*

HIM!

l

>

WIN

1
x

WWII

1

WW

I
I
|

120
990

 

.THS

{DEWEYEMG MAMAGEMEM? AL?ER3%?§VES
3M EXTENSIQN WORK WITH FARMERS

{

.1 §‘\ f _- -

We“: is? ‘m guns at Ni. 5.
I" Tifl‘f‘ ’11?: I)“ ‘1?”
RN} vblut‘j‘?r Jif“; if: 31%;? ' 3:
7‘1 ‘ Q 0a?" "fi ’1',“ ‘3]
334111131 LGGZ} \Jv’wufie.}

1957

jHESIS

jHESlS

:IHESIS

bu..r'-.:'\"J- .1.

 

i

IDENTIFYING MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES IN EXTENSION

WORK WITH FARMERS

by

Frank Leon 93erley

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1957

Approved _J[E:}CL£LMELL2L~

jHESlS

 

 

FRANK LEON OVERLEY ' ABSTRACT

Management teaching in the extension farm and home
development program has not been generally well developed.
The purpose of this study, therefore, has been to examine
one phase more carefully. Two major divisions result: an
explanation of solving management problems through identify-
ing alternatives, and examining the use of this technique by
county extension workers.

Management problems are solved through analysis and
action. Rational decision-making is an integral part of
this process. The essence of decision-making is choosing
among alternatives. In a farm management context, an alter-
native describes some course of action with respect to the
operation of the farm business. A clearly identified
alternative would be described in specific and complete
terms.

Judging from thirty—two cases examined, the technique
of identifying alternatives as a basis for decision-making
on farms seems to be imperfectly used. Alternatives clearly
identified in discussions between farmers and county agents
on important management problems seem to be relatively few
in number. However, in cases where at least one active
alternative was clearly identified, a course of action was

initiated toward the solution to a management problem.

frHESIS

 

 

 

IDENTIFYING MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES IN EXTENSION

WORK WITH FARMERS

by

Frank Leon Overley

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1957

jHESIS

Lanna.- 1-.

 

M." ‘

1.85.513

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere
appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Richard G.
Wheeler under whose continuous inspiration,
thoughtful guidance, and genuine understanding

this study was undertaken.

:[HESIS

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . l
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Management as rational decision-making growing
out of problems . . . . . . . . . . 2

Decision-making as a matter of choosing among

known alternatives . . . . . . . . . 6
Identification of alternatives . . . . . . 8

Stages in the decision-making process. . . . 9
Objective of the study. . . . . . . . . 12

II MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . . . . . . . 14
III FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . l9

Extent of agreement between recollections of

farmers and agents . . . . . . . . . l9
Extent to which active alternatives were

identified. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Cases in which two active alternatives were

clearly identified . . . . . . . . . 21
Cases in which one active alternative was

clearly identified . . . . . . . . . 26
Cases in which active alternatives were

identified fairly well. . . . . . . . 29
Cases in which active alternatives were

identified only roughly . . . . . . . 32

jHESlS

 

L

CHAPTER

Cases in which the problem discussed by the
agent was not identified by the farmer.
IV SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

iv

PAGE

.35

39
AU.

:[HESIS

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I. County Extension Staffs in Michigan and in
Eight Sample Counties. . . . . . . . . 15
II. Extent to Which Active Alternatives were

Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

{[HESIS

 

‘\ '

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

 

It is generally accepted that for resources to be
productive, they must be combined with the skill and efforts
of man. This skill is known as management, but as yet it
has few authoritative principles. It has evolved numerous
techniques, or ‘tools‘, but the real character of manage-
ment is still imperfectly known.

Among the many persons engaged in managing farms,
most have developed skill in some technique. Hence, they
tend to have a bias for seeing management from a certain
standpoint, in terms of their own skill, often lacking the
ability to see it as a whole. Out of this need for training
has evolved the extension farm and home development program.

Since the outset of this program, much has been
written and said with regard to techniques for use by county
extension workers. As yet, much remains to be done in
developing these techniques to deal effectively with such
an undertaking. The research reported herein represents

an attempt to study one phase more carefully.

:[HESIS

 

 

 

2
lflanagement as Rational Decision-Making Growing Out of Problems

According to Johnson,1 a management problem exists
when there is a significant difference between the concept
of 'what ought to be'--a value-~and a concept of 'what is'--
a belief. To solve a problem, the concept of 'what ought to
be' can be changed to the concept of 'what is'. Another way
to solve the problem would be to change 'what is' to the
concept of 'what ought to be‘. A third way of solving the
problem would be a combination of the above two.

Problems are solved through analysis and action.
Rational decision-making is an integral part of this process.
So far, little has been said about the ability to make deci-
sions as a part of good management. Yet, management is
defined as a process involving making and implementing deci-
sions under conditions of uncertainty. In order to focus

attention on the importance of decision-making in management,

Bratton2 has referred to the process of management as follows:

 

lGlenn L. Johnson, "The Interstate Cooperative
Research Project on Decision Making in Farm Management,"
Proceedings of Conference on Values and Decision-Making_in
Home ManagemEHt, July 446,_I955 (East Lansing, Michigan:
Depirtment of Home Management and Child Development, mimeo.),
p. l.

 

 

 

 

2C. A. Bratton, ”Decision Making in Home Management,"
Proceedings of Conference on Values and Decision-Making in
Home ManagemEHt, JulyA46,_I955 (East Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Home Management and Child Development, mimeo.),
p. 30.

 

 

:[HESIS

 

 

l. Recognizing a problem.

2 Setting a goal.

3 Planning the use of resources to attain a goal.
A. Carrying out the plan.

5 Evaluating the satisfaction in the results.

H

Bratton3 explained, Following through with such a
process is a series of decisions." Some decisions are re—
quired in recognizing a problem. A farmer may realize that
something is wrong with his operation before he decides to
make changes. Step 3 in the above process, of course,
involves many decisions. The decisions of Step A make the
plan work.

The five functions of the manager as listed by
Johnson“ also bring attention to the importance of decision-
making. They are

1. Observation,

2. Analysis,

3. Decision concerning the problems under consider-

ation,

A. Action-taking, and

5. Acceptance of economic responsibility.

Decisions are implied in and through all of them. Decision-

making is truly the critical area of management.

 

31bid.

_

“Glenn L. Johnson, Managerial Concepts for Agricul-
turalists (Lexington, Kentucky: Kentucky Agricultural Eiperi-
ment Station), July, 1954, Bulletin 619, p. 12.

 

:[HESIS

 

 

It

Management then occurs when there is some problem to
solve or some choice to make. An important question now
arises: Is all decision-making management? Gross and
Crandall5 emphasize that a kind of decision-making occurs
in habitual behavior, but do not regard this as true
decision-making.

