barling et al., 1996; Den Hartog et al., 1997).

Transformational leadership has been linked with enhanced individual commitment to the group or organization (Barling et al., 1996; Bycio et al., 1995).

Detert and Burris (2007) provided that transformational leadership predicted job performance at the unit level.

Agusthina et al. (2012) found that in his research there is positive significant founded among transformational leadership style with employee performance that indicated with path positive coefficient. That can be seen from value of standardized regression weight as big as = 0.185.

Min et al. (2012) found that revealed associations between transformational leadership and task performance (g= 0.85, p <.001).

From the above studies, it can be said that the transformational leadership has positive influence toward individual, team and unit level among different disciplines.

2.5.4 Innovative behavior and Job performance

Kanter (1988) stated that innovative behavior is bound to especially challenging and complex tasks enfolding a broad variety of cognitive and social activities, such as generating, promoting, discussing, modifying and ultimately implementing creative ideas.

Amabile (1996) found that the creativity component of innovative behavior refers to generating novel responses that are useful in dealing with the task at hand.

Miron et al. (2004) found that innovative performance and performance quality and efficiency are positively correlated.

Yuan and Woodman (2010) provided that there is empirical support for expected positive performance outcomes being positively related to innovative behavior.

From the above studies, it can be concluded that the innovative behavior has positive correlation with job performance.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted during the year 2012-2013 on the extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), with the main objective of analyzing the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of officers and scientists of KSDA in Dharwad district and UAS, Bangalore and UAS, Dharwad who were in the middle and lower level management positions.

The research methods and procedures followed in conducting the study are described under the following major heads.



3.3 Research design





Population for the study was extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences, who occupied the middle and lower level management positions in Karnataka state.


There were four Universities of Agricultural Sciences, two of them were selected purposively from Karnataka state namely University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Out of 284 extension scientists of universities of agricultural sciences, 35 per cent were of the extension personnel, were selected by accidental meeting technique. The total sample consisted of 100 extension scientists.

Similarly, among the 19 districts, Dharwad district was selected purposively from Karnataka state. Out of 171 Agricultural officers of the KSDA, 58.00 per cent were of the extension personnel, were selected by accidental meeting technique. The total sample consisted of 100 extension officers.

The total number of extension personnel was 200 selected by accidental meeting technique which formed the sample size.

3.3 Research design

The main objective of the study was to determine the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel. The study was conducted by ex-post-facto research approach.


For present study, selected demographic characteristics, experience, in-service training, Information seeking behavior, transformational leadership, innovative behavior and job performance were the variables.

The variables selected and their empirical measurement procedures adopted are as follows.

Sl. No Variables Measurement

A. Dependent variables

1. Job performance Scale developed by Kiran (2007)

B. Independent variables

1. Gender Categorization into Male and Female

2. Age Chronological age in completed years

3. Education Scoring procedure followed by Chandargi (1996)

4. Experience Total number of years served

5. In-service training Procedure followed by Mohan (2000)

6. Information seeking behavior Procedure developed by Rath (1992)

7. Transformational leadership Scale developed for the study

8. Innovative behavior Scale developed for the study

3.4.1 Independent variables

For the present study, selected demographic characteristics, experience, in-service training, Information seeking behavior, transformational leadership and innovative behavior were the independent variables.

Personal schedule was used to collect information from the extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS).

3.4.1.1 Age

Age was referred to the chronological age of the respondents in completed years at the time of investigation.

SI. No Category Age (in years)

1 Young Below 35

2 Middle 35 – 50

3 Old Above 50

3.4.1.2 Gender

Gender is the classification of individual based on the biological differences as male and female.

SI. No Category Score

1 Male 1

2 Female 2

3.4.1.3 Education

Education was operationalized as the extent of formal education undergone by the respondents. One score for each year of formal education was given to quantify education. Further, the respondents were categorized based on procedure followed by Chandargi (1996), which is given below.

SI. No Category Score

1 Diploma 15

2 B.Sc. 16

3 M. Sc. 18

4 Ph. D 21

5 Ph. D + Additional qualification/s 22

3.4.1.4 Total experience

Total experience refers to the number of completed years of service of the respondent in the university/agriculture department. It was quantified by giving one score for each year of service.

Further, extension personnel were classified into three groups based on mean and standard deviation.

Category Score

High ( + SD)

Medium ( ± SD)

Low ( - SD)

3.4.1.5 In-service training

In-service training was operationalized as acquisition of knowledge and skills by the extension personnel. For the purpose of rational analysis a score of one was assigned to each of training received by extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS). Moreover, training duration quantified by given one score for each day of in-service training. Further, total of in-service training was calculated by summing up the training received score and training duration score of each of the respondent.


Category Score

High ( + SD)

Medium ( ± SD)

Low ( - SD)

3.5.1.6 Information seeking behavior

Information seeking behavior was operationalized as the extent to which the respondents used different mass media for acquiring the information on extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS). The procedure followed by Rath (1992) was used for empirical quantification of this variable. The description of the items and scoring procedure is given below.

Items Score

1. Mass media

News paper

i. Read daily

ii. Read occasionally

iii. Never read

2

1

0

Radio

i. Listened regularly

ii. Listened occasionally

iii. Never listened

2

1

0

Television

i. Viewed regularly

ii. Viewed occasionally

iii. Never Viewed

2

1

0

Farm magazines and other publication

i. Read daily

ii. Read occasionally

iii. Never read

2

1

0

Internet

i. Explore daily

ii. Explore occasionally

iii. Never explore

2

1

0

2. Personal cosmopolites

i. superiors out of department

ii. superiors in department

iii. friend in department

2

1

0

The scores obtained by respondents on all the above items were summed up to obtain the Information seeking behavior score.


Category Score

High ( + SD)

Medium ( ± SD)

Low ( - SD)

3.4.1.7 Transformational leadership scale

The Transformational leadership refer to person who focus on effecting change in organizations through demonstration ethical behavior, high communication skills, thoughtful risk-sharing, conceder the difference of others and has a commitment to the organization’s vision.

The Transformational leadership of respondents was measured by Transformational leadership scale. The scale was developed by the researcher to measures four dimensions of Transformational leadership namely idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation.

The Transformational leadership scale consisted 90 statements for all dimensions. Each statement has 5 alternatives answers viz always, most of the times, sometimes, rarely and never with scoring of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively. There are 65 positive statements and 25 negative statements. The negative statements were reversely scored. The score ranges from 90 to 450.

The categorization of the extension personnel under Transformational leadership scale is as follows:

Category Score

High Above 360

Medium 180- 360

Low Below 180

3.4.1.7.1 Reliability

The reliability of the scale was established by split-half method and Alpha method. The split-half reliability of the inventory was 0.88 and was significant at 0.01 level. The Cronbach's Alpha ratio was 0.93 and was considered ‘highly acceptable’.

3.4.1.8 Innovative behavior scale

The innovative behavior refers to ‘person who seeking out new ideas, championing ideas at work and convince of others for the implementation of ideas’.

The innovative behavior of respondents was measured by innovative behavior scale. The scale was developed by the researcher to measure two dimensions of innovative behavior namely teaching role and managerial role.

The innovative behavior scale consisted 32 statements for two dimensions. Each statement has 5 alternatives answers viz always, most of the times, sometimes, rarely and never with scoring of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively. There are 17 positive statements and 15 negative statements. The negative statements were reversely scored. The score ranges from 32 to 160.

The categorization of the extension personnel under innovative behavior scale is follows:

Category Score

High Above 128

Medium 65- 128

Low Below 65


The reliability of the scale was established by split-half method and Alpha method. The split-half reliability of the inventory was 0.71 and was significant at 0.01 level. The Cronbach’sAlpha ratio was 0.82 and was considered ‘highly acceptable’.

3.4.2 Dependent variable

3.4.2.1 Job performance

In this study, job performance was operationalized as the degree to which the different job duties (activities) were performed by the respondents as the occupants of the post. The job performance of Extension Officers was measured by using the scale developed by Kiran (2007) considering the self-rating technique with some modifications. The scale consisted of 19 job statements on a five point continuum namely always, most of the times, sometimes, rarely and never, with score 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively. There are 17 positive statements and 2 negative statements. The maximum and minimum scores that could be obtained by an extension officer were 95 and 19, respectively.

Further, the respondents were classified into three categories based on mean and standard deviation as follows.

Category Score

High Above 76

Medium 38 - 76

Low Below 38


The reliability of the scale was established by Cronbach’sAlpha. The Cronbach’s Alpha ratio was 0.72 and was considered ‘highly acceptable’.


The heads of selected Karnataka state department of agriculture (KSDA) were contacted and permission was taken for the study. The heads of (KSDA) departments was requested to attend monthly meetings to get needed data from the extension personnel.

To establish good rapport with the extension personnel, introduction was given about the objectives of the study, importance of their cooperation and their sincere response.

The questionnaire booklet consisting of demographics, transformational leadership scale, innovative behavior scale and job performance scale was distributed to the extension personnel during meetings.

The necessary instructions were given to extension personnel on mode of answering the statements and necessary clarification was made whenever extension personnel raised doubt while

answering each item of the questionnaire. The extension personnel were given enough time to answer all the questions.

The time taken by the extension personnel to given responses to all the items of questionnaire was between 30 and 50 minutes. The completed questionnaires were collected from the respondents at the end of the meeting days.

Similarly, the heads of selected (UASs) departments were contacted and permission was taken for the data collection from extension personnel. The selected extension personnel were contacted in their offices and requested to spare time to get their responses. The questionnaire booklet consisting of demographics, transformational leadership scale, innovative behavior scales and job performance scale with instructions was distributed to the extension personnel of UAS Dharwad and Bangalore.

Further more, 75 questionnaires were posted to extension personnel who are working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) of UASs, Bangalore and Dharwad.


The following statistical tests were used to analyze data.

3.6.1 Frequencies and percentages

The analysis of frequency and percentage was used to interpret the personal characteristics, status of transformational leadership, innovative behavior and job performance of respondents.

3.6.2 ‘t’ test

The ‘t’ test of significance of mean difference was employed to see whether the statements confirmed that each statement discriminates between the group of the individuals who had higher level and also had the lower level. Furthermore, to see whether the respondents level differed significantly from one another in terms of their mean scores of level with respect to their transformational, innovative behavior and job performance. The ‘t’ value was computed by using the following formula.

S1 - S2

t = --------------------------------

√SP2 (1/n1 + 1/n2)

Where,

S1 = Mean of first series

S2 = Mean of second series

SP2 = Pooled variance of first and second series

(n1 – 1) S12 + (n2 – 1) S2

2

= ----------------------------------

(n1 + n2 - 2)

Where,

S12 = Variance of first series

S22 = Variance of second series

n1 = Sample size of first series

n2 = Sample size of second series

3.6.3 Karl Pearson’s correlation coefficient

Karl Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient analysis was carried out to assess the degree of relation between the transformational leadership, innovative behavior, demographic variables and job performance.

3.6.4 Regression analysis

This analysis was carried out to determine the combined influence of independent variables in explaining the variation in the dependent variable and to identify the variables which contributed significantly towards the variation in the dependent variable.

3.6.5 Factor analysis

To know the highest factor loading of each statement of factor in relation to other factors. The score of 94 extension personnel on 90 statements of transformational leadership and the score of 99 extension personnel on 32 statements of innovative behavior scales were subjected to SPSS Version 16, Varimax rotated factor analysis program to find out factor of each item under each dimension of transformational leadership scale and innovative behavior scale.

RESULTS The results of the study entitled The Impact of Transformational Leadership and Innovative

behavior on Job Performance of Extension Personnel are presented on the following subheadings.



4.3 Level of selected demographic characteristics of extension personnel






4.9 Relationship between independent variables and job performance and extension personnel

4.10 Contribution of selected independent variables towards job performance of extension personnel.


Transformational leader is a person who defines and relates a vision, uses power primarily for self-aggrandizement, has higher morality, ethical, integrity, solidarity and behavior standard in front of their followers, that let the followers feel trust, admire, loyalty and respect toward leader, help followers to grow, increase awareness of what was right and important, work together for change organization. Therefore, transformational leadership has positive potentiality to achieve higher performance.

Initially, there were 178 statements, consisted of 116 positive and 62 negative statements, were adjudged by 45 judges who were specialized in the field of education, management and extension education, for relevancy test of each statement. The relevancy index of each statement was from 68.29 to 100.

The statements which had the relevancy index of 70 and above were selected. Out of 178 statements, 174 statements were selected and relevancy index of each of the selected statements ranged between 70 and 100.

Out of 174 statements, 60 statements were “false-keyed” (reversely scored) while 114 statements were “true-keyed” (directly scored). Each statement rated on 5 point scale (i.e. always/most of the times/sometimes/rarely/never).

The following table depicts an account of the items constituting various dimensions of the scale.

Dimensions of scale Number of items

True-keyed False-keyed

Idealized Influence 34 24

Individualized Consideration 33 15

Inspirational Motivation 29 16

Intellectual Stimulation 18 5

Total 114 60

4.1.1 Sample for standardization of the scale

In order to determine the applicability and homogeneity of statements, the prepared schedule consisted of 174 statements were administered on 109 extension personnel of both State Department of Agriculture (SDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) by accidental meeting technique. Out of 109 extension personnel, only 94 gave responses to all the statements.

4.1.2 Selection of statements of the idealized influence by coefficient of correlation

The data of 94 extension personnel of both Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) were subjected to correlation analysis and the result presented as following;

The results of Table 1 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statement of idealized influence dimension. The coefficient of correlation of all 58 statements with idealized influence was significant at least at 0.05 level. The coefficients of correlation of these statements were ranged between 0.24 and 0.71. All the statements were retained in scale.

Similarly, the result of Table 1 demonstrated significant coefficient of correlation between each statement of idealized influence dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 58 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statement/s coefficient of correlation ranged between 0.27 and 072. Therefore, these all 58 statements were selected for the idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

4.1.3 Selection of statements by factor analysis for idealized influence

The selected 58 statements on basis of coefficient of correlation were subjected to principal component analysis with Varimax rotation.

The result of the Table 1 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership. The results revealed the values of factor loading ranged from 0.31 to 0.86. The statements having factor loading 0.5 and above were selected for idealized influence dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 34 statements were selected for idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

4.1.4 Selection of statements by criterion groups’ t-test analysis

The results of Table 2 notified criterion groups t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between 0.66 and 12.33. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, out of 34 statements, 30 statements were selected. Therefore, 30 statements were included in idealized influence dimension.

4.1.5 Selection of statements by coefficient of correlation of the individualized consideration

The results of Table 3 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statement of individualized consideration dimension. The coefficient of correlation of all 48 statements with individualized consideration was significant at least at 0.05 level. The coefficients of correlation of these statements were ranged between 0.21 and 0.70. All the statements were retained in scale.

Similarly, the results of Table 3 demonstrated signified coefficient of correlation between each statement of individualized consideration dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 48 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statements coefficient of correlation ranged between 0.33 and 0.70. Therefore, all these 48 statements were selected for the individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

4.1.6 Selection of statements by factor analysis for individualized consideration


The results of the Table 3 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership. The results revealed the values of factor loading ranged 0.33 to 0.87. The statements having factor loading 0.5 and above were selected for the individualized consideration dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 30 statements were selected for individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.


The results of Table 4 notified criterion groups t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between 1.00 and 6.18. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were

Table 1. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of idealized influence with its dimension and also with the scale

(n=94)

Sl. No.

Statements Idealized influence

Transformational

leadership scale

Factor loading

1. I tell the truth (+) 0.31** 0.30** 0.54

2. I look for principle of ethics behind others decisions (+)

0.38** 0.42** 0.75

3. I fulfill what I have promised (+) 0.32** 0.36** 0.73

4. I present expenses of budget of extension program in an open way (+)

0.46** 0.47** 0.55

5. I demonstrate the same priorities that I describe (+)

0.46** 0.46** 0.47 NS

6. I manipulate expenses of extension program illegally (-)

0.43** 0.43** 0.57

7. I make fun of others’ mistakes (-) 0.56** 0.55** 0.62

8. I attempt to risk others to protect myself in work matters (-)

0.53** 0.54** 0.42 NS

9. I make eye contact while speaking to others (+)

0.44** 0.43** 0.44 NS

10. I address staff members by their names (+) 0.37** 0.42** 0.72

11. I respect personal rights of my colleagues in workplace (+)

0.52** 0.53** 0.69

12. I appreciate colleagues hard works (+) 0.44** 0.48** 0.82

13. I give equal chance to staff to speak in meeting (+)

0.54** 0.56** 0.32 NS

14. I arrive to work on time (+) 0.37** 0.47** 0.44 NS

15. I complete my tasks in target time frame (+) 0.60** 0.60** 0.81

16. I walk away when someone is talking to me 0.60** 0.60** 0.81

17. I fail to keep extension personnel updated on latest information (-)

0.45** 0.45** 0.44 NS

18. I make decisions after problems become chronic (-)

0.46** 0.47** 0.48 NS

19. I blame others for their mistakes in public (-) 0.28** 0.39** 0.86

20. I avoid to present colleagues achievements at official meetings (-)

0.41** 0.61** 0.80

Contd…..

Sl. No.


Transformational

leadership scale

Factor loading

21. I dominate conversations with others (-) 0.39** 0.39** 0.48 NS

22. I tend to identify risks before starting project (+)

0.26** 0.42** 0.46 NS

23. I attempt to distribute impacts of risk between units (+)

0.44** 0.43** 0.83

24. I inform other about all important matters that effect extension program (+)

0.28** 0.28** 0.48

25. I clearly explain idea about risk impacts (+) 0.39** 0.46** 0.36 NS

26. I involve team members in decision making process (+)

0.56** 0.52** 0.58

27. I encourage colleagues to expresses their opinion (-)

0.56** 0.52** 0.41 NS

28. I take decisions alone in team work (-) 0.45** 0.45** 0.74

29. I attempt to create big win in short time (-) 0.45** 0.45** 0.50

30. I repeat same mistakes (-) 0.46** 0.46** 0.67

31. I try to apply new technologies in all field demonstrations (-)

0.24* 0.28** 0.59

32. I express gratitude clearly even for small acts (+)

0.71** 0.71** 0.82

33. I give colleagues up-dated information (+) 0.71** 0.71** 0.80

34. I try to discover training opportunities to improve other skills (+)

0.58** 0.57** 0.64

35. I allow colleagues offering different points of view (+)

0.54** 0.54** 0.48 NS

36. I give equal training opportunities to all staff (+)

0.54** 0.56** 0.41 NS

37. I publish reports about unit performance (+) 0.52** 0.52** 0.44 NS

38. I keep personal conversation in confidence (+) 0.52** 0.53** 0.79

39. I provide the information which all needed to accomplish colleagues tasks (+)

0.50** 0.50** 0.62

40. I break work discipline (-) 0.42** 0.41** 0.48 NS

41. I tries to hide details of annual budget (-) 0.62** 0.63** 0.44 NS

42. I try to limit other training opportunities (-) 0.62** 0.62** 0.43 NS

43. I attempt to cover my mistakes (-) 0.44** 0.44** 0.68

Contd….

.

Sl. No.


Transformational

leadership scale

Factor loading

44. I spread silly gossips about colleagues achievement (-)

0.58** 0.57** 0.62

45. I encourage colleagues to participate in the formulation of organization’s vision (+)

0.60** 0.65** 0.47 NS

46. I clearly describe expectation of future problems (+)

0.62** 0.60** 0.70

47. I try to make required resources available to accomplish team task (+)

0.62** 0.56** 0.80

48. I try to involve colleague in all phases of strategic planning (+)

0.55** 0.64** 0.65

49. I identifies long-term objectives (+) 0.67** 0.67** 0.70

50. I communicate vision of the future often (+) 0.67** 0.67** 0.40 NS

51. I develop annual plan for program activities (+) 0.58** 0.68** 0.31 NS

52. I provide opportunity for others to commit to the vision publicly (+)

0.59** 0.58** 0.39 NS

53. I guide others for making decisions (+) 0.63** 0.64** 0.45 NS

54. I clarify the roles that each staff member should play (+)

0.63** 0.63** 0.49 NS

55. I avoid build consensus for shared goals (-) 0.46** 0.47** 0.70

56. I neglect to develop annual plan activities to extension workers (-)

0.71** 0.72** 0.47 NS

57. I fail to help colleagues to solve problems (-) 0.71** 0.72** 0.70

58. I miss to develop short-time objectives (-) 0.67** 0.67** 0.70

* Significant at 0.05 level ** Significant at 0.01 level NS- Non significant

Table 2. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of Idealized influence dimension

(n=94)

Sl. No.

