Vol. 10, Issue 8 (2021)

Author(s):
S Naveen Kumar, P Gidda Reddy and R Ratnakar

Abstract:
Trials and demonstrations, DLCC meetings, training programmes and joint field visits/farm visits were the strong linkage mechanisms, whereas, SLCC meetings, SLTP meetings and SAC meetings appears to be weak linkage mechanisms in public extension service providers. Linkage mechanisms such as, training programmes, trails and demonstrations, monthly workshops and joint field visits were strong, while, SLTP meetings, SLCC meetings and SAC meetings were weak linkage mechanisms in private extension service providers. Training programmes, monthly workshops and DLCC meetings were strong linkage mechanisms, whereas, SLTP meetings, SLCC meetings and SAC meetings were weak linkage mechanisms in case of NGO extension service providers. Public extension service providers have strongly associated with SAUs/ICAR research institutes, local/district administrations and media, whereas, less linkage/association was seen with commodity boards, financial institutions and input agencies. Private extension service providers had great linkages with development departments followed by media and farmers associations, while, less linkage with financial institutions, commodity boards and SAUs/ ICAR institutions. Whereas NGO extension service providers had strong association with other NGOs, development departments and farmers associations. In case of institutions like commodity boards, financial institutions and input agencies, NGO extension service providers had weak association. The compatibility factors such as honest and hard work and regular meetings, consultations and discussions ranked first. While, mutual understanding, building consensus, commitment to action, clear objectives, attitude towards collectivism, change proneness, managerial competencies and friendly relationship with others ranked second. Whereas accessing resources and opportunities ranked third, among the eleven compatibility factors identified for the purpose of public extension service providers. Regarding private extension service providers, the compatibility factors like; change proneness, accessing resources & opportunities and managerial competencies ranked first. Whereas, honest and hard work and regular meetings, consultations and discussions, ranked second. While third rank was given to mutual understanding, building consensus, commitment to action, clear objectives, attitude towards collectivism and friendly relationship with others. In case of NGO extension service providers viz; mutual understanding, building consensus, commitment to action, clear objectives, honest and hard work, regular meetings, consultations and discussions, attitude towards collectivism and friendly relationship with others ranked first. While, accessing resources & opportunities and managerial competencies got second rank. Third rank was given to change proneness among the eleven compatibility factors. There was a significant difference among the three extension service providers regarding over all compatibility factors.