INDUSTRIALIZING AGRICULTURE: A ‘TYPOLOGY '
0F ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM
MANAGEMENT STYLE

Thesis fer the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MAURICE E. VOLAND
1958

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

INDUSTRIALIZING AGRICULTURE:
A TYPOLOGY OF ENTREPRENEURIAL
FARM MANAGEMENT STYLE

presented by

Maurice E. Voland

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD

 

degree in M28 y

Date 4:

0-169

 

ABSTRACT

INDUSTRIALIZING AGRICULTURE: A TYPOLOGY
OF ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM
MANAGEMENT STYLE

by Maurice E. Voland

The purpose of this thesis is to study the relation-
ship between the farmer and his firm and the pattern of
labor management practices that he utilizes. To do this,
the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm typology is developed in
which the polar types are characterized as being "Rigixi"
and "Adaptive." In constructing these types, the back-
ground came from existing literature and theory on farnl
management, farm labor management and entrepreneurship,
of the larger study. The constructed typology contains
four sub-types: Social Participation, Farm Management,
Labor Management, and the Farm as a Firm.

The constructed Entrepreneurial Farm Firm typology
is operationalized through a series of 21 variables.

The farmer entrepreneurs in the sample are scored as being
either Rigid or Adaptive on each of these 21 variables.
The composite of this scoring forms the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm Score.

To determine whether a more parsimonious indicator‘

may be developed, 12 variables that have either a change

Maurice E. Voland

or a time dimension are extracted from the 21 variable
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score and formed into a Change-
Time score. The Change-Time score gives results very
similar to the longer, more cumbersome Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm Score and thus may be substituted as a more
parsimonious operationalization of the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm typology.

In general, the utility of constructing a typology
to assist in the explanation of the empirical world is
demonstrated by this study. The Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm typology identifies the variables that are important
in explaining the unique characteristics of the various
types of farm operators. The utility of this continuum
will come as it provides the basis for further investi—
gation of farm management--farm labor management pheno-
mena by other investigators.

To test the utility of this typology, it was opera-
tionalized as suggested above and correlated with a series
of structural variables. In all, a significant relation-
ship was found between six of these structural variables
and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score or the Change-
Time score. These six structural variables are: Size
of Farm, Farmer's Relation to the Land, Number_of Locations
Farmed, Educational Attainment of the Farmer, whether or
not the farmer employs a Full-Time Hired Man, and the

Level of Capitalization of the farm enterprise.

Maurice E. Voland

There was no significant relationship found between
the scores and three structural variables tested. These
variables are: Age, Number of Years Farmed, and whether
or not the Farmer Devotes All of His Time to the Farming
Operation.

Although it would be desirable to cast the Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm Score or the more parsimonious Change-
Time score in the role of a predictive or independent
variable, it was not possible to do so within the context
of this study. The way in which the scores were developed
would have led to extreme circularity if they had been
placed in the predictive role in this study. However,
there is evidence to indicate that those farmers who
score high on either of the scores also will score high

on Farm Management and Farm Labor Management ability.

INDUSTRIALIZING AGRICULTURE: A TYPOLOGY
OF ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM
MANAGEMENT STYLE

By I
\

- E

Maurice E: Voland

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Social Science
Department of Sociology
1968

Copyright by
MAURICE E. VOLAND
1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would_like to express a sincere note of thanks
to Dr. Harvey Choldin, my chairman, for the kind assist-
ance and guidance he provided through the development of
this thesis. Thanks also go to Dr. J. Allan Beegle, Dr.
Sheldon Lowry, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Daniel Sturt for
their suggestions, assistance, and support.

A special note of gratitude goes to the memory of‘
Dr. James R. Hundley who conceived the project from which
this study grew. Without the inspiration received from
Dr. Hundley in the early stages of the project, this
study never would have been completed. His untimely
death meant not only the loss of an imaginative and com-
petent sociologist but also a close personal friend.

Further, my thanks go to my family and, especially,
to my wife Ellen who provided the support needed to com-
plete the long and rocky road of graduate school. My
many friends and colleagues here at Michigan State Uni—
versity also receive a special vote of thanks; without
their faith and support this dissertation might never
have been completed.

Finally, I would like to thank the Office of Man-

power, Evaluation, and Research of the United States

111

Department of Labor whose support of the project entitled
"A Study of Interpersonal Relations Among Managers and
Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms With Emphasis on
Labor Management Practices Utilized" made this thesis
possible. Formally acknowledging my involvement with

the Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation, and Research,
I do affirm the following:

The material in this project was prepared under a
Grant from the Office of Manpower Policy, Evalua—
tion and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, under
the authority of Title I of the Manpower Develop-
ment and Training Act of 1962. Researchers under—
taking such projects under Government sponsorship
are encouraged to express freely their professional
judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions
stated in this document do not necessarily repre-
sent the official position or policy of the Depart-
ment of Labor.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . 1
History of Farm Labor in the United
States . . . . . . . . . 2
The Agricultural Ladder . . . . . . 6
Projected Changes in Farm Labor. . . . . 9
The Problem . . . . . . . . l6
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . 20
The Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . 20
II. ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM FIRMS . . . . . . . 29
Review of Entrepreneurship . . . . 29
The Nature and Utility of Constructed
Types. . . . . . 35
The Constructed Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Types . . . . . . 38
Rigid Entrepreneurial Farm Firms . . . . 40
Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farm Firms . . . 55
III. THE ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM FIRM CONTINUUM. . . 71
IV. STRUCTURAL FACTORS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
FARM FIRMS. . . . . . . . . . . . 82
V. CHANGE—TIME AS A KEY FACTOR. . . . . . . 95
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . llO
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
I. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . 12A

II. OBSERVATION GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . INA

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Distribution of 23 variable Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm scores. . . . . . 73

2. Distribution of 21 variable Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm scores. . . . . . 76

3. Individual farm firms and their Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm scores. . . . . . 78

4. Correlation coefficients for variables
in the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm score
and their contribution to the sub-scores . 80

5. Distribution of 12 variable Change-Time
score . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

6. Individual farm firms and their Change—
Time score . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7. Correlation coefficients for the variables
included in the Change-Time score. . . . 101

8. Correlation coefficients for the structural
variables and the 21 variable Enterpre-
neurial Farm Firm Score and the 12 variable
Change-Time score . . . . . . . . . 109

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Graphic representation of the distri—
bution of the 23 variable Entrepre-

neurial Farm Firm score. . . . . . . . 7LI

2. Graphic representation of the distri—
bution of the 21 variable Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm Score. . . . . . 77

3. Graphic representation of the distri-

bution of the 12 variable Change-
Time Score . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The intensification of change within agriculture
from that of a primarily technological revolution to a
revolution that is affecting the total structure of the
industry has raised many value questions. One such ques-
tion that is uppermost deals with the future of the "fam-
ily farm." A great deal of nostalgia surrounds the con-
cept of the "family farm" and its rightful place within
American society. However, when one looks critically at
the changes taking place within agriculture, the question
is not so much whether the "family farm" still survives
as it was once known as it is redefining the question
within the limits of new directions that the structure
of the agricultural industry is now taking.

To be competitive in the marketplace today, the
agricultural producing unit must be an efficient user
of land, labor, and capital. Traditionally, Agricultural
Economists have dealt primarily with land and capital,
and only recently have they shown a concern for labor
productivity. However, little concern has been expressed
for the type of organizational structure of the producing

unit in which labor productivity might be maximized.

Generally the individual who is directly responsible
for supervising labor is largely responsible for produc-
tivity and satisfaction. Within agriculture the farm
operator not only has this responsibility for labor super-
vision, but he also has control over the organizational
structure of that particular enterprise. This is not true
in industry where the supervisor of the labor force is an
employee of the firm and does not have direct control over
the organizational structure of that firm.

The concern of this study will be with the employer
and the relationship he develops with his employees. The
"Human Relations" school of industrial labor relations
has pointed out numerous organizational changes that can
increase worker productivity and satisfaction. This
investigation will point out some of the parallels that
also apply to that industry known as agricultural pro-
duction. Although the primary data for this study will
be the relations between migrant agricultural labor and
their employing farmers, direct parallels can be drawn

to the employers' relations with full-time employees.

History of Farm Labor in the United States

 

The earliest settlers of the American Colonies were
practically all Europeans who would not readily submit to
the authority of others. These early settlers emigrated

to this country to escape religious, political, or other

types of Oppression and were not willing to relinquish
this freedom to become subservient to an employer.

With the abundance of new land available, all those
who emigrated voluntarily were able to acquire property
readily, thereby becoming free and independent. Even
with the availability of enough new land so that all
emigrants could become property holders, there were needs
for additional farm labor at various times of the year.
In the New England and the Middle Atlantic colonies, as
in nearly all frontier settlements, the need for this
seasonal labor supply was met to some extent by community
cooperation. In these areas agriculture tended to be of
a subsistence nature and no major attempts were made to
develop a market economy. Only the surpluses not required
for family consumption found their way into the market
place, and then these were generally bartered for goods
or services that could not be produced on the farm.

However, Edwards points out that in the southern
colonies where staple crops were raised on large plan-
tations, the need for a large labor supply was greater.1
Consequently, from the earliest days of the Virginia
Company, the supply of an adequate labor force was of
prime concern. To provide this supply of labor, two

primary methods were utilized: 1) the importation of

 

lEverett E. Edwards, "American Agriculture--The
First 300 Years," Farmers in a Changing World, 1940 Year-
book of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of
Documents, l9AO),pp. 171-276. '

 

 

contract labor (indentured servants) from the continent;
and 2) the beginnings of the slave trade involving Negroes.
The labor-contract method of labor supply was deeply rooted
in England, where wages had been fixed by statute, minors
apprenticed, and vagabonds or other unfortunates bound out
to settle debts.

These contracted, or indentured, servants may be
divided into two groups, voluntary and involuntary. Vol-
untary indentured servants were those whose apprentice-
ship was based on a free contract. They were limited to
persons who were anxious to start a new life in America
and were willing to sell themselves for a period of 5 to
7 years to shipmasters or immigration brokers in payment
for their passage. German settlers, and occasionally
those of other nationalities, sometimes voluntarily
indentured themselves in order to obtain funds to make
a more advantageous beginning on the frontier when they
were ready and able to set up farming for themselves.

Most of these "freewillers" came during the latter part
of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

The involuntary indentured-servant group consisted
of debtors, criminals deported by order of English courts,
and unfortunates who had been kidnapped. Edwards points
out that:

In general, these redemptioners came of good

stock. Force of circumstances and social
exploitation rather than lack of native ability

kept them poor. As a rule, all they needed was

freedom to raise in the social and economic

realm.2
Generally, these indentured servants in the southern col-
onies were provided with 50 acres of land at the end of
their term of service and many then became prosperous
farmers as well as mechanics, artisans, and merchants.

The first trade in indentured servants in the col-
onies took place in 1619 when the first group arrived in
Jamestown.3 It was at this time also that the first black
African slaves were brought to Jamestown by a Dutch priva-
teer and the slaveholding tradition was born in the col-
onies. Indentured service came to an end in the early
nineteenth century and slaveholding nearly was outlawed
later in the century. The profit in cash crops of the
day-~tobacco, indigo, and rice--was declining while the
costs of holding slaves were increasing. Since the slave-
holder had to maintain the elderly as well as other
dependent slaves, the margin of profit on slaveholding was
a very slim one indeed. However, with the introduction of
cotton as a cash crop and the development of the cotton
gin in the late eighteenth century, slaveholding once
again became a very profitable enterprise, thus setting

the pattern for the next 70 or 80 years.

 

2Edwards, p. 180.

3Paul S. Taylor, "Plantation Laborers Before the
Civil War," _gricultural History, Vol. 28, pp. 1-21.

The Agricultural Ladder

 

The concept of the Agricultural Ladder has been an
important one in understanding the agricultural labor
situation in the United States. However, this concept
is bound up with as much fiction as fact, and too often
only those on their way up the "Ladder” are considered
while those on their way down are completely disregarded.
This is pointed out cogently by Lee where he considers
primarily upward mobility within the agricultural pop-
ulation.“ The case of the hired man's moving to the level
of tenancy and then to farm ownership is not the only one.
Shannon indicates that it was not uncommon for the free-
holder to lose his farm and move down to the status of
tennant or even that of hired man.5

Up to the beginning of the eighteenth century, it
was not uncommon for the hired laborer or the indentured
servant to move up to farm ownership and become an inde-
pendent farmer. However, at this point in the development
of our social structure there were no rigid class lines
in existence. As the social structure began to solidify
and a definite class system came into being, this upward

mobility became much more difficult.6

 

u
Shu-Ching Lee, "The Theory of the Agricultural
Ladder," Agricultural History, Vol. 21, pp. 53-61.

 

5Fred A. Shannon, American Farmers' Movements
(Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1957), pp. 8—10.

6

Shannon, p. 9-

 

During this period and up through the late nineteenth
century, there were new frontiers continually available
to the aspiring farm owner. Government lands were sold
directly to potential farmers or to speculative combines
who then resold the land to farmers. The total cost of
this virgin land was quite small, even by the monetary
standards of the day; however, due to the extreme diffi-
culty the upwardly mobile farm hand had in assembling
capital for_the initial purchase of land and the extremely
tenuous and difficult credit arrangements, only a limited
number of former hired farm workers was able to move up
the "Agricultural Ladder" to full ownership. It was from
this group, as pointed out by Shannon above, that there
was a great deal of downward mobility as well. The
extremely tight credit situation and the vagaries of the
weather and markets forced many a fledgling farm owner
back to tenancy or hired servitude.

When looking at contemporary agriculture, the up-
ward mobility within the farming population is even more
limited. The extremely high capitalization required to
begin a farming operation is almost prohibitive for any-
one not moving into farming through inheritance. Another
unique trend of recent times is for small farmers, who do
not have the capital or the managerial ability to expand
their operation to maintain a competitive position in

today's agriculture, to sell their holdings to larger,

more efficient operators and then go to work for them as
hired employees-~many times continuing to work their
former farms.

It is this trend towards larger units that will be
owned and/or managed by fewer men and the larger number
of full-time as well as seasonal employees in the agricul-
tural labor force that is the concern of this study. As
the farm owner and/or manager takes on a hired labor
force, he must develop additional skills in production
and marketing that will be required by the competitive
market situation, but even more important he must become
a very efficient manager of labor since this is becoming
one of the major costs of production. Sturt points out
that labor costs on Michigan dairy farms come to about
20 per cent of total production costs.7 As industriali-
zation of agriculture continues, the total prOportion of
labor costs of some types of enterprises will decrease
as technology replaces manpower, but the effectiveness
of labor will be even more critical than it is today since
labor, although more highly skilled, will still be required
to operate the automated equipment now replacing large

numbers of agricultural laborers.

 

7Daniel W. Sturt, "Farm Labor in 1980," Research
Report A8--Farm Business, East Lansing: Agricultural
Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University, 1966, p. 9.

As indicated above, downwardly mobile freeholders
contributed one source of agricultural labor in the past.
This is especially true within the realm of migratory,
or seasonal, labor utilized in agriculture. Many of the
participants in the migrant stream are sharecroppers who
have been displaced by modern technology or former free
holders whose operations were too small or too marginal
in other ways to be competitive in today's economy. In
addition, large numbers of Mexican nationals have partici-
pated in the migratory labor force, either as contract
laborers who returned to Mexico at the end of the harvest
season or as illegal aliens who crossed the border without
legal sanction. Substantial numbers of residents of the
West Indies and Puerto Rico also have participated in the
migratory labor force on a contract basis. In addition to
these sources, large numbers of U.S. citizens of Mexican
heritage from south Texas have traditionally been part of
the hired agricultural labor force of that area and have
entered the migratory farm labor force as a means of sup-

plementing partial employment in their home area.

Projected Changes in Farm Labor
Although hired labor of one sort or another has been
an important input into American agriculture since the
earliest times, the prOportion and position of hired labor
within American agriculture will be changing. As the

industrialization of agriculture proceeds, the farm labor

10

scene will be one in which fewer numbers of farm operators
will be providing a smaller percentage of the total farm
labor requirement. Although the statement made by Hecht,
that "Farming is the only major industry in which entre-
preneur and members of his family make up a major proportion
of the work force . . . ,"8 will still hold there will be an
increasing number of enlarging farms and on these will be
found an increasing number of regular employees. Fuller
and Beale point out that:
In the more distant future (say three to five decades)
when the organizational revolution (that is, agri-
business) approaches the plateau of its fulfillment,
farm entrepreneurship will no longer be combined to
any significant extent with working self-employment.
Farmers will have become professional managers on
their own account or will have been displaced by
managements of integrated corporations that direct
farm production and control input.

The character of the available employable labor
force in agricultural employment also is likely to change.
Fuller and Beale suggest further that in addition to the
technological revolution now underway in agriculture,
there may very well be a human revolution in the making.

They feel that contemporary human society maintains a more

explicit concern for its people, whether viewed as productive

 

8Reuben W. Hecht, "Farm Labor Situation-Trends and
Forces at Work," Lincoln: Paper presented at National Exten—
sion Workshop on Farm Labor Problems, University of Nebraska
Center for Continuing Education, Lincoln, Nebraska, Nov.
1-4, 1966, p. 1.

9Varden Fuller and Calvin L. Beale, "Impact of Socio-
economic Factors on Farm Labor Supply," Journal of Farm
Economics, Vol. 49, No. 5, December 1967, p. 1238.

 

11

human capital or as the disadvantaged and poor. They state
that:

The components of a deliberate national manpower

policy are emerging, reflecting both the resource

and the human interest . . . two prospective

impacts follow: (1) departure from agriculture

of the remaining surplus farmers will be made

easier; (2) the supply-price of labor to farming

will rise. Or, to put the latter more pointedly,

the gap between the terms of farm and nonfarm

employment will disappear.10
The present indices of production and production per unit
of labor can be used to generate projected indices of labor
input. By utilizing this projection method, Hecht esti-
mates that on the average there will be 316 million workers

11 This

in the U.S. engaged in farm employment in 1980.
would constitute a 36 per cent decrease from 1965. Hired
workers may average about one million, or a third less
than the 1965 average. Farm operators and unpaid family
workers also may decline a little more than a third or to
about 2.6 million compared with 4.1 million in 1965.
Overall need for farm labor will be less in the years
ahead, Hecht believes, but higher skilled workers will be
needed. Such jobs as operation and maintenance of increas-
ingly complex farm machines and proper application of agri-

cultural chemicals with increasingly narrower tolerance

will require additional technical "know-how" and judgment.

 

10Fuller and Beale, p. 1238.

llHecht, p. 16.