Statements Gp (1) n= 25

Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

1. I tell the truth (+) 4.48

(0.51)

4.20

(0.41) 2.06*

2. I look for principle of ethics behind others decisions (+)

4.40

(0.65)

3.60

(0.82) 3.57**

3. I fulfill what I have promised (+) 4.52

(0.51)

4.12

(0.60) 2.82*

4. I present expenses of budget of extension program in an open way (+)

4.56

(0.65)

3.60

(1.35) 3.36**

5. I manipulate expenses of extension program illegally (-)

4.96

(0.20)

4.16

(0.85) 4.17**

6. I make fun of others’ mistakes (-) 4.40

(0.96)

3.52

(1.08) 3.36**

7. I address staff members by their names (+) 4.60

(0.50)

3.64

(0.91) 1.66NS

8. I respect personal rights of my colleagues in workplace (+)

4.84

(0.47)

3.72

(1.37) 6.06**

9. I appreciate colleagues hard works (+) 4.92

(0.28)

4.00

(1.26) 4.92**

10. I complete my tasks in target time frame (+) 3.72

(1.31)

3.12

(0.88) 2.68*

11. I walk away when someone is talking to me (-) 4.80

(0.41)

3.44

(1.16) 5.76**

12. I blame others for their mistakes in public (-) 4.48

(0.87)

3.32

(0.99) 8.50**

13. I avoid to present colleagues achievements at official meetings (-)

2.04

(1.31)

2.24

(1.01) 2.71*

14. I attempt to distribute impacts of risk between units (+)

4.68

(0.56

3.72

(1.06)

-0.130NS

15. I inform other about all important matters that effect extension program (+)

4.76

(0.52)

3.84

(0.85) 4.89**

16. I involve team members in decision making process (+)

4.20

(1.29)

3.08

(1.32) 3.61**

17. I take decisions alone in team work (-) 4.92

(0.28)

4.08

(0.86) 2.27*

18. I attempt to create big win in short time (-) 4.92

(0.28)

3.96

(1.06) 1.84*

Contd….

Sl. No.


Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

19. I repeat same mistakes (-) 4.72

(0.54)

3.80

(1.00) 4.57**

20. I try to apply new technologies in all field demonstrations (-)

4.84

(0.47)

3.88

(0.93) -3.82**

21. I express gratitude clearly even for small acts (+)

4.20

(1.63)

2.76

(1.05) 12.33**

22. I give colleagues up-dated information (+) 4.88

(0.33)

4.08

(1.19) 4.4**3

23. I try to discover training opportunities to improve other skills (+)

4.88

(0.44)

3.84

(1.18) 3.46**

24. I keep personal conversation in confidence (+) 4.52

(0.51)

4.12

(0.60) 4.52**

25. I provide the information which all needed to accomplish colleagues tasks (+)

4.56

(0.65)

3.60

(1.35) 6.54**

26. I attempt to cover my mistakes (-) 4.92

(0.28

4.28

(0.61) 1.21 NS

27. I spread silly gossips about colleagues achievement (-)

4.96

(0.20)

4.32

(0.95) 6.69**

28. I clearly describe expectation of future problems (+)

4.84

(0.47)

3.72

(1.37) 5.15**

29. I try to make required resources available to accomplish team task (+)

4.92

(0.28)

4.00

(1.26) 4.67**

30. I try to involve colleague in all phases of strategic planning (+)

4.80

(0.82)

3.72

(1.28) 3.07**

31. I identifies long-term objectives (+) 4.16

(1.18)

3.76

(0.93) 6.58**

32. I avoid build consensus for shared goals (-) 2.04

(1.31)

2.24

(1.01) 0.66 NS

33. I fail to help colleagues to solve problems (-) 4.84

(0.37)

4.08

(0.86) 2.62*

34. I miss to develop short-time objectives (-) 4.68

(0.56

3.72

(1.06) 4.00**


Table 3. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of individualized consideration with its dimension and also with the scale

(n=94)

Sl. No.

Statements Individualized consideration

Transformational

leadership scale

Factor loading

1. I involve others in making decisions that affect them (+)

0.32** 0.33** 0.58

2. I get clarification from my supervisor about delegated work (+)

0.57** 0.57** 0.71

3. I try to involve in assessment of training needs (+)

0.64** 0.65** 0.67

4. I provide opportunities for staff members to involve in new tasks (+)

0.57** 0.64** 0.41 NS

5. I look for delegating to accomplish our target assignments (+)

0.65** 0.66** 0.73

6. I try to remove unnecessary controls (+) 0.65** 0.65** 0.42 NS

7. I provide advices when requested (+) 0.46** 0.51** 0.71

8. I encourage colleagues to decide by themselves how do their assignments (+)

0.44** 0.51** 0.51

9. I fail to remove unnecessary controls (-) 0.50** 0.55** 0.43 NS

10. I search for the resources needed to carry out our new tasks (+)

0.44** 0.44** 0.79

11. I attempt to forbid access to technical information (-)

0.39** 0.40** 0.43 NS

12. I delegate only when I am busy (-) 0.39** 0.39** 0.48 NS

13. I look into the eyes of speakers (+) 0.64** 0.64** 0.76

14. I express positive facial expressions (+) 0.64** 0.64** 0.87

15. I ask questions to prompt further discussion (+)

0.51** 0.51** 0.75

16. I make the speaker feel important (+) 0.50** 0.51** 0.35 NS

17. I summarize the progress of the conversation from time to time (+)

0.46** 0.55** 0.49 NS

18. I listen to opposing views without expressing defensiveness (+)

0.33** 0.34** 0.68

19. I look at my watch when colleagues are speaking (-)

0.43** 0.44** 0.77

20. I change the subject too quickly (-) 0.43** 0.49** 0.44 NS

21. I involve in official papers while others are speaking (-)

0.43** 0.58** 0.65

22. I suggest solutions before the problem is fully explained (-)

0.50** 0.46** 0.44

23. I forget other previous conversation (-) 0.53** 0.56** 0.48 NS

24. I devote time to train colleagues to improve their extension skills (+)

0.64** 0.65** 0.74

Contd…..

Sl. No.

Statements Individualized consideration

Transformational

leadership scale

Factor loading

25. I aid others to acquire necessary knowledge (+)

0.64** 0.64** 0.60

26. I provide helpful career advice (+) 0.62** 0.62** 0.47 NS

27. I support extension workers in taking risks (+)

0.37** 0.37** 0.40 NS

28. I provide resources to extension personnel to try new ideas (+)

0.55** 0.59** 0.49 NS

29. I avoid to criticize others when they try something new and fail (+)

0.41** 0.41** 0.66

30. I give others regular feedback about their performance (+)

0.70** 0.70** 0.63

31. I encourage colleagues to search for relevant training courses (+)

0.70** 0.70** 0.77

32. I encourage colleagues to make presentations in meetings (+)

0.61** 0.61** 0.79

33. I exhibit a cold welcome to others 0.36** 0.36** 0.40 NS

34. I criticize others work (-) 0.48** 0.48** 0.40 NS

35. I try to hide technical skills (-) 0.39** 0.39** 0.54

36. I consider others as having different needs (+)

0.21* 0.39** 0.77

37. I disclose personal information about myself (+)

0.38** 0.38** 0.71

38. I tell jokes in informal discussions (+) 0.38** 0.41** 0.77

39. I listen to colleagues with great courtesy (+)

0.66** 0.66** 0.62

40. I ask extension workers about their individual interests (+)

0.66** 0.66** 0.44 NS

41. I help others to clarify their private problems (+)

0.55** 0.55** 0.59

42. I express compassion toward others who have low performance (+)

0.53** 0.53** 0.78

43. I strive to help staff members to solve their private problems (+)

0.55** 0.55** 0.82

44. I go to colleague to provide performance feedback (+)

0.50** 0.50** 0.59

45. I fail to resolve grievances about extension personnel promotions (-)

0.44** 0.49** 0.42 NS

46. I am careless towards colleagues work problems (-)

0.55** 0.58** 0.74

47. I fail to keep people informed about actions affecting them (-)

0.55** 0.55** 0.33 NS

48. I care only about myself (-) 0.47** 0.61** 0.49 NS


selected. On the basis of this criterion, out of 30 statements, 24 statements were selected. Therefore, 24 statements were included in individualized consideration dimension.

4.1.8 Selection of statements of the inspirational motivation by coefficient of correlation

The results of Table 5 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statement of inspirational motivation dimension. The coefficient of correlation of all 45 statements with inspirational motivation was significant at least at 0.05 level. The coefficients of correlation of these statements were ranged between 0.20 and 0.67. All the statements were retained in scale.

Similarly, the results of Table 5 demonstrated signified coefficient of correlation between each statement of inspirational motivation dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 45 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statements coefficient of correlation ranged between 0.23 and 0.67. Therefore, all these 45 statements were selected for the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

4.1.9 Selection of statements by factor analysis for inspirational motivation


The results of the Table 5 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership. The result revealed the values of factor loading ranged from 0.36 to 0.84. The statements having factor loading 0.5 and above were selected for inspirational motivation dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 26 statements were selected for inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.


The results of Table 6 notified criterion groups t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between - 0.44 and 9.03. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, out of 26 statements, 24 statements were selected. Therefore, 24 statements were included in inspirational motivation dimension.

4.1.11 Selection of statements of the intellectual stimulation by coefficient of correlation

The results of Table 7 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statement of intellectual stimulation dimension. The coefficients of correlation of 23 statements with stimulation dimension was ranged between 0.11 and 0.80. The statements were significant at least at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, 22 statements were selected. Therefore, these 22 statements were retained in scale.

Similarly, the results of Table 7 demonstrated signified coefficient of correlation between each statement of intellectual stimulation dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 22 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statements coefficient of correlation ranged between 0.40 and 0.80. Therefore, all these 22 statements were selected for the intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

4.1.12 Selection of statements by factor analysis for intellectual stimulation


The results of the Table 7 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership. The results revealed the values of factor loading ranged from 0.34 to 0.86. The statements having factor loading 0.5 and above were selected for intellectual stimulation dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 12 statements were selected for intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership scale for further analysis.

Table 4. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of individualized consideration dimension

(n=94)

Sl. No.


Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

1. I involve others in making decisions that affect them (+)

3.60

(1.63)

3.16

(1.14) 1.37 NS

2. I clearly delegate tasks (+) 4.80

(0.40)

3.72

(0.84) 6.18**

3. I make an assessment of the training needs (+)

4.80

(0.40)

3.76

(1.01) 5.56**

4. I delegate proper authority to accomplish our target activities (+)

4.84

(0.37)

3.80

(0.82) 5.47**

5. I provide advices when requested (+) 4.72

(0.89)

4.08

(0.64) 1.90*

6. I allow others to decide their self how do their work (+)

4.60

(0.95)

3.68

(0.90) 3.57*

7. I restricts the resources needed to carry out our new tasks (+)

4.56

(1.04)

3.44

(1.42) 3.36*

8. I look at the speaker (+) 4.84

(0.80)

4.40

(0.58) 2.40*

9. I express positive facial expressions (+) 0.27

(4.92)

4.16

(0.69) 5.72**

10. I ask good questions to prompt further discussion (+)

4.68

(0.55)

4.04

(0.79) 2.97*

11. I listen to opposing views without expressing defensiveness (+)

4.16

(1.34)

3.32

(1.41) 3.36*

12. I look at my watch when others are speaking (-)

4.6

(0.70)

3.52

(1.29) 3.26*

13. I involve in official papers while others are speaking (-)

4.48

(1.12)

3.60

(1.22) 3.26*

14. I devote time to train staff to improve their management skills (+)

4.76

(0.43)

3.68

(0.90) 4.90**

15. I aid staff members to find ways to acquire necessary knowledge (+)

4.76

(0.43)

3.80

(0.96) 4.61**

16. I avoid punishing people when they try something new and fail (+)

4.24

(1.33)

3.28

(1.31) 3.31*

17. I give other regular feedback about their performance appraisal (+)

4.68

(0.55)

3.80

(1.00) 4.45**

18. I encourage employees to attendance at relevant training courses (+)

4.76

(0.43)

4.08

(0.86) 4.57**

Contd…..

Sl. No.


Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

19. I provide opportunities for staff to make presentations in meetings (+)

4.80)

(0.40)

4.00

(1.12) 4.32**

20. I try to hide technical skills (-) 4.24

(1.50)

3.64

(1.47) 1.35 NS

21.

I consider others as having different needs from others (+)

4.12

(1.39)

3.36

(0.99)

2.34*

22. I disclose personal information about myself (+)

3.24

(1.30)

3.04

(1.27) 0.70 NS

23. I tell jokes in informal discussions (+) 3.44

(1.19)

3.08

(1.38) 1.49 NS

24. I listen to staff members with great courtesy (+)

4.84

(0.37)

3.88

(1.13) 4.52**

25. I help staff members to clarify their private problems (+)

3. 92

(0.70)

3.16

(1.25) 3.67*

26. I express compassion toward others who have low performance (+)

3.4

(1.15)

3.16

(1.28) 1.00 NS

27. I strive to help staff members to solve their private problems (+)

3.64

(1.25)

3.20

(1.26) 1.58 NS

28. I visit each extension worker’s offices to provide performance feedback (+)

4.12

(0.97)

3.36

(1.11) 2.62*

29. I am careless towards others work problems (-) 4.92

(0.27)

3.48

(1.69) 4.09**

30. I care only about myself (-) 4.68

(0.90)

3. 32

(1.57) 3.98*


Table 5. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of inspirational motivation with its dimension and also with the scale

(n=94)

Sl. No.

Statements Inspirational motivation

Transformational leadership scale

Factor loading

1. I attend informal events that help to build team cohesiveness (+)

0.44** 0.44** 0.78

2. I assign specific task to others (+) 0.49** 0.49** 0.48 NS

3. I establish clear priorities (+) 0.47** 0.48** 0.65

4. I offer assistance to colleagues before they requested (+)

0.44** 0.50** 0.71

5. I build a common base of agreement in team before moving forward with task involvement (+)

0.51** 0.63** 0.44 NS

6. I set specific standards for task achievement (+)

0.59** 0.60** 0.40 NS

7. I try to resolve problems immediately which disrupt the work (+)

0.53** 0.53** 0.42 NS

8. I work hard to achieve targeted extension program objectives (+)

0.67** 0.67** 0.81

9. I motivate team members to work hard to achieve our program objectives (+)

0.67** 0.67** 0.84

10. I make extra effort to bring benefits for myself (+)

0.34** 0.35** 0.44 NS

11. I fail to resolve problems before disrupt our work (-)

0.47** 0.55** 0.36 NS

12. I arrive late to meeting (-) 0.45** 0.45** 0.39 NS

13. I attempt to use organization facilities to achieve my personal benefits (-)

0.50** 0.52** 0.83

14. I allow other to complete their presentation in meeting (+)

0.50** 0.55** 0.53

15. I keep everyone on teamwork by commands (+)

0.20* 0.23* 0.81

16. I use research results to solve extension method application problems (+)

0.31** 0.44** 0.74

17. I am genuine about what other says (+) 0.41** 0.42** 0.61

18. I ask questions to clarify idea (+) 0.43** 0.43** 0.36 NS

19. I use vague words to present my opinion (-) 0.44** 0.58** 0.45 NS

20. I avoid to ask questions in meeting (-) 0.31** 0.39** 0.77

21. I give ambiguous instructions (-) 0.51** 0.52** 0.78

22. I narrate topic/s in pleasant manner (+) 0.62** 0.64** 0.54

Contd….

Sl. No.

Statements Inspirational motivation


Factor loading

23. I establish clear standard of expected performance (+)

0.62** 0.63** 0.63

24. I demonstrate a passion for excellence in every aspect of work (+)

0.60** 0.61** 0.71

25. I change facial expressions to correspond with the thoughts I am voicing (+)

0.43** 0.43** 0.46 NS

26. I vary tone to keep audience interest (+) 0.57** 0.57** 0.63

27. I able to express unique stories (+) 0.57** 0.57** 0.43 NS

28. I encourage exceptionally high standards of performance (+)

0.48** 0.57** 0.42 NS

29. I tell boring story when I present extension plan (-)

0.43** 0.49** 0.46 NS

30. I read from slides when I present extension issue (-)

0.32** 0.32** 0.81

31. I fail to vary tone to keep audience interest (-)

0.41** 0.42** 0.61

32. I fail to energize staff members to do their best level (-)

0.47** 0.59** 0.36 NS

33. I help others know how to work through their achievement (+)

0.39** 0.41** 0.47 NS

34. I remind colleagues that our first priority is to deliver excellent services to our client (+)

0.55** 0.56** 0.61

35. I am willing to make difficult decisions (+) 0.40** 0.39** 0.77

36. I forgive others mistakes (+) 0.29** 0.32** 0.66

37. I help colleagues to understand their own values (+)

0.49** 0.50** 0.66

38. I seek unanimity around shared values (+) 0.40** 0.42** 0.45 NS

39. I lead discussion about values in the orientation of new members (+)

0.59** 0.59** 0.41 NS

40. I work with colleagues on weekends if they need (+)

0.41** 0.41** 0.70

41. I take responsibility for certain employees (-)

0.29** 0.29** 0.80

42. I try to hide real reasons of decisions (-) 0.57** 0.57** 0.49 NS

43. I punish subordinates when they fail to accomplish their task (-)

0.57** 0.57** 0.40 NS

44. I say this is worst place to work (-) 0.50** 0.50** 0.74

45. I fail to promote strong norms to work hard among colleague (-)

0.44** 0.61** 0.71


Table 6. Criterion groups’ t-value of each item of inspirational motivation dimension

(n=94)

Sl. No.


Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

1. I attend informal events that help to build team cohesiveness (+)

3.36

(1.14)

2.72

(1.24) 2.42*

2. I establish clear priorities (+) 4.52

(0.86)

3.72

(0.61) 4.00**

3. I offer assistance to colleagues before they requested (+)

4.16

(0.82)

3.52

(1.09) 3.02**

4. I work hard to achieve targeted extension program objectives (+)

4.72

(0.28)

4.00

(0.64) 5.30**

5. I motivate team members to work hard to achieve our program objectives (+)

4.72

(0.28)

3.84

(0.78) 6.05**

6. I attempt to use organization facilities to achieve my personal benefits (-)

4.80

(0.00)

3.80

(1.04) 4.80**

7. I allow other to complete their presentation in meeting (+)

4.64

(0.38)

3.44

(0.93) 6.10**

8. I keep everyone on teamwork by commands (+) 4.50

(1.19)

3.68

(1.11) 2.47 *

9. I use research results to solve extension method application problems (+)

4.00

(1.20)

3.48

(0.92) 2.06*

10. I am genuine about what other says (+) 4.24

(0.93)

3.32

0.83) 3.57**

11. I avoid to ask questions in meeting (+) 4.08

(0.99)

3.16

(1.20) 3.25**

12. I give ambiguous instructions (-) 4.80

(0.00)

3.56

(1.16) 5.56**

13. I narrate topic/s in pleasant manner (+) 4.52

(0.55)

3.20

(1.09) 6.59**

14. I establish clear standard of expected performance (+) 4.64

(0.38)

3.36

(1.18) 5.30**

15. I demonstrate a passion for excellence in every aspect of work (+)

4.60

(0.41)

3.68

(0.96) 4.68**

Contd…..

Sl. No.


Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

16. I vary tone to keep audience interest (+) 4.60

(0.51)

3.12

(0.79) 9.03**

17. I read from slides when I present extension issue (-) 4.28

(1.10)

3.24

(1.10) 3.11**

18. I fail to vary tone to keep audience interest (-) 4.76

(0.20)

3.68

(1.05) 4.84**

19. I remind colleagues that our first priority is to deliver excellent services to our client (+)

4.72

(0.28)

3.68

(0.87) 5.24**

20. I am willing to make difficult decisions (+) 3.76

(1.38)

3.40

(0.88)

1.09 NS

21. I forgive others mistakes (+) 4.24

(0.72)

3.60

(0.74) 3.21**

22. I help colleagues to understand their own values (+) 4.64

(0.38)

3.64

(0.59) 7.07**

23. I work with colleagues on weekends if they need (+) 3.96

(1.08)

3.00

(0.80) 4.82**

24. I take responsibility for certain employees (-) (2.28

(1.24)

2.44

(0.66)

-0.44NS

25. I say this is worst place to work (-) 4.48

(0.76)

3.76

(1.14) 2.82*

26. I fail to promote strong norms to work hard among colleague (-)

4.76

(0.20)

3.60

(1.07) 5.43**


Table 7. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of intellectual stimulation and its dimension and also with the scale

(n=94)

Sl. No. Statements Intellectual stimulation

Transformational

Leadership scale

Factor loading

1. I express hopes about solution of problem (+) 0.52** 0.55** 0.44 NS

2. I break down the problem into smaller

components (+) 0.47** 0.48** 0.75

3. I encourage staff to generate alternative

solutions to the problem (+) 0.53** 0.56** 0.43 NS

4. I ask questions about the problem before

considering ways of solution (+) 0.37** 0.52** 0.34 NS

5. I stimulate colleagues to find new ways to solve

problems (+) 0.59** 0.59** 0.69

6. I hold discussion in groups to highlight

organization strengths (+) 0.59** 0.59** 0.46 NS

7. I create benchmarks for measuring progress of

work (+) 0.69** 0.68** 0.86

8. I prepare check list of solutions a problem (+) 0.69** 0.68** 0.76

9. I create trouble for others in solving problem (-)

0.37** 0.40** 0.68

10. I fail to find alternative solutions for targeted

problem (-) 0.61** 0.61** 0.77

11. I fail to involve outsiders in problem-solving

discussions (-) 0.46** 0.50** 0.43 NS

12. I allow one party to dominate the discussion of

a problem (-) 0.56** 0.56** 0.34 NS

13. I recommend others to follow procedures to

take decision (+) 0.43** 0.44** 0.37 NS

14. I conduct studies to identify successful

methods of extension (+) 0.52** 0.52** 0.39 NS

15. I try new approaches to accomplish our tasks

in target time (+) 0.68** 0.68** 0.77

16. I explore recent extension approaches (+) 0.68** 0.68** 0.80

17. I sponsor activities that help to develop new

ideas (+) 0.66** 0.66** 0.34 NS

18. I stimulate employees to visit each other’s

office to provide mutual feedback (+) 0.54** 0.54** 0.45 NS

19. I encourage others to look at problem from

different angles (+) 0.80** 0.80** 0.68

20. I suggest new ways to complete our

assignments (+) 0.80** 0.80** 0.72

21. I encourage thoughtful risk-taking (+) 0.57** 0.57** 0.70

22. I require others to solve problem quickly (-) 0.11 NS - -

23. I fail to find new ways to solve problems (-) 0.61** 0.80** 0.79



The results of Table 8 notified criterion groups’ t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between 2.37 and 7.46. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, all 12 statements were selected. Therefore, 12 statements were included in intellectual stimulation dimension.

