Operationalizing Values and Value Systems in National Agricultural Research System

N.H. Rao

National Academy of Agricultural Research Management

Rajendranagar

Hyderabad 500 030

Abstract

Value systems serve as frames of reference for behavioural responses at both individual and organizational levels. Institutions in which the organizational culture is highly evolved have invested in developing strong internal value systems to resolve ethical dilemmas and value conflicts, and ensure high performance, quality, social responsibility and employee professional satisfaction. Such investments contribute to both individual and organizational development and growth. There is a need to develop a viable organizational culture in institutions of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS). This paper is concerned with how strong-willed and disciplined research and education managers, scientists and teachers can contribute to the development and operationalization of strong internal value systems in NARS. Three kinds of situations, where value conflicts can arise are identified. These relate to individual identity, identifying with the group in the work place, and organizational identity in society. By learning to identify each kind of value conflict situation, individuals can learn to resolve value conflicts in a practical way by a combination of self-inquiry and introspection with shrewedness and realism. The extent to which an individual can do this, without losing either his self-respect or his self-confidence determines the level of his personal satisfaction. With such an approach, each situation of value conflict can be converted into an opportunity for both personal and organizational growth. Though, the paper is directed at NARS, it is sufficiently general to be of relevance to most research and educational institutions in India.
Introduction
One of the most important challenges in professional life is to act ethically while achieving high levels of performance and personal satisfaction. With respect to ethics, the rules are the same for everybody. “Ethics requires that you ask yourself what kind of a person do I want to see in the mirror in the meaning” ? (Drucker, 1999). Though ethical behaviour reflects social and cultural factors, it is shaped by an individual’s own values and experiences and the value systems implemented in the organization. `Ethics-in-practice derives from values-in-the-being’ (Chakraborty, 1996). Individual actions in situations where ethical questions arise, when cumulated over many years, shape one’s identity as well as the organizational culture. Those who can resolve these situations and conflicts have a clear sense of their values and the values of their organization. They enjoy a deep sense of professional satisfaction and contribute significantly to the development of organization. Investments made in developing ethics and value systems are therefore investments for both individual as well as organizational development and growth. Ethics and values are not just simple niceties that look good on paper, but make sound business sense.
All my life, I have been crying out
With upraised arms:
Follow dharma,and artha and kama will surely follow you!
Alas ! Who cares, who listens !
(Mahabharata, quoted from Chakraborty, 1996)

Public expectations of ethical and socially responsible behaviour from both private and Government organizations are also rising. This is leading to an increasing concern for quality and social responsibility in many organizations. High ethical standards lead to high morale, performance and quality, and protect the long term interests of both individuals and the organization. For these reasons, progressive business organizations are increasingly focussing on developing and refining their internal value systems for effective functioning with employees, customers, creditors, stockholders, and with competition. In organizations where such culture is highly evolved, ethics and values are everyone’s concern, from top managers to individual employees at all levels. In fact, over 90% of Fortune 500 firms have published codes of ethics (Lewis et al, 1998) to ensure quality and performance, as well as to make a public commitment of their internal values and value systems. This paper is concerned with how strong-willed and disciplined individual research and education managers, scientists and teachers can contribute to the development and operationalization of strong internal value systems in research and educational institutions. The paper is directed at India’s National Agricultural Research System (NARS) which comprises the research institutions under Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the State Agricultural Universities (SAUs). But it is sufficiently general to be of relevance to other research and educational institutions in India. It is shown that the development of value systems and their assimilation into the organizational culture of institutions such as NARS is not a one-time event but a continuing process. The process moves through cycles of recognizing situations with potential for value conflicts, identifying the ethical components of each situation, and on establishing and institutionalizing procedures for resolving them at individual, group and organizational levels. Some typical situations of value conflicts are considered to illustrate how they may be resolved by developing and operationalizing appropriate value systems for individuals and the organization.