12

As measured over broad areas, seasonality of employ-
ment of operators and family workers will continue to
decline while seasonal employment of hired workers will
probably increase slightly. In some areas there will
always be a need for relatively large numbers of workers
for short periods. When using linear projection methods
to predict farm labor needs for Michigan, Sturt points
out that with 1960 as a base, there will be a A0 per cent
reduction in farm labor requirements by 1980.12

Further mechanization, increased opportunities for
nonfarm employment, and the social and legislative environ-
ment affecting the conditions of labor employment will
influence the structure of the agricultural labor force.

In 1959-63, 80 per cent of the agricultural labor was
supplied by farm operators and their families while 20
per cent was hired. Approximately one—third of the hired
labor during the peak season in the summer was supplied
by year-round hired workers; seasonal employees supplied
approximately two-thirds of the hired labor requirements.
In 1980 the situation will be reversed with approximately
65 per cent of the agricultural labor supplied by year-
round employees and one third by seasonal workers. The

greatest seasonal employment will occur in September as

opposed to June, July, and August as was the case in 1960.

 

l2Sturt, pp. 9—1A.

13

Sturt states that in 1980 the farm labor situation will be

characterized by:

l.

well-trained year-around workers capable of
coping with the increasingly complex tasks
brought about by greater mechanization;

a sharp reduction in the number of interstate
and foreign seasonal workers in favor of intra-
state and local seasonal workers;

shifts away from family work groups to all
male teams of seasonal workers;

increased wages, better housing, and better
working conditions in general for all agri—
cultural workers as agricultural employees
compete for labor in a labor market dominated
by the nonfarm economy;

improved farm labor management practices in-
cluding training programs for all types of
workers and better supervision of workers as
employees attempt to upgrade the quality of
labor and step up labor productivity.1

The amount of labor required for different farm operations

depends upon the size of the operation, the extent of

mechanization, and the type of farm. As indicated earlier

in this chapter the proportion of the labor costs to total

production costs for the dairy farmer is much smaller than

for a fruit or vegetable farmer. With the changes expected

in the farm labor picture by 1980 and the concurrent changes

in the structure of the agricultural enterprise to a more

industrialized type, the question arises as to the possi-

bility of unionization among farm workers. Speaking at

the 1966 Agricultural Outlook Conference, Varden Fuller

stated that there will be a number of constraints working

 

13Sturt, p. 9.

1“

against unionization of agricultural workers.lu Among
these are the fact that farm employment will continue to
be predominantly in small-scale, broadly scattered units.
Employment in large numbers per farm unit seldom occurs
except during temporary harvest period. Even where there
are a small number of year-around employees on a production
unit, these units will be rather widely dispersed. The
nature of the farming enterprise places the workers in
close contact with the employer. These factors of geo-
graphic dispersion along with close employer-employee
working relations are generally obstructive to union
organization. In addition, seasonal workers have not
been generally responsive to unionization appeals. Many
expect not to be permanently in farm work and do not
regard an improved future in farm labor as a goal worth
striving for. Those who are resolved to a future in farm
1abor--by which one inevitably means the older, less edu-
cated, and otherwise handicapped persons--are typically
neither well prepared nor strongly motivated toward pur-
poseful collective action.

Without statuatory coverage, the cost of organization
of farm workers will be prohibitive. Even if National

Labor Relations Act coverage should be extended to farm

 

l“Varden Fuller, "Emerging Farm Labor Issues," Wash—

ington: Paper presented at AAth Annual National Agricul-
tural Outlook Conference, 10:15 a.m., Tuesday, November

15, 1966.

15

workers, there will be a long period of adjustment required
to develop a smooth and productive working relationship
between the appropriate units, the farmers, and the rele-
vant governmental agencies charged with enforcement and
interpretation of the relevant legislation. In summary,
Fuller says that:

the assessment that seems reasonable to me is to

expect a new and more broadly supported stride

in the development of farm worker unions and col-

lective bargaining, but under very substantial

constraints. Initially, and perhaps for many

years, the pattern will be quite spotty. Even

so, the total impact of limited unionization may

very well be greater indirectly than directly.

Farm organizations are already increasing their

appeals to members to upgrade employment prac-

tices and conditions as a deterrent to union

organization.1
In looking ahead to and beyond the farm labor picture in
1980, the salient changes seem to be that there will be
roughly one third less labor required by agriculture than
there is at the present time. The proportion of hired
labor to farmer and family labor will be higher. There
will be more full—time year-around hired laborers and
smaller numbers of seasonal laborers. The seasonal
laborers will be primarily male as opposed to a seasonal
labor force made up of families as is the present case.
The seasonal labor force will be predominantly an intra—

state force rather than the present inter-state labor

force. The impact of unionization will be felt, but due

 

15Fuller, pp. A—5.

16

to the dispersion of production units and the transient
nature of the seasonal labor force, the impact of unioni-
zation upon the agricultural labor force of Michigan will

be limited.

The Problem

 

The following is a report of research designed to
study the relationship between the farmer and his firm
and the pattern of labor management practices he utilizes.
As has been suggested earlier, much of the success of the
farmer of the future will lie in his ability to organize
his firm in such a way that he will be able to maximize
the productivity of the labor input and minimize the cost
of this input. A key to this is the farmer‘s ability to
deal with hired labor in such a way that he is able to
maximize worker productivity and satisfaction. This will
hold true for both year-around hired labor as well as
seasonal, or migratory labor hired during periods of peak
labor needs.

This study is based on a critical analysis of the
data gathered for the study entitled "A Study of Inter-
personal Relations Among Managers and Employees of Fruit
and Vegetable Farms with Emphasis on Labor Management
Practices Utilized." This study was conceived by the late
Professor James R. Hundley of the Department of Sociology
at Michigan State University and conducted jointly during

1967 by that department and the Rural Manpower Center of

17

Michigan State University. The specific objectives of
the larger study were:
To secure needed information for education and
training action programs through research on the
interpersonal dynamics of the work environment
involving farm managers and seasonal farm workers.
To determine the nature of the work environment
for both managers and workers when certain manage-
ment practices are employed and to determine how
seasonal workers respond to and gffect the utili-
zation of management practices.1
It has been pointed out earlier that a larger prOportion
of the labor input in agriculture in the future will be
in the form of hired labor than is now the case. When
this changing proportion of farmer and farm family labor
to hired labor is considered, it becomes even more obvious
that the question of employer-employee relations in agri-
culture will be a relevant one. Numerous studies have
dealt with the structural and social psychological charac-
teristics of farmers who adopt various innovations.17
Agricultural economists have made extensive studies of
farm management from the economic perspective. There has

been no research that integrates farm labor management

with farm management, per se. It will be the focus of

 

16"A Study of Interpersonal Relations Among Mana-
gers and Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms with
Emphasis on Labor Management Practices Utilized," Pro-
posal submitted to the Director, Office of Manpower,
Policy, Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
by Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, May 12, 1966, p. i.

17Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation (New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962).

 

18

this research to integrate the study of farm labor manage—
ment with the more specific field of farm management as

viewed by the agricultural economists.18 The farmer will

 

18It is not feasible to fully review the total lit-

erature in farm management and farm labor management, but
representative works which might be cited are:

Varden Fuller, Labor Relations in Agriculture (Berk-
eley: Institute for Industrial Relations, University of
California, 1955).

 

Harland Padfield and William E. Martin, Farmers,
Workers and Machines: Technological and Social Change in
Farm Industries of Arizona (Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press, 1965).

 

 

John H. MacGillivray and Robert A. Stevens, Agricul-
tural Labor and Its Effective Use (Palo Alto, California:
The National Press, 196A).

 

C. E. Bishop, ed., Farm Labor in the United States
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1967).

 

Willard T. Rushton and E. T. Shaudys, "A Systematic
Conceptualization of Farm Management," Journal of Farm
Economics, Vol. 19 (February, 1967), pp. 53-63.

 

 

Papers presented at the 1965 annual meeting of the
American Farm Economics Association, Oklahoma State Uni—
versity, Stillwater, Oklahoma, August 22-25, 1965, as
reported in Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. A7, December,

1965.

 

Myron P. Kelsey, "The Management Factor in Commer-
cial Agriculture, Is It an Art or a Science," pp. 1U33—36.

J. C. Headley, "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture, How Can It be Recognized," pp. 1437-39.

M. F. Quenemoen, "The Management Factor in Commer-
cial Agriculture: The Influence of Values and Goals,"
pp. 1440—42.

Dale E. Butz, "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: The Effects of Off Farm Employment Inputs,"
pp. lAA3-45.

Aaron G. Nelson, "The Management Factor in Commer-
cial Agriculture: How Can It be Improved," pp. lAA6-A8.

Robert E. Rieck, "The Management Factor in Commer-
cial Agriculture: How Can It be Taught," pp. 1449-51.

Rex P. Kennedy, "The Management Factor in Commer-
cial Agriculture: New Tools for the Manager," pp. 1A52-
5 .

19

be viewed as an entrepreneur since this perspective seems
best to fit the type of organization presently found in

19 To achieve this objective, a

American agriculture.
typology of farm firms will be developed. This typology
will be so formulated that it will allow for the influence
of the farmer (entrepreneur) on the firm. The background
for this typology will come from existing literature and
theory on farm management, farm labor management, and
entrepreneurship, but the typology itself will flow from

Q
the data gathered for this study.’0

 

19After an exhausting search through the literature
of Complex Organizations and Bureaucracy, I became pain-
fully aware that the farm of today is not structured in
such a way that the theory and literature from this area
of Sociology is applicable. While the organizational
structure of agriculture is becoming more complex, the
average farming operation is not structured in such a way
that this body of theory and literature will help to ex-
plain what is going on. Consequently, the body of litera-
ture dealing with Entrepreneurship seemed to offer the
tools for providing the understanding and insight needed
to understand the organization of farms in this study. As
will be noted, a number of the farms included in this
study are approaching the organizational complexity where
the theories of Complex Organization and Bureaucracy might
have explanatory power, but the bulk of the farms have not
reached this point as yet.

20This type of formulation follows the criteria set
down by:

Barney G. Glaser and Anslem L. Strauss, The Discovegy
of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Quantitative Research
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967T1

 

 

John C. McKinney, Constructive Typology and Social
'Theory (New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1966).

 

20

Significance of the Study

 

Through the investigation of farm labor management
styles, this study will contribute in a modest way to our
understanding of the intricacy of this problem. It will
demonstrate the utility of the constructed typology as a
research tool that can bring greater understanding to the
complex organizational and labor management approaches
that are present in today's agriculture.

In addition to the development of a constructed
typology of the farm firm and the theoretical implications
that will flow from this construct, it will help to lay
the basis for ameliorative programs which may increase the
satisfaction of both employer and employee in the agricul-

tural setting.

The Sample

 

A stratified random sample of 100 farms that held
Migrant Labor Housing licenses during the 1966 growing
season was drawn. Interviews were completed with 76 of
the original farm operators included in the sample. Of
those 24 cases that were not included ten had gone out of
business since the summer of 1966, six changed their mode
of Operation so that they would not be employing migrant
labor during the 1967 growing season, and eight were out
of the state and not available for interview during the

inter-viewing period.

21

Due to the budgetary limits of this study, no sub-
stitution was made for these 24 cases. However, in the
view of the principal investigator the 76 cases included
in the study are considered to be representative of all
farm operations that utilize migrant agricultural labor.

The research design called for the selection of a
limited number of this original sample of farms to be re—
contacted during the harvest season. At this time obser-
vations of the work flow of the farm and supervision style
of the farm operator were recorded and interviews with
members of the migratory labor force working on that farm
were conducted. Consequently, a purposive sample was
drawn from the original sample that would represent pro-
portionally by size of crew and crops harvested all fruit
and vegatable farms in the state that utilize migrant
labor for harvest purposes. Migrant laborer heads of
households and single males over 16 years of age who were
not traveling with their families were interviewed on the
38 farms included in this purposive sample. A total of
238 interviews was completed with migrant laborers.

For the purposes of this dissertation, only that
data gathered from the 76 farms included in Phase I of
this study and relevant case study data from the obser-
vations of work flow and supervision style carried on in
Phase II will be utilized. However, for a more complete

understanding of the sample, the following summary will

22

highlight some of the unique information that came as a
result of the combination of research methodologies. The
qualitative richness of much of the case study data is
lost in a quantitative analysis and it will be our purpose
here to show some of this rich body of data gathered
through depth interview, observation of work flow and
supervision, and insight gained by the research team into
the situation facing the horticultural specialty crop
farmer in Michigan today.

To be successful in the competitive climate of agri-
culture today, the farmer must be extremely efficient and
flexible in organizing the resources he requires to main-
tain and enlarge his business. One would expect that edu-
cation would play an important part in helping the indi—
vidual farmer do a more efficient job of organizing these
resources. The analysis of the interview protocols as
well as the observations carried on during Phase II of
the study would tend to bear this out. While the farmers
under age A5 had higher educational attainment than did
those who were age A6 and over, when we look at the group
who had obtained education beyond the twelfth grade we
find that 26 per cent of the younger group and 16 per cent
of the older group had obtained some education beyond high
school. This exposure to higher education extended from
as little as one semester all the way to graduate education.

The analysis of the interview protocols and personal

contact with the farmers during the second phase of the

23

study strongly reinforces the contention that formal edu—
cational training helps the individual farmer to more
efficiently organize his resources in order to be com-
petitive in today's agriculture. The type of higher edu-
cational exposure did not necessarily seem to make a great
deal of difference when it came to evaluating success.

The farmers included in the study who had been exposed to
higher education had a top-heavy exposure to training in
technical agriculture, while a background in liberal arts,
education, or business was not uncommon. While the bulk
of the farmers in this group had been exposed to training
in technical agriculture, they all tended to agree that
the most useful training they had received was in the
areas of economics, business (with an emphasis on manage-
ment), and communications. Background in these academic
areas often is cited as being important for anyone who is
involved in management, whether it is in business, industry,
government service, or in agriculture.

The innovativeness of the farmer seemed to be closely
tied to his educational level. While the adOption of
technical innovations did not necessarily seem to be con-
nected with any particular educational level, those inno—
vations that required a change in the organizational struc-
ture of the farm business seemed to be very closely related
to that group of farmers who were most highly educated--
and.here the educational attainment rather than the age of

the farmer seemed to be the most important factor.

24

On the technical level those innovations which
seemed to crop up most often were the adoption of new
harvest and tillage techniques; the adoption of new insec-
ticides, herbicides, and fertilization programs; and the
adoption of new strains or varieties of crOps. On the
other hand, there is a group of innovations that requires
a major change in the structure of the farming enterprise,
a group which includes the extension of the farmer and
his firm into the direct marketing of his produce. The
farmer moves from a strictly production orientation to
one where he packages not only his own produce but con-
tracts with other growers for this service, thus estab-
lishing a genuine chain of command among his employees so
that he has others to call upon when making decisions
relative to the total enterprise and can delegate certain
decision—making powers to various individuals within this
chain.

While a number of the farmers were moving in the
direction of shared decision-making and a few actually
had established this policy, a large number were substi—
tuting mobility and instant communications for a more
highly structured organization. While they had estab-
lished a chain of command, they had given the individuals
within this chain only limited decision—making authority.
To substitute for this more complex organizational struc-

ture they relied upon Citizens Band radios to keep them

25

in direct communication with all phases of their operation.
In this way, even though the farming operation might be
dispersed over a large geographic area, the farmer would

be able to move from one site to another in no more than

10 or 15 minutes and be on hand for decisions requiring

his presence. Also, the flexibility of radio communications
made it possible for him to assess a situation and make
relevant decisions many times without having to travel to
the site where the decision was required.

Again, there seemed to be quite a high relation
between educational attainment and the level of decision-
making that the farmer was willing to share with his
employees. These differences do not seem as distinct in
the quantitative analysis of the data later in this study,
but they seemed to be particularly strong when the case
study materials and observational materials were reviewed.

What has been said in regard to the adoption or the
invention of innovations might also be said about the
relations between the farmer and his employees, both full-
time and seasonal or migratory employees. Those farmers
who seemed to demonstrate the greatest flexibility in
ability to organize their farm business also were the
ones who tended to have the best relationships with their
hired employees. The idea of shared decision-making has
been indicated above, but perhaps even more important is

the attitude that the farmer has towards his employees.

26

Attitudes ranged all the way from bare toleration of em-
ployees, whose only purpose was to do the job, be quiet,
and move on, to acceptance of these employees as unique
individuals able to make unique contributions to the busi-
ness enterprise. Farmers with this latter attitude created
an organizational structure in which these individuals
could perform at their highest level of effectiveness.
This attitude also could be measured in the various fringe
amenities provided by the farmer to his employees-—these
generally include housing for both full-time as well as
seasonal employees, insurance programs, job security pro—
grams, and wages in general. While the most flexible
farmers did not necessarily pay the highest direct wage

to their employees, they did provide the beet quality
housing and the most flexible and complete insurance and
retirement programs. They provided paid vacations for
full-time employees and in general dealt with employees

as individuals who had unique capabilities and problems
and not just as a stereotype of what a farm worker is.

The Minimum Agricultural Wage legislation that
became effective during the period of the field work for
this study produced quite varied results. One typical
response was that "this is the biggest and most recent
blow against the free enterprise system--it's going to
drive us out of business," while others responded, "It's

too bad that it had to come to this, but in the long run

27

everyone will benefit since now I have a base to work from
in setting wages and it will better help me to project my
costs of production." As might be expected, those farmers
who were most against this legislation were the least effi—
cient and effective operators while those who took the
legislation in their stride were the most flexible and pro-
gressive. From the workers' side this legislation generally
raised their overall take-home pay and limited the necessity
of their shopping around for the farmer paying the highest
wages since everyone was paying pretty much the same,
especially for seasonal or migratory work. For the farmer,
it meant that he did not have to worry about his harvest
crew's picking up and leaving for a place where wages were
significantly higher since everyone was paying nearly the
same wage. However, the amenities provided by the farmer

in such forms as housing, insurance programs, and recrea-
tional facilities became even more important in this con-
text. The farmers now were forced to provide superior
fringe benefits if they were to have a happy and satisfied
crew since wages had been stabilized.

In general, included in this study are some of the
most flexible and progressive fruit and vegetable farmers
in the state of Michigan as well as some who are only in
business through the grace of their creditors or because
they are willing to live on a subsistence or lower wage.

All indications are that in the future it is the flexible,

28

progressive farmer who will dominate agriculture in not
only Michigan but the country and the rigid, inflexible
farmer will either be forced out of business by the pres-
sure of the market place or more general changes taking
place within agriculture. While it has been true up
until now that the farmer is the only businessman who has
been able to operate in an inefficient and ineffective
manner because he owns and controls all of his resources
of production, this may not be as true in the future when
the flexible, progressive farmer will need to look to

others for some of these resources of production.