4.1.14 Inter-correlations among the dimensions of transformational leadership

The results of Table 9 revealed the homogeneity of the scale. The inter-correlations among different dimensions of the scale had been found to be significantly high. The obtained correlation values indicated high construct validity of the scale. The correlation coefficients between the dimensions of transformational leadership scale ranged between 0.84 and 0.99 which indicated the unidimensionality of the scale.

4.1.15 Reliability

The reliability of the scale was established by split-half method and test-retest method administered on a sample of 40 extension personnel. The split-half coefficient was 0.91 and was significant at level 0.01. The transformational leadership scale internal consistency reliability

(Cronbach’s α) are provided for the total transformational leadership scale and four dimensions across two samples namely, 94 extension personnel from outside Karnataka State and 40 extension personnel inside the state indicated in Table 10.

The results revealed that the reliability score for extension personnel outside Karnataka State transformational leadership scale ranged from 0.79 to 0.93 and for extension personnel inside Karnataka State ranged from 0.64 to 0.90.

4.1.16 Content validity

In the present study, an attempt was made to develop the “transformational leadership scale at lower level of management” by behavior perspective. Each dimension is expressed in behavioral statements. The dimensions were intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and idealized influence. The dimension was expressed in 178 statements. Each behavioral statement was judged by 45 experts. The judges were requested first to read the operational definition of each attribute and then evaluate each statement on three alternative answers viz., not relevant, relevant and very relevant. The judges were also requested to make necessary modification, addition or deletion of statement/s. The level of relevancy of each statement and percentage of each statement confirm the content validity of the scale.

The degree of relevancy of each statement was calculated and it was between 68.29 and 100. The statements which had relevancy index above than 70% were selected. Out of 178 statements 174 were selected on criterion of highest perceived relevancy. The degree of relevancy of each selected statement was between 70 and 100.

4.1.17 Overall summary

On the whole transformational leadership scale, internal consistency was found to be more than 0.70, factorial validity for all the statements of each dimension was more than 0.50 and inter-dimensional homogeneity of four dimensions of transformational leadership scale correlated highly.


Kheng et al. (2013) defined innovative behavior as an employee’s action directed at the generation, application and implementation of novelty ideas, products, processes and methods to his or her job position, departmental unit, or organization. Examples of such behavior include seeking out new technologies, recommending new strategies to achieve goals, applying new work methods and procuring support and resources to implement novelty ideas.

Initially, there were 50 statements consisted of 28 positive and 22 negative statements. These were adjudged by 45 judges who were specialized in the field of education, management and extension education, for relevancy test of each statement. The relevancy index of each statement was ranged from 70.00 to 100.00.

Table 8. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of intellectual stimulation dimension

(n=94)

Sl. No.

Statements Gp (1) n=

25

Gp (2)

n= 25 t-value

1. I break down the problem into smaller components (+)

4. 52

(0.92)

3.60

(0.71) 4.12**

2. I stimulate people to find new ways of approaching problems (+)

4.88

(0.33)

3.68

(1.03) 5.36**

3. I create benchmarks for measuring progress of the problem solution (+)

4.52

(0.87)

3.20

(1.08) 6.67**

4. I create trouble for others in solving problem (-)

5.00

(0.00)

4.44

(1.08) 2.58*

5. I fail to find alternative solutions for target problem (-)

4.56

(1.12)

3.64

(1.32) 2.37*

6. I conduct studies to identify successful methods of extension (+)

4.80

0.41)

3.72

(0.68) 6.26**

7. I explore new extension approaches (+) 4.92

(0.28)

3.68

(0.85) 7.46**

8. I test new approaches for achieving objectives (+)

4.68

(0.48)

3.56

(0.87) 5.76**

9. I encourage others to look at problems from many different angles (+)

4.96

(0.20)

3.68

(0.80) 7.59**

10. I suggest new ways to complete our assignments (+)

4.84

(0.37)

3.72

(0.79) 6.72**

11. I encourage thoughtful risk-taking (+) 4.52

(0.77)

3.28

(0.94) 5.32**

12. I fail to provide opportunity to find new ways to solve problems (-)

5.00

(0.00)

3.72

(1.37) 4.67**


Table 9. Inter-correlations among the subscales of transformational leadership scale

(n=94)

Dimensions Intellectual stimulation

‘r’

Inspirational motivation

‘r’

Individualized consideration

‘r’

Idealized influence

‘r’

Intellectual stimulation dimension

Inspirational motivation dimension

0.98**

Individualized consideration dimension

0.98** 0.99**

Idealized influence dimension

0.98** 0.96** 0.97**


0.86** 0.90** 0.89** 0.84**

** Significant at 0.01 level

Table 10. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s αααα) of transformational leadership of extension personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state

Outside: (n=94), Inside: (n = 40)

Dimension Outside Inside Mean

Total Transformational leadership 0.93 0.90 0.91

Intellectual stimulation dimension 0.82 0.78 0.80

Inspirational motivation dimension 0.81 0.64 0.72

Individualized consideration dimension 0.83 0.70 0.76

Idealized influence dimension 0.79 0.72 0.75

The statements which had the relevancy index of 70.00 and above were selected. All statements were selected and relevancy index of each of the selected statements ranged between 70.00 and 100.00.

Out of 50 statements, 22 statements were “false-keyed” (reversely scored) while 28 statements were “true-keyed” (directly scored). Each statement was rated on 5 point scale (i.e. always/most of the times/sometimes/rarely/never).

Dimensions of scale Number of items

True-keyed False-keyed

1. Teaching role 14 8

2. Managerial role 14 14

Total 28 22

4.2.1 Sample for standardization of the scale

In order to determine the applicability and homogeneity of statements, the prepared schedule consisted of 50 statements were administered on 102 extension personnel of both State Department of Agriculture (SDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) by accidental meeting technique. Out of 102 extension personnel, only 99 had given responses to all the statements.

4.2.2 Selection of statements of the teaching role by coefficient of correlation

The data of 99 extension personnel of both Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) were subjected to correlation analysis and the results are presented as follows;

The results of Table 11 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statement of teaching role dimension. The coefficient of correlation of all 22 statements was significant at least at 0.05 level. The coefficients of correlation of these statements were ranged between 0.25 and 0.52. All the statements were retained in scale.

Similarly, the results of Table 11 demonstrated coefficient of correlation between each statement of teaching role dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 22 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statements ranged between 0.27 and 0.55. Therefore, all these 22 statements were selected for the teaching role dimension of innovative behavior scale for further analysis.

4.2.3 Selection of statements by factor analysis for teaching role


The results of the Table 11 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of teaching role dimension of innovative behavior. The results revealed the values of factor loading ranged from 0.19 to 0.88. The statements having factor loading 0.50 and above were selected for teaching role dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 17 statements were selected for teaching role dimension of innovative behavior scale for further analysis.


The results of Table 12 notified criterion groups’ t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between 0.60 and 7.35. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, out of 17 statements, 14 statements were selected. Therefore, 14 statements were included in teaching role dimension.

4.2.5 Selection of statements of the managerial role dimension by coefficient of correlation

The results of Table 13 exhibited coefficient of correlation of each statements of managerial role dimension. The coefficient of correlation of 28 were ranged between 0.25 and 0.68 the

Table 11. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of teaching role and its dimensions with also with the scale

(n=99)

Sl. No.

Statements Teaching

role

Innovative behavior

Scale

Factor loading

1. I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan (+)

0.51** 0.51** 0.67

2. I develop only short education plan (-) 0.36** 0.45** 0.60

3. I refuse accepting modern teaching methods (-) 0.38** 0.43** 0.45 NS

4. I promote recent practices which are profitable (+) 0.51** 0.51** 0.72

5. I use a single teaching method to change others attitude (-)

0.52** 0.52** 0.74

6. I link training with other outside experience (+) 0.33** 0.33** 0.72

7. For deliver single idea I apply demonstration (-) 0.25* 0.33** 0.29 NS

8. I focus only on positive outcome of teaching methods (-)

0.31** 0.31** 0.32 NS

9. I try to be with positive people (+) 0.38** 0.38** 0.88

10. I spend time to think how to improve education outcome (+)

0.38** 0.47** 0.56

11. I use traditional teaching methods (-) -0.44** 0.49** 0.51

12. I ask others to evaluate my work periodically (+) 0.38** 0.38** 0.65

13. I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective (-)

0.52** 0.55** 0.78

14. I use open questions to encourage new ideas (+) 0.34** 0.40** 0.56

15. I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention (+)

0.36** 0.36** 0.60

16. I generate original solutions for educating problems (+)

0.36** 0.36** 0.39 NS

17. I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks (-) 0.39** 0.43** 0.62

18. I use logical approach to convince others to accept recent practices (-)

-0.45** 0.27* 0.19 NS

19. I use drama as teaching method (+) -0.43** 0.35** 0.51

20. I tell funny stories to audience (+) -0.40** 0.35** 0.70

21. I use e-mail to seek consult from experts (+) 0.38** 0.38** 0.73

22. I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning (+) 0.38** 0.38** 0.67


Table 12. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of teaching role dimension

(n=99)

Sl. No.

Statements Higher group (26)

Lower group (26)

t- value

1. I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan (+)

4.76

(0.51)

4.03

(0.72) 3.87*

2. I develop only short education plan (-) 4.19

(1.02)

2.38

(1.23) 6.17**

3. I promote recent practices which are profitable (+) 4.80

(0.49)

3.92

(0.74) 4.73**

4. I use a single teaching method to change others attitude (-)

4.65

(0.56)

2.80

(1.32) 7.35**

5. I link training with other outside experience (+) 4.73

(0.60)

3.69

(0.97) 4.61**

6. I try to be with positive people (+) 4.03

(1.34

3.53

(1.10) 1.72NS

7. I spend time to think how to improve education outcome (+)

4.76

(0.43)

3.80

(1.02) 4.40**

8. I use traditional teaching methods (-) 3.34

(1.05)

2.61

(1.02) 2.81*

9. I ask others to evaluate my work periodically (+) 4.00

(1.13)

3.23

(1.03) 2.42*

10. I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective (-)

4.65

(0.62)

3.23

(1.03) 5.46**

11. I use open questions to encourage new ideas (+) 4.69

(0.47)

3.80

(0.98) 4.07**

12. I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention (+)

4.53

(0.70)

4.03

(0.95) 2.38*

13. I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks (-) 3.26

(1.21)

2.46

(0.90) 2.75*

14. I use drama as teaching method (+) 2.73

(1.18)

2.57

(1.39) 0.60NS

15. I tell funny stories to audience (+) -0.40** 0.35** 2.97*

16. I use e-mail to seek consult from experts (+) 0.38** 0.38** 1.65NS

17. I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning (+) 0.38** 0.38** 4.46**


Table 13. Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of managerial role with its dimensions and also with the scale

(n=99)

Sl. No.

Statements Managerial

role

Innovative behavior

Scale

Factor loading

1. I try one way to carry out the challenge task (-)

0.58** 0.42** 0.63

2. I ask critical questions to analyses situation (+)

0.25** 0.35** 0.47 NS

3. I select traditional techniques for data collection (-)

0.56** 0.49** 0.60

4. I ignore graphs in evaluation reports (-) 0.63** 0.43** 0.54

5. I apply classical techniques of problem analysis (-)

0.53** 0.54** 0.72

6. I use computer program to analyze data (+) 0.38** 0.37** 0.47 NS

7. I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives (+)

0.57** 0.55** 0.63

8. I follow outdated ways to execute tasks (-) 0.50** 0.49** 0.46 NS

9. I state the problem in a old way (-) 0.62** 0.52** 0.68

10. I formulate traditional objectives (-) 0.55** 0.52** 0.77

11. I adopt classical evaluation criteria (-) 0.68** 0.54** 0.75

12. I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan (+)

0.34** 0.32** 0.54

13. I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office (+)

0.37** 0.43** 0.59

14. I ignore to prepare contingency plans (-) 0.50** 0.43** 0.67

15. I translate goals into concrete work action plan (+)

0.36** 0.41** 0.46 NS

16. I break down the task into the smallest possible steps (+)

0.44** 0.33** 0.59

17. I gather only related information to the task on hand (-)

0.28** -0.25** 0.10 NS

18. I use single method for data collection (-) 0.48** 0.55** 0.62

19. I use traditional documentation approach during implementation (-)

0.50** 0.38** 0.76

20. I spend time to update my knowledge (+) 0.41** 0.33** 0.78

21. I take responsibility for my actions (+) 0.52** 0.55** 0.49 NS

22. I articulate my plan vision with enthusiasm (+)

0.34** 0.42** 0.44 NS

23. I try to master most management skills by trial and error method (+)

0.55** 0.28** 0.47 NS

24. I repeat mistakes (-) 0.53** 0.58** 0.68

25. I look at problem from single viewpoint (-) 0.65** 0.58** 0.75

26. I develop lot of alternative solutions (+) 0.49** 0.40** 0.76

27. I keep notebook to write ideas (+) 0.54** 0.32** 0.61

28. I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it (+)

0.51** 0.36** 0.56


statements were significant at least at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, 28 statements were selected. Therefore, these 28 statements were retained in the scale.

Similarly, the result of Table 13 demonstrated coefficient of correlation between each statement of managerial role dimension and the scale. The coefficient of correlation of all 28 statements, were significant at least at 0.05 level. These statements ranged between - 0.25 and 0.58. Therefore, all these 28 statements were selected for the managerial role dimension of innovative behavior scale for further analysis.

4.2.6 Selection of statements by factor analysis for managerial role


The result of the Table 13 exhibited the principal component analysis with varimax rotation and forced solution of managerial role dimension of innovative behavior. The result revealed the values of factor loading ranged from 0.10 to 0.78. The statements having highest factor loading 0.50 and above were selected under managerial role dimension. On the basis of this criterion, 20 statements were selected under managerial role dimension of innovative behavior scale for further analysis.


The results of Table 14 notified criterion groups’ t-values. The results denoted that the t-value of each statement was between 0.60 and 7.35. The statements having significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this criterion, out of 20 statements, 18 statements were selected. Therefore, 18 statements were included in managerial role dimension.

4.2.8 Inter-correlations among the dimensions of innovative behavior

The results of Table 15 revealed the homogeneity of the scale. The inter-correlations among different dimensions of the scale had been found to be significantly high. The obtained correlation values indicated high construct validity of the scale. The correlation coefficients between the dimensions of innovative behavior scale ranged between 0.49 and 0.91 which indicated the unidimensionality of the scale.

4.2.9 Reliability

The reliability of the scale was established by split-half method and test-retest method administered on a sample of 40 extension personnel. The split-half coefficient was 0.71 and was

significant at level 0.01. The innovative behavior scale internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) are provided for the total innovative behavior scale and two dimensions across two samples namely, 99 extension personnel from outside Karnataka State and 40 extension personnel with in the state indicated in Table 16.

The results revealed that the reliability score for extension personnel outside Karnataka State innovative behavior scale ranged from 0.68 to 0.82 and for extension personnel inside Karnataka State it ranged from 0.53 to 0.82.


In the present study, an attempt was made to develop the “innovative behavior scale” by behavior perspective. Each dimension is expressed in behavioral statements. The dimensions were teaching role and managerial role. The dimension was expressed in 50 statements. Each behavioral statement was judged by 45 experts. The judges were requested first to read the operational definition of each attribute and then evaluate each statement on three alternative answers viz., not relevant, relevant and very relevant. The judges were also requested to make necessary modification, addition or deletion of statement/s. The level of relevancy of each statement and percentage of each statement confirm the content validity of the scale.

The degree of relevancy of each statement was calculated and it was between 70.00 and 100. The statements which had relevancy index above than 70.00 % were selected. All the 50 statements were selected on criterion of highest perceived relevancy. The degree of relevancy of each selected statement was between 70.00 and 100.00.

Table 14. Criterion group’s t-value of each item of managerial role dimension

(n=99)

Sl. No.

Statements Higher group (26)

Lower group (26)

t- value

1. I try one way to carry out the challenge task (-) 3.46

(1.36) 2.84

(0.78) 2.68*

2. I select traditional techniques for data collection (-)

3.57 (0.98)

2.23 (0.95)

6.27**

3. I ignore graphs in evaluation reports (-) 4.69

(0.54)

3.07

(1.38) 5.49**

4. I apply classical techniques of problem analysis (-)

2.07 (1.16)

2.61 (0.94)

-1.71 NS

5. I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives (+)

4.7 (0.43)

3.84 (0.88)

4.62**

6. I state the problem in a old way (-) 4. 57

(1.13)

3.11

(1.42) 5.14**

7. I formulate traditional objectives (-) 4.34

(0.93) 2.92

(1.32) 5.01**

8. I adopt classical evaluation criteria (-) 2.50

(1.33) 2.53

(1.33) - 0.11 NS

9. I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan (+)

4.53 (0.70)

3.69 (0.88)

3.52*

10. I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office (+)

4.80 (0.40)

3.84 (1.04)

4.55**

11. I ignore to prepare contingency plans (-) 4.76

(0.58) 3.11

(1.50) 4.71**

12. I break down the task into the smallest possible steps (+)

4.65 (0.84)

4.03 (0.77)

2.47*

13. I use single method for data collection 4.23

(0.86) 2.92

(1.29) 3.73*

14. I use traditional documentation approach during implementation (-)

3.88 (0.86)

2.96 (1.11)

3.20*

15. I spend time to update my knowledge (+) 4.61

(0.63) 4.07

(0.97) 2.77*

16. I repeat mistakes (-) 4.69

(0.54) 3.46

(1.33) 4.32**

17. I look at problem from single viewpoint (-) 4.88

(0.43) 3.15

(1.34) 5.73**

18. I develop lot of alternative solutions (+) 4.92

(0.27) 3.61

(0.94) 6.87**

19. I keep notebook to write ideas (+) 4.65

(0.68)

3.76

(0.90) 3.72*

20. I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it (+)

4.69 (0.54)

3.65 (0.97)

4.61**


Table 15. Inter-correlations among the subscales for Innovative behavior scale

(n=99)

Dimension Teaching role

‘r’ Managerial role

‘r’

Teaching role dimension

Managerial role dimension 0.49**

Innovative behavior scale 0.91** 0.80**

** Significant at 0.01 level

Table 16: Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s αααα) associated with the innovative behavior score of extension personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state

Outside: (n=99), Inside: (n = 40)

Dimension Outside Inside Mean

Overall innovative behavior scale 0.82 0.82 0.82

Teaching role dimension 0.68 0.53 0.61

Managerial role dimension 0.79 0.77 0.78


On the whole innovative behavior scale internal consistency was found to be more than 0.70, factorial validity for all the statements of each dimension was more than 0.50 and ranged inter-dimensional homogeneity of two dimensions innovative behavior scale correlated highly.

4.3 Level of selected demographic characteristics of the extension personnel

Results presented in Table – 17 indicated the demographic characteristics of respondents.

4.3.1 Gender

The data in Table 17 and Fig. 1 revealed that 81.00 per cent of extension personnel were male the remaining 19.00 per cent were female.

4.3.2 Age

On the basis of chronological age, the respondents were classified into three groups as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 2.

It could be observed from the table that 48.00 per cent of the respondents were in middle age category, whereas less than one-third 28.50 per cent belonged to old age group and only 23. 50 per cent belonged to young age group. This indicates that 71.50 per cent of the respondents belonged to young and middle age group.

4.3.3 Education

The results presented in Table 17 and Fig. 3 indicated the respondents according to their level of education.

Of the 200 respondents more than one-third 34.50 per cent studied up to M. Sc. degree, followed by over one third 32.00 per cent who had studied up to B.Sc. degree, 31.00 per cent had Ph. D degree, 2.00 per cent per cent were belonged to Diploma and only 0.50 per cent had Ph. D + additional qualification/s.

4.3.4 Total experience

On the basis of total experience category, the respondents were classified into three groups as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 4.

It could be observed from the table that 59.50 per cent of the respondents were belonged to the medium category of total experience, whereas over one-fifth (23.00%) belonged to high category of total experience and only 17.50 per cent belonged to low category of total experience. This indicates that 82.50 per cent of the respondents had more than 4 years total experience.

4.3.5 In-service training

On the basis of in-service training category, the respondents were classified into three groups as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 5.

