kellogg 2016

Executive Summary

The motivation to research what it takes to be a great employer in 2016? stems from the author’s 10-year involvement in the kiwifruit post-harvest sector and an acknowledgment that a number of forces both globally and within the kiwifruit industry have reshaped the employment landscape during this time. The author’s opinion is that the kiwifruit post-harvest sector has experienced a human capability deficit in recent years which has put increasing pressures on current middle and senior managers. While at the same time there has been a shift in employee preferences at a global level.

This report aims at validating the author’s anecdotal views through a globally focussed literature review and a set of semi-structured interviews of middle and senior managers in the kiwifruit post- harvest sector. Interviewees were asked to define what a great employer looks like, what motivates them and what the greatest challenges to employers within the sector are in becoming a ‘great employer.’

A key finding from the literature review was that technology and generational preferences are having a significant impact on the employer/employee relationship. The literature review was completed using a framework from the NZ Human Rights Commission ‘7 Key Elements of a Good Employer’ and adapted to being more ‘current’ based on findings. The literature review found that employees are increasingly looking to their employer to build their “personal brand”, develop a strong personal relationship with them, offer values and goals alignment, provide them with purpose and consider their wellbeing both physically and mentally through offering flexible conditions and encouraging work-life balance.

At the kiwifruit post-harvest sector level, rapid volume growth, increasing competition among post- harvest operators and increasing sophistication and complexity brought about by the industry’s strong customer focus have contributed to changing the landscape. Managers interviewed indicated that this has placed increased pressures on them. While seasonality has always been a challenge for the industry, the nature of seasonality appears to have changed. Historically, permanent staff were offered a “Work Hard, Play Hard” role where it was well accepted that long hours during a defined period over the harvest and packing season were counter-balanced by flexible work hours over the summer period of lower activity.

The outcome has been that there is a mismatch between findings of the literature review and trends within the post-harvest sector. Employees are looking for greater flexibility in their roles, improved work-life balance and enhanced wellbeing. However, longer work hours and greater stress have been a feature of work within the kiwifruit post-harvest sectors of recent years.

Managers interviewed highlighted the risk the sector faces if the industry is not able to attract talented individuals to the sector via a strong employment brand that is underpinned by more normal work hours and the other desirable features identified through this research as presented in Figure 10.
This report aims to identify what it takes to be a great employer in 2016? And identify what challenges the kiwifruit post-harvest sector faces in becoming a great employer.

What does it take to be a Great Employer in 2016 – Anthony Pangborn

Executive Summary

The aim of this research was to explore ways to strengthen rural communities in New Zealand. The research focuses on the three small rural communities of Kimbolton, Apiti and Rangiwahia, all located in the northern Manawatu.

Six households were chosen from each community and invited to participate in the project. The participants were given a survey and interviewed in their homes. The survey questions covered the following things: participants’ understanding of a sense of community, rural change, community facilities and social groups, community involvement, understanding of community governance, and access to technology.

Alongside the interviews, a literature review has been done. This explores the importance of community, the concept of social capital and examines research done into communities facing change in relation to a changing rural environment.

In interviewing the participants, it was evident that community meant more than a physical or geographical location or connection. Everyone involved in the interviews talked about relationships and connections, and supporting community members, i.e. social capital.

Participants were asked to score their own community on a scale from 0 = no sense of community, to 5 = strong sense of community. The scores ranged from 1-4, with the majority sitting around 3. The desire for a strong sense of community was expressed and participants were keen to discuss what could be done to improve this.

It was evident in discussions on community governance, that all communities needed to have a more visible community vision and strategic direction. The foundation for this has been provided by work done on community planning with the Manawatu District Council. The drive now needs to come from within each community.

Participants were asked about rural change over the last ten years, and its effect on individuals and on the community. Relative newcomers to the communities talked about recent changes, while well-established members went back over 40 years to discuss the effects of dramatic change.

