


































2021_TRC_Travel-SOTL_Grant_RFP


Agole et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 1, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. David Agole, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Kyambogo University, P.O Box 1 Kyambogo, Uganda, agoledavid@yahoo.com, 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1297-983X  

2. Edgar Yoder, Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, 002 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, 
epy@psu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6927-9252 

3. Mark A. Brennan, Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, 204 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, 
unescochair@psu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8434-3948  

4. Connie Baggett, Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, 207 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, 
bbc@psu.edu,  https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5597-3094  

5. John Ewing, Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, 215 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, 
jce122@psu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9189-1106  

6. Matthew Beckman, Assistant Research Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, 323F Thomas Building, University 
Park, PA 16802, , mdb268@psu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6747-3289  

7. Frank Biryabaho Matsiko, Lecturer, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda, fbmatsiko@gmail.com,  
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7363-2584 

 
26 

 

Determinants of Cohesion in Smallholder Farmer Groups in 
Uganda 

D. Agole1, E. Yoder2, M. Brennan3, C. Baggett4, J. Ewing5, M. Beckman6, F. Matsiko7 

 

Abstract 

Cohesion is a fundamental determinant of performance in farmer groups in which collective action is 
pursued for the benefit of the members. The study examined the influence of individual members’ 
objectives, participation culture, group rewards, structure of tasks and perceived equity on cohesion 
of farmer groups that may promote access to agricultural extension services. Quantitative data were 
collected via questionnaire from 180 members of 19 farmer groups using a multi-stage process that 
combined purposive and random sampling. Qualitative data were gathered from 20 key informants 
in oral interviews and three focus group discussions. Regression analysis indicated that there were 
statistically significant negative relationships between individual members’ objectives, structure of 
the tasks, group reward system and cohesion of farmer groups. In contrast, perceived equity had a 
marginally significant positive relationship with cohesion in farmer groups. We recommend that, for 
sustainability of group cohesion, group facilitators work with the farmer groups to enhance 
alignment of group and NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services) institutions and 
performance indicators. A group dynamics perspective to understanding farmer group cohesion 
should be a helpful organizing principle.  
 

 

Keywords 

NAADS, advisory services, community interactions 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   27 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Over 80% of Uganda’s agricultural sector is dominated by smallholder farmers producing on 
less than two acres of land, with extremely low yields mostly to meet household food needs 
and in case of surplus it is sold. This is because most rural dwellers, where smallholder farmers 
are, live in the poverty level below U.S $1.90. Given then a relatively high 5000 to 1 ratio of 
smallholder farmers per agricultural extension worker, most farmers are not reached by 
extension services, thus their production capacities remain low. To transform smallholder 
farmers that operate at a subsistence level into commercial farmers two initiatives were 
implemented (The Plan for Modernization of Agriculture and National Development Plan Three 
and Uganda’s Vision 2040) with the intent of transforming the country into a middle-income 
economy.   
 
Uganda farmers are currently organized in groups to easily access extension services and other 
capacity building interventions. Farmer groups are important avenues through which farmers 
access market and credit information as well as important agricultural information and 
technologies. Farmer groups also represent important avenues for mobilizing farmers around 
common objectives, especially those relating to service delivery and policy formulation in 
support of agricultural development (Adong et al., 2012; Salifu et al., 2010). In Uganda, the use 
of smallholder farmer groups remains central to the agricultural transformation process 
envisioned in the five-year Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) 
(2015 – 2020). The DSIP includes four pillars: i) enhancing production and productivity; ii) 
improving market access and value addition; iii) providing an enabling environment for the 
agricultural sector; and iv) strengthening of agricultural sector institutions (Ministry of 
Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries -MAAIF, 2010). Under Pillar One and Pillar Two, the 
existing farmer groups are envisioned to play a key role in improving produce marketing, 
increasing access to financing and value addition (MAAIF, 2010). 
 
The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), a semi-autonomous body created by a 
2001 Act of Parliament of Uganda, is charged with privately delivering publicly funded 
agricultural extension services to smallholder farmer groups. Since its inception in 2001, NAADS 
has been promoting farmer groups as nuclear organizations for this service delivery. The farmer 
group approach primary goal aims to improve both the efficiency of reaching many smallholder 
farmers and the effectiveness of promoting farmer ownership of extension services, especially 
when such initiatives target smallholder, resource-poor farmers (Mangheni, 2007). The farmer 
groups thus become centers for recruitment of farmers, selection of food security enterprises 
and distribution of multiple planting and stocking materials. 
 