It could be observed from the table that 53.50 per cent of the respondents were belonged to the low category of in-service training, whereas over 38.00 per cent belonged to medium category of in-service training and only 8.50 per cent belonged to high category of in-service training. This indicates that 91.50 per cent of the respondents had received training for less than one month duration.

4.3.6 Information seeking behavior

On the basis of information seeking behavior category, the respondents were classified into three groups as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 6.

It could be observed from the table that majority 78.00 per cent of the respondents were belonged to the medium category of information seeking behavior, whereas 12.50 per cent belonged to high category of information seeking behavior and only 9.50 per cent belonged to low category of information seeking behavior. This indicates that 90.50 per cent of them belonged to medium and high category of information seeking behavior category.

Table 17. Level of selected demographic characteristics of the extension personnel

(n=200)

Sl. No.

Demographic characteristics UAS

(n=100) KSDA

(n=100) Overall (n=200)

1 Gender

Male 79 83 162

(81.00%)

Female 21 17 38

(19.00%) 2 Age (mean = 42.71) (SD= 10.88)

Young Below 35 14 33 47

(23.5.00%)

Middle 35 – 50 50 56 96

(48.00%)

Old Above 50 36 21 57

(28.50%) 3 Education

Diploma 0 4 4

(2.00%)

B.Sc. 5 59 64

(32.00%)

M. Sc. 33 36 69

(34.50%)

Ph. D 61 1 62

(31.00%)

Ph. D + Additional qualification 1 0 1

(0.50%)

4 Experience (mean = 14.76) (SD=10.78)

High > 25.54 29 17 46

(23.00%)

Medium 25.54 – 3.99 58 61 119

(59.50%)

Low < 3.99 13 22 35

(17.50%)

5 In-service Training (mean =45.86) (SD= 75.45)

High >121.31 1 16 17

(8.50%)

Medium 121.31-29.59 49 26 76

(38.00%)

Low <29.59 50 58 107

(53.50%)

6 Information seeking behavior (mean =12) (SD=2.11)

High >14.11 15 10 25

(12.50%)

Medium 9.89 – 14.11 77 74 151

(78.00%)

Low > 9.89 8 16 14

(9.50%)


The results of the Table 18 and Fig. 7 denoted frequency of respondents on the levels of transformational leadership. Among the respondents, 52.00 per cent were medium, 48.00 per cent were high, whereas none of the extension personnel was found low on transformational leadership.


The results of the Table 19 and Fig. 8 revealed frequency of respondents on the level of innovative behavior. Among the respondents, 73.50 per cent were medium, 26.50 per cent were high, whereas none of the extension personnel was found low on innovative behavior.


The results of the Table 20 and Fig. 9 denoted frequency of respondents on the level of job performance. Among the respondents, 66.00 per cent were high, 34.00 per cent were medium, whereas none of the extension personnel was found low on job performance.


The result of Table 21 and Fig. 10 connoted the score of respondents on transformational leadership dimensions.

On idealized influence dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 125.11 mean value, while KSDA had 118.45. The t-value (- 4.09) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and idealized influence dimension at 0.01 level.

With regard to individualized consideration dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 95.84 mean value. While KSDA had 91.98. The t-value (- 2.97) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and individualized consideration dimension at 0.01 level.

On inspirational motivation dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 96.30 mean value. While KSDA had 90.30. The t-value (- 5.2) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and idealized inspirational motivation at 0.01 level.

In relation to intellectual stimulation dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 48.76 mean value. While KSDA had 45.70. The t-value (- 4.35) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and intellectual stimulation dimension at 0.01 level.

On overall transformational leadership, extension personnel of UAS had 366 mean value. While KSDA had 346.6. The t-value (- 4.66) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and transformational leadership at 0.01 level.

4.8 Difference of extension personnel level on innovative behavior dimensions

The results of Table 22 and Fig. 11 connoted score of respondents on level of different extension personnel and innovative behavior dimensions by applying t- test.

In relation teaching role dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 54.28 mean value. While KSDA had 50.74. The t-value (- 5.21) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and teaching role dimension at 0.01 level.

Regarding to managerial role dimension, extension personnel of UAS had 70.85 mean value. KSDA had 65.21. The t-value (- 5.12) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and managerial role dimension at 0.01 level.

On overall innovative behavior, extension personnel of UAS had 125.03 mean value. While KSDA had 115.87. The t-value (- 5.61) indicated that there was significant difference between means of extension personnel and innovative behavior at 0.01 level.

Table 18. Level of transformational leadership among the extension personnel

(n=200)

Transformational leadership

Extension personnel Total

UAS KSDA

Low 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Medium 39

(39.00)

65

(65.00)

104

(52.00)

High 61

(61.00)

35

(35.00)

96

(48.00)

Grand total 100 100 200

The value between parentheses is percentage

Table 19. Level of innovative behavior among the extension personnel

(n=200)

Innovative behavior

Extension personnel

Total

UAS KSDA

Low 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Medium 62

(62.00)

85

(85.00)

147

(73.50)

High 38

(38.00)

15

(15.00)

53

(26.50)



Table 20. Level of job performance among the extension personnel

(n=200)

Job performance

Extension personnel

Total

UAS KSDA

Low 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Medium 31

(31.00)

37

(37.00)

68

(34.00)

High 69

(69.00)

63

(63.00)

132

(66.00)



Table 21. Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of transformational leadership

(n = 200)

Group II IC IM IS TL

KSDA 118.45

(12.30)

91.98

(10.94)

90.3

(8.84)

45.7

(5.43)

346.6

(33.86)

UAS 125.11

(10.47)

95.84

(7.94)

96.3

(8.57)

48.76

(4.83)

366

(28.43)

t-value -4.09** -2.97** -5.2** -4.35** -4.66**

** - Significant at 0.01 level. The value between parentheses is SD II- idealized influence IC- individualized consideration IM- inspirational motivation IS – intellectual stimulation TL- transformational leadership KSDA- Karnataka State Department of Agriculture UAS- University of Agricultural Sciences


An attempt was made in the present investigation to ascertain the relationship between selected independent variables with job performance. The findings in this regard were presented in Table 23 and given in Fig. 12.

The coefficient of correlation test computed for data indicated that out of 8 variables, 4 variables showed highly positive and significant relationship with job performance at 0.01 level. They were education, information seeking behavior, transformational leadership and innovative behavior.


Multivariate analysis of the selected independent variables of extension personnel and job performance is presented in Table 24 and Fig. 13.

The results of Table 24 revealed that the regression coefficient (R2 = 0.4069) of the selected independent variables of extension personnel namely; gender, age, education, experience, in-service training and innovative behavior were non-significant. Only, information seeking behavior and transformational were found to contribute significantly at 0.01 level of probability with the job performance of extension personnel.

Table 22. Difference of extension personnel on dimensions of innovative behavior

(n = 200)

Group TR MR IB

KSDA 50.74

(5) 65.21 (7.43)

115.87 (10.95)

UAS 54.28 (5.24)

70.85 (7.44)

125.03 (12.09)

t-value -5.21** -5.12** -5.61**

** Significant at 0.01 level. The value between parentheses is SD TR Teaching role MR Managerial role IB Innovative behavior

Table 23. Correlation coefficients between selected independent variables of the respondents and job performance

(n = 200)

Sl. No Independent variables Correlation coefficient ‘r’

1. Gender -0.05 NS

2. Age -0.09 NS

3. Education 0.23**

4. Experience -0.13 NS

5. In-service training -0.05 NS

6. Information seeking behavior 0.47**

7. Transformational leadership 0.57**

8. Innovative behavior 0.35**

** Significant at 0.01 level NS- Non significant

Table 24. Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

(n = 200)

Sl. No. Independent variables Regression coefficients ‘b’ ‘t’ value

1. (Constant) 29.35 4.13**

2. Gender -1.04 -0.88 NS

3. Age -0.02 -0.23 NS

4. Education 0.06 0.16 NS

5. Experience -0.06 -0.72 NS

6. In-service training 0.00 0.10 NS

7. Information seeking behavior 1.01 4.25**

8. Transformational leadership 0.12 6.55**

9. Innovative behavior -0.04 -0.84 NS

** Significant at 0.01 level R

2 = 0.4069

NS- Non significant

DISCUSSION The results of the present study are discussed and interpreted under the following

subheadings:



5.3 Demographic characteristics of the extension personnel



5.6 Level of extension personnel performance among extension personnel


5.8 Difference of extension personnel innovative behavior dimensions

5.9 Relationship between independent variables and job performance



Transformational leaders are those who stimulate and inspire followers to both achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity. Transformational leaders help followers grow and develop into leaders by responding to individual followers’ needs by empowering them and by aligning the objectives and goals of the individual followers, the leader, the group and the larger organization. Transformational leadership can move followers to exceed expected performance, as well as lead to high levels of follower satisfaction and commitment to the group and organization (Bass, 1985).

Transformational leadership scales focused on top managers in organization, rather than middle and lower level managers (Bryman, 1992). This contrasts with earlier leadership research, such as the Ohio State studies of the 1950s and 1960s, which focused on the styles of lower-level managers (Beverly and Robrt, 2001). Yukl (1998) argued that transformational leadership could be exhibited by anyone in the organization in any type of position and transformational leadership can occur in the day-to-day acts of ordinary people. Therefore, in the present study an attempt was made to develop “Transformational Leadership Scale” by attributes perspective at lower-level managers of extension personnel.

In the present study the idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation of Transformational Leadership (Bernard and Avolio, 1994) were adopted to develop transformational leadership scale by involving Stone et al. (2005) attributes of transformational leadership of each dimension namely integrity, respect, risk-sharing, trust, vision, empowering, listening, mentoring, personal attention, commitment to goals, communication, enthusiasm, modeling, problem-solving and rationality.

5.1.1 Operational definition

Idealized influence is the tendency of strong code of ethics, involve others in taking risk and build clear expectation of organization future.

Inspirational motivation is defined as potentiality to motivate and inspire extension personnel with commitment, enthusiasm and optimism.

Individualized consideration is defined as the ability to pay special attention to the need and problems of each individual of the group as well as provide empowering and mentoring.

Intellectual stimulation is defined as the capacity to help extension personnel to rethink in rational ways to examine a situation and encourage colleagues to be creative in their work.

5.1.2 Description of transformational leadership scale

The four dimensions of Transformational Leadership Scale are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Transformational

Leadership Scale consist of 90 statements designed to measure the frequency with which an individual experiences and expresses behavior of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. The statements were scored on a 5 point Likert scale namely always, most of time, sometimes, rarely and never.

5.1.3 Selection of items by factor analysis

The results of the Table 1 indicated that the factor loading with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.31 to 0.86, which identify each variable with a single factor and each factor would tend to have either a large or small loading of any particular variable. The result of factor loading categorically justify these 30 statements tend to measure a specific character of idealized influence.

The factor loading for individualized consideration Table 3 with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.22 to 0.87. The result of factor loading categorically justify these 24 statements tend to measure a specific character of individualized consideration.

The factor loading for inspirational motivation Table 5 with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.20 to 0.81. The result of factor loading categorically justify these 24 statements tend to measure a specific character of inspirational motivation.

The factor loading for intellectual Stimulation Table 7 with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.24 to 0.86. The result of factor loading categorically justify these 12 statements tend to measure a specific character of Intellectual Stimulation.

5.1.4 Reliability

The Transformational Leadership Scale was developed basically using the “Method of Rational Scaling”, which is based on two phenomenon; first, all statements of each dimension correlated particularly with the dimensions and second, all the statements correlated with the scale.

The method of rational scaling is methods that are based on internal consistency reliability (Gregory, 2004).

Internal consistency reliability represents the ratio of true score variance to total variance (Lord and Novick, 1986). Cronbach’s Alpha estimates almost always range from 0.00 to 1.00, though in particularly poorly assembled scales, the estimate may be negative. Thus, Cronbach’s Alpha estimation of 0.50 would indicate that 50 per cent of the variance associated with the scores of a scale is reliable. Typically, estimates of 0.70 are considered ‘acceptably high’ (Peterson, 1994).

The Transformational leadership scale internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) are provided for the total Transformational leadership scale and 4 dimensions across two samples namely 94 extension personnel outside Karnataka State and 40 extension personnel inside the state.

It can be observed from the content of Table 10 that total transformational leadership scale was associated with very high level of internal consistency reliability (i.e > 0.80) across two samples.

Overwhelmingly, the subscale score were also associated with respectable levels of internal consistency reliability. Specially, it can be seen in the far right columns of the (Table 10), the mean subscale reliabilities were all above 0.70 ranging from 0.72 to 0.91.

The subsequent reliability analyses are: statements dimension correlation and statement scale correlation. These represent the degree of relation between a given statement and the subscale and also between a given statement and the scale. As can be seen in Table 1, Table 3, Table 5 and Table 7, out of 174 statements, 173 statements were associated with its subscale and the scale with coefficient of correlation which ranged from 0.20 and 0.87, in Table 3 to Table 7 and significant at least at 0.05 level which was larger than the arguably acceptable minimum criterion of 0.20.

To support the internal consistency reliability of transformational leadership scale, the result of Table 9 clearly justified that each subscale was positively and significantly associated with other subscale and also the transformational leadership scale.

Overall, however it may be contended that the result associated with the internal consistency reliability of the transformational leadership scale was very respectable.


Content validity is obtained from three sources viz., literature, representative of the relevant populations and experts (Burns and Grove, 1993). Content validity is also known as ‘content related

validity’, ‘relevance validity’, ‘representative validity’ and ‘logical validity’. Content validity is subjective judgment of experts about the degree of relevancy of construct in an assessment instrument.

Content validity of the Transformational Leadership Scale would be justified from literature, representative of relevant populations and experts. The Transformational Leadership Scale conceptualization emerged through a comprehensive analysis of literature of transformational leaders to define characters of each dimension. Initial selection of statements of the Transformational Leadership Scale was based on the relevancy index of each statement in relation to its dimension constructs based on the judgment of experts. The content validity of Transformational Leadership Scale would be justified by the results of coefficient of correlation of each item in relation to its dimension and with scale. For these reasons, it is believed that the Transformational Leadership Scale is associated with a respectable level of content validity.

5.1.6 Discriminant validity

The criterion groups’ t-value analysis of 94 extension personnel, Table 2, Table 4, Table 6 and Table 8 confirmed that 90 statements of the scale had discriminative potentiality, which means that each statement discriminates between the group of the individuals who had developed transformational leadership to higher level and also had developed transformational leadership to the lower level. Hence, the scale had discriminant validity.

5.1.7 Factorial validity

In order to identify factors of Transformational Leadership Scale, the factor analysis was performed. The results of factor analysis (Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation) represented in the Table 1, Table 3, Table 5 and Table 7. All these statements of each dimension had factor loading 0.5 and above. Factorial loading that was obtained in the instrument considered to be acceptable.


The transformational leadership scale score were found to be associated with respectable levels of internal consistency reliability. Further, the reliability associated with the score of Transformational Leadership Scale can be justifiably said to associate with an appreciable amount of validity. The evidence of factorial validity and discriminant validity was reported in comprehensive manner.

5.2 Development of innovative behavior (IB) scale

Innovative behavior (IB) refers to behavior that encompasses either the generation or introduction of new ideas (either by oneself or adopted from others) and the realization or implementation of new ideas at work (Yuan and Woodman, 2010).

Most studies on the concept of innovative behavior theoretically distinguish several stages or dimensions, because the stages are argued to require different activities, behavior and skills of an employee (Scott and Bruce, 1994; De Jong, 2007). Scott and Bruce (1994) considered IWB to be a multi-stage process. Kanter (1988) identified innovative behavior (IB) with idea generation, coalition building and implementation. On the other hand, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) identified four dimensions: idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing and idea implementation.

There are alternative scales to measure innovative behavior (IB). Correspondingly, the most innovative behavior (IB) scales were focused on research and development disciplines and but not on agricultural extension.

Therefore, in the present study an attempt to develop scale to measure innovative behavior competence among extension personnel according to their teaching and managerial role.

5.2.1 Operational definition

Teaching role is defined as the ability to transfer knowledge and technologies by exploring, adjusting, or adopting new different ways of teaching methods.

Managerial role is defined as the capacity of planning and evaluating extension program by research, modification, adoption, or application of new alternative techniques of management.

5.2.2 Description of innovative behavior scale

Innovative behavior scale consist 32 statements designed to measure the frequency with which an individual experiences and expresses behavior of teaching role and managerial role. The statements were scored on a 5 point scale namely always, most of time, sometimes, rarely and never. The two dimensions of innovative behavior scale are teaching role and managerial role motivation.

5.2.3 Selection of items by factor analysis

The results presented in Table 13 indicated that the factor loading with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.19 to 0.73, which identify each variable with a single factor and each factor would tend to have either a large or small loading of any particular variable. The results of factor loading categorically justify that these 14 statements tend to measure a specific character of teaching role.

The factor loading for managerial role (Table 15) with Varimax rotation ranged from .10 to 0.78. The result of factor loading categorically justify these 18 statements tend to measure a specific character of managerial role.

5.2.4 Reliability

The Innovative Behavior Scale was developed basically using the “Method of Rational Scaling”, which is based on two phenomenon; first, all items of each dimension correlated particularly with the total of the dimension and second, all items correlated with the scale.

The Innovative Behavior Scale internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) are provided for the total Innovative Behavior Scale and 2 dimensions across two samples namely 99 extension personnel outside Karnataka State and 40 extension personnel inside the state.

As in Table 16, it can be observed that total Innovative Behavior Scale was associated with more than mediocre level of internal consistency reliability (i.e > 0.60) across two samples.

Overwhelmingly, the subscale score were also associated with respectable levels of internal consistency reliability. Specially, it can be seen in the far right columns of the table-16, the mean subscale reliabilities were all above 0.60 ranging from 0.61 to 0.82.

The subsequent reliability analyses are: statements dimension correlation and statement scale correlation. These represent the degree of relation between a given statements and the total subscale and also between a given statement and the scale. As can be seen in Table 11 and Table 13, each statement was associated with its subscale and scale with coefficient of correlation which ranged from 0.25 and 0.68. Table 11 to Table 13 and significant at least at 0.05 level which was larger than the arguably acceptable minimum criterion of 0.20.

To support the internal consistency reliability of Innovative Behavior Scale, the result of Table 15, clearly justified that each subscale was positively and significantly associated with other subscale and also the Innovative Behavior Scale.

Overall, however it may be contended that the result associated with the internal consistency reliability of the Innovative Behavior Scale was respectable.


Content validity of the Innovative Behavior Scale would be justified from literature, representative of relevant populations and experts. The Innovative Behavior Scale conceptualization emerged through a comprehensive analysis of literature of innovative behavior to define characters of each dimension. Initial selection of items of the Innovative Behavior Scale was based on the relevancy index of each item in relation to its dimension constructs based on the judgment of experts. The content validity of Innovative Behavior Scale would be justified by the results of coefficient of correlation of each item in relation to dimension and scale. For these reasons, it is believed that the Innovative Behavior Scale is associated with a respectable level of content validity.

5.2.6 Discriminant validity

The criterion group t-value analysis of 99 extension personnel, Table 12 and Table 14 confirmed that 32 statements of the scale had discriminative potentiality which means that each statement discriminates between the group of the individuals who had developed innovative behavior to higher level and also had developed innovative behavior to the lower level. Hence, the scale had discriminant validity.

5.2.7 Factorial validity

In order to identify factors of Innovative behavior Scale, the factor analysis was performed. The results of factor analysis (Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation) represented in the Table 11 and Table 13 revealed that all these items of each dimension had factor loading 0.50 and above. Factorial loading that was obtained in the instrument considered to be plausible.


The Innovative behavior Scale found to be associated with respectable levels of internal consistency reliability. Further, the Innovative Behavior Scale was associated with an appreciable amount factorial validity and discriminant validity.

5.3 Profile characteristics of extension personnel

5.3.1 Gender

The analysis of results presented in Table 17 and Fig. 1 indicated that the majority of respondents were male. It is evident from this results that the both KSDA and UAS were dominated by male. This may be because of the reason that the extension activities required more tours and visits. Also may be the social, cultural, logistical and policy constraints might have impede women from working as agricultural extension agents.

The above finding gets the support of the finding of Dunn (1995) who found that of the world's extension personnel, 15.00 per cent are women.

5.3.2 Age

It is seen from Table 17 and Fig. 2 that majority close to (half) of the respondents were in middle age category, whereas near to one third belonged to old age group and close to quarter belonged to young age group.

It is evident from the above results that the middle age (35-50 years) group was predominant in KSDA and UAS.

The probable reason for majority of the respondents to be in middle age might be because of only few recruitment have taken place in the recent years and most of the posts are vacant along with retirement of older staff. Because of less new recruitments, the number of respondents in young age category is less .This finding gets the support of findings of Mohan (2000) and Srinath (1987).

5.3.3 Education

The result of the Table 17 and revealed that 3 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel were qualification up to M. Sc., whereas 3 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel were qualification up to B.Sc., also 3 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel were qualification up to Ph.D. while only 1 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of were qualification up to Diploma + additional qualification.

The probable reasons for majority of the respondents under higher education category could be, their years of service and there personal need for getting early promotions and their economic condition might have contributed for the higher education. The findings indicated that the extension personnel had high qualification. This finding is line with the findings of Mohan (2000) and Girija et al. (1994).