The importance of good infrastructure was evident. Good roads, access to fast, affordable internet and reliable cell phone coverage were all deemed essential to the communities’ wellbeing and development. For example, the recent sealing of a country road has made travel easier for residents and has also opened the area for tourist exploration.

All participants were heavily dependent on technology for social interaction, information and research, i.e. Google, business interactions and the ability to access technology for use on farms etc. Several participants talked about access to fast internet being vital in promoting the area to both a domestic and international audience. Several participants felt limited by expensive, and still unreliable, internet in the area.
Cell phone coverage remains a problem in places, particularly out on farms. Safety and ability to communicate for business needs were listed as high concerns.

The smallest community, Rangiwahia, appeared to have the highest social capital and community engagement. This is perhaps because counter-urbanisation is minimal and the community is still predominantly made up of farming families. There are very few lifestyle blocks and minimal urban influence. However, this is a community that is forward thinking, action based, and innovative with a high level of social capital.

The communities with the least cohesion had many transient farm staff and several people looking for very affordable housing and an alternative lifestyle.

The challenge here lies with successfully integrating non-rural community members into a traditional farming community. It is evident that larger communities face perhaps the most complex challenge with diverse individual and community needs.
The conclusion drawn from the research and literature review is that building strong social capital is necessary for a strong sense of community and sense of belonging.

This report concludes with four broad recommendations for actions that can be taken to support and strengthen New Zealand’s rural communities.

These are:

1. Create Conscious Community – build social capital
2. Build Quality Leadership – support, train and encourage
3. Encourage Collaboration – with other local communities
4. Community Development – social, economic and environmental

The challenge to our modern day rural communities is to embrace change and to continue to evolve. This is required to meet the needs of the 21st Century rural community. For this to be possible, communities need strong leadership, an inclusive and engaged community and the ability to think outside the box.

What makes a strong rural community – Katherine Gillespie

Executive summary

There is significant potential for New Zealand to increase its ability to utilise more bobby calves therefore making them a more valued product. It is important that we have a sustainable, viable, ethical and PR friendly value chain. It is also important that NZ Inc. gets this right to maintain farmers/producers’ ‘social licence’ to farm and maintain our positive worldwide perception.
While difficult to calculate, it is estimated that more than $1 billion is on offer, if we can capture the full value of underutilised bobby calves.
It is acknowledged that famers all operate different policies with different values, so it is near impossible to make a recommendation that will suit all producers and fit with processors’ expectations and resources. There is a range of options which will lead to more prosperous returns for the farmers, processors and overall sector. However, more leadership is needed to make these changes at all points of the industry supply chain.
Key recommendations:

• Increased use of beef genetics across dairy herds
• Increased use of sexed semen across dairy herds
• An integrated dairy beef “profit partnership” supply chain model, where everyonecaptures the value of the end product
• Uptake of a tool which measures beef performance through the supply chain toallow a feedback loop
• Increased farmer education on what options are available

Dairy farmers are at the start of the value chain, so it is critical that those options are easy for them and do not affect their primary objective, which is producing milk at the highest margin possible.
In implementing any of the above options, it is expected that sacrifices would have to be made and some options do not benefit everyone in the supply chain.

Bobby Calves: The game changers within New Zealand’s supply chain – Andrew Jolly

Executive summary

A Professionalism shortage in governance, more and more organisations are beginning to expect more professionalism, from potential candidates. Although this might be the case there may not have been enough done to clarify and support the transformation. Every year thousands of people volunteer their time in leadership roles throughout the primary industry, yet there is no cross industry information to provide a pathway for these individuals to allow them to take their next step in governance and leadership
This feasibility study and research asks the question:
“Where do you go find the relevant information to get involved in the various governance roles in the volunteer based rural organisations?”
My project looks at the feasibility of a website concept that rural industry good/Non-profit organisations can use as a platform to promote the leadership pathways available within the organisation that shows short job descriptions and information on how to get involved from an entry level to high level of governance.
A one stop shop website of information on what is available to the up & coming leaders of tomorrow wanting to make a difference in the rural communities of New Zealand.
The areas of research to complete this paper have used the following methods

1. A Literature review, to gain understanding of current used of leadership pathways and opportunities
2. An online survey promoted via Facebook and email targeting people involved in the primary industries tounderstand their method of finding information relevant to my question.
3. Case Study interviews that were held face to face and via email and phone, to gain an understanding howthese particular organisations promote their leadership pathways currently.