The ”costs" in time and effort are too great to

use true decision-making for every situation. It

would be staggering tothink of the number of deci-

sions that would be required merely in dressing in

the morning if habits were eliminated.
In addition, they stress the influence of habits in all
areas of decision-making. They regard decision-making as a
part of management when conditions have changed, requiring
new patterns of living.

Farm people make decisions daily. It would seem that
with so much practice, they would soon develop the skill to
make decisions easily. However, from observation we know
this is not necessarily true. Why then are some decisions
easily made while others are so difficult they are never

made? Part of the trouble may lie in the approach used

toward problem solving. As Knight6 suggests

 

5Irma H. Gross and Elizabeth W. Crandall, Mana ement
for Modern Families (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc

19547, pp. 19-20.

 

6F. H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profits (Boston:

—————

Houghton Mifflin Company, 19217: p. 211.

 

When we try to decide what to expect in a certain
situation, and how to behave ourselves accordingly,
we are likely to do a lot of irrelevant mental
rambling, and the first thing we know we find that
we have made up our minds, that our course of action
is settled. There seems to be very little meaning
in what has gone on in our minds, and certainly little
kinship with the formal processes of logic which the
scientist uses in an investigation. We contrast the
two processes by recognizing that the former is not
reasoned knowledge, but ”judgment,” "common sense,”
or "intuition." There is doubtless some analysis of
a crude type involved, but in the main it seems that
we “infer" largely from our experience of the past
as a whole.

Another factor that contributes to the difficulty of
a problem is uncertainty. Uncertainty arising from lack of
knowledge about the present is an important consideration
for managers; but with modern communications this uncertainty
can easily be reduced. However, uncertainty arising from
lack of knowledge about the future cannot be easily reduced.
Johnson and Haver7 have identified the following five cate-
gories of uncertainty:

1. Price structures and changes;

2. Production methods and responses (including
weather effects);

3. Prospective technological developments;

4. The behavior and capacities of people associated
with farm businesses;

5. The economic, political, and social situations
in which a farm business operates.

 

7Glenn L. Johnson and Cecil B. Haver, Decision—Making
Principles in Farm Management (Lexington, Kentucky: Kentucky
agricultural Experiment Station), Bulletin 593, 1953, pp.
-9.

 

 

IHESIS

 

Although these categories do not necessarily cover every
kind of imperfect knowledge about the future, they do cover
the important situations with which farm managers must deal.

Conflicting, or poorly defined, goals are other
factors which contribute toward making problems more compli-
cated. When there are conflicting goals, there is an addi-
tional problem of determining which of them should have
priority. Some decisions may even eliminate the attainment
of certain goals. Goals that are poorly defined provide
fewer guide posts to follow in decision-making; the most
important goals may never be pursued.

Environment can also contribute toward making prob-
lems more complicated. Natural factors in an environment
can hinder or facilitate the ease with which a course of
action can be executed. Social pressures in an environment
can also influence decisions.

No doubt, there are other contributing factors for
further complicating problems; but those problems that do
not contain any of these limiting factors are more easily
solved. However, many problems that do contain these
factors can be simplified by isolating and eliminating as

many of the trouble areas as possible.

Decision Making as a Matter of Choosing Among Known

 

Alternatives

 

The prime character of decision-making is choosing

among alternatives. Most farm management books refer to

jHESIS

moat-'65) ‘ “

 

7
decision-making to a limited extent in their discussions on
choosing the right enterprises. Even though they infer
choosing among alternatives, there is little on how to

identify them. Johnson and Haver in their bulletin, Decision-

 

Making Principles in Farm Management, discussed the knowledge

 

situations which are basic to identifying alternatives.

Gross and Crandall8 have elaborated more fully on the place
of alternatives in decision—making. They emphasize that the
number of alternatives to be identified should vary according
to the importance of the decision.

One would expect from the many writings in industrial
management that there would be a rather thorough coverage of
alternatives in decision-making. However, the subject is
usually only mentioned in passing or not at all. Writers9
in various fields have stressed the importance of having
many alternatives from which to choose when faced with prob-
lems requiring decisions.

Alternatives are not always obvious; they must be
developed from attention, at times, to little known facts.

It is not always the most obvious alternative which is the

best answer. Obscurity often disguises opportunity. The

 

8
Gross and Crandall, op. cit., pp. 20-23.

 

9H. L. Kingsley, The Nature and Conditions of
Learning (New York: PrenticeéHall, Inc., 19H6); G. W. Briggs,
Studies in Management Techniques (London: Gee and Company,

195 .

 

 

 

.THESIS

 

CO

ultimate basis for decision—making then is knowledge of a
wide range of alternatives from which to choose. Skill must

be developed in seeking out these alternatives.

Identification of Alternatives

 

In a farm management context, an alternative describes
some course of action with respect to the operation of the
farm business. This description is in reference to future
operations. It is seldom if ever possible to describe a
course of action perfectly because of changing conditions.
With the passage of time, new factors may alter conditions
and may make revisions necessary. _An alternative may be
described as being specific or vague, complete or incomplete,
and active or passive. The first two pairs of terms cover
a wide range of variations along a continuous scale.

An alternative is specifically described when certain
actions are precisely and explicitly formulated. A vague
alternative is indistinctly described and considered in
general rather than definite terms. To expand the dairy
herd is a vague alternative; to add ten more cows is a
Specific alternative.

Alternatives are completely identified when an entire
combination of inter-related changes is explicitly specified.
This requires an understanding of how the various segments
of the farm business will be affected if the specified alter-
native is pursued. To increase a dairy herd by ten more

cows would undoubtably require adjustments in labor, feed,

9
barn space, and milk handling capacity. It might also mean
delaying the installation of a bathroom in the house or the
purchase of new living room furniture. A completely identi-
fied alternative would specify each of these inter-related
changes. Unless all such inter—related changes are defi-
nitely specified, the alternative has not been completely
identified.

The results of changes may be immediately observed,
or there may be a period between the time changes are made
and the results observed. A changed feed ration for dairy
cattle may immediately increase their milk production,
whereas the effects of a changed tillage practice may not
be observed until the crops are harvested the following
year. A completely identified alternative would also specify
when and for how long the changes would be effective.

The passive or active grouping describes the amount
of action required by an alternative. Continuing without
change may be described as a passive alternative for the
future. An active alternative requires adjustments in one

or more of the inter-related segments of the farm business.