5.3.4 Experience

The results in Table 17 and Fig .4 depicted that majority of the respondents have medium level of experience, while close to quarter and one-fifth of them were in high and low level of experience, respectively.

The reasons for this can be that most of the respondents under medium level are recruited in Karnataka State Department of Agriculture and University service during the establishment of universities or later with one or two years of its inception and availability of job placements during that period. Reasons to higher experience level might be their previous placements in T and V system, KVKs, research stations and colleges under UAS Bangalore prior to 1986. Reasons for low experience could be recruitment of the extension personnel in recent years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Male Female

Per

cen

tag

e

Gender

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 1: Distribution of respondents according to their gender

Fig 1 : Distribution of respondents according to their gender

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Young Middle Old

Per

cen

tag

e

Age

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 2: Distribution of respondents according to their age

Fig 2 : Distribution of respondents according to their age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Diploma B.Sc. M. Sc. Ph. D Ph. D+

Per

cen

tag

e

Education

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 3: Distribution of respondents according to their education

Fig 3 : Distribution of respondents according to their education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

High Medium Low

Per

cen

tag

e

Experience

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 4: Distribution of respondents according to their experience

Fig 4 : Distribution of respondents according to their experience

The findings gets support of the findings of Manjunath (2004), Mohan (2000) and Prasannakumar (1985).

5.3.5 Training

A cursory look at the Table 17 and Fig. 5 showed that more than 50.00 per cent of extension personnel belonged to low training category while 38.00 per cent and 8.50 per cent of them belonged to medium and high training category, respectively. But none of the extension personnel was found without receiving any training program.

Results showed that majority of respondents among the entire three categories i.e. overall, extension personnel have undergone training of duration 1 month. The results on the training received by the extension personnel could be interpreted in a way that because of technological advancement frequent trainings are needed. In order to enhance the efficiency of human resources and improve the capability of its staff members, KSDA and UAS are providing special attention by arranging various training programs and workshops.

It is also evident that most of the UAS extension personnel were taken special training programme. The KSDA is taking special efforts for extension personnel to enhance and update their skills so that they can perform diversified tasks and contribute agriculture development and productivity.

5.3.6 Information seeking behavior and job performance

The information seeking behavior of extension personnel is evident from the Table 17, which showed that majority of extension personnel belonged to the medium category of information seeking behavior.

This might be also because the extension personnel relied heavily on the mass media (TV, radio, journals, newspapers and internet) for information and keeping knowledge updated. On the other hand, extension personnel were more dependent on interpersonal interactions with in and outside the department superiors and friends.

This finding is in confirming with that of Siddaramaiah and Shivalingegowda (1997), Halkatti (1991) and Narasimhagowda (1989).

5.4 Level of transformational leadership of extension personnel

The results of Table 18 and Fig. 7 demonstrated that 6 to 7 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of UASs were high in transformational leadership. Whereas 3 to 4 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of KSDA were high in transformational leadership. It revealed that the transformational leadership among extension personnel of UASs is high compared to KSDA.

The reasons for this might be that majority (56.00%) of the UAS extension personnel have more than 14 years of tenure. Thus, Universities of Agricultural Sciences extension personnel become more professional, specialized, greater commitment to UAS organization and high level of technical expertise might contribute for the transformational leadership. Therefore, extension personnel become trusted and respected. These qualities form the introductory logical basis for transformational leadership. Moore and Rudd (2006) determined that experience in the extension service was a predictor of transformational leadership.

Educational background may be the other reason because the majority (94%) of UAS extension personnel were belong to M.Sc. and Ph.D. qualification, thus education level has significantly influenced self-perceptions related to transformational leadership.

Therefore, the extension personnel in university are closed to the transformational leadership, because they have long tenure and high level of education more than KSDA, thus the extension personnel in UAS are more skilled at solving-problems, understanding of various theories of motivation, purification and suspicions of corruption and has ability to leading change process this could contribute for transformational leadership.

The above findings are support the findings of Bradley (2009).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

High Medium Low

Perc

enta

ge

In-service training

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 5: Distribution of respondents according to their In-service Training

Fig 5 : Distribution of respondents according to their In-service Training

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

High Medium Low

Perc

en

tag

e

Information seeking behaviour

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 6: Distribution of respondents according to their Information seeking

Fig 6 : Distribution of respondents according to their Information seeking

behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low Medium High

Per

cen

tag

e

Transformational leadership

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 7: Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership

Fig 7 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Low Medium High

Per

cen

tag

e

Innovative behaviour

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 8: Distribution of respondents according to their level of innovative behavior

Fig 8 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of innovative behavior

5.5 Level of innovative behavior among extension personnel of UAS and KSDA

The results of the Table 19 and Fig. 8 revealed that 3 to 4 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of UASs were high in innovative behavior. Whereas 1 to 2 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of KSDA were high in innovative behavior. It confirmed that the innovative behavior among extension personnel of UASs is high compared to the personnel of KSDA.

The reasons for this might be that the UAS organizational environment is dynamic and flexible, which allows extension personnel to suggest programs, by thinking in alternative ways, finding new ways to accomplish task, looking for new technologies, applying new work methods and investigating and securing resources to make new ideas happen. These activities prorate finding the right question, enhancing observation, using analogies, juggling induction and deduction, changing point of view, broadening the perspective, dissecting the problem, leveraging serendipity and reversal, reorganization and combination of ideas, getting the most out of groups and breaking out of habitual expectations and frames. This creativity tools application forms the preliminary logical basis for innovative behavior among UAS extension personnel.

Other reason superiority of leadership style of UAS is the key factor of employees innovative behavior because leaders encourage extension personnel to develop new ideas and support them to apply new ideas and new ways to solve work-related problem. Beside, leaders establish specific goal to motivate colleagues to brain storm.

Also UAS organization is education organization it motivates an individual to develop their own competence, learning orientation as the individual's inner driving force, prompting the individual to seek challenge, looking forward to learn from the challenges and growth, to acquire new knowledge and skills, will help to upgrade their creativity. Thus, learning orientation employees will think of new ways and new approaches and apply it to solve problems encountered at work.

Other reason might be that, UAS organizations emphasis on support for innovation among extension personnel. This may have impact of cognitive features of individuals, such as problem-solving style or problem ownership of extension personnel.

The above findings are in line with Frese et al. (1999).

5.6 Level of job performance among the extension personnel

The results of the Table 20 and Fig. 9 revealed that 6 to 7 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel were high in job performance. It means that high job performance had existed in both but a tiny percentage was more in UAS.

The reason for such finding may be that educational level of extension personnel improves the professional attributes of extension personnel which help them perform modern farm practices. Further, in the present study more than 61.00 per cent of UAS extension personnel were educated up to Ph.D.

The other reason for such finding may be that high-ranking positions and advance payment install high competitiveness. Further, UAS extension personnel have equal chance for promotion.

The earlier studies of Mohan (2000), Siddaramaiah (1987) and Narasimhagowda (1989) also revealed that the majority of the officers rated themselves in high performance category.

5.7 Difference among extension personnel on dimensions of transformational leadership

The results of Table 21 and Fig. 10 connoted the scores of extension personnel on transformational leadership dimensions.

5.7.1 Idealized influence dimension

The results of Table 21 and Fig. 10 revealed that the idealized influence is high among UAS. This indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on idealized influence.

The reason for this can be that the majority 61.00 per cent of UAS extension personnel were in below 50 years, thus younger extension personnel were more inclined to take and share risks than

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low Medium High

Per

cen

tage

Job performance

KSAD UAS Overall

Fig. 9: Distribution of respondents according to their level of job performance

Fig 9 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of job performance

118.45

91.98 90.3 45.7

346.6

125.11

95.84 96.3

48.76

366

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Idealized influence Individualized consideration Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation Transformational leadership

Mea

n v

alu

es

Transformational leadership dimensions

UAS KSDA

Fig. 10: Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership dimensions

Fig 9 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of transformational leadership dimensions

older managers. Taking risks instead of maintaining the status quo is one of the characteristics of idealized influence of transformational leadership practice.

The other reason for this can be that UAS extension personnel behave in ways that result in their being role models for both KSAD extension personnel and farmers. The extension personnel are admired, respected and trusted among farmers community. He or she can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral conduct. Also extension personnel avoid using power for disseminating technologies.

5.7.2 Inspirational motivation dimension

The results of Table 21 and Fig. 10 revealed that the inspirational motivation level is high among UAS. This indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on inspirational motivation.

The reason for this can be that the Universities of Agricultural Sciences provide opportunities for extension personnel to serves as an administrative leader and coordinator for formulating, developing, implementing and evaluating agricultural extension programmes as well as develop state extension personnel and farmers. UAS extension personnel guides the extension education activities for state extension personnel or farmers as groups or individuals towards the purposeful pursuance of given objectives within a particular situation by means of extension communication methods. These communication skills making orientation forms the preliminary logical basis for inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership.

5.7.3 Intellectual stimulation dimension

The results of Table 21 and Fig. 10 revealed that the intellectual stimulation level is high among UAS. This indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on intellectual stimulation.

The reason for such finding may be that the high level of education of extension personnel of UAS stimulate them to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching old situations in new was. Further, in the present study more than 61.00 per cent of UAS extension personnel were Ph.D. holders.

The other reason for this can be that the Universities of Agricultural Sciences environment gives the extension personnel extensive freedom in deciding what may have be done to achieve organizational goals. Thus, UAS extension personnel strive to make idealized decision through diagnosis, set priorities and evaluation. This rational decision making orientation forms the preliminary logical basis for intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership.

5.7.4 Individualized consideration dimension

The results of Table 21 and Fig. 10 revealed that the individualized consideration level is high among UAS. This indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on individualized consideration.

The reason for this can be that the Universities of Agricultural Sciences culture build good relationship between extension personnel by showing appreciation and treating each employee as an individual and initiate an interest in the long-term development of each employee. That attracts the capable and motivated extension personnel needed by the universities.

The other reason for this can be that the Universities of Agricultural Sciences management style is that delegated the tasks are monitored and supervised if the followers need additional or support and the management have concern criteria to assess progress.

The above findings support the findings of Bradley (2009) found that college of agriculture deans, extension personnel and agricultural education teachers perceived that they were more transformational in their leadership style in contrast to transactional and laissez-faire. Within transformational leadership, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration received the highest scores.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Teaching role Managerial role Innovative behavior

Mea

n v

alu

es

Innovative behaviour dimensions

UAS KSDA

Fig. 11: Distribution of respondents according to their level of Innovative behavior dimensions

Fig 11 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of Innovative behavior dimensions

5.8 Difference of extension personnel on innovative behavior dimensions

The results of Table 22 and Fig. 11 connoted the scores of extension personnel on innovative behavior dimensions.

5.8.1 Teaching role dimension

On teaching role dimension, extension personnel of UAS had more mean value than extension personnel of KSDA, this indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on teaching role dimension.

The reason for such finding may be that the high level of information seeking behavior of US extension personnel. This behavior helps extension personnel explore the knowledge and technologies from alternatives sources. This includes the expectation to be flexible, reflective and willing to adapt, as well as to contribute to the development of innovative instructional environments. Further, in the present study more than 94.00 per cent of UAS extension personnel were belong up to medium information seeking behavior category.

The other reasons for such finding may be that the Universities of Agricultural Sciences environment is more participatory manner in which the extension personnel become the farmers’ partners who discuss the various options open to them to increase their income in sustainable way in their specific situation. This requires extension personnel who are much more competent to diagnose the situation of their farmers together with them and who are capable of taking new initiatives to develop new solution to these problems. Thus, Universities of Agricultural Sciences try to create encouraged environment to staff who willing and able to contribute as much possible to fulfilling organizational goals.

Thus, this nature of role required for an extension personnel who is able to transfer knowledge and technologies by exploration, adjustment, or adoption of new different ways of teaching methods.

5.8.2 Managerial role dimension

On managerial role dimension, extension personnel of UAS had more mean value than extension personnel of KSDA, this indicated that there was significant difference between extension personnel of UAS and KSAD on teaching role dimension.

The reason for such finding may be that the level of experience of extension personnel of UAS. This quality helps extension personnel face complex situations due to changing agricultural scenarios. Thus extension personnel in UAS organization have capacity for planning and evaluating extension program by search, modify, adopt, or apply new alternative techniques of management in effective transfer of technology. Further, in the present study more than 56.00 per cent of UAS extension personnel hade more than 14 years of experience.

5.9 Relationship between selected independent variables and job performance of extension personnel

The results presented in Table 23 and Fig. 12 revealed that out of 8 independent variables, 4 variables correlated significantly with job performance of extension personnel. These were education, information seeking behavior, transformational leadership and innovative behavior.

5.9.1 Education and job performance

It observed that education level of extension personnel had significant relationship with their job performance level

The reason for such finding may be that education qualification improves the professional competence of extension personnel which help them to perform their specific duties. Also extension personnel with higher educational status have good chance for promotion.

Further, in the present study more than 66.50 per cent of overall extension personnel were educated up to M.Sc. That is why education might have significant to exert influence on the performance of overall extension personnel.

-0.05

-0.09

0.23

-0.13

-0.05

0.47

0.57

0.35

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gender Age Education Experience In-service trainingInformation seeking behaviorTransformational leadershipInnovative behavior

Co

rrela

tion

co

effi

cien

t 'r

'

Job performance

Fig. 12: Correlation coefficients between selected independent variables of the respondents with their job performance

Fig 12 : Correlation coefficients between selected independent variables of the respondents with their job performance

Therefore, it may be concluded that the education and job performance are significantly related.

Similar findings were reported by Sridhar (1977) and Raddy (1976), but this finding was not in agreement with the findings of Halkatti (1991) and Sahay (1972).

5.9.2 Information seeking behavior and job performance

The results in Table 23 indicated positive significant relationship between information seeking behavior of extension personnel and their job performance, which implies that information seeking behavior promotes performance level of the extension personnel.

Information seeking behavior will tend to be in constant touch with new information. There by becoming aware of day to day problems as well as timely solutions to these problems. Which will contribute to job performance.

The present finding can be interpreted as supportive of the above assumption that information seeking behavior is positively related with job performance of the subjects. Certain other studies also highlighted this point of argument. For example, Halkatti (1991) depicted that information seeking behavior was significantly associated with job performance. Similar finding was also reported by shivalingegowda (1985).

Greater exposure of an individual to mass media such as radio, T.V., newspaper, internet and other help in seeking new ideas, different methods and techniques of approaching problems, proper utilization of natural resources including human talents for self-development as well to develop community at large.

Acquisition of such practical knowledge on various aspects of life problem develops confidence in the individual which in turn induce him to do his best in his assigned work. This fact could also be attributed as reason for better performance of their jobs by extension personnel who had greater exposure to mass media than those who utilized mass media to lesser extent. Further, in the present study more than 90.5 per cent of overall extension personnel had medium information seeking behavior level.

That is why information seeking behavior might have significant relationship with job performance of extension personnel.

Therefore, it may be concluded information seeking behavior and job performance are significantly related.

5.9.3 Transformational leadership and job performance

The results in Table 23 and Fig. 13 indicated positive significant association between transformational leadership of extension personnel and their of job performance.

The reason for such finding may be that the considerable percentage (48.00 %) of the respondents were belonged to high level on transformational leadership. Extension personnel with high level of the qualities of transformational leadership empowers to perform beyond expectations.

This finding was in concurrence with the findings of Agusthina et al. (2012), Min et al. (2012), Detert and Burris (2007) and Howell and Frost (1989).

5.9.4 Innovative behavior and job performance

The results in Table 23 indicated positive significant relationship between innovative behavior of extension personnel and their of job performance.

The reason for such finding may be that the majority of extension personnel (73.50%) belong to medium level on innovative behavior. Extension personnel with higher innovative behavior direct their attention to the task and are incited by challenges to make greater effort. Second, the innovative behavior allows extension personnel to think outside of the box. Finally, when a problem occurs, the optimist views it as a challenge and strives to solve it.

This finding was in concurrence with the findings of Yuan and Woodman (2010) and Miron et

al. (2004).

4.13

-0.88

-0.23

0.16-0.72

0.10

4.25

6.55

-0.84

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

't'

valu

e

Job performance

Fig. 13: Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

Fig 13 : Contribution of selected independent variables to job performance of extension personnel

5.9.5 Gender and job performance

The gender category of extension personnel and its two groups, namely UAS and KSDA did not show any significant relationship with their level of job performance. This might be because of reason that both men and women have equal opportunities in competitive high-ranking positions and payment. Further, both men and women have chance of developing their skills in extension work.

5.9.6 Age and job performance

The age level of extension personnel and its two categories, namely UAS and KSDA did not show any significant relationship with their level of job performance.

This might be because of reason that all age categories have equal opportunities in competitive high-ranking positions and payment. Further, all age categories have chance of developing their skills in extension work.

The results are in line with that of Halkatti (1991), Reddy (1986) and Talukdar (1984). However, the findings of Sundaraswamy (1987), Kherde (1972) and Saigaonkare and Patel (1970) were not in conformity with this finding.

Further, irrespective of their age, the extension personnel might have satisfied or dissatisfied with the type of job in UAS and KSDA. Also lack of proper permissive working atmosphere might have been felt equally by the both UAS and KSDA irrespective of their age and affected their job performance to the same extent. This might be the probable reason for non-significant relationship between age and performance of extension personnel.

5.9.7 Experience and job performance

The result of the study reveal there was no significant relationship between the length of service of extension personnel and job performance. Thus finding was in concurrence with the findings of Halkatti (1991), Jhansi (1985) and Talukdar (1984). But this finding was not in concurrence with the finding of Janaradhbana (1979) and Patil and Leagane (1968).

Even though experience is a great master but even that, to days problems are not same for tomorrow and organizational differences are there. Therefore, the experience is not panacea for all. Further, most people tend to partially satisfied in each need area and partially unsatisfied.

5.9.8 In-service training and job performance

The results in Table 23 indicated that there was no significant relationship between in-service of extension personnel and job performance.

This might be because of reason that the extension personnel have equal chance to attend training course for developing their skills and knowledge. Other reason might be because training programs are mainly conducted according to the general need of the extension organization. Also might be there are bias in nomination the right type of employee.

This finding was not in agreement with the findings of Jagero et al. (2012) who reported that there is a deep relationship between on the job training and employee performance.


Correlation coefficient test provides information about the nature of relationships between independent and dependent variable. Hence, it was felt essential to compute multiple regression analysis to determine the magnitude of influence of independent variables on the dependent variables.

In the present study, it was observed that the job performance of extension personnel had strong correlation with four out of eight independent variables in Table 23 and Fig. 12. Hence, further analysis was carried out to determine the contribution of all the 8 variables in predicting the job performance of extension personnel by opting to multiple regression analysis.

The data presented in Table 24 and Fig. 13, revealed that only two variables namely information seeking behavior and transformational leadership were found to be significant in expanding the variation in the job performance of extension personnel. Hence, these two variables could be trimmed as good predictors of extension personnel job performance. The coefficient of

determination R² = 0.4069 indicated that all the eight variables together explained 40.69 per cent variation in the job performance of extension personnel. This might be because of reason that we are taken 8 independent variables because of the shortage of researcher time. Therefore, I suggested for further variables.

The result is in line with that of Halkati (1991).

In view of the empirical evidences provided by the results of correlation and multiple regression analysis, the hypothesis set for the study that there is influence by transformational leadership and innovative behavior on extension personnel performance was accepted.

SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The present study was undertaken to know the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel with the following objectives.

1. To develop the scale to measure transformational leadership among extension personnel

2. To develop the scale to measure innovative behavior among extension personnel

3. To determine the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel

The present study was conducted in Dharwad district of Karnataka state during the years 2012-13. The research was an exploratory research design. The population for the study were extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and Bangalore and Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) in Dharwad district.

Out of four Universities of Agricultural Sciences and 19 districts in Karnataka State, two Universities of Agricultural Sciences and Dharwad district were selected purposively. Around 58.00 per cent of extension personnel were selected among the extension personnel by accidental meeting technique.

The sample comprised of 100 UAS and 100 Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel. The questionnaire booklet consisted of personal schedule, transformational leadership scale, innovative behavior scale and job performance scale was administered on the extension personnel of the UAS and Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA). The necessary instruction were given to the extension personnel on the mode of answering the statements and clarifications were made whenever the extension raised doubts while answering to each part of the questionnaire. They were given enough time to answer all parts. The time-taken by each extension personnel to give the responses to all the parts of the questionnaire was 30 - 50 minutes. The data was subjected to frequency, percentage, Kral Person correlation, factor analysis, criterion groups’ t-test and regression, to select statements, to know the status, to know the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative behavior of extension personnel and their job performance and to make a comparison between the level of extension personnel on transformational leadership and innovative behavior.

The major general inferences drawn from the study were as follows:


The transformational leadership scale consisted of four dimensions viz., idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. Which comprised of 90 statements. Selection of statements was based on coefficient of correlation, factor analysis and criterion groups’ t-test analysis. The split-half reliability of the inventory was 0.88 and was significant at 0.01 level. The Cronbach’sAlpha ratio was 0.93 and was considered ‘highly acceptable’. The scale had content validity and internal validity.


