transforming farm health and safety: the case for business coaching
TRANSCRIPT
THIS PAGE IS FOR INDEXING PURPOSES AND WILL NOT BE PRINTED.
For additional details please see the ASABE Guide for Authors.
AuthorFirst Nameor initial
MiddleName orinitial
Surname Role (ASABEmember,
professor,etc.)
E-mail (and phonefor contactauthor)
Contact author? yes orno
A Blackman SeniorLecturer
No
AffiliationOrganization Address Country URL or other info.James CookUniversity
Townsville Australia www.jcu.edu.au
Author (repeat Author and Affiliation tables for each author)
First Nameor initial
MiddleName orinitial
Surname Role (ASABEmember,
professor,etc.)
E-mail (and phonefor contactauthor)
Contact author? yes orno
R C Franklin AssociateProfessor
Yes
AffiliationOrganization Address Country URL or other info.James CookUniversity
Townsville Australia www.jcu.edu.au
Author (repeat Author and Affiliation tables for each author)
First Nameor initial
MiddleName orinitial
Surname Role (ASABEmember,
professor,etc.)
E-mail (and phonefor contactauthor)
Contact author? yes orno
A Rossetto Ms [email protected]
No
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AffiliationOrganization Address Country URL or other info.James CookUniversity
Townsville Australia www.jcu.edu.au
Author (repeat Author and Affiliation tables for each author)
First Nameor initial
MiddleName orinitial
Surname Role (ASABEmember,
professor,etc.)
E-mail (and phonefor contactauthor)
Contact author? yes orno
D E Gray Professor [email protected]
No
AffiliationOrganization Address Country URL or other info.
University of Greenwich
Old Royal Naval CollegePark RowLondon SE10 9LS
UK http://gre.academia.edu/DavidEGray
2
8
9
10
11
TRANSFORMING FARM HEALTH AND SAFETY: THE CASE FORBUSINESS COACHING
A. Blackman, R.C. Franklin, A. Rossetto and D.E. Gray
The authors are Dr Anna Blackman, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, James Cook University,
Australia, Dr Richard Franklin, Associate Professor, Public Health & Tropical Medicine, James Cook
University, Australia, Ms Allison Rossetto, School of Business, James Cook University, Australia and
Professor David Gray, Professor of Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at the University of
Greenwich, UK. Corresponding author: Dr Anna Blackman, School of Business, James Cook University,
Townsville, Australia; phone: +61 7 4781 4100; e-mail: [email protected].
ABSTRACT.
In the US and Australia, agriculture is consistently ranked as one of the most hazardous industries. The cost of
injuries and death on Australian farms is significant, estimated to be between AU$0.5 and AU$1.2 billion per
annum. Death and injury in agriculture also places a significant financial and social burden on the family and
friends of the injured, the community and the health system. This paper proposes that if farmers were to
employ coaching in their businesses they would benefit from advances in safety practices, resulting in
associated improvements to overall farm productivity and a reduction in costs of injuries to the wider
community. A coaching model is presented to demonstrate what an effective coaching process would need to
include. An agenda for future research areas is also provided.
Keywords.
extension, farm/agricultural advisory services, farm/agricultural coach,
farm/agricultural extension, farm/agricultural innovation, coaching, business
coaching
INTRODUCTION Internationally there are many challenges facing farmers, including encroaching
3
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3536
urbanization, changing consumption patterns, concerns for animal welfare,
availability and quality of water, profitability, sustainability and safety
Keating and Carberry (2010) to name a few. These issues are multifaceted and
interrelated, making agricultural production complex. Safety is often prioritized
behind other issues and while the number of farmers and farm workers who sustain
an injury or disease while working has been well documented (Lower, Fragar, &
Temperley, 2011) including the cost (B. Cole & Foley, 1995; Pollock, Griffith, &
Fragar, 2012). A common complaint from farmers is that the time and cost of
implementing safety processes can be considerable (Durey & Lower, 2004).
