Entrepreneurship in New Zealand Farming

Importance of the enterprise
Personal benefits and costs
Changes in quality of farm work
Changes in quality of house work
Conflicts between enterprise and farm
Role conflict
Time conflict
Stress
Coping with stress
The question of size — how big is enough?

Individual experiences

Importance of the enterprise

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of their enterprise to themselves individually, to their family, and to their farm. For 72% of the respondents the individual importance of the enterprise rated highly. For many, the importance of their enterprise ‘goes beyond success, we believe in our product, we have a sense of pride in our product’. The importance of the enterprise appeared less important for families. Only 31% rated it highly important for their families. Several respondents indicated that they hoped to encourage their children into the enterprise. Indirect benefits to children were identified, particularly for tourism enterprises; their involvement in the social aspects of the various enterprises broadened their horizons and they learnt social skills. Only 28% of the enterprises were rated important or highly important to their farm operation. An indirect benefit to the farm operation of tourism enterprises was their effect ‘enhancing’ the property and farm operation, with one respondent noting that he had improved the standard of his farm operation to better reflect the standard set by the enterprise.

Personal benefits and costs

Many more respondents (53) reported that they gained personally from running their enterprises than (23) reported that their enterprises were run at some personal cost. Costs were described as tiredness, physical and emotional fatigue, loss of social life, the loneliness of an achiever and strained family relationships. Personal benefits were comprehensive: ‘satisfying, fulfilling, intellectual stimulating, confidence gaining, challenging, socialising’ were all indications of just how valuable the enterprise is to them. Financial benefits were also noted, ‘extra income, quality of life, trips overseas, easing financial tensions and ability to socialise’. Creative stimulation through both the expression of ideas or artistic creation was also important. A major benefit for families was their ability to achieve something together that they enjoyed doing. They didn’t have to leave their farm or home to do it. They didn’t have to disrupt their family life and they didn’t have to work for someone else.

Changes in quality of farm work

For the majority of the respondents there had been little change in the quality of their farm work since starting their enterprise. For some this was because the enterprise had to wait if the farm was busy. For a minority of farms an initial decline in quality of farm work has since stabilised. For those farms (16) where the quality had improved only one respondent noted that this was due to extra labour. The remaining respondents reported that the improved quality was due to new farming techniques adopted since the enterprise was established. Some found that they now enjoyed farming more. Their focus had extended beyond the farm gate. For six the quality of their farm work had declined — symbolised by such things as gates that no longer swung properly.

Changes in quality of house work

For women running farm stays the quality of household work is of considerable importance. There was a difference, therefore, between those women who have become ‘super conscious of food, décor and housework’ and those running other enterprises, for whom the quality of housework has ‘gone to the pack’. Only five households employed regular home help. A number of women expressed a dislike of housework that had little to do with the advent of an enterprise into their already busy lives. As gates not swinging properly symbolise a decline in farm work for the men, unclean windows symbolise a decline in the quality of housework for the women. Also, irrespective of whether they provide garden tours, many farm women have turned gardening into an art form. Therefore it was no surprise to find women who regretted that the demands of family, farm and enterprise have resulted in a decline in the standard of the appearance of their gardens.

Conflicts between enterprise and farm

For a third of the respondents there were no conflicts between the demands of farm and enterprise. Respondents suggested that this was because the two businesses were ‘compatible’ or ‘well integrated’, or that they had made alterations to their farm operation to avoid the possibility of conflict. For others, there was no conflict because the farm operation was the priority. For 17 respondents there were conflicts between farm and enterprise. Of these, ten were seasonal conflicts. When farm and enterprise peak times coincide, respondents report ‘not enough time in the day’. For farm hosts weather patterns can create their own conflict between the farm and enterprise — ‘the first fine day in a week with guests arriving, do you mow the lawns or check the sheep?’

Role conflict

The division between those respondents who experienced role conflict and those who did not was fairly even. Of those who did not, a number reported that there was potential for conflict which they had resolved. One respondent noted, for example, the learnt ability to be able to ‘cut off from each role’. Another identified conflict between groupings of her roles — as between her mothering and family commitments and the enterprise but not between her farm role and the enterprise. The demands of young children can limit the contribution younger women make to an enterprise. There were also times of stress within the family when children are sick or there are marriage problems that exacerbate role conflict.