Stages in the Decision-Making Process

 

The decision—making process is not ordinarily instan-
taneous, and several stages can be identified. However,
some steps may be combined or eliminated; so it is not always
possible to observe a complete sequence. The process of

decision-making may be listed by stages as follows:

:rHEsxs

. Jrrsfihu- 1.,

IO

1. Discontent: A manager in the stage of discontent
recognizes a problem but has no solution in mind.

2. Consideration of alternatives: This is the stage
of analysis. The analysis can be with special
interest, specific restrictions, or relatively
complete elaboration.

3. Initial selection and verification: In this
stage, a manager makes a tentative decision and
seeks verification from other sources.

A, Tentative action and review: In this stage, the
manager commits the necessary resources, usually
on a small scale, to observe the results of an
alternative.

5. Full commitment: This is the stage in which a
manager makes a final decision and commits
available resources toward attaining a goal.

These stages are somewhat similar in development to
the stages in the process of acceptance of new ideas listed
by Beal and Bohlen.lo However, there is this difference:
the above stages are taken from the standpoint of problems
as they arise on farms, while the stages listed by Beal and
Bohlen refer to the acceptance of ideas developed off the
farm.

A manager in the stage of discontent recognizes there
is a significant difference between what is and what ought
to be. At this stage, the manager knows little about the
problem beyond the fact that it exists. This awareness

develops as a farmer observes he is lapsing into a lower

socio-economic group. It may develop from a desire to

 

lOHow Farm People Accept New Ideas, Reported in North
Central Regional Publication Number lPIAmes, Iowa: Iowa
State College), November 1955.

 

 

fIHESlS

 

 

ll
progress into a higher socio-economic group. It may also
develop from the desire to remain in the same socio-economic
group with less effort in production. The stage of discon-
tent normally develops gradually and provides the necessary
motivation to make changes.

A manager advances to considering alternatives when
he begins searching for workable solutions. This search
may end with the identification of one alternative, or it
may continue until several are identified. Special interest
is present when active alternatives have been identified and
compared wit the passive alternative, or benchmark plan.
Specific restrictions exist when managers refuse to consider
certain alternatives because of such subjective factors as
habits, customs, or beliefs. A farmer may encounter the
problem of obtaining additional farm land but may not con-
sider renting because of his belief that leases are not
equitable or that he could not agree with the landowner on
the cropping system. Relatively complete elaboration is
characterized by identifying a number of the more promising
alternatives clearly.

A manager reaches the initial selection and verifica-
tion stage when he feels he has considered the important
alternatives. At this point, he makes a tentative decision,
but still lacks complete confidence in that decision and
seeks additional confirmation of the solution. This confir-
mation or agreement is often obtained by having another

individual go through the same mental process as the manager

jHESE

 

 

12
to arrive at a solution. Another more satisfactory method
of verification is to observe the results of such a course
of action on a similar farm.

Thetentative actquand review stage occurs when a
manager commits the necessary resources to observe the
results of an alternative. If the results are not satis-
factory, the manager may still change the course of action
with a minimum loss of resources. There are alternatives,
such as erecting a building, in which this stage would be
omitted. However, a farmer may be in doubt about adding a
certain livestock enterprise to his organization. His
tentativezwctionthen may be to buy a few animals to observe
the livestock enterprise in his farm organization. If the
expected favorable outcome occurs, then the manager is ready
for the stage of full commitment. At this latter stage, the
manager would obtain the planned number of animals for the‘

enterprise.

Objective of the Study

 

Farmers often lack the training to see management as
a whole. Through the farm and home development program,
extension has undertaken to provide this needed training on
a more intensified basis. The objective of this study was
to examine the ways in which county agents work with farmers
on important management problems. This was an exploratory
study, but in particular it seemed important to examine the

following hypotheses:

13
Farm people often recognize the existence of
problems and seek help in solving them without
having the alternative courses of action clearly
and fully identified.
County extension workers often recognize the
existence of problems on farms, and seek to
help in solving them, without identifying alter-
native courses of action clearly and fully.
An intimate knowledge of the farm business has
a bearing on an agent‘s ability to help in
identifying alternatives clearly and fully.
Farmers are more likely to make changes if they
feel they have full information on alternative

courses of action.

_THESIS

up 3.4.: an.

 

 

CHAPTER II
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Michigan has a wide variation of counties. The
agriculture ranges from intensive enterprises, such as
poultry and truck farming, to the extensive enterprises
of grass, and beef cattle. The state has large sparsely
populated areas of timber, much of which has been cut over
and is low in productivity. There are other areas which
are largely urbanized with most residents industrially
employed.

The staff of the Michigan Cooperative Extension
Service is adapted to the varying needs within the state.

In the more sparsely populated areas, an agent may serve
more than one county. In the urbanized areas, the extension
program places more emphasis on home making and 4-H club
work. There are also district specialists located in areas
where the concentration of special enterprises warrants.

A modified case study approach was used. To observe
the variations among agents and among farmers cooperating
with each agent, a judgment sample of eight Michigan counties
was chosen. These counties are located in general farming

areas where dairying is the main livestock enterprise.

(See Table I.)

gags:

 

15

TABLE I. County extension staffs in Michigan and in eight
sample countiesl

 

Item Entire Sample
State Counties

 

Counties by structure of agricultural staff2

 

 

 

 

County agent only 5A 3
Agent and one other worker 21 5
Agent and more than one other worker 8 0
Total 83 8
Number of county workers:
County agents 76 8
Assistant county agents 31 A
Home demonstration agents 64 9
A-H agents 58 8
Other agents3 12 l
I

As of February 1956
2Excludes home agents and 4-H agents

3Includes associate agents and district specialists

In three of the sample counties, the staff was com—
posed of one agent responsible for all the agricultural
work; in another county the agent was responsible for all
the agricultural work except in one township where an
associate was employed under a special program; in all four
of these counties, the interviews were with the county agent.
In the other four sample counties, the agricultural staff

was composed of the county agent and an assistant agent

16
whose chief duties were to help farm families with farm and
home development problems. In the latter counties, the
interviews were with the assistant agents.11

The agents were asked to discuss some of the more
important management problems with which they had been con-
cerned. They were then asked to name the farmers having
these problems. The interviewer explained that he possibly
would want to interview the farmers later.

From these problems, four farmers from each of the
eight counties were selected to be interviewed. The thirty—
two farmers were selected on the basis of the importance
of their problems. After the farmers and problems had been
selected, the interview was directed toward learning the
number of alternatives identified for each problem. As the
agent recalled the alternatives, the interviewer tried to
determine how clearly each had been identified.

To gather information from the agent about the prob-
lem, the interviewer asked the following questions:

How long (have you) known (the farmer)? Frequency

of contacts? When were you first approached with
this problem?
To secure a list and clarification.of' the alterna-

tives that were identified, the following questions were

asked:

 

11In working with individual families on important
management problems, the assistant agents for farm and home
development and the regular county agents seemed to be
using generally similar techniques.