It is proposed that adding a coaching element to traditional safety education
for farmers could be more effective for improving business and safety practices
than a traditional intervention (such as distance learning materials, or classroom
training) alone. Using a coaching program to integrate safety issues into the farm
business could enable enterprises to improve safety as well as profitability and
productivity. Coaching has seen a rise in popularity in recent years. In 2003
Capuzzi Simon (2003) claimed that there were tens of thousands of business coaches
in the USA. More recently, Liljenstrand and Nebeker (2008) described business
coaching as “the fastest growing field within consulting”. Business coaching has
been found to be successful in other contexts namely, the education sector
(Blackman, 2010) and the tourism sector (Blackman, 2008). Research in these
settings has shown that implementing coaching programs can indirectly benefit the
business. This includes improved ability to delegate appropriately (McGovern et
al., 2001), better stress management (Wales, 2003), enhanced ability to address
workplace conflict and work autonomously (Blackman, 2008; Gray, Ekinci, &
Goregaokar, 2011; Smith Glasgow, Weinstock, Lachman, Dunphy Suplee, & Dreher,
4
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
2009), increased personal accountability (Kralj, 2001), more innovation and
creativity (Norlander, Bergman, & Archer, 2002; Styhre, 2008), higher levels of
initiative (Blackman, 2010) and more flexibility and adaptability (Hall, Otazo, &
Hollenback, 1999). Applying a coaching program which is industry specific can
help to increase effectiveness (Blackman, 2008, 2010) and efficiency, in turn
making the company more profitable. However, the research on actual Return on
Investment (ROI) is quite limited with only six empirical studies into coaching
seeking to assess ROI published to date (De Meuse, Dai, & Lee, 2009). What is
innovative about this research is that coaching has not been documented within the
agricultural context generally or specifically to improve farm safety.
Underpinning our hypothesis is that farming is more than just equipment, crops
and animals. It includes the people, the systems they work in and the teams in
which they collaborate. In this highly competitive world, improving productivity
is not as simple as sourcing the latest equipment or improving output (although
this helps). Ensuring optimal engagement and the use of team members, equipment
and external advice is an imperative to ensuring success. It is proposed that
using a coaching program could help farmers improve business and safety practices.
There is no current literature exploring the uses of coaching in relation to the
improvement of safety in the agricultural context. As such, this paper will
outline potential future use of coaching in an agricultural safety context and how
coaching links to extension services, another model which has also been employed
to improve farm safety (DeRoo & Rautiainen, 2000).
AIMS:This paper explores how business coaching could be used to improve agricultural
5
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
8586
business outcomes with a specific focus on safety.
EXTENSIONWhat is extension? Broadly, extension is defined as the delivery of information
to farmers (Anderson & Feder, 2004). It is a wide-ranging concept that
incorporates several purposes, with varied delivery of information needs to the
farmer. The purpose of agricultural extension comprises the transfer of
information from a variety of knowledge sources (global, local and research) to
help farmers achieve their own goals, often related to improved production.
Extension is also used to help educate farmers to make better business decisions
on a range of different topics, for example, advice on the provision of human
services to help farmers understand how to market their produce or improve their
enterprise (Anderson & Feder, 2004). Thus, extension services aim to improve
agricultural productivity and increase the income of farmers (Anderson & Feder,
2004). In order for extension services to be effective, farmers need adequate and
timely access to the most relevant advice.
HOW DOES EXTENSION WORK?Extension practices can include: 1) technology transfer, including specific
recommendations to farmers about the practices they should adopt and how they are
delivered; 2) advisory work, which can be delivered either one-on-one or through
other means such as the telephone or, in more developed settings, the use of the
internet; 3) human resource development, through education of farmers either on
their farms or at workshops, training and site visits; 4) helping to facilitate
the individual, enterprise or community. There are also several ways of
delivering extension services which include one-on-one, team based, group
6
87
88
8990
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
workshops and virtual (use of phone or internet).
CHANGING EXTENSION SERVICESExtension services have become specialized, with specific focused information
being provided to farmers. Where we once saw an extension agent providing advice
on a range of different topics on how to improve the operations of a farm, we now
see extension agents that have moved into a specific knowledge base and area of
advice (Ahmed & Morse, 2010). The impact of extension services on farm performance
is varied, which could reflect either a lack of research on differences in the
training of the extension agents, how the extension service is delivered or how
they are measured (Ahmed & Morse, 2010). However, the authors believe extension
agents are in the ideal position to link the specific needs of farmers to research
on various aspects of agriculture or identify questions which need to be answered.
