Can Farm Management Advice To Small-Scale Farmers Trigger Strategic Thinking To Innovate

CAN FARM MANAGEMENT ADVICE TO SMALL-SCALE FARMERS TRIGGER
STRATEGIC THINKING TO INNOVATE?
Aurelle de Romemont, Catherine Macombe, Guy Faure
De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »
2018/1 n° 25 | pages 119 à 138

ISBN 9782807391888
Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2018-1-page-119.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.
© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

CAN FARM MANAGEMENT
ADVICE TO SMALL-SCALE
FARMERS TRIGGER STRATEGIC
THINKING TO INNOVATE?
Aurelle de ROMEMONT
CIRAD, UMR Innovation
INNOVATION, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA
Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France
aurelle.de-romemont@supagro.fr
Catherine MACOMBE
UMR ITAP, Univ. Montpellier, IRSTEA
catherine.macombe@irstea.fr
Guy FAURE
CIRAD, UMR Innovation
INNOVATION, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA
guy.faure@cirad.fr

ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to understand how advisory services addressing farm manage-
ment issues can foster strategic thinking. We consider that the evolution of strategic think-
ing is related to the concept of proactivity. In Benin, we analyzed the impact of learning
processes triggered by an approach called “management advice for family farms” (MAFF)
with a sample of 19 farmers. By providing technical and management training, the MAFF
approach enables farmers to better understand their environment, assess their situation,
and act differently. The participants’ strategic thinking evolved after one year of participa-
tion in MAFF activities. This evolution is partially dependent on the level of resources or
level of education of the participants. However, the level of proactivity before the training
is a strong element influencing the intensity of the learning process.
Keywords: Farm Management, Strategic Thinking, Proactivity, Learning Process,
Entrepreneurial Learning, Agricultural Advisory Services, Extension
Codes JEL: Q160
n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 119

Aurelle de ROMEMONT, Catherine MACOMBE, Guy FAURE
In Africa, there has been a strong evolution in extension over the past
20 years. Advisory approaches have become oriented towards more partici-
patory methods. The advisor’s role has evolved from that of a “teacher,”
based on “knowledge-transfer methods,” to that of a “facilitator,” based on
“knowledge-building methods” to foster learning processes (Röling, Jong,
1998; Waddington et al., 2010). This shift has led to a great diversity of
financial, institutional and organizational reforms for advisory services
(Birner et al., 2009; Faure et al., 2012). Following this overall trend, MAFF
(Management Advice to Family Farms, Conseil à l’Exploitation Familiale—
CEF) has been tried out in Benin for more than two decades to strengthen
farmers’ capacities to manage the resources of their farms, and to foster
innovation. This method has been widely promoted and has been chosen
to be the lead approach for rural advisory services in the national strategy of
Benin’s Ministry of Agriculture for rural advisory services (MAEP, 2008). At
present, MAFF is provided by a dozen NGOs, by farmers’ organizations, and
by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has recruited more than 250 advisors.
Almost 20,000 farmers are now taking part in MAFF activities in Benin.
MAFF is aimed at building up the producers’ entrepreneurship, enabling
them to develop their management capacities through a set of activities
in order to better analyze their situation, plan, monitor, and assess their
agricultural and non-agricultural activities by using management tools.
Management capacities are one of the capacities to innovate (Leeuwis et al.,

2015). However, some questions have been raised about the effectiveness
of MAFF to foster strategic thinking beyond the adoption of these manage-
ment tools (Moumouni et al., 2011), to fully address farm management at the
strategic level. Furthermore, in agriculture, even though learning processes
generated by extension activities have been documented, characterization
has been carried out more at a transformative level (Percy, 2005; Taylor
et al., 2012), rather than at a strategic management or entrepreneurship
level. In developing countries, where knowledge-based approaches are pro-
moted for agriculture (GFRAS, 2012), few studies have highlighted the role
of management advice in building strategic thinking. The aim of this article
is to understand how advisory services addressing farm management issues
at strategic level can foster strategic thinking. The findings of this study are
interesting, both to analyze entrepreneurial learning aimed at strengthen-
ing strategic thinking, and to design recommendations for improving MAFF
methods, and foster innovation process at farm level.
120 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

CAN FARM MANAGEMENT ADVICE TO SMALL-SCALE FARMERS…
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Entrepreneurship is often described in the agricultural sector as a quality or
an ability that some individuals have (Aouni, Surlemont, 2007) that allows
them to be innovative and leaders in creating new opportunities. We con-
sider that entrepreneurs are not “born” but “made” (Gibbs, 2005; Henry et al.,
2005). We choose not to focus on the characteristics of individuals them-
selves, but on the learning processes that foster strategic thinking, which is a
key issue for building entrepreneurship (Lans et al., 2008). Strategic thinking
is the combination of a strategic vision and strategic actions linked in a non-
linear, recursive and complex way (Mintzberg et al., 1999). We consider here
that strategic thinking is both the trigger and the result of a recursive learning
process built in a dialogic relationship between strategic vision and strate-
gic actions (Morin, Le Moigne, 1999). However, strategic thinking evolu-
tion depends on the level of proactivity of each individual (Laberge, 2003).
Proactivity characteristics in management literature are diverse (Umran,
2014). The proactive person is one who is relatively unconstrained by situ-
ational forces, and who changes the environment intentionally and directly
(Grant and Ashford, 2008). In line with this thinking, Parker et al. (2010)
considered three attributes regarding proactive individuals: self-starting,
change-oriented, and future-focused. Proactive individuals are considered
to have more proactive strategic thinking with a clear vision of their future