A key finding through the process of the online survey and case study interviews, found that the primary industries in the Non-profit and Industry good sector, who may rely on governance structures and people coming through to fill these roles. Haven’t consider the role that the internet and Social media can play to
advertise and show the leadership opportunities to the future leaders looking for their next step in the governance ladder. And so could be missing the oppotunity to engage this particular generation which we call the “Millennials”.
By having clear and concise information in which the “Millennials” (Researchers Neil Howe and William
Strauss defined as those born in 1982 and approximately the 20 years thereafter) crave, to collectively to tell these Future leaders the opportunities available. We can look to change the way we engage and fill these vitally important positions on the various rural governance groups in New Zealand.

Primary onnections: Leadership Pathways within Rural Organisations – Casey Huffstutler

Executive Summary

The regional council of Southland (Environment Southland) is mid-way through its Water and Land 2020 and Beyond (WL2020) Project. This project consists of three stages, and is the council’s response to the government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It aims to prevent any further decline in water quality, and to help the Southland community achieve its goals for water.
Dairy farming has increased significantly in Southland over the previous 20 years, and is now a substantial contributor to the Southland economy. With this intensification, has come water quality pressures. The changing environmental regulations of the WL2020 project will impact Southland dairy farmers, as well as the Southland community.
The aim of this project was to investigate how Southland dairy farmers had been involved in the WL2020 process so far, and how to increase this involvement. From this, the aim was to find ways in which DairyNZ, the industry levy body, can support Southland dairy farmers to adapt to changing environmental regulations. Thirteen people, a mixture of industry members and Southland dairy farmers, who have been very involved with the WL2020 process so far, were interviewed.
It was found that engagement by dairy farmers in the WL2020 project was between 10 and 20%. This low engagement restricted the majority of dairy farmers from being able to have knowledge of the proposed rules and changes of the WL2020 project, the impacts of these and from being prepared for these impacts.
Five broad recommendations were made that would contribute to Southland dairy farmers and their communities adapting to the changing environmental regulations:

1. Water quality is a social science issue as well as a science issue – dairy farmers must understand the water quality issue, accept that there is an issue and understand the effect of their actions on it.
2. DairyNZ should continue what it is doing in Southland but build on this – the work of DairyNZ in Southland is effective and appreciated. There were some recommendations for building on this, but overall DairyNZ is on the right track.
3. Engagement is the first step – dairy farmers needed to be engaged before they could have knowledge of the proposed changes, their impacts and adapt to these. Personalising the issues and one-on-one meetings were important in this step.
4. Sustainable Milk Plans (SMPs) are an effective tool but need a follow up visit – SMPs helped increase the knowledge and preparedness for the proposed rules and changes, but a follow up visit and auditing system would increase their effectiveness.
5. Relationships and leadership are key – relationships within the community and with ES are important. Dairy farmers must be prepared to show leadership.

It was found that Southland dairy farmers themselves have a responsibility to build relationships in their own community. Although DairyNZ has an important supporting role to play, dairy farmers must be prepared to show leadership. If this occurs, not only will Southland dairy farmers and their communities adapt to the changing environmental regulations, they with thrive within them.