When he (the farmer) first approached you with
this problem, what were the factors he had considered
that would influence his decision? What help or
advice did you give? What additionl factors did your
discussion bring out that would influence his decision?
The extent to which each of these alternatives were
considered was determined by asking:

What consideration did you give to each possible
solution?

To learn the agent‘s knowledge of action being taken
by farmers on the problems, two questions were asked:

Does he (the farmer) now know exactly what course

of action he wants to follow on this problem? and
What action has he taken or will he take on this
problem?

There is no perfect measure for determining an agent's
knowledge of any particular farm, but there were several
questions designed to gain some insight into the agent's
information about the farms in this circumstance. These
questions were:.

What are the acres owned? Acres rented? Normal
acres of most important crops? Usual yield of these
crops? What are the important livestock enterprises
and the number of livestock in each?

Each farmer was later interviewed to obtain his view-
point in regard to identifying alternatives. First, the
farmer was asked to name the more important farm management
problems which he had discussed with the county agent or the
assistant agent. Out of this listing, the problem that had
been discussed by the agent was pursued with the following

question:

Give in some detail what was involved in this
problem?

18
To further clarify the problem, another question was
asked:
Before taking this problem to the agent had you
made any tentative decisions regarding the course
of action you would take?
To determine the alternatives and the extent to which
he thought they were identified, the next questions were:
What were the factors involved in this problem
you had considered before taking it to the agent?
In the agent‘s discussion, did he bring out addi-
tional factors that would influence a decision?

To get his further appraisal, this was asked:

In what way was the agent most helpful on this
problem?

Questions designed to determine the farmer's opinion
of the success and satisfaction resulting from the counsel-

ing procedure were:
What action did you take or will you take on this
problem? Do you plan to consult the agent again
about this problem? Do you feel that you now have

all the available information needed to reach a
decision?

The remaining questions were identical to those asked
Of the agent to obtain a check on the agent's knowledge of

the farm business.

jHES

‘0‘: 31'» uh...

 

‘—

CHAPTER III
FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS

Extent of Agreement Between Recollections of Farmers and Agents
Of the thirty-two cases studies, twenty—five farmers

recalled and discussed the same management problems that

their county agents had reviewed. The other seven farmers

discussed problems which were different from the ones their

county agents had reviewed. Therefore, the joint considera-

tion of alternatives by agents and farmers could be studied

for only twenty-five cases.

Extent to which Active Alternatives were Identified

For the purpose of this study, identification of
active alternatives was the prime consideration. As pre-
viously defined, an active alternative requires adjustments
in one or more of the inter-related segments of the farm
business. To continue without change must also be recog-
nized as an alternative, but of the passive variety.
Imprtnnmnents in a farm organization can only be made with
changes, and this study is concerned with how changes are
determined.

The farmers interviewed did not always appear to
identify alternatives previously discussed as clearly as

had their agents. At other times, however, the farmer's

~ '1 o - ‘ rvw ‘ ‘j o
1A‘A.\‘-< O 4‘ (‘20-: An IL“ 0" HA A ' A.__;~'Q.fi.- )3 0" A- "t ‘ "fi‘fi
‘L \A ::'- v .n. 3 .L. \rt-A - J. \/ A o 0' ~a~ :3 s. 5::: \v‘ .. ::: ‘1‘ - \_ :3 - o 4. ;:) .. (E? :3 ~.( ‘. so :3 \— - - £5? ... - - ::. ‘ ‘-

‘
1": ‘fifif‘ 7‘ ”s :flfifififi‘r“ 9"\ “ Qfisar‘g‘fi ‘ " t "t ‘1
.L .‘ :3 .d is? a {3‘ 3.. ‘ ‘4»Ku is? \J ..~ \a an \4 .. \A..L . 5:) s; \J y 65? C: .5 \r \;1 ._ Q .~.’ :3 :3 I A. a - 4| \.
:27" wv‘2'-'i" . :2. {Rory—{0: n - ‘q*- ’- r‘“.3‘°‘" or»; “as
\A" veL$LEA~L 8b " by *UVOOV.‘L.‘eu C\ Cb b V e Gay.--D “a.“ v -V

1 r fivv ‘ fi“ 0. ‘ h -‘ 1 ‘ 0-.0“: ‘ (‘a ‘ ‘1 - s. ‘ .
clearly identi.led, fal?-. well ider-llled, a!" an-” roag .,
*_ o ’1 ,‘ ‘
IGEQCIIICS.
d
yrl t~ C: ‘- . It- (K 7 ¢- ‘:> 7" ‘- i r :3 “V I :1 ”w r‘ 37' a ‘:> I: r: “ \ ‘:) 1 )‘\ .‘_ r1 ‘ ‘:> ‘: y/} 1 c r
A. (1 bl e GAHVLAXaMAL e "wb CL¢DD1--\.\A ab L‘s—5.A:—: L-wa-—s"
~ 0 9 ~ 0 ‘1 o F‘ g ”i '5 , . - ‘ ‘ ._ 1 - 3 ‘ 5 .. 3 g“ 1
identlfled ll 1: was speciilCally and compie-e-y -den.i.-ed--

specifically enough for budgeting and completely enough to
show the principal changes in inter-related segments o; .h
farm business. An active alternative was classified as being

eratei

C):

'¢— .. _
f it was mo

*-JI

fairly well identified
complete enough to show changes in some of the inter-related
segments of the farm business. For an active alternative to
be classified as identified only roughly, it was briefly
mentioned but not discussed in either specific or complete
terms.

Alternatives clearly identified in discussions between
.fiarmers and county agents on important management problems
seewn to be relatively few in number. Of the twenty—five
cuases in which the joint consideration of alternatives by
agxnits and farmers could be studied, there were only thirteen
cxases in.which one or more alternatives were clearly identi-
fdtxi. Among these thirteen cases, there were three where
tnwo alternatives were clearly identified. Only one alterna-

tive was identified clearly in the remaining ten cases.

21

TABLE II. Extent to which active alternatives were identified

 

 

 

Identification of Alternatives Number of Cases

 

 

Clearly identified 13
Fairly well identified 6
Only roughly identified 6
Total 25

Cases in which Two Active Alternatives were Clearly Identified
In the cases in which two active alternatives were

clearly identified, the agents were well acquainted with the

falvning business. In all three cases, the agent knew the

aacres of land each farmer was managing. The agent also knew

tine livestock enterprises and number of animals in each.

TTKB agents reported fairly accurately the yields and acres

of‘:hnportant crops. Crops and crop yields are usually not

staixic on farms; therefore, it seems reasonable that there

werwa minor differences when the agent's figures were compared

witfil those of the farmer.