CHAPTER II

ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM FIRMS

Review of Entrepreneurship

 

Historical Development of the Concepp

The term or concept "entrepreneur" has been used for
some 300 years by social scientists, especially economists.
The usage and meaning applied to the term during this
period of time has varied. Economic historian Fritz Red-
lich says that the term was first used in a dictionary of
commerce written in 1723 by Savary.l At that time, "entre-
preneur" was defined as the individual who purchased goods
or economic utilities for fixed prices when he did not know
at what price he could sell these items.

A review of the concept of entrepreneur as it has
been used in modern times is provided by Bert F. Hosel-

itz.2

To many economists, the concept of entrepreneur
has been utilized to denote the risk bearer, and in many

cases it has been abstracted so far that the flesh and

 

lFritz Redlich, "The Origin of the Concepts of
Entrepreneur and Creative Entrepreneur," Explorations in
Entrepreneurial History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (19H9), pp. 1-7.

 

 

2For various theories and definitions of "entrepre—
neur" see Bert F. Hoselitz, "The Early History of Entre-
preneurial Theory," Explorations in Entrepreneurial His-
tory, Vol. 3 (1951), pp. 193-220.

29

 

30

blood have been taken from the concept. Risk-bearing is
considered a function of the business firm and not neces-
sarily the function or activity of an individual. Further,
the assumption has been made by some that the entrepreneur
is the firm.3 In contrast, Schumpeter uses the term pri-
marily to denote the function of activity of innovation.”
This definition has been accepted by many writers and the
line of thought has developed that the entrepreneur is the
innovator who is creative in the sense of doing something
new or untried. Much of the popular literature character-
izes the entrepreneur as an individual who is creative,
daring, aggressive, and willing to take chances. It is
associated with the rags to riches theme, that of the cul-
tural hero found in the Horatio Alger myth. In the eyes
of some, it also has the connotation of being on the mar-
gin of dishonesty or sharp trading.5 Most of the defi-
nitions of entrepreneur reveal little of the man to whom
the title is given. The school of thought represented

by economic historian Arthur H. Cole focuses more direction

 

3J. H. Strauss, "The Entrepreneur: The Firm," Jour-
nal of Political Economy, LII (19AM), pp. 112-127.

 

“Joseph H. Schumpeter, "Economic Theory and Entre-
preneurial History," Change and the Entrepreneur (Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 19A97, pp. 63-84.

 

5R. Richard Wohl, "The Rags to Riches Story: An
Episode of Secular Idealism," in C1ass,,Status and Power,
Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset (eds.) (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 388-95.

 

31

on entrepreneurship as a role, and on the orientation
and behavior of the man who assumes this role. Cole's
definition differs from both Knight's and Schumpeter's.
He says:

Entrepreneurship may be defined as the purposeful
activity (including an integrated sequence of
decisions) of an individual or group of associated
individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain, or
aggrandize a profit-oriented business unit for the
production or distribution of economic goods and
services with pecuniary or other advantage of the
goal or measure of success, in interaction (or
within the conditions established by) the inter-
nal situation of the unit itself or with the eco-
nomic, political, and social circumstances (insti-
tutions and practices) of a period which allows

an appreciable measure of freedom of decision.6

With this approach it is possible to focus on the initia-
ting, maintaining, and aggrandizing of a business organi-
zation. In this way, it moves away from the risk-bearing
behavior as the major focus of research. The consideration
here focuses on the individual who establishes a business
and what is required of him to maintain successful oper—

ation and growth of his business.

Entrepreneurship in Agriculture

 

In his review of entrepreneurship in relation to
agriculture, Danhof suggests that recognition of entre—
preneurship as an activity or a function, not as a spe-

cific individual or occupation, allows the individual to

 

6Arthur H. Cole, "Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneur-
ial History: The Institutional Setting," Change and the
Entrepreneur (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19H9),
p. 88.

 

 

32

engage in the activity frequently, occasionally, very
rarely, or never.7 In this way it may be said that the
individual is characterized by the activity of an entre-
preneurial nature. Danhof agrees with other writers cited
above that the entrepreneur as characterized in much of
the writing of economic theorists is an unrealistic
abstraction.

Many times management and entrepreneurial activity
are defined as being one and the same. However, Danhof
makes the distinction that management deals with an inte-
grated series of decisions that do not necessarily change
the formula of production while entrepreneurial activity
is primarily concerned with changes in the formula. Con-
sequently, the element of change is important in this
context.

Specifically, Danhof points out:

The determination of the formula whereby economic
production is to be carried out at any given time
within a specific environment (geographical, intel-
lectual, within a particular political and sogial
milieu) is then the entrepreneurial function.

He suggests the breakdown of the functions of an entre-

preneur into three major categories: (1) obtaining infor-

mation of a relevant character; (2) evaluation of the

 

7Clarence H. Danhof, "Observations on Entrepreneur-
ship in Agriculture," Change and the Entrepreneur (Cam—
bridge: Harvard University Press, 19A9), pp. 20-2“.

8Ibid., p. 22.

 

33

information from the point of view of profit; and (3)
action which determines the use of resources.
Danhof continues:
The action is rational; hence it is based in so far
as possible on evaluated information. Once a deci-
sion has been made as to what kind of information
is wanted and from what point of view it is to be
evaluated, such functions may be delegated--may in
fact be institutionalized. But the initiative which
sets such operations in motion is entrepreneurial.
Moreover, almost always judgment must be employed
as a substitute for information or inconclusive
analysis. The results of such action are the res-
ponsibilitg of the entrepreneur and cannot be
delegated.
Within the framework of agriculture Danhof assumes that an
operation is entrepreneurial in character if the individual
takes action in which the results are dependent upon his
analysis of production, the market, and other relevant
factors, and if he is under no contractual or political
obligation to accept advice or direction from anyone.
Up to this point, agriculture is noteworthy as one indus-
try in which the refusal of a farmer to assume even a
minimal level of entrepreneurial activity does not, if
he owns or controls the resources he uses, force him out
of business.
Danhof indicates four types of entrepreneurship
which might be found within the agricultural framework:
1. ‘Innovating entrepreneurship, characterized by

aggressive assemblage of information and analysis
of results from novel combinations of factors.

 

9Danhof, p. 22.

3A

2. Imitative entrepreneurship, characterized by
readiness to adopt successful innovations
inaugurated by innovating entrepreneurs.

 

3. "Fabian" entrepreneurship, characterized by
very great caution and skepticism (perhaps
simply inertia) but which does not initate
when it becomes perfectly clear that failure
to do so would result in a loss of the rela—
tive position of the enterprise.

 

A. Drone entrepreneurship, characterized by a
refusal to adOpt opportunities to make changes
in production formulae even at the cost of 10
severely reduced returns to other like producers.
How is Entrepreneurshipyto be Used in This Study?
Following Cole and Danhof, the definition to be
applied to the agricultural entrepreneur in this study is:
that individual who performs the activipy or function of

gathering together the necessary resources to initiate,

maintain, or aggrandize the farm firm. Since all of the

 

farm firms in this study are past the initiation stage,
we will be concerned primarily with their maintenance and
aggrandizment.

Aggrandizment will be viewed here as not only en-
largement of the sphere of influence of the firm but also
as its adaptation to meet the needs of the changing social
structure within which it functions. Maintenance will be
viewed as that effort required for the farm firm to con-
tinue in operation, but not necessarily as that of being

a viable, dynamic firm.

 

loDanhof, pp. 23-24.

35

The Nature and Utility of Constructed Types

In looking at farm firms, the influence of the owner
(manager) upon these firms has been given very little
'attention. Granted, farm management theory is based upon
the economic decisions that can be made by the farmer
(manager) but this body of theory is predicated on ration—
ality, and man does not always act in an economically
rational manner. There is a great spread in the ways one
might anticipate the logical response of a farmer and his
firm to a given situation and the ways in which he objec-
tively does respond. This narrower range of objective
responses may be viewed in terms of a continuum consisting
of two polar types with all possible shades of gradation
between.

McKinney has developed the tool of constructive
typology which will be utilized in this study for the
development of polar types. His definition of construc-
tive typology is "a purposive, planned selection, abstrac-
tion, combination, and (sometimes) accentuation of a set
of criteria with empirical referents that serves as a
basis of empirical cases." McKinney says the constructed
type is a heuristic device developed primarily for com-
parative and predictive purposes rather than to provide

the basis for description of situations.11

 

llMcKinney, pp. 3—6.

36

The basis for generalization within science is
through the development of concepts. Concepts, as such,
are the result of categorizing recurring experience (in
the case of the social sciences, human experience). When
the scientist begins to analyze and classify his data, he
is moving away from reality at the perceptual level and
is beginning to formalize and order, or categorize, the
recurring experiences at a more general level. As this
process continues, the categorization of recurring exper-
iences takes in larger portions of that experience as con-
cepts become specified and, as such, the concepts are at
a more general level than real experience and will always
remain as hypothetical representations of reality. McKin-
ney points out that "concepts are constructs, even when

12

they closely reflect perceptual experience." In the

way that concepts are given precision through selection
and limitation, constructed types are given the same level
of precision through selection, limitation, combination,
and accentuation. Unique to the constructed type is that:
The constructed type organizes experience in a
somewhat different fashion than does the ordinary
concept in that it forms a series of attributes
into a configuration that is not necessarily

directly experienced and accentuates one or more
of the attributes for theoretical purposes.l

 

l2McKinney, p. 11.

13Ibid.

37

Thus, the constructed type is a heuristic device that is
a configuration of attributes not directly experienced in
the world in the form in which they are found in the con-
structed type. It is useful as a basis for comparing and
understanding the empirical world.

One of the major areas of criticism of any typology,
whether it be "Ideal" as in the sense of Weber's bureau-
cratic typology or Redfield's folk-urban typology, is that
too often the users of these typologies tend to reify them.
When a set of characteristics has been abstracted from
reality and formulated into a type, too often the users
forget that the type is merely a tool for ordering con-
crete phenomena and not something which can represent the
real or the empirical world.

Consequently, the scientific value of the constructed
type is the use to which it is put. There are many things
which the constructed type cannot do and a clear recogni-
tion of these limitations is essential. The major function
of all types is to identify and simplify, whether they have
been empirically or more impressionistically constructed.
The major utility of the constructed type is that it "per-
forms the task of guiding the initial selection of data in

"1“

terms of the schema of a given science. One of the many

ways in which the constructed type may be used is as a way

 

l“McKinney, p. 18.

38

of interpreting a particular situation or situations. In
this way it functions as a general standard to which con-
crete occurrence may be compared. Another way in which
the constructed type may be used is that of a generalizing
concept which will provide the basis for extraction of
empirical versions from different cultural contexts.

The Constructed Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm Types '

 

 

In the following two sections the major attributes

of the constructed types will be defined as the Rigid
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm and the Adaptive Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm. It must be pointed out that the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm is headed by a man who assumes the role of entre-
preneur. It is the orientation and behavior of this man
and his effect on the farm firm that is our concern here.
Since the entrepreneurial role is only one of the roles
assumed by the above mentioned individual, we also will
be concerned with the orientation of the individual that
underlies not only this but other roles assumed by him.
Orientation is used here in the same sense as used by
Merton:

A word of explanation is needed for this concept

of orientation. The social orientation differs

from the social role. Role refers to the manner

in which the rights and duties inherent in a social

position are put into practice; orientation, as

here conceived, refers to the theme underlying

the complex of social roles performed by an indi-
vidual. It is the (tacit or explicit) theme which

39

finds expression in each of the complex of social
roles in which the individual is implicated.1

Merton uses this concept of orientation in discussing what
he calls "types of influentials." He constructs two types
of influentials, local and cosmopolitan.

The chief criterion for distinguishing the two is
found in their orieppation toward Rovere. The
localite largely confines his interest to this
community. Rovere is essentially his world. De-
voting little thought or energy to the Great Society,
he is preoccupied with local problems, to the vir-
tual exclusion of the national and international
scene. He is, strictly speaking, parochial.

 

Contrariwise with the cosmopolitan type. He has

some interest in Rovere and must of course main—

tain a minimum of relations within the community

since he, too, exerts influence there. But he is

also oriented significantly to the world outside

Rovere, and regards himself as an integral part of

the world. He resides in Rovere but lives in the»

Great Society. If the local type is parochial, the

cosmopolitan is ecumenical.
There is a great deal of similarity between Merton's types
of influentials and the types of individuals who are asso-
ciated with the Rigid Entrepreneurial Farm Firms and Adap-
tive Entrepreneurial Farm Firms to be considered in this
study.

We also find a great deal of similarity between the

two extreme types of agricultural entrepreneurship iden-
tified by Danhof, those of "Drone Entrepreneurship"

which resemble those firms headed by Rigid Entrepreneurial

 

15Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc-
ture (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956), p. 392.

16Ibid., p. 393.

A0

Farmers and the "Innovating Entrepreneurship" which resem-
ble those firms headed by our Adaptive Farmers.l7
The constructed types will be presented in outline
form. The major focus will be upon the social partici—
pation of the entrepreneur, his farm management, his labor
management, and a look at his farm as a firm. Quotations
from the raw data will be utilized for illustrative pur-

poses only. They are meant only to help the reader better

understand the typology and its elements as it is presented.
Rigid Entrepreneurial Farm Firms

A. Social Participation

As indicated above, the Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer
would be a "localite" using Merton's terminology and might
be characterized as a "Drone Entrepreneur" in Danhof's
terminology. In both of these cases the individual with
these characteristics who assumes the entrepreneurial role
centers his attention on the immediate, the present. He
does not tend to look to the future or necessarily make
plans to adapt his firm to the needs or demands of the
future. He may be aware that there are organizations and
agencies that may be available to lend assistance to him
in dealing with the problems of his firm, but due to his
concern with the present he will place a high level of

reliance on his individual abilities rather than relying

 

l7Danhof, pp. 23-2A.

Al

on the guidance of others in these organizations and agen-
cies that might help him to adjust his firm to the-needs of
the future.
1. Member of a Farm Organization

The Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer is not a member of
one of the general farm organizations.'~ He does not see
that membership in one of these organizations will have
any immediate benefit for him. Since the prime objective
of these organizations is to create pressure on various
governmental agencies to develOp policies and legislation
favorable to the farmer and agricultural industry, he sees
this as being something for the future. He does not feel
that there would be any immediate pay—off for him and,
consequently, cannot justify his membership in one of
these organizations.

2. Member of Fraternal or Social Organization

 

Our Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer does not belong to
any social or fraternal organizations. Since he places a
high value on self-reliance, he cannot see how his member-
ship and participation in any of these organizations will
benefit him or his firm. He would see that the time he
would need to invest in these organizations would be at
the expense of his firm and he does not perceive that the
inter-personal contacts with members of these organizations
can in any way benefit his firm. He would look upon them

as frivolous and as something that would take his energies

A2

from something he perceives to be more important, his
undivided attention to his firm.

3. Member of Michigan Horticultural Society,
Commodity Organization, or Cooperative

 

These specific organizations will not find the Rigid
Entrepreneurial Farmer on their membership roster. As
with general farm organizations and social or fraternal
organizations, he feels that these organizations can be
of no benefit to him. The Michigan Horticultural Society
may be perceived as being two-pronged in its influence:

a) that of exerting pressure on various governmental agen-
cies to bring about legislation and policies favorable to
horticultural farm enterprises in ways similar to those
practiced by general farm organizations; and b) that of
being a conveyor of new knowledge and technology that will
benefit farmers who operate horticultural enterprises.

The commodity organizations and various cooperatives
extend the influence of the individual farmer into the
market place or to the source of agricultural supplies,
and through the pressure of numbers attempt to cause
favorable treatment for their membership.

Again, our Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would not per-
ceive these organizations as being of any immediate bene-
fit to him or his firm. He would view them as a tool to
usurp some of his own power. Since he places a high value
on self-reliance and control of his own destiny, he_would

not give up any of his freedom for possible rewards at

A3

some future date. He would consider the activities of
these organizations as frivolous, with little meaning and
not worthy of the investment of his energies and/or
resources.

B. Ferm Management

 

The Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would be characterized
as being extremely conservative in his style of enterprise
management. He would be characterized as the operator of
a firm that is not articulating to the changes within the
production or the marketing sector of the economy. The
old adage of "if it was good enough for my father, it's
good enough for me" would hold for this individual. The
firm would be static in nature, not changing in size
and/or scope, and the major portion of the entrepreneur's
energy would be expended on the maintenance of the organi-
zation with no concern at all for the aggrandizement of
the organization.

1. Farm Management Spyle

 

The management style of the Rigid Farmer Entrepre-
neur could be said to be static. He is making no effort
to adjust the firm to changes in production technology or
the changing needs of the market place. His major con-
cern is "hanging on" tK>what he now has; he is extremely
critical of others who are making additional investments

in their enterprises to articulate more closely to the

AA

needs of the changing market place. In the words of one
of our respondents:

I really don't think there's any future in fruit

farming in this area. The processors are dic—

tating our prices and the town people are raising

our taxes with their fancy new schools. I've got

some land I could plant to new trees, but what's

the use--the processor won't pay me a decent price

‘for the fruit and those new trees will just raise

my taxes. If I can just hang on for a few years

more Ma and I are going to retire and sell the

farm--let somebody else worry about paying the

taxes then.
2. Adoption of Innovations

Following from the static farm management style,

the Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur will adopt innovations only
as a last resort in an effort to maintain his present
enterprise at its existing level, or some lower level
which he still finds tolerable. As pointed out earlier,
the Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would represent Danhof's
"Drone Entrepreneur." It will be remembered that Danhof
characterized the Drone Entrepreneur by "a refusal to
adopt opportunities to make changes in production formulae
even at the cost of severely reduced returns to other like

"18 Consequently, the Rigid Farmer Entrepre-

producers.
neur will pass up the opportunity to adopt new varieties
which might be more desirable in the market place or might
lend themselves to mechanical harvest; he will not adopt
new and/or improved chemicals which might improve the

quality of his product or lower production costs; he will

not purchase new and/or different machinery which might

 

l8Danhof, p. 2A

A5

make his operation more efficient; and he will not adopt
new harvest techniques, be they mechanical or different
hand harvest methods which might make his produce more
acceptable in the market place. He may not absolutely
refuse to adopt any of these innovations, but he may adopt
limited numbers of them under protest in an effort to
maintain his organization at its present or at a lower
tolerable level of return. One of our respondents
expressed his views as follows:

A lot of growers are planting those new dwarf

apple trees 'cause they are supposed to come into

production earlier and make more money. But I

just can't see 'em--they ain't natural. A apple

tree's got to be big to grow a lot of apples,

those little dwarfs just ain't gonna do the job.