and act towards achieving this through strategic actions adapted to those
objectives. They generally have the ability to take a reflexive look at their
own practices and experiences in order to act (Weick, 1999), enhance their
own strategic thinking, and achieve their goals. Proactive strategic thinking
is useful to develop a “flexible expertise, based on a complex world view to meet
the demands of innovation in a changing environment” (Gielen et al., 2003).
However, proactivity is not a static psychological profile characterizing an
individual, but a dynamic construct, which can be enhanced through learn-
ing processes such as training and advice (Laberge, 2003).
Strategic thinking determines the way individuals make their decisions
and manage their resources, and by such strategic thinking participate in
the construction of management capacities. Based on Rougoor et al. (1998),
management capacity may be characterized by: (i) personal aspects, con-
sisting of farmers’ drives and motivations, farmers’ abilities and capabilities,
and biographical facts such as age and education; and (2) aspects of the
decision-making process, consisting of practices and procedures with respect
to planning, implementation and control of decisions at the farm. This defi-
nition is in line with other authors (Vukelić, Rodić, 2014). Management
capacities determine the way farmers plan, implement, monitor and assess

their actions and accordingly change their agricultural practices and man-
agement practices (Brossier et al., 1995). Concepts of strategic thinking and
planning (understood as part of management practices) have been opposed
for a long time because planning could be used to define inflexible orienta-
tions, and through this strengthen resistance to major changes (Mintzberg
et al., 1999). However, other authors have explored their complementarity
(Torset, 2002). Planning is useful to provide representations of the reality,
enabling a look back at previous planning, and thus feeding strategic think-
ing (Heracleous, 1998). Management practices (including planning, moni-
toring and evaluation), are not important as such, but power the process of
strategic thinking (Heracleous, 1998; Liedtka, 1998).
MATERIAL AND METHOD

To help answer the question of what triggers the evolution of farmers’ strate-
gic thinking, we explored the evolution of proactivity of small-scale farmers’
strategic thinking when participating in MAFF.
MAFF in Action
MAFF is an advisory approach based on learning and decision-making
processes (Faure et al., 2015). The MAFF principles are derived from the

management sciences. The main objective is to strengthen farmers’ capaci-
ties to manage all their farm resources (land, labor, inputs, money, crops
and livestock), and other activities (off-farm and non-farm). Participatory
methods are used in order to enable participants to undertake self-analysis of
their practices concerning various farm dimensions (production, processing,
marketing, etc.) by taking into account the different phases of the man-
agement cycle (analysis, planning, monitoring, adjustment and evaluation),
and their economic and social environment. MAFF is based on the use of
decision-support tools to allow farmers to analyze their technical and eco-
nomic results. In the majority of the experiences, MAFF is based on record-
keeping. As a result, producers gain a new understanding of their farming
systems. They become able to improve their life conditions on their own,
through the development of new activities or improvement of their agri-
cultural, managerial or social practices. In Benin, MAFF is implemented by
advisors in several phases:
1. Farm diagnoses to identify the farmers’ needs.
2. Organization of collective training on agricultural practices based
on identification of the initial requirements (fertilization of maize,
cotton pest control, etc.).

3. Management training (crop-season planning, grain stores man-

agement, cash flow planning, revenue-expenditure accounts, etc.).
Farmers are taught to use specific tools (records and analysis) for each
topic and are advised on how to incorporate performance criteria
(gross margin, cost/income ratio. etc.) to assess their results and make
decisions.
4. Complementary individual advisory visit to the farmers’ fields.
5. Analysis of the technical and economic results, both at plot level
and farm level, with groups of farmers. Some advisors use computers
to perform additional processing on farmer data. These more accurate
results are then presented and discussed with each farmer.
6. Self-planning of the next cropping season based on past results and
the objectives the farmers want to achieve.
Collective activities and exchanges are encouraged: group meetings to
discuss results, field visits, trials in farmers’ plots. Normally, one advisor
works with 7 to 9 groups, each group consisting of 10 to 30 farmers. In many
locations farmer-facilitators have been trained in each group to undertake
part of the advisor’s tasks. Participants attend MAFF sessions on a voluntary
basis with one or two sessions per month for a total duration of usually three
years. But the duration and frequency of attendance vary depending on the
interest and availability of each participant, and also depend on the quality

and permanent presence of the advisor in the field (Moumouni et al., 2015).
The tools used by advisors and farmers are contextualized to each region
of Benin. The first year of MAFF is considered “standard” for every group.
It consists of discussions on farm management and collective training on
technical and management practices. Individualized advice is not part of the
program at this stage. The program for the following years is adapted more to
farmers’ specific demands and group dynamics.
Analytical Framework
In line with Torset (2002), Laberge (2003) and Parker et al. (2010), we
define strategic thinking through three main attributes: (i) the farmers’ stra-
tegic vision, characterized by indicators regarding their perception of the
future (some farmers do not look ahead to their future), for example objec-
tives for the next cropping season, objectives beyond the next cropping sea-
son, projects for the family, (ii) the drivers of change as perceived by farmers,
characterized by indicators regarding the influences of external variables
(such as the opinion of neighbors or market prices), or regarding the level of
personal influence on changes, and (iii) the farmers’ strategic actions (if they