Values, Value Systems and NARS

Though most of us have an intuitive understanding of what we mean by values, it is difficult to provide a precise definition. One definition is to consider value as the worth or degree of worth ascribed to an object or a class of objects by individuals or organizations. By another definition, values are relatively permanent and deeply held preferences of individuals or groups which determine their attitudes, conduct and personal choices, and are the foundation for ethical behaviour (Lewis et al, 1998). Much of what we are is a product of the basic values we have developed throughout our lives. Freedom, honesty, justice, obedience and respect for the law, professionalism, etc., are examples of individual values that guide our personal behaviour. A value system is an organization of values concerning preferred modes of conduct or goals. A person’s value system thus represents his system of rules for setting goals, making choices or resolving conflicts. Different groups of people tend to hold different values as more important. For example academicians rate competence, freedom and communication higher than many other people do. The recent striking down by the British Parliament of the recommendation by the academicians of The Royal Society to support research in genetically modified organisms is an example of the differing value preferences of different groups. An organization too has a value system which is reflected in its organizational culture. In most cases, the organization’s goals and ethical standards reflect the personal values and ideals of its dominant individuals or groups within it (Lewis et al, 1998). The codes of ethics published and followed by progressive business organizations are the outcome of a strong focus on internal value systems. Such codes serve to create an awareness for ethical behaviour among employees and help govern activities that cannot be supervised directly or closely enough to ensure compliance. They also permit individuals and organizations to relate themselves consistently to different situations and events. Thus a value system serves as a frame of reference for accountability for past actions, as well as future thinking and behavioural responses, both for the individual and the organization. But, if the value system of the organization is incompatible with an individual’s own value system, it leads to value conflicts, which in turn lead to frustration and non-performance. The National Agricultural Research System (NARS) comprises research institutions under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and State Agricultural Universities (SAUs). The ICAR was set up in 1962 and is a public research system fully financed by the Government of India. Currently the ICAR system consists of 5 national Institutes ( 4 of which are deemed universities), 93 Institutes, 82 All India Coordinated Projects, 266 Krishi Vignan Kendras and 5 externally aided projects including World Bank projects. It employs over 5000 Scientists, over 8000 technicians and over 5000 administrative and finance personnel, and many more supporting staff. The activities of the organization spread across research, education, and extension functions. Besides its large size, the organization has a variety of stakeholders; farmers, scientists, students, academicians, NGOs, other Central and State Government Departments, national and international funding agencies, etc. The Vision Statement of ICAR (ICAR,1999) commits the organization to growth oriented governanace that ensures functional autonomy (freedom, flexibility, accountability and quick decisions), efficiency (high returns on investment), transparency (justifiable decisions) and creation of a culture of trust and sense of belonging among its employees. It also commits ICAR to build its people to put in place a new culture of scientific innovation. The policies and programmes adapted by the ICAR system also significantly influence research and education in the 28 State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) and one Central University spread across the country. Much of the development of NARS took place in the mid 1960s and later. It is therefore a relatively young organization. The growth of the organization has also been very rapid. For these, and other reasons, a viable organizational culture with established value systems for conducting research, education and technology transfer is yet to take roots. It is not uncommon to find individuals with strong value systems in conflict with colleagues and superiors even in carrying out routine functions. The absence of a strong organizational culture has led to questionable ethical practices, some of which have attracted media attention and needed to be resolved by resort to legal processes. All of these factors in turn are leading to frustration and non-performance at individual levels. At the same time, many individuals and organizations within NARS are being increasingly called upon to play an important role in guiding public policy. The question of developing and operationalizing strong internal value systems in the NARS, therefore acquires increased significance for increasing its performance and responsible functioning. The role of values is also important in the context of collaborations, team building and team-work whether in research, teaching or technology transfer. ICAR and other components of NARS have also been placing an increasing emphasis on collaborations and team-work. The overall attitude which team members have towards what they are doing and the values which they adopt can sometimes be more important than the characters of the individuals making up the team. A group functions as a team only when its goals, values and orientations clearly established. When all members share common values, and the goals actually reflect those values, teams can function effectively. Each person will be able to perceive how his own personal activity contributes to the teams shared aims and reflects its shared values (Hayes, 1997). Building strong value systems is, therefore, a necessary pre-condition for the planned team-building efforts of NARS. Thus, both from the point of view of enhancing performance at individual, team and organizational levels, and that of being a responsible public organization, it is essential that investments are made in developing and operationalizing strong internal value systems in NARS. These will provide a frame of reference for ensuring accountability and resolving conflicts in deciding policies, setting goals, setting priorities in research, education and technology transfer, team-building, adoption of teaching materials and methods, and even in day to day activities. The NARS can then function responsibly in the society which has a major stake in its performance.

