32

of these roles requires a different style of operation (disciplinary,

predatory, clerical, commercial, innovative); a different relationship

with farmers (hostile, passive, servicing, advisory); and different pat-

terns of movement (extensive field travel or regular presence in head-

quarters). There are, of course, economies to be secured by having a

single agent perform all these tasks. At the same time, it is unlikely

that he will be able to perform any of the tasks particularly well.

Robert Chambers points out:

 The time and energy of extension staff at the lowest
 levels tend to be regarded as infinitely elastic; in
 fact they are, and should be treated as, finite and
 scarce.

 Not only will he lack time to do everything; he will find that the

work style and pattern of relationship necessary for one responsibility

will preclude effective execution of other responsibilities. Moreover,

because the demands on him are contradictory and priorities are not spelled

out, it is far easier for extension agents to shirk all responsibility

and do little work. The tendency to reauce work loads may well be rein-

forced by work group loyalties of junior staff, hostile to high level

staff with authority.3 Thus, for a variety of reasons, a clear choice

should be made concerning the prime responsibilities of the extension

agents. This seems a simple suggestion, but in reality
 4
such clarity of purpose is rare in Africa, among other places.


 Robert Chambers, Two Frontiers in Rural Management, p. 5.
 2Ibid.

 Leonard, pp. 64-80.

 4H.S. Belay, "A Comparative Analysis of Agricultural Extension Systems,"
 Journal of the Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Sciences in
 Africa 2 (Supplement 2, Papers Presented to the Conference on Agricultural
 Research and Production in Africa, September 1971) (June 1975), p. 319