Preparing for the Changing Tide – Jolene Germann

Executive Summary

Psa has increased biosecurity awareness in the kiwifruit industry, and is reinforced by recent fruit fly incursions and biosecurity communications by industry bodies. Kiwifruit growers believe that a future biosecurity incursion is a significant risk to their investment in kiwifruit, if not the greatest risk. Yet on most orchards, biosecurity practices have slipped from where they were several years ago.
The aim of this study is to determine if growers are becoming complacent in biosecurity practice over time. If so, how do we overcome this to ensure that the kiwifruit industry is prepared for a future biosecurity incursion?
Interviews were held with kiwifruit growers, post-harvest grower services representatives and biosecurity subject experts to understand grower attitudes to biosecurity practices and why certain practices were no longer being implemented, especially in “Recovery Regions” where Psa had been present the longest. A subject expert from Civil Defence was also interviewed to learn how they overcome complacency when preparing the public for emergencies.
The results of the study indicate that growers in Recovery Regions are retaining those practices seen to make a difference in mitigating the impacts of Psa. Some growers believe the initial protocols implemented for Psa are excessive for the current environment and the decline in practice is not a result of “complacency” but rather a “new norm” appropriate for the current level of risk.
However, this reflects the Psa-centric paradigm of the industry. For most growers thinking about “risk” does not extend beyond Psa at least not in terms of their own on-orchard practices. The role growers can play in mitigating the impact of future biosecurity incursions does not seem to be well understood and is considered the responsibility of organisations such as KVH and MPI.
Most growers believe they are doing what is necessary to manage “risk” (of Psa). However, this falls below what most subject experts would recommend as a minimum standard to reduce the impacts of a future biosecurity incursion. If every grower maintained a baseline of minimum on-orchard practice even in the absence of an imminent threat, the industry would be more likely to limit the spread of a pest or pathogen before it is detected, and for many organisms that could determine whether eradication is a possibility or not. For growers the financial implications of this can be extremely significant. A biosecurity threat that is not eradicated, creates a challenge that needs to be managed year after year. Impacts to the grower may include loss of orchard productivity and land value, increase in operating costs, market access implications and in some cases, all of the above. Biosecurity practices provide the industry with a form of insurance against a significant business risk.
Numerous barriers to implementing best practice are identified in the study including information overload, the cost of implementing practices and commercial disincentives associated with some practices. However, subject experts, from biosecurity or Civil Defence, were unanimous in stating that the single greatest barrier to uptake of recommended practice is a lack of understanding of risk, and how specific measures mitigate this risk. Creating this understanding is a fundamental step in the implementation process, but it is only the first step. Different segments of the industry respond to different cues and require different support through the implementation process which may include; guidance on how to implement the practice, testimony from trusted sources such as their peers or opinion leaders, observation that the practices are effective and feedback to reinforce their decision to implement once they have done so.
Literature and subject experts suggest that to facilitate the necessary behavioural change, the industry should establish a working group of biosecurity champions and opinion leaders. Involvement of this group in the development of biosecurity guidelines will ensure they are practical, fit for purpose and have the support and ownership of the industry from an early stage. Industry champions also provide a respected resource to communicate key messages and provide on-going support to growers. When programme champions play an active role in the development of an innovation, spread and implementation is likely to be more effective.
The study makes the following recommendations for the kiwifruit industry:

1. Biosecurity awareness material needs to be made “real” for growers, in terms they relate to such as potential impact to orchard productivity, trade, and orchard value.
2. Industry biosecurity guidelines are required, to indicate the level of practice required for business-as-usual operation in absence of an imminent biosecurity threat or response. These guidelines would provide consistency across the industry, remove commercial disincentives that currently exist, and thereby improve the industry’s ability to withstand a future biosecurity incursion.
3. Guidelines should clearly explain the purpose of a recommended practice and how this mitigates risk.
4. Recommended practices should be practical and easy to implement. Industry bodies should facilitate this process.
5. A network of industry champions and opinion leaders should be created to assist in the development, communication, implementation and on-going support of the biosecurity practices.
6. Care must be taken when selecting industry champions and opinion leaders to ensure selection of individuals with appropriate influence into a diverse range of industry networks.
7. There is value in a coordinated approach with other industries and they should be involved in the development of biosecurity guidelines to provide consistent messages across the horticultural sector.

Avoiding Complacency in Kiwifruit Biosecurity – Matt Dyck