This is because they generally live and work in the local environment, which
enables them to understand area specific agricultural opportunities and
limitations for farmers (Angstreich & Zinnah, 2007).
The way extension services are accessed and used is also changing (Ahmed &
Morse, 2010). Farmers have greater access to information from various sources, due
to the internet, which is coinciding or a potential catalyst of governments
decreasing the number of roles which provide services to an area of the economy
which, while performing well, are declining in population. One of the biggest
drivers for the uptake of farm safety has been via quality control systems or the
need to meet export requirements where safety has been embedded into the system
requirements, thus creating new roles for agricultural extension (Lower et al.,
2011).
HOW EFFECTIVE IS EXTENSION? AND WHAT MAKES IT MORE OR LESS EFFECTIVE?While extension services can improve efficiency in production, there may be
7
112
113114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136137
limitations that need to be reviewed in order to estimate the effectiveness of
delivery. The most difficult issue faced is the ability to measure the impact of
the extension services. Ferder, Willet and Zijp (2001) highlighted the following
issues:
Lack of baseline information, appropriate control groups and the systemic
biases in extension placement and contracts (Ahmed & Morse, 2010; Anderson &
Feder, 2004; Angstreich & Zinnah, 2007; Birkhaeuser, E, & Feder, 1991;
Ferder et al., 2001).
The cost of reaching large, geographically dispersed and remote smallholder
farmers is high (Anderson & Feder, 2004; Angstreich & Zinnah, 2007;
Birkhaeuser et al., 1991; Cryer et al., 2014; Ferder et al., 2001).
The outcome of extension efforts depends on policies over which agents and
their managers have little influence (input and output prices, credit
policies, input supplies, marketing and infrastructure systems) (Ahmed &
Morse, 2010; Anderson & Feder, 2004; Angstreich & Zinnah, 2007; Birkhaeuser
et al., 1991; Ferder et al., 2001; Pollock et al., 2012).
Public extension and research systems often compete for budgets, but
research institutions often have an advantage because of their higher
status, better management quality, and links with the global science
community therefore providing better interaction with the knowledge
generation (Ahmed & Morse, 2010; Ferder et al., 2001).
Weak accountability is reflected in low-quality and repetitive advice given
to farmers and diminished efforts to interact with farmers and to learn from
their experience (Ferder et al., 2001).
8
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Weak political commitment and support. Many donors report that highly
visible irrigation or road projects are often more attractive to politicians
than extension expenditures (Ahmed & Morse, 2010; Anderson & Feder, 2004;
Ferder et al., 2001).
Governments often use public servants who are already present in rural areas
for non-extension duties such as collection of statistics, distribution of
subsidized inputs, assisting and collecting loan applications and election
campaign work on behalf of local or national ruling parties (Ferder et al.,
2001).
Financial un-sustainability, which can cause the demise of any investment
program (Ferder et al., 2001).
As a result of issues facing extension services, a range of new approaches
have emerged. According to Anderson (2007) these include decentralization of
services to lower levels of government, involving farmers’ associations and
non-governmental organizations in the delivery of services, contracting-out of
extension services, public-private partnerships, privatization, embedding
advisory services in other types of contracts and broadening the use of modern
information and communication technologies. Anderson (2007) goes on to note
that more evidence is required to test the effectiveness of extension services
and a new framework is needed to address the knowledge gap, focusing the
question on what works, where and why.
FARM SAFETY INTERVENTIONSInterventions that have focused specifically on farm safety, like extension
services in general, have adopted a variety of implementation techniques
ranging from traditional approaches to safety information dissemination through
9
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183184
185
186
videos, fact sheets, exhibits and announcements, workshops and courses on
safety, one-on-one training, evaluations at safety fairs, day camps and
certification programs (DeRoo & Rautiainen, 2000). These efforts have been
supported by regulations relating to the manufacture and use of farm equipment
and health and safety of farm families, although in the US regulations are
generally limited and often do not apply to family members working on farms
(Murphy, 1992 cited in Cole, (2002). Educational approaches adopted have, in
some circumstances, been criticized as being one-dimensional and failing to
take into account the particular needs of adult learners (Ambe, Bruening, &
Murphy, 1994; Cryer et al., 2014). Based on Murphy’s (1992) findings, Cole
critically argues that “much health and safety education ignores the ‘working
contingencies’ that in large part describe why farmers do or do not follow
safety advice and rules, and ignores the role of well-established habits in
maintaining existing behaviors and preventing the adoption of new behaviors”
(Henry Cole, 2002).
DeRoo & Rautiainen (2000) argue that although the focus on farm safety has
increased since the 1990s there has been limited attention paid to evaluating
the effectiveness of interventions. Their review of 25 studies found that while
a majority reported positive changes following the interventions only three
studies measured changes in the incidence of injury. Hence, most programs fail
to meet the Level 4 (Results) criteria set out by Kirkpatrick’s (1959) seminal
work on evaluation: relating the results of training to organizational
objectives and other criteria of effectiveness such as better quality,
productivity, safety or profits. The four levels set out by Kirkpatrick (1959)
are: reaction – did the participants like the program; learning – did the
10
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
participants learn from the program; behavior – did the participants’ behavior
change because of the program; and results – did the program make a difference
to what it was targeting (i.e. reduced number of injuries). Additionally DeRoo
& Rautiainen (2000) note that while a number of the studies identified
increased knowledge and awareness relating to farm safety, long term retention
and post intervention changes were questionable.
Recognizing the educational challenges of changing sometimes long held farmer
attitudes to farm safety, some practitioners have tested alternative
intervention approaches with varying levels of success. Landsittel, Murphy,
Kiernan, Hard & Kassab (2001) compared the effects of three safety
interventions across three counties in Pennsylvania. Of the three education
techniques including youth education, community coalition and self-audits, they
found that self-audits resulted in the highest (20%) reduction in hazard
scores. That said, the effectiveness of interventions was aligned with the
existence of pre-intervention hazards suggesting that interventions should be
tailored according to hazard conditions. Similarly, while the use of simulation
exercises (H Cole, Kidd, Isaacs, Parshall, & Scharf, 1997) and theater (Elkind,
Pitts, & Ybarra, 2002) as delivery methods of farm safety education were found
to increase participant’s awareness and knowledge both studies stopped short of
measuring long term behavioral change resulting from interventions (hence,
failing Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 criteria: behavior – measuring aspects of
improved job performance that are related to the program’s training
objectives).
The challenges faced by extension services in general and the limited
evidence of effective farm safety interventions warrants further investigation
11
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
into approaches that will reduce farm injuries and deaths and their impact on
society. For this reason we propose that adding a coaching element to safety
education for farmers will be more effective for improving business and safety
practices than a traditional intervention alone.
COACHING:WHAT IS COACHING?Coaching is defined as a formal relationship with a designated coach, “in which the
coachee and coach collaborate to assess and understand the coachee and his or her leadership developmental
tasks, to challenge current constraints while exploring new possibilities, and to ensure accountability and
support for reaching goals and sustaining development” (Ting & Hart, 2004:116).
One of the main arguments for coaching is that it improves interpersonal
dynamics and encourages people to get along with those they work with. As a
result, staff become more focused, innovative and eager to contribute in a
collaborative style. This type of work environment allows for the business to work
in a more efficient and systemized way that supports change and growth necessary
for business success. In addition, coaching provides many benefits for dealing
with change and uncertainty as it helps develop relationships, helps the coachee
learn new things more quickly, adapt to change more effectively and become
proactive learners (Blackman, 2006). This in turn contributes to higher levels of
motivation, developing practical solutions to problems, increased job
satisfaction, advancement within the business and the development of ‘soft’ skills
in business. It helps those being coached to increase their range of flexibility
and effectiveness in terms of behavioral repertoire, increases their capacity to
manage complexity and decision making skills. It has also been shown to improve
their psychological and social skills (Goleman, 1995; Levinson, 1996; Teal, 1996;
12
237
238
239
240
241
242243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
Wasylyshyn, 2005). Coaching improves people’s ability to manage their own career
as well as improve the effectiveness of the whole team/business/organization
(Olivero, Denise Bane, & Kopelman, 1997; Wales, 2003).
It has also been suggested that business coaching is more effective than other
forms of training and development (Hall et al., 1999; Olivero et al., 1997). For
example, some authors have argued that business coaching provides better transfer
of training to the workplace than other techniques because it is generally
grounded in the coachee’s workplace (Bacon & Spear, 2003; Eggers & Clark, 2000;
Joo, 2005; Olivero et al., 1997). Van Vesslor and Leslie (1995), argue that
coaching avoids problems of overdependence that can be a problem with mentoring
and Day (2001) concludes that coaching is preferable to job assignment because
coaching addresses overall development and is not limited to a particular set of
skills. Coaching could be an affordable way to help provide benefits to farmers
who are looking at implementing change in their work processes, however, cost
effective models of coaching in farming need to be investigated to confirm that
this is true.
The ROI evidence of coaching programs is still under-researched, however, there
have been a few examples that have shown an improved bottom line due to coaching
interventions. An International Personnel Management Association survey found that
productivity increased by 88% when coaching was combined with training (compared
to a 22% increase with training alone) (Olivero et al., 1997), however it is noted
that this research is predominately in large business. That said, the greatest
gains from coaching are the intangible benefits that participants experience and
carry with them as they apply what they have learned. A review of the coaching
literature has resulted in some emerging evidence that coaching may be useful to
13
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
assist transfer of learning from other training options. This conclusion prompts a
call for more research into the instructional learning aspects of coaching and
that future research needs to adopt more field experimental approaches to
systematically compare coaching to other training and development options.
APPROACHES TO AND USE OF COACHINGThere are several approaches to coaching and any one coaching program can
include a range of techniques and activities. Coaching programs vary in terms of
the number, variety and types of techniques that are used within the program, the
length of the program, and the type of consultant employed as the coach (Blackman,
2006). The coaching process may be formal, with the individuals or groups being
coached referred to as coachees. The purpose of coaching is to help the individual
or enterprise move forward from their current situation to a more successful one.
The UK's Chartered Institute of Personnel Management reports that 51% of
companies (sample of 500) 'consider coaching as a key part of learning
development' and 'crucial to their strategy', with 90% reporting that they 'use
coaching'. More recent research in 2011 by Qa Research, an independent marketing
research agency in the UK, found that 80% of organizations surveyed had used or
are now using coaching, but also found that while 90% of organizations with over
2,000 employees had used coaching in the past five years, only 68% of companies
with 230–500 employees had done the same (Kovac & Charalambous, 2012).
WHO CAN COACH?Business coaching can be conducted by internal line managers or human resource
management (HRM) staff (Brandl, Madsen, & Madsen, 2009; Teague & Roche, 2011) or
external agents or in the case of farmers, extension service personnel. The
diversity of prior professional backgrounds means that the emerging profession of
coaching has the opportunity to draw on wide range of theoretical and
14
287
288
289
290
291292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307308
309
310
311
312
methodological approaches to coaching. As business coaching is a relatively new
area, it draws from a number of different areas and theories, such as: mentoring,
training, counselling and consultancy. A mentor is often seen as someone who is
an expert in that particular field and has the technical knowledge to be able to
do the mentee’s particular job. Training tends to involve hierarchal style and
procedural behavioral skills acquisition, whereas, coaching is about creating
sustained shifts in behavior, feelings and thinking (Grant, 2005). While
counselling/therapy tends to be reactive, whereas, coaching is pro-active and
consultants have professional expertise, privileged knowledge and know the best
way to proceed – coaches help the client find their own solutions (Grant, 2005).
Each of these areas provides skills for coaches. Different researchers and
practitioners may give more emphasis to one particular area, while others may use
different aspects of some or all of these areas. While internal coaching is
recognised within HRM as a critical skill for all managers to have as part of
their repertoire of HR tools (Swart & Kinnie, 2010), it is usually informal and
often difficult to distinguish from mentoring (Doorewaard & Meihuizen, 2000).
Discussions of business coaching thus usually distinguish it from mentoring by
focussing on external coaches and by highlighting the formal, structured nature of
the relationship between the coach and coachee (Witherspoon & White, 1996).
WHY USE COACHING IN AGRICULTURE?It is proposed in this paper that if farmers were to employ coaching in their
businesses that the changes outlined above would contribute to advances in safety
practices resulting in concomitant improvements to overall farm productivity and a
reduction in costs of injuries to the wider community. In Australia the cost to
society of injuries and death on farms has been estimated to be between AU$0.5 and
15
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332333
334
335
336
337
AU$1.2 billion per annum (B. Cole & Foley, 1995), with farm deaths costing AU$162
million per annum (Pollock et al., 2012), while in the US, agriculture is
consistently ranked as one of the most hazardous industries (Isaacs, Powers,
Lineberry, & Scharf, 2008). Death and injury in agriculture also places a
significant financial and social burden on the family and friends of the person
injured the community and the health system. Any improvement to safety practices
that leads to a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries will thus reduce
such burdens and enable those who would have been injured to continue to
contribute productively to society.
THE COACHING MODEL:If coaching is to be effectively used to help develop farmers and improve farm
safety, it is important to understand what an effective coaching process would
comprise. In the first stage it is suggested that a workshop is delivered to
provide a forum where participants are encouraged to focus on their values and
goals and to encourage a positive attitude towards change. In this establishment
phase, farm safety information is provided and is valuable in helping participants
to formulate detailed goals and to then translate these into action plans. It also
provides the participants an opportunity to network with others from the
agricultural sector.
The second step in the coaching model is to offer one-on-one sessions between
the coach and participating farmers to facilitate change processes stemming from
their self-formulated action plans. Change processes will be incremental and once
implemented, must be maintained through refocusing, revising and renewing goals
and building on relationships in the network developed via the workshop. This
process follows the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change where people move
16
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
from action to maintenance (Prochaska & DiClemente, 2005).
This maintenance phase also allows for further development of farmer goals and
action plans demonstrating the iterative nature or ‘spiral’ effect resulting from
the coaching process such as that set out in Figure 1. This approach aligns with
the findings of (Damon, 2007) who suggests that an effective coaching approach
could be represented as a cycle between group and individual work . The delivery
mode of the one-on-one coaching will be a blend of both face to face and
Skype/telephone coaching as geographical distance can often be an issue when
delivering services to farmers.
[Insert Figure 1 about Here]
In the review phase coachees who are internally motivated and those that have
more experience seek to further their self-development goals striving to achieve
or perform at a higher level (Presby Kodish, 2002) while the coachees driven more
by external motivations and with less experience need to be motivated for further
development with a stronger internal focus. The final step is to have the coachee
implement the new behavior in order to achieve a goal. After the review stage the
coachee can start again at the establishment phase with new goals or priorities
but functioning at a higher level.
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDAWhile there are definite similarities and differences between coaching and
extension, it is the authors’ proposal that a coaching model designed specifically
for farmers will benefit not only the coachee (farmer) but all employees on the
farm and lead to indirect benefits for the wider community. While there have been
some initial coaching programs for farmers conducted in Australia, specifically
the states of Victoria (Howard, 2009) and Western Australia (DAF, 2012), these
17
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381382
383
384
385
386
387
projects were not focused on improving farm safety. The proposed research around
‘The Coaching Model’ would be the first to be implemented in using coaching as a
method to improve farm safety and business practices.
The challenges faced by extension services in general and the limited evidence
of effective farm safety interventions warrants further investigation into
approaches that will reduce farm injuries and deaths and their impact on society.
The high dollar cost and the fact that extension services are highly labor
intensive demonstrate the need for farmers to look for alternatives. As this is
an area with limited evidence of effectiveness the list for future research
project possibilities are endless, however, a few of the areas the authors have
already noted include:
Where do farmers get their information from and do they value it?
Do farmers value coaching? How do they measure the value of coaching?
Delivery of coaching and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) - what are
the challenges?
What needs to be included in an OHS/coaching process?
What paths do farmers take in order to obtain coaching? And how could they
be more direct?
How should the impact of the coaching program be measured/evaluated?
Noting that evaluation should be incorporated in the program from the
beginning.
CONCLUSION
It is proposed in this paper that if farmers were to employ coaching in their
businesses that the changes outlined above would contribute to advances in safety
practices resulting in concomitant improvements to overall farm productivity and a
18
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
reduction in costs of injuries to the wider community. Death and injury in
agriculture places a significant financial and social burden on the family and
friends of the person injured, the community and the health system. Any
improvement to safety practices that leads to a reduction in the number of deaths
and injuries will thus reduce such burdens and enable those who would have been
injured to continue to contribute productively to society. The success of a safety
coaching program could also lay the foundations for other potentially significant
interventions amongst farming communities. This could include help with another
important and empirically identified issues: mental health (including depression)
and the high suicide rate amongst farmers compared to other sectors of the working
population.
19
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
REFERENCES:Ahmed, A., & Morse, G. W. (2010). Opportunities and threats created by extension
field staff specialization. Journal of Extension, 48(1), 42-51. Ambe, F., Bruening, T., & Murphy, D. (1994). Tractor operators' perceptions of
farm tractor safety issues and implications to agricultural and extensioneducation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 67-73.
Anderson, J. R. (2007). Agricultural Advisory Services. World Development Report 2008.Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2004). Agricultural extension: Good intentions and
hard realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41-60. Angstreich, M. G., & Zinnah, M. M. (2007). A meeting of the minds: Farmer,
extensionist, and researcher. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education,14(3), 85-95.
Bacon, T., & Spear, K. (2003). Adaptive coaching: The art and practice of a client-centeredapproach to performance improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Birkhaeuser, D., E, E. R., & Feder, G. (1991). The economic impact of agriculturalextension: A review. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 39(3), 607-650.
Blackman, A. (2006). Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of businesscoaching: The coachees perspective. The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(1), 98-104.
Blackman, A. (2008). Perspectives on leadership coaching for regional tourismmanagers and entrepreneurs In G. Moscardo (Ed.), Building Community Capacity forTourism Development (pp. 142-154). Wallingford: CABI.
Blackman, A. (2010). Coaching as a leadership development tool for teachers.Professional Development in Education, 36(3), 421-441.
Brandl, J., Madsen, M., & Madsen, H. (2009). The perceived importance of HR dutiesto Danish line managers. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(2), 194-210.
Capuzzi Simon, C. (2003). A coach for team 'you' Washington Post Online.http://www.hscareers.com/news/articles.asp?id=478
Cole, B., & Foley, G. (1995). Occupational health and safety performanceoverviews, selected industries Agriculture and Services to Agriculture Industries.Canberra: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.
Cole, H. (2002). Cognitive-Behavioral approaches to farm community safetyeducation: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 8(2), 145-159.
Cole, H., Kidd, P., Isaacs, S., Parshall, M., & Scharf, T. (1997). Difficultdecisions: A simulation that illustrates cost effectiveness of farm safetybehaviors. Journal of Agromedicine, 4(1-2), 117-124.
Cryer, C., Langley, J. D., Samaranayaka, A., Davie, G., Morgaine, K., Lilley, R.,& Barson, D. (2014). An outcome evaluation of a New Zealand farm safetyintervention: A historical cohort study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,57(4), 458-467. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22290
DAF. (2012). DAFWA's free farm planning workshops. In D. o. A. a. Food (Ed.), (pp.1).
Damon, N. (2007). Follow the successful leader. Training & Coaching Today, 10-11.Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly,
11(4), 581-613. De Meuse, K., Dai, G., & Lee, R. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of executive
coaching: Beyond ROI? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,2(2), 117-134.
20
426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473
DeRoo, L., & Rautiainen, R. (2000). A systematic review of farm safetyinterventions. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18(4S), 51-62.
Doorewaard, H., & Meihuizen, H. (2000). Strategic performance options inprofessional service organisations. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(2), 39-57.
Durey, A., & Lower, T. (2004). The culture of safety on Australian farms. RuralSociety, 14(1), 57-69.
Eggers, J., & Clark, D. (2000). Executive coaching that wins. Ivey Business Journal,65(1), 66-71.
Elkind, P., Pitts, K., & Ybarra, S. (2002). Theater as a mechanism for increasingfarm health and safety knowledge. American Journal of Industrial Medicine Supplement, 2,28-35.