Besides, apples was meant to be picked from a

ladder, not just standing on the ground!
3. Contact with Knowledge Sources

The state Land Grant University and its various

appendages are generally considered to be a knowledge
source in regard to production and marketing knowledge
for agricultural producers. Granted, there are also many
commercial and mass media sources for this information,
but in general the sources available through the Land
Grant University are considered to be reliable and the
information available is considered to be current. Two
specific appendages to the Land Grand University that
are of special importance to the farmer are the COOpera-

tive Extension Service and the Agricultural Experiment

Station.

A6

For the horticultural specialty crop farmer, the
Agricultural Experiment Station is of special importance
in that there are regional experimental farms located in
the horticultural specialty crop areas of the state where
research is carried on that is especially relevant to
that limited geographical area. Through direct contact
with university-based researchers at these variOus experi-
mental farms, especially at the annual "Field Days," the
Farmer Entrepreneur is able to garner current research
information which may be of direct benefit to him in his
own enterprise.

The COOperative Extension Service, through its net-
work of locally-based agricultural agents, offers a direct
knowledge source or a liaison to the knowledge source
based at the university that may benefit the grower by
solving existing problems or adjusting his enterprise to
the future needs of the market place.

The Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would not look to
these appendages of the Land Grant University as legitimate
knowledge sources for a number of reasons and would tend
to rely upon his own judgment in making adjustments in his
own enterprise to maintain it at a minimally viable level.
A. Feelings about Gropp Bargaining for Better Prices

The Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would not participate
in any group efforts to obtain a better or more stable
price for his commodities. He would look to the groups

or organizations which are attempting to do this as

A7

infringements upon his own ability to market his produce

as well as the free enterprise system of the country. It

is his feeling that supply and demand always will dictate
the market conditions. He would refuse to join a bargaining
group or organization, even if it meant that he would lose
his existing market outlet; rather than doing this he would
seek a new or alternative outlet for his produce. In an
extreme example, one respondent stated:

We have come this far on the free enterprise
system, and if it hasn't been good this far,
something is definitely wrong. And this is
what I can't understand. Some of the larger
growers, I'm a very small grower, but some Of
the larger growers in the area that I can rem-
ember that started out smaller than actually I
am, and have got up to the hundreds of acres of
fruit, and have come a long ways in the free
enterprise system, and now they are all for gov-
ernment controls, and you can't understand what
happened to them. I mean, they, if they would
have had government controls, they'd never be
where they are today. But still this is what
they're after, and I can't understand their
thinking.

5. Feelings about Worker Unionization

 

The Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur is adamant in his
opposition to unionization by agricultural workers. He
would either change his enterprise so that it could be
totally mechanized or would cease to Operate rather than
deal with unionized agricultural labor.

Again, he feels that this would be an infringement
upon his autonomy and would oppose this infringement with
the only tools he has, those Of his enterprise-—which he

would modify so that it did not require additional labor-—

A8

or he would retreat entirely and cease to operate. The
views Of one respondent are:

I have never been for unions. Unions have their
place, but they have definitely overstepped their
bounds in industry. They will do the same in
agriculture. We have no way of stopping them.

Our way of life says that everybody is entitled
to their own freedom of worship and anything else,
and the union can be considered this. Now, when
it gets to the point where the union tells the
owners how to run their business, then to me they
have gone too far. True, we need workers, but they
need employment--but to say labor should rule and
run the business, this is out.

If agricultural labor unionizes and it gets to the
point where I cannot manage it or handle it, both
physically or cost-wise, because it is definitely
continually getting higher priced, and other, or
such as workmens comp and so forth going on, social
security rates going up, to the point where our
commodities will not pay for it. I still have a
bulldozer, the trees will come out, I can go into
crops that can be harvested with machines.
C. Labor Management
The Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur would be characterized
as being very conservative and traditional in his labor
management style. Since he places a high level or reli-
ance upon his own abilities, he is unwilling to share
decision-making or the supervision of labor with anyone
else. He does not feel that anyone else can do the job
the way he would want it done. He will place himself at
a location in the organization Of the work flow so that
he can exert maximum direct control over all phases of
the operation but specifically he will place himself so

that he has direct control over employees. He will

directly make corrections of mistakes and/or errors made

A9

by the employees rather than have an intermediary assume
this responsibility. Because of his present time orien-
tation, he will not plan ahead for his labor needs and
will not contact his harvest crew prior to the time of
the harvest. He may also be said to be extremely pater—
nalistic in his relations with his employees. He will
treat them as if they were children and do not have the
ability to make decisions concerning their own course of
action. Following from this, he will be extremely hostile
towards individuals or groups of employees who do not
adhere to his dictates in regard to their personal con—
duct and he will Openly resent any attempt towards inde-
pendence shown by their employees.
1. Location of the Farmer durinngarvest

The physical location of the farmer during the har—
vest Operation is one that must be appropriately con-
sidered. The Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer would locate
himself directly at the scene of the harvest. He would
assume the supervision Of the harvest crew, even though
he may have already retained someone, such as a crew
leader, whom he is technically paying to supervise the
harvest crew.

He is not willing to relinquish this portion of
responsibility and authority to anyone else since he is
unwilling to trust anyone but himself. He also feels

responsible for correcting any mistakes or errors the

50

harvest crew makes while it is picking. He is not willing
to go through an intermediary, such as another family
member, full—time employee, or the crew leader, but feels
that it is his responsibility to correct the error. One
respondent put it this way:

I just can't trust anybody else out in the field.
The pickers would ruin me if I weren't on top of
them all the time. I put in nearly a whole year
getting the crop ready for harvest and they could
put me out of business in a few days if they didn't
pick the stuff right.

There is a leader that comes here with the crew,
and I pay him a good wage, but he don't watch the
quality like I want it done. The only way I can
get what I want is to be out there in the field
checking on the pickers myself.

2. Chain of Command

 

Due to his lack Of trust of others, the Rigid Entre-
preneurial Farmer does not develop a chain of command,
even though he may have others in his employ who are cap-
able of participating in a chain of command. As charac-
terized earlier in this presentation, he is unwilling to
share his autonomy and authority with anyone. He will not
divest himself of any of the responsibility for giving
orders, such as sharing this with other family members,
full-time employees, or a crew leader who may be in his
employ. He will tend not to hire a crew with a crew
leader since this would pose a threat to his absolute
line of authority and he definitely is not willing to
share decision—making in relation to the firm with any-

one else.

51

He considers himself to be totally self-sufficient
with regard to making all decisions about his firm; he
assumes total responsibility for issuing any orders and/or
instructions that he deems necessary. The response of
one respondent summed up this attitude:
It's my farm and nobody's going to run it but me.
I just can't trust nobody else to boss the crew,
as soon as you give them a inch they take a
mile--pretty soon you can't even run your own
farm anymore!

3. Relationship with Migrant Crew

Since our Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer tends not to
hire crews to harvest his crops but rather hires individ—
uals or families that may come to him, he will have a high
labor turn-over from year to year. Also, because of his
lack of willingness to share decision-making and super-
vision with others and his direct involvement in the cor-
rection of mistakes or errors, he is likely to have a
negative effect on his employees' satisfaction in working
for him.

We also will find that the Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur
does not plan ahead and, consequently, is content to
recruit his harvest crew during the harvest season. He
is not willing to make commitments ahead of time to poten-
tial employees so he does not contact any of his poten—
tial migrant workers during the winter. He feels that

those workers who were happy in working for him will

return of their own accord and any contact he might make

52

with those workers who had performed satisfactorily for
him the previous year would be forcing him to make a com-
mitment that he is unwilling to make. The response of

one respondent to the question of how he obtained his har-

vest help was: "I just pick them up wherever I can get
them whether they're migrant labor or what." Another
respondent stated: "I just go downtown--you'll always see

somebody walking around looking for work. This way I don't
owe anybody anything--If they want to work I got a job for
them, if they don't, I'll look some more.".

A. Decisions in Regard to Migrant or Seasonal Labor

 

As pointed out above, the Rigid Entrepreneurial
Farmer does not plan ahead as a matter of principle. He
is unwilling to make a commitment to labor ahead of time
since he is unsure of crop conditions and is afraid of the
obligations with which he will be faced if he should have
a larger crew than he requires when the harvest time
arrives. Consequently, he will generally respond to the
question "When do you determine the amount of labor needed
for the upcoming season?" by saying, "When I see how big
the crop will be!" For the recruitment of his harvest
crew he depends entirely upon personal contact with mi-
grants, usually at some local community center, or upon
those who might stop at the farm asking for work. He
ignores the established State Employment Service and does
not make prior contact with workers who have performed

satisfactorily for him in the past.

53

He feels that those workers who like him as a person
will come back to him another year and that there is
nothing that he can do to make working for him more attrac-
tive than working for someone else. A reflection of this
may be seen in his attitude toward wages. His general
response here might be that "If I pay as well or better
than the next man, I'll have all the crew I need." He
does not perceive improved working or housing conditions
nor improved fringe benefits such as hospitalization insur—
ance as being of any benefit to him in recruiting or re-
taining a crew.

5. EmployeefRelations

The Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer tends to be pater-
nalistic in his relations with his employees. He treats
his employees as if they might be part of his family. He
feels that they are somewhat childlike or immature and
should be treated accordingly. He is concerned about
guiding them along the "right" path and may see himself
as a father-figure to his workers and thus he has to pro-
tect them from the temptations of the outside world. He
is generally critical of the way his employees spend
their money and Often will comment on their "continual
trading in junk cars" or the fact that they are always
broke the day after payday and have to come to him for ad.
advance to buy groceries.

He is not willing to share decision-making about

his enterprise with anyone, nor is he willing to share

5A

supervision responsibility. Likewise, it may be said that
he would like to assume the responsibility for the indi—
vidual conduct of his workers and feels deeply hurt when
they do not respond to his proffered guidance and counsel.
One respondent put it this way:

The minute they get here they are chasing after

you--They come knocking at your door wanting to

borrow a dollar, a dozen eggs, or a loaf of bread.

We pay off the crew on Friday night and Sunday

morning the parade starts in--a loaf of bread, a

pound of hamburg, a dozen eggs--they just can't

handle money.
Or, as put by another respondent:

I told them they could make more money here and

have a free house and everything, but they just

wouldn't listen, they moved on. They just don't

seem to have no sense.
D. The Farm as a Firm

The firm of the Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer is the

result of his Farm Management Style and his contact with
the larger community. Consequently, if his farm manage-
ment style can be characterized as being static, so can
the firm. The firm will be stable or declining in size;
there will be no plans to make new plantings or switch to
more acceptable varieties; there will be no plans to pur-
chase new or improved equipment and the Rigid Entrepre—
neurial Farmer will not be planning for the future by his
involvement in bargaining organizations or other groups
that might enhance his position in the market place. This
type Of firm can best be illustrated by the statement of

one of our respondents:

55

To me, farming is a way of life. I don't have no

truck with all those organizations that want you

to join to make farming better. My place is big

enough for me and I get by. Some years I make out

better than others, but then with the weather and

the market the way it is, you can't expect to have

a good year every year. A lot of my neighbors have

gone out and borrowed money to buy new machinery,

or plant new orchards, but not me. I just can't

see going into debt for anything with the future

so uncertain. No sir, I'll hang on and get by.

Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farm Firms
In this section we will deal with the second Of the

constructed types in this study, that of the Adaptive Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm. The Rigid Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
discussed in the last section and the Adaptive Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm to be discussed in this section represent polar
types. It must be remembered that these polar types do not
exist in reality but are heuristic devices only and their
utility may be found in the development of a better under-
standing of empirical reality. All cases included in this
study will deviate from these constructed polar types, but
their placement on the Rigid-Adaptive continuum (to be dis—
cussed in Chapter III) will aid in understanding the be-
havior of the Farmer Entrepreneur and his relationships

with his employees.

A. Social Participation

 

While the Rigid Entrepreneurial Farmer was charac-
terized as being a "localite" in Mertonian terminology,
the Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer may be characterized
as being "Cosmopolitan" in character. The individual who

assumes this latter entrepreneurial role may be said to

56

be future-oriented and concerned with happenings beyond
his own locality. He realizes that decisions made in
other parts of the country or the world will have a direct
effect upon him as well as his enterprise. He is willing
to give his energy, resources, and abilities in an attempt
to favorably influence decisions that may affect his firm.

He is a joiner in the best American tradition and
looks to organizations as the vehicle for multiplying his
influence upon the larger world.

1. Member of a Farm Organization

Our Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer will be a member
of at least one of the general farm organizations, and he
may well be an officer at the local, regional, state, or
national level. He looks to the general farm organization
as a vehicle for making his wants and desires known in the
places where policy decisions might be made that would
affect his enterprise or where legislation affecting his
enterprise is being enacted.

Henwy participate in and reap some benefit from the
many services that are offered by the general farm organi-
zations today, but his prime purpose for membership is to
provide a pipeline to the seats of power that might affect
his enterprise. He will tend to downgrade the "fringe
benefits" offered by the general farm organizations since
he will shop for these goods and services in the market

I place and purchase them where he can gain the greatest

57

advantage. This might be from the general farm organi—
zation or it might be from some other commercial source.
2. Member of Fraternal or Social Organization

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer will continue
his "joiner" tradition by being a member of one or more
social or fraternal organizations. He will regard these
organizations as providing contacts that may make it pos-
sible for him to enhance his business enterprise, both
locally and within the larger geographical sphere. These
organizations also supply an opportunity to perform pub-
lic service which he sees as his responsibility.

He will view his investment of time and energy in
these organizations as an investment in his enterprise,
since he will be seeking ways to maximize the benefits
from the contacts that he makes through these organizations.

3. Member of Michigan Horticultural Society,
Commodity Organization, or COOperative

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer definitely will
be a member of these organizations. He looks to the
Michigan Horticultural Society both as a knowledge source
and as a pressure group that is constituted to enhance
his own specific interest and feels that his participation
in this organization is vital to not only the welfare of
his individual firm but to all horticultural enterprises
in Michigan.

In addition, he will be an active member of any

commodity organization that represents crOps he is raising

58

and will regard it as a vehicle for enhancing the market
for his produce, influencing prices, and/or creating a
more favorable public image for his particular crop. He
will view his membership in various cooperatives in many
of the same ways, if they are constituted to market a crop
or bargain with processors for prices. ‘In addition, if
the cooperative purchases goods or supplies, he will con-
sider it as one source when deciding where to purchase the
goods and supplies required in his enterprise. In discus-
sing his involvement in commodity organizations, one res-
pondent states:

It is high time that we as growers combine our
efforts through commodity or bargaining organi-
zations if we are going to be able to get an
equitable return for our produce. I have been
involved in commodity organizations that bargain
with processors for the crops I raise since their
very beginning, in fact I have served on the board
of directors of one of these organizations for the
past several years. I feel that if I am ever
going to get better treatment in the market, it

is up to me to help do something about it. By
working through commodity organizations I see that
we as producers are able to control enough of the
production of a particular commodity so that we
can bargain realistically with processors.

B. Farm Management.

 

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer may be charac-
terized as being very innovative in his farm management
style. In Danhof's terminology, he could be character-
ized as being an "Innovative Entrepreneur." It will be
remembered that Danhof defined this type of entrepreneur

as one who is "characterized by aggressive assemblage of

 

59

information and analysis of results from novel combinations
of factors."19 He may be characterized as the operator of
a firm who is not only articulating to the changing needs
of the market place but one who is anticipating these
changes and attempting to organize his enterprise so that
he might capitalize upon them. He would be the individual
who would be operating in the futures market for the com-
modities he raises, if such a market existed. He is the
individual who would be beating on the doors of academic
as well as commercial researchers to ferret out production
technology and cultural practice information that might
benefit his enterprise before it becomes general public
knowledge. He is the type of individual who would be
willing to capitalize his enterprise so that he would be
in a position to take advantage of perceived and predicted
changes within the production and/or market system.
1. Farm Management Style

The management style of this individual could be
best characterized as "dynamic," one that is changing con-
tinually with the changing demands of the market place as
well as with production technology. It is the style of
management as concerned about next year, or five years
from now, as it is with today. The Adaptive Entrepre-
neurial Farmer continually is re-evaluating his position

and making changes in his enterprise that will allow him

 

19Danhof, p. 23.

60

to be competitive at some future time. The story of one
of the respondents in this study illustrates this perspec-
tive on management. The respondent said:

We have been replanting to dwarf apple stock so

that we can cut down on labor requirements. By

planting in hedge-rows we not only get more trees

per acre, but cut down on our pruning and spraying

labor and will all but eliminate additional labor

at harvest time.

Also, we have gotten into the fancy apple trade.

We used to market most of our crop through proces-

sors or over the auction, but a few years ago we

decided that we should capitalize on the good

quality of our fruit. We have built up a trade

that now takes most of our crop as fancy apples,

and what's more--we don't wait until the crop is

harvested to sell it-—we have signed contracts at

a specified deliVered price six months prior to

harvest time.
2. Adoption of Innovations

The Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur is not only the

"Early Adopter" of innovations; in many instances he is
.the "creator of innovations." Through his future orien-
tation and his intimate knowledge of both the production
and market systems that relate to his type of enterprise,
he may be able to predict needed changes required to keep
his enterprise in a competitive position or give it some
advantage over others. Through this knowledge he will be
better equipped to anticipate needed changes in his own
operation and, consequently, may take.it upon himself to
create the innovation required to place his operation in
the desired position, or he may employ someone to create

the innovation for him. He will look to innovations in

61

not only production technology but to changes in the organ-
izational structure of his enterprise as well. He may
even go so far as to create a market system that will be
able to capitalize upon some unique characteristic of his
own enterprise.
3. Contact with Knowledge Sources

The Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur will avail himself
of all public or private knowledge sources. In the public
sphere, he will develop close contact with university-based
researchers who deal with the problems of his enterprise
not only at the Land Grant University in his own state but
in other states where similar work also is being done.
He will have direct contact with many of the key researchers
and he will have the ability to translate their research
findings directly into formulae for application to his own
enterprise.