In cases where two active alternatives were clearly

iderrtified, the farmers were in the discontent stage of

tdecijsion-making. Although their farm situations and prob-

lemma varied, each of the three farmers in this grouping was

at;ga EXDint where he felt some changes were mandatory, or he

22
appeared to doubt the advisability of continuing in his cur-
rent farming arrangement. Thus, conditions were present to
motivate changes.

Farmer A and his father were farming together on the
father‘s farm. The two men desired to reorganize a business
that had been entirely controlled by the father. This re-
organization was needed to provide an adequate net income
for the two families by utilizing the labor of the two full-
time operators. Two alternatives discussed by Farmer A and
the agent were (1) to increase the dairy herd by twenty—five
more cows, and (2) to convert the farm entirely to the pro-
duction of cash crops.

Both the agent and farmer reported that replacement
stock could provide the additional twenty—five cows. No new
buildings would be required but extensive remodeling of
existing buildings would be necessary. Enlarging milk
cooling facilities would require additional expense. Ade-
quate long term credit to finance these remodeling and
equipment expenses must be secured.

The farm had been producing sufficient high quality
roughage to meet the demands of the current dairy herd. An
enlargeddairy herd would require a complete change in the
crop rotation to provide the needed roughage. The use of
present machinery and current methods of handling roughage
would not maintain its quality in larger volume.

When thinking of eliminating the dairy herd and con—

verting the farm to cash crop production, the farmer and

23
cmmty agent reported that buildings were a major considera-

Ucn. There would be quite an existing investment in build-

hgs which would not be used in returning an income. However,

Um additional investment in machinery and other expenses

requiring credit would be small.

The planned crop rotation included sufficient specialty
crOps to provide full employment, by work unit standards,
Ibr the two operators. However, much of the work would be
seasonal and at times hired labor would be needed. In addi—
tion, specialty crops are a comparatively high risk enter- }
prise with only seasonal income.

By the time the interviewer visited farmer A, he and
his father had decided to proceed with caution toward gradual
elimination of the dairy herd, and at the same time increase
the planting of cash crOps. They had purchased part of the
additional equipment necessary to handle the crOps.

Farmer B had accomplished an intermediate goal of

gettirug well established in farming. Now, with several
Yearwsesxperience in farming, he wanted to explore means of
incrwxasing net income. The operator was ready to consider
mearus of'enlarging or expanding his business. Farmer B
confaxnited the agent with this problem without stating any
Dr‘eference for a particular enterprise.

’The county agent and Farmer B discussed the possibili-

‘tieES Of‘ intensifying this operation either by increasing the
Chairfi’lhexxi to thirty cows or by enlarging the business

through-Durchasing 160 acres of additional land. To increase

22:

the dairy herd, the operator would have to erect a new
building to accommodate the increased number of cows and
make it easier to meet grade A regulations. He would also
need to buy a larger portion of the feed grain requirements.
Existing equipment and methods of handling roughage could
maintain the quality of the increased roughage production.

Cash crop production would become more important if
he bought the additional land. The dairy herd would be held j I
to its present size. The Operator would be undertaking a
substantial debt for the land, but could obtain credit from
commercial sources. The investment in additional machinery
would be minor when compared to the existing investment. In
the busier seasons, some additional labor might be required;
however, during the summer months, family labor could prob-
ably meet the requirements. Developing a desirable rotation
that would also conform to government regulations might be
difficult.

By the time the interviewer visited farmer B, the
latter'had bid on two tracts of land at an amount he deter-
Inined from budgeting would be a fair price to pay for the
expected.returns. If farmer B is unable to buy the land at
a price he considers desirable, he intends to increase the
dairy herd to thirty cows.

Farmer C was a middle-aged man whose children had
recently married and left home. He and his wife were still
carrying debts incurred in raising and educating their

:fimnily; With the age of usual retirement still several years

away but with his labor force considerably reduced, the
farmer felt he should adjust his farming to the new family
situation and still make provisions for paying off his debts.

Farmer C and the county agent discussed giving up 240
acres of rented land and selling the machinery necessary to
tend it; with this action, the operator could pay off his
debts and continue farming the reduced acreage. The second
alternative was to reduce the amount of labor used in the
livestock program, while continuing to operate the rented
land.

By reducing the acreage farmed, the operator could
probably increase the productivity of his own eighty acres
by farming it more intensively. With this organization, all
the crop land would be used to produce feed for the livestock;
net income would be reduced from the loss of the cash crops.
The operator would not be fully employed on the farm, but
there would be opportunities for off-the-farm employment in
near-by factories.

Farmer C could approximately maintain the size of the
livestock program and reduce the labor requirements by
adding ten more dairy cows and eliminating three other live-
stock enterprises. To increase the dairy herd, the farmer
would have similar problems to farmer B. His main difficulty
was innit his buildings would no longer be adequate, and he

questioned the advisability of taking on additional debt for

new buildings at his age.

- v.4.“

26

At the time of the interview, farmer C had decided he

(Md not want to give up the 240 acres of rented land, and he

cfld not feel qualified to handle the off-the-farm work.

three minor livestock

Therefore, he was planning to eliminate

enterprises and add ten cows to the dairy herd. This would

reduce the labor needs in the livestock program.

Cases in Which One Active Alternative was Clearly Identified

In the cases in which one active alternative was

clearly identified, the agents were also well acquainted

with the farming business. However, in these cases the

farmers were in a more advanced stage of decision-making.

Although their farm situations and problems varied, each

of the ten farmers in this grouping was at a point where he

felt some change was necessary. Each farmer had in mind one

alternative he wanted considered before any decisions were

made. Therefore, the problems were analyzed against the

background of a special interest.

Two farmers‘ situations are discussed here to show

the atullyses of the problems as the farmers and agents out-
lined tflwan in their separate visits with the interviewer.

In tflme first case, a major management problem arose when

all. the (hairy buildings on the farm burned. In the second

case, tine farmer's specific interest was not pursued after

an emhditifindal alternative was introduced and thoroughly

considered.

27

Farmer D was a middle-aged man whose dairy buildings

had recently burned. The agent reported that he was con-

fronted with the problem: should the farmer rebuild and

continue dairying. Though the farmer had not made a deci—

sion to rebuild, he had reasoned that since he already had

the cows, and his farming system was organized for dairying,

strong consideration should be given to rebuilding and con~

tinuing to dairy. .
Farmer D and the agent considered the types of

buildings that the farmer could build. A loose housing type i

of unit would allow for greater flexibility in the number of

cows handled as opposed to the stantion type barn the farmer

had previously used. With loose housing, he could easily

expand by five more cows for which he normally had sufficient
feed. With the additional convenience of loose housing,

five more cows would not require more labor than the number
IN? had been milking. By rebuilding and continuing the dairy,

IND adjustment in existing machinery, crop rotations, or

otfiuar farming operations would be needed. The advisability

of'rnaking a large building investment when the farmer was
ad: an.advanced age and would probably not realize full
litiglization of the investment was not fully considered.