There is limited understanding of the drivers/facilitators of cohesion in farmer groups(Bukenya, 
2010). This study examines the individual member’s attributes and how participation context 
influences group cohesion in smallholder farmer groups in Uganda. It broadens the discussion 
by expanding the content to include group dynamics and the attendant group processes. 

 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   28 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The study on which this research is based was informed by an integration of community 
interactional theory (Wilkinson, 1991) and social exchange theory (Stolte et al., 2001). The 
interactional theory helps one to gain insights into the influence of interactions among 
individual group members on cohesion of farmer groups. The theory postulates that a 
community is comprised of social fields, which allow people to connect and interact with one 
another to form community fields (Pigg, 1999; Wilkinson, 1991). From this perspective, 
interaction of community members through the social fields allows individuals to access 
community resources and information. It is also an enabler and motivator for people to join 
farmer groups in the hope of attaining benefits that accrue to group membership. Therefore, 
the strength or weakness of the social fields formed among individual group members is critical 
for accessing resources dispensed by the group. Proponents of the theory argue that 
community fields link community members and, if strong, may influence group inclusion and 
cohesion. 
 
Social exchange theory for its part posits that society involves interactions among individuals 
that are based on rewards and punishments (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Proponents of the 
theory (Lin et al., 2005) argue that individuals join groups on the basis of calculations that 
indicate that doing so enables these individuals to meet personal needs and pursue those 
interests alongside the collective goals of groups. Theory also recognizes that individual 
interests are constrained by the collective group interests and processes such as norms and 
regulations (Stolte et al., 2001). Accordingly, individuals cannot invest their efforts and 
resources in group activities and doggedly pursue rents accruing to this investment without 
paying attention to potential sanctions the group may impose in the event of errant behavior. 
 
The conceptual framework is derived from interactional and social exchange theories. Both 
interactional and social exchange theories consider community contextual factors: the 
community culture and individual member personal attributes that largely emanate from the 
community; and group processes and dynamics such as rules and regulations on allocation and 
tasks and rewards, and leadership structures represent the social exchange theory. An 
interaction between community and individual member contextual factors and the 
supportive/restrictive level at which an individual member meets his/her personal interests 
tend to influence the level of cohesion in a group representing interactional theory.  
 

Purpose 
 
The primary purpose of this study was to examine factors that influence group cohesion in 
farmer groups that access agricultural advisory services from the National Agricultural Advisory 
Services in Uganda. More specifically, the study assesses the influence of individual members’ 
objectives, participation culture of members, structure of group tasks, reward system, and 
perceived equity on cohesion of farmer groups. 
 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   29 
 

Methods 
 
This study used a cross-sectional design to obtain the views of 200 participants selected from 
Kyere, Olio, and Arapai sub-counties of Soroti district. A key criterion in selecting the study 
district and sub-counties was to study entities whose group dynamics would ordinarily be 
expected to have matured. Thus, the study examined 19 farmer groups that had been 
continuously operational in the study district between 2001 through 2011.  
 
The participant selection process adopted a multi-stage sampling strategy that combined 
stratified random and purposive sampling techniques. Based on the decentralized operational 
structure followed by NAADS, a two-stage stratified sampling with the sub county as the first 
stage and the village as the second stage was used for area sampling. At the village level, the 
number of groups was selected proportionately basing on the number of farmer groups in a sub 
county. The sampling selection of members in a group was by proportional allocation with 
proportionately more respondents selected from farmer groups with more members.  
 
The group chairpersons as recognized by the group members (one chairperson in each selected 
group) were purposively selected because they were assumed to be knowledgeable about 
group activities and facilities within the locality. The smallholder farmers were stratified into 
active group members and those that had quit their groups. Thirty participants were then 
randomly sampled for each stratum making a total of 60 participants for each sub-county and a 
district total of 180 participants. In addition, three sub-county NAADS coordinators (SNCs), 12 
former farmer group members and five opinion leaders were purposively selected making a 
total of 20 key informants. These key informants were selected for their knowledge of the 
context in which the farmer groups operate, and the processes used to engage the 
membership.  
 
