Thumbnail Image

University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru

University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore, a premier institution of agricultural education and research in the country, began as a small agricultural research farm in 1899 on 30 acres of land donated by Her Excellency Maharani Kempa Nanjammanni Vani Vilasa Sannidhiyavaru, the Regent of Mysore and appointed Dr. Lehmann, German Scientist to initiate research on soil crop response with a Laboratory in the Directorate of Agriculture. Later under the initiative of the Dewan of Mysore Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah, the Mysore Agriculture Residential School was established in 1913 at Hebbal which offered Licentiate in Agriculture and later offered a diploma programme in agriculture during 1920. The School was upgraded to Agriculture Collegein 1946 which offered four year degree programs in Agriculture. The Government of Mysore headed by Sri. S. Nijalingappa, the then Chief Minister, established the University of Agricultural Sciences on the pattern of Land Grant College system of USA and the University of Agricultural Sciences Act No. 22 was passed in Legislative Assembly in 1963. Dr. Zakir Hussain, the Vice President of India inaugurated the University on 21st August 1964.

Browse

19661
Reset filters
Subject: Economics × End date: 1979 × Start date: 1960 × Type: Thesis ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    EVALUATION OF BARRIERS TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IN FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS WILLIAMS (P.M)
    (University of Agricultural Sciences GKVK, Bangalore, 1966) WILLIAMS, PATRICK MEACHAM; MASSARIK, FRED; KASSARJIAN, HAROLD
    Managers, in all organizations, confront the problem of hwi; best to use and delegate whatever constitutes their authority to make decisions. Surveys have suggested that ineffective delegation ranks among the most common management problems. This study has sought to examine the manager's attitude toward his own ability to effectively delegate authority. In so doing it attempts to improve our understanding of the manager's perception of and solutions to the problem of delegation. A number of "barriers" to effective delegation hypothesized by articles and surveys were grouped into categories associated with the manager, his subordinates and his organization. Sixty-five respondent managers were then asked to evaluate the importance of each of these fifteen lorriers to delegation by means of numerical ratings, open-end written responses, and individual interviews. They were questioned as to other pojjsible barriers to delegation as well as the itinds of problems they faced and the way in which they utilized their timej the latter being thought to represent independent, if only approximate, indicators of the degree and quality of delegation taking place. A» hypothesized, seven barriers normally associated with the manager's subordinates were all rated as more of an obstacle to delegation than were five barriers associated primarily with the manager himselfr suggesting that he does indeed consider his subordinates to be principally responsible for whatever delegation effectiveness may be lacking. The single exception to this evaluation was the respondent's rating of his own qualifications to make a decision in place of his subordinates which, besides receiving the highest rating of the fifteen barriers evaluated, was over five standard errors above the average value of all ratings. By contrast, all three ratings of barriers ausociated with organization policy fell below the overall average rating. In spite of occasionally conflicting answers to the various questions, the respondents seem to exude considerable self-confIdencej lending support to the Importance they assign to their own ability as a principal barrier to delegation. They apparently prefer to "play it safe" and avoid taking a chance on a subordinate making the wrong decision. This Btudy reaffirms the mainager's view of his subordinates as constituting the n«iJor obstacle to improving authority delegation. It implies that if the major barriers to delegation rest with other than his subordinates, the manager is either not aware of It or else unwilling to admit to this possibility. In either case managers eeem to advocate better subordinate selection and training as a means of improving their delegation of authority,. Because of the respondents' tendency to point to both their superiors and subordinates as in some way Impetding delegation, one might suspect a similar reaction from the superiors and subordinates themselves Should such a suspicion be confirmed by further research, possibly in the form ot asking pairs of managers tor their perception of each others role in delegating authority, the burden ot Improving delegation ettectlveness would seem to rest with the organization and Its policies. Such policies might. It is suspected, guide the use ot authority, executive communication, and perhaps include a re-evaluation ot the nature ot authority itiielf.