Developing Value Systems in NARS

Value systems must assist individuals and organizations in making ethical decisions. At the level of the individual, such decisions could involve choosing between two actions, one that he knows clearly to be right and another that he knows is wrong. If the distinction between the two is clear the choices/decisions are governed by the individual’s personal character – honesty, personal ethics, respect and obedience for the law, etc. The importance of character cannot therefore be overstated. Since this study is concerned with values and value conflicts in professional situations, these personal characteristics will be assumed to be present. In the normal course of professional functioning in an organization, there can be situations when the distinction between right and wrong is not clear and no matter which option the individual chooses he may come up short (Badaracco, 1998). These are situations in which the conflict is not so much between right and wrong, as between right and right or where what is right is not clear. Examples of such situations are occasions when it is difficult to balance time between research and teaching, or between administration and research. Such situations can also arise in routine activities like procurement of equipment, meeting with representatives of firms, or in evaluations and selections of people, equipment, etc. They also arise when professional advice is sought for or against the construction of a dam, subsidy on a fertilizer, introduction of a transgenic plant and so on. In other situations, it may not be clear whether an authorship in a paper is deserved, whether the position in the sequence the authors is right, whether to focus on the long term or short term issues, or if a software or a variety can be patented. Many of these situations are created by circumstances and unethical actions in such situations can often be irreversible leading to a weakening of the organizational culture. How can one be guided to act ethically in situations where value conflicts arise and at the same time minimize conflicts with colleagues and superiors in the organization? To answer this question it is important to recognize that ethical issues that need to be resolved in professional situations can arise at three levels (Badaracco, 1998): 1. Issues relating to individual identity and behavior, 2. Issues relating to working with colleagues in the organization, and 3. Issues relating to the role of the organization in society
To resolve ethical issues at these three levels, both individuals and organizations, need to refocus on their core values (derived from culture, family, religion, schools, teachers, etc.) and devise professional value systems that can provide a frame of reference for responsible action at each level. To be practical and minimize conflicts with colleagues and superiors, this calls for working out a strategy for implementing what is understood to be right for each situation. Developing and implementing such a strategy will require a combination of self inquiry with boldness, shrewdness and imagination.
Values for individual identity (Who am I?) Unlike doctors, most other professionals do not have a `hippocratic oath’ as a guide for ethical behavior in their professional life. To be able to manage onese in a professional situation, an individual needs to ask, what are my values? The process of answering this is also individual, but organizations can assist by developing guidelines for behavior in different situations. Ultimately, only the `mirror test’ can help each individual assess for himself to what extent he has behaved ethically in various situations, as defined within the framework of his value system. The main difficulty is, for many professional situations in NARS (and in general in the Indian Academia), the organizational culture has not evolved sufficiently to provide the `value systems’ frame of reference on which individuals can base their actions. This leaves even well-meaning individuals confused and uncertain about how to translate their values into action leading to a lack of involvement and frustration. What is required is that the individual himself, his organization, and the relevant professional/scientific societies come together to anticipate situations with potential for value conflicts and work out suitable guidelines or code for ethical behavior in each situation. There can also be situations where such clear cut guidelines are not feasible to develop or implement. These are typically situations of right-right choice, or when one has to act under `pressure’. In such cases, the practical approach is to find a balance between idealism and realism through a process of self inquiry and imaginative action. The process of developing guidelines for action under both kinds of situations in which an individual may find himself is illustrated by taking examples of a typical situations faced by nearly all scientists and faculty of NARS. One such situation, which is not always satisfactorily resolved and where specific guidelines can be developed, is that of the publication of research results. Fraud and plagiarism in research publications, even though they are known to exist, is clearly unethical and wrong. Dual submission of research articles to journals is also wrong. But can dual publishing of nearly similar papers in different journals under different titles be treated as unethical? The degree of duality can be debated. The authors may claim that they are presenting their results to a diverse audience! More vital, and often leading to acrimony and bitterness, are issues relating to the authorship of the articles; inclusion of names, sequences of authors, etc. `Honorary authorship’ (inclusion as coauthors, of people who made no technical or intellectual contribution to the paper) is quite common. In India, particularly, this is done out of `respect’ for seniors or `sympathy’ for colleagues. But this gives a false impression of the professional qualifications of the `honorary’ author. This in turn produces an inflated resume leading to unqualified individuals occupying undeserved positions. Most important, such persons can get to serve as role models for younger professionals, thus perpetuating the problem and destroying the organizational culture. The appropriate way of resolving this situation is to develop, within each institution/division/group, an agreed set of criteria for what is publishable and for authorship of the publications. The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine outlined a set of four criteria for authorship and suggested that a person should qualify as an author of a scientific publication only if at least two of the four criteria are met. The criteria are : 1. Conception of the idea and the design of the experiment, 2. Actual execution of the work or hands-on lab work, 3. Analysis of the data and interpretation of results, and 4. Actual writing of the manuscript.
It is important that an individual satisfies at least tow of the four criteria before laying claim to authorship of a research publication. Meeting any one is not enough, as is commonly asserted by most aggrieved scientists. A statistician assisting in analysis of data alone does not qualify to be an author of an original research paper. He is merely doing his job as a statistician for which he draws a salary, just as a stenographer is doing his job by typing the manuscript. But if he has assisted in formulating the hypothesis and in designing the experiment, his claims to authorship are legitimate. In the same way, a senior professor does not deserve to be an author, just because he had a bright idea or provided facilities for the research. Such assistance deserves a formal acknowledgement and nothing more. The sequence of authorship can be decided objectively by the relative contribution of each individual to the work, among those who pass the ` two out of four criteria test’. Situations similar to that described above, which can be potential sources of ethical dilemmas and value conflicts, in each organization can be anticipated. Objective criteria for individual action, like those listed above, can be developed for each such situation through discussions within the organization, or among peers in professional societies, and formalized by consensus. Once such criteria developed a framework for professional value systems becomes available. Such a framework allows individuals and the organization to ensure that the members adhere to the criteria in all their actions until they are assimilated into the organizational culture. However, not all situations may be resolvable by defining objective criteria and ensuring their fulfilment. In some situations, specific criteria may not be definable, or they may be weighed equally for more than one choice. In these situations, whichever course of action one adopts, may not lead to total self-satisfaction. Examples of such situations are when advice is sought on urgent policy issues with national or regional ramifications and available scientific information is inadequate or incomplete, whether one should accept research funds from private/multinational sources, when most of the time is taken up in meetings, and students have to suffer, etc. There can be other situations like when professional advice is sought in selection committees or award committees, evaluation of doctoral theses or research projects, or when there are bottom lines and deadlines to be met, etc. In such situations there can be considerable ` pressure’ from within or outside the organization leading to value conflicts. When such ethical dilemmas arise, introspection and self-inquiry, coupled with a balancing of idealism with realism, can lead to self-confident and value-based action. Badaracco (1998) suggests that the following questions can form the core of such self-inquiry and introspection: 1. What feelings and intuitions are coming into conflict? 2. Which of the values in conflict are the most rooted in my life? 3. What combination of expediency and shrewdness, coupled with imagination and boldness, will help me implement my personal understanding of what is right?

