Case Study

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences

5(1): 120-127, January-February (2014)
ISSN: 0976-1675

https:// www.rjas.info

DI: 1374-0407-2013-029

A Scale to Measure the Transformational Leadership of Extension Personnel at

Lower Level of Management
M Saad Ali, L Manjunath and V S Yadav
Department of Agricultural Extension Education,
College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, Karnataka, India
e-mail: biyumi2000@yahoo.com
Received: 04 July 2013; Revised accepted: 31 December 2013

ABSTRACT
A study developed transformational leadership scale of extension personnel at lower level of management was
undertaken during 2012-2013 in Dharwad district of Karnataka, India. Initially, there were 178 statements
converting the four dimensions of transformational leadership were constructed. Each behavioral statement was
judged by 45 experts. The selected 174 statements were administered on 109 extension personnel of both State
Agriculture Department (SAD) and University of Agriculture and Sciences (UAS) by accident as meeting technique.
Schedule was used for collection of information for developing Transformational Leadership Scale from extension
personnel. The each statement of the scale was selected by applying several statistical methods presented. The
results of the study revealed that 90 statements constructed the Transformational Leadership Scale. Further,
Transformational Leadership Scale established through applied both validity and reliability methods on the scale.
Key words: Transformational leadership, Extension personnel, Scale, Measure, Lower level of management
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. More evidence has accumulated to
demonstrate that 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). The most widely used
of these is the Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory (TLI) (Podsakoff et al. 1990). This instrument
measures four key dimensions of transformational
leadership. The first dimension captures the core
transformational leadership behavior, which includes
developing and articulating a vision, providing a positive
role model and motivating employees to look beyond their
self-interest for the good of the group. The remaining three
dimensions
measure
the
leaders
individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and high expectations
for performance. The TLI has been used in various forms in
research by (Podsakoff et al. 1990) and his colleagues and
by others. Burke (1994) used his Leadership Assessment
Inventory (LAI) to measure transformational and
transactional leadership for some time. Unfortunately, this

instrument is now difficult to obtain and rarely used in

research.
As well, the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire
(TLQ) is a relatively new instrument that measures nine
factors associated with transformational leaders and is
specifically designed for use in public sector organizations
in the United Kingdom (Alban-Metcalfe and AlimoMetcalfe 2000). The TLQ has eight scales, labeled Genuine
Concern for Others, Decisiveness, Determination, SelfConfidence, Integrity, Trustworthy, Honest and Open,
Empowers, Develops Potential, Inspirational Networker and
Promoter, Accessible, Approachable, Clarifies Boundaries,
Involves Others in Decisions, Encourages Critical and
Strategic Thinking. Like the MLQ, the TLQ is completed by
the managers direct reports. Initial validation studies for the
TLQ have been completed. As can be seen, there is
conceptual similarity between the TLQ and MLQ.
Furthermore, Carless et al. (2000) developed a short
measure of transformational leadership, the Global
Transformational Leadership scale (GTL). This seven-item
scale assesses a single, global construct of transformational
leadership. Another new alternative measure of
transformational leadership was developed by Rafferty and
Griffin (2004), based on leadership measures created by
House (1998), Podsakoff et al. (1990). This 15-item rating
scale measures the transformational leaders vision,
inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation,
120