The county agent pointed out that the farmer could
cflqaruge to a livestock system that would require substantially

113355 investment in buildings. Before giving this other

alxtexudative real consideration, the farmer dismissed it with

iflde (explanation that he would rather try cash crop farming

I!"

 

28

twfore attempting to develop the skill for handling other
lands of livestock. The agent and farmer reasoned that a
complete reorganization of the farm, either for cash crop-
ping or changing of livestock enterprises, would pose more
problems than building the new dairy structures. Therefore,
the counseling session ended with no attempts made to KM“
identify additional alternatives clearly. .
At the time of the interviewer‘s visit with farmer

D, the farmer was building a walk-through milking parlor and

rnww-m;!¥3¢ffldnflkin* t -4-

had engaged a commercial company to erect a pole building
for dairy cattle shelter.

Farmer E confronted his county agent with the alter-
native of buying additional farm land. The agent soon
pointed out that the farmer could increase his farming
acreage by clearing tree stumps from 15 acres of land on his
farm. Together they figured that the cost of removing the
stumps would be substantially less than the amount the
farmer*v«nud.pay for additional land. The operator's
mackdxusry and labor were being under-utilized. The additional
land cxmxld be put into cash crops to be sold at harvest time
witkMNJt affecting the livestock enterprises or the use of
presermz‘buildings for feed storage.

The agent and farmer did not consider further the
altervuative of buying additional farm land. Before this
altervuitive could have been clearly identified, further

COnsitkaration_of the cropping system would have been needed.

29

TNatract of land available for purchase was larger than

fUteen acres, introducing the problem of allotments.

Although only one alternative was considered clearly,

ltvms different from the original alternative in which the

farmer had expressed special interest. By the time the

the latter had removed all

 

 

interviewer visited farmer E,
r ”a
the tree stumps and had a growing crop on the land. . I
Cases in Which Active Alternatives were Identified Fairly Well E
i
Two conditions characterized the cases in which alter- ;
These were (1) parti- g‘ j

natives were identified fairly well.

ality by agents for one alternative, and (2) specific

restrictions by farmers on the range of alternatives to be

considered. Usually there was a direct conflict between the

alternative to which the agents were partial and the specific

restrictions placed on the solution of the problem by the

farmers.
The agent may, without fully realizing it, base his

suggesticwmsto individual farmers on his own ideas of what
are good puectices or good enterprises rather than seek out

all gxxasible alternatives along with the goals of the farmer

and PM}; family. When personal motives are not considered,

a plarlrmay seem ideal without gaining the interest or

acceptance of UMBIErmer.

Irl these cases, it was generally not difficult to

detelvnine vflaich alternatives had originated with the farmers.

Theil°<iiscnlssions centered around the restrictions they had

30

placed on the solutions to the problems. At times these

restrictions originated beyond the control of the farmer,

but more often they were due to values, goals, or habits.

In none of the six cases where alternatives were

identified fairly well, did the interviewer find that the

farmer had chosen a course of action to solve his problem. ,
rd;
However, in most cases the agents seemed confident the
farmers would follow through on a course of action that had 3
r

been discussed during the counseling session. This may 5

 

indicate they were thinking in terms of what the farmer

'should' do rather than in terms of what he might be expected

to do. The conditions characteristic of this group are

illustrated by the two situations which follow:
Farmer F was a young part-time operator with ninety

acres of land and a factory job. He confronted the agent

with time alternative of expanding the dairy herd from ten

to twwnity-five cows. Both the farmer and agent recognized

this vuyuld mean building a new dairy barn. They also

realjtaed the increased labor requirement would prove burden-

some txa the farmer with his factory work. The agent doubted

tha13'the operator would be able to feed twenty-five cows

and Iwnolacement stock on sixty acres of tillable land and

abcufl: fiffeen acres of pasture. The agent thought orchard-

ifug erNild be considered since most of the surrounding farms

were ill orthards.

At: the end of the counseling session, farmer F had not

reatflued £1 decision as to what should be done with the farm

31
or the dairy herd. Later, at the time of the interview, he
stated he was still as far from making any decisions as he
had ever been. He did not share the agent's enthusiasm for
an orchard as he said it would not come into bearing until
after his family was grown, whereas he would most need
additional income while his children were being raised and
educated. He still expressed a desire for more dairy cows.
He was convinced he could get greater production from his
farm through increased use of fertilizer, better varieties,
and/or different farming practices. He was going to try to
find out more about these possibilities from other sources.

Farmer G was a middle—aged man with two grown sons
who wished to farm with him. He had spent several years
dairying prior to World War II. When his dairy barn was
destroyed by fire, he changed to the maintenance of a beef
breeding herd, since he did not like dairying. He would
consider only enterprises which traditionally involve low
risk.

Farmer G‘s problem as he presented it to the county
agent was how to maintain a beef breeding herd large enough
to provide employment and income for himself and his two
sons. !1 suggested alternative was that of increasing the
size of the business by finishing the calves to slaughter
weight and even buying additional feeders to put with his
own calves. This was a traditionally high risk enterprise

which the farmer*would not consider. The agent brought up

the adwmultages of dairying at every opportunity and tried to

 

 

5O." , a

I .b.... 1.th rlul....ll.loll{l.I-. r. {d

 

32
point out how it would fit into the situation by utilizing
the family labor. The agent pointed out that farmer G could
maintain an economical size dairy herd on his available
pasture and crop land. Even though the farmer expressed a
personal dislike for dairy, the agent did suggest working
through a farm budget with him to show that dairying was the
most profitable livestock enterprise. At the time of the
interview, farmer G mentioned that the agent had been trying
to talk him into dairying, but he (the farmer) felt he had
milked his share of cows during his lifetime.

It appears here that the farmer placed restrictions
on at least some of the most obvious solutions. He was
undecided as to what his course of action would be; for the
present he was continuing without change.

Other members of this group posed problems with
similar specific restrictions. Still other respondents felt
the agents had given them all the available information nec-
essary to solve their problems but they did not feel it was

sufficiently complete for them to take any immediate action.

fagses in Which Active Alternatives were Identified Only
Roughly

Little knowledge of the farm business by the agents
armi falvners in the advanced stages of decision—making are
two cmnaditions characteristic of the group that identified
aetixne alternatives only roughly. When the agents were asked

queStdxnis about the farm business, they seemed uncertain and

v :F

u". ’40- (UV?
."
..1 turd-L
-'

 

LA)
U0

‘7
\r

5

Ci)

often looked for notes to provide their answers. In m

D.