While work continues with these farmer groups, specific data for this current study were 
gathered in October 2011. This date was approximately four to nine years after the initial group 
contact with the NAADS program. Data collection was primarily done using paper questionnaire 
guided face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions. The questionnaire was reviewed for 
content validity by a panel of experts comprised of agricultural extension experts that 
constituted dissertation committee and NAADS agricultural advisors. In addition, the 
interviewer-administered paper survey was pilot tested by administering it to 20 members of 
farmer groups not included in the final study.  
 
The survey collected data regarding group member individual objectives, structure of tasks, 
perceived equity, and group cohesion. Under individual objectives, the investigator asked 
questions such as what personal needs were expected to be met upon joining the group and 
rating those needs. Structure of group tasks addressed questions such as the tasks you were 
involved in, rating your level of involvement, and rating the level of your competence regarding 
the tasks. Items regarding reward focused on benefits obtained from other group members and 
how other group members benefited from their individual participation in the group.  Other 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   30 
 

items in the reward section focused on the individual member’s contribution to overall group 
operation and cohesion and future intent of the individual to participate in the group. In the 
perceived equity section items focused on satisfaction with criteria used in allocating group 
tasks, satisfaction with allocation of group rewards and satisfaction with the way group 
members are treated. Group cohesion items focused on individual member’s pride in belonging 
to the group and member turnover in the group.  
 
Key quantitative variables were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics generated with the 
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 19.  Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess 
the internal consistency of summated Likert values associated with latent factors identified by 
the exploratory factor analysis.  All Cronbach alpha values were greater than 0.7 (Urdan, 2010).  
 
Factor analysis was completed to extract correlation coefficient matrix of factors that highly 
correlated (r < 0.9), that is, factors that greatly contribute to cohesion and performance 
subsequently. Factor extraction was done to generate eigenvalues associated with each factor 
before (37 factors identified from the data set) and after (7 factors) extraction, as well as after 
rotation. The 7 factors were identified by attaching percentages to eigenvalues and accounted 
for 73.3% of the total variance. The rotated component matrix was extracted and factor 
loadings less than 0.4 were excluded, and factors were sorted by size. Questions that loaded 
onto the same factor were identified and common themes were generated. Furthermore, 
correlation coefficient analysis was used to determine the relationship between the various 
motivation factors. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the relative influence of 
different factors on group cohesion.  
 

Findings 
 
Individual Members Objective 
Arguably, a key force that tends to draw group members together is a commonality of 
individual members’ objectives. We, accordingly, were concerned with examining the major 
benefits that drew individuals to farmer groups in Uganda. Table 1 provides the descriptive 
results on needs that farmers expected to meet upon joining their various groups and the 
perceived extent to which those needs had been met. 
 
  



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   31 
 

Table 1 
 
Reasons Member Joined Groups 
Need N M (SD) % with Expectation Needs Met % 

  
Access knowledge and skills 150 4.21 (1.28) 15.8 51.2 
Improved seed 138 4.06 (1.37) 14.6 19.8 
Improved animal breeds 127 4.02 (1.33) 13.4 9.9 
Food for the family 144 3.84 (1.18) 15.2 10.9 
Financial assistance 136 3.82 (1.44) 14.4 7.9 
Social interaction 127 3.60 (1.41) 13.4 0.0 
Support HIV/AIDS patients 125 3.48 (1.66) 13.2 0.0 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
All reasons were rated relatively moderately (M = 3.48 to 4.21). The range of anticipated 
benefits suggests a multi-dimensional member self-identity. One dimension aligns with reasons 
related to pursuit of enhanced agricultural production. These production related reasons, 
namely accessing knowledge and skills, improved seed, and improved animal breeds, received 
the highest mean ratings (above 4.0). Arguably these reasons were advanced by individuals 
who had a farmer membership identity. Another dimension aligns with accessing food for the 
family and financial assistance (mean 3.84 and 3.82, respectively) suggesting an underlying 
household provider identity. Under this identity a member sees themselves as representing 
broader, more diffuse domestic interests such as feeding and catering utilities. The third 
dimension that may be discerned from the data in Table 1 relates to social interaction (M = 
3.60) and support to Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
(HIV/AIDS) affected members (M = 3.48). The two items align with the individual’s pursuit of 
private personal gratification.  As further illustrated in column 3, there was no outstanding 
benefit that drew farmers to the groups. Individual reasons were cited by about one in every 
seven respondents. 
 
