Showing papers by "Anil K. Gupta published in 1996"

The Effect of Lengthening Job Tenure on Managers' Organizational Commitment and Turnover

Abstract: Using the psychological contract literature as a framework, we examined upwardly mobile managers' reactions to lengthening job tenure brought about by slower organizational growth and greater competition among peers. We hypothesized that managers tend to view lengthening job tenure as a violation of the relational employment contract held with their corporate employers and, therefore, experience decreased organizational commitment, and an increased probability of turnover. We also examined three variables expected to exacerbate or to offset these relationships: manager's past career success, their current level of job responsibility, and the candidness of the career feedback they received from the organization. The sample consisted of 109 general managers working in Fortune 500 companies. Results showed that lengthening job tenure decreased managers' affective commitment and increased the likelihood of turnover during a three year follow-up period for managers who had previously experienced greater succes...

Rethinking Policy Options for Watershed Management by Local Communities: Combining Equity, Efficiency and Ecological - Economic Viability

Abstract: The policy environment for management of land-use in India has been quite mud-died. Part of the reason is lack of accountability among senior level public administrators, policy planners and various constituents of the existing institutions who decided not to complain even when institutions strayed away from their goals. In this paper, I argue for certain basic re-thinking in the policy options for viable watershed management by combing local knowledge with the formal science through rejuvenated or revitalized traditional institutions. In part one, I review the policy environment in the light of some of the recent reports in India which have a major bearing on watershed development programs. I argue that natural scientists have committed a fundamental error when they assumed that major challenge in watershed management was transfer of technology instead of development of technology on people’s lands and in their neighborhoods. Given the ecological heterogeneity evident to soil scientists and people working in these regions, there was no way standard solutions could have been replicated over large areas. The need for action research in generating viable options through collaborative thinking is necessary. Various other weaknesses of the existing programs are identified in this section. In part two, I discuss the theory of portfolio options which can provide an effective alternative to the current approaches to watershed management. I also suggest that people’s knowledge about biodiversity, historical land-use and various conservation measures needs to be supplemented with modern science and technology in an experimental manner so that limits of both the knowledge system – formal and informal become opportunities for innovation rather than constraints. In part three, I discuss various policy changes in research, public administration, decentralized system of self governance, and interface with voluntary organizations and people’s institutions. I conclude that large scale efforts in restoration of productivity of eroded regions have to be appreciated without ignoring the fact that spreading resources thinly may give political advantage but would not generate any durable change in the resource management situation.

Accessing Biological Diversity and Associative Knowledge System: Can Ethics Influence Equity

Abstract: The bio-diverse regions have been known to be inhabited by the poorest people all around the tropical world (Gupta 1981). It is obvious that we cannot conserve diversity by keeping people poor. Studies have also shown that many of the indigenous innovators whether individual or communities. Their ethical values often motivate them to share their knowledge uninhibitedly with the outsiders without expectation of material reward. In the process while they remain poor, the extractors of their knowledge accumulate which justifies the extraction. Apart from the dilemma that arise through mismatch between the ethical values of conservators of biodiversity and the dominant institutions of extractions, there arise questions about the continued validity of values underline discourse in the mainstream. For instance it is an accepted professional value in academics that any communication oral, visual or written having a substantive implications for one’s ideas should be acknowledged. Accordingly, personal communications find place in the academic discourse. However, this accountability is generally observed only towards one’s professional colleagues. The farmers, indigenous people, artisans etc. are almost never acknowledged in any discourse on their knowledge in a manner that they can be identified. Why should people remain nameless and faceless in discourse on their knowledge and institutions has never been explained adequately? So much so that the whole discipline of ethno-botany/biology has gained legitimacy through extraction without acknowledgment. The wealth accumulated out of value addition in this knowledge is seldom shared with the providers. In a recent paper, I had identified seven dimensions of ethical responsibility such as: accountability of (1) researchers and biodiversity prospectors, engaged by Public/Private Sectors in National/International Organisations towards providers or biodiversity resource from wild, domesticated and public access domains; (2) Researchers and prospectors towards the country or origin; (3) Professionals towards academic communities and professional bodies guiding the process of exploring or extracting biodiversity; (4) International UN or other organizations possessing globally pooled germ plasm collections deposited in good faith but accessible to public or private institutions without reciprocal responsibilities; (5) Institutions of governance legitimizing various kinds of property right regimes and consequent ethical and moral dilemmas; (6) Civil society and consumers of products derived from prospected biodiversity or competing alternatives; (7) Present generation towards future generations and other living non-human sentient beings. In pursuant of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and International Convention on Combating Desertification (ICCD), various ethical guidelines followed by private/public obligations were reviewed (Gupta 1994, Nietschman and Churchur, 1994) for discussion in a workshop organised by Pew Conservation Scholars last year. Several other scholars were also invited in the discussion to develop Ethical Guidelines for Accessing/Exploring Biological Diversity (See Annexure 1). These guidelines were endorsed in principle by all the Pew Conservation Scholars and are now being circulated for wider debate. Only three out of seven issues were covered comprehensively in these guidelines. In this paper I summarize some of the important issues not covered by the guidelines and offer suggestion for the remaining issues. It is hoped that Conference of Parties (COP) will reflect on these suggestions so that a global accord can be reached on general ethical principles. It is recognized that there may be culture specific differences in the perfection of moral issues. However, I submit that it should be possible to have an universal consensus on at least some basic ethical principles governing access to biodiversity.