undertake actions to reach this strategic vision), characterized by indicators

such as the implementation of new agricultural or management practices,
the development of new on-farm or off-farm activities. Strategic thinking
and these indicators are informed by the farmers’ discourses.
We hypothesize that the evolution of strategic thinking is influenced by
two variables: the farmer’s level of proactivity regarding strategic thinking,
and farm characteristics. To characterize the level of proactivity in farmers’
strategic thinking, we defined four categories of farmers based both on our
three attributes regarding strategic thinking, and Laberge’s work regarding
proactivity (2003):
(i) farmers with passive strategic thinking are characterized by no
strategic vision, an external driver of change, and no strategic actions;
(ii) farmers with reactive strategic thinking are characterized by no
strategic vision but strategic actions induced by what they think to be
external forces (external driver of change);
(iii) farmers with constrained imaginative strategic thinking are char-
acterized by a strategic vision but no strategic actions toward this,
mainly because of perceived constraints, even though they think they
can change by themselves (internal driver of change);
(iv) farmers with proactive strategic thinking are characterized by a
strategic vision, an internal driver of change, and strategic actions

undertaken to fulfill this.
The characteristics of the farms depend on their activities and their level
of resources (Scoones, 2009). Their activities are characterized by the level
of diversification of activities (on-farm, off-farm, such as the processing
of raw material, non-farm activities such as trading and transport). Their
level of resources is characterized by their human capital (number of fam-
ily members), financial capital (number of animals), physical capital (culti-
vated area). Based on these factors, we categorized producers participating
in MAFF in four groups: Group 1, with limited diversification of agricultural
and non-agricultural activities and a limited level of resources; Group 2,
with strong diversification of activities and an average level of resources;
Group 3, specialized in agriculture and with a high level of resources;
and Group 4, with agriculture as a secondary activity and a high level of
resources.

Table 1 – Main characteristics of the farms drawn up after the first field work
Group Number Primary Off-farm Number of Cultivated Main Number

of farmers income activity farm members area (ha) crops of animals
1 3 Agriculture Occasional 5.4 1.1 Maize, 1.6

cassava
2 5 Agriculture Occasional 13.4 3.9 Maize, 2.8
cassava
3 8 Agriculture All year 13.9 9.1 Maize, 2.8
round cassava,
palm trees
4 3 Off-farm and All year 6.6 4.9 Maize, 2.6
non-farm round cassava,
activity palm trees
Method
To answer our research question, we analyzed the evolution of strategic think-
ing before the first MAFF activities and after one year of MAFF. Before MAFF
started, we selected 42 farmers in southern Benin, where PADYP decided to
start with new groups of participants. The farmers were willing to participate
in MAFF, according to PADYP staff, and represented the four groups of our
typology based on the type of activities and the level of resources.
With these 42 farmers, we conducted face to face semi-structured inter-

views at the farm (i) to make farm diagnoses (activities and resources, agri-
cultural and management practices), and (ii) to assess their strategic thinking
with regards to the three attributes (strategic vision, drivers of change, stra-
tegic actions). Some of the farmers never attended MAFF and some of them
abandoned MAFF during the first year. The majority abandoned because of
problems not related to MAFF (health, migration, etc.) and some because
MAFF did not meet their expectations (access to credit, investment in time,
etc.). 19 farmers from the previous sample remained after one year. Even
if the sample was small we were able to address our research question and
to confirm that the 19 farmers were still representative of our four groups.
Farmers participated in four different MAFF groups supervised by four differ-
ent advisors. The type of advice did not differ among the groups during this
first year, by checking the programs of activities of the advisors and of the
groups beforehand and analyzing after completion.
To detect changes in strategic thinking among the 19 farmers of our sam-
ple, we conducted the same surveys one year later (semi-structured interviews
to note the changes regarding agricultural and management practices, and
to note the changes regarding their strategic thinking). An additional semi-
structured interview was conducted to elicit the changes attributed to MAFF

by the participant. Even if one year is not a long period of time, we were able
to analyze the evolution of the farmers’ discourse on their future including
their projects, the drivers of change they perceived, and the actions under-
taken to reach their vision, including changes in agricultural and manage-
ment practices. To identify the changes that were relevant, we analyzed both
the changes spontaneously attributed to MAFF by the 19 producers after one
year of advice, and the changes in their answers to similar questions before
and after MAFF. Our participation in several MAFF activities and additional
farm visits with all the 19 farmers helped to cross-check the information
collected during the interviews. At a final stage, we discussed these changes
with each farmer to confirm their changes in strategic thinking.
Management practices were characterized on the basis of seven “man-
agement domains”: cropping system planning; monitoring and evaluation
of agricultural activities; inputs management; workforce management; cash
flow management; harvest storage management; and investment planning.
For each of these management domains, we analyzed the management prac-
tices of the participants by attributing “1” if they used tools or indicators to
plan, monitor and evaluate their activities or results regarding each domain,
and “0” if they did not. We added the results obtained for each domain to
characterize each farmer according to his or her level of farm managerial
capacity (management capacity ranking from 0 with low capacity to 7 with
high capacity). Each farmer’s managerial capacity can be compared with his

or her level of strategic thinking to determine if there is a link between
managerial capacity and strategic thinking.
FINDINGS
Producers’ Pre-MAFF Situation

The farmers’ pre-MAFF situation is presented in Table 2 below.
The pre-MAFF data shows a diversity of situations according to the four
categories of farmers’ strategic thinking level. These results reveal trends:
farmers with passive strategic thinking are less educated and have limited
resources (Group 1) and include only women. Farmers with proactive strate-
gic thinking generally have more resources (the majority are from Groups 3
and 4), and better education. Farmers with reactive and constrained imagi-
native strategic thinking are diversified in terms of gender, level of resources,
and education. These facts highlight the reality that the level of proactiv-
ity of farmers’ strategic thinking and the level of resources are not strictly
linked. Farmers with proactive strategic thinking are not always the ones