A major assumption was that group cohesion would ensue from the three-way relationship 
between member competence to participate in the activities required of them by the group, 
member engagement in such activities, and member perception of benefits from such 
engagement. The study thus sought to describe the status of member participation and 
perceived benefits accruing from participation in the agricultural production activities 
promoted by the group (Table 2 and Table 3).   
 
  



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   32 
 

Table 2 
 
Members’ Competence and Participation in Agricultural Tasks. 
Agricultural Activities  Member 

competence 
Participation in tasks 

 M (SD) M (SD) 
Goat keeping activities 4.18 (1.81) 1.82 (0.81) 
Crop field activities 3.38 (1.20) 1.79 (1.92) 
Piggery related activities 3.35 (1.19) 1.98 (1.17) 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
A comparison of farmer competence and participation in Table 2 indicates that overall, there 
was disparity between the self-efficacy and participation/involvement. The 3.35 to 4.18 mean 
ratings for self-efficacy versus 1.79 to 1.98 for participation indicate an inability or failure to 
translate above average levels of self-efficacy into corresponding engagement in relevant group 
tasks. This may be reflective of a perceived mismatch between individual effort and personal 
rewards.  This undercurrent is somewhat borne out by the ordering of perceived benefits 
accruing from member participation (Table 3). 
 
Table 3 
 
Perceived Benefits  
Perceived Benefits   N Rating of perceived benefit 
  M (SD) 
Enhanced group performance 161 4.51 (0.82) 
Beneficial to other members  156 4.51 (2.53) 
Beneficial to the group 167 4.43 (2.31) 
Improved group maintenance 
activities  

175 4.40 (0.53) 

Enhanced level of personal 
motivation  

164 4.38 (0.63) 

Enhanced attachment to the group 159 4.34 (0.87) 
Benefits from others’ participation  165 4.28 (1.80) 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
All the top four benefits go toward the group while the remaining lower benefits go toward the 
individual. This observation may be insightful in two important ways. Olomola (2002) argued 
participation by individual members in group activities often is influenced by mode of group 
formation. He associated low participation with what Forsyth (2006) describes as groups 
concocted through external influence as opposed to those founded by members on their own 
initiative. Turner and Stets (2006), for their part, emphasized that individuals tend to assess the 
rewards using a calculus involving balancing their own personal investments against 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   33 
 

investments of other group members toward generating the stock of benefits as well as the 
equity with which rewards accrue to the contributing members.  
 
A frequently assumed facilitator of group cohesion is the perceived quality of group governance 
and administrative structures as summarized in Table 4. 
 
Table 4 
 
Group members’ assessment of governance and administrative structures 
Equity Dimension  N M (SD) 
Communication within the group  170 4.36 (1.09) 
Distribution of leadership positions 167 4.30 (0.84) 
Feedback to members about group 
performance 

161 3.60 (0.61) 

Conflict resolution 120 2.95 (0.75) 
Participation in decision making 175 2.20 (0.81) 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
Table 4 indicates different mechanisms established by the group for purposes of moving 
information up and down the group’s governance structures were rated relatively highly (M = 
3.60 to 4.36).  The high ratings for upward communication from individual members to the 
group and downward communication point to the groups’ sensitivity to ensuring that 
individuals or teams charged with performing tasks for or on behalf of the group have sufficient 
information about the groups’ dynamics to be attracted to them. This attraction to the group, 
the results suggest, is reinforced by the perception of equitable distribution of leadership 
positions that allows the members a sense of access to the groups’ resources. The above 
attraction apparently was undermined by the lower rating for implementation of conflict 
resolution processes (M = 2.95); and availability of opportunities to participate in decision 
making (M = 2.20). 
 
