DETERMINANTS OF PERFORMANCE OF DEVELOPEMENT AGENTS

IN ENHANCING AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES: THE CASE

OF BURSA WOREDA, SIDAMA ZONE

A Thesis First Draft Submitted to the Department of cooperativein

PartialFulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Art in
Community Development
BY

KEBEDE KASSA BAKAYE

ID.No.GPCoDeR/0019/11

Major Advisor: SintayehuHailu(Ph.D candidate)

Co advisor: ShishayTafere(MA)

Department of cooperative

Collage of Business and Economics

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

Hawassa, Ethiopia

January, 2020
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
The economy of Ethiopia is depended on agriculture, the government of Ethiopia has
demonstrated strong commitment to agriculture and rural development through the allocation of
over 10%of the national budget to deliver enhanced production technologies and support
services. Subsistence smallholder agriculture has continuously dominated economic
development policy in Ethiopia (Mellor, 2014). This sector contributes about 39% of the
country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by end of 2014/15. Crop and livestock subsectors
accounted for 27.4% and 7.9% respectively, while the residual was accounted for by forestry and
fishing (NPC, 2016). Despite its pivotal role, the performance of this sector has remained largely
unsatisfactory (Gregory, 2013). The sector is characterized by subsistence oriented, low input
and output. In addition, over 90% of cultivated land has been dependent on rain- fed, making the
sector highly susceptible to climate change (ATA, 2016).
There have been significant changes undergoing in the agricultural extension service in the
country in the last couple of decadesmainly allocation of huge amount of budget and deployment
of trained human resources and facilities. However, one of the major challenges in the
agricultural sector is lack of effective human resource development system. As a result, there are
limited competent, well trained and highly calibrated extension staff at all levels. The provision
of decentralized and participatory extension service requires having adequate, well experienced
and qualified staff at all levels to improve the quality of the extension service in the
future(Zenawi, Atomsa&Arkebe, 2015).
As it is clearly set in the agricultural extension strategy of the country, development agents are
believed and expected to play vital and multiple roles in the overall process of bringing about
agricultural development in the country. They carry out several activities that aim at improving
the living conditions of farmers. To the understanding of the broader goals of the national
extension program, the role of development agents deployed at each kebele(peasant association)
has been very involved (Alemu&Demese, 2005).
According to MoA(2009) the key services and related roles and functions of these frontline
development extension agents can be categorized into four as educational/Training(conducting
certificate and non‐certificate farmer training), extension(promotion of the use of improved
technologies and practices), informational(gathering, organization and dissemination of
information relating to market, weather, etc), and advisory(helping in solving individual farm‐
management problems and addressing other community concerns like natural resource
management)
Nonetheless, development agents have been found to differ in perception and performance of
their roles and satisfaction on their job (Ananda et al.). Job connotes responsibility, duty, task
and or paid position of a regular or part time payment (Hornby &Cowie, 1995). Satisfaction
refers to a feeling of pleasure, the attainment of wants and needs, action of fulfilling desires and
demand (Hornby &Cowie, 1995). One of the indicators in enhancing and improving the
extension service is job performance. Job performance refers to the behaviors that are expected
in the line of the organizations’ goals and the purpose under control of individual employees
(Campbell et al., 1993).
Studying development agent's performance is important because effectiveness of the entire
extension program being implemented throughout the country is influenced by the quality of the
relationship between development agents and the extension work they do. If hereis a good
healthyrelationshipbetween development agents and their jobs, such that extension work is a
personally satisfying experience, then there may be little for management to do to foster high
motivation and performance. On the other hand, if there is no good fit between development
agents and their extension work and development agents are dissatisfied, then there may be little
that extension administration can do to produce high productivity and job satisfaction. Inside
work motivation is tied directly with how well an employee performs on the job. Thus,
effectiveness of agricultural extension work highly depends on the availability of extension
professionals who are qualified, motivated, committed and responsive to the ever-changing
social, economic and political environment.
There are different factors that determine the performance of employees. Of these performance
appraisals system by itself and its application in an organization has its own impacts on the
performance of employees (DelPo Amy, 2007). Nickols (2003) and Fort and Voltero (2004),
recognize factors that areclosely related and influence provider‘s performance in the place of
work. They include: clear goals and jobexpectations, suitable repertoire, immediate feedback,
skills to perform, knowledge of the organizational structure, functional feedback system, sound
metal models, sufficient motivation through self satisfaction and incentives.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Employees are the most valuable asset in any kind of organization which engaged in whether
profitmaking, non-profit, service giving or manufacturing industry. Similarly, the effectiveness
of agricultural extension work highly depends on the availability of extension professionals who
are qualified, motivated, committed and responsive to the ever-changing social, economic and
political environment (MOA, 2009).
Development agents (DA's) in Ethiopia in general and the study area in particular, face heavy
work load. First, they areexpected to serve a large number of farmers; secondly, they are often
required to be involved invarious non-extension activities. They are often overloaded with
different assignments, such ascredit distribution and collection of repayments, forecasting of
input demands and input delivery,mobilizing farmers for public work, Kebele administrative
adjudication, and persuading farmersto become member of co-operatives, which are, in most
cases non extension activities which arenot related with their normal duties. Many people in rural
area consider DAs as governmentspokesman rather than facilitators in rural development
endeavor (Belay, 2002). Moreovercurrently DAs look after safety net program, which would
need separate employee of its own asfull time since they are engaged in different activities.
A related problem with extension service is the low morale, absenteeism and high mobility
/turnover of DAs. Perhaps because of the poor incentive structure, several Subject Mater
Special(SMSs) and DAs quit the extension service and join better paying NGOs or other
governmentoffices. They quit their job usually after they had gained experience in the field.
Similarly, the researcher observed that heads and supervisors of theworeda/district level of the
MoARD office seems not to be aware of the level of DA’s motivation and other conditions
which leads to jobdissatisfaction. Most of the time, they lack or ignore the power of the simple
courtesies that go along way in improving the work environment. In addition, they are unable to
utilize thosemotivational tools to maintain high level of work motivation, high productivity and
moral among the employees.
Under such circumstances farmers are not getting appropriate advice to solve their
productionrelated problem. Even though there might be other factors and reasons contributing to
the lowperformance, DAs have the lion’s share of contribution. Similarly, almost each and every
drops of efforts for improvement of agricultural production and productivity pass through DAs.If
we refer to different reports of work evaluation and understand the prevailing scenario of
DAsinthe study area, we can easily find that DAs reflecting low morale,
absenteeism,mobility/turnover, low performance, work stress, less communication with farmers,
not behavepro-society and quit their jobs.
Unfortunately, in the case of Ethiopia several unpublished researches and few published
researches have been done on issues of development agentsjob performance. One of the studies
was conducted by Zenawi, Atomsa and Arkebe (2015) study on challenges of development
agents in technology dissemination for extension purposes in the Southern region of Ethiopia
indicated that effectiveness of development agents is challenged by job dissatisfaction; existence
of poor communication, very poor formal linkage among farmers, development agents and
researchers; and lack of motivation for development agents to fully serve community. Moreover,
Getahun (2016) study on determinants of performance of Agricultural Extension Workers in
Southwest Ethiopia revealed that the majority of DAs were poorly performed their job due to
work load, extremely low payment, difficult & disadvantaged work environment, poor social
status, and poor interpersonal relationship with co-workers.
Similarly, Kaleb, Mekonnen, Mekonnen and Turuwark (2014) study on determinants and Levels
of agricultural Development Agents Job Satisfaction in KaluWoreda, South Wollo Zone of the
Amhara National Regional State indicated that there exists a statistically significant relationship
between job satisfaction and recognition for best performances, rate of promotion, regular
training and level of education of development agents.
Gebre (2018) study on Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System and Its Role as a “Development
Actor” in Southwestern Ethiopia indicated that agricultural extension is constrained by multiple
challenges: high input and low output prices, knowledge and skill gaps among development
agents and model farmers, non-inclusive extension services system, ambitious top-down
allocation of plans, and actors’ involvement in non-extension activities.
Furthermore, Dechasa (2013) study on factors influencing work motivation of development
agents in Lume District Agricultural Office, Oromia Region, Ethiopia indicated that age, sex,
service year, placement distance from home place, incentives, training opportunity and work
place relationship became major factors that influence work motivation of development agents in
the study area.
Another study by Desalegn(2014) on analyzing Determinants of Development Agents' work
performance in Agricultural Extension Services Provision in South West Shoa Zone,
OromiaRegional State identified work location, work incentives, job security, supervision
system, job description, performance appraisal systems, policy environment and attitude of DAs
towards their job are significantly affecting work performance of Development Agents in the
study area.
However, there is no research conducted so far in the study area on the crucial issue of factors
that determine performance of development agents in enhancing extension service in Bursa
woreda. Therefore, this research will conduct to fill this information gap. Identifying determine
performance of development agents in enhancing extension service in Bursa woreda is a step
forward for managers and supervisors to understand the ground realities and having better
performance of development agents.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of the study is to identify determinants of performance of development
agents in enhancing agricultural extension service in Bursa woreda, Sidama zone.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
1) To examine the performance level of development agents in the study area.
2) To find out major factors that affect performance of development agents in enhancing
agricultural extension servicein the study area.
3) To identify major challenges faced by development agents in providing agricultural
extension servicein the study area.
1.4. Research Questions
1) What is the level of performance of development agents in the study area?
2) What are the major factors that affect performance of development agents in enhancing
agricultural extension service in the study area?
3) What are majorchallenges faced by development agents in providing agricultural extension
service in the study area?
1.5. Significance of the study
The study focus on determinants of performance of development agents in enhancing agricultural
services in Bursa woreda, Sidama zone, SNNPRS. So this research identified major determinants
of performance of development agents, and it provides insights for the improvement job
performance of development agents. Theresult of the study helps the government to re-examine
the system, and to take appropriate action.This research also helpful for other organization to
reconsider their workers performance andto understand the implication of factors on employee’s
performance.Totally, the research serves as a reference for researchers who are interesting to
conducta research on the topic.
1.6. Scope of the Study
This research study is delimited to Bursa woreda, Sidama zone. The researcher focused on
determinants of performance of development agents. In addition, the study willemployonly a
quantitative approachand limited to one point of data collection through cross-sectional survey.
The study involved only extension user households and development agentsof Bursaworeda.
1.7. Definition of Key Terms
 Training; -is organizational activity aimed at improving development agents skills levels to
enhance their efficiency and effectiveness.
 Development Agents Performance; -is an optimal employee productivity as a result of
development agents efforts based on measured performance outcomes.
 Compensation/remuneration;- is anoutput and the benefit that development agents receive
in the form of pay, wages and also same rewards like monetary exchange for the DA's to
increases the performance.
 Working conditions;- refers to conditions in which an individual or staff works including
but not limited to such things as amenities, physical environment, degree of safety of
danger, stress and noise levels
 Leadership;- is a supervisor’s style of providing direction to the team they supervise,
implementing plans and decision making processes in their day to day job roles.
1.8. Organization of the Study

The paper comprised of five chapters. The first chapter of the study provides information on
the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives, significance, and scope of
the study, operational definition of terms and organization of the study. The second chapter
deals with review of literature whereas the third chapter present description of the study area,
design, approaches, types and sources of data, sample and sampling procedure, instruments of
data collection, procedure of data collection, pilot test, data analysis and interpretation and
ethical considerations. The fourth chapter focused on the data presentation, analysis and
interpretation, and chapter five comprisedofsummaryoffindings, conclusions
andrecommendationsofthe study.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURES

2.1. Theories of Performance Management
According to Armstrong (2009) there are three theories underpinning performance management
have been identified like;-
I. Goal Theory
According to Mabey, Salaman and Storey, (1999) goal-setting theory was established by Locke
(1968) argued that goals pursued by employees can play an important role in motivating superior
performance. In following these goals people examine the consequences of their behavior. If
they surmise that their goals will not be achieved by their current behavior, they will either
modify their behavior, or choose more realizable goals. If managers can intervene to establish
the organization’s goals (or translations of them for the group or individual) as being worthwhile
for employees to accept, they can harness a source of motivation to perform, and direct it to
securing strategic outcomes.
Subsequent empirical research into goal-setting has specified more precisely the conditions
necessary for organizational goals to be motivating to employees; these are that goals should be
specific, rather than vague or excessively general; goals should be demanding, but also
attainable; feedback of performance information should be made; and goals need to be accepted
by employees as desirable. It has been focus to a large deal of theoretical and empirical scrutiny
since it was first advanced. The resulting body of evidence now provides a set of rigorously
tested principles which offer clear guidance to designers of performance management systems
(Mabey, et. al., 1999).
II. Control Theory
The theory focuses on feedback as a means of shaping behavior. As people receive feedback on
their behavior, they appreciate the discrepancy between what they are doing and what they are
expected to do and take corrective action to overcome it. Feedback is recognized as crucial part
of performance management process by keeping employees and supervisors under one
communication loop and supports the managers to influence the subordinates by reinforcement
and other methods. As feedbacks are in a manner of reciprocity, there must be a continuous
discussion on how an employee is performing in relation to what is expected of him/her, it could
also be given individually or in teams. Feedbacks can praise good performance or correct poor
performance and should always be tied to established performance standards. Consequently,
managers can control their employees by providing a timely and regular feedback so as to keep
their staffs on the right performance track that the organization desires.
III. Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory suggests that, what people believe that they can or cannot do powerfully
impacts on their performance. Developing and strengthening positive self-belief in employees is
therefore and important performance management practice. Essentially, social cognitive theory
suggests that self-efficiency or one’s belief in his or her own ability to do a job, anticipated
outcomes, goal setting and reinforcements operate together to help individuals reach
performance goals.Self-efficacy works by influencing an individual’s choices in the process of
performance management concerning what behaviors to undertake. Thus, in this study the
researcher tries to employ social cognitive theory.
2.2. Concept of Employee Performance
Organizations are undergoing a transformation for coping next to the shifting needs of the
environment and excelling in the business by building up their adaptive capabilities for
managing change proactively. Sustainability of business organization is depends on talent, skill,
knowledge and experience of employees and on their performance (Armstrong, 2009).
Performance is the accomplishment of a given task measured against preset known standards of
accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed. Employee’s performance is the contribution of
employees for the achievement of organization objective. Employees predictable to perform
adequate level of the standard and managers follow up, and evaluate the performance of
employees to attain the stated objective of an organization (Armstrong, 2009).
Similarly, Cooke (2000) defined performance as the achievement of specified task measured
against predetermined or identified standards of accuracy, completeness, cost and speed. In an
employment agreement, performance is deemed to be the accomplishment of a commitment in
such a manner that releases the performer from all liabilities laid down under the contract.
2.3. Concepts of Performance Management
Armstrong (2009) discussed one of the major important concepts of performance management is
that it is a continuous process that reflects normal good organization practices of setting
direction, monitoring and measuring performance and taking action accordingly. Performance
management should not be imposed on managers as something ‘special’ they have to do. It must
instead be treated as a natural function that all good managers carry out.