Managing Research Networks: A Study of Inter-Organisational Linkages

Abstract: Higher the uncertainty in the environment for which technologies have to be developed, greater is the compulsion for inter-disciplinary research. Every discipline necessary for addressing the research problem may not exist in the same institute. Even if it does, the number of scientists may be so few that the peer group for critical scrutiny and growth of the discipline may become necessary also because the consumer of research may have a diversified resource use strategy. In rainfed, semi-arid and arid environments, most of the disadvantaged households have diversified portfolios. Technologies aimed at improving the performance of these portfolios will have to be evaluated on their effects on different sub-system of household portfolio. Such appraisal may not be feasible within one organization. Sustainability of technology may thus require three things, (a) client orientation, (b) location specificity, and (c) economic viability with attendant risk minimization together with minimum externalities. To achieve these outcomes, scientists may pool, exchange, segment or authorize use of resources, information, influence and opportunities. In the process, technologies requiring diverse skills, multiple scales of operation and complexity of tasks may be developed through inter-organizational networks. The skills, scale and complexity are independent in nature. Technologies requiring single skill may have to be developed for large scale and complex environments as well as resource management conditions. Similarly, technology at small scale such as micro watershed may require large number of skills and complex interactions. The implications of these interactions for inter-organizational networking remain to be identified. Many organizations have resources which may not be optimally used within the organization. Thus the redundancy of some resources and scarcity of others often generate the need for inter-organizational networks. At the same time distribution of power, authority and control over scarce resources and access to key decision makers may be such that some functional networks may not emerge while other dysfunctional networks may get established. Management of networks thus becomes a challenging proposition for the organizational leaders. In part one of the paper socio-ecological, institutional and public policy contexts of inter-organizational networking are introduced. Literature on evolution and functioning of networks in agricultural research is reviewed in part two. The findings from empirical research based on interviews with the scientists in ICAR and SAUs(State..) are presented in part three.

Indicators as indigenous ecological knowledge: 'Lamp Posts', 'Crossroads' and 'Turning Points'

Abstract: Boundaries of most natural systems are fuzzy and thus amenable to contraction and expansion over time and space due to interaction of various natural and human variables. Fuzzy boundaries often require homeostatic indicators of thereshold values so that changes conform to system properties and goals. The homeostatic indicators are kind of buffer solutions which do not tell us precise moments of change but suggest the range within which a change may take place. Indicators are also like thumb rules which guide and regulate our relationship with nature within and outside. Nature within refers to our tendencies to internalize external shocks through various psychological, spiritual and social responses. The stresses produced by these emotions become evident through various indicators that we can experience and feel in day to day life. The nature without or outside is what we perceive through categories that we inherit as well as create or recreate. These categories also require indicators so that we can make sense of changes in these categories and accordingly deal with them. In this paper, I deal with the theoretical as well as empirical aspects of ecological knowledge system which incorporates indicators as `lamp posts’, `crossroads’ and `turning points’.

Reciprocity: Making Development a Two Way Street

Abstract: As a follow up of agenda 21, Government of Netherlands took an initiative of forming a four country partnership among Bhutan, Benin, Costa Rica and Netherlands. The idea was to explore what kind of reciprocity can be generated among developed and developing countries having different cultural, religious, social and economic conditions. Accordingly, Bhutan was requested to develop a conceptual paper with suggestions for concrete action in the field of reciprocity. The bilateral agreement emphasised part from reciprocity, a vision of equitable development that was respectual of the environment and a self-imposed conditionality towards fair and just development. This paper has been written at the invitation of Royal Government of Bhutan and Netherlands as well as other countries. In some sense, the paper provides a new perspective to look at north-south relations so that instead of pursuing these in the donor-donee framework, one can identify the respective strengths and pursue reciprocal relationships. Bhutan has preserved some of the unique biodiversity in the world. It has to be seen whether the development agencies would consider their contribution to the economic development of Bhutan as a token price to gain entitlement to benefit from Bhutanese culture, diversity and knowledge system.