Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
https:// www.rjas.info
DI: 1405-0308-2013-019
ABSTRACT
A study developed innovative work behavior scale of extension personnel was undertaken during 2012-2013 in
Dharwad district of Karnataka, India. Initially, there were 50 statements converting the two dimensions of
innovative work behavior were constructed. Each behavioral statement was judged by 45 experts. The selected 50
statements were administered on 99 extension personnel of both Agriculture State Department (ASD) and
University of Agriculture and Sciences (UAS) by accidental meeting technique. Schedule was used for collection of
information for developing innovative work behavior 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 32
statements constructed the innovative work behavior Scale. Further, innovative work behavior Scale established
through applied both validity and reliability methods on the scale.
Key words: Innovative work, Behavior, Scale, Extension personnel
Innovative work behavior as an employees 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 (Kheng and
Mahmood 2013). 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.
Innovative work behavior can range from incremental
improvements to developing radically novel ideas that affect
processes or products across the whole organization (Axtell
et al. 2000). Employees innovative work 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). The present study was made an attempt to
develop innovative work behavior scale by focusing on
extension roles perspective of extension personnel to
measure the innovative behavior among extension
personnel.
Relevancy of statements
89
Ali et al.
Initially, there were 50 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
very relevant. The judges were also requested to make
necessary modification, addition or deletion of statements.
Table 1 Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of teaching
dimensions with also with the scale
Teaching Innovative work
Statements
Relevancy
role
behavior scale
I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan
100.00
0.51**
0.51**
I develop only short education plan
92.68
0.36**
0.45**
I refuse accepting modern teaching methods
92.68
0.38**
0.43**
I promote recent practices which are profitable
85.37
0.51**
0.51**
I use a single teaching method to change others attitude
95.12
0.52**
0.52**
I link training with other outside experience
82.93
0.33**
0.33**
For deliver single idea I apply demonstration
82.93
0.25*
0.33**
I focus only on positive outcome of teaching methods
70.00
0.31**
0.31**
I try to be with positive people
92.68
0.38**
0.38**
I spend time to think how to improve education outcome
92.68
0.38**
0.47**
I use traditional teaching methods
97.56
-0.44**
0.49**
I ask others to evaluate my work periodically
100.00
0.38**
0.38**
I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective
100.00
0.52**
0.55**
I use open questions to encourage new ideas
95.12
0.34**
0.40**
I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention
87.80
0.36**
0.36**
I generate original solutions for educating problems
78.05
0.36**
0.36**
I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks
85.37
0.39**
0.43**
I use logical approach to convince others to accept recent practices
73.17
-0.45**
0.27*
I use drama as teaching method
75.61
-0.43**
0.35**
I tell funny stories to audience
78.05
-0.40**
0.35**
I use e-mail to seek consult from experts
80.49
0.38**
0.38**
I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning
90.24
0.38**
0.38**
Table 2 Criterion groups t-value of each item of teaching role dimension
Statements
Higher group (26)
I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan
4.76 (0.51)
I develop only short education plan
4.19 (1.02)
I promote recent practices which are profitable
4.80 (0.49)
I use a single teaching method to change others attitude
4.65 (0.56)
I link training with other outside experience
4.73 (0.60)
I try to be with positive people
4.03 (1.34
I spend time to think how to improve education outcome
4.76 (0.43)
I use traditional teaching methods
3.34 (1.05)
I ask others to evaluate my work periodically
4.00 (1.13)
I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective
4.65 (0.62)
I use open questions to encourage new ideas
4.69 (0.47)
I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention
4.53 (0.70)
I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks
3.26 (1.21)
I use drama as teaching method
2.73 (1.18)
I tell funny stories to audience
-0.40**
I use e-mail to seek consult from experts
0.38**
I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning
0.38**
Coefficient of correlation test
The all 50 statements were administered on 102
extension personnel of both State Department of Agriculture