According to Pam (2000) performance management is about getting results. It is concerned with
getting the best from people and helping them to achieve their potential. It is an approach to
achieving a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the organization. It is concerned by means
of helping individuals and teams achieve their potential and recognize their role in contributing
to the goals of the organization. Armstrong (2009) performance management is a systematic
process for improving organizational performance by developing the performance of the
individuals and teams. Moreover, Ndung’u (2009) has pointed out that performance management
aligns individual and organizational objectives. Wright (2003) has defined that individuals are
more committed to their performance objectives when they believe those objectives are
achievable and will result in important outcomes for themselves or, the organization in which
they work.
2.4. Objectives of performance management
Armstrong, (2009) argued that the overall objective of performance management is to develop
the capacity of people to meet and exceed expectations and to achieve their full potential to the
benefit of themselves and the organization. Performance management provides the foundation
for self-development but importantly, it is also about ensuring that the support and guidance
people need to develop and improve are readily available.
2.5. Measures of Performance
According to Armstrong (2005) individual performance can be measured by reference to key
performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics. KPIs define the results or outcomes that are
identified as being crucial to the achievement of high performance. Strictly speaking, metrics are
measurements using a metric system, but the term is used generally for any form of measure. It
can be argued that what gets measured is often what is easy to measure. And in a quantity of jobs
what is meaningful is not measurable and what is measurable is not meaningful.
Measuring performance is comparatively easy for those who are responsible for achieving
quantified targets, for example sales. It is more difficult in the case of knowledge workers, such
as scientists. But this difficulty is alleviated if a distinction is made between the two forms of
results – outputs andoutcomes (Armstrong, 2005). Performance means both behavior and result.
Behavior emanates from the performer and transforms performance from abstraction into action.
Not immediately a means to an end, the behavior is also an outcome in itself, the product of
mental and physical effort applied to the task, which can be judged apart from the result
(Armstrong, 2005).
As Armstrong (2005) have pointed out that performance is a multidimensional construct, the
measurement of which varies depending on a variety of factors. A more inclusive view of
performance is achieved if it is defined as embracing both behavior and outcomes. Employees’
performance is an important factor that contributes to improve the outcomes, behavior and traits
of the employees. It helps to improve the productivity of the organization. As it was indicated in
Hunger and Wheelen (2000), controls can be established to focus either on actual performance
results (output) or on the activities that generate the performance (behavior). Whereas behavior
controls specify how some thing is to be done through policies, rules, standards, operating
procedures, and orders from a supervisor. Productivity controls identify what is to be
accomplished by focusing on the end results of the behaviors through the use of objectives and
performance targets or milestones.
The performance evaluation system for DAs differs from region to region (Leta, 2018).
According to BWANRO (2018/19) as well as personal experience of the researcher DAs are
evaluated entirely by their immediate bosses, mainly the department heads, based on the BPR
plan jointly agreed upon with the DAs. The BPR is the outcome-based planning system that
relies on lists of activities planned in a top-down fashion from BoANR to WOANR, with some
activities being jointly planned by the department heads along with kebele supervisors and DAs.
In Bursa woreda, however, the operational achievements and involvement in non-extension
activities of the DAs are largely assessed by the kebele cabinet. Even though DAs are involved
in providing multiple services, their performance evaluation is limited to the role they play in
their respective department. This approach fails to acknowledge the generic services provided by
the DAs. The lack of recognition of their participation in multiple activities could adversely
influence the DAs’ motivation to engage in and provide services of extension and coordination
of rural development (Leta, 2018; Leta et al, 2017).
However, the BPR plan may not consider the available resources and local implementation
capacity, and as a result, a DA’s accomplishment may not be accurately captured (Leta, 2018).
Some officials believe that centralized BPR plan helps to control some underestimated planning
system a few individuals exploit it and unfairly claim the incentives stipulated for industrious
workers (Leta et al, 2017). Per the BPR plan, performance is measured by parameters such as the
size of the distributed agricultural inputs and the execution of watershed management plans.
Similarly, Gebremedhin et al. (2006), stated that achieving the quota plan is still a criterion in a
DA’s performance evaluation. Failure to meet the performance criteria deprives the DAs of
benefits. Technology demonstration at the FTC is currently an evaluation criteria with 20% of
the total weight. The performance of the DAs is evaluated by the kebele cabinet and immediate
bosses from the employing organization (WoANR).
Kebele administration and its cabinet assess most of the DA’s functions, accounting for 60% of
the total score. Extension supervisors and woreda extension coordinators jointly assess 30%. The
remaining 10% of the score is derived from the employee’s self-assessment (MoA 2015; MoA
2010). The evaluation by the kebele cabinet is subjective: a DA may gain or lose depending on
his or her relationship with the evaluators and the ruling party’s opinion.
2.6. Factors Affecting Employees’ Job Performance
AS Le Tran (2002) mentioned in his journal according to some researchers and practitioners,
there are certain factors individually and collectively effect on the performance of employees in a
positive or negative way, including:
2.6.1. Leadership
Many scholars give different definition for the single word leadership. Leadership is a method by
which an executive can direct, guide and influence the behavior and work of others toward the
accomplishment of specific goals in a given situation. Leadership is an ability of a manager to
inducethe subordinates to work with confidence and zeal. Leadership can be defined as the
capacity to influence a group realization of the goal. Leaders are required to develop the future
vision, and to motivate the organizational members to want to achieve the visions and to improve
the performance (Iqbal, Anwar and Haider, 2015).
According to Adair (2002) leadership is the skill to persuade others to seek defined objectives
enthusiastically. It is the human feature which binds a group together and to improve their
performance and to direct them towards goals. Leadership is to deal and cope with change,
focusing on the long-term and the big picture, not always doing to safe himself in fact to take
risks, and concentrating on people and their values, not just the bottom line (Koudri,1999).
An effectual leader has aaccountability to provide guidance and share the knowledge to the
employeeto lead them for better performance and make them expert for maintaining the quality.
And to become a head of all the team members is such a great responsibility. The introduction of
clear standards of leadership promotes the core values and maturity on their role and
responsibility. As the situation affects which functions the leaders carries out, it would also affect
the manner in which the functions are performed.
As Iqbalet. al., (2015), cited in their journal that elaborate by Myron Rush and Cole (2004) the
democratic style of leadership has a greater positive effect on employee performance in which
situation employee feel power and confidence in doing their job and in making different
decisions. And in autocratic style leaders only have the authority to take decisions in which
employees’ feels inferior in doing jobs and decisions. In participative style employee have to
some extent discretionary power to do work so their performance is better than in autocratic
style.
2.6.2. Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is the set of important assumptions-often unstated-that members of an
organization share in common. There are two major assumptions in common; beliefs and values.
Beliefs are assumptions about reality and are derived and reinforced by experience. Values are
assumptions about ideals that are desirable and worth striving for. When beliefs and values are
shared in an organization, they create a corporate culture (Azhar, 2003). Robbins (2013) defines
organizational culture as a relatively the same perception held of the organization, it has common
characteristics, it is descriptive, it can distinguish one organization from another and it integrates
individuals, groups and organization systems variables. Organizational culture refers to a set of
somecommonly experienced stable characteristics of an organization which constitutes the
uniqueness of that organization and differentiates it from others.
Strong culture in the organization is very helpful to enhance the performance of the employees
that leads to the goal achievement and increase the overall performance of the organization
.According to the Stewart (2010), norms and values of organizational culture very effect on those
who are directly or indirectly involved with the organization. These norms are invisible but have
a great impact on the performance of employees and profitability. The most important
characteristic is shared value.
Physically influential organizational culture supports adaptation and develops organization’s
employee performance by motivating employees toward a shared goal and objective; and finally
shaping and channeling employees’ behavior to that specific direction should be at the top of
operational and functional strategies. Shared value of employees is one of the basic components
of organizational culture.) And also clarifies that shared value which is a set of social norms that
define the rules or framework for social interaction and communication behaviors of society’s
members, is a reflection of causal culture assumptions (Schein, 2004).
2.6.3 Working Environment
According to Leblebici (2012), nowadays the relationship between employees and employers
may beseen upside down. Since there the number of job opportunities available for employees
has been increasing in a growing worldwide economy, not just employees but also employers
need to readjust themselves in order to cope up with the dynamics of business life. Therefore,
HR executives need to consider new strategies for recruiting and retaining best fit talents for
their organizations. Higher salaries and compensation benefits may seem the most likely way to
attract employees. Though, quality of the physical workplace environment may also have a
strong influence on a company’s ability to recruit and retain talented people Some factors in
workplace environment may be considered keys affecting employee’s engagement, productivity,
morale, comfort level etc. both positively and negatively.Pech and Slade (2006) argued that the
employee disengagement is increasing and it becomesmore important to make workplaces that
positively influence workforce.
Other studies have examined the effect of work environment on workers job satisfaction,
performance, and health. For example Scott, (2000) reported that working conditions associates
withemployees, job involvement and job satisfaction. Strong,Jeannerert, McPhai&Bleckley
(1999) in a study practicalthose social, organizational and physical contexts serve as the impetus
for tasks and activities, and considerably influence workers performance. Researches on quality
of work life have also established the importance of safe and healthy working conditions in
determining employees' job performance.Wells (2000) states that place of work satisfaction has
been associated with job satisfaction. In newyears, employees comfort on the job, determined by
workplace conditions and environment has been recognized as an important factor for measuring
their productivity.
Generally scientific research conducted by Roelofsen (2002) has also yielded indications
suggesting that improving working environment results in a reduction in a number of complaints
and absenteeism and an increase in productivity. The indoor environment has the main effect on
productivity in relation to job stress and job dissatisfaction. Recommended by Govindarajulu
(2004), in the twenty-first century, businesses are taking a more strategic approach to
environmental management to enhance their productivity through improving the performance
level of the employees. It is evident in the research findings of Patterson M G, West M A,
Lawthorn R and Nickell, S., (2003) that the more satisfied workers are with their jobs the better
the company is likely to perform in terms of subsequent profitability and particularly
productivity.
Furthermore, Sekar (2011) argues that the relationship between work, the workplace and the
tools of work, workplace becomes an integral part of work itself. The management that dictate
how, exactly, to maximize employee productivity center around two major areas of focus:
personal motivation and the infrastructure of the work environment (Sekar, 2011). There are
different literatures that define different factors that influence the performance of the employees.
Haynes (2008) explains the behavioral office environment behavioral components of the office
environment that have the greatest impact on office productivity. In all of the work patterns, it
was found that interaction was perceived to be the component to have the most positive effect on
productivity, and distraction was perceived to have the most negative.
2.6.4 Motivation
Soo and Lewis (2009) define job performance as the result of motivation and ability. Ability
includes training, education, equipment and simplicity of task, experience and both inborn
mental and physical capacity. Given all of these factors at their peak, an employee may still not
perform well on the job if the motivation is not directed at that particular task. Abonam (2001)
supports this in stating that people need both motivation and ability. Highly motivated workers
will not achieve results if they do not have the necessary skills, expertise and attitude that the
organization requires of them. Similarly, employees with expertise, knowledge and skill will not
do well if they are unmotivated. He further says that the most widely accepted reason why
people are motivated to work and perform is rooted in expectancy theory.
Verhellen (1994) argues that motivation strategies aim to create a working environment and to
develop policies and practices, which will provide for higher levels of performance from
employees. They will be concerned with measuring motivation to provide an indication of areas
where motivational practices need to be improved; ensuring, so far as possible, that employees
feel they are valued; developing behavioral commitment; developing an organization climate
which will foster motivation; improving leadership skills; job design; PM; compensation and
reward management; and the use of behavioral modification approaches.
Le Tran,( 2002) cited motivation is a key determinant of job performance and a poorly motivated
force will be costly in terms of excessive staff turnover, higher expenses, negative morale and
increased use of managements’ time. Therefore, management must know what exactly stimulates
their staff so resources are not misallocated and dissatisfaction develops among
employees(Jobber, 1994). As Green (2000) has described motivation to be proactive in the sense
of; in dealing with employees who are high performers, motivation is essential, otherwise their
performance will decline or they will simply leave the job. While dealing with low performers,
motivation is a prerequisite; otherwise these employees will drag results down, lower
productivity and certainly would not leave the organization, as they will have nowhere else to go.
A motivated workforce is essential because the complete participation of employees will
certainly drive the profitability of the organization (Carlsen, 2003), believe motivation is the
educating of employees to channel their efforts towards organizational activities and thus
increasing the performance of the said boundary spanning roles. According to Denton, a
motivated workforce will lead to greater understanding, acceptance, commitment to
implementation, understanding of objectives and decision making between management and
employees. Among different elements of motivation we will try to discuss on the following:
2.6.4.1 Reward
Reward is clearly central to the employment relationship. While there are plenty of people who
enjoy working and who claim that they would not stop working even if they were to win a large
sum in a lottery, most of us work in large part because it is the only means of earning the money
I need to sustain us and families in the style to which I am accustomed (Torrington & Hal, 2008).
Total reward is the combination of financial and non-financial rewards available to employees. A
total reward approach is holistic; reliance is not placed on one or two reward mechanisms
operating in isolation, account is taken of every way in which people can be rewarded and obtain
satisfaction through their work (Armstrong, 2009).
2.6.4.2 Incentive
According to Torrington et al. (2008), incentive is here described as an element of payment
linked to the working performance of an individual or working group, as a result of prior
arrangement. This includes most of the payment-by-results schemes that have been produced by
work study, as well as commission payments to salespeople, skills-based pay schemes and
performance-related pay schemes based on the achievement of agreed objectives. The
distinguishing feature is that the employee knows what has to be done to earn the payment,
though he or she may feel very dependent on other people, or on external circumstances, to
receive it.
2.6.4.3. Non-Financial Reward
Non-financial rewards present a large range of desirable extras for organizations. These do not
directly increase the employee‘s financial position, but rather add attraction to life on the job
(DeCenzo& Robbins, 2005). Rewards which do not involve any direct payments and often arise
from the work itself, for example, achievement, autonomy, recognition, scope to use and develop
skills, training, career development opportunities and high quality leadership (Armstrong, 2009).
2.6.5 Training
Le Tran, (2002) cited on his journal that the developing process of employees’ skill in order to
improve the performance is called training. Training is a type of activity which is planned,
systematicand it results in enhanced level of skill, knowledge and competency that are necessary
to perform work effectively. Existing literature presents evidence of an existence of obvious
effects of training and development on employee performance (Swanson, 1999).
According to Wright &Geroy (2001) noted that employee competencies change through
effective training programs. Training has been proved to generate performance improvement
related benefits for the employee as well as for the organization by positively influencing
employee performance through the development of employee knowledge, skills, ability,
competencies and behavior (Appiah 2010; Harrison 2000).
Furthermore Kasau (2014) showed that employees should be trained to equip with positive
attitudes towards work and training should also be done with an objective of building the “how”
to deliver quality services to the customers. For the employees to perform well, they should be
trained and then positioned for any personal growth opportunities available in the company.
Vemić (2007) stated that the renewing knowledge is an imperative for the organization, and not
an option. Falola , (2014) also argued as training is imperative for effective performance of
employees, enhancement of employees’ ability to adapt to the changing and challenging business
environment and technology for better performance, increase employees’ knowledge to develop
creative and problem solving skills.
According to Swart.(2005), bridging the performance gap refers to implement a relevant training
intervention for the sake of developing particular skills and abilities of the workers and
enhancing employee performance. He further elaborate the concept by stating that training
facilitate organization to recognize that its workers are not performing well and thus their
knowledge, skills and attitudes needs to be molded according to the firm needs. There might be
various reasons for poor performance of the employees such as workers may not feel motivated
any more to use their competencies, or may be not confident enough on their capabilities, or they
may be facing work- life conflict. All the above aspects must be considered by the firm while
selecting most appropriate training intervention that helps organization to solve all problems and
enhance employee motivational level to participate and meet firm expectations by showing
desired performance.
However, employee performance is also affected by some environmental factors such as
corporate culture, organizational structure, job design, performance appraisal systems, power and
politics prevailing in the firm and the group dynamics. If the above mentioned problems exist in
the firm, employee performance decreases not due to lack of relevant knowledge, skills and
attitude, but because of above mentioned hurdles. To make training effective and to ensure
positive effect of training on employee performance these elements should be taken into
consideration Wright and Geroy (2001).
2.6.6. Individual Characteristics
Bio-data is yet another factor explaining variation in individual performance. Kanfer and
Ackerman (2004) suggest that age is likely to be positively associated with increased preferences
for physical security, job security and salary. Similarly, they inferred that in the absence of work
role changes and compensation scheme, the attractiveness of job performance is expected to
decline with age.
Research on the relationship between age and work performance contradicts widespread beliefs
that performance decreases with age (Davies et al., 1991). There has long been a view of a
negative age-performance relationship (Rhodes, 1983), although the belief has endured without
conclusive empirical support (McEvoy&Cascio, 1989). One theoretical rationale for the
hypothesized negative relationship is the decremental theory of aging which suggests that
increased age causes deterioration in abilities, such as speed, dexterity, motor coordination, and
strength (Ginger et al., 2003, Salthouse, 1997). Likewise, Kliegl and Mayr (1992) have advanced
a model that suggests there is an underlying single negative effect of age-related influences on a
wide range of cognitive variables. Particularly, age has also been shown to be associated with
decreases in performance on tests of learning, memory, reasoning, spatial abilities, and
psychomotor speed (Lindenberger and Baltes, 1994; Salthouse, 1991; Schaie and Willis, 1993;
Verhaeghen and Salthouse, 1997).
2.7. Agricultural Extension
According to Van Assche (2016) agricultural extension is defined as an approach to rural
development and agricultural transformation where knowledge, teaching, and learning play key
roles to ensure food security, reduce rural poverty and sustainably manage the natural resource
basis. It is practiced in many forms and involves multiple actors such as from
universities/colleges, research systems, the public agriculture and rural development sectors and
the farmers. These actors play leading roles in knowledge production and management, teaching,
learning and defining the knowledge needed for specific developmental goals. These networks of
actors are acting in quite similar manner to the Soviet system of knowledge production where a
complex system of agricultural, academic, research and other development actors are organized
for action (Danieli&Shtaltovna, 2006).
As identified by van Assche and Hornidge (2015), knowledge is the key driver of Ethiopian
agricultural extension and rural development. The state controls knowledge production and
dissemination, which is indicative of a high level of state investment in agriculture (Spielmanet
al., 2012). However, the top-down approach to knowledge transfer undermines the local
resources, practices, and indigenous knowledge. Typically, extension actors consider new
knowledge and technology as a panacea to the problems of rural development and agricultural
transformation.
Diverse sources of knowledge are active in agricultural extension. However, despite the
diversity, the integration of actors/institutions and power/knowledge in translating the epistemic
resources into reality has been proved low and identified as the reason for the current state of
agricultural development. As a “developmental state,” Ethiopia seems to have adopted a
combination of capitalist and communist extension approaches. For instance, on the one hand,
the state actively engages in agricultural extension and rural development by supporting
agricultural research, education and training, like its counterparts in the Netherlands (Van
Assche&Hornidge 2015). On the other, agricultural extension in Ethiopia is highly expert-and
technology-driven, production-oriented, and relies on scientific expertise and high input
production, as seen in the ex-Soviet states and China. However, the integration of expertise and
technology with the farming system, the farmers’ needs, as well as the coordination of the
system, in general, are low.
2.8. Role of DAs in Agricultural Extension
While the ultimate beneficiaries of the agricultural extension activity are farmers, DAs serve as
the crucial link between the state agencies and the beneficiaries. The interviewed experts and
household survey participants are familiar with the following functions of DAs: (i) providing
skill training to smallholder farmers, (ii) supplying and demonstrating technologies, (iii)
collating and disseminating the necessary information to the farmers, (iv) providing technical
support and extension services, (v) building farmers’ organizational capacity and (vi) providing
administrative support to the kebele. However, not all DAs contribute equally to each of these
functions. For instance, most DAs lack the soft skills needed for building farmers’ organizational
capacity and they have little available information for dissemination.(MoA, 2010 cited by Leta,
2018).
According to Swanson and Rajalahti (2010), frontline extension staff facilitate training and
support. Per the PES policies, the DAs are to provide training to model farmers, who, in turn,
provide technical orientation to their followers to ensure proper implementation of technology
packages or best practices advocated by the state (Letaet al, 2017). However, if the introduced
technology is too complex to understand and implement, all the farmers are trained by the DAs.
In reality, model farmers lack the experience, capability or diligence needed to mentor their
followers collectively. This can be attributed mainly to the numerous activities that the model
farmers are expected to coordinate.
Currently, the DAs are not authorized to convene farmers meetings; they use the meetings
organized by the kebeleadministration as an opportunity to transfer extension-related messages
(Letaet al. 2017). Their dependence on the goodwill and support of the kebeleadministration
curtails their direct involvement in delivering the agricultural extension solutions. FTCs, where
DAs are expected to play a key role in technology demonstration, sourcing, skill development
and knowledge transfer, have become operational only recently. Davis et al. (2010) identified
critical shortage of resource and infrastructure as the primary limitations in service provision and
technology demonstration at the FTC. In fact, the FTC network has been established to enable
training, information-sharing, knowledge transfer; technology demonstration and access to
extension services (Davis et al. 2010; Gebremedhinet al, 2006).
Globally, access to information communication technology (ICT) has been identified as a key
factor for social and economic development (Hornidge&Antweiler, 2012). Within the context of
agricultural extension services, ICT has the potential to facilitate communication and information
exchange between farmers and DAs. However, FTCs in Ethiopia lack the requisite infrastructure
and technology to disseminate agricultural information. Moreover, DAs are unfamiliar with
using ICT (Davis et al., 2010). Another promising information tool is the Ethiopian agricultural
information hotline – a collaborative effort between MoANR, ATA, Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR) and Ethio-telecom. Operational since 2014, the hotline enables
farmers to directly access agronomic advice from their mobile phones (Letaet al. 2017; ATA,
2014).
DAs are involved in multiple activities and consequently have less time to work with farmers on
issues of farming and agricultural technology transfer. As per government definitions, most of
their activities are targeted at “development,” and not specifically agricultural extension work,
which involves technology transfer and providing extension services to farmers(Kassa, 2008).
Information and instruction flows through multiple channels from the woredasto the DAs. Apart
from WoANR, DAs are instructed to implement the initiatives of different woredaoffices, which
rely on their support to fulfill their agendas (Letaet al. 2018). Similarly, research organizations
and development partners seek DA assistance to connect with the community on an ad hoc basis.
As reported by Abate (2007), we found that the absence of a clear line of command is a key
drawback in the Ethiopian AES. DAs are also occupied with numerous non-extension activities
that compete with their extension service functions towards smallholder farmers (Letaet al. 2017;
Kassa 2008).