Rather than looking to the Cooperative Extension
Staff for direct service, he probably will look to them as
a liaison group which has the ability to Open doors to
researchers and others at the Land Grant University who
could benefit him directly. He will develop a close per-
sonal relationship with Cooperative Extension Personnel
since he views this relationship as one which will be
able to benefit his enterprise at some future date. It
is this type of agricultural entrepreneur who will pro-

vide pressure on the university-based researcher to

62

investigate some problem that might be specific to his
type of enterprise, and in many instances he may also
provide or locate the resources to underwrite the costs
of this research. As indicated by one respondent:
I know that this TelFarm is really a research pro-
ject for those Ag Economists up at State, but since
I joined the project and got accurate records on
my own farm, it sure helped me to clean out some
of my dead enterprises. Take peaches for instance.
I like to grow peaches and we have always been able
to sell them good, but those TelFarm records showed
that those peaches were stealing me blind--so this
spring I jerked them all out and I'm going to re-
plant to apples, that's what the Ag Economists up
at State as well as those Hort guys down at the
Sodus Experiment Station say will be real big for
us in this area.
A. Feelings about Group Bargaining for Better Prices
As indicated by participation and membership in
numerous organizations that might have a hand in bar-
gaining for better prices for commodities raised by the
Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer, it is apparent that he
is highly in favor of this practice. He will lend his
full support to any effort he deems legitimate and will
assume leadership in the effort, if required. He per-
ceives the long-range benefits of group bargaining as
being of special benefit to his enterprise since this
will provide him with higher predictability in regard to
the future, thus making it possible for him to do more
realistic long-range planning.
When asked about his reaction to group bargaining

for better prices, one respondent said:

63

Well, I certainly think that as a group the growers

need someone to bargain for them. As individuals

it's useless to try to bargain with the processors.

I think that's a lesson that we've seemed not to

learn, but I think it's essential that we have an

organization to represent us at the bargaining

table.
In addition to his feelings about the essentialness of
group bargaining, the Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer is
the type of individual who would be capable of initiating
a movement to form a bargaining organization if there
were none already in existence, or he might be the person
to lead a movement to force a presently existing but
ineffectual bargaining organization to change it policies
and/or personnel so that it might be more effective.
5. Feelings about Worker Unionization

The Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur is looking forward

to the unionization of agricultural workers since this
will give him a more structured situation within which
to work. He perceives the Union organization as assuming
some of the responsibility for employees that he now has,
and he is willing to pay for this. He feels that it will
make his enterprise a more efficient one, one that can be
more flexible, if he is able to unload some of his pres-
ent responsibilities. He sees the union as providing
the means to formalize wage and grievance procedures with
employees, thus providing him with more predictable,
structured situations with which he can deal rather than

the individualistic, erratic situation which exists in

most loose-knit organizations, such as farms.

 

6A

If big labor comes around and wants to organize

farm workers and stand behind the organization,

I'm gonna say-~let's sit down and get this thing

started. But, if church groups or other such

outfits come around who don't represent the

working man, there's gonna be trouble.

With the union standing behind the workers I can

sit down with their bargaining agent, talk to

their stewards and whatnot and I can tell me just

what it's gonna cost me to bring a crop in. Now

I'll have to guarantee so much, but the union will

have to guarantee me a crew. With this kind of

guarantee and knowing what my costs are gonna be,

I can deal with the processor in a more realistic

manner and be able to predict if I will be able

to eat steak next winter, or if it's gonna be

another winter of beans.
C. Labor Management

The Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur may be character-
ized as being very liberal and progressive in his labor
management style. He will utilize every opportunity to
involve the employees in relevant decisions and will
create a climate in which the employees will feel free
to express feelings in regard to the work situation. He
will have established a hierarchial chain of command and
this chain of command will be well understood by the
workers. He will expect workers to take grievances and
suggestions to the proper person in the chain of com-
mand, but he also will be open to direct suggestions
from the workers themselves.
He will not be directly responsible for training

workers and/or correcting mistakes that they make but
will have delegated this responsibility, along with

appropriate authority, to someone else in his employ.

65

Since he is future oriented he will begin making
plans for securing a harvest crew very early. He will
make contact with desirable crews or individuals during
the winter to make certain they will be on his farm when
harvest time arrives. In addition to informal contact
with these workers, he will rely upon the services of the
relevant State Employment Services to formalize his con-
tract with the employees. His style of labor management
may be characterized as open, that is, democratic, bar-
gaining, and rational. He will consider the employees as
individuals and respect their human dignity. He will be
open to their suggestions and comments and will attempt
to create the most desirable working conditions possible
within the limits of the situation placed upon him by
external forces.

1. Location of the Farmer during Harvest

 

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer will spend a
limited amount of time in the field during the harvest.
He will not supervise the crew directly nor assume direct
responsibility for correcting mistakes made by the harvest
crew. He will place himself in some other position that
will allow him more flexibility in dealing with the total
enterprise. He could not justify expending all of his
energy on just one phase of the enterprise while his
attention is required on numerous other phases at the

same time. One respondent put it this way:

66

I've got to be flexible. I try to spend as much
time at the phone during harvest season as I can,
because that's how I do my selling. But when I
leave to run out to see how the harvest crew is
coming, check on things down at the packing shed,
or chase down some repair parts, I'm always in
contact with the home base with my CB radio-—I've
got to keep in constant touch with all phases of
the Operation so that the crew leader with the
harvest crew, the foreman of the packing shed, or
my spray man can have their crew doing what is
going to be making the most money for all of us.

2. Chain of Command

 

A chain of command definitely would be present on
the farm operation of the Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer.
Even if the enterprise is quite small, he will set up
some hierarchy so that he will not be required to make
"all" decisions. He feels that it is not only to his
own benefit to share decision-making with others, but it
also enhances their position and ego-satisfaction, thereby
creating a tighter-knit work force.

If the operation or harvest crew is of sufficient
size, he will hire a foreman or, more likely, a crew with
a crew leader to harvest his crops. He will deal speci-
fically with the foreman or crew leader in relation to
problems of the harvest and will not have any direct con-
tact of a supervisory nature with members Of the harvest
crew.

3. Relationship with Migrant Crew

 

Because of his policy of shared decision-making,
the work climate on the farm of the Adaptive Entrepre-

neurial Farmer is likely to be such that employees find

67

it a desirable place to work. Consequently, there will be
a high rate of return each year among the members of the
migrant crews. Another factor leading to this high rate
of return is the fact that our Adaptive Entrepreneurial
Farmer uses all available means of maintaining contact
with his desirable individuals and crews throughout the
year. He will contact them not only by mail or phone
periodically during the winter but also will utilize the
formalized channels of the various State Employment Serv-
ices to maintain his contact.
Although he may be reluctant to advance money for
transportation or other reasons, he will generally do so
to insure the return of desirable crews each year. One
respondent said:
I kid around a lot with the crew. I ask "do you
think that we should pick this block or that block
of tomatoes--do you think the melons are ready yet?"
This gives the crew the feeling that they have some
say in where they work.
Then, too, we write back and forth all winter, some-
times on my way to Florida in the winter I'll stop
Off and visit with some of them. You know--those
people in my crew are the sons, daughters, and
other kin of the crew that started coming to work
for me 20 years ago.

A. Decisions in Regard to Migrant or Seasonal Labor

Because of the future orientation of the Adaptive
Entrepreneurial Farmer he will determine his harvest labor
needs early in the winter and make contact with the crews

he found desirable the previous season. He will utilize

all channels available to him to assure him an adequate

68

supply of labor for the upcoming season. As pointed out
above, he will utilize the services of the relevant State
Employment Services along with more personal forms of
contact, such as phone or mail, and in some instances he
may even personally visit the prospective workers at their
winter residence.

He will avail himself of all possible opportunities
to make working for him and his firm a desirable experience
so that favored employees will return year after year. He
will provide fringe benefits in the form of various insurance
programs that are not generally provided to other agricul—
tural workers; he will provide housing that is above aver—
age; he will provide other amenities such as recreation
facilities near the housing area; and, most of all, he will
relate to the workers in a way that conveys his concern and
interest in them as people.

5. Employee Relations

While the Rigid Farmer Entrepreneur could be charac-
terized as being paternalistic in his relations with
employees, the Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur might be char—
acterized as being open (rational, democratic, bargaining)
in his relations with employees. He treats them as indi-
viduals and respects their individual dignity and is open
to discuss working conditions, wages, and other problems
which the employee might be having with the job. Because

of his belief in sharing decision-making with others and

69

his established chain of command, there is opportunity
for employees to feel that they have a stake in the busi-
ness and may tend to be more open, realistic, and honest
in their dealings with the Farmer Entrepreneur.

Because of his concern for his employees, he will
be active in creating a climate in his community that
will not be hostile to the seasonal workers who come to
his farm and he also will utilize his influence to have
special services that might be required by these employees
made available at the community level. An indication of
one approach to bargaining utilized by one grower is:

I used to always have pickers grumbling about the
pay. Then about three years ago I got together
with this crew leader and said "I'm willing to pay
a fair wage and pay as much as the next man, but
how can we stop the grumbling?" Well we talked it
over and came up with this idea of a guaranteed
price for each unit picked, and then if the price
for picking went above this during the season in
the community my pickers would be paid this dif-
ference above their minimum guarantee and it would
be retroactive to the first lug they pick. Haven't
had any grumbling about pay since.

D. The Farm as a Firm

 

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farm Frim will be a
reflection of the managememt style and orientation to the
larger world of the Farmer Entrepreneur. The firm might
be characterized as being "dynamic," that is, adjusting
to the changes that are required to not only maintain the
firm but aggrandize it as well.

Through the future orientation of the Adaptive

LEntrepreneurial Farmer, the firm continually will be

70

adjusted to meet the projected changes in the market place,
to capitalize on new production technology, or to take
advantage of new organizational arrangements.

For this type Of firm, "change" might well be added
to the Old adage of those things that we are sure Of--Death,
Taxes, and "Change." The optimism of one of our respondents
shows through:

Sometimes I can't sleep nights thinking about the
future. I get all excited and see this fruit busi-
ness as kind of a big game. What is the consumer
gonna want, what shape will the processor want it
in, what varieties will do best here in my area,
where can I get the best rate on a loan . . . It
is exciting and so far I have been pretty lucky.
I've guessed right more Often than not and so I'm
ahead for now. I can see a great future for the
fruit business in our part of the country, and
you know, the way the population is expanding,
they're gonna eat a lot more fruit 5 years from
now than they are now. That's why I'm planting
every acre I can lay my hands on--I want to be
right in the middle of things from here on, not
just a hanger on.

 

CHAPTER III
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL FARM FIRM CONTINUUM

In the development Of the constructed Rigid and
Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farm Firms in the last chapter,
the unique characteristics of these firms were indicated.
There were four major subdivisions to the constructed
type: Social Participation, Farm Management, Labor Man-
agement, and the Farm as a Firm. Under these four major
subdivisions twenty three variables were identified from
the data in the larger study. Following the constructed
typology, each of the Entrepreneurial Farm Firms included
in the study was scored as being either Rigid or Adap-
tive on each of the selected variables. The variables and
their dichotomization are shown on the following page.

The variables on which the farmer or the firm could
be characterized as being Rigid were scored as 0 while
those variables on which the farmer or the firm might be
characterized as being Adaptive were given a score of 1.
Following this procedure we would have each farm firm
included in the study being assigned a score from 0 to
23. The actual distribution of scores ranged from A to

19. This distribution is presented in Table l.

71

72

 

Rigid Characteristic

Variable

Adaptive Characteristic

 

No

No

No

Static
Two or
less
One or
none

None
None

No
NO

Neutral,
disfavor,
N.R.
Neutral,
disfavor,
N.R.

Stays in field to
directly supervise
harvest

Farmer himself
25% or less
Workers come to
farmer asking for

work, processor sup-
plies workers, etc.

Farmer himself

No
Liability only

May 31 or earlier

Loan money or makes
monetary advance

Paternal

Static

Social Participation

 

Member of a farm organization

Member of a social or fraternal
organization

Member of Michigan Horticultural
Society, Commodity Organization, or
Cooperative -

Farm Management

 

Farm Management Style

Number of pieces
purchased in

of new machinery
last two years

Number of new chemicals used in
last two years

Number Of new plants and seeds used

in last two years

Number of new harvest techniques used
in last two years

Contact with MSU Experiment Station
with FSU

Contact Extension Service

Feelings toward group bargaining
toward worker unionization

Feelings

Labor

Location of farmer during harvest

:‘-;anagez:ient

 

Who corrects picking errors

3 of migrant crew returning each year

How does farmer get an adequate supply
of labor

Who supervises picking (chain of command)

Does farmer share decision-making

Fringe benefits offered (insurance)

When does farmer determine labor needs
for upcoming season ‘

What techniques does farmer use to
keep workers coming back

Employee Relations
Farm ae a Firm

Farm as a Firm

Yes

Yes

Yes

Dynamic
Three or
more

Two or
more

One or
more

One or
more

Yes
Yes

Favor

Favor

Is involved in
other tasks on
or Off farm

Someone other
than farmer

26%

Uses Employ-
ment Service,
employs a re-
cruiter, con-
tacts crew
leader directly

01" more

Someone other
than farmer

Yes

Liability +
other forms of
insurance

June 1 or later

Contact during
winter, pay
better wage,
treat right
while they are
here

Open

Dynamic

 

73

TABLE l.--Distribution of 23 variable Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm scores.

 

Score Number of Respondents

 

’_l

[—1
I'\)
I—‘
i—‘I—‘WtWI—‘NtNNNONUON-EN

2
II
N
N

 

Over 50 per cent of the scores cluster between 9 and
12, as might be expected in a normal distribution. Actually,
when depicted graphically (Figure l) the distribution tends
to show some irregularity which may be attributed to the
small sample size. To determine whether each of the 23
variables included in the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm score
was making an adequate contribution to the total score and
to the sub-score of which it is a part (Social Participation--
3 variables; Farm Management—-9 variables; Labor Management--
10 variables) each variable was correlated with the total
score and with its sub-score.

With an N of 77 the 5 per cent level of significance

for the coefficient of correlation would be .227 while the

7A

14 IF-qt
13
12 .

r
11

10

9

Number 8

of
Respond-7 L___J IL._‘

ents I
6 .r_1

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 HT

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 A S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score
Figure l.--Graphic representation of the distrib-

ution of the 23 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score.

75

l per cent level of significance would be .296. When
coefficients of correlation for the 23 variables that make
up the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score are reviewed, we find
that a number Of them fall below the .227, or 5 per cent,
level of significance. They are: Member of a farm organi—
zation; Member of a social or fraternal organization; Con-
tact with M.S.U. Extension Service; Feelings toward group
bargaining; Feeling toward worker unionization; How does
the farmer get an adequate supply of labor; Fringe benefits
(insurance); and What technique does farmer use to keep
workers coming back.

However, at a different level of analysis we may view
the correlation of each of these variables with its sub-
score. The reasoning followed here is that if the variable
is highly correlated with its sub-score it will be a strong
variable within the total score, even though it may not be
as highly correlated to the total score. Therefore, those
variables that are not highly correlated with their sub-
score (significant at the l per cent level) should be
dropped from the total score. Of those variables men-
tioned above, all but two meet these criteria: Feelings
toward worker unionization, and Fringe benefits (insur-
ance). Consequently, these two variables were dropped
from the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

The new distribution, then, for the 21 variable

score is presented in Table 2. Depicted graphically as

76

in Figure 2 it is interesting to note that the total distri-
bution resembles in general that found for the 23 variable
score. In both cases it is probably the relatively small

N that is responsible for the lack of a more normal distri-
bution. It will be noted in Table 3 that where the 23 and
the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Scores are com-
pared for each Farm Firm, in no case is there a difference
greater than one point between the 23 variable and the 21
variable score.

TABLE 2.—-Distribution of 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Scores.

.-
—-

 

Score Number of Respondents

A 3
5 A
6 l
7 A
8 9
9 9
10 10
ll 7
l2 12
13 5
1A 2
15 3
l6 3
17 A
18 1
N=77

 

When considering the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Score, there are still a number of variables with
coefficients of correlation below the .227, the 5 per cent

level of significance when the contribution of that variable

14

13

12 ‘F-fi'

11

10 ‘
9 .

Number 8
of
Respond-7
ents

 

 

6

 

5 .._.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score

Figure 2.--Graphic representation of the distrib-
ution of the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score.' '

78

TABLE 3.-—1ndividua1 farm firms and their Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Scores.

 

 

23 Variable 21 Variable 23 Variable 21 Variable
Farm # Seure Score Farm A Score Score
1 '2 11 A1 16 16
2 17 17 A; 10 15
3 13 1; - A3 lb 16
A 11 11 AA 5 5
5 O :7, I,» 5 5
6 A A An 9 8
7 l 1» 17 B 8
8 IE) I"1 ‘I3 5 8
9 15 , 1A “9 9 9
10 5 A so 9 8
11 11 1 51 13 12
12 12 12 92 A A
13 12 12 93 10 10
l“ 5 2 5A 13 13
15 9 1 Sb 7 7
lo 10 J 56 8 8
17 17 17 57 10 10
18 12 1; 9% 12 11
19 13 13 5; 11 ll
20 2 11 no 1A 1A
21 9 9 t1 lo 10
22 15 15 OZ 19 18
23 lo 16 63 9 9
211 1.: 17'" CHI 9 9
25 10 1O 65 13 13
27 8 7 t7 2 12
28 13 12 68 9 9
29 17 17 69 10 10
3O 10 10 7C 9 9
31 o o 71 11 10
2 ll 10 72 7 7
33 lb 17 73 12 2
3A '2 12 7A 2 12
35 13 13 75 9 9
36 7 7 76 9 8
37 12 2 77 9 8
38 8 8
39 8 8
A0 11 lo

 

79

to the total score is considered. These variables are the
same ones that fell below the .05 per cent level of sig-
nificance on the 23 variable score, minus the two variables
that were dropped. However, the major change was that in
the 21 variable score, the contribution of each variable to
the sub-score was generally raised. This comparison may be
viewed by an inspection of Table A where the coefficients
of correlation for the 23 variable and the 21 variable
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Scores and their sub-scores are
presented.
It also must be remembered that these Entrepreneurial

Farm Firm Scores were derived from the operationalization
of a Constructed Type. As indicated earlier, the Con-
structed Type is a heuristic device and One cannot expect
to find it in reality. Consequently, the variation from
the normal would be expected, especially in a sample as
small as the one utilized for this study. We will recall
that McKinney stated that the manifest function of the
constructed type is to:

identify, simplify, and order the concrete data

so that they may be described in terms that make

them comparable. . . . In effect, a type consti-

tutes a reduction from the complex to the simple;

hence the careful construction and use of types,

as an intermediate procedure, can potentially

make many large—scale problems accessible to more

refined methodology and technique. . . . Indeed,

a primary role of the constructed type would seem

to be that of a sensitizing device. Its use al-

lows social scientists cognitively to map broad

areas of social phenomena through the systemati-
cal tapping of historical and secondary data.1

 

lMcKinney, p. 216.

8C)

TABLE A.--Corre1atlun coefficients for variables in the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
score and their c ntributlon to the sub-scores.