The study also examined membership turnover and group performance for the period 2004 to 
2007. The results are summarized in Table 5. Group member’s rating of both recruitment of 
new members (M = 2.64) and membership attrition through voluntary departures (M = 2.61) 
farmer groups was moderate. These ratings correspond well with the relatively high sense of 
belonging to farmer groups (M = 3.96). This sense of belonging to the groups could be 
explained by the selective recruitment of group members by influential group members, most 
of whom were composed of family members and close friends to group founders. The flip side 
might be that departures were also partial to those who felt their conflicts with the group had 
not been addressed fairly and/or that their interests had not been adequately addressed due to 
insufficient participation in their groups’ decision making. In either scenario influential and/or 
founder group members with very close attraction to each other come to enjoy a special social 
status and may form a clique whose interests may not necessarily reflect those of the broader 
membership. 
 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   34 
 

Table 5 
 
Membership turnover and effect (2004 -2009) 

Turnover N 

Group turnover Percentage 
M (SD) High Very High 

Joined group       145 2.64 (1.10) 27.6 25.5 
Left group      155 2.61 (1.00) 22.6 1.9 
Pride in belonging 170 3.96 (1.09) 23.5 43.5 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
Table 5 shows that there was high commitment of group members to participation in group 
activities (M = 4.25). The rating of the frequency of group members’ participation in group 
activities (M = 2.06) was, on the other hand, comparatively low. Read against the rating of 
adequacy of mobilized resources, and timely attainment of planned targets was quite high (M = 
3.03 to 3.53), this gap between commitment to and frequency of participation in activities may 
point to a lack of consensus on whether production activities should be centralized to the group 
or decentralized to sites managed by individual members. Moderate ratings were registered for 
importance of production outputs (M = 3.01 to 3.54) attained by groups. Taken together the 
above findings are consistent with Dimock and Devine (1994) and Forsyth (2006) who assert 
that members tend to be more committed to a group’s activities when the efforts and energy 
invested in activities yield satisfactory output.  
 
Identification of Factors (Dimensions) Influencing Group Cohesion 
Factor analysis was conducted to extract a correlation coefficient matrix of items that are 
correlated with group cohesion.  Factor extraction with rotation resulted in the 37 individual 
items being reduced to 7 factors/dimensions.  The 7 factors accounted for 73.3 % of the total 
variance. The rotated component matrix was extracted and items with factor loadings less than 
0.4 were excluded. Items with factor loadings of ≥ ±.4 that loaded onto the same factor were 
identified and a common theme was developed to name the respective factor/dimension. 
Furthermore, correlation coefficient analysis was used to determine the relationship between 
the various factors (Table 6). 
 
The factors/dimensions were used to create summated Likert type summated scale values 
Table 7). Group cohesion was defined by frequency at which members joined and left the 
group. Individual member’s objectives were represented by individual member’s reporting 
joining groups to attain knowledge and skills, improved seed for planting, improved animal 
breeds, food for the family, financial needs, social interaction, and support for HIV/AIDS 
patients.  
 
Perceptions regarding participation culture were operationalized by farmers reporting interest 
to work others, attaining personal benefits, interest in seeing all the members benefit, comfort 
working together, frequency of disagreeing with other members, sense of belonging to a group, 
attaining benefits without support of the group, and member's influence in decision making.  



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   35 
 

Power distance was represented by rating the extent of group member’s influence in making 
major group decisions including frequency and venue of meetings, savings and credit schemes, 
enterprise to invest in and storage of produce. Group participation in activities was represented 
by group members regularly participate in group activities and member’s commitment to group 
activities.  
 
Group rewards was defined by farmers’ perceptions regarding six items which included 
satisfaction with the actual group outputs, you have benefited from other group members, 
your participation benefited other members, the group in general benefited from you, your 
participation in activities will continue in this group, and you are be proud of belonging to this 
group. Structure of tasks was defined by farmers’ perceptions for three items which included 
level of involvement in tasks, level of competence and level of influence in group activities. 
Perceived equity was defined by farmers’ perceptions for five items which included criteria 
used in allocating tasks, distribution of rewards to other group members, the rewards you are 
given in your group, the way you as an individual are treated in the group, and the way other 
members of your group are treated.  
 