In Ethiopia, DAs have been reported to engage in multiple activities, including those that are not
directly related to agriculture (Gebremedhinet al.,2006; Kelemework and Kassa, 2006; Belay
&Abebaw, 2004). Picclotto and Anderson (2007) well-known that “because extension agents
were among the few government officials available at the village level, they were often asked to
undertake clerical, statistical, or even political chores.” During elections, DAs are engaged in
mobilizing farmers. In fact, their involvement may even extend to influencing voters
(Berhanu&Poulton, 2014) in favor of the ruling party. According to Picclotto and Anderson
(2007), DAs are viewed as the foot soldiers of “nation building” campaigns targeting at different
economic and social objectives, although their involvement in non-agricultural activities is
considered as a distraction from their main tasks (Berhanu&Poulton 2014; Davis et al. 2010;
Christoplos, 2010). Abate (2007) noted that “more than 90% of agricultural staff time at all
levels is used for accomplishing ad hoc, sporadic, reactive and non-professional duties.”
2.9. Challenges to the Agricultural Extension
Despite heavy investment of resources by the state, the AES is faced with number of serious
challenges. Most of these challenges have persistently passed over from regime to regime. It
includes technical, policy, and organizational and institutional dimensions.
2.9.1. Technical Challenges
Davis et al.(2010) note that DAs lack the skills required for functions important to the farmers,
such as agricultural marketing (value chain) and agricultural intensification and diversification.
They also lack soft skills such as process facilitation, communication, and the ability to organize
farmer-producer groups. According to Leta (2018) most DAs have highly specialized
backgrounds, and they lack the comprehensive skills required to combine crop, livestock, and
natural resource management. Early in their careers, DAs tend to work hard to make a positive
impression (images) and secure available opportunities for long-term training. As a result,
despite a high number of local staff and program coverage, agricultural extension has relatively
had little impact in Ethiopia.
Shortage of skilled personnel is another problem observed in the studied woredas. Only a few
experts are available to represent the different divisions of the WOANR, such as crop agronomy,
protection, horticulture, and natural resource management (Leta, 2018). The NRM extension is
often based on state-organized campaigns.
2.9.2. Policy-related Challenges
The government of Ethiopia does not have a long-term strategic vision for an AES. As a result,
the implementation approach of the existing AES has witnessed repeated changes. A serious
challenge to the system is that the policies and focus of agricultural extension and rural
development are constantly revised (Leta, 2018). For instance, the AES’ focus has changed from
national-level issues such as rainwater harvesting to rain fed agriculture or small-scale irrigation,
which are relevant at the local level. Such sudden changes in policies and strategies deplete the
farmers’ trust in the extension and planning system.

Although a decentralized system of decision-making was introduced in the early 2000s

(Dickovick&Gebre-Egziabher, 2010), most woredasare yet to implement the plan. Theoretically,
decentralization encourages public participation (Swanson &Rajalahti, 2010). As reported by
Bingen and Simpson (2015) and Cabral (2011), in Ethiopia’s decentralized system, the ruling
elites at the center (federal and regional administration) seek to expand and consolidate their
support base by integrating with woredaandkebeleadministration and local elites (model
farmers). This nominal decentralization system can potentially weaken the power and authority
of the Woreda Office of Agricultural and Natural Resources(WOANR). As a result, agricultural
extension may not receive the emphasis it deserves.

According to Kassa (2008), agricultural extension in Ethiopia does little to equip farmers with
problem-solving skills and organizational power. The system is designed as a tight top-down
structure, where the technology transfer follows a set pattern. While DAs may urge farmers to
“take and use” new technologies, they rarely encourage them to develop and adapt these
technologies to their own situations.
2.9.3 Organizational and Institutional Challenges
Agricultural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council(ADPLAC) was established as a
platform to strengthen the linkage between research, extension, and farmers (MoA 2010).
However, the links between these three components are far from satisfactory. In fact, this
problem has been repeatedly cited as one of the major causes of underdevelopment in the
Ethiopian agriculture sector (Belay 2003; Deressa&Seboka,2007). While ADPLAC holds
periodic meetings, it has no decision-making power or budget. It does not monitor the progress
of any of the planned activities. Lack of commitment among the ADPLAC members is another
challenge because most members are temporary. Credit services help resource-constrained
farmers’ access agricultural inputs as well as conduct off-farm businesses. However,
microfinance institutes in rural Ethiopia are poorly developed and provide only limited services.
The initial credit ceiling for a farmer is about 3,000 birr/person. The major challenges, however,
are the group collateral system and the requirement of advance savings for loan eligibility (Leta,
2018). Women identified the “interest rate” as another problem that kept farmers in the credit
cycle. The interest rates in Ethiopia range from 15% to over 24% per year for public and private
microfinance loans, respectively (Letaet al. 2017). Farmers do not have much choice in the
matter of technology adoption, particularly when it comes to improved seeds. The number and
capacity of seed producers in the country is never adequate to meet farmers’ demand. Mellor and
Dorosh (2010) reported that the lack of seeds is the most serious obstacle to meeting agricultural
growth targets.
High input and low output prices discourage farmer participation in extension initiatives.
Ethiopian farmers produce crops on small and fragmented plots of land, and their efforts are not
organized to gain market power. Moreover, farmers deliberately store their crops over extended
periods to sell them when the market prices increase (Leta, 2018). Unfortunately, these crops
succumb to postharvest losses because of poor storage conditions and pests. Crop loss is often
accompanied by severe market failure. These conditions exacerbate the farmer’s inability to
adopt agricultural technologies.
Agricultural extension services are characterized by a high staff turnover. Not surprisingly,
unattractive remuneration, poor amenities and a weak incentive structure are the main reasons
behind this trend. The emergence of a new private education system in the country has also
created better opportunities for extension staff, in better-paying service sectors (Leta,
2017;2018). He also stated inflexible political system, which compels DAs and experts to
become members of the ruling political party, is another contributor to the increasing turnover.
Some DAs look for alternative jobs to overcome their conditions of rural hardship.
2.10. Opportunities for Agricultural Extension
The steady growth in both domestic and global market demands for crop and livestock products
presents the biggest opportunity for Ethiopia's agricultural and rural development. Mc Dermott et
al.(2010) explain that demands for livestock products, in particular, have been increasing with
the changes in population size, lifestyles, and consumption behavior. Reforms within Ethiopia’s
agricultural sector can help the nation cope with rapid changes and address emerging needs.
Improving access to agricultural inputs and technologies that assist farmers in boosting
production are other opportunities available to the state. While a high number of DAs have been
appointed to improve the AES and its overall coverage (Davis et al, 2010; Abate, 2007).
Improving access to all-weather roads as well as communication and media services are
alternative approaches to link the smallholder farmers to market information. The use of mobile
phones should be promoted so that farmers can receive free advice on production technology or
agronomic practices from the hotline service, established in 2014 by the ATA in collaboration
with other national partners (Letaet al,2017; ATA, 2014). DAs explain that the adoption of the
PES and formation of farmer groups can ensure better technology transfer to the grassroots, with
model farmers acting as the facilitators. The PES has helped overcome some of the challenges
that DAs faced in reaching out to many farmers. The state is politically committed to improving
farmers’ livelihoods by investing in the agricultural extension service. However, the state is
promoting agricultural extension to fulfill twin imperatives: ensure food security, and deepen
existing political control (Berhanu&Poulton 2014; Adem, 2012). Access to capacity building
and credit services are among the basic requirements to promote agricultural extension.
2.11. Empirical Review
Zenawi, Atomsa and Arkebe (2015) study on challenges of development agents in
technologydissemination for extension purposes in theSouthern region of Ethiopia indicated that
effectiveness of development agents is challenged by job dissatisfaction; existence of
poorcommunication, very poor formal linkage among farmers, development agents and
researchers; andlack of motivation for development agents to fully serve community. Moreover,
Getahun (2016) study on determinants of performance of Agricultural Extension Workers in
Southwest Ethiopia revealed that the majority of DAs were poorly performed their job due to
work burden, extremely low payment, difficult & disadvantaged work environment, poor social
status, and poor interpersonal relationship with co-worker
Alebachew and Daniel (2015) study on psychological Factors Affecting their Work Motivation
of DevelopmentAgents in Wolaita Zone, SNNPRS reviled that 55.3% of DAs had medium
levelof work motivation. Theoverall mean of motivational score was 2.58 which indicate that
work motivationlevel of DAs was almost in medium level and need efforts to improve it.
Similarly, Kaleb, Mekonnen, MekonnenandTuruwark (2014) study on determinants and Levels
of agricultural Development AgentsJobSatisfaction:In the Case of KaluWoreda, South Wollo
Zone of the Amhara National Regional State indicated that there exists a statistically significant
relationship between job satisfaction and recognition for best performances, rate of promotion,
regular training and level of education of development agents. Similarly, Gebre(2018) study on
Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System and Its Role as a “Development Actor” in
Southwestern Ethiopia indicated that agricultural extension is constrained by multiple
challenges: high input and low output prices, knowledge and skill gaps among development
agents and model farmers, non-inclusive extension services system, ambitious top-down
allocation of plans, and actors’ involvement in non-extension activities.
Furthermore, Dechasa (2013) study on factors Influencing Work Motivation of Development
Agents in Lume District Agricultural Office, Oromia Region, Ethiopia indicated that age, sex,
marital status, service year, placement distance from home place, and personal life were among
 the personal factors examined in this study. Achievement, Advancement, Recognition,
Responsibility, & The work itself were analyzed under work related factors (motivational
factor).Under the organization related factors (hygiene factors), Interpersonal relations,
Perception about salary,Supervision, Organizational administration, Working condition and Job
security were examined in this study. Similarly,Desalegn(2014)study on analyzing Determinants
of Development Agents' work performance in Agricultural Extension Services Provision in
South West Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State identified work location, work incentives, job
security, supervision system, job description, Performance appraisal systems, policy environment
and attitude of DAs towards their job are significantly affecting work performance of
Development Agents in the study area.
2.12. Conceptual Frameworkof the Study
The research is manly based on the conceptual framework which adopted from Debebe(2016)
and some modification is taken as depicted in figure below. Based on the conceptual framework,
the earlier hypothesis was developed. This research study has mainly six independent variables
namely Leadership, Organizational Culture, Training, Motivation, personal factors and working
environment and one dependent variable i.e. Development agents performance. The purpose of
the study was to identify determinants of development agents’performance in enhancing
agricultural extension services.