Table 2 – Situation of 19 producers before MAFF

Level of proactivity Gender Farm Level Farm management domains Management
of farmers’ strategic Group of formal capacity
Cropping Monitoring Inputs Workforce Cash flow Harvest Investment
thinking education
planning evaluation storage
Passive F 1 –_ – – – – – – 0
F 1 –_ – 1 – – – – – 1
F 1 –_ – – – – – – – 0
Reactive F 2 Primary – – – – – – – 0
F 3 – 1 1 – – 1 1 – 4
M 4 Primary 1 – – 1 – – 1 3
Constrained F 2 –_ – 1 – – – 1 – 2
imaginative
M 3 Primary – 1 1 – 1 – – 3
M 3 –_ 1 1 1 – – 1 – 4
M 4 Primary – – – – – – – 0
Proactive M 2 Primary – – 1 1 1 – – 3
F 2 Adult – – – 1 – 1 1 3
literacy
M 2 –_ 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 5
M 3 Secondary 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 6
M 3 Secondary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
M 3 Secondary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
M 3 Primary 1 1 1 – – 1 – 4
M 3 Secondary 1 – 1 – – – – 2
M 4 Secondary 1 1 1 – – – – 3


with the most significant resources. Farmers with fewer resources (and who
are less educated) more often have less proactive strategic thinking, but
they can have proactive strategic thinking in some situations (three produc-
ers from Group 2 have proactive strategic thinking). We can also see that
farmers who have attended secondary education all have proactive strategic
thinking, but farmers with proactive strategic thinking are not all educated.
Farmers’ strategic thinking level of proactivity is not therefore directly link-
able to education, but education seems to facilitate building up a more pro-
active strategic thinking.
We also observe a large diversity in terms of management planning
capacity. Farmers with passive, reactive and constrained imaginative stra-
tegic thinking seem to have a low pre-MAFF farm management planning
capacity (indicator of management capacity: 0 to 5). Around half the farm-
ers with proactive strategic thinking have high pre-MAFF management
planning capacity (6 or 7) which enables them to better manage their farm-
ing system. However, we can also see that farmers’ strategic thinking level of
proactivity is not directly linked to management planning practices. We can
see that farmers with reactive and constrained imaginative strategic think-
ing have average planning practices (0 to 5), whereas some farmers with
proactive strategic thinking have low management planning capacity.
Moreover, even if we recognize some potential bias in the sample (farm-

ers with more proactive strategic thinking might be more inclined to partici-
pate in MAFF, for example), all types of producers are represented in MAFF,
irrespective of their activities, their resources and their strategic thinking
level of proactivity. From this first result, we can conclude that farmers’ stra-
tegic thinking level of proactivity before MAFF is not directly linked to
their level of education, farm resources and management planning practices.
Changes in Strategic Thinking

After one year of participation in MAFF, farmers identified a large diver-
sity of changes that they attributed to MAFF: changes at the individual
level concerning their reflection and behavior with others, changes at farm
level regarding agricultural practices and farm management practices, and
changes at family level regarding expenses, savings or investments (see
Table 3 below). However, based on farmers’ discourse, we can distinguish
two types of identified changes: intentions of change, which means that
farmers think they will undertake changes in the near future, and changes
that have already occurred. Due to the short time between our two surveys
(only one year apart), we were not able to measure the effects and impacts
of these changes.

Table 3– Types of changes spontaneously attributed to MAFF by producers after

one year of participation
Domains Types of change based on farmers’ Number of Number of

of change discourse producers producers
attributing an that have
intention to made changes
change regarding concerning this
this domain (out domain (out of
of 19) 19) (1)
Individual Autonomous thinking 5 11

and cognitive Change is possible and possesses power 4 7
changes to change
Ask for help from others instead of working 2 5
alone
Communication is important and wants to 0 2
be a change agent for others
Agricultural Changes in agricultural practices 7 10
practices (fertilization, inputs use, seedlings,
weeding)
Changes concerning new agricultural
activities (crops, livestock) 6 10
Farm Changes in the organization of labor of all 8 12
management activities by using new tools (calendar, etc.)
Changes in measuring the fields’ area and 7 8
yield
Changes in how the farmer evaluates the 5 10

performances of the cropping system
(gross margin) and other activities
Changes in cash flow management 7 8
Changes in harvest storage management 4 5
Changes in investment strategies 3 5
Family Changes in the distribution of 3 5
responsibilities for various activities and
development of collective discussions about
work
Better knowledge of family needs 3 7
Changes in types of expenses 6 15
Changes in use of savings and discussion 3 4
around the allocation of money (food,
health, education)
Changes in gender work distribution 3 3
Relationships Changes in collective rules (better 6 4
outside family negotiation of change at the village level)
Development of new collective actions (for 0 6
MAFF group members)
Transmission of experience outside the 3 5
group and informal training of relatives and
friends
Some rows can add up to more than 19, which means that some farmers have already made changes in that
domain, but have also expressed the intention of making more changes in the near future.