II

p:

mation

H3
5

Q
‘1

*—

cases, they were unable to give de l

frequently their answers did not agree with those given by

the farmers.
The farmers may have previously considered other

alternatives, but they only presented to the agalt, for his

- ,
r
'9: Ii,

verification, the course of action they intended to pursue.

The problems of the six farmers in this group were S

each was unique in some respects.

 

quite similar; however,
Two farmers‘ situations will be discussed to illustrate this
1. ”a
group. '
Farmer H posed the agent the problem that with the
the

trend toward having larger dairy cattle (as he put it),
same number he had formerly cared for had now outgrown his

stable facilities. The course of action he presented to the

agent was to build a new dairy barn that could be used for

the

for

the

and

The

present herd and yet be sufficiently flexible to be used

beef cattle if he ever decided to substitute them for

The agent agreed with this course of action

‘airy herd.

provided a barn plan which could be used by the farmer.

agent suggested that the farmer might be able to use

lJnnbeI° from the old building and build during the seasons

of ltwv labor requirement on the farm.

At the time of the interview, farmer H had not started

construuztion of a building; and stated that if he did, he

wou1d_;xrobably not use the plan provided by the agent. This

statenmnit raises the question of whether an acceptable course

3‘4

cfi‘action had actually been found or even if it would be.

’Hm agent stated that it had been about three years since

kw had been approached with this problem and his contacts
with the farmer averaged about once every two months.

Farmer H felt that he knew the agent very well and did plan

to consult him again with this problem. His explanation was

that he did not have the necessary information to reach a

final decision regarding the building.
Farmer I had experienced the same problem as farmer

H; however, he had also doubled the number of cows in his

dairy herd. The course of action farmer I had tentatively

decided upon was to remodel an existing building into a
pen-type barn and build additional shelter for the dairy

herd. Again, the agent assisted by providing the building

plans and cost estimates.

At the time of the interview, farmer I had carried

through with this course of action, but expressed dissatis—

faction with the outcome. He posed numerous management

problenns related to dairying. The operator's dissatisfaction

was Luujoubtably intensified when he realized that he was

fullyr<zommitted to dairying when many neighboring farmers

had Iwnuently sold their dairy herds. The farmer had con-

siderexi with the agent this course of action for about four

yeaiws. .During these years, there had been about twelve

contatfius made with the agent each year.

Ir1 this group, the farmers who had not initiated

changes expressed a desire to consult further with the agent.

35

On the other hand, the farmers who had made changes expressed
doubt about the wisdom of their actions. This may suggest
that only symptoms of the real problems had been discovered
or considered. In farmer H's case, perhaps a combination
dairy and beef barn would not make the desirable beef barn
which he may really have wanted. Farmer I may have been
concentrating too much on adjustments in the dairy herd.
These questions might have been answered had more alterna-

tives been clearly identified and compared.

Cases in Which the Problem Discussed by the Agent was Not

Identified by the Farmer

In seven cases, the farmers and their agents discussed
different problems. In some cases where the interviewer

mentioned the topic introduced by the agent, the farmer did

not acknowledge the agent‘s help.

There may be several factors affecting these discrep-
ancies between the agent and farmer responses. It may be
that in cases where farmers denied any agent help, the
farmers had come to think of the agent's ideas as their own;
;perhaps also they had discussed numerous problems with the
agerH:.and had placed less importance on the one the agent
ditunassed. It may also be a possibility that the agent and
farmuar in several cases were discussing the same problem
but ffiflmn different points of emphasis.

There were many more differences in conditions among

the fEUflners and agents in this group than in the others. In

36
some cases, the agent had a good knowledge of the farm busi-
ness, and was able to give the tillable acres, livestock
enterprises and most important crops and crop yields with
considerable accuracy. There was variation in the stage of
decision-making at which farmers approached the agents, and

in other aspects of the problems. Two cases will be dis-

cussed to illustrate.
Farmer J was a middle—aged man who had been dairying ;
for several years; he expressed during the interview a dis-

like for dairying because of the high labor requirement. He

 

was carrying a large debt that had accrued from the advance-
ment in machinery requirements of present day farming, and
was anticipating the need for an additional capital outlay
for bulk cooling. He then was discouraged with the outlook
“for his present organization and was seeking a solution to
his problem at the stage of discontent.

Farmer J noted that to quit dairying would mean he
'would probably realize a substantial drop in net income.
\Nith.the size of debt he was carrying, he could not permit
13113 to happen. An analysis of his farm business by exten-
sixni specialists indicated that his optimum organization
MKNlld be to increase the present twenty-five cow dairy herd
tc> forty cows. He had serious doubts about adequately
haruiling forty milk cows with the labor available to him and
tkma current feed production of the farm. He was also con-
cernied about the added expense of building additional barn

spmuze and thereby increasing his debt. His dislike for

37
dairying increased his reluctance to enlarge this enter-
prise.

The problem related to farmer J which his county
agent discussed was that of farm drainage. The agent's
discussion was entirely limited to the cost and financing
of tile drainage. Whether the implications of the work the
agent was doing with the farmer on drainage was (1) to help
raise the farm's productivity for feed for the additional
cows, (2) to allow the farmer to change from dairying to a
sufficiently productive cash crop farming system, or (3) for
some other purpose was not ascertained. However, the agent
did state during the course of the interview that he con-
sidered dairying the most profitable enterprise in the county
and he did encourage farmers to increase their dairy herds
at every opportunity.

Farmer K was a young farmer who was well established
iji farming and wanted to expand or enlarge his beginning
<organization. He had been engaging in a variety of enter-
Ixrises, but none of them had developed to a central place
in liis organization. He preferred cash crop farming to any
tygxe of a livestock program. Because of this preference,
he \Nas very interested in finding methods and verification
for“ developing an economically sound cash crop system.

Farmer K's interest centered on obtaining additional
gimiin storage through building. In his discussion, he empha-

sijned the possibilities of government payments for farm

stxxred grain and the capital investment in such storage.

363‘
he only other comments were on the design of the structure
and the advisability of a grain dryer.

The county agent with whom farmer K had worked dis-
cussed the problem of which enterprise should be emphasized
in the farm organization. In his discussion, he mentioned
the alternatives of cash cropping, increasing the dairy herd,
and developing a strong hog enterprise, all of which were
identified fairly well. The grain storage problem which the
farmer discussed with the interviewer may have been a factor

considered as a part of the cash crop alternative which the

 

agent discussed; however, this was not ascertained through

13M? interviews.