Time conflict

Each role contains any number of jobs or tasks, creating conflict that can be the practical manifestation of role conflict. Here conflict often equates with the lack of time. Yet ‘time’ as a source of conflict does not feature as often as might be expected, perhaps because self employed entrepreneurs believe they retain some control over their time. Time management appeared as an important factor in the successful avoidance of job conflict, and there was a general appreciation that time could be managed to the benefit of the family, the farm and the enterprise, in spite of varying success in doing so. Planning and flexibility were common strategies for resolving conflict. Several also indicated that both their role and their job conflict could be alleviated if they were able to hire help. Many held an unwavering expectation that ‘the farm comes first’, but not necessarily both members of the family partnership, causing further conflict. It is possible that some members of farm families cling to this traditional expectation as a buffer against feelings of threat as the commercial viability of the enterprise grows.

Stress

Fifteen respondents reported that they did not experience stress. Of these, five noted that they had experienced stress in the past but that for them financial stress was no longer a problem, nor was establishment of the enterprise. For the remaining respondents the sources of stress they identified ranged from financial, although some in this group noted that this stress applied to the farm rather than the enterprise, to working long hours and fatigue. Some enterprises harbour their own set of stresses that reflect their specialist activity. For instance, there was a range of stresses unique to farm stay enterprises such as a lack of privacy.

Coping with stress

The very success of the enterprise resolved stress for a number of the respondents. Others relieved stress by participation in recreation, sporting activities, socialising or through the support of their religion. Music, reading and gardening attracted other respondents but fewer used gardening as a stress relief mechanism than might be expected, perhaps because for many women gardening was either wholly or in part the core activity of their enterprise. Communication with a partner was an important strategy but the ‘quality’ of that communication varied a great deal. Nevertheless communication does not appear to be as favoured a mechanism for relieving stress as expected. Many of these couples already work together in their enterprise in a co-operative manner and talking issues through is more of a daily than a special occurrence. A number of respondents ‘get off’ the property, if only for a trip into town, or they socialise with their children or friends. More respondents reported that they were ‘overdue for a holiday’ than reported recent holidays.

The question of size — how big is enough?

Entrepreneurs can face a major dilemma over the future size of their businesses, especially where they have developed initially as a relatively small business to meet a ‘niche’ market. Increased growth or the potential for growth, vis a vis hiring or increasing employed labour, and the imperative to maintain quality and standards (often through their own ‘hands on’ ethos, was an unresolved issue for some. It is at this stage that the farm based entrepreneurs ask themselves the perplexing question, do they want to grow so big, ‘is it worth the hassle’?

They often find that they need to balance growth in entrepreneurial activity against personal, family and community needs and roles of the farm family. It is evident that decisions about growth of an alternative enterprise are made on the basis of personal and family concerns, not just business factors such as potential markets. Other factors include effects on life style, privacy, freedom of movement and loss of personal time.

This research confirms the multiple roles of women found in the off-farm employment study³. In fact for some women five major roles can now be confirmed: farm, household and interpersonal, community, paid employment off farm, and alternative on-farm enterprise. Decisions about enterprise growth are based therefore on their personal needs, the juggling of time and the amount of dislocation family life may suffer.

Stress and its management becomes a concern. It was also important to some entrepreneurs that the size of the enterprise remained ‘controllable’. They wanted to contain growth to a size that they could best manage. Although this consideration may be a passing phase linked to the growth of their experience and confidence. These personal and family life factors may be highlighted for the farmers because of the home base of the enterprises and their close interrelationships with the farm.

Employment of labour was seen by many of the entrepreneurs as a ‘hassle’ to be avoided, as labour management requires a number of adjustments by the business, individual and family. But by avoiding the employment of labour they could be limiting the growth potential of their enterprises. As a more attractive alternative, labour might be employed on the farm or in the house to release the time of the farmers for the enterprise. Thus labour can be employed where it is seen to be the least ‘hassle’ and control of and involvement in the enterprise remains in the hands of the entrepreneur.

The growth issue was particularly evident for those operating a tourist business, for whom home hospitality and the potential for ‘round-the-year guests’ raises privacy issues. In terms of the rural tourist market, the containment of the growth potential of tourism enterprises (home hospitality) beyond a certain point will not necessarily retard the potential of rural tourism. It is just as likely to result in new players taking up tourism enterprises, so long as the rural tourism market continues to grow.