Based on the changes attributed to MAFF by each farmer during the

interviews, we analyzed the changes of the three attributes that define strate-
gic thinking: the strategic vision, driver of change, and strategic actions (see
Table 4). We decided not to note the level of changes regarding the three
attributes but only to note if a change occurred or not.
Table 4 – Changes in strategic thinking during the first year of MAFF

participation
Characteristics of farmers Change in strategic thinking

before MAFF after one year of MAFF
Level of Gender Farm Management Educ.

proactivity group capacity
of farmers’ Strategic Driver of Strategic
strategic vision change actions
thinking source
Passive F 1 0 – = = =
F 1 1 – = = =
F 1 0 – = + =
Reactive F 2 4 – = + +
F 3 0 Primary = + +
M 4 3 Primary = + +
Constrained F 2 3 Primary + + +

imaginative
M 3 4 – + + =
M 3 2 – + + +
M 4 0 Primary + + +
Proactive M 2 3 Primary + + +
F 2 3 Adult + + +
literacy
M 2 5 – + = +
M 3 6 Secondary = + +
M 3 7 Secondary = = +
M 3 7 Secondary = + +
M 3 4 Primary + + +
M 3 2 Secondary + + +
M 4 3 Secondary + + +
Changes 10 15 15
Farmers who attributed to MAFF a change regarding one of the three attributes of strategic thinking (strategic
vision, source of change, strategic action) are indicated by (+), those not attributing any change by (-).
As Table 4 shows, ten farmers admitted changes in their strategic vision.

They explained that MAFF gave them a better understanding of the cur-
rent situation and possible evolutions of their farming system and resources

through (i) the use of management tools and improved ability to monitor
their activities, and (ii) the exchanges and discussions with participants and
the advisor. One farmer said, “It gave us new eyes.” MAFF enabled them to
have a more detailed strategic vision for the future and helped them clar-
ify their projects. A farmer explained that “MAFF gave us visibility on what
we’re doing; it showed us what was underneath what we’re doing. MAFF helps
us understand what is not clear and gives us a clearer idea of what we want to
do in the future.” Fifteen farmers attributed to MAFF the evolution of their
capacities of being drivers of change. MAFF revealed or reinforced their
perception of their power to change, enabling them to act to improve their
situation and to influence the shaping of their environment: “Now, I know
that I can change the environment and people around me. I can have new ideas
that can motivate me and others to evolve towards a better situation.” Fifteen
producers attributed changes in strategic actions to MAFF, due to changes
in their perception of constraints: “I have the same ideas as before, but MAFF
provided me with tools to understand that I have everything that I need to achieve
my goals.” These results reveal that a large majority of producers attributed
an evolution in one or more of the different attributes of strategic thinking
to MAFF during the first year. Only two producers did not attribute any
changes in strategic thinking to MAFF during this first year.

Evolution of Farmers’ Strategic Thinking Level
of Proactivity
The diversity in building up strategic thinking among participants is
explained primarily by the producers’ strategic thinking level of proactivity
before MAFF. If we look at the changes in strategic thinking that produc-
ers attribute to MAFF in Table 4, we can observe, except for Group 1 (low
level of resources), that the type of activity undertaken by farmers, or their
level of resources (as described in Table 1), is not linked to changes regard-
ing their strategic thinking due to MAFF. Farmers with passive strategic
thinking before MAFF do not really attribute any change in their strategic
thinking to MAFF. They do not perceive changes in their strategic vision
or strategic actions, and do not become really aware of their power to bring
about even small changes. They still rely on external help to undertake
changes in their farm or family. However, one producer with passive strate-
gic thinking evolved towards a more positive perception about the possibil-
ity of being able to make changes, but without building up any additional
strategic thinking proactive attribute during this first year of MAFF.
For farmers with reactive strategic thinking before MAFF, MAFF mainly
changes their perception of their own power to bring about changes. There

is a transition from expecting change to be externally driven, to change that

is more internally driven. Even if all of them do not as yet express any in-
depth changes in their strategic vision, MAFF helps them to better under-
stand their farming systems and environments, which in turn helps them
to act more strategically. All of them express their intention to undertake a
specific project in the future (strategic action).
Farmers with constrained imaginative strategic thinking attribute great
changes to MAFF. MAFF enables them to see their situation with “new
eyes” and differently perceive what they formerly thought were constraints.
They better understand their farming systems and their situation; they feel
more able to act towards change and to mobilize available resources more
appropriately. All of them attribute to MAFF a strong shift in their strategic
vision and actions, referring to a form of “rupture” in the way of perceiving
their environment and their role in it. These changes led to strategic actions
during the first year of participation in MAFF. These farmers state that they
were unable to undertake these changes before their participation in MAFF.
Farmers with proactive strategic thinking attribute changes of a different
intensity to MAFF, mainly according to their pre-MAFF farm management
capacity. For those with lower pre-MAFF farm management capacity (indi-
cator of management capacity: 0 to 5), MAFF changes all the attributes of
strategic thinking, allowing them to have a more precise strategic vision, to

reinforce their internal driver of change, and to act toward this vision more
adequately. For those who already have high pre-MAFF management capac-
ity (6 or 7), MAFF enables them to optimize their system without really
changing their strategic vision and/or their driver of change. For the major-
ity of farmers with proactive strategic thinking, even if they had a positive
internal driver of change before MAFF, MAFF reinforces this, giving them a
fuller perception of their power to bring about change.
Table 5 presents the summary of the evolution of the strategic thinking
level of proactivity for the 19 producers according to different factors.
Table 5 shows that the pre-MAFF level of proactivity of strategic think-
ing seems to be linked to the number of changes due to MAFF participation.
This observation suggests that the pre-MAFF level of strategic thinking pro-
activity is a main factor explaining the building up of strategic thinking
during MAFF. This result underlines the role of MAFF as a way of revealing
to farmers their room for maneuver and power to bring about change. The
different activities undertaken by advisors trigger the building of strategic
thinking for farmers, mainly by changing their perception of their situa-
tions and environments, and thus making them progressively develop their
proactivity. A strategic thinking level of proactivity is both a product and