 

Entrepreneurial Sub-Score
”arm Firm Score Coefficient
Variable Coefficient of of
(hirrelzitlon (hyrrelan:ion

23 21 23 21
1,’ .' Y

variable Variable Variable Variable
fiyuPe Score Score Score

 

SOCIAL PARTICIPATIOL

Member of a Farm Organization .225 .297 .655 .655
Member of a Social or Fraternal Crganization .032 .016 .637
Member of Michigan Horticultural Society,

Community organization or Cooperative .AJO .392 .587 .586
FARM MANAGEMENT

Farm Management Style .591 .598 .556 .556
Number of pieces of new machinery purchased

in last two years .353 .350 .382 .39A

Number of new chemicals used in last two

years .BJA ._1; .A78 .A73
Number of new plants and seems used in

last two years .Auy .AlA .603 .605

I - ‘.,.,.,- 4 ,,v..:e, , -,
.lumber‘(3f new Iriiuecfit -e.in1.ques imped 1:;

last two years .A57 .A59 .A96 -509
Contact with M.S.U. Experiment Station .3Al .535 .A9“ .600
Contact with M.S.U. Extension Service .123 .1A5 .282 .278
Feelings toward Group Bargaining .20] .202 .323 .307
Feelings toward worker unitnisation —.OA1 --— .081 --—

LABOR MANAGEMENT

Location of farmer during harvest .25A .251 .A62 .A63
Who corrects picking errors .855 .A79 .688 .707

% Migrants returning each year .297 .31A .271 .316

How do you get an adequate supply f
labor .179 .173 .298 .289

A22 .u53
A78 .526
203 ---

C1

F4
R.)
\O
O‘\

Who supervises picking, (chain of command) .2.

1—‘
\1'.
O
1:—
U.)
0

Does farmer share decision—making

H
\H)
—\1
I
l
I
o

Fringe benefits (insurance) .

When do you determine labor needs for
upcoming season .263 .258 .3Al .32A

What techniques does farmer use to keep
workers coming back .113 .110 .328 .328

Employee relations .522 .508 .A97 .A78
FARM AS A FIRM
Farm as a Firm .606 .60A --- —-—

 

81

In the following chapter we will utilize the 21 variable
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score as the dependent variable
in a test of a series of structural variables. Following
this, we will extract those items from the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm Score that seem to be the most powerful indica-
tors and construct a second score which may be more par-
simonious and perhaps a stronger score than that exhibited

in the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

CHAPTER IV

STRUCTURAL FACTORS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
FARM FIRMS

In this chapter the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score
will be treated as the dependent variable in a series of
hypotheses utilizing various structural factors, or var-
iables, as the independent variable. Structural factors
may be defined as those factors imposed upon the farmer
and his firm by the social structure within which it oper-
ates, or as characteristics over which the individual farmer
has little or no control, such as age or educational level.
While some would not consider age or educational level as
structural variables, they are considered as such in this
study because they place the individual at a definite place
within the social structure; thus they become structural
within this context. It may be pointed out that some of
these factors may be changed over time, such as level of
capitalization or number of locations farmed, but they are
considered to be relatively stable for the purposes of
this study.

The structural factors to be considered as the inde—
pendent variables in this and the next chapter are: Size

of Farm, Farmer's Relation to the Land, Number of Locations

82

83

Farmed, Education, Having a Full—Time Hired Man, Capitali-
zation Level, Age, Number of Years the Farmer has Farmed,
and whether or not he is a Full-Time Farmer. These varia-
bles have found wide usage in the study of adoption of
innovation,1 in looking at the phenomena of full—time versus
part-time farmer,2 in the investigation of the small busi—

3

ness entrepreneur, and in the study of employer-employee

relations in industry.“
Since the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score is a reflec-
tion of the influence of the farmer entrepreneur on the farm

firm, it may be expected that it will be highly correlated

with the management ability of the farmer entrepreneur.

 

lAlfred Dean, Herbert A. Aurbach, and C. Paul Marsh,
"Some Factors Related to Rationality in Decision Making
among Farm Operators," Rural Sociology, Vol. 23 (June, 1958),
pp. 121-35.

Rex R. Campbell, "A Suggested Paradigm of the Indi-
vidual Adoption Process," Rural Sociology, Vol. 31 (Decem-
ber, 1966), pp. “58-66.

 

 

2George A. Donohue, "Full-Time and Part-Time Farmers'
Value Orientations Toward Social Institutions," Rural
Sociology, Vol. 22 (September, 1957), pp. 221-29.

Glenn V. Fugitt, "A Typology of the Part-Time Farmer,"
Rural Sociology, Vol. 26 (March, 1961), pp. 39-48.

 

 

3Norman R. Smith, The Entrepreneur and His Firm:
The Relationship Between Type of Man and Type of Company,
(EaSt Lansing: Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State
University, 1967).

Orvis F. Collins and David G. Moore, with Darab B.
Unwalla, The Enterprising Man (East Lansing: Bureau of
Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Michigan State University, 1964).

 

 

 

“Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1961).

84

Our purpose here is to determine the relationship of this
score with the various factors that impinge upon the farmer
entrepreneur in the performance of his entrepreneurial
role.

For the purposes of this study, correlational analy-
sis will be used. With an N of 77, significance at the
.05 per cent level is .227 while at the .01 per cent level
it is .296.

Size of Farm

The size of the farms considered in this study
ranged from 16 to 1500 acres. Following from our con-
structed typology it might be expected that the larger
the farming operation, the more adaptive the individual
farmer entrepreneur would be. The hypothesis stated in
the null form would be: "There is no relation between
the size of the farm and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score." However, when the size of farm was correlated
with the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score an
r of .545 was found. Since this r of .5A5 far exceeds
the requirements for significance at the .01 per cent
level the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a rela-
tionship between the size of farm and the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm Score. Since our typology indicates that the
higher the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score the more adap-
tive the farmer entrepreneur, we can state that the
larger farm operators are generally more adaptive than

are the smaller farm operators.

85

Farmer's Relation to the Land

 

As pointed out in Chapter II, the Adaptive Farm
Firm is dynamic in character and is increasing in size.
Since the amount of available land is limited, the rap-
idly expanding dynamic firm of the Adaptive Farmer Entre-
preneur will probably be made up of land that is owned
by the firm as well as additional land that is rented or
leased. By way of contrast, the Rigid Farmer Entrepre-
neur operates a static firm that is not expanding. Con-
sequently, he would probably own all of the land that he
operates, rather than taking on the additional responsi—
bility of operating rented or leased land.

The hypothesis stated in the null form would be:
"There is no relationship between owning as well as
renting or leasing land and the Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Score." The correlation coefficient of the variable
"Owns all" or"Owns as well as rents or leases" and the
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score is .39“ which exceeds the
requirements for significance at the .01 per cent level.
The null hypothesis is rejected. There is a definite
relationship between the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score
and whether the farmer entrepreneur owns and rents or
leases as opposed to owning all of the land that he oper-
ates. Therefore, it may be said that those farmers who
own as well as rent or lease will have higher Entrepre-

neurial Farm Firm Scores which indicates that they are

 

86

more adaptive than those farmers who own all of the land
they operate.
Numbers of Locations Farmed

It might be expected that this variable would be
highly related to the previous variable, "The Farmer's
Relation to the Land." As pointed out in the construction
of the typology, the rapidly expanding dynamic firm of the
Adaptive Entrepreneurial Farmer would be forced to seek
additional land area to keep it in a competitive position.
It is highly unlikely that this additional land would be
available in a contiguous location to the major base of
operations. Therefore, the Adaptive Entrepreneurial
Farmer would probably be farming in more than one location.
The hypothesis in the null form would bezi "There is no
relation between the number of locations farmed and the
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score."

The r produced by the correlation of the number of
locations farmed with the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score
was .Hl6, exceeding the requirements for significance at
the l per cent level. The null hypothesis is rejected.
There is a relationship between the number of locations
farmed and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. Thus,
the data from this study tend to support the theoretical
construction presented in the typology: the Adaptive
Entrepreneurial Farmer will operate his farming enter-

prise in more than one location.

87

As pointed out above, there would be a high relation-
ship expected between whether the farmer owns all of his
land or whether he owns as well as rents or leases his land
and the number of locations that he farms. This is the
general direction indicated by the high coefficients of
correlation for the two variables "Farmer's Relation to
the Land" with an r of .39“ and "Number of Locations
Farmed" with an r of .U15.

Education

The median educational attainment for the farmer
entrepreneurs in this study was 12 years while the median
educational attainment for all rural farm males aged 1“
and over in Michigan in the year 1960 was 9 years.5
Therefore, we can see that this sample is somewhat atypi-
cal and may exhibit some characteristics different from
those of the male rural farm population of Michigan in
general.

The hypothesis in the null form would be: "There
is no relationship between the educational attainment of
the farmer entrepreneur and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score." This analysis produced an r of .383, thereby

exceeding the requirements for significance at the 1 per

cent level. The null hypothesis is rejected.

 

5U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Pop-
glation: 1960. General Social and Economic Character-
istics Michigan. Final Report PC(1) - 2“ C, U.S. Govern—
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962.

 

88

The evidence from this analysis indicates that there
is a relationship between the educational attainment of
the farmer entrepreneur and his adaptiveness as indicated
by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. Thus, we might
say that those farmer entrepreneurs who are more highly
educated would be more adaptive as indicated by their
higher Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Scores.

Does the Farmer Have a Full-Time Hired Man

Since this study is concerned with the factors that
are associated with management of the enterprise as well
as labor management, it would seem that the size of the
business enterprise needing full-time hired help would
require that the farmer entrepreneur be up on his toes to
keep the business at a viable level. We also would
expect that there might be a relationship between size
of farm and whether or not full—time help is required.
Since there was a significant relationship expressed
between the Size of Farm and the adaptiveness as expressed
by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score, we might expect
that there would be a relationship between the need for
a full-time hired man and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score.

Thehypothesis in the null form would be: "There
is no relationship between having a full—time hired man
and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score." The test pro-

duced an r of .362 which exceeds the requirements for

89

significance at the l per cent level. The null hypo-
thesis is rejected.

This analysis would demonstrate that there is a
relationship between having a full—time hired man and
the adaptiveness of the farmer entrepreneur as expressed
by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. In general, this
would support the theoretical construction of the typo- [p {
logy in that the larger, more complex enterprises that t
require additional full-time labor also would require
that the farmer entrepreneur be more adaptive in his
approach to farm and labor management.

Capitalization Level

 

As indicated earlier in this chapter, there is a
relationship between size of farm and the adaptiveness
of the farmer entrepreneur as expressed by the Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm Score. We also would expect that
there would be a relationship between the size of farm
and the capitalization level, although the capitali-
zation level was computed using information relating to
investment in land, equipment, and improvements to the
land (plantings of tree fruits), and may thus be con-
sidered to be an approximation of net worth of the
farmer entrepreneur.

Data were not directly available regarding net
worth of the farmer entrepreneur, so this alternative

method was chosen. However, since the bulk of the

 

 

90

investment on the horticultural specialty crop farms is
generally found in land and improvements to the land
(tree fruit and small fruit plantings) we might expect
that the more Rigid Farmer Entrepreneurs who own all of
their land might have a higher net worth than do the more
Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneurs who own as well as rent or
lease additional land. Even though this relationship was
expected, the data from this study did not necessarily
support this. To subject this relationship to a test the
hypothesis in the null form would be: "There is no rela—
tionship between the Capitalization Level and the Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm Score." The test produced an r of
.671 which is by far the highest produced in this series
of tests and greatly exceeds the requirements for signi-
ficance at the l per cent level. The null hypothesis is
rejected.

There is a strong relationship between the level of
capitalization and the adaptiveness of the farmer entre-
preneur as measured by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score. Consequently, we might also conclude that even
though the Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur may not own as
much land as his more rigid counterpart, the total size
and scope of his operation is large enough to require
investments in additional inputs which would raise his
level of capitalization above the Rigid Farmer Entrepre-

neur who owns all of his land.

91

Ass

Following from the construction of the Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm typology one might expect that there
would be a relationship between the age of the farmer
entrepreneur and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.
One would expect from the typology that the younger farmer
entrepreneurs who had started in business since the end ab“
of World War II would be more adaptive than those who i
might be older. This could be justified by the fact that z
the older farmer entrepreneurs may have solidified their r
ways of thinking and operating prior to the rash of new
technology that has been presented to the farmer during
the past 20 years. Consequently, the null hypothesis
would be: "There is no relationship between the age of
the entrepreneurial farmer and the Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Score."
This test produced an r of .212 which is below the
level required for significance at the 5 per cent level.
There is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypo-
thesis and state that there is a relationship between the
age of the farm operator and his adaptiveness as expressed
by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. Therefore, there
may be other factors which are more important than age
when considering the adaptiveness of the entrepreneurial

farmer.

92

Number of Years Farmed

A high relationship between the variables of Age and
Number of Years Farmed might be expected. In fact, when
these two structural variables were correlated they pro-
duced an r of .577 which by far exceeds requirements for
significance at the l per cent level. With this being
true, we also might expect that there would not be a sig-
nificant relationship between the variable Number of Years
Farmed and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. However,
to test this relationship the null hypothesis would be:
"There is no relationship between the Number of Years
Farmed and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score." The
test produced an r of .083 which is below the require-
ments for significance at the 5 per cent level. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, we do not have sufficient grounds on
which to state that there is a relationship between the
number of years a farmer entrepreneur has been in busi-
ness and his adaptiveness as expressed by the Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm Score.
Full-Time Farmer

From the constructed typology we might expect that
the farmer entrepreneur would need to give his full
attention to his own business enterprise, especially if
he were concerned about its aggrandizement. We might
expect that there would be a relationship between whether

the farmer entrepreneur spends full time at his farm

93

business or whether he spends part of the year working
elsewhere and his adaptiveness as measured by the Entre—
preneurial Farm Firm Score.

To test this relationship, the hypothesis in the

null form is: "There is no relationship between being a

full—time farmer and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score."

This test produced an r of .022 which does not meet the
requirements for significance at the 5 per cent level.
There is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypo-
thesis. Therefore, we do not have sufficient grounds to
expect that being a full-time farmer has any bearing on
the adaptiveness of the farmer entrepreneur as expressed
by the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

As pointed out in several places throughout this
chapter, there would be expected high correlations
between several of the structural variables considered
in this chapter. Those variables which show a high cor—
relation that might also follow from the constructed

typology are:

Size of Farm and Capitalization Level .712
Farmer's Relation to the Land and Number of

Locations Farmed .485
Number of Acres Farmed and Farmer's Relation

to the Land .519
Size of Farm and Full-Time Hired Man .479
Capitalization Level and Full-Time Hired Man .557
Age of Farm Operator and Number of Years

Farmed .577
Age of Farm Operator and Educational Attainment —.239

All of these relationships are significant at the l per

cent level with the exception of the relationship between

94

age and educational level. This relationship is signifi-
cant at the 5 per cent level and since it is in the nega-
tive direction it indicates that the younger farmer entre-
preneurs have a higher educational attainment than do the
older farmer entrepreneurs.

In summary, we found that six of the nine variables
considered in this chapter were significantly related to
the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. These variables are:
Size of Farm, Farmer's Relation to the Land, Number of
Locations Farmed, Educational Level of the Farm Operator,
Full-Time Hired Man, and Capitalization Level. Those
three variables for which there was not sufficient evi-
dence to give a significant relationship were: Age of
the Farm Operator, Number of Years of Farming, and Full-

Time Farmer.

CHAPTER V
CHANGE—TIME AS A KEY FACTOR

The previous chapter treated numerous structural
variables in relation to the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score. It has been pointed out by Grove that Change—
Time variables have better predictability over a long
period of time than do the structural variables we have
considered to date.1 Consequently, those variables in
the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score that have a Change
or a Time dimension were extracted in an attempt to
develop a more parsimonious score than the 21 variable
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

Change and Time may best be defined in this con—
text as those variables that give an indication of wil-
lingness or lack of willingness to change, or that give
an indication of present or future time orientation. As
suggested by Grove thosevariables that give an indi-
cation of willingness to change or that indicate a future

time orientation have a higher predictability than do

_

1Ernest W. Grove, "Structural Analysis of Agricul-
ture," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 49, No. 5 (Dec-
ember, 1967), p. 1249.

 

95

96

the static structural variables about some future course

of events.2

The variables selected to constitute the Change-

Time Orientation Score for this study are:

l.

\OCIDNCEKTI

10.

ll.

12.

Number of Pieces of New Machinery Purchased
in Last Two Years

Number of New Chemicals Used in Last Two Years

Number of New Plants and Seeds Used in Last Two
Years

Number of New Harvest Techniques Used in Last
Two Years

Contact with M.S.U. Experiment Station
Contact with M.S.U. Extension Service
Feelings toward Group Bargaining

How Do You Get an Adequate Supply of Labor
Who Supervises Picking (Chain of Command)
Does Farmer Share Decision-Making

When Do You Determine Labor Needs for the Up-
coming Season

Employee Relations

320 determine whether the Change-Time Orientation Score is

a. more parsimonious indicator than the Entrepreneurial

Fairm Firm Score, the Change-Time Orientation Score also

w1.ll be treated as the dependent variable in a series of

hyjpotheses utilizing the independent structural variables

tessted in the previous chapter.

It must be pointed out that these 12 variables that

haves a Change-Time orientation have been extracted from

h

2Grove, p. 1249.

97

the 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. As indi-
cated above, it is our purpose to determine whether this
Change-Time score will be a more parsimonious indicator
than the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score and still give

us as good an indication of the relationship between the
various structural variables to be considered as the

larger, more complex 21 variable Entrepreneurial Farm

‘“‘*“F‘Rp-
i"

Firm Score.
Following the same procedure for scoring as was ht

used for the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score, the range '

of possible scores for the Change-Time score would be

12 with the most Rigid Farmer Entrepreneurs having scores

near the 0 end of the continuum and the most Adaptive

Farmer Entrepreneurs having scores near the 12 end of the

continuum. The actual distribution of the Change—Time

scores will be found in Table 5. The Change-Time scores

for each of the 77 farms included in the study will be

found in Table 6. It will be noted from the inspection

of Figure 3, a graphic presentation of the distribution

of Change-Time scores, that the scores do not follow a

normal distribution. However, as pointed out for the

Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Scores, with the small N

irrvolved in the Study and the fact that the variables

iflcluded in the score were operationalized from a con—

Stnructed type, one cannot expect perfect normality in

thee distribution of the scores. However, it will be

98

further noted that the Change—Time scores are not as
erratic in their distribution as are the Entrepreneurial

Farm Firm Scores.

TABLE 5.--Distribution of 12 variable Change-Time score.