Ali et al.
supportive leadership, and personal recognition. The authors
claim that these components provide a better factor structure
than the MLQ. Likewise, Behling and McFillen (1996)
created two measures, the Follower Belief Questionnaire
and the Attributes of Leader Behavior Questionnaire that are
follower reports of their leaders transformational/
charismatic leadership. Subscales include inspiration, awe,
empowerment, dis-plays empathy, dramatizes mission,
projects self-assurance, enhances image, assures followers
of competence, and provides opportunities to experience
success. It is easy to see how these dimensions map onto the
components of transformational leadership. This measure
has not been widely used in research.
From previous review there have been alternative
measures developed to assess transformational leadership.
Correspondingly the most 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. Yukl (1998) that argued
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 present study the four dimensions of
Transformational Leadership according to Bass and Avolio
(1994) were adopted to develop transformational leadership
scale by considering Stone and Patterson (2005) attributes
transformational leadership of each dimension namely
integrity, respect, risk-sharing, trust, vision, empowering,
listening, mentoring, personal attention, commitment to
goals, communication, enthusiasm, modeling, problemsolving and rationality. Much of the work on
transformational leadership theory distinguishes between
various dimensions. The most famous dimensions were four
Is which developed by Bass and Alvolio (1994) which
are:
Idealized influence is ability to articulate clearly a
vision, display very high moral standards and do the right
thing (Yukl 1998, Bass and Avolio 2002, Northouse 2001).
Therefore idealized influence refers to the ability to
articulate clearly vision, motivate others to join the vision,
do the right things, and demonstrate high standard of ethics.
Idealized influence has five attributes which are; 1) integrity
2) respect 3) risk-sharing 4) trust, and 5) vision (Stone and
Patterson 2005). In this study, idealized influence is the
tendency of strong code of ethics, involve others in taking
risk, and build clear expectation of organization future.
Individualized consideration is ability to understanding
and sharing in others concerns and developmental needs
and treating each individual uniquely (Bass 1999). It
involves providing support, encouragement, coaching
(Avolio 1999, Bass 1998, Yukl 1998), delegation, advice,
and feedback for use in the personal development of
followers (Bass and Avolio 1992). Therefore, individualized

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)

consideration refer to understanding each extension

personnel personality and use empowering, mentoring,
listening, and personal attention skills to treating each
individual uniquely. Individualized consideration has four
attributes which are; 1) empowering 2) mentoring 3)
listening, and 4) personal attention (Stone and Patterson
2005). 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.
Inspirational motivation refers to the ways leaders act to
inspire the followers to achieve both personal and
organizational goals (Judge and Piccolo 2004) through
provides meaning for tasks, challenge followers with high
standard, communicate optimism about future goal
attainment, and using symbols and images (Bass and Avolio
2001) to focus the efforts of subordinates, and modeling
behaviors
that
are
deemed
appropriate
(Yukl
1998).Therefore, inspirational motivation refers to the way
leaders inspire the followers to achieve both personal and
organizational goals, through display optimism, enthusiasm.
Inspirational motivation has four attributes which are; 1)
commitment to goals 2) communication 3) enthusiasm, and
4) modeling (Stone and Patterson 2005). In this study,
inspirational motivation is defined as potentiality to motivate
and inspire extension personnel with commitment,
enthusiasm, and optimism.
Intellectual stimulation refers to increases awareness of
problems and influences followers to view problems from a
new point of view (Yukl 1998). Followers are stimulated to
be creative and innovative and also to challenge their own
beliefs and (Bass and Avolio 2001).In addition they are also
encouraged to take intellectual risks and to question
assumptions (Avolio 1994, Bass 1998). 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. Intellectual stimulation has two
attributes which are; 1) rationality, and 2) problem solving
(Bass 1990, Bromley et al. 2007).
The details of steps followed in the construction and
standardization of Transformational Leadership Scale of
extension personnel at lower level management are:
Construction of statements
The four dimensions of transformational leadership of
Bass and Alvolio (1994) with Stone and Patterson (2005)
attributes of transformational leadership namely integrity,
respect, risk-sharing, trust, vision, empowering, listening,
mentoring, personal attention, commitment to goals,
communication, enthusiasm, modeling, problem-solving and
rationality, were the basis for development of
transformational leadership scale. Under each dimension
several behavioral statements were constructed covering
various attributes in both positive and negative statements.
Thus, the total of 178 statements consisted of 116 positive
and 62 negative concerned the transformational leadership
attributes were developed. The statements were carefully
121

Transformational Leadership of Extension Personnel

edited in the light of 14 criteria suggested by Edwards
(1969).

very relevant. The judges were also requested to make

necessary modification, addition or deletion of statements.
The results revealed that degree of relevancy of each
statement was calculated and it was between 68.29 and 100
(Table 1, 2, 3, 4). 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.