The innovative behavior scale consisted of two dimensions viz., teaching role and managerial role. Which comprised of 32 statements. Selection of statements was based on coefficient of correlation, factor analysis and criterion groups’ t-test analysis. The split-half reliability of the inventory was 0.71 and was significant at 0.01 level. The Cronbach’sAlpha ratio was 0.82 and was considered ‘highly acceptable’. The scale had content validity and internal validity.

6.3 Demographic characteristics of extension personnel

I. The sample of study comprised of male (81.00%) and female (19.00%).

II. Considerable percentage (48.00 %) of the respondents were belonged to middle age group, followed by 28.50 percent belonged to old age group and 23.50 per cent of them belonged to young age group.

III. More or less equal number of the respondents were having M. Sc. (34.50%) B.Sc. (32.00%) and Ph. D. (31.00%).

IV. Majority of respondents (59.50%) having medium category of total experience, while 23.00 and 17.50 per cent of them belong to high and low experience category, respectively.

V. Over 50.00 percentage of the respondents (53.50%) were having low level of training while 38.00 and 8.50 percent belonged to medium and high category of in-service training, respectively.

VI. Majority of the respondents (78.00%) belonged to the medium category of information seeking behavior, while 12.50 per cent belonged to the high category of information seeking behavior and 9.50 per cent of them belonged to the low category of information seeking behavior.


The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had high level of transformational leadership as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.


The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had high level of innovative behavior as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.


The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had high level of job performance as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.


I. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) extension personnel had higher in idealized influence dimension as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.

II. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had higher in individualized consideration dimension as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.

III. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had higher in inspirational motivation dimension as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.

IV. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had higher in intellectual stimulation dimension as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.


I. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had higher in teaching role as compared to Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.

II. The extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) had higher in managerial role as compared Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) extension personnel.


A positive and significant relationship existed between education, information seeking behavior, transformational leadership, innovative behavior and job performance of extension personnel.


The independents variables like information seeking behavior and transformational leadership had made highly positive significant contribution towards the job performance of extension personnel.

6.11 Implications of the present study

I. The scale developed to measure transformational leadership of extension personnel of both University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) and Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) in this study was found reliable and valid. The scale could be used to measure transformational leadership of extension personnel of various organizations.

II. The scale developed to measure innovative behavior of extension personnel of both University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) in this study was found reliable and valid. The scale could be used to measure the innovative behavior of extension personnel of various organizations.

III. The sample of study dominated by of male (81.00%). Therefore, the social, cultural, logistical and policy constraints may have to change to encourage women working as agricultural extension personnel.

IV. The findings revealed that 6 to 7 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of UASs were high in transformational leadership. So the extension personnel can be selected on the basis of leadership dynamics who can shoulder the responsibility of change orientation successfully.

V. Among the variables studied, education, information seeking behavior, transformational leadership and innovative behavior had significant association with the job performance of extension personnel. These variables are to be stressed and extension organization may select personnel possessing these attributes for better performance in implementing various programmes.

VI. It was found that training received by the Extension personnel did not influence their performance. This implies that there is a need for the reorientation of the training programmes considering the actual practical information requirement by the extension personnel.

VII. The results of the study implied that extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) found to possess lower level of qualities of innovative behavior. Therefore, appropriate innovative behavior trainings may have to be imparted to the KSDA extension personnel.

VIII. Performance appraisal of the extension personnel may have to be done on a regular basis for the both Department of Agriculture and University of Agricultural Sciences and the results as well as suggestions may have to be communicated to the employees to improve their performance.

IX. The results of the study implied that Transformational leadership and innovative behavior has high positive influence on job performance. Therefore, training and development programs for extension personnel may have to focus on developing these competences in them.

X. The idealized influence characteristic of transformational leadership which included integrity, respect, risk-sharing, trust and vision may have to be imbibed/ developed among extension personnel to enhance their job performance. The individualized consideration characteristic of transformational leadership which included empowering, listening, mentoring and personal attention may have to be developed/ inculcated among extension personnel to enhance their job performance.

XI. The Inspirational motivation characteristic of transformational leadership which included commitment to goals, communication, enthusiasm and modeling may have to be developed among extension personnel to enhance their job performance.

XII. The intellectual stimulation characteristic of transformational leadership which included problem-solving and rationality may have to be developed among extension personnel to enhance their job performance.

XIII. The teaching role of innovative behavior may have to be developed among extension personnel to enhance their job performance.

XIV. The managerial role of innovative behavior may have to be developed among extension personnel to enhance their job performance.

6.12 Recommendations

I. The study creates awareness among the programme planners, policy makers administrators and extension personnel about importance of transformational leadership and innovative behavior.

II. There is need for the development training of programs of in order to have more change towards positivity with respect to transformational leadership and innovative behavior.

6.13 Future line of research

I. The present study can be tested under different types of extension organization like NGOs and private to assess the status of transformational leadership or innovative behavior or both.

II. The scale developed and standardized for measuring innovative behavior of field extension personnel consisted two roles of extension personnel. Hence, the other roles need to be considering for further scale development.

III. As the independent variables considered in the study could jointly explain only 40.69 per cent variation in the job performance. The other important variables in this regard could be identified and used for further research.

REFERENCES

Agusthina Risambessy, Bambang Swasto, Armanu Thoyib and Endang Siti Astuti., 2012, The influence of Transformational leadership style, motivation, burnout towards job satisfaction and employee performance. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 2 (9) : 8833-8842.

Ali Hassan Obaid Khalil, Maimunah Ismail, Turiman Suandi, and Abu Daud Silong, 2008, extension worker as a leader to farmers : influence of extension leadership competencies and organizational commitment on extension workers’ performance in Yemen, The J. Intl. Soc. Res., 1(4) 368-387.

Amabile, T. M., 1996, Creativity in context, Boulder : Westview.

Anderson, N., De Drew, C. K. W. and Nijstad, B. A., 2004, The reutilization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. J. Organ. Behav., 25 : 147-173.

Andy Green., 2006, Effective personal communication skills for public relations. PR in practice Series Published by Kogan Page Limited, London, UK, 2006.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J. and Sivasubramaniam, N., 2003, Context and leadership : An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, J. Leadership Quart., 14 : 261-295.

Aqumaqu, A. C., 1995, Demographic and work experience characteristics of agricultural extension agents as determinants of their job satisfaction. Institute of Agricultural Research Development, Univ. Por. Hor. Nig. Agr. Res., 1(2) : 83-88.

Athanasaw, D. L., 2003, Leadership styles as perceived by career senior service executives. Intl. J. Public Admn., 26 : 1207-1236.

Atwater, P. M. H., 1992, Is There a Hell? Surprising Observations about the Near-Death Experience. J. Near-Death Stud., 10 : 149–160.

Avolio, B. J and Bass, B. M., 2004, Multifactor leadership questionnaire : third edition manual and sampler set, Redwood City, CA : Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M., 1988, Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds), Emerging leadership vitas. Lexington, MA : Lexington Books.

Avolio, B. J. and Bass. B. M., 2002, Developing potential across a full range of leadership : Cases on Transactional and Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ, US : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Avolio, B. J., B. M. Bass, and D. I. Jung, 1999, Re-examining the components of Transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol., 72(4) : 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., 1991, The Full Range of Leadership Development, Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton, NY.

Avolio, B., Waldman, D., and Einstein, W., 1988, Transformational leadership in a management game simulation : impacting the bottom line. Group Organ. Mngt., 13 (1) : 59-80.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson P. E and Harrington E., 2000, Shop floor innovation : Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. J. Occu. Organ. Psychol., 73 : 265-285.

Hartjes, B. J. G., 2010, Aligning employee competences with organizational innovation strategy. M. Sc. (MBA.) Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

Balasubramanian, S. and Perumal, G., 1991, Job performance of Fisheries Extension Personnel. Ind. J. Ext. Edu., 27 (1&2) : 41-46.

Bandura, A., 1982, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, J. American Psychologist, 37 : 122-147.

Bargal, D., 2000, The manager as leader. In R. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of social welfare management. Thousand Oaks, C. A : Sage.

Barling, J., Weber, T., and Kelloway, E. K., 1996, Effects of Transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes : A field experiment. J. Appl. Psychol., 81 : 827–832.

Barnett, K., Mccormick, J. and Conners, R., 2001, Transformational leadership in schools-panacea, placebo, or problem? J. Edu. Admn., 39 : 24-46.

Basadur, M., 2004, Leading others to think innovatively together : Creative leadership. J. Leadership Quart., 15 : 103-121.

Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J., 1989, Manual : The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J., 1990, The implications of Transactional and Transformational leadership for individual, team and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4 : 231-272.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J., 1993, Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1) : 112-121.

Bass, B. M., 1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York : The Free Press

Bass, B. M., 1990, Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership : Theory, research and applications (3

rd ed.). New York : Free Press.

Bass, B. M., 1996, A new paradigm of leadership : Aninquiry into Transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA : U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bass, B. M., 1997, Does the Transactional-Transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? J. American Psycbologist, 52 : 130-139.

Bass, B. M., 1998, Transformational leadership : Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J., 1990, The implications of Transactional and Transformational leadership for individual, team and organizational development. J. Res. Organ. Change Dev., 4 : 231-272.

Bass, B. M. and Riggio, R. E., 2006, Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. and Steidlmeier, P., 1999, Ethics, character and authentic Transformational leadership behavior. J. Leadership Quart., 10 : 181-217.

Bass, B., 1998, Transformational leadership : Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Basu, R. and Green, S. G., 1997, Leader-Member exchange and Transformational leadership : an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., 27 (6) : 477-499.

Becker, T. E., 1998, Integrity in organizations : Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. J. Acad. Mngt. Rev., 23 : 154–161.

Behling, O. and Mcfillen, J. M., 1996, A syncretical model of charismatic/Transformational leadership. J. Group Organ. Mngt., 2 : 163-191.

Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B., 1985, Leaders : The strategies for taking charge. New York : Harper and Row.

Bernard M. Bass, Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung and Yair Berson., 2003, Predicting unit performance by assessing Transformational and Transactional leadership, J. Appl. Psychol., 2 : 207–218.

Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio, 1994, improving organizational effectiveness through Transformational leadership, SAGE Publications, Inc.

Bharadwaj, S. P., Sharma, S. B. and Gaur, R. A., 1989, Job performance of rural agricultural extension officers in job. Maharashtra J. Extn. Edu., 8 : 269-270.

Bozeman, E., J. and Ellers, N., 2008, Pride and resoect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European J. Social Psychol., 38 : 159-172.

Bradley. C., Greiman, Timothy G., Larson, and Keith, R. Olander., 2007, Referred leadership style of agricultural education teachers : an expression of epistemological beliefs about youth leadership development. J. Agric. Edu., 48 : 93 – 105.

Bradley., 2009, Transformational leadership research in agricultural education : a synthesis of the literature. J. Agric. Edu., 48 (4) : 93 – 105.

Bromley, H. R. and Kirschner-Bromley V. A., 2007, Are You a Transformational leader? The Physician Executive, 33 : 54-58.

Brown, L. M. and Posner, B. Z., 2001, Exploring the relationship between learning and leadership. Leadership Organ. Dev. J., 22 : 274-280.

Burns, J. M., 1978, Leadership. New York : Harper and Row, Publishers. Business Dictionary. http : //www. businessdictionary. com

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. and Allen, J. S., 1995, Further assessments of Bass’s., 1985, conceptualization of transactional and Transformational leadership. J. Appl. Psychol., 80 : 468-478.

Chandna, P., and Krishan, 2009, Organizational commitment of information technology professionals : Role of transformational leadership and work related beliefs. Tecnia J. Mngt. Stud., 4 (1) : 1-13.

Chandargi, D. M., 1996, A study on leadership styles of extension workers Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Chekwa, E., 2001, Searching for African American Transformational leaders. Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences 4

th International Conference, Quebec City, Canada.

Manuscript available from the author.

Chen, J. and Silverthorne, C., 2008, The impact of locus of control on job stress, job performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan, Leadership and Organ Develop J., 7 : 572-582.

Chester, P. F., 2005, A call for visionary leadership. J. Extn., 43(1) : 1- 7.

Chhabra, U., 1979, Level of job satisfaction among the scientific workers of an I. C. A. R. institute. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Clover, W. H., 1989, Transformational leaders : Team performance, leadership ratings and first hand impressions. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ : Leadership Library of America.

Clutterbuck, D., 2004, Everyone needs a mentor : fostering talent in your organization. 4th. London : Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Coad, A. and Berry, A., 1998, Transformational leadership and learning orientation, Leadership and Organ. Dev. J., 19 : 164-172.

Costa, A. C., 2003, Work team trust and effectiveness. J. Personnel Rev., 32 : 605-622.

Cooper, A. W. & Graham, D. L., 2001, Competencies needed to be successful county agents and county supervisors. J. Extn., 39 (1) : 1-6.

Cummings, M. W., 1972, The Theory and Practice of Personnel Management, William Heineman Ltd.

Daft, R., 1994, Management, 3ed edn, Dryden Press, Orlando, Florida. USA.

Damanpour, F., 1991, Organizational innovation : A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Mngt. J., 34(3) : 555-590.

Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A. and Evan, W. M., 1989, The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. J. Mngt. Studies, 2 : 587-601.

Davis, K., 1949, Human Society, The McMillian Co. Ltd., New York.

De Jong, J. P. J., 2007, Individual innovation : The connection between leadership and employees' innovative work behavior. Paper provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in its series Scales Research Reports with number R200604.

De Jong, J. P. J. and Den Hartog, D. N., 2010, Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour, J. Creativity and Innovation Mngt., 19 : 23-36.

Deluga, R. J. and Souza, J., 1991, The effects of Transformational and transaction leadership style on the influencing behavior or subordinate police officers. J. Occupational Psychol., 64 : 49-55.

De Jong, J. P. J., 2006, Individual innovation : the connection between leadership and employees' innovative work behavior. Paper provided by EIM business and policy research in its series scales research reports with number R200604.

Den Hartog, D. D., Van Muijen, J. J. and Koopman, P., 1997, Transactional versus Transformational leadership : An analysis of the MLQ. J. Occu. Organ. Psychol., 70 : 19–34.

Detert, J. R. and Burris, E. R., 2007, Leadership behavior and employee voice : Is the door really open? Acad. Mngt. J., 50 : 869–884

Dhakore, K. M. and Bhilegoankar, M. G., 1987, Self-assessed levels of job performance of Veterinary Extension Personnel. Mah. J. Ext. Edu., 6 : 139-146.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E. and Spangler, W. D., 2004, Transformational leadership and team performance. J. Organ. Change Mngt., 17 : 177-193.

Dirks, K. T. and Skarlicki, D. P., 2004, Trust in leaders : Existing research and emerging issues. In Kramer, R. M. and Cook, K. S. (Eds.) Trust and Distrust in Organizations : Dilemmas and Approaches, 21-40. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.

Dirks, K. T., 2000, Trust in leadership and team performance : Evidence from NCAA basketball. J. Appl. Psychol., 85 : 1004-1012.

Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L., 2002, Trust in leadership : Meta-Analytic finding and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol., 87 : 611-628.

Dixon, D. L., 1998, The balanced CEO : A Transformational leader and a capable manager. Health Forum J., 41 : 26-29.

Dubrin, A. J. 2007, Leadership : research findings, practice and skills. New York : Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dunn, K. 1995. The busiest people in the world. Ceres, 27(4) : 48-52.

Dwivedi, R. S., 1982, Management of human resources : A behavioral approach to personnel. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Edward N. Drodge and Steven A. Murphy., 2002, Interrogating emotions in police leadership. J. Human Reso. Dev. Rev., 1 : 420 – 438.

Egri, C. P. and Herman, S., 2000, Leadership in the North American environment sector : values, leadership styles and context of environmental leaders and their organizations, The Acad. Mngt. J., 43 : 571-604.

Farr, J. and Ford, C., 1990, Individual innovation, in : West, M. and Farr, J. (Ed.), Managing Innovation, Sage, London.

Frese, M., Teng, E. and Wijnen, C. J. D., 1999, Helping to Improve Suggestion Systems : Predictors of Making Suggestions in Companies. J. Organ. Behaviour, 20 : 1139-1156.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E. and Hester, K., 2006, Promoting Felt Responsibility for Constructive Change and Proactive Behavior : Exploring Aspects of an Elaborated Model of Work Design, J. Organ. Behav., 27 : 1089-1120.

George, J. M., 2000, Emotions and Leadership : The Role of Emotional Intelligence. J. Human Relations, 53 : 1027-1055.

Gerhard Messmann, M. A., 2012, Facilitating vocational teachers’ innovative work behaviour : effects of social support and the mediating role of individual perceptions and motivation. Human Res. Dev. Intl., 15(1) : 43–59.

Girija, P. R., Shivmurthy, M. and Niranjan, B. S., 1994, Job satisfaction and job stress of agricultural graduates in Karnataka. J. Ext. Edu., 5 (4) : 946-954.

Government of Southern Australia, 2010, Health Respectful Behavior Policy http : //www. sahealth. sa. gov. au.

Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R., 1996, Understanding radical organizational change : Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. J. Acad. Mngt. Rev., 21 : 1022-1054

Gregory L. Rynders., 1999, Listening and leadership : a study on their relationship. http : //www. usfa. fema. gov.

Gregoy, R. J., 2004, psychological testing : history, principles and applications. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.

Hackman, M. Z. and Johnson, C. E., 2009, Leadership. A communication perspective (5th ed.). Long

Grove, IL : Waveland Press, Inc.

Halim, A. and Ali, M. M., 1997, Training and professional development. In B. E. Swanson and C. Garforth (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension : A reference manual (135-142). Rome, Italy : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Hegde, V. G. and Channegowda, M. B., 1989, Influence of personnel characteristics of agricultural assistants on their job performance. Ind. J. Ext. Edu., 25(3&4) : 100-102.

Handy, C., 1995, The age of paradox. Boston, Massachusetts : Harvard Business School Press.

Hegde, V. G., 1984, A study of job performance, job usefulness and job satisfaction of agricultural assistants in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Heidemann Lassen, A., Gertsen, F. and Ove Riis, J., 2006, The nexus of corporate entrepreneurship and radical innovation. J. Creativity and Innovation Mngt., 15 : 359-372.

Herold, D. M. Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. D. and Liu, Y., 2008, The effects of Transformational leadership and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change : A multi-Level study. J. Appl. Psychol., 93 : 346-357.

Hilde Hetland and Gro M. Sandal., 2003, Transformational leadership in Norway : Outcomes and personality correlates, European Journal Of Work And Organizational Psychology, 12 (2) : 147–170.

Hoffman, B. J and Frost, B. C., 2006, Multiple Intelligence of Transformational leaders : an empirical examination international. J. Manpower, 27 : 37-51.

Hoover, N. R., 1987, Transformational and transactional leadership : A test of the model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Howell. J. M. and Hall-Merenda, K E., 1999, The ties that bind : The impact of leader–member exchange, Transformational and transactional leadership and distance on predicting follower performance. J. Appl. Psychol., 84 : 680–694.

Howell, J. and C. Higgins., 1990, Champions of change : identifying, understanding and supporting champions of technological change. J. Organ. Dynamics, 19 : 40-55.

Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J., 1993, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation : Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance, J. Appl. Psychol., 78 : 891-902.

Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., 2001, Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion behavior : Key predictors of project performance. J. Product Innovation Mngt., 18 : 15-27.

Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M. and Higgins, C. A., 2005, Champions of product innovations : Defining, developing and validating a measure of champion behavior. J. Business Venturing, 20 : 641-661.

Howell, J. M. and Frost, P. J., 1989, A Laboratory study of charismatic leadership, organizational. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43 : 243–69.

Hunsaker, P. and Allessandra, A., 1986, The art of managing people. New York : Simon & Schuster Inc.

Hunt, D. M. and Michael, C., 1983, Mentorship : A career training and development tool. Academy of Mngt. J., 8 : 475-485.

Jahagirdar, K. A., 1987, A study of job involvement, organizational commitment and job satisfaction of subject matter specialists of in T and V system in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Jaiswal, P. K., Dubolia, S. R. and Sharma, P. N., 1997, Identification of problems and barriers of Rural Agricultural Extension Officers. Mah. J. Ext. Edu., 16 : 40-46.

Jamal, M., 1990, Relationship of Job stress and type-a behavior to employee’s job satisfaction, organizational commitment, Psychosomatic health problems and Turnover Motivation, Human Relations, 43 : 727-738.

Janssen, O., 2000, Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. J. Occu. Organ. Psychol., 73 : 287-302.

Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E. and West, M., 2004, The bright and dark side of individual and group innovation : A special issue introduction. J. Organ Behav., 25 : 129-145.

Jeroen P. J. De Jong and Deanne N. Den Hartog., 2008, Innovative work behavior : measurement and validation, scientific analysis of entrepreneurship and SMEs. http : //www. entrepreneurship-sme. eu

Jones, G. R., 2004, Organizational theory, design and change : text and cases, Upper Saddle River : Pearson.

Jones, G. R. and George, J. M., 1998, The experience and evolution of trust : Implications for cooperation and teamwork. J. The Acad. Mngt. Rev., 23 : 531-546.

Judge, T. A. and Piccolo, R. F., 2004, Transformational and transactional leadership : A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol., 89 : 755–768.

Kanter, R. M., 1988, When a thousand flowers bloom : structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. J. Res. Organ. Behav., 10 : 169-211.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L., 1978, The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York : John Wiley and Sons.

