Advertisement

A new framework to analyze changes in work organization for permanent employees on livestock farms

  • Priscila Duarte MalanskiEmail author
  • Stéphane Ingrand
  • Nathalie Hostiou
Research Article

Abstract

The importance of a hired workforce for the competitiveness of livestock farms emerges in a context of a decreasing family workforce and increasing farm size. Farmers’ need for a regular workforce to perform labor-intensive tasks can conflict with the attractiveness of jobs and high rates of turnover among farm employees. Within farmers’ strategies to attract and retain employees, little attention has been given to understand the role of work changes over time during the careers of employees on farms. We thus developed a framework to understand how employees’ work organization on farms change over time since recruitment. Key concepts from human resource management and organizational change are the theoretical guidelines used to shape the framework. This conceptual base indicates what needs to be considered to understand changes in employees’ work. Empirical data were used to transform the concepts into practical variables to analyze changes in employees’ work. We interviewed 14 employees and 8 farmers (their employers) on dairy farms and collected data on work organization and changes over time, focusing on tasks performed by employees since recruitment, team composition, and farm history. The framework is composed of 8 variables that describe how work evolves according to changes in task assignments, changes in the way work is organized (versatility vs. specialization), and the level of autonomy afforded to workers. It also considers what drives these evolutions and the rhythm of evolution over time. The framework can be used by researchers to better understand trade-offs between labor management and farm changes over time. This is a new approach for analyzing work organization on livestock farms considering changes in work from the perspective of employees.

Keywords

Work organization Human resource management Livestock farming systems Hired worker 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with the support of Science without Frontiers, from CAPES and Ministry of Education of Brazil. Partners of this work are as follows: RMT Travail, Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d’Exploitants Agricoles, and the Syndicat Interprofessionnel Saint Nectaire.