an influential factor for entrepreneurial learning taking place in a recursive

learning process.
Table 5 – Number of farmers experiencing changes in their strategic thinking

according to different factors
Level of proactivity Farm Level of Manage

of strategic thinking group education ment
before MAFF capacity
Literate or
Secondary
No formal
education
Proactive
Reactive
primary
Passive
Const.
1&2
3&4
Imag.
0-3
4-7
Number of farmers
No change 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0
thinking attributes
change in one or
1 change 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
more strategic
experiencing a
2 changes 0 3 1 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 5
3 changes 0 0 3 5 2 6 1 5 2 7 1
Total 19 19 19 19
Evolution of strategic thinking attribute: 0 = no evolution, 1 = evolution of at least one of the three attributes,
2 = evolution of at least two attributes, 3 = evolution of the three attributes

DISCUSSION
At the theoretical level, the idea of linking proactivity with strategic think-
ing enriches the literature on strategic farm management, a topic on which
there has been not much research in recent years (Jeanneaux, Blasquiet-
Revol, 2012). Moreover, this type of research has focused more on the use
of management tools to pilot innovation processes, rather than on the pro-
cesses of strategic thinking themselves (Morin, Le Moigne, 1999; Fonrouge,
2002; Martinet, 2006). Our work mobilizes the concept of proactivity as a
key factor in explaining the evolution of strategic thinking and viewing it as
a recursive and permanent learning process. This analysis of strategic think-
ing enables us to explore the emergence and elaboration of farmers’ strategies
that goes beyond a “management cycle” defined by sequential steps. Strategy
building is both deliberate and emergent (Mintzberg, 1999), linking strate-
gic vision and strategic actions in a complex, non-linear and recursive man-
ner. MAFF enables producers to switch from the exploitation of “perceived”
resources to an exploration of “revealed” resources, and allows them to iden-
tify new opportunities in their environment (March, 1991). The managers
no longer define their strategy through reactions to their environment, but

act in this environment with their “revealed” resources (Prahalad & Hamel,
1995). The farmers progressively become autonomous in this reflexive way
of thinking strategically.
Our research also gives some interesting insights regarding the difference
between planning and strategic thinking, and to what extent management
tools and planning tools have a role in this strategic thinking learning process.
In our work, we differentiated strategic thinking and management capaci-
ties. The results show that neither dimension is directly linked. Producers
with proactive strategic thinking do not necessarily plan their activities effi-
ciently, and producers with strong planning practices do not always have
proactive strategic thinking. As shown by Liedtka (1998), we confirm that
management tools are not indispensable or the panacea to strengthen stra-
tegic thinking, but are useful tools to support the strategic thinking process,
and to reinforce the building up of proactivity strategy thinking. Indeed, the
management tools mobilized through MAFF enable producers to identify
objectives, to monitor their activities, and assess their results. In line with
other research regarding entrepreneurs (Heracleous, 1998), these manage-
ment tools help farmers create mental plans and shape their strategic vision.
Our results question the method of providing advice. First, they show
that what really matters is not the technical content of the advice but the
learning process supported by the advisory activities. Other scholars are in

line with this point of view (Christoplos, 2010) and many participatory
methods have been designed in past decades to improve advisory services
(Röling, Jong, 1998, Faure et al., 2012). However, our results highlight the
importance of going beyond the use of participatory methods and the impor-
tance of strengthening strategic thinking, which is still rare in the rural
advisory world. For example, the Farmer Field School approach, promoted
worldwide by FAO, placed emphasis on a learning process to better manage
crops (Waddington et al., 2010), but without addressing strategic thinking.
Second, advisory services often focus on “leaders,” “innovators,” “educated
farmers” or “resourceful farmers” because such farmers are considered to be
more able to learn and change (Faure, 2014). However, our results show
that, except for farmers with passive strategic thinking, all kinds of farm-
ers participate and change through MAFF. The changes due to MAAF are
largely explained by the level of proactivity of a farmer’s strategic think-
ing before MAFF. Our results suggest that MAFF could trigger even greater
changes if advisory activities are adapted to better address the main perceived
constraints for each strategic thinking attribute (strategic vision, driver of
change, strategic actions). We think that farmers with more proactive strate-
gic thinking might play a great role in “enrolling” other producers participat-
ing in the same group, and strengthen the entrepreneurial learning process.

CONCLUSION
Our research highlights the importance of strategic thinking with its three
attributes (the farmer’s strategic vision, the drivers of change perceived by
farmers, the strategic actions undertaken), and the strategic thinking level
of proactivity to characterize the MAFF participants and the changes they
reported after one year of participation in MAFF. We show how MAFF trig-
gers and reinforces the producer’s learning processes, depending on his or
her strategic thinking proactivity level. This study is based on the producers’
own interpretations and perceptions of their situations and environments.
MAFF empowers producers by working mainly on their interpretations of
the world.
The research shows that the farmers who change are not necessarily the
farmers with more resources, who are more educated, and with a higher pre-
MAFF strategic thinking proactivity level. However, as we also observed,
changes are easier with a higher level of education or a higher level of
resources. Strategic thinking may evolve through MAFF participation. The
pre-MAFF strategic thinking level of proactivity is the main factor explain-
ing the evolution of strategic thinking, and the main driver of change
(agricultural practices, farm management practices, family rules). Farmers
with passive strategic thinking do not really attribute any change of strate-
gic thinking to MAFF. For farmers with reactive strategic thinking, MAFF