Training of DA's

Development Agents
Motivation of DA's Performance Working Condition
Ethics
Initiation to change
Cooperativeness

Leadership Organizational Culture

Personal Factors
Gender
Age
Family size
Education level
 Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the study
Source: -Adapted and modified fromDebebe(2016)
CHPATER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the Study Area
The study conducted in Bursa Woreda, Sidama Zone, SNNPR. Currently, Sidama zone
comprises 30 woredas and 6 reform towns. Bursa woreda is one of the 30 woredas. Bursa
Woreda is bordered on the south by the Teticha, on the west by the AletawondoWoreda, on the
north Gorche and WonshoWoreda and east by the Bonazuria and ShafamoWoreda (BWoFEDO,
2018). It is located 380 km south of Addis Ababa and 92 km from the regional capital Hawassa.
The total area of woreda is stimated to 159sq.kms.Bursa Woreda has an altitude of 2605 m.a.s.l
and located at latitude, 6˚39’to 6˚50’N and 38˚18’to 38˚31’E. The annual minimum and
maximum temperature of the area is12 and 18 ˚C,respectively. The annual average rain fall is
about 1400mm (BWOFED.2018). The population of Bursa 101,856 of which women account for
50,690 (49.7%) and men 51,166 (50.3%) of the population (BWoFEDO, 2018). The agro-
ecology of Bursa District can be considered as high and mid altitude.
Annual growth rate of population of the woreda is estimated as 3.2%. In the case of population
density 5 to 6 persons live per square kilo meter. Total extension users male 15,784 female 563
total 16,347 from twenty one kebeles. Mixed agriculture i.e crop production and animal
production are main economic activities of the community. The main crops grown in the area
are: inset (false banana), wheat, barley, maize, potato and vegetables. The most common grazing
animals include: cows, sheep, goats, horse, mule and poultry. There have been 19 FTCs, 75
development agents and 68 agricultural office experts and agricultural office heads in the woreda
(Source: Bursa woreda agricultural and natural resource and Livestock and fishery office).
Figere-2: Map showing location of study area
Source: Developed by researcher, 2019
3.2. Research Design
Research design is the blueprint for fulfilling research objectives and answering research
questions (Kotahri, 1995). In this study the researcher employed a cross sectional research
design. Since cross-sectional survey design is an approach in which the data collected on the
whole study population at a single point in time to examine the relationship between variables of
the study. It provides a snapshot of the frequency of characteristics in a population at a given
point in time.
3.3. Research Approach
In this study the researcher employed a mixed(quantitative and qualitative) approach so as to get
the necessary information related to the study. Quantitative approach helps to grasp on the
statistics, figures and facts from the study area. Whereas, qualitative approach helps to
understand the perceptions, views, and opinions of the participants. This data is beneficial in
providing subjective information that would be difficult to get through a quantitative approach.
Thus, due to their importance, a mixed approach to both data has been employed in this study.
3.4. Sources of Data
This study employed primary sources of data. The sources of primary data weredevelopment
agents, users of extension service, experts, heads of development groups and heads of agriculture
and natural resource and animal and fishing office heads. The source of secondary data was
published and unpublished materials namely thesis, reports, plans, journals, articles etc.
3.5. Populationof the Study
The target populations of this study were75 development agents and 4,798 extension user
households of Bursa woreda. In addition, experts and heads of agriculture and natural resource
and animal and fishing office headswerethe part of the study.
3.6. Sampling Procedure
In this study in order to capture a representative sample multistagesampling technique
employed. Firstly, the study selected 75 development agents (54 male and 21 female) of Bursa
woredausingcensus sampling procedure since the population of the study is small and
manageable.
Secondly, according to Bursa woreda Finance and Economic Development Office(2019) there
are a total of 16,347 households using extension service in 18 rural kebeles of which the
researcher selected only six kebles using stratified sampling procedure on the basis of their agro
ecology(Dadahe, Shafame and HaroBulekebeles from Dega agro ecology and Bursa Batala,
HumoGowacho and Mata Murshanokebeles from WoyinaDegakebeles)and they are high
performers(HaroBule, Shafame and Mata murshano) and low performers (Dadahe,
HumoGowacho and Bursa Balata) of agricultural extension service provided by DA's which
account 4798 extension service users. Thirdly, the researcher organized a list from the selected
Kebeles and conductedsimplesystematic selection of the sample households by giving equal
possibility for each kebeles. The total extension user households in the six sample kebeles are
4798 (of which 801 are from Dadahe, 711 from IlalaShafame, 910 from HaroBule, 773 from
Bursa Batala, 841 from HumoGowacho and 762 from Mata Murshano) and from the total
households, 196 sample households selected using Yamane (1967)formula for n in sampling
finite population.
Fourthly,Yamane (1967:886) provides a simplified formula to calculate sample sizes n

N
¿ Where n is the sample size,N is the population size, e= 0.07 then by using this
1+ N (e 2)
formula.e refers to the level of precision(0.07) because of (0.05) precision level sample is not
manageable due to time and cost constraints.Totally 4798 farmer households are available in the

4798
sample kebeles. By using above formula the sample size was n= 2 = 4798/24.51=
1+ 4798(0.07 )
196
Fifthly, the researcher employed probability proportional to the size of population in each
kebelesand taking under consideration about gender proportionality. The sampling frame for
this study wasKebele diary, which consists lists of households in selected Kebelesused as
guidance to interview farm households in eachKebeles. The method is shown below:-
Table 1: Table to show sample size and sampling techniques
No Name of the selected Kebele Total HH(N) Sample Size(n)
MHH FHH THH MHH FHH THH
1 Dadahe (K1) 775 26 801 32 1 33
2 Shafame(K2) 675 36 711 28 1 29
3 HaroBule(K3) 886 24 910 35 2 37
4 Bursa Batala(K4) 753 20 773 31 1 32
5 HumoGowacho(K5) 823 29 841 32 2 34
6 Mata Murshano(K6) 726 36 762 30 1 31
Total 4627 171 4798 188 8 196

n∗ss
Distribution has proportionate to size sampling.¿ Where n=Total population in each strata,
N
ss= determined sample size and N= Total population. Therefore, the sample size of

801∗196 711∗196 910∗196

Dadahekebele =33, Shafamekebele is =29, HaroBulekebeleis =37,
4798 4798 4798

773∗196 841∗196
Bursa Batalakebele is = 32,HumoGowachokebele is = 34,Mata
4798 4798

762∗196
Murshanokebele is = 31
4798
 18 rurlarkebeles of Bursa woreda households (Purposive Sampling)

Development Agents (75) 6 rural Kebeles (Stratified

(Census Sampling) sampling)

Dega Agro ecology WoyinaDega Agro

ecology

Dadahe (33) HumoGowacho (34)

IlalaShafame
IlalaShafame (29)
(29) Mata Murshano (31)

HaroBule (37) Bursa Batala (32)

Systematic Random Sampling

Figure 3: Diagrammatic representation of sampling procedure

Source: Developed by researcher, 2019
Regarding key informants 4 experts of woreda agriculture& natural resource and livestock and
fishing resource office, 2heads ofworeda agriculture& natural resource and livestock and fishing
resource office, 2woreda extension supervisor, and other stakeholders from, for instance,
farmers’ cooperatives, cooperative agencies, woreda and kebeleadministrationand generally a
total of 10 key informants will be selected using purposive method based on their knowledge
and experience on the topic under study area. Whereas, four group discussion (one in
eachkebele) planned to arrange with heads of development groups that comprises 8-12
participants in each FGD sessions conducted. FGD participants selected through voluntary basis
through purposive sampling technique.
3.8.Data Gathering Tools
For collection of data for the study household survey, Focus group discussions and Key
informant interviews used.
3.8.1. Household Survey:Structured questionnaire used to capture all the important data that
related the topic under study. Questionnaire prepared in English and translated to
Amharic/SidamaAfoo in order to be easily understood for the respondents. A household
survey conducted with 75 DAs and 196 extension service user households’ farmers were
randomly selected. The researcher employed a semi-structured interview checklist that
developed by the researcher after exploring the study sites, informally probing the target
actors and beneficiaries of information related to agricultural extension. The researcher
conducted one-on-one interviews by going house-to-house to farmers and instrument
prepared to DAs was self- administered by DA's
3.8.2. Interview:In depth interview conducted with 6 heads of agriculture and natural
resource and livestock and fishing resource offices at woreda level and extension
coordinators(experts), woreda extension supervisors and other stakeholders from, for
instance, farmers’ cooperatives, cooperative agencies, woreda and kebele administration.
Open ended probing questions prepared to collect qualitative data from key informants on
scholarly information on activities of DA's on providing extension service, their performance
and determinants of their performance.
3.8.3. Focus Group Discussion: The researcher conducted FGDs with 12 groups of farmers,
both male and female, six selected kebeles with the intention to get views and opinion of the
community on performance and determinants of performance of DA's. Participants of FGD
selected purposively based on their activities in Development group and consumption of
extension services. Thus, semi structured interview guideline or checklist has beenemployed
for discussion and probing information during the FGDs. The guideline focused on DA’s
performance and determinants of performance of DA's in the study area. The FGD intended
to generate additional information to complement the data to be generated through a
household survey and informal discussions with groups/individuals.
3.9. Procedure of Data Collection
In order to collect data pertinent to the study, research authorization permit obtained from Bursa
woreda agriculture and natural resource office in order to be allowed to collect data from
selected development agents and users of extension service. The researcher proceeded to rural
households and development agents to collect data as per the schedule. Information collected
will be treated with confidentiality. Those selected rural kebeleswerepre-visited by the researcher
to establish rapport with them before the actual data collection dates. This allowed familiarizing
with the respondents. The researcher oriented objective of the study to data collectors and
development agents and distributed the questionnaires.Regarding key informant interview and
FGD the researcher selected and appointed them in appropriate places where the interview has
taken place. Similarly, the researcher met with FGD participants in appropriate place and made
discussion based on a prepared the guide-line which lasts 40 min to 1 hour and the researcher
served as a moderator.
3.10Validity and Reliability of Instruments
The researcher planned to undertake a pre-test prior to dispatching of instruments for final data
gathering. Thus, the researcher took 10% of sample respondents from those rural kebelswhich
are not selected with the purpose of modifying the tools if there are defects found and secured
the validity and reliability of instruments before use. Thus, the researcher checked face and
content validities by advisor and internal consistency of the instruments using Cronbach alpha.
Internal consistency reliability of the Amharic versions of the instrument was determined for the
scale using Cronbach’s alpha. The computed Cronbach alpha coefficients was 0.764 for
questionnaire prepared extension users and 0.810 for development agents. The values are usually
approximately the same and either can be reported. An Alpha score above 0.75 is generally taken
to indicate a scale of high reliability. Finally, ambiguous words and sentences rephrased or
reworded.
3.11. Data Analysis and Interpretation
Collected data from the study were both quantitative and qualitative in nature following the
research questions. Data analysis has been conducted in a descriptive form having identified
thematic areas in reference to the research objectives. Quantitative data collected from
questionnaires coded and analyzed with the aid of software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Science) version 21 program. Thus, in order to examine the performance level of development
agents and to identify major challenges faced by development agents in providing agricultural
extension service in the study areadescriptive statistical analysis tools namely frequency
distribution, percentage, mean and standard deviationand inferential statistical tool independent
sample t-test has been employed. However, to identify major determinants of performance of
development agents in enhancing agricultural extension service in Bursa woreda an inferential
statistical analysis tools namely multipleregression model particularly Ordinal Least
Square(OLS) has been employed. However, qualitative data to be collected through interview as
well as focus group discussion analyzed qualitatively and the dominant themes captured and
presented through narratives based on the research objectives. Finally, results of the study
presented using tabulation and graphs.

3.12. Variables of the study

3.12.1. Dependent Variable
1. Performance of Development Agents(Y); - refers the accomplishment of DAs performance
used by woreda agriculture office prepared basing standards of BPR namely ethics, initiation
for change and cooperativeness of DAs. It is continuous variable.
3.12.2. Independent Variables
Lists of various variables are major independent variables in the study area that expected to
influence positively and negatively the dependent variable that discussed below
1. Training (X1); Organizational activity aimed at improving DAs skills levels to enhance their
efficiency and effectiveness like on job training, attending in workshops and scholarship.Itis
categorical variable which representing (1)for those who take training in the last two years
(2)Otherwise which expected to affect DA's performance positively/negatively.
2. Motivation (X2); is refers to the forces within DAs namely work load, salary, carrier
opportunity, recognition, personal life, job security and promotion that affect the direction,
intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior. Motivated DAs are willing to exert a particular
level of effort (intensity) for a certain amount of time (persistence) toward a particular goal
(direction). It is discreet variable which representing (1)strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree (3)
Undecided (4) Agree and (5) Strongly Agree which expected to affect DA's performance
positively.
3.Leadership (X3); is supervisor’s style of providing direction to DAs team they supervise,
implementing plans and decision making processes, their relation with their heads, governance of
extension system etc in their day to day job roles. It is discreet variable which representing
(1)strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree (3) Undecided (4) Agree and (5) Strongly Agree which
expected to affect DA's performance positively.
4. Organizational culture (X4); is exact collection of values and norms that are shared by
DAsfromworeda to household level organizational structure which include they interact with
each other and with stakeholders outside the organization namely number of villages served,
access to basic needs in work area, size of the kebele, access to transport, relation with the
community etc. It is discreet variable which representing (1)strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree (3)
Undecided (4) Agree and (5) Strongly Agree which expected to affect DA's performance
positively.
5. Working conditions (X5): refers to conditions in which DAs including distance from
residence, amenities, physical environment, and degree of safety of danger, stress and noise
levels, political, regulatory, and environmental factors that influence the survival, operations, and
development of an organization. It is discreet/categorical/continuous which expect to affect DA's
performance positively.
6. Personal factors (X6);-isthose factors that affect performance ofDAs like gender, age,
education level, family size ... etc.Itis discreet/categorical/continuous variable which expect to
affect DA's performance positively/negatively.
 Age (AGE): The age of the owner.DAs and householders owned by relatively younger
theDA and householder perform better than other age groups. (Categorical variable,1= 20
to30 year, 2 = 31 to 40 year, 3 = 41 to 50 year, 4= After 50 years).
 Gender (GENDER): Sex of the DAs and householder. Male-headed households perform
better than their counterparts. (Dummy, Male = 1, Female = 0).
 Education (EDUC): Highest level of schooling attended by the DAs andhouseholder. It is
expected thatDAs and householder with higher level of formal education would be more
likely to perform than those with lower levels of education. (Categorical variable 1=
Unable to read and write, 2 = Read and write, 3 = Primary education (1-8), 4 = Secondary
School, 5= Certificate, 6 = Collage Diploma, 7= First degree and above).
 Family Size(FAMSZ): Member of households living together. It is continuous variable.
3.11. Model Specifications
Findings from descriptive statistics do not tell the determinants of performance of development
agents. Therefore, Ordinary Least Squares method (OLS) regression model employed to identify
such determinants. Since OLS regression helps to describe model of reality, the testing of
significance level about theory and prediction about the feature. It enables us to assess the
relationship between a dependent variable and a collection of independent variable. It is
relatively easy to check the model assumptions such as linearity, constant variance and the effect
of outliers using simple graphical methods.
Ordinary Least Square (OLS) prediction equation is;-

Y = β o+ β lXi1+ β 2Xi2+ β 3Xi3 + β 4Xi4 + β 5Xi5 + β 6Xi6 + e

Y= denotes dependent variables

B= stands for the coefficients
ß = denotes the number of predictor variable (factors explaining the dependent variable),
X= denotes independent variables and i denotes the ith number of the sample population.
e = error term
OLS minimizes the SUM of the squared residuals (OLS minimized SUM E 2).The residual Ei is
the difference between the actual Y and the predicted Y and has a zero mean.Prior to the
estimation of the model parameters, it is crucial to look into the problem of multicolinearity or
association among the potential candidate variables. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is a
measure of multicolinearity among the continuous independent variables. As ‘a rule of thumb’, if
the mean VIF of variables exceeds ten, that variable is said to be highly collinear and it can be
concluded that multicolinearity is a problem.
3.13. Ethical Considerations
This study will carried in line with the approval obtained from Hawassa University, Department
of cooperative development and Bursa woreda agriculture and natural resource office has been
given a written permission to conduct this study in response to a written inquiry. The interview
conducted by letting the participants to have information about the purpose of the study and the
type of information needed from them. Through this process the researcher let the participants to
know the purpose of the research and those who participated according to their willingness. The
questionnaire provided to the respondents had general information about the purpose of the
study. In addition to that it indicated the respondents need not mention their name in the
questionnaire and it insures confidentiality.
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION
In this chapter, the data collected through different data collection methods have been analyzed,
interpreted and presented carefully in order to identify determinants of performance of
Development Agents in enhancing extension service in Bursa Woreda, Sidama zone, SNNPRS.
The statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 21, is used for processing and
analyzing the data obtained from questionnaires.

The questionnaires distributed for 196 extension users and 75 development agents. However, out
of the total 271 questionnaires, 265 questionnaires could be filled and returned (6 of the
respondents were not fully filled and returned). This amounts to a response rate of 71.2%.The
information gathered through key informant interview and focus group discussion used to
complement the data collected through questionnaires. The data presentation is done in such a
way that the response questions and data are grouped according to the respective research
questions. In view of that, the responses are presented as follows.
4.1. Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
In this section demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Development Agents and
Extension Users or rural household heads has been discussed.
4.1.1. Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Development Agents (DA’s)
In this sub section demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Development Agents
(hereafter DA’s) namely gender, age, educational status, service year, field of specialization and
reason for joining agriculture sector as development agent have been discussed.
Table 1: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by gender composition
Item Frequency Percent
Male 55 79.7
Female 14 20.3
Total 69 100
 Source: Own Survey data (2020)
Gender is one of the characteristics, respondents are asked about their sex. In the study area the
proportion of men who served as DAs were 55 (79.7%) and women constitute only 14 (20.3 %),
demonstrating that there is a clearly observable gender gap (Table 1). There are some constraints
for this variation such as cultural norms regarding appropriate works of men and women. This
briefly shows that the ratio between male to female development agents who are currently
serving the community is twice. As a result, in countries like Ethiopia having greater gender
disparitywith few female extension workers, it is very challenging to give agricultural extension
service equally both to the female and male household heads at the same time.The empirical
studies done by Belay and Deginet, (2004) and Belaynesh, (2008) also reveal that agricultural
extension services in the country are male-dominated from the national to the local level. This
has an implication to address the needs and problems of women farmers, because front-
line, male extension workers tend to work with male farmers and sometimes with female
household heads.
Figure 1: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by age
47.80%
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
21.70%
25.00% 18.80%
20.00%
11.60%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years
Source: Own Survey data (2020)
With regard to the age composition of DA respondents, 13 (18.8 %) of respondents are found in
20-24 age categories while 15 (21.7 %) of the respondents were found in the range of 25-29
years age group. Age groups 30-34 years and 35-39 years constituted 33 (47.8 %) and 8 (11.6 %)
of respondents, respectively. The majority of the respondents 61 (88.4 %) were youth found in
the age range of 18-34 years and the remaining 8 (11.6 %) of respondents were adults found
above 35 years. There existed a strong positive relation between age of the respondents and their
work performance (Belayenesh, 2008). However, Giniger et al., (2003) suggests that increased
age of employee causes deterioration in abilities, such as speed, dexterity, motor coordination,
and strength.

Table 2: Demographic characteristics of sampled respondents by marital status

Marital status Responses

Frequency Percentage
Single 19 27.1
Married 49 71.0
Divorced 2 2.9
Widowed 0 0.0
Total 69 100
Source: Own survey data(2020)
With regards to marital status of sample respondents, of the total respondents included in the
study, 19 (27.1 %) of the respondents were single, while majority 49 (71.0 %) of the respondents
were married. However, 2 (2.9 %) of the respondents were widowed and no respondent is
divorced. Thus, majority of sample respondents (71.0 %) of respondents of the study were
married so gives those development agents who got married are more stable to work in their
residence closely with the community by creating strong social integrity, and as a result, no
more staff turnover, minimize extension project and program interruptions.Developing a
deep understanding of farmers’ problem could help in proposing the possible coping mechanisms
and opportunities to improve the livelihood of the farmer. Studies indicated the
relationshipbetween marital status and work motivation, indicating that married Agents have
more motivation and work performance than that of unmarried agents (Fetsch&Kennington,
2007).
Table 3: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by education status
Item Frequency Percent
Certificate 7 10.1
Diploma 43 62.4
First degree 19 27.5
Total 69 100
Source: Own Survey data (2020)
As it indicated in table 3, 7 (10.1 %) of respondents were certified and 43 (62.4 %) of the
respondents have college diploma mainly from Technical and vocational training (TVET) mainly
from Agricultural Technical and Vocational Collages and the rest 19 (27.5 %) were first degree
holders. This implies that majority of the respondents 43 (62.4 %) were diploma holders. And
since all of the respondents were educated, it can be concluded that all DA’s are capable of using
new technology, realizing and doing the objective of agricultural extension service.

Table 4: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by field of specialization

Item Frequency Percent
Plant Science 23 33.3
Animal Science 10 14.5
Natural Resource 13 18.8
Animal health 20 29.0
Cooperative 3 4.3
Total 69 100
Source: Own Survey data (2020)
The survey result shows in Table 4 that, 23 (33.3 %) of respondents were graduates of plant
science. Similarly, 10 (14.5 %), 13 (18.8 %), 20 (29.0%) and 3 (4.3 %) of respondents were
graduates of Animal Science, Natural Resource, Animal health and Cooperative, respectively.
The result of the survey also indicates there is equal weight given to livestock extension, crop
extension and natural resource management and forestry extension departments. However, little
attention is given to cooperatives experts and no extension has been given to communication
experts. The reason behind this was because all ATVETS in the nation train experts by giving
their focus on livestock, crop and natural resource management and forestry extension at diploma
level and also there is high turnover among DA’s.
Table 5: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by experience in agriculture sector
Item Frequency Percent
Below 3 years 8 11.6
3-6 years 33 47.8
7-10 years 20 29.0
Above 10 years 8 11.6
Total 69 100
Source: Own Survey data (2020)
Table 5 above shown, the years of service of development agents ranged from six months to
more than ten years. There is an indication that most of the respondents 33 (47.8 %) served
between 3 -6 years followed by 20 (29.0%) served 7-10 years, 8 (11.6 %) served between below
3 years and 8 (11.6 %) served above 10 years. Thus, the respondents that were served 3-6 years
is greater. Accordingly, the work experience of DAs has a vital role in technology dissemination
since they are better in understanding the real farmers’ problem, the real situation of the
area, can communicate easily with the farmer, work closely with local leaders and elders, and
can develop collaborative work with theircolleagues and supervisors. According to Purcell
(2003), DAs who were employed at an older age stayed with the profession longer than those
who were employed directly after graduation from collage.
Figure 2: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by reason for joining agricultural
sector
81.20%

80.00%
60.00%
13.00%
40.00% 5.80%
20.00%
0.00%
e bs ta
o pl o o
pe rj qu
al t he by
rur to T
rv
e ge VE
se to AT
to t y
d b il i jo
in
te a to
es In
t er e d
In rc
Fo
Source: Own Survey data (2020)
Figure 2 above depicted the reason for joining agricultural sector, 56 (81.2%) joined due to
inability to get other jobs followed by 9 (13.0%) joined since they were forced to join ATVET
by quota and 4 (5.8%) joined due to interested to serve rural people. Thus, majority of
respondents joined the agriculture sector due to their inability to get other job.
Table 6: Housing condition of development agents

Housing condition Responses

Frequency Percentage
Having my own house 11 15.9
Live in rented house 47 68.1
Live in kebele house 6 8.7
 Reside in relative/friend house 2 2.9
Other 3 4.3
Total 69 100
Source: Own survey data(2020)
With regards to housing condition of DAs, of the total respondents included in the study, 47
(68.1 %) of the respondents live in rented house followed by 11 (15.9 %) of the respondents have
their own house. However, 6 (8.7 %) of the respondents live in Kebele house, 2 (2.9%) of the
respondents resides in their relatives/friends and 3 (4.3 %) of the respondents live in other
means. Thus, majority of sample respondents (68.1 %) of respondents of the study live in rented
house.
4.1.2. Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Extension Users
In this sub section demographic and socio-economic characteristics of extension users or rural
household heads(like gender, age, level of education, family size, total land holding size,
participation in agricultural trainings) have been discussed.
Table 7: Demographic characteristics of sampled respondents by gender
Gender Responses
Frequency Percentage
Male 181 92.3
Female 15 7.7
Total 196 100
Source: Own survey data(2020)
With regards to gender composition of sample respondents (extension users), majority 181 (92.3
%) of respondents were males while, the rest 15 (7.7 %) of the respondents were female. Thus,
majority of the respondents male since most of households were male headed.
Figure 3: Demographic characteristics of sampled respondents by age
 43.30%
45.00%
40.00% 34.70%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00% 9.20%
10.00% 6.10%
3.10%
5.00%
0.00%
20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years and above
Source: Own survey data(2020)
As depicted in figure 3 above most of the age respondents was in the age group between 40-49
years, which constituted 85 (43.3 percent) of the respondents. The second major age group is 30-
39 year which accounts 68 (34.7 %). The lowest percentage is observed in the age group 60
years and above which accounts 6 (3.1 %). In terms of different age group, highest ratios were
observed in the age group between 40-49 years in the study area. The average of the respondents
was 42.6 years which ranges from 23- 68 years.
Table 8: Percentage distribution of respondents by education status

Education status Responses

Frequency Percentage
Unable to read and write 124 63.3
Adult education 35 17.8
Primary school 22 11.2
Secondary school 15 7.6
Total 196 100
Source: Own survey data (2020)
Concerning education status of respondents, they were asked about their educational status.
Accordingly, Table 8 shows that, 124 (63.3 %) of the respondents unable to read and write and
35 (17.8 %) of the respondents attend adult education. A significant proportion of respondents 22
(11.2 %) of the respondents were primary school completed and 15 (7.6 %) of the respondents
completed secondary school (grade 9-12). Thus, we can conclude that most of respondents were
unable to read and write.
Table 9: Demographic characteristics of sampled respondents by marital status
 Marital status Responses
Frequency Percentage
Single 13 6.6
Married 176 89.8
Divorced 2 1.1
Widowed 5 2.5
Total 196 100
Source: Own survey data(2020)
With regards to marital status of sample respondents, of the total respondents included in the
study, majority 176 (89.8 %) of the respondents were married followed by 13 (6.6%) were
single. However, 5 (2.5 %) of the respondents were widowed and 2 (1.1 %) of the respondents
were divorced. Thus, majority of sample respondents (89.8 %) of respondents of the study were
married.
Table 10: Socio-economic characteristics of sampled respondents by household size

Household size Responses

Frequency Percentage
Small family size(1-3 person/HH) 38 19.4
Medium family size(4-6 person/HH) 53 27.0
Large family size(Above 6 persons/HH) 105 53.6
Total 196 100
Source: Own survey data(2020)
Majority of the households, 105 (53.6 %) of the respondents had large household size (Above 6
persons per household) followed by 53 (27.0 %) of the respondents had medium size household
size and 38 (19.4 %) of the respondents had small family size. Thus, majority of the households
had a household size greater than 6 with an average household size of 5.2 persons. This is even
greater with national average household size of 4.8 per family (CSA, 2007).
Figure 4: Farm Land size
 13%

49% Below 0.5 hectare

0.51- 1 hectare
Above 1 hectare

38%

Source: Own survey data (2020)

The distribution of respondents by land holding size is shown in Figure 4. Of the sample
households included in the study, 96 (48.8 %) of respondents had a land size less than 0.5 hectare
and 75 (38.3 %) of respondents had a land between 0.51-1 hectare. The remaining 25 (12.9 %) of
respondents had a land above 1 hectare. The mean plot for the sample households is 0.37 hectare
with the minimum and maximum land size of .016 ha and 1.50 hectare, respectively. This is less
than the average land holding of 0.32 hectares per household (CSA, 2007).
Table 11: Percentage distribution of sample respondents by training access
Training opportunity Frequency Percentage
Yes 89 45.4
No 107 54.6
Total 196 100
Source: Own survey data (2020)
The result in Table 11 above indicated that the majority 107 (54.6 %) of the sampled respondents
did not have training opportunity provided by woreda administration while the remaining 89
(45.4 %) replied that they had training opportunity provided by the woreda administration and
other concerned bodies like NGOs.

4.2. Level of performance of Development Agents

To assess the level of performance of DAs in the study area item scores for each category were
arranged under five rating scales. The range of the rating scales were Very High = 1, High = 2,
Moderate = 3, Low = 4 and Very Low = 5. For interpretation and analysis the researcher use the
scale for the range rating scales Very High = 1-1.80, High = 1.81 -2.60, Medium = 2.61 – 3.20,
Low = 3.21 - 4.20 and Very Low = 4.21 – 5.00 scale during interpretation.
 Key = (DA)= Development Agents, (EU)= Extension Users, (SD)= Stander Deviation
(W.M)= Weighted Mean, (Df)= Degree of Freedom, (Sig)=p-value (t)= t-value
Table 12: Respondents opinion on performance of DAs
N