Answering the first of these helps to identify why the individual is affected and which values are coming into conflict. The second helps to prioritize and focus on only those core values, conflicts and feelings which affect the individual’s self-respect and self-confidence most directly. The third provides the means to developing a strategy for taking value-based calculated action in difficult and `pressure’ situations. The last of these calls for considerable innovation and boldness from the individual, but with experience, the skills required for this can be developed and mastered. For instance it may be possible to evade or postpone considering a case to a point where out of sheer expediency the individual is allowed to act on the basis of what he thinks is right. In most such difficult situations, it may not be possible to entirely satisfy oneself in the end, but the `mirror test’ can be taken and passed. In this way, answering the above questions to varying degrees of satisfaction, can lead one through a difficult act of self-inquiry to calculated action based on a personal understanding of what is right in a given situation.
Values in the work place (Who are we?) The individual’s value systems and those of his colleagues and particularly seniors need to be compatible for efficient functioning and growth of both the individual and the organization. This is particularly important when the individual is a member of a team. If the value systems of the individual and colleagues in the organization are not compatible, it leads to conflicts, frustration and non-performance. How such incompatibility can arise between an individual and colleagues in NARS is illustrated by taking the example of how differing individual value systems can lead to conflicts in the routine discharge of faculty responsibilities. Faculty members design curricula, teach, carry out research, and also guide research. How each of these activities is carried out by any member depends on what he perceives to be the role of education in the university system, his role as a research guide, etc. The traditional view is that the primary goal of a faculty member in a university is generation and transmission of knowledge to maintain a flow of skilled persons to the market place. This is broadly the view endorsed by the Model Act for Agricultural Universities in India proposed by ICAR (ICAR, 1994). It lists the objectives of the University as : i) Making provision for imparting education in different branches of study, particularly Agriculture, Horticulture, Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, Forestry, Agricultural Engineering, Home Science and other allied branches of learning and scholarship, ii) Furthering the advancement of learning and conducting research, particularly in agriculture and other allied sciences, iii) Undertaking extension education of such sciences/technologies specially for the rural people of the state, and iv) Such other purposes as the university may from time to time determine
The value system on which this list is based perceives education from a relatively conservative and traditional point of view. It limits the role of the faculty to a one-way transfer of knowledge by treating education as an end in itself, emphasizing basic research over applied research, preferring non-interactive teaching methods for transmission of knowledge,etc. It assumes that knowledge to be transmitted remains relatively constant. The system is hierarchical, with clear lines of authority, individual and discipline based, backward-looking and past oriented. Many faculty members are quite happy with this view of education and definition of their role. Contrast this with the value system for education which is emerging in this era of technological and social change. By this system, education is a lifelong process and its purpose is to establish a new learning society to cope with rapid change. It requires educational systems to play a more direct role in social development, (as indeed most SAUs in NARS do) is less hierarchical, interdisciplinary, forward looking and future oriented. The roles faculty are expected to play are not limited to the four objectives listed above in the Model Act but go well beyond their boundaries and into the realm of social development. This value system emphasizes applied and strategic research over basic research, participatory or interactive approach over a top-down approach to research, teaching and technology transfer, and education for empowerment over education for knowledge transfer. For a faculty member who subscribes to this value system, there is clearly a conflict of values with colleagues and seniors who are more conservative and traditional in their outlook. Unless the value conflict is resolved, he will be in conflict with his colleagues, seniors and students leading to disinterest, frustration and non-performance. Identifying the value conflict is only the first part of the battle, when one has to work with colleagues. The faculty member will then have to assess whether he can work towards making his views prevail by influencing other faculty members and students. The extent to which he can influence other members, will depend on the institutional culture, and on the backing he receives from top management. Finally he will have to begin creating conditions that can help him project his view point and implement his value system. Situations of value conflicts with colleagues such as above are only likely to increase in organizations like NARS when investments in public funded institutions are declining, competition for limited resources is growing, and they are increasingly being called on to shift to more problem oriented, interdisciplinary teaching and research. In situations where such value conflicts arise, the resolution of a conflict is not to be seen as a single event but as part of a larger process. There is a lot at stake for all other members, and more often than not they will put their own individual interests first. Well-meaning intentions alone will not work. The need is to go through the process of resolving ethical dilemmas objectively and adopt a proactive approach to resolving conflicts. This is facilitated by a process of self-inquiry which attempts to find answers to the following three questions (Badaracco, 1998): 1. What are the other interpretations of the ethics of this situation? 2. What point of view is most likely to win in the organizaiton? 3. Have I orchestrated a process that can manifest the values I care about in my organization?