I“:
‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

 

Score Number of Respondents

 

l

5
10
7
13
12
12
10
u

3
N = 77

OOGDNQU'IEWNH

|._J

 

To determine the contribution of each of the 12
variables in the Change-Time score to the total score,
each variable was correlated with the total score. The
variables and their correlation coefficients are pre-
sented in Table 7. With an N of 77, each of the variables
exceeds the requirements for significance at the .01 per
cent level except the variable Contact with the M.S.U.
Extension Service. This variable produced an r of .244
vflien correlated with the total Change-Time score which
exceeds the requirements for significance at the .05 per
cent level. Consequently, all 12 of those variables were
retained and are included in the Change-Time score. In

the remainder of this chapter the Change-Time score will

99

TABLE 6.--Individual farm firms and their Change—Time

 

score.
Change-Time Change-Time
Farm # Score Farm # Score

 

1 7 41 9
2 9 42 9
3 8 43 8
4 6 44 2
5 3 45 2
6 3 46 3
7 7 47 2
8 10 48 3
9 8 49 4
10 1 5o 6
11 7 51 5
12 7 52 2
l3 6 53 7
14 3 54 6
15 7 55 3
16 4 56 5
l7 9 57 7
18 7 58 5
l9 6 59 6
20 5 60 6
21 5 61 6
22 8 62 10
23 10 63 2
24 8 64 6
25 6 65 7
26 5 66 6
27 3 67 8
28 7 68 5
29 8 69 5
30 7 7o 4
31 3 71 4
32 3 72 3
33 8 73 8
34 5 74 5
35 7 75 6
.36 4 76 5
137 8 77 5
338 4
359 4
5

100

14

13 I
12 L1

11

 

‘0 . 'r—W' “III-m

 

Number 8
of
Respondents 7 .u——.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Change-Time Score

Figure 3.—-Graphic representation of the distrib-
ution of the 12 variable Change-Time score.

 

101

TABLE 7.--Corre1ation coefficients for the variables
included in the Change-Time score.

 

 

Coefficient
of
Variable Correlation
with
Change—Time
Score
Number of pieces of new machinery purchased
in last two years .312
Number of new chemicals used in last two
years .402
Number of new plants and seeds used in last
two years .473
Number of new harvest techniques used in
last two years .478
Contact with M.S.U. Experiment Station .485
Contact with M.S.U. Extension Service .244
Feelings toward group bargaining .301
How do you get an adequate supply of
labor .297
Who supervises picking (chain of command) .339
Does farmer share decision making .415
When do you determine labor needs for the
upcoming season .35“

Employee Relations .441

102

be treated as the dependent variable in a series of tests
utilizing the structural variables considered as inde-
pendent variables in Chapter IV.

Size of Farm

 

When the relationship of the Change-Time score to
that of the Size of Farm is considered, we find the
results are very similar to those found when the Entre—
preneurial Farm Firm Score was related to the Size of
Farm. For the purposes of this test, the hypothesis in
the null form is: "There is no relationship between
the size of farm and the Change—Time score." The test
of this hypothesis produces an r of .466 which exceeds
the requirements for significance at the 1 per cent
level. The null hypothesis is rejected. In the analysis
of this test we find that the Change-Time score corre-
lated with the Size of Farm nearly as highly as did the
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

Farmer's Relation to the Land

 

As indicated in the previous chapter, it would be
expected that the more Adaptive Farmer Entrepreneur would
probably own as well as rent or lease additional land
for his operation. Therefore, to test the Farmer's Rela—
tion to the Land with the Change—Time score the null
hypothesis would be: "There is no relationship between
owning as well as renting or leasing land and the Change-

Time score."

 

103

The correlation coefficient of the Change-Time score
with the variables "owns all" or "owns as well as rents or
leases" is .377. This r exceeds the requirements for
significance at the 1 per cent level. The null hypothesis
is rejected. There is a relationship between owning all
or owning as well as renting or leasing and the Change-
Time score.

Number of Locations Farmed

When testing the null hypothesis: "There is no
relation between the number of locations farmed and the
Change-Time score," we find that the test produces an r
of .374. This coefficient of correlation exceeds the
requirements for significance at the l per cent level and
the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a relationship
between the number of locations farmed and the Change-
Time score.

This conclusion tends to support the constructed
typology presented in Chapter II of this study. The
constructed typology indicated that the Adaptive Entre-
preneurial Farmer probably operates at more than one
location. The results of this test do support the con-
tention that farmers with a high Change-Time score
operate at more than one location.
jEducation

When education is tested for a relationship with

the Change-Time score, the hypothesis in the null form

l"
'-—-—-

III—"v 1..» fix 3

$5.

104

would be: "There is no relationship between the educa-
tional attainment of the farmer entrepreneur and the
Change—Time score." This test produced an r of .295
which does not quite meet the requirements for signifi-
cance at the l per cent level but does surpass the
requirements for significance at the 5 per cent level.

We can say that there is a relationship between
the educational attainment of the farmer entrepreneur and
the Change-Time score. This finding supports that re—
ported earlier for the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.
Both of these scores are related to the educational
attainment of the farmer entrepreneur and thus both
tend to support the theoretical formulation in the con-
structed typology.

Does the Farmer Have a Full-Time Hired Man

To test the relationship of this variable with the
Change-Time score the null hypothesis is: "There is no
relationship between having a full-time hired man and
the Change-Time score." The test produces an r of .341
which exceeds the requirements for significance at the
l per cent level. The null hypothesis is rejected.

The results of this test are parallel to those
reported in the last chapter for the Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Score. There is a relationship between having a
full—time hired man and the adaptiveness of the farmer

entrepreneur as indicated by the Change-Time score.

“3"“? ' I‘IT'T'TA: “9;?

IL.

3H

6L.

an

‘L

105

Capitalization Level

As indicated in the previous chapter, one would
expect a high degree of relationship between the Size of
Farm and the Level of Capitalization. In fact, when
these two structural variables were correlated we found
,an r of .719, which is extremely high. When we are testing
the relationship between the Capitalization Level and the
Change-Time score the null hypothesis would be: "There
is no relationship between the Capitalization Level of the
farmer entrepreneur and the Change-Time score." This test
produced an r of .648 which far exceeds the requirements
for significance at the 1 per cent level. This would mean
that there is a high degree of relationship between the
Capitalization Level of the farmer entrepreneur and the
Change-Time score. This also would tend to support the
theoretical formulation developed in the constructed typo-
logy earlier in this study.
Age

As pointed out in the previous chapter, it was
expected that there would be a demonstrated relationship
between Age and the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.
That test did not show a significant relationship. To.
check this relationship using the Change-Time score, the
funaothesis in the null form would be: "There is no rela-
tionship between age and the Change-Time score." The

test produced an r of .106 which does not meet the

106

requirements for significance at the 5 per cent level.
There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
The results of this test then do support those
reported for the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. There
does not seem to be a relationship between the age of
the farmer entrepreneur and his adaptiveness as illus—
trated through the Change-Time score.
Number of Years Farmed
As was pointed out in the last chapter, it was
expected that the number of years farmed would be related
to the age of the farmer entrepreneur, and when these
two structural variables were correlated the test pro-
duced an r of .577 which exceeds requirements for sig-
nificance at the 1 per cent level. Tests involving the
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score did not produce results
that were statistically significant. To determine whether
results involving the Change-Time score are similar, the
null hypothesis is: "There is no relationship between
the number of years farmed and the Change-Time score."
This test produced an r of .051 which is far below the
requirements for significance at the 5 per cent level.
There is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypo—
thesis. It does not seem as if there is any relationship
between the number of years farmed and the Change—Time
score. This test would corroborate the results found in

the previous chapter.

107

Full-Time Farmer

When the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score was tested
against whether or not the farmer entrepreneur devoted
his full time to the farming operation, there did not
appear to be any relationship. To test this variable
against the Change—Time score the null hypothesis would
be: "There is no relationship between being a full-time 1““
farmer and the Change-Time score." The test produced an i
r of .058 which is far below the requirements for signi- j
ficance at the 5 per cent level. There is not sufficient I
evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

This test also tends to support the results found
in the last chapter for this variable and the Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm Score. There does not seem to be a
relationship between being a full-time farmer and the
adaptiveness of the farmer entrepreneur as indicated by
the Change-Time score.

Discussion

 

It was found in all cases that the Change-Time score
gave similar results when tested against the above struc-
tural variables as did the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm
Score. Significant relationships were found with the
same six variables: Size of Farm, Farmer's Relation to
the Land, Number of Locations Farmed, Educational Attain—
ment of the Farmer Entrepreneur, Full—Time Hired Man, and

Capitalization Level. The three variables for which no

108

significant relationship was found are: Age of Farmer
Entrepreneur, Number of Years Farming, and Full-Time
Farmer.

In all cases the Change-Time score gave slightly
lower coefficients of correlation, but only in one case,
that of Education, did it move the relationship below
the l per cent level of significance to that of being
significant at only the 5 per cent level.

Therefore, it may be concluded that the Change-
Time score is sufficiently powerful to give results simi-
lar to the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score. Since the
Change—Time score includes only 12 variables as opposed
to the 21 found in the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score,
the Change-Time score may be considered to be more par-
simonious and still give the desired results. For a com—
parison of the coefficients of correlation for the Entre-
preneurial Farm Firm Score and the Change-Time score and

the nine structural variables considered above, see Table

8.

109

TABLE 8.--Corre1ation coefficients for the structural
variables and the 21 variable Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm score and the 12 variable Change-
Time score.

 

 

I
4

 

 

 

Entrepreneurial Change-
Structural Variable Farm Firm score Time
Score
Acres farmed .54494 .46633
Relation to the land .39379 .37740
Number of locations farmed .41504 .3737?
Age .21234 .10562
Education .38297 .29520
Number of years farmed .08298 .05130
Full—time farmer .02192 .05821
Hired man (full-time) .36193 .34127
Capitalization level .67076 .64754

 

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As was pointed out earlier, the purpose of this
study is to: "study the relationship between the farmer
and his firm and the pattern of labor management prac—
tices that he utilizes." To do this, the Entrepreneurial
Farm Firm typology was developed in which the polar types
were characterized as being "Rigid" and "Adaptive." In
constructing these types, data were drawn from the litera-
ture dealing with farm management and from the interview
protocols of the larger study. The constructed typology
contained four sub-types: Social Participation, Farm
Management, Labor Management, and The Farm as a Firm.

The constructed Entrepreneurial Farm Firm typology
was operationalized through a series of 21 variables
listed in Chapter III. The farmer entrepreneurs in the
sample were scored as being either Rigid or Adaptive on
each of these 21 variables. The composite of this
scoring formed the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score.

To determine whether a more parsimonious indicator
Could be developed, 12 variables that had either a change
or a time dimension were extracted from the 21 variable

Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score and formed into a Change-

110

111

Time score. These two scores, the Entrepreneurial Farm
Ffih Score and the Change-Time score, formed the opera—
tionalization of the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm typology.
To test their applicability, they were each correlated
with a series of structural variables. In each case the
results of the correlation analysis were similar. In
all, a significant relationship was found between the
scores and six of the structural variables. They are:
Farmer's Relation to the Land, Number of Locations
Farmed, Educational Attainment, whether or not the
farmer employed a Full-Time Hired Man, and the Level of
Capitalization of the farm enterprise. There was no
significant relationship found between three of the struc—
tural variables and the scores. These variables are:
Age, Number of Years Farmed, and whether or not the
Farmer Devotes All of His Time to the Farming Operation.
Since the results of the correlational analysis
for the two scores and these nine structural variables
were very similar, it may be concluded that the Change-
Time score is as effective an operationalization of the
Entrepreneurial Farm Firm continuum as is the Entrepre-
neurial Farm Firm Score. Since the Change-Time score
contained only 12 variables as opposed to the 21 variables
contained in the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score it is

also a more parsimonious indicator.

.g- h 5“. WLII‘ flu”

 

 

112

While it was expected that there would be a high
correlation between Age and the Number of Years Farmed
and the two scores, the absence of this might be explained
by a third factor. Since there was a significant rela-
tionship between the level of education of the farmer
entrepreneur and his adaptiveness as indicated by the two
scores we might expect to find that there was a relation-
ship between these two variables and educational attain-
ment. In fact, correlational analysis showed that Age
and Number of Years Farmed were identically related to
Education, both giving an r of -.238. While this rela—
tionship is significant at only the 5 per cent level and
it is negative, it indicates that the younger farmers
who had been in business fewer years had a significant
relationship to educational attainment. Consequently,
even though our original analysis indicated that there
was no significant relationship between Age or the Number
of Years Farmed and the two scores measuring Adaptiveness,
if we had controlled for Education there probably would
have been a significant relationship.

In attempting to determine why there was no sig-
nificant relationship between whether or not the farmer
devotes all of his time to the farming operation and
the two scores measuring Adaptiveness we might only say
that at this point in time, the data of this study do

not support the theoretical formulation presented in the

 

 

113

constructed type. We might hypothesize that the time has
not yet come when it will be possible for a farmer entre-
preneur to devote his attention to other pursuits than
farming and still maintain a viable farm enterprise. We
also might point out that in the way in which this sample
was selected, a number of entrepreneurs who own other
businesses or work full time at a trade fell into the
sample. While they perform the entrepreneurial role as
far as the farming operation is concerned they also are
employed full time in some other enterprise. Analysis

of the case studies would indicate that a number of these
individuals could be classified as Adaptive Farmer Entre-
preneurs and perhaps it is because of their involvement
in other pursuits, rather than in spite of these pur-
suits, that they are more adaptive. By the mere fact
that they are not able to give their full attention to
the farming Operation they have so structured the enter-
prise that it is possible to operate it fairly effec-
tively without their full-time attention.

It will remain for further investigation with dif-
ferent population of farmer entrepreneurs to determine
whether in fact the three variables of Age, Number of
Years Farmed, and whether or not the Farmer Devotes All
Of His Time to the Farming Operation are highly related
tO adaptiveness as indicated in the constructed type

when they are measured by one of the scores.

114

In general, the utility of constructing a typology
to assist in the explanation of the empirical world is
demonstrated by this study. The Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm typology identifies the variables that are important
in explaining the unique characteristics of the various
types of farm operators. The utility of this continuum
will come as it provides the basis for further investi- a
gation of the farm management-labor management phenomena
by other investigators. Although it would be desirable
to cast the Entrepreneurial Farm Firm Score, or the more i
parsimonious Change-Time score, in the role of a predic-
tive or independent variable, it was not possible to do
so at this time. The way in which the score was developed
would have led to extreme circularity if the score(s) had
been placed in the predictive role. However, there is
evidence to indicate that those farmers who score high on
these scores will also score high on Farm management and
Labor Management ability. It will remain for further
investigation to determine directly the predictive abi-
lity of these scores relative to Farm Management and Farm
Labor Management in general.
There are numerous limitations to this study which
include the size and selectivity of the sample of farmer
enterpreneurs. While we may state that the sample is
representative of all fruit and vegetable growers in Mich-
iSan who employ migrant seasonal labor, we cannot gen-

eralize directly to all farm operators. It will remain

 

115

for further investigation to determine whether the typo-
logy developed in this study will be applicable to a
broader spectrum of commercial agriculture.

Since the larger study was exploratory in nature,
the limits of the data from that study are reflected in
this analysis. The larger study relied upon tape-recorded

interviews as a major means of collecting data. While ?

h

\‘14-
3*—

4

these interview protocols provided rich materials for

the case studies presented in this dissertation, the

Wu-«--—:-—
3

coding of concrete data from these interview protocols
was, in many cases, subjective at best. Even with the
shortcomings of the exploratory nature of the larger
study, the lessons learned here will be invaluable in
framing future research on this subject. It will be pos-
sible to develop a more tightly knit interview schedule
which will produce data that will lend themselves more
readily to quantification than did the data in this

study.

Even with the limitations expressed here, there are
findings from this study which will have direct applica-
bility to social science practitioners, especially those
who are concerned with improving the Farm Management and
Farm Labor Management skills of farmer entrepreneurs.
While we were not able to cast the Entrepreneurial Farm
Firm Score or the more parsimonious Change-Time score in

the role of an independent variable the evidence does

 

 

116

indicate that there is a high relationship between these
scores and Farm Management and Farm Labor Management
ability. It should be possible for these social science
practitioners to develop a series of questions to pose to
the farmer entrepreneur based on the variables included
in these scores which will let the farmer entrepreneur
measure his Farm Management or Farm Labor Management abi-
lity. Were he to score towards the rigid end of the con-
tinuum on any of the variables included in the score then
he could further examine the causes of this low score and
with the assistance of social science practitioners and
others develop an ameliorative program which would help
him to move towards the more adaptive end of the con-
tinuum, and consequently, become more effective at Farm

Management and Farm Labor Management.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bishop, C. E., ed. Farm Labor in the United States. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1967.

 

 

Butz, Dale E. "The Management Factor in Commercial Agri-
culture: The Effects of Off Farm Employment Inputs." 4-
Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965). 7
Campbell, Rex R. "A Suggested Paradigm of the Individual ,
Adoption Process." Rural Sociology, Vol. 31 (1966). r
Cole, Arthur H. "Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial

History: The Institutional Setting." Change and
the Entrepreneur. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1949.

 

Collins, Orvis F.; Moore, David G.; with Unwalla, Darab B.
The Enterprising Man. East Lansing: Bureau of Busi-
ness and Economic Research, Graduate School of Busi—
ness Administration, Michigan State University, 1964.

Danhof, Clarence H. "Observations on Entrepreneurship in
Agriculture." Change and the Entrepreneur. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Dean, Alfred; Aurbach, Herbert A.; and Marsh, C. Paul.
"Some Factors Related to Rationality in Decision
Making among Farm Operators." Rural Sociology,
Vol. 23 (1958).

Donohue, George A. "Full-Time and Part—Time Farmers'
Value Orientations Toward Social Institutions."
Rural Sociology, Vol. 22 (1957).

Edwards, Everett E. "American Agriculture--The First 300
Years." Farmers in a Changing World, 1940 Yearbook
of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent
of Documents, 1940.

Fuguitt, Glenn V. "A Typology of the Part-Time Farmer."
Rural Sociology, Vol. 26 (1961).

Fuller, Varden. "Emerging Farm Labor Issues." Washing-
ton: Paper presented at 44th Annual National Agri-
cuggural Outlook Conference, Tuesday, November 15,
19 .

117

118

Fuller, Varden and Beale, Calvin L. "Impact of Socio-
economic Factors on Farm Labor Supply." Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. 49, No. 5 (December, 1967).

Fuller, Varden. Labor Relations in Agriculture. Berkeley:

Institute for Industrial Relations, University of
California, 1955.

Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anslem L. The Discovepy
of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Quantitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company,

 

 

1967.

Headley, J. C. "The Management Factor in Commercial Agri-
culture: How Can It be Recognized." Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

Hecht, Reuben W. "Farm Labor Situation-Trends and Forces
at Work." Lincoln: Paper presented at National

Extension Workshop on Farm Labor Problems, Univer-
sity of Nebraska Center for Continuing Education,
November 1-4, 1966.