  



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   36 
 

Table 6 
 
Correlation Coefficient of the Factors 
Factor Equity Structure 

of Task 
Group 
rewards 

Power 
distance 

Member 
participant 

Individual 
objective 

Participant 
culture 

Group 
cohesion 

Equity 1        
Structure 
of Task 

.73**   
(P<.001, 
n=118) 

1       

Group 
rewards 

.65** 

(P<.001, 
n=153) 

.66** 

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

1      

Power 
distance 

.79** 

(P<.001, 
n=162) 

.76** 

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

.66** 

(P<.001, 
n=153) 

1     

Member 
participant 

.83** 

(P<.001, 
n=162) 

.87** 

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

.75** 

(P<.001, 
n=153) 

.91** 

(P<.001, 
n=177) 

1    

Individual 
objectives 

.91** 

(P<.001, 
n=157) 

.86** 

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

.71** 

(P<.001, 
n=153) 

.77** 

(P<.001, 
n=157) 

.84**             

(P<.001, 
 n=157) 

1 
  

Participant 
culture 

.65** 

(P<.001, 
n=162) 

.80** 

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

.59** 

(P<.001, 
n=153) 

.90** 

(P<.001, 
n=172) 

.87**             

(P<.001,  
n=172) 

60**      

(P<.001, 
n=157) 

1 
 

Group 
cohesion 

.83** 

(P<.001, 
n=148) 

.79**     

(P<.001, 
n=118) 

.68** 

(P<.001, 
n=148) 

.83** 

(P<.001, 
n=148) 

.88**              

(P<.001, 
 n=148) 

.86**     

(P<.001, 
n=148) 

.79**                 

(P<.001,  
n=148) 

1 

**Correlation is significant at the< 0.01 level (2-tailed). 
 
Table 6 indicates that there are statistically significant bivariate relationships between 
perceived equity (r=.836, p<.001), structure of tasks (r=.792, p<.001), group rewards (r=.683, 
p<.001), power distance (r=.838, p<.001), member participation (r=.881, p<.001), individual 
member objectives (r=.868, p<.001) and participation culture (r= -.792, p<.001) and group 
cohesion. This implies that the higher the perceptions regarding the structure of tasks 
performed by group members, individual member objectives of joining farmer groups, 
individual member’s participation in group activities, the greater is the perceived cohesion 
within farmer groups and vice versa.  Conversely, there was a negative correlation (r = -.792; p 
≤.001) between participation culture and perceived group cohesion. 
 
Table 7 summarizes the descriptive statistics for each of the factors/dimensions included in the 
regression analysis. 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   37 
 

Table 7  
 
Descriptive statistics for factors/dimensions 
Regression Analysis Factors N M (SD) 
Members’ individual objectives 135 3.86 (1.38) 
Participation culture 160 3.77 (1.54) 
Power distance 145 3.58 (1.15) 
Group participation 118 1.86 (1.30) 
Group rewards 118 4.42 (1.36) 
Structure of tasks 118 3.64 (1.40) 
Perceived equity  159 3.48 (0.82) 
Group cohesion  157 3.07 (1.06) 

Note. Ratings on a five-point Likert scale: 5-very high, 4-high, 3-neutral, 2-low, and 1-very low. 
 
Approximately 75% (N = 135) indicated they had met their objectives of joining farmers groups, 
89% (N = 160) had high collectivist participation culture, 81% (N = 145) experienced high-power 
distance, had low (M = 1.86) participation in group activities, attained very high group rewards 
(M = 4.41), were moderately involved in the structure of tasks (M = 3.64) and 87% (N = 157) 
experienced moderate group cohesion (M = 3.07). 
 
Multiple regression was utilized to examine the relative influence of each dimension on 
perceived group cohesion while simultaneously controlling for the influence of the other 
dimensions (Table 8). The adjusted R2 of 0.842 produced by the regression model (p < .001) 
indicates that the model explains 84.2% of the observed variation in group cohesion.  
 
Table 8 
 
Group Cohesion Regressed on Seven Dimensions 
     
 
 
 
Model a 

Unstandardized 
Coefficients 

Standardized 
Coefficients 

 
 
 
 
t 

 
 
 
 
p 

 
B 

Std. 
Error 

 
β 

 (Constant) 6.670 .976  6.833 < 0.001 
Individual objectives -0.368 0.107 -0.485 -3.443 < 0.001 
Participation culture -0.006 0.166 -0.003 -0.039 0.969 
Power distance 0.230 0.164 0.108 1.403 0.163 
Group participation 0.169 0.150 0.114 1.127 0.262 
Group rewards -0.310 0.085 -0.187 -3.657 < 0.001 
Structure of tasks -0.751 0.103 -0.691 -7.309 < 0.001 
Perceived equity  0.190 0.091 0.204 2.092 0.039 

