Farmers have a range of views on the extent to which they believe they have control over the outcome of their activities.
According to new Lincoln University research some farmers believe that external factors such as the weather, the exchange rate and overseas markets are the major determinants of their success, or lack of it. Others believe that they personally are the main determinant of success. They reckon that they control situations. They might believe, for example, that it’s possible to market products to make the most of a current commercial environment and end up with a reasonable price.
The findings come from farmers’ views on control, a subject explored in research by Associate Professor Peter Nuthall of Lincoln University’s Farm Management Group.
Associate Professor Nuthall analyzed farmers’ responses to a set of questions covering different components of belief about control. Farmers were asked to rate 19 statements on a 1 to 5 scale expressing their view of the truth of each statement.
Examples included, “I reckon ‘good luck’ doesn’t exist - ‘good luck’ is really good management and ‘bad luck’ poor management”, and “the years when the property has shown poor production and profit have been circumstances totally out of my control”.
The responses were adjusted to give a figure out of 100, effectively a percentage score, and Associate Professor Nuthall found a median score of 71 among the responding farmers.
“This indicates that many farmers believe they have reasonable control over outcomes,” he says. “A result of 100 would indicate perfect control was possible. In contrast a zero would indicate a belief that absolutely no control was possible.”
Of all the farmers 41% scored between 71 and 80, and 11% had greater than 80. At the other end of the scale, 37% were between 61 and 70, and the remaining 10% had a score below 60. However, most of the farmers certainly believed they controlled at least 60% of the outcomes.
This test was a first for New Zealand farmers. The data provides benchmarks against which individuals can contrast their beliefs. The test questions (belief statements) are available as part of a computer based management training package.
Associate Professor Nuthall said it appeared there were seven basic aspects to farmers’ control beliefs. The first was called “beyond control” and a farmer scoring highly in the statements making up this factor believed chance was more important than management in creating their outcomes.
The second group was called “experienced traditionalists” and the third “people managers”. The latter type are good at getting employees to have a high output and, therefore, have control in this aspect of farming. Similarly, the “traditionalists” are farmers who believe they make their own luck using tried and tested methods.
The fourth type was called an “introspective acceptor” because they believe good managers are born and you must accept “your lot”. On the other hand, the fifth group was called the “determined planner” because they believe they are in control due to their determination to succeed.
In contrast to the “introspective acceptor”, the “successful acceptor”, the next type, has experienced success through their inherent, genetically determined ability. Finally, the seventh type was called the “extrovertic planner” because they include others’ requirements in their carefully constructed plans.
“No one farmer is exclusively one type or another,” says Associate Professor Nuthall. “Rather, everyone has a fraction of each type. The proportions determine whether you generally believe you have control, or that luck is more important to success.
“The question yet to be answered is ‘where does each farmer’s control belief originate? Is it from their genetic makeup, or from personal experience? Most probably it is a mixture, but then the question remains, how much does each component contribute? And for people who are inappropriately at one end of the scale or the other, the $64,000 question is whether their attitude can be changed through training. Further research is clearly required on this question.”
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ian Collins, Journalist
Lincoln University, Canterbury
Tel: 64 3 325 2811 ext 8549
Email: Ian Collins