1 Providing on skill Items

training R
DA Total
69 Mean
3.01 SD
1.02 W.M
2.91 t-value
1.077 Sig
.000
EU 196 2.81 1.45
2 Providing extension services DA 69 2.84 .98 2.94 -1.398 .256
EU 196 3.05 1.07
3 Technology adoption DA 69 2.96 .79 3.07 -1.619 .000
EU 196 3.19 1.09
4 Access to agricultural input DA 69 3.16 .86 3.19 -.543 .938
EU 196 3.23 .87
5 Facilitate to access to credit DA 69 3.99 .99 3.58 5.160 .079
EU 196 3.17 1.12
6 Ethical standard DA 69 2.75 1.15 2.94 5.411 .489
EU 196 3.13 1.08
7 Initiation for change DA 69 2.78 1.11 3.12 -2.355 .005
EU 196 3.46 1.18
8 Level of cooperativeness with farmers DA 69 2.35 1.12 2.57 -4.014 .326
EU 196 2.79 1.19
9 Gathering, compiling and timely updated DA 69 2.87 .92 3.03 -2.604 .012
data EU 196 3.19 1.13
10 Preparation of participatory yearly plan DA 69 2.49 .96 2.60 -2.087 .822
EU 196 2.72 1.06
11 Create, support and strengthen extension DA 69 2.80 .90 2.90 -1.541 .622
teams EU 196 3.01 1.04
12 Coordination of farmers field DA 69 3.38 1.03 3.63 -1.432 .782
demonstrations and festivals EU 196 3.88 .95
13 Asking technical and expertise support DA 69 2.90 .84 2.94 -.702 .005
from woreda experts EU 196 2.99 .96
14 Compiling best practices their and other DA 69 3.20 1.17 3.21 -.217 .198
kebeles EU 196 3.23 .93
15 Prepare documents for farmers training DA 69 3.32 1.00 3.19 1.664 .471
considering farmers level of EU 196
understanding 3.05 1.13
16 Identify specialization potential of the DA 69 3.20 .86 3.40 -2.982 .013
kebele based on agro ecology and EU 196
potential of the kebele 3.61 .97
Source: Own survey data (2020)
In items 1 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in providing skill training. The
calculated mean value of Development Agents(DA’s) (3.01) and Extension Users (EU) (2.81),
the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (2.91), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.02) and Extension Users (EU) (1.45),
which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be 1.077 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was 1.077. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) in in providing skill training t (257) = 1.077, p< 0.05.In this regard key informants stated
that DA’s provide skill trainings on timely issues during autumn, spring which help an increase
in productivity and technology transfers like sawing in line, using of selected seeds, follow crop
schedule etc. However, they stated that DA’s experienced several problems that affect skill
training delivery like absence of training delivery place and in most instances DA’s were forced
to train extension users without taking training of trainers (TOT). In addition absence of budget
for kebele for skill training is another serious problem.
In items 2 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in providing extension services. The
calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.84) and Extension Users (EU) (3.05),
the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (2.94), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (0.98) and Extension Users (EU) (1.07),
which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -1.398 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -1.398. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users
(EU) providing extension services t (257) = -1.398, p> 0.05.
In items 3 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in technology adoption. The
calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.96) and Extension Users (EU) (3.19),
the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (3.07), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (.79) and Extension Users (EU) (1.09), which
indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) believed medium. The
computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -1.619 which was greater than the critical region at
(df = 257, α=0.05) was -1.619. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was statistically
significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) in
technology adoption t (257) = -1.619, p> 0.05. In this regards key informants stated that DA’s
transfer different technologies however it is at the expected level. Since DA’s performance
regarding to disseminating a new research findings of the research institutes as well as
technologies to extension users that helps to enhance productivity was poor. This is related with
low motivation among DA’s in relation to salary and incentives. Even those willing DAs faced
problems on inputs to transfer those technologies at farmers’ field like working space. Most of
them are less committed to help the farmer in this regard. Another obstacle was negative attitude
of extension users on accepting new technologies.
In items 4 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in facilitating access to agricultural
inputs. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (3.16) and Extension Users
(EU) (3.23), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU)
(3.19), the standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (.86) and Extension Users (EU)
(.87), which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
low. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -.543 which was greater than the critical
region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -.543. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents(DA’s)and Extension Users (EU)
facilitating access to agricultural inputs t (257) = -.543, p> 0.05. In this regard key informants
stated that there are problems in accessing agricultural inputs timely and based on standard
quality which is mainly related with suppliers of agricultural inputs one of best example was BH
660 and BH 661 maize seed. They also added there is problem in supply of agricultural inputs at
desired amount by extension users.
In items 5 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in facilitating access to credit. The
calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (3.99) and Extension Users (EU) (3.17),
the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (3.58), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (.99) and Extension Users (EU) (1.12), which
indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) believed low and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t-value at α=0.05 was found to be 5.160 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was 5.160. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users
(EU) facilitating access to credit t (257) = 5.160, p> 0.05.
In items 6 of Table 12, on the level of performance regarding DA’s ethical standard. The
calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.75) and Extension Users (EU) (3.13),
the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (2.94), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.15) and Extension Users (EU) (1.08),
which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be 5.411 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was 5.411. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents(DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on DA’s ethical standard t (257) = 5.411, p> 0.05.Key informants stated that most of DA’s
were ethical and doing their activities based on standard however, there were some DA’s that
experience unethical behaviors like absence from work, using different drugs like chewing Khat
and drinking during work hour, using agricultural inputs for personal benefit etc. However,
kebele administration used to correct such unethical acts using education and punishment.
In items 7 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s initiation to change. The calculated
mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.78) and Extension Users (EU) (3.46), the
weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (3.12), the standard
deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.11) and Extension Users (EU) (1.18), which
indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) believed medium whereas, Extension Users (EU)
believed low. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -2.355 which was greater than
the critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -2.355. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was
statistically significant difference between Development Agents(DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on DA’s initiation to change t (257) = -2.355, p> 0.05.Key informants stated that most of
DA’s were having great initiation for change.
In items 8 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s level cooperativeness with famers.
The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.35) and Extension Users (EU)
(2.79), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (2.57), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.12) and Extension Users (EU) (1.19),
which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -4.014 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -4.014. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) DA’s level cooperativeness with famers t (257) = -4.014, p> 0.05. Key informants stated
that most of DA’s were working in the sense of cooperation with kebele community. However,
some time conflict may arises mainly due to late arrival of agricultural inputs but it solved
through discussion. So there is problem in this respect.
In items 9 of Table 12, on the level of performance of gathering, compiling and timely updating
data. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.87) and Extension Users
(EU) (3.19), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU)
(3.03), the standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) .92) and Extension Users (EU)
(1.13), which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
low. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -2.604 which was greater than the critical
region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -2.604. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on gathering, compiling and timely updating data meetings t (257) = -2.604, p> 0.05.
In items 10 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s on preparation of participatory
yearly plan. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.49) and Extension
Users (EU) (2.72), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU)
(2.60), the standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (.96) and Extension Users (EU)
(1.06), which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s)and Extension Users (EU) believed
low. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -2.087 which was greater than the critical
region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -2.087. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on DA’s on preparation of participatory yearly plan t (257) = -2.087, p> 0.05.
In items 11 of Table 12, on the level of performance on creating, supporting and strengthening
extension teams. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.80) and
Extension Users (EU) (3.01), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension
Users (EU) (2.90), the standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.13) and officers
(0.98), which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -1.541 which was less than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -1.541. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on creating, supporting and strengthening extension teams t (257) = -1.541, p> 0.05.
In items 12 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in coordinating of farmer’s field
demonstration. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (3.38) and Extension
Users (EU) (2.90), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and officers (2.94), the
standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (1.03) and Extension Users (EU) (.95), which
indicate that Development Agents (DA’s) believed low whereas Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -1.432 which was less than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -1.432. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) in coordinating of farmer’s field demonstration t (257) = -1.432, p> 0.05.
In items 13 of Table 12, on the level of performance of asking technical and expertise support
from woreda experts. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (2.90) and
Extension Users (EU) (2.99), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension
Users (EU) (2.94), the standard deviation of Development Agents (DA’s) (.84) and Extension
Users (EU) (.96), which indicate that Development Agents (DA’s) believed medium whereas
Extension Users (EU) believed medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -.702
which was greater than the critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -.702. Therefore, it can be
concluded that there was statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s)
and Extension Users (EU) in asking technical and expertise support from woreda experts t(257)
= -.702, p> 0.05.
In items 14 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in compiling best practices their
and other kebeles. The calculated mean value of Development Agents (DA’s) (3.20) and
Extension Users (EU) (3.23), the weighted mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension
Users (EU) (3.21), the standard deviation of customers (1.17) and Extension Users (EU) (.93),
which indicate that both Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) believed
medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -.217 which was greater than the
critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was -.217. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
statistically significant difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users
(EU) on compiling best practices their and other kebeles t(257) = -.217, p> 0.05.
In items 15 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in preparing documents for farmers
training considering farmers level of understanding. The calculated mean value of Development
Agents (DA’s) (3.32) and Extension Users (EU) (3.05), the weighted mean of Development
Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (3.19), the standard deviation of Development Agents
(DA’s) (1.00) and Extension Users (EU) (1.13), which indicate that both Development Agents
(DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) believed medium. The computed t- value at α=0.05 was found
to be 1.664 which was less than the critical region at (df = 257, α=0.05) was 1.664. Therefore, it
can be concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between Development
Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) in preparing documents for farmers training
considering farmers level of understanding t(257) = 1.664, p> 0.05.
In items 16 of Table 12, on the level of performance of DA’s in identifying specialization
potential of the kebele based on agro ecology and potential of the kebele. The calculated mean
value of Development Agents (DA’s) (3.20) and Extension Users (EU) (3.61), the weighted
mean of Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) (3.40), the standard deviation of
Development Agents (DA’s) (.86) and Extension Users (EU) (.97), which indicate that
Development Agents (DA’s) believed medium whereas Extension Users (EU) believed low. The
computed t- value at α=0.05 was found to be -2.982 which was less than the critical region at (df
= 257, α=0.05) was -2.982. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was statistically significant
difference between Development Agents (DA’s) and Extension Users (EU) identifying
specialization potential of the kebele based on agro ecology and potential of the kebele t (257) =
-2.982, p> 0.05.
Key informants as well as FGD participants raised the issue of way DA’s evaluate in which
kebele administrator, who is a state representative at the lowest administrative unit, provides
directions to DAs specialized. The DAs are expected to follow the instructions given by the
kebele administrator, who in turn has received guidance from the woreda. Even if the DAs are
technically competent, their actions and duties are dictated by the administrator. Following the
kebele administrator’s instructions is crucial and kebeleadministrator is in charge of the largest
chunk of DAs’ performance evaluation. In any case, however, the DAs have better voice if they
are also members of the ruling party. In other words, their future depends on how integrated they
are into the system.

4.3. Determinants of Performance of Development Agents

The study employed multiple regression models to identify determinants of performance of
DA’s. Regression analysis is another technique for measuring the association between a
dependent and an independent variable. Regression is a dependence technique that makes a
distinction between dependent and independent variables. Thus, with simple regression, a
dependent (or criterion) variable, Y, is linked to an independent (or predictor) variable, X. linear
regression is used when we want to predict the value of a variable based on the value of another
variable. Thus, in this study to test the effects of independent or predictor variable has on
performance of DA’s (dependent or criterion variable) linear regression test has been performed
(Zikmund et al., 2009).
To draw conclusions about a population based on a regression analysis done on a sample,
according to Field (2009) the following assumptions: variable types, non-zero variance, linearity,
no perfect multicolinearity, independent error and homoscedasticity must be true.

Variable type: the predictor variable must be quantitative or categorical, and the outcome
variable must be quantitative, continuous and unbounded. By quantitative it is meant that they
should be measured at the interval level and by unbounded it is meant that there should be no
constraints on the variability of the outcome. This assumption is maintained in this study by
changing the ordinal data (which was originally gathered) to interval by multiplying each mean
value by the respective number of questions of the instrument.

Non-zero variance: The predictor should have some variation in value (i.e. they do not have
variances of 0).

Linearity/normality: The mean values of the outcome variable for each increment of the
predictors lie along a straight line. One of the important diagnostic tests conducted in this paper
is the normality assumption. Thus, as shown the frequency distribution of the standardized
residuals compared to a normal distribution. Although there are some residuals that are relatively
far away from the line, many of the residuals are fairly close to it(see Appendix D). And this
indicated that the residual (disturbance or errors) are normally distributed. Thus, it can be
concluded that there is no violation of the assumption normality.

No perfect multicollinearity: Multicollinearity exists when there is a strong correlation between

two or more predictors in a regression model. Perfect collinearity exists when at least one
predictor is a perfect linear combination of the others so, the predictor variables should not
correlate too highly (Field, 2009). Thus, one of the information included in Table 17 is co-
linearity statistics which is associated with the extent of correlation between independent
variables. If there is a high correlation between two independent variables, the regression model
assumes redundancy of one of these variables that the significance of it becomes too low and its
coefficient also be negatively affected. The problem is checked by tolerance and Variance
Inflation Factor (VIF). A tolerance of >.10 and a VIF < 10 are considered as good enough to
minimize the effect of multi co-linearity (Miller & Whicker, 1999). Thus, the result implies that
the regression model is not affected by a higher correlation between two independent
variables(See appendix E).
Independent errors: For any two observations the residual terms should be uncorrelated (or
independent). This assumption can be tested with the Durbin–Watson test, which tests for serial
correlations between errors. The test statistic can vary between 0 and 4 with a value of 2 meaning
that the residuals are uncorrelated. A value greater than 2 indicates a negative correlation
between adjacent residuals, whereas a value below 2 indicates a positive correlation.

Homoscedasticity: At each level of the predictor variable, the variance of the residual terms
should be constant. This just means that the residuals at each level of the predictor should have
the same variance (homoscedasticity); when the variances are very unequal there is said to be
heteroscedasticity. Figure 2(see appendix) shows the graph for performance of DA’s data, and as
exhibited in figure 2 the points are randomly and evenly dispersed throughout the plot. This
pattern according to Field(2009) is indicative of a situation in which the assumptions of linearity
and homoscedasticity have been met.

According to Field, (2009) to test the normality of residuals, looking at the histogram and normal
probability plot(normal P-P plot) of the data is important. The histogram should look like a
normal distribution (a bell-shaped curve).Thus, the distribution of the data exhibited on figure
5(Appendix 7) can be considered normal.
According to Field(2009) the normal probability plot can also be used to check if there are
deviations from normality. The straight line on the plot represents a normal distribution, and the
points represent the observed residuals. Therefore, in a perfectly normally distributed data set, all
points will lie on the line. Thus, since the dots exhibited on figure 2 (Appendix ) are very close to
the line it can be said the normality assumption for the data has been met. Plus, as the mean
values of the outcome variable for each increment of the predictor(s) almost lie along the straight
line which shows that linearity assumption was also met.

Table 13: Model Summary

Model R R Adjusted Standard error Dubrin
Square R square of the estimate Watson
1 .869a .754 .721 .34822 2.158
 Source:- Own survey data (2020)
According to Table 13, it is evidenced that the coefficient of linear correlation R which is the
degree of association between dependent variable and independent variables is 0.896, there is
also R² value of 0.754 and adjusted R² of 0.721, which indicates that predictor variables can
account for 72.1% of the variation in performance of DA’s. Thus, the model summary reveals
that the proportion of the variation in independent variables is explained by 72.1% of
performance of DA’s and the remaining 27.9% of the variance is explained by other variable/s
which the researcher left for further studies to identify these factors.
Table 14: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 21.608 10 2.161 17.820 .000b
1 Residual 7.033 58 .121
Total 28.641 68
a. Dependent Variable: Performance of development agents
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, age, education status, marital status, service year, training,
motivation, leadership, organizational culture and work environment
Source:- Own survey data (2020)
According to Table 14 the analysis of variance(ANOVA) for these data, the F-statistic is 17.820,
which is significant at p< 0.01. This result indicates that there is less than a 0.1% chance that
ratio would happen, if the null hypothesis proposed about F-ratio were true. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the regression model overall predicts performance of DA’s significantly well.

The multiple regression analysis was conducted using the hierarchical regression method. It is
conducted to investigate the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable and
identify the relative significant influence; i.e., independent variable (Gender, age, education
status, marital status, service year, training, motivation, leadership, organizational culture and
work environment) to the dependent variable; i.e. performance of DA’s. The proposed
hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. The results of the regression analysis
are depicted on Table 15.