Relevancy of items
Initially, there were 178 statements. Each behavioral
statement was judged by 45 experts. The judges were
requested first to read the operational definition of each
characteristics of attribute and then evaluate each statement
on three alternative answers viz not relevant, relevant and

Table 1 Relevancy, Coefficient of correlation, Varimax rotated factor loading and Criterion group t-value of each statement
of the Idealized influence dimension
Correlation
Correlation
Statements
Relevancy
within
Varmix t-value
within scale
dimension
I tell the truth
100.00
0.31**
0.30**
0.54
2.06*
I look for principle of ethics behind others decisions
92.68
0.38**
0.42**
0.75
3.57**
I fulfill what I have promised
92.68
0.32**
0.36**
0.73
2.82*
I present expenses of budget of extension program in an open way
85.37
0.46**
0.47**
0.55
3.36**
I demonstrate the same priorities that I describe
95.12
0.46**
0.46**
0.47 NS
I manipulate expenses of extension program illegally
82.93
0.43**
0.43**
0.57
4.17**
I make fun of others mistakes
82.93
0.56**
0.55**
0.62
3.36**
I give attention to certain employees
68.29 NS
I try to take credit of others achievements
68.29 NS
I attempt to risk others to protect myself in work matters
70.73
0.53**
0.54**
0.42 NS
I make eye contact while speaking to others
92.68
0.44**
0.43**
0.44 NS
I address staff members by their names
92.68
0.37**
0.42**
0.72
1.66NS
I respect personal rights of my colleagues in workplace
97.56
0.52**
0.53**
0.69
6.06**
I appreciate colleagues hard works
100.00
0.44**
0.48**
0.82
4.92**
I give equal chance to staff to speak in meeting
100.00
0.54**
0.56**
0.32 NS
I arrive to work on time
87.80
0.37**
0.47**
0.44 NS
I complete my tasks in target time frame
95.12
0.60**
0.60**
0.81
2.68*
I walk away when someone is talking to me
78.05
0.60**
0.60**
0.81
5.76**
I fail to keep extension personnel updated on latest information
85.37
0.45**
0.45**
0.44 NS
I make decisions after problems become chronic
73.17
0.46**
0.47**
0.48 NS
I show favoritism to certain colleagues
68.29 NS
I blame others for their mistakes in public
75.61
0.28**
0.39**
0.86
8.50**
I avoid to present colleagues achievements at official meetings
78.05
0.41**
0.61**
0.80
2.71*
I dominate conversations with others
80.49
0.39**
0.39**
0.48 NS
I tend to identify risks before starting project
90.24
0.26**
0.42**
0.46 NS
I attempt to distribute impacts of risk between units
85.37
0.44**
0.43**
0.83 -0.130NS
I inform other about all important matters that effect extension
92.68
0.28**
0.28**
0.48
4.89**
program
I clearly explain idea about risk impacts
97.56
0.39**
0.46**
0.36 NS
I involve team members in decision making process
92.68
0.56**
0.52**
0.58
3.61**
I encourage colleagues to expresses their opinion
90.24
0.56**
0.52**
0.41 NS
I take decisions alone in team work
78.05
0.45**
0.45**
0.74
2.27*
I attempt to create big win in short time
82.93
0.45**
0.45**
0.50
1.84*
I repeat same mistakes
82.93
0.46**
0.46**
0.67
4.57**
I try to apply new technologies in all field demonstrations
73.17
0.24*
0.28**
0.59
-3.82**
I express gratitude clearly even for small acts
95.12
0.71**
0.71**
0.82
12.33**
I give colleagues up-dated information
97.56
0.71**
0.71**
0.80
4.4**3
I try to discover training opportunities to improve other skills
97.56
0.58**
0.57**
0.64
3.46**
I allow colleagues offering different points of view
100.00
0.54**
0.54**
0.48 NS
I give equal training opportunities to all staff
92.68
0.54**
0.56**
0.41 NS
I publish reports about unit performance
90.24
0.52**
0.52**
0.44 NS
I keep personal conversation in confidence
87.80
0.52**
0.53**
0.79
4.52**

122

Ali et al.
I provide the information which all needed to accomplish
colleagues tasks
I break work discipline
I tries to hide details of annual budget
I try to limit other training opportunities
I attempt to cover my mistakes
I spread silly gossips about colleagues achievement
I encourage colleagues to participate in the formulation of
organizations vision
I clearly describe expectation of future problems
I try to make required resources available to accomplish team task
I try to involve colleague in all phases of strategic planning
I identifies long-term objectives
I communicate vision of the future often
I develop annual plan for program activities
I provide opportunity for others to commit to the vision publicly
I guide others for making decisions
I clarify the roles that each staff member should play
I avoid build consensus for shared goals
I neglect to develop annual plan activities to extension workers
I fail to help colleagues to solve problems
I miss to develop short-time objectives

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)

90.24

0.50**

0.50**

0.62

6.54**

82.93
82.93
82.93
75.61
82.93

0.42**
0.62**
0.62**
0.44**
0.58**

0.41**
0.63**
0.62**
0.44**
0.57**

0.48 NS
0.44 NS
0.43 NS
0.68
1.21 NS
0.62
6.69**

97.56

0.60**

0.65**

0.47 NS

92.68
97.56
90.24
97.56
90.24
90.24
85.37
90.24
95.12
82.93
85.37
82.93
78.05

0.62**
0.62**
0.55**
0.67**
0.67**
0.58**
0.59**
0.63**
0.63**
0.46**
0.71**
0.71**
0.67**

0.60**
0.56**
0.64**
0.67**
0.67**
0.68**
0.58**
0.64**
0.63**
0.47**
0.72**
0.72**
0.67**

0.70
5.15**
0.80
4.67**
0.65
3.07**
0.70
6.58**
0.40 NS
0.31 NS
0.39 NS
0.45 NS
0.49 NS
0.70
0.66 NS
0.47 NS
0.70
2.62*
0.70
4.00**

*Significant at 0.05 level ; **Significant at 0.01 level; NS Not Significant

Table 2 Relevancy, coefficient of correlation, Varimax rotated factor loading and Criterion group t-value of each statement
of the Individualized consideration dimension
Correlation
Correlation
Statements
Relevancy within
Varmix t-value
within scale
dimension
I involve others in making decisions that affect them
87.80
0.32**
0.33**
0.58
1.37 NS
I get clarification from my supervisor about delegated work
97.56
0.57**
0.57**
0.71
6.18**
I try to involve in assessment of training needs
90.24
0.64**
0.65**
0.67
5.56**
I provide opportunities for staff members to involve in new tasks
92.68
0.57**
0.64**
0.41 NS
I look for delegating to accomplish our target assignments
97.56
0.65**
0.66**
0.73
5.47**
I try to remove unnecessary controls
82.93
0.65**
0.65**
0.42 NS
I provide advices when requested
92.68
0.46**
0.51**
0.71
1.90*
I encourage colleagues to decide by themselves how do their
87.80
0.44**
0.51**
0.51
3.57**
assignments
I fail to remove unnecessary controls
82.93
0.50**
0.55**
0.43 NS
I search for the resources needed to carry out our new tasks
87.80
0.44**
0.44**
0.79
3.36**
I attempt to forbid access to technical information
80.49
0.39**
0.40**
0.43 NS
I delegate only when I am busy
78.05
0.39**
0.39**
0.48 NS
I look into the eyes of speakers
97.56
0.64**
0.64**
0.76
2.40*
I express positive facial expressions
95.12
0.64**
0.64**
0.87
5.72**
I ask questions to prompt further discussion
95.12
0.51**
0.51**
0.75
2.97*
I make the speaker feel important
97.56
0.50**
0.51**
0.35 NS
I summarize the progress of the conversation from time to time
92.68
0.46**
0.55**
0.49 NS
I listen to opposing views without expressing defensiveness
85.37
0.33**
0.34**
0.68
3.36**
I look at my watch when colleagues are speaking
85.37
0.43**
0.44**
0.77
3.26**
I change the subject too quickly
82.93
0.43**
0.49**
0.44 NS
I involve in official papers while others are speaking
82.93
0.43**
0.58**
0.65
3.26**
I suggest solutions before the problem is fully explained
78.05
0.50**
0.46**
0.44
I forget other previous conversation
82.93
0.53**
0.56**
0.48 NS
I devote time to train colleagues to improve their extension skills
90.24
0.64**
0.65**
0.74
4.90**
I aid others to acquire necessary knowledge
97.56
0.64**
0.64**
0.60
4.61**
I provide helpful career advice
95.12
0.62**
0.62**
0.47 NS
I support extension workers in taking risks
85.37
0.37**
0.37**
0.40 NS
123