Funding

This study was funded by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) (grant number 99999.001251/2013-09).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agreste (2014) Le bilan annuel de l’emploi agricole selon l’orientation technico-économique de l’exploitation: Résultats 2012. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/partie1cd225bspca.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  2. Agreste Primeur (2013) Des territoires laitiers contrastés. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/primeur308.pdf. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
  3. Aubron C, Noël L, Lasseur J (2016) Labor as a driver of changes in herd feeding patterns: evidence from a diachronic approach in Mediterranean France and lessons for agroecology. Ecol Econ 127:68–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bidart C, Longo ME, Mendez A (2012) Time and process: an operational framework for processual analysis. Eur Sociol Rev 29:743–751.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitsch V, Olynk NJ (2007) Skills required of managers in livestock production: evidence from focus group research. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 29:749–764.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bitsch V, Kassa GA, Harsh SB, Mugera AW (2006) Human resource management risks: sources and control strategies based on dairy farmer focus groups. J Agric Appl Econ 38:l23–l36.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800022112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brasier K, Hyde J, Stup RE, Holden LA (2006) Farm-level human resource management: an opportunity for extension. J Ext 44:33Google Scholar
  8. Brochier D, Garnier J, Gilson A et al (2010) Propositions pour un cadre théorique unifié et une méthodologie d’analyse des trajectoires des projets dans les organisations. Manag Avenir 36:84–107.  https://doi.org/10.3917/mav.036.0084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cofre-Bravo G, Engler A, Klerkx L et al (2018) Considering the workforce as part of farmers’ innovative behaviour: a key factor in inclusive on-farm processes of technology and practice adoption. Exp Agric:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479718000315
  10. Coquil X, Béguin P, Dedieu B (2014) Transition to self-sufficient mixed crop–dairy farming systems. Renew Agric Food Syst 29:195–205.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douphrate DI, Hagevoort GR, Nonnenmann MW et al (2013) The dairy industry: a brief description of production practices, trends, and farm characteristics around the world. J Agromedicine 18:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumont AM, Baret PV (2017) Why working conditions are a key issue of sustainability in agriculture? A comparison between agroecological, organic and conventional vegetable systems. J Rural Stud 56:53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupré L (2010) Spécificités du salariat permanent en élevage laitier de montagne: une première approche dans les Alpes du Nord. Cah Agric 19:366–370.  https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2010.0423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Everaere C (2006) Pour une échelle de mesure de l’autonomie dans le travail. Rev Int Sur Trav Société 4:105–123Google Scholar
  15. Everaere C (2008) La polyvalence et ses contradictions. Rev Fr Gest Ind 27:89–104Google Scholar
  16. Fiorelli C, Dedieu B, Porcher J (2010) Un cadre d’analyse des compromis adoptés par les éleveurs pour organiser leur travail. Cah Agric 19:383–390Google Scholar
  17. Foong-Ming T (2008) Linking career development practices to turnover intention: the mediator of perceived organizational support. J Bus Public Aff 2:1–16Google Scholar
  18. Girard N, Duru M, Hazard L, Magda D (2008) Categorising farming practices to design sustainable land-use management in mountain areas. Agron Sustain Dev 28:333–343.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison JL, Getz C (2015) Farm size and job quality: mixed-methods studies of hired farm work in California and Wisconsin. Agric Hum Values 32:617–634.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9575-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hostiou N, Dedieu B (2012) A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 6:852–862.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hostiou N, Dedieu B, Pailleux J (2007) Le salariat en élevage porcin et les régulations du travail. Journ Rech Porc En Fr 39:193Google Scholar
  22. Hutchison AJ, Johnston LH, Breckon JD (2010) Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: an account of a worked example. Int J Soc Res Methodol 13:283–302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570902996301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutt MJ, Hutt GK (1993) Organizing the human resource: a review of centralization, decentralization and delegation in agricultural business management. J Dairy Sci 76:2069–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huy QN (2001) Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Acad Manag Rev 26:601–623.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.5393897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyde J, Stup R, Holden L (2008) The effect of human resource management practices on farm profitability: an initial assessment. Econ Bull 17:1–10Google Scholar
  26. Hyde J, Cornelisse SA, Holden LA (2011) Human resource management on dairy farms: does investing in people matter? Econ Bull 31:208–217Google Scholar
  27. International Labour Office (2007) Agricultural workers and their contribution to sustainable agriculture and rural development. ILO-FAO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolstrup C, Lundqvist P, Pinzke S (2008) Psychosocial work environment among employed Swedish dairy and pig farmworkers. J Agromedicine 13:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leplat J (2004) Éléments pour l’étude des documents prescripteurs. Activités.  https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1293
  30. Madelrieux S, Dedieu B (2008) Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms. Animal.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110700122X
  31. Madelrieux S, Dupré L, Rémy J (2009) Itinéraires croisés et relations entre éleveurs et salariés dans les Alpes du Nord. Écon Ru 313–314:6–21.  https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.2367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malanski PD, Hostiou N, Ingrand S (2017) Evolution pathways of employees’ work on dairy farms according to task content, specialization, and autonomy. Cah Agric.  https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017052
  33. Moffatt J (2016) Understanding career pathways in agriculture: theorising the farmhand career. Aust J Career Dev 25:129–138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416216676605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mugera AW (2012) Sustained competitive advantage in agribusiness: applying the resource-based theory to human resources. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 15:27–48Google Scholar
  35. Nettle R (2012) Farmers growing farmers: the role of employment practices in reproducing dairy farming in Australia. In: 10th IFSA symposium. Aarhus, Denmark, 11pGoogle Scholar
  36. Nettle R (2018) International trends in farm labour demand and availability (and what it means for farmers, advisers, industry and government). In: International agricultural workforce conference. Cork, Ireland, pp 8–16Google Scholar
  37. Nettle R, Kuehne G, Lee K, Armstrong D (2018a) A new framework to analyse workforce contribution to Australian cotton farm adaptability. Agron Sustain Dev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0514-6
  38. Nettle R, Crawford A, Brightling P (2018b) How private-sector farm advisors change their practices: an Australian case study. J Rural Stud 58:20–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peaucelle J (2009) Vices et vertus du travail spécialisé. Ann Mines - Gérer Compr.  https://doi.org/10.3917/geco.097.0028
  40. Pettigrew AM (1990) The longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ Sci 1:267–292.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Przewozny A, Bitsch V, Peters KJ (2016) Performance-based pay and other incentive schemes on dairy farms in Germany. SSRN Electron J.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2851082
  42. Roguet C, Duflot B, Graveleau C, Rieu M (2010) La mutation de la production porcine au Danemark: modèles d’élevage, performances techniques, réglementations environnementales et perspectives. Journ Rech Porc En Fr 42:59–64Google Scholar
  43. Sguerzi-Boespflug M (2008) La polycompétence: bénéfices, paradoxes et enjeux stratégiques. Une étude de cas dans la grande distribution. In: 17ème Conférence internationale de management stratégique. Aims, 25pGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor FW (1914) The principles of scientific management. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Vafaï K, Anvar S (1998) Délégation et hiérarchie. Rev Économique 49:1199–1225.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3502771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ven AHVD, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20:510–540.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wesarat P, Sharif MY, Majid AHA (2014) A review of organizational and individual career management: a dual perspective. Int J Hum Resour Stud 4:101–113.  https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i1.5331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Clermont Auvergne, AgroParisTech, Inra, Irstea, VetAgro Sup, UMR TerritoiresAubièreFrance

Personalised recommendations