Kaurai P., 2011, Enormity of emotional intelligence in Indian banking sector. Sri Krishna Intl. Res. Edu. Consrt., 2 (1) : 2229-4104.

Kherde, R. L. and Sahay, BL. N., 1972, Role performance and role prediction of VLW’s in the new strategy of agricultural production. Indian J. Extn. Edu., 8 : 67-70

King, N. and Anderson, N., 2002, Managing innovation and change : A critical guide for organizations’. London : Thompson Learning

Kiran, T. R., 2007, Perception of organizational climate, M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Kirkpatrick, S. A. and Locke, E. A., 1996, Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol., 81 : 36-51.

Kirton, M. J., 2003, Adaption-Innovation : In the context of diversity and change. New York, NY : Routledge.

Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S., 1996, The challenge of innovation implementation. J. Acad. Mngt. Rev., 21 : 1055-1080.

Kleysen, R. F. and Street, C. T., 2001, Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. J. Intellectual Capital, 2 : 284-296.

Kotter, J. P., 1996, Leading change : Why transformation efforts fail. J. Harvard Business. Review, 2 : 59-67.

Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z., 1995, The leadership challenge. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z., 1987, The leadership challenge. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kram, K. E., 1985, Mentoring at work : Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

K-STATE., 2006, Confidential Document : Annual extension agent performance review. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.

Kuhnert, K. W., 1994, transforming leadership : developing people through delegation. In Northouse.

Kuhnert, K. W. and Lewis, P., 1987, Transactional and Transformational Leadership : A constructive developmental analysis, J. The Acad. Mngt. Rev., 12 : 648-657.

Ladewig, H. and ROHS, F. R., 2000, Southern extension leadership development : Leadership development for a learning organization. J. Extension 38(3). http : //www. joe. org

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D., 2000, The effects of Transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. J. Edu. Admn., 38 (2) : 112-129.

Leonard, D. and Swap, W., 2005, When sparks fly : harnessing the power of group creativity, Boston : Harvard Business Publishers.

Lindholm, J. A, 1997, Secondary school physical education teacher motivation : an application of personal investment theory. J. Teac. Phy. Edu., 16 (4) : 426-439.

Lipi das and Mishra, S. K., 1999, Job satisfaction of employed women. Mah. J. Ext. Edu., 18 : 172-177.

Lord and G. R. and Novick, M. R., 1968, Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. and Alliger, G., 1986, A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions : An application of validity generalization procedures. J. Appl. Psychol., 71 : 402-410.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. and Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996, Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership : A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. J. Leadership Quart., 7 : 385-425.

Maccoby, M., 2000, Narcissistic leaders : The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 78 : 68-77.

Maddy, D. J., Niemann, K., Lindquist, J., and Bateman, K., 2002, Core competencies for the cooperative extension system. retrieved from personnel and organizational development committee (PODC) of ECOP.

Manimegalon, M., 1990, A study on task and time management of Assistant Director of Agriculture working under NAEP in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Maute, M. and Locander, W., 1994, Innovation as a socio-political process : An empirical analysis of influence behavior among new product managers. J. Business Res., 30 : 161-174.

Mcloughlin, I. and Harris, M., 1997, Innovation, organizational change and technology. London : Thompson.

Mcneill, H. M., 1960, Analysis of factors used in formal appraisal of County Extension Personnel. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, DJ, Herscovitch, L and Topolnytsky, L., 2002, Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization : A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. J. Vocation. Behav., 61 : 20-52.

Miron, E., M. Erez and Naveh, E., 2004, Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality and efficiency compete or complement each other?, J. Organ. Behav., 25 : 175-199.

Min Z. Carter, Achilles A. Armenakis, Hubert S. Field And Kevin W. Mossholder, 2012, Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. J. Organiz. Behav. 10 (1002) : 1824.

Miron, E., Erez, M., and Naveh, E., 2004, Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? J. Organ. Behav., 25 : 175-199.

Mohan, B., 2000, A study on job performance and job satisfaction of assistant agricultural officers in northern districts of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Mohankumar, B., 1987, A study on achievement motivation of Assistant Agricultural Officers under NAEP in Bangalore and Mysore division of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Moore and Rudd., 2002, leadership in the cooperative extension system : an examination of leadership styles and skills of state directors and administrators. University of Florida.

Moore, L. L. and Rudd, R. D., 2006, Leadership styles of current extension leaders. J. Agric. Edu., 47 : 6-16.

Morrison, E. W. and Robinson, S., 1997, When employees feel betrayed : a model of how psychological contract violation develops. Acad. Mngt. J., 22 : 226-256.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. and Steers, R. M., 1982, Employee-organization linkages : the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York : Academic Press.

Mumford, M. D., 2000, Managing creative people : Strategies and tactics for innovation. J. Human Reso. Mngt. Rev., 10 : 313-351.

Nadin., 2012, Innovative work behavior : The roles of employee expectations and effects on job performance. Ph. D. Thesis, University of St. Gallen.

Nagi reddy, K., 1990, Job competence and job performance of Agricultural Officers in T and V system in Andhra Pradesh. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Nanus, B., 1992, Visionary leadership : Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francis-co : Jossey and Bass.

Narasimhagowda, 1989, Job perception, job satisfaction and job performance of Assistant Horticultural Officers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Nataraj, A. C., 1989, Job perception and job performance of Assistant Directors of Agriculture under NAEP. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Navid Hashemitaba and Ahdieh Sadat Khatavakhotan., 2011, Respect oriented leadership model (ROLM) : A new Transformational leadership style to conquer organizational obstacles. 2011 International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics. 25.

Niels Van Quaquebeke and Tilman Eckloff., 2009, Defining respectful leadership : What it is, how it can be measured and another glimpse at what it is related to. J. Business Ethics, http : //www. hdl. handle. net.

Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S. O., Randall, R. and Borg, V., 2008, Leadership style, work characteristics and well-being. J. Adv. Nurs., 63 : 465 – 475.

Niharika Garud and Lakshmanan Prasad, 2013, Role of Innovative Behavior and Bricolage in New Product Development Process within Hi-Tech Firms, Indian Institute of Management (IIMB), Bangalore, Working Paper No : 389.

Niti Singh and Venkat R. Krishnan, 2007, Transformational Leadership in India developing and validating a new scale using grounded theory approach. Intl. J. Cross Cultural Mngt., 7(2) : 219–236.

Noe, R. A., 1988, An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. J. Perso. Psychol., 41 : 457-479.

Northouse, P., 2004, Leadership : Theory and practice, (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A : Sage.

Olson, M. E., 2009, The “Millennials” : First year in practice. Nursing Outlook, 57(1) : 10-17.

Oxford, 1995, The advanced learner’s dictionary (8th ed.), Oxford Univ. Press.

Ozgen, E. and Baron, R. A., 2007, Social sources of information in opportunity recognition : Effects of mentors, industry networks and professional forums. J. Business Venturing, 22 : 174-192.

Parker, S. K., WIlliams, H. M. and Turner, N., 2006, Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. J. Appl. Psychol., 91 : 636-652.

Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., and A. M. Biondi., 1977, Guide to creative action, New York : Charles Scribner's Sons.

Patel, M. M., Dubey, M. C. and Sharma, H. O., 1994, Performance of Rural Agricultural Extension Officers. Mah. J, Extn. Edu., 8 : 31-33.

Pawar, B. S. and Eastman, K. K., 1997, The nature and implications of contextual influences on Transformational leadership : A conceptual examination. J. Acad. Mngt. Rev., 22 : 80–109.

Paxson, C. M., Howell, R. E., MichaeL, J. A. and Wong, S. K., 1993, Leadership development in extension. J. Extn. 31 (1) 1- 4. http : //www. joe. org.

Petersen, S. A. and Cordery, J. L., 2003, Trust, individualism and job characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork. The Intl. J. Human Reso. Mngt., 14 : 93-116.

Peterson, A. R., 1994, A meta-analysis of cronbach’s Alpha. J. Consumer Res., 21 : 381-391.

Pickett, L., 1998, Competencies and managerial effectiveness : Putting competencies to work. Public Personnel Mngt., 27(1) : 103-115.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R., 1990, Transformation-al leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1 : 107–142.

Prabhakar, H. R., Krishna, K. S., Jamuna, K. V. and Venketesh, Prasad, G., 1998, Role expectation and role performance of Horticultural Assistants. J Ext Edu., 9(4) : 2227-2231.

Prasankumar, M. V., 1985, A study on organizational commitment of extension personnel under T and V system. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Radhakrishna, R., Edgar, P. and Baggett, T, C., 1991, Time management and performance. J. Extn., 29 (2) 63-66. www. joe. org.

Rafik beekun., 2012, Effective leadership steps for strategy implementation in Islamic organizations. http : //www. theislamicworkplace. com.

Rahad, B. G., Ingle, P. O. and Supe, S. V., 1995, Job performance pattern of VEW’s of T and V and factors associated with it. Mah. J. Ext. Edu., 14 : 197-200.

Rai, S. and Sinha, 2000, Transformational leadership, organizational commitment and facilitating climate’. Psychol. Stud., 45 : 33-42.

Ramachandran, S. and Venkat R. Krishnan, 2009, Effect of transformational leadership on followers affective and normative commitment : Culture as moderator, Great Lakes Herald, 3 (1) : 23–38.

Ram Bahl, Swanson, B. E. and Farner, B. J., 1993, Role of female Extension Personnel in agricultural development. Ind. J. Ext. Edu., 29 (1&2) : 21-26.

Ramakrishna Rao., 1985, Task and time management by Assistant Agricultural Officers working under AEP in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore (India).

Rao, S. V. N. and Sohal, T. S., 1982, Performance appraisal of extension workers. Indian J. Extn. Edu., 18 (399) : 57-60

Rath, N. C., 1992, Job performance of subject matter specialists under T and V system in Orissa. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore (India).

Reddy, R. T., 1986, A study on select socio-psychological characteristics and organizational factors influencing productivity of village extension officers in T and V system of Andhra Pradesh. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

Robbins, S. P., 1996, Organizational behavior : concepts, controversies, applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Rogers, E. M., 1983, Diffusion of innovations. (3rd ed.). New York : Free Press.

Runco, M. A. and I. Chand., 1994, Problem finding, problem solving and creativity. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M. and Agnew, C. R., 1998, The investment model scale : measuring commitment level, satisfaction level. Quality of alternatives and investment size. J. Personal Relationships, 5 : 357-391.

Sandhu, N. S. and Raghbir, S., 1997, Factors affectingjob performance among the agricultural extension officers of the Punjab. J. Res. Pun. Agric. Univ., 15 (4) : 416-423.

Scandura, T. A. and Schriesheim, C. A., 1994, Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Acad. Mngt. J., 37 : 1588-1602.

Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A., 1994, Determinants of innovative behavior : A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Mngt. J., 38 : 1442-1465.

Sengupta, T., 1966, Developing job chart and rating scale for measuring effectiveness of VLW’s in IADP. Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

Shane, S., 1994, Are champions different from non-champions?. J. Business Venturing, 9 : 397-421.

Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J., 1999, Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, J. Entrepreneur. Theory and Practice, 23 : 11-27.

Shin, S. J. and Zhou, J., 2003, Transformational leadership, conservation and creativity : evidence from Korea. Acad. Mngt. J., 46 : 703-714.

Shriberg, A., Shriberg, D. and Kumari, R., 2005, Practicing leadership principles and applications. New York : John Wiley Publication. J. Extn.

Siddaramaiah, B. S. and Shivalingegowda, N. S., 1987, Job perception, job performance and job satisfaction of extension guides in the University extension system of Karnataka. Indian J. Extn. Edu., 23 : 48-50

Simons, T. L., 1999, Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for Transformational leadership. J. Organ. Change Mngt., 12 : 89-104.

Singer, M. S., 1985, Transformational versus transactional leadership : A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports, 57 : 143-146.

Sitaram Das and Chandan Kumar Sahoo, 2011, Employee empowerment : A strategy towards workplace commitment, European J. Business Mngt., 3 : 11.

Spotanski, D. R. and Carter, R. I., 1993, Self-evaluation of leadership practices and behaviors used by department executive officers in agricultural education. J. Agric. Edu., 34 : 17-25.

Spreitzer, G. M., 1996, Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Acad. Mngt. J., 39 : 483-504.

Srinath, R., 1987, Job analysis and time management in respect of district horticultural officers and assistant directors of horticulture in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis. Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Stone, A. Gregory, Patterson, and Kathleen, 2005, The history of leadership focus. http : //www. regent. edu. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, 1-23.

Stone, B. and Bieber, S., 1997, Competencies : A new language for our work. J. Extn., 35(4) : 45-49.

Subbarao, P. and Rao, V. S. P., 1990, Personnel human resource management : Text, cases of games. Konark Publishing Private Limited, New Delhi.

Sudeshna Basu Mukherjee and Anjali Ray, 2009, Innovative work behavior of managers : Implications regarding stressful challenges of modernized public- and private-sector organizations, Ind. Psychiatry J., 18(2) : 101–107.

Sunil V. Halkatti., 1991, A study on job performance and job attitude of agricultural assistants in T and V system of Karnataka State. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Sy, T, Cote, S. and Saavedra, R., 2005, The contagious leader : Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone and group process. J. Appl. Psychol., 90 : 295-305.

Sykes, W. D., 1995, County extension directors’ perceived behavior as a manager or leader as compared to county extension agents’ perception of CEDs’ behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Talukdar, R. K. and Laharia, S. N., 1986, Organizational health and productivity of Agricultural Development Officers in Haryana. Indian J. Extn. Edu., 22 : 1-8.

Terry, B. D. and Israel, G. D., 2004, Agent performance and customer satisfaction. J. Extn., 42 : 6.

Thippeswamaiah, J. M., 1991, A study on the job performance and job satisfaction of Subject Matter Specialists working under NAEP, Karnataka. M. Sc., (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A., 1986, The Transformational leader. New York, NY : Wiley.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K., 1997, Managing innovation : integrating technological, market and organizational change. Great Britain : John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Tiina Hautala., 2005, Impact of followers’ type on their expectations of leaders : An individual consideration in Transformational leadership, University Wasaensis.

United State legal Dictionary http : //definitions. uslegal. com/r/risk-sharing.

Van De Ven, A. H., 1986, Central problems in the management of innovation. J. Management Science, 32 : 590-607.

Venkateshprasad, G. and Hanumanthappa, H. S., 1992, Job performance of Seed Farm Managers. Ind. J. Ext. Edu., 28 (1&2) : 100-103.

Venkat Ratnam, C. S., 2006, Industrial Relations, New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 541-543.

Vijayalakshmi., 1997, A study on job performance level of Anganwadi workers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, IARI, New Delhi (India).

Vijayaragavan K. and Singh, G., 2006, Development oriented performance appraisal system to enhance productivity of extension professionals. The 22

nd Annual Conference

Proceedings. Clearwater Beach, Florida : AIAEE. 669-678.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., and Einstein, W. O., 1987, Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal process. J. Occ. Psychol., 60 : 177-186.

Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C. and Wilson, J. M., 1991, Empowered teams : creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity and participation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

West, M. A., and Farr, J. L., 1990, Innovation at work. In M. A. West and J. L. Farr (Eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work : Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Chichester, England : Wiley.

White, R. K. and Lippitt, R., 1960, Autocracy and democracy. New York : Harper and Brothers.

Yalnmarino, F. L., Spangler, W. D., and Dubinsky, A. J., 1994, Transformational and contingent reward leadership : Individual, dyad and group levels of analysis. J. Leadership Quart., 9 : 27-54.

Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M., 1990, Long-term forecasting of Transformational leadership and its effects among Naval officers : Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark and M. R. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership 151–169. West Orange, NY : Leadership Library of America.

Yeoh Khar Kheng and Rosli Mahmood., 2013, The Relationship between pro-innovation organizational climate, leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior : a study among the knowledge workers of the knowledge intensive business services in Malaysia, J. Business Mngt., Dynamics, 2 : 15-30.

Yuan, F. and Woodman, R. W., 2010, Innovative behavior in the workplace : the role of performance and image outcome expectations, Acad. Mngt. J., 53 (2) : 323-342.

Yukl, G. A., 2002, Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice

Hall.

Yukl, G., 1990, Skills for managers and leaders, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., 1998, Leadership in organizations, Fourth edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., 2006, Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson

Education, Inc.

Yukl, G., 2010, Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J., 1973, Innovations and organizations, New York : Wiley.

Appendix I: Interview Schedule

No: Ag.Extn / Ph.D Research/2012-13 Date: 14 - 05 - 2013

To,

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub: Request for filling the questionnaire …...reg

Mr. Mohamed Saad Ali, ID No - PGS10AGR5179. III year Ph.D. Scholar, has undertaken

research on “Impact of Transformational leadership & Innovative Behavior on Job Performance

of Extension Personnel’’ under Dr. L. Manjunath guidance. He has taken up a study on

organizational aspect of the University of Agricultural Sciences & Agriculture department. Considering

your vast experience in extension you have been selected as one of the respondents for the survey.

Here are a set of items which are believed to reflect some Personal and Psychological

attributes related to your Job and Organization. You are requested to be kind enough to spare some

time from your busy schedule of work to help us to complete the study in time.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, .

No: Ag.Extn / Ph.D Research/2012-13 Date: 14 - 05 - 2013 To,

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub: Request for providing information…...reg

Mr. Mohamed Saad Ali, ID No - PGS10AGR5179. III year Ph.D. (international student)

Scholar, has undertaken research on “Impact of Transformational leadership & Innovative

Behavior on Job Performance of Extension Personnel’’ under Dr. L. Manjunath guidance. As a

part of his research he has to collecting data for conducting final survey.

Therefore, I request you to help and arrange to conduct his survey in your institute.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

No: Ag.Extn / Ph.D Research/2012-13 Date: 14 - 05 - 2013 To,

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub: Request for accommodation…...reg

Mr. Mohamed Saad Ali, ID No - PGS10AGR5179. III year Ph.D. (international student)

Scholar, has undertaken research on “Impact of Transformational leadership & Innovative

Behavior on Job Performance of Extension Personnel’’ under Dr. L. Manjunath guidance. As a

part of his research he has to collecting data for conducting final survey.

Therefore, I request you to help and arrange to provide accommodation for him in your

institute.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

Dear respondent,

The purpose of the survey is to study “the Impact of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel”. The results will be made use of measuring the job performance of extension personnel. Please give information for to part A & B, honestly by reading instructions carefully. You can seek clarification for doubts from researcher, if needed.

Part – A Sl. No ( ) Date: ………………

1. Name ……………………………………………………..

2. Gender a. Male ( ) b. Female ( )

3. Age (completed years) ……………..

4. Education; a. B.Sc. ( ) b. M.Sc. ( ) c. Ph.D. ( ) d. Post doctor ( ) e. ( ) others specify ………………………………………..

5. Marital status a. Single ( ) b. Married ( ) c. others ( )

6. Place of work ……………………………………………….. 7. Designation………………………………………………….. 8. Experience …………………………………………………..

9. In-service training

Sl. No Name of the

training Name of the organization

Topic Year Duration

1

2

3

4

10. Information seeking behavior

R - Regular O - Occasional N – Never

Sl. No I. Mass media Frequency

R O N

1 News papers

2 Radio

3 Television

4 Magazine

5 Internet

6 Others

Sl. No II. Personal cosmopoliteness Frequency

R O N

1. Superiors in department

2. Superiors outside of department

3. Friend in department

11. Transformational Leadership Scale Statements

The following are the statements relating to your characteristics and behavior in day-today job life. Please read each statement and indicate your response by selecting any one of given 5 alternatives: Always (A), Most of the times (MT), Sometimes (ST), Rarely (R), Never (N), which more or less describes you and write a check mark (√) under appropriate column.

Don’t think too much about each statement, give the first answer that occurs to your mind. But at same time, don’t rush your responses or respond without giving due consideration to each statement. Please answer honestly.

Please don’t miss any statement.

Sl. No.

Statements A MT ST R N

1. I tell the truth

2. I get clarification from my supervisor about delegated work

3. I attend informal events that help to build team cohesiveness

4. I break down the problem into smaller components

5. I look for principle of ethics behind others decisions

6. I try to involve in assessment of training needs

7. I establish clear priorities

8. I stimulate colleagues to find new ways to solve problems

9. I fulfill what I have promised

10. I look for delegating to accomplish our target assignments

11. I offer assistance to colleagues before they requested

12. I create benchmarks for measuring progress of work

13. I present expenses of budget of extension program in an open way

14. I provide advices when requested

15. I work hard to achieve targeted extension program objectives

Sl. No.


