Local Leadership
Leadership is important, as those who take up the leadership role must be capable of approaching local concerns from a generalist point of view, and be able to guide the community group in building a vision and action plans, be able to motivate others and help sustain group commitment.
The key leadership skills are basically interpersonal skills - key among which are questioning, listening and providing feedback or evaluation. In questioning - open questions are asked to ensure that a topic is thoroughly explored (not asking questions where people can get by with a yes/no answer). Listening is about making sure that what was heard was what the person meant. Part of this process includes ensuring that individuals and interest groups actually understand each other's viewpoint and what drives it, so they can re-examine their own position in the light of that added knowledge.
Sharing power means three things happen. One is that by sharing, leaders are less likely to get burned-out. Secondly, followers are upskilled - they too learn leadership skills. Thirdly they also feel that they are an integral part of the project - there is buy-in from all participants.
Power-sharing can threaten existing positions - such as those held by elected politicians. When communities harness their very considerable potential - it can cut across existing power structures - yet this has to happen for the community to succeed in meeting its goals. Equally it is unlikely that the community group will achieve its project goals (particularly a large project) without the support of its elected representatives.
Sharing power for central government agencies means giving control of a project to the community. This requires everyone to be very clear about what they are doing (action plans), including establishing audit procedures and identifying who is to monitor budgets, and who will document the reasons for any changes in objectives or project direction.
Mind Set
Having the capacity to support enterprise requires people to have the mind set to enable them to capitalise on opportunities. For example, every barrier has to be turned around and seen as an opportunity. Frequently co-operation with others will enable barriers to be overcome.
MAF’s adoption of a multi-stakeholder participation approach to problem resolution has shown us that we, the makers of policy, have needed to adjust our mind-sets. By going back to farmers to find out what issues concern them, we have learned three essential things:
- farmers have knowledge policy makers lack;
- farmers’ priorities differ from policy makers’ priorities;
- policy makers are slow to/reluctant to find out about, and accept, farmers’ priorities.
But until the people who have the problem (in this case farmers) spend time with policy makers (us) identifying what the problem is and what the solution should be, a lot of time will be spent communicating information about quite irrelevant things, and the policy which is developed will not be the right one. MAF has learned that we need participation by all relevant stakeholders, and we need a partnership between stakeholders and policy makers, as well as partnerships or networks between stakeholder groups to ensure the outcome will meet the needs of stakeholders.
A Landcare example shows the importance of involving all stakeholders. Analysis of the very different achievements of two Landcare groups (working to achieve sustainable land management) showed very different outcomes due to the very different composition of the establishment groups and consequently, different operational techniques used. One Landcare group undertook extensive consultation with a wide range of participants and made a special effort to hold "kitchen" workshops which targeted women. This group developed a broad goal which embraced "ecological, economic and social aspects of sustainability" and most of the community have started work on a number of action plans to achieve some goals which will lead to this outcome. The other Landcare committee did not consult widely, and developed a very narrow goal related to the soil nutrient level. This "resulted in alienating women from the group because they are simply not interested in [that group’s] objectives" (Jones, 1997:113). The second Landcare group is seen as a failure because its project is not understood by, so does not appeal to, the community.
Capacity building and supportive environments are needed at every level
Capacity building begins in the home. MAF’s research on the relationship between farming families and sustainability has shown that the new economic power of women in paid work can be and is challenging to conventional family power structures. Both men and women are having to re-negotiate their roles, statuses and responsibilities. Farm men are often on a steep learning curve when acquiring skills to adapt to the new role expectations (eg child care and cooking).
Men do not always have the communication and expressive capacities to discuss their frustrations - this is another area where men need support in identifying their requirement for new skills, support in accessing such skills, as well as support in practising them in the face of a rural culture which has not yet come to grips with sensitivity in men and prefers not to recognise the capabilities of many very able women. There are few male mentors available to clarify feelings and few male or female role models with which to assess new positions (Burborough et al, 1997).
Support is needed from the community to assist families cope with these new sources of stress. Support is also needed to assist people overcome the various barriers to employment and enterprise generation. To participate in training, or in managing an enterprise, childcare is often needed, as are transportation and financial resources. Finding time to consider new career options is often difficult.
Skill development
The skills which are needed to enable a family or household to function effectively are similar to those skills which enable a business to operate effectively. Communication and interpersonalskills are the key to successful entrepreneurship, as well as successful leadership. These skills are all skills which are taught, so can be learned. Even some of the attributes which are needed for capacity building and enterprise generation can be acquired through experience and working with others (for example, self-confidence). The skills needed for making fundamental relationships work (e.g. being able to communicate effectively and maintain a good relationship with your spouse or your neighbours) are the same skills needed to talk to employees, suppliers, collaborators, and above all clients and customers.
Other skills are, of course, also needed for successful business such as planning, hiring, managing staff, managing the cash flow, statutory requirements, administrative systems, pricing jobs or product, accounting, sourcing and regulating supplies, advertising, marketing, selling, etc. These are all skills which are taught through a variety of agencies from the universities, through to Small Business Enterprise Centres (SBECs) and other agencies.