Transformational Leadership of Extension Personnel

I provide resources to extension personnel to try new ideas
95.12
I avoid to criticize others when they try something new and fail
78.05
I give others regular feedback about their performance
87.80
I encourage colleagues to search for relevant training courses
87.80
I encourage colleagues to make presentations in meetings
97.56
I exhibit a cold welcome to others
85.37
I criticize others work
85.37
I try to hide technical skills
82.93
I consider others as having different needs
92.68
I disclose personal information about myself
75.61
I tell jokes in informal discussions
78.05
I listen to colleagues with great courtesy
97.56
I ask extension workers about their individual interests
80.49
I help others to clarify their private problems
82.93
I express compassion toward others who have low performance
87.80
I remember others birthdays
53.66 NS
I strive to help staff members to solve their private problems
75.61
I go to colleague to provide performance feedback
78.05
I fail to resolve grievances about extension personnel promotions
78.05
I am careless towards colleagues work problems
80.49
I fail to keep people informed about actions affecting them
73.17
I care only about myself
78.05

0.55**
0.41**
0.70**
0.70**
0.61**
0.36**
0.48**
0.39**
0.21*
0.38**
0.38**
0.66**
0.66**
0.55**
0.53**

0.59**
0.41**
0.70**
0.70**
0.61**
0.36**
0.48**
0.39**
0.39**
0.38**
0.41**
0.66**
0.66**
0.55**
0.53**