In the process of working out the answers to these questions, the individual develops a balanced and objective perspective about the problem and that of his colleagues, understands how decisions can be influenced in the organization, and can devise and implement a strategy that ensures closer conformity to what he considers more desirable.
Values for the organization (Who is the organization?) Defining value systems for personal identity and for working with colleagues in the work place requires a blend of introspection and calculated action. But defining value systems for the organizations as a whole is more complex. The organization functions primarily at two levels. The first is with reference to its own growth and development. Guiding values at this level can be commitment to excellence, accountability, transparency, and so on. The second level is on a large stage, where the objectives of the organization have to be balanced with the larger goals of the society in which it operates. Also, the value systems of the organization and of the individual must be compatible. It is the responsibility of the leaders in the organization to communicate its value system to employees and ensure that they are comfortable with it. One typical example of significant importance to National agricultural development was the decision by ICAR in early 1960s to introduce the Mexican wheats in India as starting material for its wheat breeding programme. There were value based and scientific arguments on the impact of such an introduction on Indian agriculture and on the research system, both from within the organization and outside. After considerable debate, finally a decision to go ahead with the import of seeds was taken in the larger interest of national food security. Following this, almost the entire national research programme was built around the imported seed material. Currently, the NARS is facing a similar situation with respect to research on transgenic crops, with value-based arguments both for and against their introduction. Other relevant value based issues for the NARS at the organization level can be those related to admissions policy, faculty recruitment and career advancement, interactions with government on policy issues, with client groups like farmers and students, prioritizing areas for research, identifying areas in which the institution will aim to be the leader, etc. An example of how larger value-based issues related to the future of the society formed the basis of an admissions policy is the declared policy of affirmative action by leading colleges and universities in USA. For the past 30 years, leading colleges and universities in USA have used race-sensitive admissions policies to increase the number of black, Hispanic and Native American students they enroll. The objective was to increase the diversity in their student bodies because, firstly it was the considered view that diversity in their student bodies because, firstly it was the considered view that diversity does contribute to the quality of education. Secondly, the objective was to contribute a large number of talented minority students to the mainstream of American life. Without this, they feared for the long term health of the society. Since one of the main declared missions of these schools is to contribute leaders and in other ways to democratic society, increasing the flow of minorities was seen as important (Bowen et al, 1999). The schools devised admissions policies in accordance with these goals. Those policies have been under fire for some time on grounds that merit has to be put aside to make the admissions. But as Bowen et al point out, the argument rests only on a highly abstract definition of merit, namely book-smart, test-smart students and on the whole the race-sensitive policies have had a positive impact on American society. It is important to note that there are no quotas, and each college makes its own admission policies in an autonomous fashion and on a case by case basis. In student evaluations, standards are not compromised. Instead, avenues are found for mentoring and coaching those admitted on the basis of race or other socio-economic criteria so that they catch up with their peers. For such policies to work, what is needed are well defined goals and objectives for the university, formulated with a clear vision of the role of the university in the system, and guided by a value system that is humane and focuses on the long term interest of the society. Professionals of NARS must, therefore, constantly review the organizational role and its goals with respect to the needs of the society in which they operate by initiating processes of self-inquiry within the organization. Badaracco (1998) suggests the following questions as guidelines for self-inquiry by leaders of the organization to define organizational vision and establish its value systems: 1. Have I though creatively and boldly about my organization’s role in society and its relationship with stakeholders? 2. What combination of shrewdness, creativity and tenacity will help me transform my vision into reality?