SBECs are community based organisations that provide independent, confidential and practical assistance to potential, new and established businesses. Advice is given by various means such as one-to-one facilitation, courses, seminars and workshops. BusinessGrow, Business in the Community mentor schemes, and Business Link, are a few of the programmes SBECs run or with which they have close liaison. Most SBECs are funded by a combination of local authority, government agency and user pays. They have been under-funded in recent months and while urban centres have down-sized, some rural ones, such as Feilding and Marton have closed (Hurley, 1997).
Overcoming negativity
The challenge to family power structures of women working is also felt in various ways within rural communities, and not all communities have acquired the skills to cope with this change. A national survey of 619 farms undertaken in 1992/93 showed that almost half of the farms surveyed had one or more adult household member working off farm - though these tended to be the smaller farms (Rhodes and Journeaux, 1995).
Other studies have shown that some farm owners also run non-agricultural enterprises such as light manufacturing, rural tourism, and niche products and services from their farm properties (Taylor et al, 1997). However, farm communities are not yet fully supportive of the dual career family, or of families undertaking multiple work activities. These people are seen as not being ‘proper’ farmers, and can be resented because ‘they wouldn’t stay poor like the rest of us’ (Little, 1997).
There is also resentment because those with off-farm work are less able to juggle commitments and participate in community activities. Managing this resentment will require mind set changes, and also recognition of untapped community resources. Farm families and families involved in non-agricultural activities from the rural service centres do not always blend well together (Gilling, 1997), yet the people from rural service centres are a key resource as people from the Clutha Valley and Southland are finding out through various projects.
The local Clutha Valley community, for example, has undertaken an assessment of who and what it consists of, has identified its most important physical, social and economic features, the keycommunity concerns, and ways the community might manage these concerns. This assessment has brought the community to realise that restructuring has had major social as well as economic impacts.
"The survey has made us take a long hard look at ourselves (a valuable exercise) and we are determined to make sure that positive action is taken to benefit the community".
The primary school was seen as the focal point of the community, communication between people was seen as vital, as was strengthening and maintaining informal networks. Leadership was important. Priorities for action were getting the council to listen to the community, doing something for the youth of the area, maintaining communications and informal networks, and maintaining the diverse range of clubs and activities (Burborough and Green, 1997).
Farmers and communities’ feelings of powerlessness can make it difficult for them to plan for the future (Gilling, 1997) and it often requires the catalyst of outside intervention to spur communities into action. Male farmers often have low levels of formal education. Many farmers (especially those in their forties and fifties) have a huge practical skills base, but do not realise that their capabilities, competence and resourcefulness are transferable to a number of arenas. Many rural people are unaware of the opportunities available to them to establish a business, or diversify an existing one.
In 1995 MAF funded a study (as part of its work on sustainable resource management) to show that there are many economic activities which farmers (and their husbands or wives) have diversified into (Little et al, 1996). The project was based on interviews with sixty couples located on farms in Mid and North Canterbury, the Manawatu and Wairarapa. The enterprises showed how new enterprises can evolve out of the core farming activity, and how new activities can evolve from earlier activities:
For example:
- tours naturally evolved towards on-site nurseries selling specialist plants admired in the garden. The establishment of a nursery then lead into starting up an outlet for ‘Devonshire’ teas and a gift shop which stocked home produced designer foods, lavender or specialist oils.
- garden open to public viewing evolved from craft classes and the need for students to ‘stretch their legs’ during lunch breaks. From the garden evolved a nursery, and from the craft classes evolved a craft retail outlet.
- and guiding tours have arisen from farm stays.
- tours which operate through commercial coach touring companies have resulted in the development of catering businesses.
- tree nursery developed into a complete delivery, planting, pruning and maintenance service.
- bulk organic cereal producer moved into niche packaging and marketing and is now considering a home-made bread outlet.
Non tourist ventures included enterprises which added value to horticultural, viticulture and agricultural production; light manufacturing; ‘up market’ fashion; consultancy services; craft production and general services to the agricultural community (Little et al, 1996).
Entrepreneurial diversification for the couples interviewed did not tend to be an expensive option although establishment costs of a quarter of the businesses was over $20,000. The low start up costs meant that just under half of the enterprises had no financial liabilities. Where there was a debt, it was generally small, under $10,000. Half of the enterprises had a gross annual income of less than $50,000. At the other end, three enterprises had a gross annual income of half a million plus, and another ten enterprises annually ‘grossed’ $100,000 plus. Establishment costs seemed to have little relevance to gross annual income: the start-up capital for one enterprise was a family sourced $200 - today its gross annual income is $350,000.
The enterprises evolved slowly, often from small beginnings. Some started as a hobby or an interest, others were based on a skill learned earlier in life or former training. Initially, money made was reinvested in enterprise development. The objective was development following consolidation. The cycle became one of investment, development, consolidation, followed by more investment, development, consolidation.
| © MAF 1998 | ||
| About the site | Last updated: 28-Nov-2002 | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