0.49 NS
0.66
0.63
0.77
0.79
0.40 NS
0.40 NS
0.54
0.77
0.71
0.77
0.62
0.44 NS
0.59
0.78

0.55**
0.50**
0.44**
0.55**
0.55**
0.47**

0.55**
0.50**
0.49**
0.58**
0.55**
0.61**

0.82
0.59
0.42 NS
0.74
0.33 NS
0.49 NS

3.31**
4.45**
4.57**
4.32**

1.35 NS
2.34*
0.70 NS
1.49 NS
4.52**
3.67**
1.00 NS
1.58 NS
2.62*
4.09**
3.98**

*Significant at 0.05 level ; **Significant at 0.01 level; NS Not Significant

Table 3 Relevancy, coefficient of correlation, Varimax rotated factor loading and Criterion group t-value of each statement
of the Inspirational motivation dimension
Correlation
Correlation
Statements
Relevancy within
Varmix t-value
within scale
dimension
I attend informal events that help to build team cohesiveness
90.24
0.44**
0.44**
0.78
2.42*
I assign specific task to others
92.68
0.49**
0.49**
0.48 NS
I establish clear priorities
95.12
0.47**
0.48**
0.65
4.00**
I offer assistance to colleagues before they requested
73.17
0.44**
0.50**
0.71
3.02**
I build a common base of agreement in team before moving
87.80
0.51**
0.63**
0.44 NS
forward with task involvement
I set specific standards for task achievement
95.12
0.59**
0.60**
0.40 NS
I try to resolve problems immediately which disrupt the work
90.24
0.53**
0.53**
0.42 NS
I work hard to achieve targeted extension program objectives
78.05
0.67**
0.67**
0.81
5.30**
I motivate team members to work hard to achieve our program
78.05
0.67**
0.67**
0.84
6.05**
objectives
I make extra effort to bring benefits for myself
80.49
0.34**
0.35**
0.44 NS
I fail to resolve problems before disrupt our work
87.80
0.47**
0.55**
0.36 NS
I arrive late to meeting
82.93
0.45**
0.45**
0.39 NS
I attempt to use organization facilities to achieve my personal
87.80
0.50**
0.52**
0.83
4.80**
benefits
I allow other to complete their presentation in meeting
97.56
0.50**
0.55**
0.53
6.10**
I keep everyone on teamwork by commands
87.80
0.20*
0.23*
0.81
2.47 *
I use research results to solve extension method application
90.24
0.31**
0.44**
0.74
2.06*
problems
I am genuine about what other says
90.24
0.41**
0.42**
0.61
3.57**
I ask questions to clarify idea
97.56
0.43**
0.43**
0.36 NS
I use vague words to present my opinion
85.37
0.44**
0.58**
0.45 NS
I avoid to ask questions in meeting
75.61
0.31**
0.39**
0.77
3.25**
I give ambiguous instructions
82.93
0.51**
0.52**
0.78
5.56**
I narrate topic/s in pleasant manner
95.12
0.62**
0.64**
0.54
6.59**
I establish clear standard of expected performance
95.12
0.62**
0.63**
0.63
5.30**
I demonstrate a passion for excellence in every aspect of work
92.68
0.60**
0.61**
0.71
4.68**

124

Ali et al.
I change facial expressions to correspond with the thoughts I am
voicing
I vary tone to keep audience interest
I able to express unique stories
I encourage exceptionally high standards of performance
I tell boring story when I present extension plan
I read from slides when I present extension issue
I fail to vary tone to keep audience interest
I fail to energize staff members to do their best level
I help others know how to work through their achievement
I remind colleagues that our first priority is to deliver excellent
services to our client
I am willing to make difficult decisions
I forgive others mistakes
I help colleagues to understand their own values
I seek unanimity around shared values
I lead discussion about values in the orientation of new members
I work with colleagues on weekends if they need
I take responsibility for certain employees
I try to hide real reasons of decisions
I punish subordinates when they fail to accomplish their task
I say this is worst place to work
I fail to promote strong norms to work hard among colleague

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)

90.24

0.43**

0.43**

0.46 NS

80.49
85.37
90.24
85.37
80.49
82.93
75.61
90.24

0.57**
0.57**
0.48**
0.43**
0.32**
0.41**
0.47**
0.39**

0.57**
0.57**
0.57**
0.49**
0.32**
0.42**
0.59**
0.41**

0.63
0.43 NS
0.42 NS
0.46 NS
0.81
0.61
0.36 NS
0.47 NS

9.03**

97.56

0.55**

0.56**

0.61

5.24**

87.80
85.37
95.12
97.56
95.12
85.37
75.61
80.49
78.05
85.37
78.05

0.40**
0.29**
0.49**
0.40**
0.59**
0.41**
0.29**
0.57**
0.57**
0.50**
0.44**

0.39**
0.32**
0.50**
0.42**
0.59**
0.41**
0.29**
0.57**
0.57**
0.50**
0.61**

3.11**
4.84**

0.77
1.09 NS
0.66
3.21**
0.66
7.07**
0.45 NS
0.41 NS
0.70
4.82**
0.80
-0.44NS
0.49 NS
0.40 NS
0.74
2.82*
0.71
5.43**

*Significant at 0.05 level ; **Significant at 0.01 level; NS Not Significant

Coefficient of correlation test

The selected 174 statements were administered on 109
extension personnel of both State Agriculture Department
(SAD) and University of Agriculture and Sciences (UAS) by
accidents meeting technique. 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. The negative statements were reversely
scored. 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 statement. The
extension personnel were given enough time to answer all
the scale. The time taken by the extension personnel to
given responses to all the statements of scale was between
45 and 60 minutes. Out of 109 extension personnel only 94
had given responses to all the statements. The data of 94
extension personnel of state department of agriculture
(SDA) and university of agriculture sciences (UAS) were
subjected to correlation test. The coefficient of correlation of
each statement with Transformational Leadership Scale and
its dimensions revealed that correlation value of the
statements for all scale between 0.23 and 0.80 and were all
significant at least at 0.05 level. For its dimensions the
values were between 0.11 and 0.80. Hence, 173 statements
were retained for factor analysis.