Table 15 below shows the results of the regression model. The result reveals that gender, age,
marital status, service year, training and work environment used were insignificant. Whereas,
there exists a significant relationship between independent variables such as education status,
motivation, leadership and organizational culture and dependent variable, i.e. performance of
DA’s.
 Table15: Regression analysis on determinants of performance of DA’s

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 2.576 .681 3.783 .000
Gender of development agents .039 .122 .024 .317 .752
Age of development agents .028 .016 .183 1.789 .079
Marital status of DA -.117 .105 -.082 -1.117 .269
Education status of DA .289 .068 -.334 -4.242 .000***
Service year of DA .014 .069 .021 .208 .836
Training .081 .067 .101 1.207 .232
Motivation .232 .048 .422 4.783 .000***
Leadership .275 .057 -.491 -4.813 .000***
Organizational culture .101 .041 -.194 -2.457 .017**
Work environment .071 .048 .138 1.483 .143
Source: Own survey data (2020)
a. Dependent Variable: Performance of development agents
b. Predictors: (Constant): Gender, age, education status, marital status, service year, training,
motivation, leadership, organizational culture and work environment
The variables which were statistically significant in the model to predict the performance of
enterprises are discussed as follows.
The educational level of respondents was statistically significant at 1% significance level had
strong positive relationship with the performance of DA’s. A unit increase in the education level
of respondents increases the performance of DA’s by 0.289 units. The finding is similar with the
study of Kaleb et al(2014) which conclude the level of job satisfaction and work performance
of DA’s directlyrelated to the level of education of the development agents, thus the higher the
level of education, the higher the level of job satisfaction and in turn level of job performance of
the developmentagents.
Motivation was statistically significant at less than 1% significance level and had positive
relationship with the performance of DA’s. This indicates that a DA which has higher motivation
has higher probability of having good performance in his work. A unit increase in motivation
level of DA increases the performance of the DA by 0.232 units. Consistent with this finding Le
Tran(2002) stated that motivation is a key determinant of job performance and a poorly
motivated force will be costly in terms of excessive staff turnover, higher expenses, negative
morale and increased use of managements’ time. Verhellen (1994) also added motivation
strategies aim to create a working environment and to develop policies and practices, which
will provide for higher levels of performance from employees. Similarly, Wan (2007); Martzler
and Renzl (2007) and Davies et al. (2001) stated that motivation is an important aspect if an
organization wants to see their “engine” performingtheir best. It also can be seen as formof
recognition from the employer to their employee.
Leadership was statistically significant at 1% significance level and had positive relationship
with the performance of DA’s. This indicates that an institution having effective leadership has
higher probability of having good performance of DA’s. A unit increase in leadership increases
the performance of DA’s by 0.057 units. In line with this findingIqbalet. al, (2015) stated that
leadership style particularly participative style of leadership has a greater positive effect on
employee performance in which situation employee feel power and confidence in doing their
job and in making different decisions. Moreover, Candace et al. (2008); Daley (2003) and
Madlock (2008) in their researches have concluded that employees good communication
with their leaders does have an impact on employees’ work performance. Conversely, Litterst
and Eyo (2012) have other view where they accentuate on employees good communication as a
positive element that should be cultivated among the employees in order to reduce any
problem that can be caused by miscommunication.
Organizational Culture was statistically significant at 5% significance level and had positive
relationship with the performance of DA’s. This indicates that DA’s which have conducive
organizational culture have higher probability of having good performance of DA’s. A unit
increase in organizational culture increases the performance of DA’s by 0.101 units. Consistent
with this finding Chatman and Cha (2003) stated that culture and structure of an organization
develop over time and in response to a complex set of factors have strong effect on employee
performance and performance of the organization.Moreover, Keiningham et al. (2006) noted that
organization culture is also an important tool to strengthen employee work performance.
4.4. Major Challenges Faced by Development Agents
The study also wanted to know the challenges faced by DA’s. Respondents were asked to choose
among 16 challenges that may be hindering performance of DA’s. The mean score of ranging
within 1 and 5 differences used to classify the mean scores from not challenging up to very
highly challenging; Ranges between 1.00-1.80 = Not challenging (NC); Ranges between 1.81 -
2.60 = Little challenging (LC); Ranges between 2.61 - 3.40 = Moderately challenging (MC);
Ranges between 3.41- 4.20 = Highly challenging (HC) and Ranges between 4.21 - 5.00 = Very
highly challenging (VHC) as categorized by Wickramasinghestudy (Wendemagenge,
2011).Therefore, level of challenges faced by DA’s computed based on descriptive statistics are
showed below:
Table 16: Challenges of faced by Development Agents

N Level of agreement(%) Mean SD

o Challenges NC LC MC HC VHC
1 Lack of staff amenities 13.6 18.9 8.7 10.6 48.3 4.61 1.55
2 Poor incentive 0.0 19.6 31.3 31.7 17.4 4.47 .99
3 Heavy workload 5.3 22.6 20.8 23.4 27.9 4.76 1.25
4 Shortage and late delivery of inputs 0.4 18.1 39.2 19.6 22.6 3.04 1.04
5 DA’s expected to work a number of farmers 2.3 36.2 26.8 13.6 21.1 3.15 1.19
6 Lack of extension materials 0.8 3.8 28.3 30.6 36.6 3.98 .93
7 Shortage of budget 0.4 6.8 3.0 31.3 58.5 4.41 .87
8 Limited practical skills 3.0 14.0 12.5 55.8 14.7 2.43 .99
9 Limited experience using extension
4.9 10.6 35.1 26.4 23.0 3.52 1.10
materials
10 Unsustainability of some technologies to
1.5 14.7 23.8 23.0 37.0 3.79 1.13
farmers
11 Poor woreda support and follow up 2.3 18.9 27.5 23.0 28.3 3.56 1.15
12 Low community participation 0.4 20.4 37.0 29.0 12.5 3.34 .95
13 Poor relationship with farmers 3.8 35.1 24.5 17.7 18.9 1.56 1.19
14 Low involvement in decision making 2.3 40.0 19.2 25.3 13.2 2.07 1.12
15 Poor communication and relationship with
9.1 26.8 24.2 30.6 9.4 3.05 1.14
supervisors
16 Political intervention 4.9 1.9 7.9 15.5 69.8 4.43 1.05
Source:- Own survey data (2020)
The findings in Table 16 show that the most prominent challenges which hinder performance of
DA’s in the study area has been analyzed and presented below as:-
The result respondents indicated agreed that lack of staff amenities (Mean = 4.61), poor incentive
(Mean = 4.47), heavy workload (Mean = 4.76), shortage of budget (Mean = 4.41) and political
intervention (Mean = 4.43) were very highly challenging the performance of DA’s. However,
shortage and late delivery of inputs (Mean = 3.04), DA’s expected to work a number of farmers
(Mean = 3.15), low community participation (Mean = 3.34) and DA’s poor communication and
relationship with supervisors (Mean = 3.05) were moderately challenging the performance of
DA’s. Limited practical skills (Mean = 2.43), poor relationship with farmers (Mean = 1.56) and
low involvement in decision making (Mean = 2.07) were little challenging the performance of
DA’s. However, limited experience using extension materials (Mean = 3.89), lack of extension
materials (Mean = 3.52), unsustainability of some technologies to farmers (Mean = 3.79) and
poor woreda support and follow up (Mean = 3.56) were highly challenging the performance of
DA’s. In this regard qualitative data obtained from key informants stated that kebele distance,
extension users negative attitude to accept new technologies, transport problem, problems related
to incentives, high work load, budget shortage, shortage of furniture’s, lack of agricultural inputs,
poor follow and support of woreda, infrastructural problems in the kebele, absence of stationary
materials in kebele office, absence of house live in kebele, political intervention etc.
They also added DA’s regular engagements works given by their hosting organization
included transferring technology to target farmers, mobilizing local community for group
action to solve community wide problems, supplying inputs and giving training to
farmers. Beside this, development agents were also engaged in identifying specific farmers’
problem and referring them to subject matter specialists, facilitating credit and credit
repaymentissues, work as transformer between GOs, NGOs, research and other private
sectors for the improvement of farmers’ livelihood, collecting government tax. This briefly
indicated that development agents were overloaded to undertake this and other policy
objectives of the government having weak and informal coordination among research,
extension and farmer; and existence of insufficient development agents to serve all farmers in the
study area. Moreover, it also led to their doing jobs for which they have neither the
training nor the experience and this in turn affected the performance of development agents in
technology dissemination. Also, they areoften required to be involved in various non-extension
activities mainly political activities.
Moreover, DAs are involved in multiple activities and consequently have less time to work with
farmers on issues of farming and agricultural technology transfer. As per government definitions,
most of their activities are targeted at “development,” and not specifically agricultural extension
work, which involves technology transfer and providing extension services to farmers.
Information and instruction flows through multiple channels from the woredas to the DAs.
Apart fromWoANR, DAs are instructed to implement the initiatives of different woreda
offices, which rely on their support to fulfill their agendas. This is in line with the findings of
Leta et al. (2018) and Abate (2007) which stated absence of a clear line of command is a
key drawback in the Ethiopian AES.As previously indicated, in Ethiopia, DAs have been
reported to engage in multiple activities, including those that are not directly related to
agriculture (Gebremedhin et al. 2006; Kelemework&Kassa 2006; Belay &Abebaw,
2004)noted that because extension agents were among the few government officials
available at the village level, they were often asked to undertake clerical, statistical, or
even political chores. In places where the kebele manager is either unavailable or otherwise
busy, DAs serve the kebele administration for minute-taking and report-writing tasks.

Generally, they stated the place of residence and job of the developmentagents are less
convenient for making decent life. This is mainly due to lack ofinfrastructure and basic social
services.
Similarly, FGD participants added that low incentive, political intervention, transport problem,
poor office facilities, an increases in extension users which resulted high work load on DA’s,
forced to brought false report by kebele and woreda administration, absence of standardized and
equipped FTC’s, low stakeholders integration, low commitmentamong some of DA’s,
negligence, unpunctuality and absence of skill training regularly as major challenges of faced by
DA’s in the study area.This finding consistent with the study of Kassa and Degenet (2014) stated
that high input prices, shortage andlate delivery of inputs, lack of extension materials, a
transportationproblem, extension agents’ limited practical skills and experience inusing
extension materials, shortage of working capital, shortage ofextension personnel, unsuitability of
some technologies to the farmers’conditions and heavy workload of extension agents were
identified asimportant barriers to DA’s performance in providing extension services. Moreover,
extension organizations however, in developing countries face the major problems of
professional incompetence and lack of motivation among their employees (Vijayaragavan&
Singh, 2009). Furthermore Tigst et al (2017) stated several challenges faced by DA’s which
ranging from input supply to processing and marketing, demanding immediate technical support,
technological response and timely information. Existing public agricultural advisory and
extension system is not designed and implemented based on felt need of producers and lacks full
participation concerned stakeholders. As far as existing agricultural production and available
technologies are concerned, there is mismatch between the demand and advisory services and
technologies in place.
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter of the study offers a summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations.
5.1. Summary of major finding
The general objective of the study was to identify determinants of performance of development
agents in enhancing agricultural extension service in Bursa Woreda, Sidama zone, SNNPRS. The
study has three specific objectives like examine the performance level of development agents,
find out major factors that affect performance of development agents in enhancing agricultural
extension service and identify major challenges faced by development agents in providing
agricultural extension service in the study area.
The study was done on development agents on extension user farmers in selected kebeles of
Buras woreda, Sidama zone. And for the study data was collected from 196 extension users and
75 development agents. To collect data questionnaire, interview guide and focus group
discussion employed and data analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical tools. The
findings of the study based on the research questions have been summarized as follows.
 Itwas found out that the majority of respondents agreed that the performance of
development agents in providing agricultural extension service in the study area was below
average. It failed to use appropriate technique that measures all relevant aspects of
performance and the system is found to be biased.
 The study identifies determinants of performance of DAs in Bursa woreda using linear
regression model. To this effect, the study has found out thateducation status, motivation,
leadership and organizational culture were the major determinants of performance of DA’s
in the study area.
 Finally, the major challenges that affect DA’s performance in the study area were lack of
staff amenities (Mean = 4.61), poor incentive (Mean = 4.47), heavy workload (Mean =
4.76), shortage of budget (Mean = 4.41) and political intervention (Mean = 4.43), lack of
extension materials (Mean = 3.52), unsustainability of some technologies to farmers (Mean
= 3.79) and poor woreda support and follow up (Mean = 3.56) were highly challenging the
performance of DA’s.

5.2. Conclusion
Extension agents are the critical stakeholders in the agricultural development strategy of the
Ethiopian Government in the sense that they are the immediate advisers of the peasant farmers in
the country. Various technical inputs are also channeled through the extension agents to the
farmers and the success of agricultural extension service depends on the performance of
development agents.This study identifies determinants of performance of development agents in
enhancing agricultural extension service in Bursa woreda, Sidama zone.
The study found out that the performance of development agents in providing agricultural
extension service in the study area was below average. It failed to use appropriate technique that
measures all relevant aspects of performance and the system is found to be biased. Moreover,
the study identified major determinants of performance of DAs in Bursa woreda using linear
regression model. To this effect, development agent’s education status, motivation, leadership
and organizational culture were the major determinants of performance of DA’s in the study
area.
Finally, as DAs are the key agents of change to bring an improvement in the living
standards of millions of farmers, their level of job performance was challenged by factors
like the major challenges that affect DA’s performance in the study area were lack of staff
amenities, poor incentive, heavy workload, shortage of budget and political intervention, lack of
extension materials, unsustainability of some technologies to farmers and poor woreda support
and follow up were highly challenging the performance of DA’s.
5.3. Recommendation
Based on the finding of the study the following recommendation drawn;-
 A positive motivational practice can be achieved through that: woreda agricultural and
natural resource office should increase compensation in accordance with work experience
and in equitable manner. Besides to salary increment, recognition and promotion
programs should be regularly considered to recognize good job performer DAs.
Promotional opportunities should also be administered based on DAs performance
evaluation score in a fair and transparent way in which considers all employees
equallywithout any discrimination.
 The study concludes leadership has significant contribution account for variance in
job performance of DAs. The researcher therefore, recommend that
woredaadministration which want to be more competitive should consider adopting
a more democratic leadership style that give room for DAs participation and freedom in
decision -making, treating all in equal way, help to communicates freely on the goals of
agricultural office, inspires staffs to achieve the office objectives, give values for skills
 and knowledge of the DAs, and help to motivate DAs for better job performance than
autocratic leadership style since it is has positive association with DAs’ job performance.
Therefore, leaders should create a friendly work relation with DAs, give regular feedback
on their job performance, communicate well on job related issues, serve as role models
and treat all equally for the development of highly committed workforce.
 Agriculture development agents, who are major promoter of the knowledge and
technology transfer, lack communication and demonstration skills to transfer
technologies in the study area. In addition, poor incentive and rewarding mechanisms and
the challenges they face due geographical disparities in highlands and harsh climate
environment in lowlands resulted in high turnover. To make them important assets of
agricultural development, providing technical updates specially skill training, devising
incentive and rewarding mechanisms such as resident housing by the local government
bodies and stakeholders could fill gaps
 Best practice recognition being implemented every year by government should be
strengthened as it is found to be the most determinant factor that enhances job
performance of development agents. It is also recommended that the educational
opportunities available for development agents need to be enhanced so that they
can upgrade their educational level which increases their job satisfaction as well as
their performances.
 The organizational culture should be binding on all DAs as this will encourage
which can be achieved through orientation and different training programs and thus
which can bring to enhance individual commitment to the goals of the office and also
improve group efficiency. Since the shared values and beliefs mostly adopted from
top level management thus the woreda administration should give recognition, and verbal
reinforcement who has being a role model of good performer and familiar with
company’s values and beliefs in exchange of encouraging, and respecting his/her
subordinates and extension users as a core value.
 ANRDO should provide a better working environment to its DAs, which is
adequate in terms of offering adequate facilities and resources to do their job effectively;
and conducive in terms of space, seating arrangement (ergonomic), ventilation, and
 lighting for maximum comfort, efficiency, safety, and ease of use which particularly
true for those DAs who spend most of the day operating a computer terminal.
 Finally, SNNPRS Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resource Developmenthave to
minimize overload of developmentagents from non-extension tasks such as distribution
of credit, credit repayment and tax collection. It is also pertinent to train and recruit
additional qualified female DAs in mind of the geographical coverage, gender disparity
and numbers of farmers needing agriculturalextension services.