16. I prepare check list of solutions a problem

17. I manipulate expenses of extension program illegally

18. I encourage colleagues to decide by themselves how do their assignments

19. I motivate team members to work hard to achieve our program objectives

20. I create trouble for others in solving problem

21. I make fun of others’ mistakes

22. I search for the resources needed to carry out our new tasks

23. I attempt to use organization facilities to achieve my personal benefits

24. I fail to find alternative solutions for targeted problem

25. I respect personal rights of my colleagues in workplace

26. I look into the eyes of speakers

27. I allow other to complete their presentation in meeting

28. I try new approaches to accomplish our tasks in target time

29. I appreciate colleagues hard works

30. I express positive facial expressions

31. I keep everyone on teamwork by commands

32. I complete my tasks in target time frame

33. I go to colleague to provide performance feedback

34. I ask questions to prompt further discussion

35. I use research results to solve extension method application problems

36. I encourage others to look at problem from different angles

37. I walk away when someone is talking to me

38. I listen to opposing views without expressing defensiveness

39. I am genuine about what other says

40. I try to involve colleague in all phases of strategic planning

41. I suggest new ways to complete our assignments

Sl. No


42. I blame others for their mistakes in public

43. I look at my watch when colleagues are speaking

44. I avoid to ask questions in meeting

45. I encourage thoughtful risk-taking

46. I avoid to present colleagues achievements at official meetings

47. I involve in official papers while others are speaking

48. I give ambiguous instructions

49. I fail to find new ways to solve problems

50. I inform other about all important matters that effect extension program

51. I devote time to train colleagues to improve their extension skills

52. I narrate topic/s in pleasant manner

53. I involve team members in decision making process

54. I aid others to acquire necessary knowledge

55. I establish clear standard of expected performance

56. I take decisions alone in team work

57. I avoid to criticize others when they try something new and fail

58. I demonstrate a passion for excellence in every aspect of work

59. I attempt to create big win in short time

60. I give others regular feedback about their performance

61. I vary tone to keep audience interest

62. I repeat same mistakes

63. I identifies long-term objectives

64. I encourage colleagues to search for relevant training courses

65. I read from slides when I present extension issue

Sl. No


66. I try to apply new technologies in all field demonstrations

67. I encourage colleagues to make presentations in meetings

68. I miss to develop short-time objectives

69. I fail to vary tone to keep audience interest

70. I express gratitude clearly even for small acts

71. I consider others as having different needs

72. I fail to help colleagues to solve problems

73. I remind colleagues that our first priority is to deliver excellent services to our client

74. I give colleagues up-dated information

75. I listen to colleagues with great courtesy

76. I forgive others mistakes

77. I try to discover training opportunities to improve other skills

78. I help others to clarify their private problems

79. I help colleagues to understand their own values

80. I keep personal conversation in confidence

81. I clearly describe expectation of future problems

82. I explore recent extension approaches

83. I work with colleagues on weekends if they need

84. I provide the information which all needed to accomplish colleagues tasks

85. I am careless towards colleagues work problems

86. I say this is worst place to work

87. I spread silly gossips about colleagues achievement

88. I care only about myself

89. I fail to promote strong norms to work hard among colleague

90. I try to make required resources available to accomplish team task

12. Innovative behavior scale

The following are the statements relating to your characteristics and behavior in day-today job

life. Please read each statement and indicate your response by selecting any one of given 5

alternatives: Always (A), Most of the times (MT), Sometimes (ST), Rarely (R), Never (N), which more

or less describes you and write a check mark (√) under appropriate column.

Don’t think too much about each statement, give the first answer that occurs to your mind. But

at same time, don’t rush your responses or respond without giving due consideration to each

statement. Please answer honestly.

Please don’t miss any statement.

Sl. No


1. I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan

2. I try only one way to carry out the challenging task

3. I develop only short education plan

4. I select traditional techniques for data collection

5. I promote recent practices which are profitable

6. I ignore graphs in evaluation reports

7. I use a single teaching method to change others attitude

8. I learn from others mistakes

9. I link training with other outside experience

10. I keep notebook to write ideas

11. I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives

12. I spend time to think how to improve training outcome

13. I state the problem in a old way

14. I use traditional teaching methods

15. I state traditional objectives in training program

16. I ask others to evaluate my work periodically

17. I develop lot of alternative solutions

18. I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective

19. I look at problem from single viewpoint

20. I use open questions to encourage new ideas

Sl. No


21. I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office

22. I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention

23. I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan

24. I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks

25. I ignore to prepare contingency plans

26. I select a challenging tasks that help me to learn from it

27. I break down the task into the smallest possible steps

28. I tell funny stories to audience

29. I use single method for data collection

30. I use traditional documentation approach during implementation of a program

31. I practice recent extension planning techniques

32. I spend time to update my knowledge

Part – B 13. Job performance scale

The following statements are relating to your job performance, please read each statement and

indicate your response by selecting any one of given 5 alternatives: Always (A), Most of the times

(MT), Sometimes (ST), Rarely (R), Never (N), which more or less describes you and write a check

mark (√ ) under appropriate column.

Please don’t miss any statement

SI. No Statements A MT ST R N

1. I study the situation and identify the problems

2. I involve in execution planning

3. I involve in teaching activities

4. I communicate technical information and knowledge

5. I involve in research activities

6. I involve in extensional activities

7. I utilize the organization properties judiciously

8. I assess the performance of work after completion

9. I do not report the problems faced during work to my superiors

10. I maintain all the prescribed records

11. I register all the prescribed records

12. I keep all the prescribed records up-to-date

13. I am not successful in getting support from my superiors

14. I attend official meetings regularly

15. I conduct research in my own field of specialization

16. I prepare research proposals

17. I am loyal to job

18. I am loyal to organization

19. I am capable in meeting the difficulties

Thank you very much for spending your valuable time on this task. I honestly assure to keep

your personal and professional information confidential and make use of the same for research

purpose only.

Yours sincerely,

(Saad Ali)

Appendix II: Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop Innovative Behavior Scale

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, BANGALORE

Dr. L. Manjunath Ph.D (Mass Communication &Journalism.), Ph.D (Agril. Extn.), FUWAI, FISEE, FASH, FSEE Dean (Agri)

College of Agriculture, Hassan Phone : 9035123092 e-mail [email protected]

No: Ag.Extn / Ph.D Research/2012-13 Date: 04 - 01 - 2013 Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop a Scale…...reg



of Extension Personnel’’ under my guidance. As a part of his research, he has to develop a scale of

Innovative Behavior. You are one of the respondents for the development of the scale. Each statement

describe your characteristic.

Your judgment is sought on five points continuum i.e., (A- Always; MT- Most of the times; ST-

Some times; R- Rarely; N- Never) to each statement.

Therefore, you are requested to read each statement and indicate your response by choosing one of

the alternatives which represents more or less your characteristic.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, (L. Manjunath) To,

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Innovative Behavior Scale Statements

Innovative behavior (IB) refers to behaviors that encompasses either the generation or introduction of

new ideas (either by oneself or adopted from others) and the realization or implementation of new

ideas at work.

Si. No

Innovative Behavior Scale, dimensions and Statements

Very relevant

Relevant Not so

relevant

Teaching role is defined as the ability to transfer knowledge and technologies by exploring, adjusting, or adopting new different ways of teaching methods.

1. I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan

2. I develop only short education plan

3. I refuse accepting modern teaching methods

4. I promote recent practices which are profitable

5. I use a single teaching method to change others attitude

6. I link training with other outside experience

7. For deliver single idea I apply demonstration

8. I focus only on positive outcome of teaching methods

9. I try to be with positive people

10. I spend time to think how to improve education outcome

11. I use traditional teaching methods

12. I ask others to evaluate my work periodically

13. I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective

14. I use open questions to encourage new ideas

15. I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention

16. I generate original solutions for educating problems

17. I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks

18. I use logical approach to convince others to accept recent practices

19. I use drama as teaching method

20. I tell funny stories to audience

21. I use e-mail to seek consult from experts

22. I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning

I. Managerial role is defined as the capacity of planning and evaluating extension program by research, modification, adoption, or application of new alternative techniques of management.

Very relevant

Relevant Not so

relevant

23. I try one way to carry out the challenge task

24. I ask critical questions to analyses situation

25. I select traditional techniques for data collection

26. I ignore graphs in evaluation reports

27. I apply classical techniques of problem analysis

28. I use computer program to analyze data

29. I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives

30. I follow outdated ways to execute tasks

31. I state the problem in a old way

32. I formulate traditional objectives

33. I adopt classical evaluation criteria

34. I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan

35. I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office

36. I ignore to prepare contingency plans

37. I translate goals into concrete work action plan

38. I break down the task into the smallest possible steps

39. I gather only related information to the task on hand

40. I use single method for data collection

41. I use traditional documentation approach during implementation

42. I spend time to update my knowledge

43. I take responsibility for my actions

44. I articulate my plan vision with enthusiasm

45. I try to master most management skills by trial and error method

46. I repeat mistakes

47. I look at problem from single viewpoint

48. I develop lot of alternative solutions

49. I keep notebook to write ideas

50. I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it

Appendix III: Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop Transformational leadership Scale

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, BANGALORE

Dr. L. Manjunath Ph.D (Mass Communication & Journalism.), Ph.D (Agril. Extn.), FUWAI, FISEE, FASH, FSEE Dean (Agri)

College of Agriculture, Hassan Phone : 9035123092 e-mail [email protected]

No: Ag.Extn / Ph.D Research/2012-13 Date: 04 - 01 - 2013 Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub: Request for Scientific Assistance to Develop a Scale…...reg



of Extension Personnel’’ under my guidance. As a part of his research, he has to develop a scale of

Transformational leadership. You are one of the respondents for the development of the scale. Each

statement describe your characteristic.

Your judgment is sought on five points continuum i.e., (A- Always; MT- Most of the times; ST-

Some times; R- Rarely; N- Never) to each statement.

Therefore, you are requested to read each statement and indicate your response by choosing one of

the alternatives which represents more or less your characteristic.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, (L. Manjunath) To,

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Operational Definitions of Transformational Leadership Dimensions and Statements

Transformational leadership involves a leader-follower exchange relationship in which the

followers feel trust, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and are motivated to do more than

originally expected (Bass, 1985)

A. Idealized Influence is demonstrate a strong code of ethics, involve others in taking risk,

and build clear expectation of organization future

1. Integrity is the tendency to exhibit ethical standards and be accountable for his decisions

Characteristics

a) Honesty

b) Commitment

c) Fairness

d) Consistency

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

1. I tell the truth

2. I look for principle of ethics behind others decisions

3. I fulfill what I have promised

4. I present expenses of budget of extension program in an open way

5. I demonstrate the same priorities that I describe

6. I manipulate expenses of extension program illegally

7. I make fun of others’ mistakes

8. I give attention to certain employees

9. I try to take credit of others achievements

10. I attempt to risk others to protect myself in work matters

2. Respect is the predisposition to be polite, promote extension workers achievements,

and avoid violation rights of others

Characteristics

a) Appreciation

b) Understanding

c) Professional

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

11. I make eye contact while speaking to others

12. I address staff members by their names

13. I respect personal rights of my colleagues in workplace

14. I appreciate colleagues hard works

15. I give equal chance to staff to speak in meeting

16. I arrive to work on time

17. I complete my tasks in target time frame

18. I walk away when someone is talking to me

19. I fail to keep extension personnel updated on latest information

20. I make decisions after problems become chronic

21. I show favoritism to certain colleagues

22. I blame others for their mistakes in public

23. I avoid to present colleagues achievements at official meetings

24. I dominate conversations with others

3. Risk-sharing is the ability to try new things, learn from mistakes, and involve in risk with members

Characteristics

a) Willing to take risk

b) Create small win

c) Transparency

d) Learn from mistakes

e) Participative

25. I tend to identify risks before starting project

26. I attempt to distribute impacts of risk between units

27. I inform other about all important matters that effect extension program

28. I clearly explain idea about risk impacts

29. I involve team members in decision making process

30. I encourage colleagues to expresses their opinion

31. I take decisions alone in team work

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

32. I attempt to create big win in short time

33. I repeat same mistakes

34. I try to apply new technologies in all field demonstrations

4. Trust is act as honest, sincere and share information

Characteristics

a) Honor

b) Sharing information

c) Developing others

35. I express gratitude clearly even for small acts

36. I give colleagues up-dated information

37. I try to discover training opportunities to improve other skills

38. I allow colleagues offering different points of view

39. I give equal training opportunities to all staff

40. I publish reports about unit performance

41. I keep personal conversation in confidence

42. I provide the information which all needed to accomplish colleagues tasks

43. I break work discipline

44. I try to hide details of annual budget

45. I try to limit other training opportunities

46. I attempt to cover my mistakes

47. I spread silly gossips about colleagues achievement

5. Vision is the capacity to provide clear ideal picture for the future of the extension services, develop strategic plan and engage extension workers in strategic decisions

Characteristics

a) Good communicator

b) Chief organizer

c) Strategic planner

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

48. I encourage colleagues to participate in the formulation of organization’s vision

49. I clearly describe expectation of future problems

50. I try to make required resources available to accomplish team task

51. I try to involve colleague in all phases of strategic planning

52. I identifies long-term objectives

53. I communicate vision of the future often

54. I develop annual plan for program activities

55. I provide opportunity for others to commit to the vision publicly

56. I guide others for making decisions

57. I clarify the roles that each staff member should play

58. I avoid build consensus for shared goals

59. I neglect to develop annual plan activities to extension workers

60. I fail to help colleagues to solve problems

61. I miss to develop short-time objectives

B. Individualized consideration is the ability to pay special attention to the needs and problems of each individual person as well as provides empowering, mentoring, and initiates new ways to solve problems

1. Empowering is the allowing extension workers to act and give them equal opportunity to learn and succeed

Characteristics

a) Delegate

b) Involved

c) Encourager

62. I involve others in making decisions that affect them

63. I get clarification from my supervisor about delegated work

64. I try to involve in assessment of training needs

65. I provide opportunities for staff members to involve in new tasks

66. I look for delegating to accomplish our target assignments

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

67. I try to remove unnecessary controls

68. I provide advices when requested

69. I encourage colleagues to decide by themselves how do their assignments

70. I fail to remove unnecessary controls

71. I search for the resources needed to carry out our new tasks

72. I attempt to forbid access to technical information

73. I delegate only when I am busy

2. Listening is the ability to give attention, asks appropriate questions and does not interrupt the speaker

Characteristics

a) Non-Verbal Behavior

b) Empathy

c) Summarizing

74. I look into the eyes of speakers

75. I express positive facial expressions

76. I ask questions to prompt further discussion

77. I make the speaker feel important

78. I summarize the progress of the conversation from time to time

79. I listen to opposing views without expressing defensiveness

80. I look at my watch when colleagues are speaking

81. I change the subject too quickly

82. I involve in official papers while others are speaking

83. I suggest solutions before the problem is fully explained

84. I forget other previous conversation

3. Mentoring is the ability to helps extension workers to grow and develop by sharing experiences and providing clear understanding of promotions process and requirements

Characteristics

a) Coaching

b) Counseling

c) Sponsorship

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

85. I devote time to train colleagues to improve their extension skills

86. I aid others to acquire necessary knowledge

87. I provide helpful career advice

88. I support extension workers in taking risks

89. I provide resources to extension personnel to try new ideas

90. I avoid to criticize others when they try something new and fail

91. I give others regular feedback about their performance

92. I encourage colleagues to search for relevant training courses

93. I encourage colleagues to make presentations in meetings

94. I exhibit a cold welcome to others

95. I criticize others work

96. I try to hide technical skills

4. Personal attention is act to be a friend, respect individual variations and dealing with employee problems

Characteristics

a) Friendly

b) Consideration

c) Empathy

97. I consider others as having different needs

98. I disclose personal information about myself

99. I tell jokes in informal discussions

100. I listen to colleagues with great courtesy

101. I ask extension workers about their individual interests

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

102. I help others to clarify their private problems

103. I express compassion toward others who have low performance

104. I remember others birthdays

105. I strive to help staff members to solve their private problems

106. I go to colleague to provide performance feedback

107. I fail to resolve grievances about extension personnel promotions

108. I am careless towards colleagues work problems

109. I fail to keep people informed about actions affecting them

110. I care only about myself

C. Inspirational motivation is the potentiality to motivate and inspire extension personnel by commitment with enthusiasm and optimism

1. Commitment to goals is that behavior which demonstrates loyalty and striving to achieve goals by seeking cooperation between staff

Characteristics

a) Loyal

b) Sacrifice

c) Planner

111. I attend informal events that help to build team cohesiveness

112. I assign specific task to others

113. I establish clear priorities

114. I offer assistance to colleagues before they requested

115. I build a common base of agreement in team before moving forward with task involvement

116. I set specific standards for task achievement

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

117. I try to resolve problems immediately which disrupt the work

118. I work hard to achieve targeted extension program objectives

119. I motivate team members to work hard to achieve our program objectives

120. I make extra effort to bring benefits for myself

121. I fail to resolve problems before disrupt our work

122. I arrive late to meeting

123. I attempt to use organization facilities to achieve my personal benefits

2. Communication is the ability to interpret and present clear and consistent idea through multiple channels

Characteristics

a) Listening

b) Clare

c) Organize

d) Sincere

124. I allow other to complete their presentation in meeting

125. I keep everyone on teamwork by commands

126. I use research results to solve extension method application problems

127. I am genuine about what other says

128. I ask questions to clarify idea

129. I use vague words to present my opinion

130. I avoid to ask questions in meeting

131. I give ambiguous instructions

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

3. Enthusiasm is the ability to exhibit passion and optimism through body language, voice, and words to build confidence and motivate the extension in worker

Characteristics

a) Using symbolic language

b) Positive communication style

c) Verbal and nonverbal expressiveness

132. I narrate topic/s in pleasant manner

133. I establish clear standard of expected performance

134. I demonstrate a passion for excellence in every aspect of work

135. I change facial expressions to correspond with the thoughts I am voicing

136. I vary tone to keep audience interest

137. I able to express unique stories

138. I encourage exceptionally high standards of performance

139. I tell boring story when I present extension plan

140. I read from slides when I present extension issue

141. I fail to vary tone to keep audience interest

142. I fail to energize staff members to do their best level

4. Modeling is act with integrity, exhibit faith in principles, have courage to navigate difficult situations and make tough decisions

Characteristics a) Clarify values

b) Set the example

143. I help others know how to work through their achievement

144. I remind colleagues that our first priority is to deliver excellent services to our client

145. I am willing to make difficult decisions

146. I forgive others mistakes

147. I help colleagues to understand their own values

148. I seek unanimity around shared values

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

149. I lead discussion about values in the orientation of new members

150. I work with colleagues on weekends if they need

151. I take responsibility for certain employees

152. I try to hide real reasons of decisions

153. I punish subordinates when they fail to accomplish their task

154. I say this is worst place to work

155. I fail to promote strong norms to work hard among colleague

D. Intellectual stimulation is the capacity to help extension workers to rethink in rational ways to examine a situation and encourages followers to be creative in their work and achievement of project

1. Problem solving is the capacity to make logical decisions and initiates new ways to provides solutions for both individual and organizational problems

Characteristics

a) Ask question

b) Flexible

c) Optimistic

156. I express hopes about solution of problem

157. I break down the problem into smaller components

158. I encourage staff to generate alternative solutions to the problem

159. I ask questions about the problem before considering ways of solution

160. I stimulate colleagues to find new ways to solve problems

161. I hold discussion in groups to highlight organization strengths

162. I create benchmarks for measuring progress of work

163. I prepare check list of solutions a problem

164. I create trouble for others in solving problem

165. I fail to find alternative solutions for targeted problem

166. I fail to involve outsiders in problem-solving discussions

Statements

Relevancy

Very relevant

Relevant Not

relevant

2. Rationality is the skill to demonstrate analytical skill, follow procedures in taking decision or solving problem and provide reasonable evidence

Characteristics

a) Collection of information

b) Analyzer

c) Follow procedures

167. I allow one party to dominate the discussion of a problem

168. I recommend others to follow procedures to take decision

169. I conduct studies to identify successful methods of extension

170. I try new approaches to accomplish our tasks in target time

171. I explore recent extension approaches

172. I sponsor activities that help to develop new ideas

173. I stimulate employees to visit each other’s office to provide mutual feedback

174. I encourage others to look at problem from different angles

175. I suggest new ways to complete our assignments

176. I encourage thoughtful risk-taking

177. I require others to solve problem quickly

178. I fail to find new ways to solve problems

THE IMPACT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR ON JOB PERFORMANCE OF

EXTENSION PERSONNEL

MOHAMED SAAD ALI 2013 Dr. L. MANJUNATH Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

A study was taken up with the objectives to develop transformational leadership scale, innovative behavior scale and also to determine the influence of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension personnel. The sample consisted of 100 KSDA extension personnel and 100 UAS extension personnel who were selected by accidental meeting technique. The scales developed to measure the Transformational Leadership and Innovative behavior of both extension personnel of University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) and Karnataka State Department of Agriculture (KSDA) in this study were found reliable and valid.

The questionnaire consisted of bio data schedule, transformational leadership scale, innovative behavior scale and job performance scale which were administrated on the sample through personal contact. The analysis of correlation, test, regression analysis and factor analysis were made use of for analysis of the data.

The results revealed that the 6 to 7 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of UAS were high in transformational leadership, whereas 3 to 4 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of KSDA were high in transformational leadership. While, 3 to 4 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of UAS were high in innovative behavior, whereas 1 to 2 extension personnel out of 10 extension personnel of KSDA were high in innovative behavior. The majority (66.00%) of the extension personnel of both the categories belonged to high performance category. The variables education, information seeking behavior, transformational leadership and innovative behavior correlated significantly with job performance of extension personnel. Only two variables namely information seeking behavior and transformational leadership were found to be significant in explaining the variation in the job performance of extension personnel.

the impact of transformational leadership and innovative behavior on job performance of extension

Documents