scale. 102 statements were selected for transformational

leadership scale. The data of 102 statements were subjected
to criterion group t-test analysis.
Criterion group t-test analysis
The results explicated criterion group t-value.
Established that t-value of each statement was between 0.44
and 12.33. The statements having significant at 0.05 level
were selected. On the basis of this criterion, the 90
statements were selected. Therefore, 90 statements were
included in final Transformational Leadership Scale.
Reliability
The Transformational leadership scale was developed
basically using the Method of Rational Scaling, which is
based on two phenomenon; first, all items of component
scale will correlate particularly with the total of the
components and second, all items will correlate with the
total score of 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 1968). Cirnbachs Alpha estimates almost always
range from 0.00 to 1.00, though in particularly poorly
assembled scales, the estimate may be negative. Thus,
Cornbachs Alpha estimation of 0.50 would indicate that 50
percent of the variance associated with the scores of a scale
is reliable. Typically, estimates of 0.70 are considered
acceptably highly (Peterson 1994). The Transformational
leadership scale internal consistency reliability (Cronbachs
) are provided for the total Transformational leadership
scale and 4 dimensions across 94 extension personnel of
Agriculture Department (AD) and UASs. As observed from

Factor analysis test

The selected 173 statements on basis of coefficient of
correlation were subjected to principle component analysis
with Varimax rotation. The values of factor loading ranged
from 0.32 to .84. The statements having highest factor
loading were selected under transformational leadership
125

Transformational Leadership of Extension Personnel

the results that total Transformational Leadership Scale was
associated with very high levels if internal consistency
reliability (i e >0.79). The subsequent reliability analyses
are: statements dimension correlation and statements scale
correlation (Table 6). These represent the degree of relation
between a given statements and the total subscale and also
between a given statements and total scale a statement was
designed to measure. The statement was associated with its
subscale and scale with coefficient of correlation which

ranged from 0.11 and 0.80 (Table 1, 2, 3, 4) significant at

least at 0.05 level. To support the internal consistency
reliability of transformational leadership scale (Table 5),
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.

Table 4 Relevancy, coefficient of correlation, Varimax rotated factor loading and Criterion group t-value of each statement
of the intellectual stimulation dimension
Correlation
Correlation
Statements
Relevancy
within
Varmix t-value
within scale
dimension
I express hopes about solution of problem
97.50
0.52**
0.55**
0.44 NS
I break down the problem into smaller components
95.12
0.47**
0.48**
0.75
4.12**
I encourage staff to generate alternative solutions to the problem
97.56
0.53**
0.56**
0.43 NS
I ask questions about the problem before considering ways of
85.37
0.37**
0.52**
0.34 NS
solution
I stimulate colleagues to find new ways to solve problems
100.00
0.59**
0.59**
0.69
5.36**
I hold discussion in groups to highlight organization strengths
95.12
0.59**
0.59**
0.46 NS
I create benchmarks for measuring progress of work
85.00
0.69**
0.68**
0.86
6.67**
I prepare check list of solutions a problem
90.24
0.69**
0.68**
0.76
5.73**
I create trouble for others in solving problem
80.49
0.37**
0.40**
0.68
2.58*
I fail to find alternative solutions for targeted problem
82.93
0.61**
0.61**
0.77
2.37*
I fail to involve outsiders in problem-solving discussions
80.49
0.46**
0.50**
0.43 NS
I allow one party to dominate the discussion of a problem
90.24
0.56**
0.56**
0.34 NS
I recommend others to follow procedures to take decision
95.12
0.43**
0.44**
0.37 NS
I conduct studies to identify successful methods of extension
92.68
0.52**
0.52**
0.39 NS
I try new approaches to accomplish our tasks in target time
95.12
0.68**
0.68**
0.77
7.46**
I explore recent extension approaches
87.80
0.68**
0.68**
0.80
5.76**
I sponsor activities that help to develop new ideas
92.68
0.66**
0.66**
0.34 NS
I stimulate employees to visit each others office to provide mutual
90.24
0.54**
0.54**
0.45 NS
feedback
I encourage others to look at problem from different angles
95.12
0.80**
0.80**
0.68
7.59**
I suggest new ways to complete our assignments
87.80
0.80**
0.80**
0.72
6.72**
I encourage thoughtful risk-taking
82.93
0.57**
0.57**
0.70
5.32**
I require others to solve problem quickly
82.93
0.11 NS
I fail to find new ways to solve problems
80.49
0.61**
0.80**
0.79
4.67**
*Significant at 0.05 level ; **Significant at 0.01 level; NS Not Significant