REFERENCES
Abonam, N. (2001). The role of motivation on employee performance in the public sector: A
casestudy of the University for Developmental Studies. Kwame Nkrumah University
Ghana.
Abate H (2007) Review of extension systems applied in Ethiopia with special emphasis to the
Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES). FAO, Addis
Ababa
Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) (2014) Transforming agriculture in Ethiopia.ATA
Annual report 2013-2014 Addis Ababa
Adair J. (2002). Effective strategic leadership. Macmillan Publishers Limited, London.
Aguinis, Herman, (2009). Performance Management, 2nd Edition, Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd
India.
Amina H. (2009). Impact of Office Design on Employees’ Productivity: A Case study of
BankingOrganizations, Journal of Public Affairs, Administration and management, Vol.
3, issue 1,Abbottabad, Pakistan
Armstrong Michael, (2010). Human Resource Management Practice, Replika Press Pvt Ltd
India.
Armstrong, M. (2009). Handbook for Human Resource Management. London: Kogan Page
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Managing Performance: Performance Management in
Action.London, UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Armstrong, M., &Murlis, H. (2004). Reward Management: A Handbook of Remuneration
Strategyand Practice.5th ed. London, UK: Kogan Page.
Armstrong, Michael (2009). Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice:
Improvingperformance through Reward, 3rd ed. London & Philadelphia: Kogan Page
Limited GreatBritain by Cambridge University Press.
Azhar, K (2003). Business Policy and Strategic Management, NewDelhi, Tata McGraw-
HillBockerman,P. and Ilmakunnas, P. (2006). Do Job Disseminates raise wages or ruin
jobdissatisfaction? International Journal of Manpower, 27(3).

Belay K (2003) Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: the case of participatory demonstration and
training extension system. J SocDev in Africa 18 (1): 49-84
Belay K, Abebaw D (2004) Challenges facing agricultural extension agents: A case study from
Southwestern Ethiopia. Africa Development Bank. Blackwell publishing, UK.

Berhanu K, Poulton C (2014) The political economy of agricultural extension policy in

Ethiopia: Economic growth and political control. Dev Pol Rev 32 (2): 197-213
Bingen RJ, Simpson BM (2015) Farmer organizations and modernizing extension and
extension services : A framework and reflection on cases from Sub-Saharan Africa.
MEAS, Discussion Paper
Carter Earl M A And Frank, (2005), Improving Employee Performance Through Workplace
Coaching,in Great Britain.
 Chandrasekar. K. (2011). Workplace Environment and its Impact on Organizational
Performance inPublic Sector Organizations, International Journal Of Enterprise
Computing and Business Systems, Vol:1, Issue:1
Cabral L (2011) Decentralization in Africa: Scope, motivations and impact on service delivery
and poverty. Working paper 020. Oversee Development Institute. www.future-
agricultures.org
Christoplos I (2010) Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Global Forum for Rural
Extension services. FAO, Rome

Davis K, Swanson B, Amudavi D et al. (2010) In - depth Assessment of the public agricultural
extension system of Ethiopia and recommendations for improvement. IFPRI discussion
paper 01041. Eastern and South Africa Regional Office. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Deressa A, Seboka B (2007) Research achievements and technology transfer attempts in

Southeastern Ethiopia. In: proceedings of the second technology generations, transfer
and gap analysis Workshop, 9-11 July 2006, Nazret, Ethiopia
Dickovick JT, Gebre-Egziabher T (2010) Comparative assessment of decentralization in Africa:
Ethiopian desk study. Review of USAID
D. A. Olaniyan, and Lucas. B. Ojo, (2008). Staff Training and Development: A Vital Tool
forOrganizational Effectiveness, European Journal of Scientific Research. Vol.24 No. 3.

DeCenzo, David A. & Robbins, Stephen P. (2005). Human Resource Management: concepts
and
Practices; 8th ed. John Willey & Sons, Inc.
DelPo Amy, (2007). The performance handbook legal and practical rules for manager, 2nd
edition,consolidated Printers, inc.
DemetLeblebici (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: Case study of
a bankin turkey, Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, Vol.1 (1)
Dick Grote, (2002). The Performance Appraisal Question and Answer Book, United States of
America
Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) (2016). Agricultural Transformation
Agenda progress report covering 2011-2015 in GTPI period.
Fort, A.L. &Voltero, L. (2004).Factors affecting the performance of maternal health care
providers inAmerica, Human Resource for Health biomedical Central.
Gary Cokins (2004). Performance management: finding the missing pieces (to close the
intelligencegap, ISBN 0-471-57690-5, Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
New JerseyPublished simultaneously in Canada.
 Gebregziabher, H. (2009). Determinants of public employees' performance: evidence from
Ethiopianpublic organizations, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management,58(3).
Geoffrey Marczyk, D. D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design. Hoboken, New Jersey.: John
Wiley &Sons, Inc.
Gregory, P.J.2013. Food and agriculture in Ethiopia-progress and policy challenges Food
Security 5,475-4
Gilbert A. Churchill, Dawn Iacobucci , (2002) 8th ed. Marketing Research:
MethodologicalFoundations. Harcourt College Publishers, ISBN. 0030331013.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J.W., & McMillan, H.S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication and leadership effectiveness.Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4).
Govindarajulu N, Bonnie, F. Daily (2004). Motivating Employees for Environmental
Improvement.Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104 (4).
Gyekye, S. A. (2006). Safety Management: Perceptions of Workplace Safety. Professional
Safety,51(7).
Gebremedhin B, Hoekstra D, Tegegne A (2006) Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture:
Extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator. IPMS
Ethiopian farmers project, Working paper 1. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya
Haile Kalayu, (2013). The effect of HRM practices on employees’ job performance: a
comparativestudy of private and public banks. A thesis submitted to Addis Ababa
University School ofCommerce
Kassa H (2008) Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: Historical evolution, relevant policies and
challenges. In: Assefa, T (ed) Digest of Ethiopia’s national policies, strategies and
programs. Forum for Social Studies (FSS), Addis Ababa, pp153-175
Kelemework F, Kassa H (2006) Assessment of the current extension system of Ethiopia: A
closer look at planning and implementation. Issue Paper 2/2006. Ethiopian Economic
Association / Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Haynes. B. P. (2008). An Evaluation of the Impact of the Office Environment on Productivity.
Journal of Facilities, 26 (5/6).
Huang, Y. H., Robertson, M. M., and Chang, K. I. (2004). The role of environmental control
onenvironmental satisfaction, communication, and psychological stress: effects of
officeergonomics training. Environment and Behavior, 36(1).
Iqbal N, Anwar S, Haider N (2015). Effect of Leadership Style on Employee Performance.
Arabian J Bus Manag Review 5: 146. doi:10.4172/2223-5833.1000146
Ishfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz, Ahmad Usman, Muhammad ZeeshanShaukat,
NaveedAhmed, and Wasim-ul-Rehman,(2010). How organizations evaluate their
 trainings? Anevidence from Pakistani organizations: Journal of contemporary research
in business institute of interdisciplinary business research.Vol. 2, No. 5.
Janet, M.R. (2006). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research.
USA:Blackwell Publishing.

Jennifer A. Chatman, and Sandra Eunyoung Cha (2003). Leading by Leveraging

Culture.WhyIsOrganizational Culture Powerful?The Regents of the University of
California.Vol.45 No. 4
John Bratton and Jeffrey Gold ,(2000) second edition. Human Resource Management Theory
ndpractice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
John Isaac Mwita (2002). The Role of Motivation in Performance Management: The case
ofperformance-related-pay schemes in British local Authorities, International
DevelopmentDepartment (IDD). School of Public Policy, the University of Birmingham
John, A., Hafiz, T.A., Khan, R.R. & David, W. (2007). Research Methods for Graduate
Business &Social Science Students. California, Sage.
Jones Pam, (2000). Performance Management, Management Pocketbooks Ltd.
Kirkpatrick Donald L,(2006). Improving Employee Performance Through Appraisal And
Coaching,2nd edition, United States of America.
Leta G (2018) Nikinake: the mobilization of labor and skill development in rural Ethiopia.
Journal of Natural Resource Forum. DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.1215
Leta G, Kelboro G, Stellmacher T, and Hornidge A-K (2017b) Social learning and the battle
against systemic inequalities: The case of Southwestern Ethiopia. In: Tielkes, E. (ed)
Future agriculture: socio-ecological transitions and bio-cultural shifts, Tropentag 2017,
Book of Abstract, Bonn, Germany, pp. 299
Le Tran,( 2002). Factors Affecting Employee Performance–Evidence From Petrovietnam
EngineeringConsultancy J.S.C
Locke, E.A. and LATHAM, G.P. (1990). Work Motivation: The High Performance Cycle.
InKleinbeck, U., Quast, H-H., Thierry, H. and Hacker, H. (eds) Work Motivation,
Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
MahmoodAsad and JomaMahfod, (2015). Training and Development and its Impact on
theEmployee's Performance A Study of Agility Company-Kingdom of Bahrain,
International Review of Management and Business Research Vol. 4 Issue.3 ISSN: 2306-
9007.
Mathis, Robert L. & Jackson, John H. (2000). Human Resource Management, 9th ed. South-
West publishing corp.
 MehrdadAlipour, Mahdi Salehi, Ali Shahnavaz (2009). A Study of on the Job Training
Effectiveness:Empirical Evidence of Iran: International journal of business and
management Vol.4, No.1.
Michael Armstrong, 4th edition (2009). Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management,
ISBN978 0 7494 5392 3, by Kogan Page Limited, 120 Pentonville Road, London N1
9JN , UnitedKingdom.
Mellor, J. W. (2014). High rural population density Africa –What are the growth requirements and
who participates? Food Policy DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.002
Mellor JW, Dorosh P (2010) Agriculture and the economic transformation of Ethiopia. ESSP2
Working Paper 010. IFPRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) (2010) Agricultural development information system
organizational guideline. MoA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) (2006) Ethiopia: Building on
progress a Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP)
2005/06 – 2009/10. MoFED, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Mohammed, S.Z. &Nimalathasan, B. (2011).Factors affecting employees‘ performance.
Economic Sciences Series, 8(1).
Morrisey, G.L. (1997). Management by Objectives and Results for Business and Industry,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
MulatuMasresha, (2014). Determinant factors affecting employees’ job performance in
EthioTelecom: A thesis submitted to Addis Ababa University.
Najanja, Maina and Najagi (2013). Effect of reward on employee performance: A case of Kenya
powerand lighting Co. ltd. Vol. 8 No. 21, Ohio: South-western college publishing.
NPC (National Planning Commission) (2016.Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II)
(2015/16-2019/20). Addis Ababa.
NareshMalhotra. 2007. Marketing Research an Applied Approach. Butterworth Heinemann;
Oxford,England.
Ndung’u, M.N. (2009). Performance Management and Contracting: Kenyan
Perspective.JitegemeePress Nairobi.
Nelson, D.L., & Quick, J.C. (2003). Organizational behavior: foundation, realities and
challenges(4th Ed.). Australia: Thomson South-Western.
Njugi Anne wanjiku and NicksonLumwagiagusioma, (2014). The effect of organizational
culture onemployee performance, International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Volume4, Issue 11, November 2014 1 ISSN 2250-3153
OkechukwuAgwu, (2014). Organizational Culture and Employees Performance in the
NationalAgency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Nigeria, A
GlobalJournal of Management and Business Research: Volume 14 Issue 2 Version 1.0
Ostrom E (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ, USA.
Pam Jones, (2000). The performance management pocketbook, Published by:
ManagementPocketbooks Ltd14 East Street, Alresford, Hants SO24 9EE, U.K.
Patterson M G, West M A, Lawthorn R and Nickell, S (2003). Impact of People
ManagementPractices on Business Performance, (Issues in People Management No 22),
Institute ofPersonnel and Development, London.

Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion (PRIME) (2014).

Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVETs) profile assessment in
pastoral areas of Ethiopia. PRIME sub-activity report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Picclotto R, Anderson JR (1997) Reconsidering Agricultural Extension. The World Bank, The
World Bank Res Observer 12 (2): 249-250
Purcell, J &Boxall, (2003). Strategy and human resource management. New
York:PalgraveMacmillan.
Rashid Saeed, ShireenMussawar, Rab Nawaz Lodhi, AnamIqbal, HafizaHafsaNayab and
SomiaYaseen, (2013). Factors Affecting the Performance of Employees at Work Place
in theBanking Sector of Pakistan: Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 17 (9):,
ISSN19909233.
Robbins, S.P (2013). Organizational Behaviour: Cases, Concepts and Controversies. Prentice
Hall,New Delhi.
Robert L. Mathis, John H. Jackson, (2008).Human Resource Management.12th edition, south
westpublisher, USA.
Roger Kaufman, (1995). Linking Training to Organizational Impact: Journal of Instructional
Development, Vol. 8, No. 2 .

Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsicmotivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist.
Sajuyigbe , A., Olaoye, B., and Adeyemi, M. (2013). Impact of reward on employees
performance in aselected manufacturing companies in Ibandan, Oyo state, Nigeria. 2(2).
Salleh, F., Yaakub, N., &Dzulkifli, Z. (2011). The influence of skill levels on job performance
of publicserviceemployees.Journal of Business and Management Review, 1(1)..
Scott, K. D., Jusanne, M., & Steven, (2000), M. E. Factors influencing employee benefits
beliefs that,pay is tied to performance, Journal of Business and Psychology.
Sekar,C.(2011). Workplace Environment and its impact on organizational performance in
publicsector organizations, International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business
System International Systems, Vol. 1 Issue 1 January 2011.
Soo O., and Lewis G. (2009). Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically
motivatedemployees Review of personnel administration.
Stallworth, J.O.E. and Kleiner, B.H. (1996). Recent developments in office design. Journal of
Facilities,14 (1/2).
Statt (1994) D. A. Psychology and the World of Work. (Washington Square, NY: New York
UniversityPress). Psychology, Industrial.
Stredwick, John (2005). An Introduction to Human Resource Management, 2nd ed, Elsevier
Ltd.
Strong, M. H., Jeannerert, P. R., McPhail, S. M., & Bleckley, B (1999). Work context,
taxonomy andmeasurement of the work environment, American Psychological
Association (Houston TX).
Spielman DJ, Kelemework D, Alemu D (2012) Seed, fertilizer and agricultural extension in
Ethiopia. In: Dorosh PA, Rashid S (eds) (2012) Food and agriculture in Ethiopia:
Progress and Policy Challenges. IFPRI Publishing, University of Pennsylvania press
USA, pp 84-122
Swanson BE, Rajalahti R (2010) Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems:
Procedure for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Agriculture
and rural development discussion Paper 44. World Bank, Washington DC
Taylor Stephen,(2008). Human Resource Management, 7th edition,
MatevCromsArtesGraficas,Spain.
Torrington, D. & Hall, L. (2008).Human resources management (4thed.). Berkshire: Europe
PrenticeHall.
Tung-Chun Huang, (2001). The relation of training practices and organizational performance in
smalland medium size enterprises, V.43. N 8/9.
Tyson, Shaun (2006). Essentials of Human Resource Management,5th edition, Burlington,
ElsevierLtd.
Verhellen, E. (1994). Convention on the rights of the child: background, motivation,
strategies.Leuven: Garant.
Veronica Celattia, (2011). The effect of leadership behaviors on employee performance in the
case ofGuinness Ghana Breweries Limited (GGBL), public administration, Ghana.
Van Assche K (2016) Afterword: expertise and rural development after the soviets. In:
Hornidge A-K, Shtaltovna A, Schetter CJ (eds.) (2016) Agricultural knowledge and
knowledge systems in post-Soviet societies, interdisciplinary studies on central and
Eastern Europe. Peter Lang AG,
Van Assche K, Hornidge A-K (2015) Rural development: Knowledge and expertise in
governance. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. DOI 10.3920/978-90-
8686-812-4
Waldman, D.A., (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of
workperformance.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived Workplace Conditions and First-year Teachers Morale, Career
ChoiceCommitment and Planned Retention: A Secondary Analysis. Teaching and
TeacherEducation.
Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., & Moynihan, L.M.(2003).The impact of HR practices on
theperformance of business units. Human Resources Management Journal, Vol. 13.
Zaidaton&Bagheri (2009). Business and educational management methodology. South-
WesternCollege Pub. ISBN 10: 0325236620 ISBN 13