mainly changes their perception of their own power to induce change: the
changes are no no longer exclusively driven by external forces but are also
driven by internal choices. Farmers with constrained imaginative strategic
thinking attribute great changes to MAFF. MAFF enables them to perceive
their situations and their constraints differently. Farmers with proactive stra-
tegic thinking attribute changes of a different intensity to MAFF, depending
mainly on their previous farm management capacity. While some of them
find themselves in the situation of exploring their revealed resources, oth-
ers are in a situation of optimization of their resources. However, there is
no fixed psychological profile or permanent individual attribute that relates
to strategic thinking proactivity. Strategic thinking proactivity may evolve
over time. Advisory services may contribute to this evolution.
We can conclude that farmers who are most likely to implement success-
ful strategic actions have to fulfill these conditions: (i) have a motivation to
change, (ii) have a vision and a clear path for change, (iii) have perceived
resources to implement change, and (iv) have a perception of an enabling
environment to change (weak constraints, high opportunities). However,
further research is needed, first, to overcome some limits of our research
(small size of the sample, control of the influence of the various advisors on

the learning process), second, to explore the changes over the longer term,
to see if identified changes after one year are stable or if they evolve further
(e.g., if the strategic thinking level of proactivity of farmers with passive stra-
tegic thinking increases later on). Analyzing changes in strategic thinking
over the longer term can also highlight links between the building up of a
more proactive strategic thinking, and economical and social performances
at farm level, to assess if strategic thinking leads to better wellbeing for the
family. The research also shows that strategic thinking evolves rapidly in just
one year of MAFF, which was not obvious when the research was launched.
Such a result can be used to improve the design of the MAFF approach,
especially on targeting producers, and the advisory methods to be deployed.
In conclusion, this research on farmers’ strategic thinking level of pro-
activity, built on previous knowledge concerning strategic farm manage-
ment, highlights the fact that farmers’ strategic thinking is a main factor in
explaining changes at farm level. Such a result should be useful in improving
advisory methods in general and the MAFF approach in particular.
REFERENCES
AOUNI, Z., SURLEMONT, B. (2007), Le processus d’acquisition des compétences entre-
preneuriales : une approche cognitive, Actes du 5 ème congrès international de l’Académie de

l’Entrepreneuriat.
BIRNER, R., DAVIS, K., PENDER, J., NKONYA, E., ANANDAJAYASEKERAM, P.,
EKBOIR, J., MBABU, A., SPIELMAN, D. J., HORNA, D., BENIN, S. (2009), From Best
Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural
Advisory Services Worldwide, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4),
341‑55.
BROSSIER, J., MARSHALL, E., CHIA, E., PETIT, M. (1995), Gestion de l’exploitation
agricole familiale. Eléments théoriques et méthodologiques, Dijon, France, ENESAD-CNERTA.
CHRISTOPLOS, I. (2010), Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension,
Rome, FAO/GFRAS.
FAURE, G., TOILLIER, A., LEGILE, A., MOUMOUNI, I., PELON, V., GOUTON, P.,
GANSONRE, M. (2014), How to Improve the Sustainability of Approaches for
Management Advice for Family Farms in Africa? Toward a Research and Development
Agenda, Extension System, 29(2), 29-50.
FAURE, G., PAUTRIZEL, L., DE ROMEMONT, A., TOILLIER, A., ODRU, M.,
HAVARD, M. (2015), Management Advice for Family Farms to Strengthen Entrepreneurial
Skills, Note 8. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services, GFRAS,
Lindau, Switzerland.
FAURE, G., DESJEUX, Y., GASSELIN, P. (2012), New Challenges in Agricultural
Advisory Services from a Research Perspective: A Literature Review, Synthesis and
Research Agenda, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(5), 461-92.

FONROUGE, C. (2002), L’entrepreneur et son entreprise : une relations dialogique, Revue

française de gestion, 28(138), 145-158.
GFRAS (2012), The “New Extensionist”: Roles, Strategies, and Capacities to Reduce Hunger
and Poverty—Summary and Recommendations, GFRAS, Lindau, Switzerland.
GIBB, A. (2005), The Future of Entrepreneurship Education—Determining the Basis
for Coherent Policy and Practice, in Kyrö P., Carrier C. (eds), The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context, University of Tampere: Research
Centre for Vocational and Professional Education.
GIELEN, P., HOEVE, A., NIEUWENHUIS, L. M. F. (2003), Learning Entrepreneurs as
Experts, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 9(3), 103-116.
GRANT, A., ASHFORD, S. J. (2008), The Dynamics of Proactivity at Work, in B.  M. Staw,
R. I. Sutton (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-3-i. London, Jai Press.
HENRY, C., HILL, F., LEITCH, C. (2005), Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can
Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part I, Education+ Training, 47(2), 98-111.
HERACLEOUS, L. (1998), Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?, Long Range
Planning, 31(3), 481-87.
JEANNEAUX, P., BLASQUIET-REVOL, H. (2012), La gestion des exploitations agri-
coles : un état des lieux de la recherche en France, Gérer et Comprendre, 1, 29-40.
LABERGE, M. (2003), La proactivité des professionnels en ressources humaines, Thèse de
Doctorat, Université de Montréal
LANS, T., BIEMANS, H., VERSTEGEN, J., MULDER, M. (2008), The Influence of the
Work Environment on Entrepreneurial Learning of Small-Business Owners, Management
Learning, 39(5), 597-613.
LEEUWIS, C., SCHUT, M., WATERS-BAYER, A., MUR, R., ATTA-KRAH, K.,