Table 5 Interco-relations among the subscales of transformational leadership scale

Intellectual
Inspirational
Individualized
Idealized influence
stimulation
motivation
consideration
Intellectual stimulation
Inspirational motivation
0.98**
Individualized consideration
0.98**
0.99**
Idealized influence
0.98**
0.96**
0.97**
Transformational leadership scale
0.86**
0.90**
0.89**
0.84**
**Significant at 0.01 level

Content validity
Content validity is obtained from three sources viz,
literature, representative of the relevant populations and
experts. 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
126

Ali et al.
transformational leaders to define characters of each
component. Initial selection of items of the transformational
leadership scale was based on the relevancy index of each
item in relation to its component constructs based on the
judgment of experts.

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)

The criterion group t-value analysis of 94 extension

personnel (Table 1, 2, 3, 4) confirmed that 90 statements of
the scale had discriminative potentiality which means that
each item discriminates between the group 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.

Table 6 Transformational leadership scale internal

consistency reliability
Dimension
Cronbachs
Idealized influence
0.82
Individualized consideration
0.81
Inspirational motivation
0.83
Intellectual stimulation
0.79
Transformational leadership scale
0.93

Factorial validity
In order to identify factors of Transformational
Leadership Scale, the factor analysis was performed. The
statements had factor loading 0.5 and above were selected
under transformational leadership scale. Factorial loading
that was obtained in the instrument considered to be
plausible.
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.

The content validity of transformational leadership

scale would justified by the results of coefficient of
correlation of each item in relation to component and scale.
For these reasons, it is believed that the transformational
leadership scale is associated with a respectable level of
content validity.
Discriminant validity

LITERATURE CITED
Alban-Metcalfe R J and Alimo-Metcalfe B. 2000. An analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of the
transformational leadership questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8: 158-175.
Avolio B J. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. and Bass B M. 2004. Multifactor leadership questionnaire, Manual and Sampler Set, Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio B J and Bass B M. 1994. Evaluate the impact of transformational leadership training at individual, group,
organizational, and community levels, Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University.
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.
Bass B M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass B M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Behling O and Mcfillen J M. 1996. Asyncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group and
Organizational Management 21: 163-191.
Bernard M B and Ronald E R. 2006. Transformational leadership. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Bryman A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burke W W. 1994. Leadership assessment inventory. Pelham, NY: W. Warner Burke and Associates.
Carless S A, Wearing A J and Mann L. 2000. A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and
Psychology 14: 389-405.
Edwards A L. 1969. Techniques of attitude scale construction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd. Ballerd Estate, Bombay.
Gregory S K P. 2005. The history of leadership focus. Regent University School of Business and Leadership.
http://www.regent.edu.
Northouse P. 2004. Leadership: Theory and practice. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 755-768.
Podsakoff P M, Mackenzie S B, Moorman R H and Fetter R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1: 107-142.
Rafferty A E and Griffin M A. 2004. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The
Leadership Quarterly 15: 329-354.
Yukl G. 1998. Leadership in organizations. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

127