CONCLUSION

Ethical dilemmas and value conflicts can arise in many situations that one comes across in professional life in NARS. Value systems serve as frames of reference for behavioural response in such situations at both individual and organizational levels. Three kinds of situations, where value conflicts can arise, can be identified. The first situation relates largely to personal identity and values where the conflict is with the individual’s personal values and value systems. The second situation is both organizational and personal. Here, the values of the individual which determine his actions and those of his colleagues at the work place are at stake. The need is to determine if the individual’s ethical vision is supported by co-workers and the organization. The third situation of value conflicts is the most complex one, and involves the question of the role which the organization serves in the society. To resolve these conflicts, top leaders in the organization must negotiate their ethical vision with others in the organization and with the larger society which supports the organization. By learning to identify each kind of value conflict situation, individuals can learn to resolve value conflicts by a combination of self-inquiry and introspection with shrewdness and realism. Ultimately, a balance has to be found between the idealism of our hearts and practicability in real situations. The extent to which an individual can do this, without losing either his self-respoect or his self-confidence determines the level of his personal satisfaction. With such an approach, each situation of value conflict can be converted into an opportunity for both personal and organizational growth.
Acknowledgement : This paper is inspired by the publication by Badaracco (1998) listed above. The author is grateful to Dr Nicole Brunet, Project Manager, ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research, Netherlands) for her comments and suggestions after reviewing and earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

Badaracco, J.L.Jr. (1998) The discipline of building character, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No.2, 114-125.

Bowen, W.G., Bok, D. And Burkhart, G. (1999). A report card on diversity: lessons for business from higher education, Harvard Business Review, Vol 77, No.1 138-149.

Chakraborty, S.K. (1996). Values and Ethics for Organizations: Theory and Practice, Orxford Univesity Press, 262 pp.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). Managing oneself, Harvard Business Review, Vol 76, No.2, 64-75.

Hayes, N. (1997). Successful Team Management, International Thomson Business Press, 230 pp.

ICAR (1994). Model act for agricultural Universities in India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 36 pp.

Lewis, P.S., Goodman, S.H. and Fandt, P.M. (1998). Management: Challenges in th 21st Century, South Western College Publishing, 674pp.

McCuen, R.H. (1989). Ethical issues in the publication process, Editorial, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol 25, No.2, Page vii.