Note. Adjusted R2 = .842, p ≤.001. aRegression Equation: Y Group Cohesion = 6.670 - 0.485 
(individual objectives) - 0.187 (group rewards) - 0.691 (structure of tasks) + 0.204 (equity) 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   38 
 

The regression results reveal that the nature of individual members’ objectives (β = -0.485, p < 
0.001), satisfactoriness of group rewards (β = -0.187, p < 0.001), and suitability of task (β = -
0.691, p < 0.001) had negative, statistically significant relationships with group cohesion. In 
contrast, there was a positive (β = .204, p = .039), statistically significant relationship between 
perceived equity of group processes and group cohesion. Examination of the beta values 
indicates the dimension labeled structure of tasks had the greatest influence on group cohesion 
followed by the dimension labeled members’ individual objectives.  The beta values also reveal 
the dimension labeled perceived equity and the dimension labeled group rewards had similar, 
although relatively smaller influence on group cohesion in contrast with structure of tasks and 
members’ individual objectives.   
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
The new theoretical model that was generated from the findings of regression analysis found 
significant factors that curtailed and enhanced the cohesion of farmer groups. Group rewards, 
individual member’s objectives, and structure of the tasks the groups engaged in curtailed 
(negatively influenced) group cohesion. This misalignment has strong implications for group 
cohesion in both the short and medium term. It is instructive that prevailing levels of group 
cohesion may have largely been a product of pre-group interaction which influenced 
recruitment criteria and the subsequent inter-member attraction. Additionally, given that 
several of the factors that influence group cohesion tended to emanate from the community, it 
is important for agencies involved in farmer institutional development to deliberately map out 
the community for important backward and forward linkages to any group operations. It is 
sufficient to note that the institutional development of farmer groups supported by NAADS pay 
less attention to group cohesion and more attention to development of skills and competencies 
for production agriculture. Effective social organization of groups for collective active that is key 
in groups tends to precede skill and competence development of group members, lest the 
groups develop cliques, factions which undermine group cohesion before the group 
disintegrates completely. This could explain the high rate of disintegration and collapse of 
farmer groups supported by NAADS.  
 
It is also noteworthy that members continued to rationalize their membership, in the face of 
unmet personal objectives, by deflecting performance failure onto the unfavorable external 
environment. An extension of this logic is that the groups were formed primarily to take 
advantage of the opportunities offered by the NAADS environment. Essentially, the members 
saw themselves as being in contract with the NAADS rather than their own groups. Given that 
groups supervene on the activities of the constituent individuals; it is difficult to see how group 
cohesion could be sustained or even enhanced if it is pegged on factors that had little to do 
with the group’s ability to deliver on its contract with members.  
The inverse relationship between group cohesion and type/nature of personal objectives is 
counter intuitive. In this study, one might have expected the largely unmet individual members’ 
objectives to have led to reduced group cohesion. One possible explanation for the observed 
relationship may be that the reported cohesion has more to do with attraction between 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   39 
 

members and less to do with the de-personalized, attraction to the group (Hogg, 2001). Where 
this holds, the balance between personal and social attraction tends to be a product of pre-
group experiences rather than affiliation to the group engendered by in-group experiences 
(Forsyth, 2006).  
 
A plausible explanation for the negative relationship between cohesion and extent the group 
reward system was perceived as satisfactory is that the reward system was rated high because 
of a perceived cognitive dissonance between members’ self-concept as rational individuals and 
the fact that the system had not sufficiently rewarded them in terms of their initial expected 
objectives on joining the group. According to cognitive dissonance theory (Greenwald & Ronis, 
1978; Zanna & Cooper, 1974), members who find themselves in a dissonance situation would 
be motivated to reduce this uncomfortable tension by rationalizing their behavior. In the 
circumstances, the group members would justify reward system failure by deflecting the 
attribution of any injustices to factors beyond the group such as supply of production 
agriculture inputs by the NAADS program. By extension, inadequate farm inputs would render 
group activities redundant consequently pushing members to retreat towards their personal 
farm activities. 
 
Regarding task structure, the tasks that members apparently considered in their evaluation of 
group effectiveness were of kind that require all group members to participate towards 
achieving goal. Failure to perform such tasks can be expected to translate into a low perceived 
collective efficacy (Forsyth, 2006). Based on this logic, the more conjunctive the tasks are 
perceived to be, the less collectively efficacious members should be expected to feel and hence 
the less cohesive groups would be likely to be. 
 