Hoselitz, Bert F. "The Early History of Entrepreneurial
Theory." Explorations in Entrepreneurial History,

Vol. 3 (19511.

Kelsey, Myron P. "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: Is It an Art or a Science." Journal
of Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

Kennedy, Rex P. "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: New Tools for the Manager." Journal

of Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

 

Lee, Shu-Ching. "The Theory of the Agricultural Ladder."
Agricultural Histopy, Vol. 21.

 

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.

 

MacGillivray, John H. and Stevens, Robert A. Agricul-
tural Labor and its Effective Use. Palo Alto: The
National Press, 1964.

McKinney, John C. Constructive Typology and Social Theory.

New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1966.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957.

—| uh...

.
I"

all-in “NI,
‘Ir

any

'3
".0

I...

-'.' n

.‘L

4”.

 

 

 

119

Nelson, Aaron G. "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: How Can It Be Improved." Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

Padfield, Harland and Martin, William E. Farmers,
Workers and Machines: Technological and Social
Change in Farm Industries of Arizona. Tuscon: The
University of Arizona Press, 1965.

Quenemoen, M. F. "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: The Influence of Values and Goals."
Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

Redlich, Fritz. "The Origin of the Concepts of Entrepre-
neur and Creative Entrepreneur." Explorations in
Entrepreneurial Histopy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (19491.

Rieck, Robert E. "The Management Factor in Commercial
Agriculture: How Can It Be Taught." Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. 47 (December, 1965).

 

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovation. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Rural Manpower Center. "A Study of Interpersonal Rela-
tions Among Managers and Employees of Fruit and
Vegetable Farms with Emphasis on Labor Management
Practices Utilized." East Lansing: Proposal sub-
mitted to the Director, Office of Manpower Policy,
Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
May 12, 1966.

Rushton, Willard T. and Shaudys, E. T. " A Systematic
Conceptualization of Farm Management." Journal of
Farm Economics, Vol. 49 (February, 1967).

 

Schumpeter, Joseph H. "Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial
History." Change and the Entrepreneur. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1949.

 

Shannon, Fred A. American Farmers' Movements. Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1957.

 

Smith, Norman R. The Entrepreneur and His Firm: The
Relationship Between Type of Man and Type of Com-
pany. East Lansing: Bureau of Business and Eco-
nomic Research, Graduate School of Business Admin-
istration, Michigan State University, 1967.

 

Strauss, J. H. "The Entrepreneur: The Firm." Journal
of Political Economy, LII (1944).

 

 

120

Sturt, Daniel W. "Farm Labor in 1980." Research Report

48 - Farm Business, East Lansing: Agricultural
Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, Michigan State University, 1966.

Taylor, Paul S. "Plantation Laborer Before the Civil

War." Agricultural History, Vol. 28.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Population:

Wohl,

 

1960. General Social and Economic Characteristics
Michigan. Final Report PC(1) — 24 C, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962.

 

R. Richard. "The Rags to Riches Story: An Epi-
sode of Secular Idealism." Class, Status, and
Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. Edited
by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1953.

 

a -A—‘_lt u n

APPENDICES

121

. .__'
"1"..“7
pl

APPENDIX I

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

122

{‘4‘ !a_-.

F.4-
I

to-“
. ‘

LA-.-
. .

‘| m
.. 7""! ‘

 

 

FARMER INTERVIEW

1967 FARM LABOR STUDY

Rural Manpower Center
Department of Sociology

Entree

l. RMC and Sociology Study
2. Both Agriculture and Worker Interest
3. What are Labor—Management Problems?

4. Confidential - tape only for ease.

Name

 

Address

 

 

 

Location

 

 

123

D r_‘

 

124

1. How many acres do you farm?

 

acres owned
acres rented
acres(other--managed, leased, etc. Specify)

 

2. At how many different locations do you farm?

 

2a. How far apart are these farms?

 

3. How many acres of the following fruits and vegetables
did you have last year?

Early Approx.
Med. Processing Sell
Acres Varieties? Late? or Fresh? Dates

Apples

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

 

Peaches

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

Pears

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

Plums & Prunes

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

 

 

Cherries, tart

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

 

Cherries, sweet

 

 

 

No. Trees

 

Blueberries

 

 

 

 

Raspberries

 

 

 

 

Strawberries

 

 

 

 

Grapes

 

 

 

No. Vines of
bearing age

 

 

 

125

Acres Varieties?
Other Fruits (Specify)

Early
Med.
Late?

Processing
or Fresh?

Approx.

Sell
Dates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vegetables

Cantaloupes and
Muskmelons

 

 

 

 

Tomatoes

 

 

Pickles and
Cucumbers

 

 

 

Asparagus

 

 

Dry Onions

 

 

 

Carrots

 

 

 

Cauliflower

 

 

Lettuce and
Romaine

 

 

 

Potatoes

 

 

 

Sweet Peppers

 

 

 

Other Vegetables
(Specify)

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.

126

Have you used any new pieces of machinery on your oper-
ation in the last 2 years?

Plowing or Discing?

 

 

Pruning?

 

 

Planting?

 

Cultivating?

 

Spraying?

 

Fertilizing?

 

Harvesting?

 

 

 

Materials Handling?

 

(Graders, augers, lifts)

 

Trucks?

 

Tractors?

 

Other (Specify)

 

 

 

What new chemicals have you used in the last two years?
(Be specific with respect to name of chemical, name of
variety and which particular crop this involved.)

 

k

What new varieties of plants or seeds have you used in
the last two years?

 

 

10.

127

What new pruning, spraying or cultivation techniques

have you started to use in the last two years?

 

 

 

 

What new harvesting procedures have you employed in the

last two years?

 

 

.‘iI-‘HJL : 3

 

 

What new storage facilities or procedures have you em-

ployed in the last two years?

 

 

 

In the last year, have you had any personal contact with?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No

 

Q-OO‘DJ

UHU‘OQHJCD

. M.S.U. Experiment Station?
. Farmers' Week?

Extension Service?

County ASC Office? (Title, lime,
allotments, etc.)

Soil Conservation Service?
County Welfare Department?

. Michigan Migrant Opportunity (OEO)?

Health Department?
Department of Labor?
Farm Labor Service (MESC)?

11.

12.

13.
l4.

15.

128

Are you a member of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___Yes ___ No ___ Officer Farm Bureau Federation
___Yes ____No ___ Officer Grange
___Yes ___ No ____Officer NFO
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer Farmers' Union
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer Michigan Horticulture Society?
Commodity Association?
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer [_
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer {
__Yes _ No _ Officer 5
___Yes ___ No ____Officer F
Farm Coop. WY
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer Lodge
___Yes ___ No ____Officer Church
Service Org. (Lions, Kiwanis)
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
___Yes ___ No ___ Officer
Social Group (card club,
square dance, etc.)
___Yes ____No ___ Officer
Yes No Officer

 

As far as political party is concerned, do you consider
yourself a:
Republican

Democrat

Independent
(Refused to answer)

How old are you?

 

How many years of school have you had?

 

How long have you been farming?

 

129

16. I'd like to find out how much labor is involved in your
operation here. I would like to estimate, roughly, how
many full days you spend in farm work.

16a. First, do you have any work off the farm? (Winter
job or custom farm labor)

days per year?

 

What months do you work?

 

Where work?

 

Work any Sundays? Saturdays?

Vacations? Half-days in Winter?

3%.”

(307 work days excluding Sundays and holidays)
(255 work days excluding above and Saturdays)

Total Work Days on Farm Last Year

 

17. How many days of work per year does your wife
contribute?

 

130

18. How many days (or months) are worked by the following
people during these seasons?

 

TYPE OF LABOR

Family:

Names, rela-
tionship and
ages of
family labor

Spring
or
Planting

Growing
(or
Summer)

Harvest

Winter

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full Time Hired Men

(Names)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Laborers

Names (If just a few)
or categories (e.g., H.S. Boys)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

19. How many days would you say were spent by migrant
on your farm last year?

What

month?

__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__(No.) families of __(No.
__crews of __ workers for
__crews of __ workers for
__crews of __ workers for
__crews of __ workers for
__crews of __ workers for
Single workers for

 

Other:

workers
workers
workers
workers
workers
workers
workers

workers

___weeks.

weeks.

weeks.

weeks.

weeks.

weeks.

 

 

 

 

workers
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
for __(No.) weeks.
Crew leader's name
Crew leader's name
Crew leader's name
Crew leader's name
Crew leader's name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

20. I'd like to get some idea of when the seasons begin.
When does Spring work start?
When does Spring work stop and growing season begin?
When does Harvest start?
When does it end?

(Mark in the seasons for 3 major crops)

 

 

(Crop)
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
,Jlllllllllll
Winter ‘ Spring Growing Harvest Winter
(Crop)

 

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

JIVJJJJJJ llll

Winter Spring Growing Harvest Winter

(Crop)

 

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

I.l|1lJlllllJ

Winter Spring Growing Harvest Winter

 

.
D
-
.
i‘
L:

ii
I.

__q.
.-

V‘m .

 

 

 

 

' 133

(TURN ON THE TAPE RECORDER)

21. Now we'd like to find out what things you and your
workers do during these seasons. We want to know
what major farm operations occur at certain times.

A. Spring or Planting Season. What major operations
occur then? (Plant beans, prepare ground, or

prune trees)
(Rely on Tape Recorder)

Farm Operation Who works What does Where What is
or Task with whom? each do? done? Work Flow?

[2.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. What major operations are done during the summer
or growing season? (e.g., Spraying, thinning,
cultivating, etc.)

Farm Operation Who works What does Where What is
or Task with whom? each do? done? Work Flow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134

C. What major operations are done around harvest time?
(e.g, Pick Apples, Store Fruit, Delivery to
Processor, etc.)

(Rely on Tape Recorder)

Farm Operation Who works What does Where What is
or Task with whom? each do? done? Work Flow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. What major operations are done in the Winter months?
(e.g., Package, Repair equipment, Prune, etc.)

(Rely on Tape Recorder)

Farm Operation Who works What does Where What is
or Task with whom? each do? done? Work Flow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

WORKER REWARDS

22.

23. How is their pay determined? (e.g., piece rate, hourly

24.

25.

26.

27.

What do you pay your workers?

 

 

 

a. Full time? $ per month
b. Family? $

c. Local? $ per hour
d. Migrant? $ per hour

 

bonus)

 

 

What other fringe benefits do you provide?

 

Insurance
Food
Housing
Utilities
Car or Gas
Other

 

 

 

 

 

“3000603

 

What is the average number of (bushels, quarts, lugs,
pounds) picked per man hour?

 

25a. How much variation is there among workers?

Which employees on your farm have increased their
wages and rates of pay since they have been employed
by you?

 

 

Which of your workers while being employed by you
have made a step up as far as getting more desirable
job and/or one with more responsibility?

 

 

jmfi"

-—

 

 

 

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

What

136

jobs do your workers want or try to get? (e.g.,

drive tractor or truck, crew leader, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What jobs are undesirable so that workers avoid them?
What is your policy on starting times?
a. Quitting times?
b. Length of rest periods?
0. Vacations?
What do your workers do around here for recreation?
When was most of your migrant housing built?
a. Average size room for a family? (in feet)
b. Cabins, motel, barn, house?
c. How are the units furnished?
d. Where is water supply?

 

Where are bathrooms located?

 

 

137

LABOR PROCUREMENT

Note: The remaining questions should be asked about full
time workers and seasonal workers. Questioning
should evolve around times when seasonal workers
are on the job, only. This will usually be harvest-
ing and may include cultivating.

33. Now let's take each kind of labor you have here on the
farm and find out how you found the

 

labor you now have.

34. How did you find your full time workers?

a. MESC, magazine or newspaper, informal contact?

 

b. What was the se uence of contacts? (who saw
who first and where?)

 

 

c. Where was this person located when he was
re ?

 

d. What was he doing at that time?

 

e. Did you know him before?

 

f. Was this person recommended? How?

 

 

35. How many full time hired men have you had in the past
3 years?

 

36. Why did each leave? (Note: Inquire about last 5 only)

1. found a better job (1) (2) (3)
2. was fired

 

3. other reasons, family,
etc.

 

 

 

U‘lt‘wNH

 

. v I
-.---*s-_-J

V-n\gm‘--.F_.Mflag

 

I...

 

138

Seasonal Labor.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Have you been able to employ local labor? Yes No
(Note: If yes, return to Question 34)

(If no, continue to question 38)

When do you try to determine the amount of labor

needed for the upcoming year?

1. During the Winter
2. During the Growing Season

 

 

3. Just before Harvest 8‘

When were you sure you had enough laborers last year?

month

 

How do you go about getting an adequate supply of
migrant workers?

 

 

What techniques do you have to keep your workers coming
back?

 

 

 

 

 

a. Contact during Winter?
b. Write them?
c. Send them money? _e
d. Pay their transportation?
42. What per cent of your seasonal laborers return each
year? (Take last 3 years) ' ‘
43. Do you have a written labor contract? Yes No
a. What is in it?
TRAINING
44. What kind of experience did the worker(s) have before

he (they) started here?

 

 

139

45. What kind of training did your workers require when he
(they) came on the job?

a. How did you go about training him?

 

 

b. Specific periods of explanation or mostly on-the-
job training?

 

c. How long did it take to train this worker?

d. What are the main problems in training this
(these) employee(s)?

 

." :1 Jfi-"a—uq

 

 

DECISION MAKING

46. What kinds of decisions do you make by yourself? (Give
examples)

 

 

 

47. Who decides what the labor will do, usually?

a. When are decisions made about what this worker
will do?

. Start of Season?

. At start of each job or operation?
First part of each week?

Every day? Morning or evening?
When he runs out of work?

 

 

 

U'IJZ'LUTUH

b. How important are they in deciding things around
here, usually? (Note: Try to establish which
category)

. Many things they decide on their own.

. Their opinions are accepted many times.

Their opinions are listened to and taken into
account, but others usually decide on their own.
They really never have much of a voice in
things.

4:- LUMP

140
CHAIN OF COMMAND

48. Who gives the orders and instructions around here?
(Note: get examples)

49. To whom do you usually give orders?

50. What kinds of orders or instructions do you give to
employees? Note: Get examples.

 

a. How does this change during Harvest or peak
work load times?

51. Do you have some special techniques of giving direc-

 

tions to that works best for you?
SUPERVISION
52. To what extent does get involved in checking

 

and supervising the work here on your farm?

 

a. Who does he supervise?

b. When does he supervise?

c. What operations does he supervise?

d. How goodzajob of supervising does he do?
553. Who supervises the work of ?
514. How do you go about supervising ?

 

a. Working with him till he knows how?

(b) How does this change with each task?
(focus on Harvest)

555. How do you check on the quality of work of ?

a. How often do you check?
b. How does this change by the season?

c. How does this change depending on the
operation?

56 . lfihat operations require close supervision?

57’- Vflhat operations require very little supervision?

141

 

 

 

 

58. Once you have checked on the work and find it unsatis-
factory, what do you say or do to
to improve the work?

a. Set an example?

b. Show him the operation again?

0. Tell him to change?

d. Get crew leader or hired man to watch more
closely?

e. Get someone else to do the job?

f. Let them know they either improve or get less
pay, maybe even get fired?

59. In general, what are your major problems in supervising
labor? (Probe)

60. What are some of your favorite techniques that work
best in supervising workers? (Probe)

RESPONSIBILITY

61. How dependable is in seeing that a job gets
done?

62. Is he able to take on responsibility?

63. If you have to leave the farm during an important
operation, can take responsibility and
carry on with the job?

64. Have you ever tried to see just how much responsibility

can assume?

65. Are there certain jobs where is responsible

 

and others where he (they) is (are) not?

a. What jobs are these?

142

CONFLICT

66. We know everybody has disagreements at some time or
other with their workers. What were some of the major
disagreements or misunderstandings in the last few
years? (Probe for 3-4 situations)

Housing? Pay?

. Drinking? Stealing?

Showing up on time?

Work completion? 1

Crop damage?

Busting equipment? |

Working long enough?

:3 m *a m Cl 0 :7 m

Finances?

67. Have you fired any workers in the last few years?
Why?

68. What type of work group (nationality, single work
units vs. group, type of group--all male or couple)
do you have the most problems with?

a. Nationality?

Singles vs. Groups?

Single male, couples, or marrieds?
Experienced vs. unexperienced?
Other?

(DO-IOU

69. In general, what are the biggest problems with labor?
a. What are the most frequent problems?
b. Conflict among workers?

70. After considering these problems, what's left in it
for you? That is, do you make any money?

a. What was your average Gross Income in the
last 2 years?

b. What was your average net income?

Roughly speaking, how much do you have
invested in your operation?

d. Of the total you have invested, what percentage,
roughly, of it is borrowed money?

71.

72.

143
Has anybody or any group talked recently about Group
Bargaining for better prices?

a. What do you think of this for the future?

Are you aware of any unionization activities among
farm workers?

a. What is your opinion of this movement?

b. What do you think people around here will do
if unionization is started?

APPENDIX II

OBSERVATION GUIDE

144

gm.-

. . elm-in. 3.-

OBSERVATION GUIDE

Name

 

Address

Outline map of farm operation(s) showing position of major
buildings and migrant housing:

145

146

MIGRANT HOUSING

Type of construction:

Size of units:

Condition:

Location & Type of bathrooms:

Is there hot water available? Yes
Is there a shower house? Yes
Are there laundry facilities Yes

Describe shower and laundry facilities:

No
No

No

147

DECISION MAKING

When are decisions made about what workers will do?

Start of the season?

At the start of each job or operation?

First part of each week?

Every day? Morning, noon, night (circle
appropriate time)

When they run out of work?

 

42'me

U1

 

Describe:

148
CHAIN OF COMMAND

1. Who usually gives orders?

1a. Is there a chain of command apparent? Yes No
If yes - what is it?

2. To whom are the orders usually given?

149

SUPERVISION

1. To what extent does the farmer get involved in checking

(quality, etc.) the work of the workers?

spend his time?

a.

b.

In the field with the workers
In the packing shed

Spraying, discing, etc.
Transporting crop to market

Other (spec.)

 

Other (spec.)

 

Describe:

How does the farmer (manager) or principle supervisor

150

How is unsatisfactory work corrected:

a. Set an example

b. Show worker the operation again

0. Tell worker to

change

d. Get crew to talk to worker

e. Tell crew leader to watch the worker

f. Have hired man
employee watch

Have hired man

Have hired man

Chi-“5'09

or other full time
the worker

correct the worker

speak to crew leader

Get someone else to do the job

Let them (worker) know they have to

improve or else get docked or maybe

'fired

Describe: