experience, learning, and innovativness in beef production: results from a cluster analysis
DESCRIPTION
Presentation at the 2013 International Farm Management Congress held in Warsaw, PolandTRANSCRIPT
www.usask.ca
EXPERIENCE, LEARNING, AND INNOVATIVNESS IN BEEF PRODUCTION: RESULTS FROM A CLUSTER ANALYSIS Dr. Eric T. Micheels Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics
Presentation at the 19th International Farm Management Congress 21-26 July 2013, Warsaw University of Life Sciences Warsaw, Poland
www.usask.ca
Motivation Big area of interest – performance in agriculture
• Performance driven by hard and soft skills
• Learning (Lourenzani et al., 2005; Shadbolt, 2005) • Innovations that lead to increased productivity
• Experience (Nuthall, 2009; Wilson et al., 2001) • Better judgment when making decisions
www.usask.ca
Previous Research Experience and Performance
• Older managers seek more info (Taylor, 1975) • Managers of large farms that seek more info have
better rates of performance (Wilson et al., 2001) • Experience related to short-term and long-term
efficiency (Hansson, 2008)
www.usask.ca
Previous Research Learning and Performance
• Learning may be only source of SCA (Slater and
Narver, 1995) • Learning important in order to use new technologies
(Napier and Nell, 2007)
www.usask.ca
Research Question Stakeholders see experience as advantageous
• Lenders, landlords, employees
• However, experience may lead to rigidity (Boeker, 1997; Koberg et al., 2000)
Question: Is experience related to willingness to
learn (i.e. to challenge assumptions)?
www.usask.ca
Cluster Analysis Attempt to create homogeneous subgroups
from heterogeneous data Grouping variables
• Managerial experience (in years) • Learning orientation (summated scale)
www.usask.ca
Data Survey of 1500+ beef producers in Illinois in
2007 • Respondents were, on average:
• 68 years of age • Had over 32 years of experience • Managed farms with over 69 head of cattle
www.usask.ca
Methods Non-hierarchical, two-stage method to identify
clusters • Clustered firms on experience and commitment to
learning • Results showed three clusters
ANOVA to test for differences across clusters
• Innovativeness • Satisfaction with performance
www.usask.ca
Descriptive Statistics Across Clusters Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Experience (years) 25.85 51.83 23.01
Learning Orientation 31.17 35.99 40.91
Herd Size 64.17 76.84 70.92
Acres Operated 908.87 1069.03 882.50
Operator Age 69.44 62.97 70.52
Education* 3.97 3.49 4.03
Number of cases 113 76 96
* 1 = some high school, 2 = High school grad, 3 = Some college, 4 = Vocational/Tech degree, 5 = college grad, 6 = Graduate degree
www.usask.ca
Learning Orientation Items
Cluster 1 E=25.85
L=31.17
Cluster 2 E=51.83
L=35.99
Cluster 3 E=23.01
L=40.91
Average Difference
(High-Low)
…learning as a key to improvement.
4.29
4.75 5.33 4.76 1.04
… learning is an investment, not an expense.
4.31 4.91 5.53 4.88 1.22
Learning is seen as … necessary to guarantee survival.
4.33 4.96 5.50 4.89 1.17
We challenge assumptions ….
3.76 4.21 5.01 4.30 1.25
There is… agreement on our organizational vision….
3.59 4.02 4.69 4.08 1.10
All employees are committed to the goals of this farm.
3.81 4.57 5.11 4.45 1.30
Employees view themselves as partners…
3.62 4.51 5.02 4.33 1.40
Personnel … realize [how] they perceive the market
3.46 4.07 4.71 4.04 1.25
www.usask.ca
Innovativeness
Items
Cluster 1 E=25.85
L=31.17
Cluster 2 E=51.83
L=35.99
Cluster 3 E=23.01
L=40.91
F-Statistic
Innovativeness (Summated) 22.07 23.47 25.57 29.779***
Technical innovation accepted
4.15 4.50 4.91 15.741***
Seldom seek innovative ideas#
4.31 4.51 5.10 14.183***
Innovation accepted 4.12 4.59 4.93 22.336***
Penalized for new ideas# 5.01 5.17 5.46 5.240*
Innovation is risky# 4.48 4.70 5.17 10.759**
Note: Items with an # were negatively phrased and were reverse coded. F-statistics: ***,**,* signify significance at the 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 levels, respectively
www.usask.ca
Satisfaction with
Performance
Cluster 1 E=25.85
L=31.17
Cluster 2 E=51.83
L=35.99
Cluster 3 E=23.01
L=40.91
F-Statistic
Performance (Summated) 21.90 23.51 24.64 7.610**
Return on farm assets met expectations#
3.59 3.78 3.84 1.000
Satisfaction with overall performance
3.70 4.13 4.45 11.962**
Return on production investments
3.79 4.18 4.31 6.700*
Cash flow was satisfactory#
3.72 3.74 3.85 0.313
Return on marketing investments
3.80 4.05 4.26 5.361*
We receive higher prices than competitors
3.44 3.74 3.96 5.972*
Note: Items with an # were negatively phrased and were reverse coded. F-statistics: ***,**,* signify significance at the 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 levels, respectively
www.usask.ca
Conclusions Differences observed between clusters on
innovativeness and performance • Firms that value learning also state they are willing
to accept new ideas
• Value of demonstration farms (Pangborn et al., 2011) and learning groups (Clark et al., 2005; Terblanche and Willemse, 2011)
www.usask.ca
Implications for managers Value in broadening the network
• Success may accrue to those that set an uncommon table (Don Floyd, CEO of 4H)
• Especially beginning farmers
• Value in coopetition • Source of learning • Important to recognize areas where cooperation has
higher NPV than competition
www.usask.ca
Eric T. Micheels
Thank you for your attention!
Assistant Professor Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics University of Saskatchewan 3D14 Agriculture Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @ericmicheels