The positive correlation between members’ participation in group tasks and group cohesion 
implies that individuals can still jointly participate in group activities but may not have social 
attraction and positive attitudes towards one another. The only element bringing the 
individuals together is the task they intend to accomplish. This explains why sometimes 
individuals sharing a task seem to be disinterested about another.  This finding is consistent 
with Friedkin (2004) that attitudes of individuals in a group such as their desire or intention to 
remain or leave a group, their identification with or loyalty to the group among others 
determine the level of social cohesion. Alternatively, individuals may behave in a way that 
severs, weakens, maintains, or strengthens their membership and participation in a group. 
Loyal individuals can perform collectively in a group in which he/she is a member. Collective 
behavior of individuals in a group is an indication of attachment to one another. Membership 
turnover rate, absenteeism rate and proportion of members who participate in particular group 
activities are good indications of social cohesion. Poorly performing groups tend to have a high 
rate of members leaving the group, and absentee from group activities. 
 
Given that international and local development agencies dispense development interventions 
to mostly farmer groups to scale out development so that its trickle-down effects are improved, 
these findings come handy for use by organizations engaged in farmer group institutional 
development to focus on group cohesion as a fundamental driver to group performance 



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   40 
 

resulting to improved livelihood of groups members. Therefore, this study findings could help in 
reorienting the institutional development programs for farmers groups towards building strong 
cohesive groups that can within stand individual member attritions to achieve collective 
actions. This is principally important in improving performance and sustainability of farmer 
groups as the core medium for agricultural and rural development in developing countries, 
especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and East Asia. It is, therefore, important to 
conduct research on the mindset change capacity building processes in farmer groups and its 
influence on groups cohesion  
 

References 
 
Adong, A., Mwaura, F., & Okoboi, G. (2012). What determines membership to farmer groups in 

Uganda? Evidence from the Uganda Census of Agriculture 2008/9. Journal of Sustainable 
Development, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v6n4p37  

 
Bukenya, C. (2010). Meeting farmer demand? An assessment of extension reform in Uganda. 

[Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University]. Wageningen University and Research. 
https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/15663. 

 
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. 

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602  
 
Dimock, H. G., & Devine, I. (1994). Making workgroups effective (3rd ed). Captus Press Inc. 
 
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth. 
 
Greenwald, A. G., & Ronis, D. L. (1978). Twenty years of cognitive dissonance: Case study of 

evolution of a theory. Psychological Review, 85(1), 53–57. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.1.53 

 
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology 

Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1  
 
Lin, Z., Yang, H., Arya, B., Huang, Z., & Li, D. (2005). Structural versus individual perspectives on 

the dynamics of group performance: Theoretical exploration and empirical investigation. 
Journal of Management, 31(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272150  

 
Mangheni, M.N. (2007). Experiences, innovations and issues in agricultural extension in Uganda: 

Lessons and prospects. Fountain Publishers. 
 
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries. (2010). Agriculture for food and income 

security: Development strategy and investment plan (DSIP), 2010/11-2014-15. MAAIF. 
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/uga152492.pdf  



Agole et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.73   41 
 

Olomola, A. S. (2002). Social capital, microfinance group performance and poverty implications 
in Nigeria. Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Resources (NISER). 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.567.6492&rep=rep1&type=
pdf 

 
Pigg, K. (1999). Community leadership and community theory: A practical synthesis. Community 

Development Society Journal, 30(2), 196–212. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575339909489721  

 
Salifu, A., Francesconi, G. N., & Kolavalli, S. (2010). A review of collective action in rural Ghana 

(discussion paper 00998). International Food Policy Research Institute, 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gian_Francesconi/publication/46442079_A_Revi
ew_of_Collective_Action_in_Rural_Ghana/links/55f933c508aeafc8ac202714/A-Review-
of-Collective-Action-in-Rural-Ghana.pdf  

 
Stolte, J. F., Fine, G. A., & Cook, K. S. (2001). Sociological miniaturism: Seeing the big through 

the small in social psychology. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 387-413. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.387 

 
Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2006). Sociological theories of human emotions. Journal of Annual 

Sociology Review, 32, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123130  
 
Wilkinson, K. (1991). The community in rural America. Greenwood Press. 
 
Zanna, M., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the 

arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 
703–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036651  

 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