Ferder, G., Willett, A., & Zijp, W. (2001). Agricultural extension: Genericchallenges and the ingredients for solutions In S. Wolf & D. Zilberman(Eds.), Knowledge generation and technical change: Institutional innovation in agriculture (pp.313-356). Boston: Kluwer.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than I.Q. New York: BantamBooks.
Grant, A. (2005). Theories and techniques of coaching psychology: PSYC 4721, Lecture 1 Sydney. Gray, D., Ekinci, Y., & Goregaokar, H. (2011). Coaching SME managers: Business
development or personal therapy? A mixed methods study. The International Journalof Human Resource Management, 22(4), 863-882.
Hall, D., Otazo, K., & Hollenback, G. (1999). Behind closed doors. OrganizationalDynamics, 27(3), 39-53.
Howard, K. (2009). A coach approach to achieving practice change (pp. 1-16): DPI-Rutherglen Centre.
Isaacs, S., Powers, L., Lineberry, G., & Scharf, T. (2008). Enhancing cattlehandling safety with the work crew performance model. Journal of Agricultural Safetyand Health, 14(3), 261-271.
Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrativereview of practice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462-488.
Keating, B., & Carberry, P. (2010). Emerging opportunities and challenges forAustralian broadacre agriculture. Crop and Pasture Science, 61(4), 269-278.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programmes. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 21, 442-459.
Kovac, J., & Charalambous, B. (2012). Coaching: An emerging need in water lossmanagement. Water Utility Management International, 7(2), 11.
Kralj, M. (2001). Coaching at the top: Assisting a chief executive and his team.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(2), 108-116.
Landsittel, D., Murphy, D., Kiernan, N., Hard, D., & Kassab, C. (2001). Evaluationof the effectiveness of educational interventions in the PennsylvaniaCentral Region farm safety pilot project. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40,145-152.
Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,48(2), 115-123.
Liljenstrand, A., & Nebeker, D. (2008). Coaching services: A look at coaches,clients, and practices. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 57-77.
Lower, T., Fragar, L., & Temperley, J. (2011). Agricultural health and safetyperformance in Australia. Journal of Agromedicine, 16, 292-298.
21
474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523
McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., & Warrenfeltz,R. (2001). Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioral change,orgnaizational outcomes, and return on investment. The Manchester Review, 6(1),1-9.
Murphy, D. (1992). Safety and helath for production agriculture. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.Norlander, T., Bergman, H., & Archer, T. (2002). Relative constancy of personality
characteristics of a 12-month training program facilitating copingstrategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(8), 773-783.
Olivero, G., Denise Bane, K., & Kopelman, R. (1997). Executive coaching as atransfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. PublicPersonnel Management, 26(4), 461-469.
Pollock, K. S., Griffith, G. R., & Fragar, L. J. (2012). The Economic Cost ofFarm-Related Fatalities in Australia Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 18(1),11-30.
Presby Kodish, S. (2002). Rational emotive behavior coaching. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 20(3/4), 235-246.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (2005). The transtheoretical approach.Handbook of psychotherapy integration, 2, 147-171.
Smith Glasgow, M., Weinstock, B., Lachman, V., Dunphy Suplee, P., & Dreher, H.(2009). The benefits of a leadership program and executive coaching for newnursing academic administrators: One college's experience. Journal of ProfessionalNursing, 25(4), 204-210.
Styhre, A. (2008). Coaching as second-order observations: Learning from sitemanagers in the construction industry. Leadership & Organization Developement Journal,29(3), 275-290.
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2010). Organisational learning, knowledge assets and HRpractices in professional service firms. Human Resource Management Journal,20(1), 64-79.
Teague, P., & Roche, W. (2011). Line managers and hte management of workplaceconflict: Evidence from Ireland. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 1-17.
Teal, T. (1996). The human side of management. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 35-44. Ting, S., & Hart, E. (2004). Formal coaching. In C. McCauley & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (pp. 116-150). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives acrosstime and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62-72.
Wales, S. (2003). Why coaching? Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 275-282. Wasylyshyn, K. (2005). The reluctant president. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 57(1), 57-70. Witherspoon, R., & White, R. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 124-133.
22
524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565
566
Figure 1: The Coaching Model
23
567
568
569
570
571