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The technique of identifying alternatives as a basis hL““

. A‘J‘J

for decision-making on farms seems to be imperfectly used,
if one may judge from the thirty-two cases examined in this

study. This technique is implied in most farm management .

 

but as yet few writers show how to identify

publications,

alternatives clearly.
Management problems are solved through analysis and

action. Rational decision-making is an integral part of

this process. The prime character of decision-making is

choosing among alternatives. Three classifications used

:hi characterizing the identification of alternatives are

(1) specific or vague, (2) complete or incomplete, and

(3) active or passive.
Alternatives are specifically identified when they

are (nansidered in definite rather than general terms.
Altenfiiatives are completely identified when an entire com-
biruition of inter-related changes are explicitly specified.
1* painsive alternative is to continue without change, while
an euztive alternative denotes some changes.

The decision-making process is not ordinarily instan-

tarueoLus, and several stages can be identified. These steps

311 deuzision-making may be listed as follows:

40

l. Discontent,

2 Consideration of alternatives,

3 Initial selection and verification,

4. Tentative action and review,

5 Full commitment.

This study was particularly concerned with determin-
ing the number of alternatives identified and the extent to
which they are considered when farmers and county agents

seek to solve an important management problem. The use of

this technique was examined by a modified case study approach.

A judgment sample was taken of eight Michigan counties. In
each county, four farmers were selected for interview. The
alternatives that were identified by both farmers and county
agents were classified as being either clearly identified,
fairly well identified, or only roughly identified.

Though the study results are subjective, they seem
conclusive in some instances and highly suggestive in others.
Some of the main conclusions are as follows:

1. Active alternatives clearly identified in

discussions between farmers and county agents

on important management problems seem to be

relatively few in number.

2. In cases where one or more active alterna-

tives were clearly identified, the agents were

well acquainted with the farm business.

3. In cases where one or more active alterna-

tives were clearly identified, the farmers were

at an early stage in decision-making.

A. The technique of identifying alternatives

as a basis for decision-making can be successful

in determining a course of action that will be
pursued by farmers.

Al

5. Two conditions characteristic of the group
that could identify active alternatives only
fairly well were (I) partiality on the part of
agents for one alternative, and (2) specific
restrictions by farmers on the range of alterna-
tives to be considered.

6. When active alternatives were identified
only fairly well, the farmers were left without
a course of action in mind for solving their
problems.

7. Two conditions characteristic of the group

that could identify active alternatives only

roughly were (1) little knowledge of the farm

business by agents, and (2) farmers in the

advanced stages of decision-making.

8. When the farmers did not seem to be dis-

cussing the same problem discussed by the agent,

they may have been looking at the same problem

from different points of emphasis.

These results may be due in part to the limitations
placed on the solution of problems by the agents and their
clientele. During the earlier stages in decision-making,
farmers are either at the stage of discontent or are con-
sidering;alternatives. In either of these stages, an agent
can be cfi‘assistance while searching for a solution to a
:pPOblEHL These earlier stages in decision—making can be
cxnutrasted to the more advanced stages in decision-making.
In time latter, it can be extremely difficult to get farmers
to renason through additional alternatives thoroughly.

Additional limitations may arise from the agent's
lack:c1f knowledge regarding the farming business. When an

agerfl:<does not have a thorough knowledge of the business,

he iislnandicapped in trying to identify alternatives.

lg

A2

Furthermore, a full clarification of alternatives would be

impossible.

Further limitations may develop when an agent shows
partiality for an alternative. This may meet resistance
from the clientele because (I) the alternative may be in
direct conflict with personal values and goals of the farm
family, and (2) the farmer may develop the feeling that he
is not sharing in the decision-making process.

The results summarized have important implications
for county extension workers who are trying to meet the
objectives of the farm and home development program. The
success demonstrated in the case study group in which active
alternatives were identified clearly is an indication that
this technique can be successfully used.

If the agent has a general knowledge of the physical
characteristics of the farm, he should be able to gain suf-
ficient knowledge of the farm business during the counseling
session to assist in identifying a number of the more

pronfljflf@;alternatives. When a particular organization

atumeals to an agent, he should compare it with other alter-

ruatives, taking into consideration the values and goals of
ttme family while assisting them in the decision-making
prtxxess. Partiality to an alternative is not necessarily
Lundesxirable unless it interferes with the full consideration
Of‘cyther possible alternatives.

When farmers are in the earlier stages of decision-

Inakdrug, they are ready for the agents to assist them in

43
identifying some of the more promising alternatives. How-
ever, when a farmer approaches an agent in later stages of
decision-making, he may have an important management problem
which he does not recognize. The problem for which he is
seeking help is perhaps only the symptom of his real manage-
ment problem. At this stage, the 'cure' given by an exten-
sion agent may not get at the real cause of the problem.

To be successful in these cases, extension agents need to
recognize the true situation and attempt to move their
clients back into earlier stages in decision-making. There,
farm operators can find the real problem and identify alter—
native courses of action from which to choose a solution.
Considerable educational work would probably be
accomplished through the mass media approach in teaching the
identification of alternatives as a basis for decision-
making on farms. Through the use of newspapers, radio, and
public meetings, the principles of identifying alternatives
could be taught using examples. Typical problems on assumed
farms could be discussed using several different alternatives
which might become solutions. By this method, farm people
cxNild be made aware of the principles and led to think

througfiltheir own problems.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradford, Lawrence A., and Glenn L. Johnson. Farm Management
Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1953.

Briggs, G. N. Studies in_Management Techniques. London:
Gee and Company, 1953.

Gross, Irma H., and Elizabeth W. Crandall. Management for
Modern Families. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,

Inc., 195A.

 

Heady, Earl 0., and Harold R. Jensen. Farm Management
Economics. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.

 

How Farm People Accept New Ideas. North Central Regional
Publication 1. Iowa State College, 1955.

Johnson, Glenn L. Managerial Concepts for Agriculturalists.
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletinfi619.
Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, 1954.

Johnson, Glenn L., and Cecil B. Haver. Decision-Making
Principles in Farm Management AngEultural Experi-
ment Station BulletIn 593. Lexington, Kentucky:
University of Kentucky, 1953. ...,

 

.Kingsley, H. L. The Nature and Conditions of Learning.
New York: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1946. a

Ifiiight, Frank H. Risk, Uncertain_y and Profits. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921.

 

jProceedings of_Conference on Values and Decision-Making in
Home Management (MimeoTT East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, July 1955.

 

 

 

 

'Wheeleny Richard G., and John D. Black. Planning for
Successful Dairying in New England. Columbia:
HarvaPH University Press, 1955.

 

,. _4. :-_fl
s

.‘r '~.w'

Val." ’31” a

Qé'fiy’Uit' ate ue

 

Demco-293