t- value
3.87*
6.17**
4.73**
7.35**
4.61**
1.72NS
4.40**
2.81*
2.42*
5.46**
4.07**
2.38*
2.75*
0.60NS
2.97*
1.65NS
4.46**
Table 3 Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of managerial role with
its dimensions and also with the scale
Managerial Innovative work
Factor
Statements
Relevancy
role
behavior scale
loading
I try one way to carry out the challenge task
82.93
0.58**
0.42**
0.63
I ask critical questions to analyses situation
73.17
0.25**
0.35**
0.47 NS
I select traditional techniques for data collection
95.12
0.56**
0.49**
0.60
I ignore graphs in evaluation reports
97.56
0.63**
0.43**
0.54
I apply classical techniques of problem analysis
97.56
0.53**
0.54**
0.72
I use computer program to analyze data
100.00
0.38**
0.37**
0.47 NS
I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives
92.68
0.57**
0.55**
0.63
I follow outdated ways to execute tasks
90.24
0.50**
0.49**
0.46 NS
I state the problem in a old way
87.80
0.62**
0.52**
0.68
I formulate traditional objectives
90.24
0.55**
0.52**
0.77
I adopt classical evaluation criteria
82.93
0.68**
0.54**
0.75
I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan
82.93
0.34**
0.32**
0.54
I plan tomorrows goals before I leave the office
82.93
0.37**
0.43**
0.59
I ignore to prepare contingency plans
75.61
0.50**
0.43**
0.67
I translate goals into concrete work action plan
82.93
0.36**
0.41**
0.46 NS
I break down the task into the smallest possible steps
97.56
0.44**
0.33**
0.59
I gather only related information to the task on hand
92.68
0.28**
-0.25**
0.10 NS
I use single method for data collection
97.56
0.48**
0.55**
0.62
I use traditional documentation approach during implementation
90.24
0.50**
0.38**
0.76
I spend time to update my knowledge
97.56
0.41**
0.33**
0.78
I take responsibility for my actions
90.24
0.52**
0.55**
0.49 NS
I articulate my plan vision with enthusiasm
90.24
0.34**
0.42**
0.44 NS
I try to master most management skills by trial and error method
85.37
0.55**
0.28**
0.47 NS
I repeat mistakes
90.24
0.53**
0.58**
0.68
I look at problem from single viewpoint
95.12
0.65**
0.58**
0.75
I develop lot of alternative solutions
82.93
0.49**
0.40**
0.76
I keep notebook to write ideas
85.37
0.54**
0.32**
0.61
I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it
82.93
0.51**
0.36**
0.56
Factor analysis test
The results presented in Table 1 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 3) 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.
Ali et al.
t- value
2.68*
6.27**
5.49**
-1.71 NS
4.62**
5.14**
5.01**
- 0.11 NS
3.52*
4.55**
4.71**
2.47*
3.73*
3.20*
2.77*
4.32**
5.73**
6.87**
3.72*
4.61**
Content validity
Content validity of the Innovative Work Behavior Scale
would be justified from literature, representative of relevant
populations and experts. The Innovative Work Behavior
Scale conceptualization emerged through a comprehensive
analysis of literature of innovative work behavior to define
characters of each dimension. Initial selection of items of the
Innovative Work Behavior Scale was based on the relevancy
index of each item in relation to its dimension constructs
Factorial validity
In order to identify factors of Innovative Work
Behavior Scale, the factor analysis was performed. The
results of factor analysis (principal component analysis with
92
Table 5 Inter-correlations among the subscales for Innovative Work Behavior scale
Dimension
Teaching role
Teaching role dimension
Managerial role dimension
0.49**
Innovative Work Behavior scale
0.91**
Managerial role
0.80**
Table 6 Internal consistency estimates (Cronbachs ) associated with the innovative work behavior score in both extension
personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state
Dimension
Outside (r)
Inside (r)
Mean
Overall innovative work behavior scale
0.82
0.79
0.80
Teaching role dimension
0.68
0.40
0.50
Managerial role dimension
0.79
0.73
0.76
The innovative work behavior scale found to be
associated with respectable levels of internal consistency
reliability. Further, the innovative work behavior scale was
LITERATURE CITED
Axtell C M, Holman D J, Unsworth K L, Wall T D, Waterson P E and Harrington E. 2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating
the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupation Organ Psychology 73: 265-285.
Edwards A L. 1969. Techniques of attitude scale construction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd. Sport Road, Ballerd
Estate, Bombay.
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. Journal of Organ Behavoir 27: 1089-1120.
Kheng Y K and Mahmood R. 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. Journal of Business Management Dynamics 2: 15-30.
Sharma P and Chrisman J J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneur Theory and Practice 23: 11-27.
93