DOUTHWAITE, B. (2014), Capacity to Innovate from a System-CRP Perspective, System
CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs).
LIEDTKA, J. M. (1998), Strategic Thinking: Can It Be Taught?, Long Range Planning
31(1), 120-129.
MAEP (2008), Stratégie Nationale de Mise en Œuvre du Conseil Agricole au Bénin (SNCA),
Direction du conseil agricole et de la formation professionnelle, Ministère de l’Agriculture,
de l’Elevage et de la Pêche, Bénin.
MARCH, J. G. (1991), Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,
Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
MARTINET, A.-C. (2006), Stratégie et pensée complexe, Revue française de gestion,
160(1), 31-45.
MINTZBERG, H., AHLSTRAND, B., LAMPEL, J., COHEN, L., FONTAINE, J. (1999),
Safari en pays stratégie : l’exploration des grands courants de la pensée stratégique, Paris, Village
mondial.
MORIN, E., LE MOIGNE, J.-L. (1999), L’intelligence de la complexité, Paris, L’Harmattan.
MOUMOUNI, I. M., GUY, N., NASSER, B. (2011), Du système formation et visites
au conseil à l’exploitation agricole familiale au Bénin : rupture ou continuité ?, Cahiers
Agricultures, 20(5), 376-381.
MOUMOUNI, I., DE ROMEMONT, A., AMONSOU-BIAOU, F., FAURE, G. (2015),
Standardisation du conseil agricole et diversité des modalités d’action des conseillers au
Bénin, Economie Rurale, 348, 43-57.

PARKER, S. K., BINDL, U. K., STRAUSS, K. (2010), Making Things Happen: A Model
of Proactive Motivation, Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
PERCY, R. (2005). The Contribution of Transformative Learning Theory to the Practice
of Participatory Research and Extension: Theoretical Reflections, Agriculture and Human
Values, 22(2), 127-136.
PRAHALAD, C., HAMEL, G., COHEN, C. (1995), La conquête du futur, Paris, Dunod.
RÖLING, N., JONG, F. D. (1998), Learning: Shifting Paradigms in Education and
Extension Studies, The Journal of Agricultual Education and Extension, 5(3), 143-161.
ROUGOOR, C., TRIP, G., HUIRNE, R., RENKEMA, J. (1998), How to Define and Study
Farmers’ Management Capacity: Theory and Use in Agricultural Economics, Agricultural
Economics, 18, 261-272.
SCONNES, I. (2009), Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development, Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36(1), 171-196.
TAYLOR, E. W., DUVESKOG, D., FRIIS-HANSEN, E. (2012), Fostering Transformative
Learning in Non-Formal Settings: Farmer-Field Schools in East Africa, International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 31(6), 725-742.
TORSET, C. (2002), La notion de réflexion stratégique : une approche par les contextes,
XIème conférence de l’AIMS, Paris, France, 29p.
UMRAN, A. (2014),Self-compassion as a Predictor of Proactivity, International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 103-111.
VUKELIĆ, N., RODIĆ, V. (2014), Farmers’ Management Capacities as a Success Factor in
Agriculture: A Review, Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 61(3), 805.
WADDINGTON, H., SNILSTVEIT, B., WHITE, H., ANDERSON, J. (2010), The Impact

of Agricultural Extension Services: Synthetic Reviews, International Initiative for Impact
Evaluation.
WEICK, K. E. (1999), Theory Construction as Disciplined Reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the
90s, Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797-806.

Can Farm Management Advice To Small-Scale Farmers Trigger Strategic Thinking To Innovate

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Can Farm Management Advice To Small-Scale Farmers Trigger Strategic Thinking To Innovate

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CAN FARM MANAGEMENT ADVICE TO SMALL-SCALE FARMERS TRIGGER

STRATEGIC THINKING TO INNOVATE?

Aurelle de Romemont, Catherine Macombe, Guy Faure

De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »

2018/1 n° 25 | pages 119 à 138

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 119

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

120 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 121

MATERIAL AND METHOD

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

122 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

3. Management training (crop-season planning, grain stores man-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 123

undertake actions to reach this strategic vision), characterized by indicators

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

124 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

Group Number Primary Off-farm Number of Cultivated Main Number

1 3 Agriculture Occasional 5.4 1.1 Maize, 1.6

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 125

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

Producers’ Pre-MAFF Situation

126 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

Table 2 – Situation of 19 producers before MAFF

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 127

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

Changes in Strategic Thinking

128 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

Table 3– Types of changes spontaneously attributed to MAFF by producers after

Domains Types of change based on farmers’ Number of Number of

Individual Autonomous thinking 5 11

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 129

Based on the changes attributed to MAFF by each farmer during the

Table 4 – Changes in strategic thinking during the first year of MAFF

Characteristics of farmers Change in strategic thinking

Level of Gender Farm Management Educ.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

As Table 4 shows, ten farmers admitted changes in their strategic vision.

130 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 131

is a transition from expecting change to be externally driven, to change that

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

132 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

an influential factor for entrepreneurial learning taking place in a recursive

Table 5 – Number of farmers experiencing changes in their strategic thinking

Level of proactivity Farm Level of Man­age­

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 133

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

134 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

n° 25 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2018/1 135

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 17/06/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 190.69.236.127)

Level of proactivity Farm Level of Manage

FONROUGE, C. (2002), L’entrepreneur et son entreprise : une relations dialogique, Revue