Pages 2021-2.cdr INTRODUCTION Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) are emerging start-ups in India and this c o n c e p t b l e n d s w e l l w i t h t h e n e w opportuni�es and environment. Par�ci - pa�on, organisa�on and membership pa�ern, similar to co-opera�ves, along with a company's outlook helps FPCs to maintain professionalism and flexibility in their business ac�vi�es (Mukherjee, 2018). These FPCs are formed by the equity contribu�on of the members who are either primary producers or producer ins�tu�ons ( D A C , 2 0 1 3 ) . T h u s , a n a p p r o p r i a t e framework for owning the company by producers themselves is provided by these organisa�ons since producers are the equity holders. Like every other group, Farmer Producer Organisa�ons will also go through the stages of forming, norming and performing with implica�on for situa�onal leadership styles as they pass through various stages. Hence a constella�on of related socio-psychological organisa�onal and group behaviour theories are applicable 6662 Research Article Journal of Extension Educa�on Vol. 33 No.2, 2021 DOI: h�ps://doi.org/10.26725/ 1 2 3 662 6670JEE.202 . .3 .6 - Farmer Producer Companies of Kerala: Group Dynamics Assessment of Shareholders Ajith, A* ABSTRACT The study focuses on the group dynamics of shareholders in the selected FPCs (Farmer Producer Companies) of Idukki district, Kerala. A sample of 120 respondents among 13 FPCs was iden�fied using propor�onate random sampling. Results of the study indicate that majority of the shareholders in the selected FPCs exhibited a low to medium group dynamics and shareholders of four FPCs exhibited a high level of group dynamics. But the varia�on of GDI (Group Dynamics Index) among companies also point that some firms have be�er intra-group understanding and exhibit higher degree of group cohesiveness and team work along with a favourable a�tude towards the management which caters to a smooth decision making procedure. Principal component analysis of the selected indicators revealed that decision making procedure and team work has a significant effect on variance of the GDI. Keywords: FPC; Group Dynamics; Perspec�ves; Shareholder; Kerala *Department of Agricultural Extension, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala - 680 656 Received : 07-09-2021 Accepted: 13-02-2022 for the FPCs. This includes the law of propinquity, Homan's theory, balance theory and exchange theory (Mukherjee, 2018) The propinquity theory of group forma�on fits very well because normally the FPC is formed by the individuals of a par�cular region, who are in spa�al and geographical proximity. The consensus building, nego�a�on, conflict resolu�on and media�on in FPCs can be explained on the basis of Homan's theory. Persons with similar a�tudes towards common objects a�ract each other. Once a rela�onship is formed these persons try to maintain a symmetrical balance between a�rac�on and common a�tudes. Thus balance theory explains the need of sustenance of FPC by maintaining balance in rela�onships, a�tude and performance. Finally exchange theory explains the joining of new members to the FPC based on reward- cost outcomes of interac�ons with the exis�ng group members and par�cipa�on in the group ac�vi�es. In FPCs, it is necessary for members to a c t toget h e r b eyo n d p e rs o n a l o r individual inten�ons for the success of the FPC. FPC being an organisa�on func�oning primarily based on the contribu�ons of the member farmers, their par�cipa�on in ac�vi�es and decision making, essen�ally group dynamics is important for be�er performance of such organisa�ons (Ajith, 2018). Hence, understanding the group dynamics in FPCs and devising ways to improve the same can help formulate policy recommenda�ons and solu�ons to improve the performance of such organisa�ons that are facilita�ng the transforma�on of Indian agriculture to agribusiness. METHODOLOGY The district of Idukki in the state of Kerala, India, was purposively selected due to the higher number of FPCs and rela�vely lesser number of studies compared to the state scenario. An exhaus�ve selec�on of func�oning thirteen FPCs were made from the district. Due to the varia�on in the number of members among these FPCs w h i c h r a n g e d f r o m 9 3 t o 5 0 0 a n d geographical limita�ons of the district a total of 120 respondents were selected using probability propor�onate to size s a m p l i n g a s g i v e n i n Ta b l e 1 . T h e Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure was es�mated and the value of 0.7 was obtained which indicated sampling adequacy. 6663Journal of Extension Educa�on Table 1. Selec�on of Respondents (n=120) Sl. No Name of FPC No. of Respondents 1 Idukki Spices Farmer Producer Company Ltd 19 2 Neyssery Agro Farmer Producer Company 15 3 Marayoor Agricultural Producer Company Ltd 13 The group dynamics of selected FPCs was es�mated using four indicators viz., group cohesiveness, team work, decision making procedure and a�tude t o w a r d s g r o u p m a n a g e m e n t . T h e reliability for the selected indicators was assessed as the internal consistency of the items by es�ma�ng the Cronbach Alpha value. Principal Component Analysis was executed among the indicators to iden�fy the contribu�on of variance to the group dynamics and weightage of each indicator in terms of factor loadings. A Group Dynamics Index (GDI) was also calculated for the selected FPCs using the formula (Manojkumar, 2009) given below. W h e r e W i = We i g h t o f t h e indicator, Ri = Score obtained for the indicator and Mi = Max score available for the indicator. Further analysis of the data we re c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g f re q u e n c y, percentage, quar�les and other measures of central tendencies like mean and standard devia�on. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Reliability of the Indicators R e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s e l e c t e d indicators were assessed in terms of internal consistency of the scale items by es�ma�ng the value for Cronbach's alpha for each. As shown in Table 2, all indicators obtained a cronbach alpha value more than 0.7 indica�ng high reliability. Sl. No Name of FPC 4 Green Idukki Farmer Producer Company Ltd 6 Hill Range Tribal Farmer Producer Company Ltd 7 Mangulam Agri Farmer Producer Company Ltd 8 Green Vivo Agro Producer Company Ltd 9 Sahya Farmer Producer Company Ltd 10 Tillage Agro Producer Co Ltd 11 Kumily Agro Spice Producer Company Ltd 12 Thodupuzha Farmers Agro Producer Company 13 Mannen Organic Farmer Producer Company Ltd Total No. of Respondents 13 5 High Range Organic Producer Company Ltd 12 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 1 120 6664 FPCs of Kerala Group Dynamics Assessment of Shareholders A�tude Towards Group Management Most of the members of farmer group o�en exhibit favourable a�tude towards collec�vism and management ( Po o r n i m a , 2 0 0 5 ) . Acq u i re d t h ro u g h experience, a�tude exerts a direc�ve influence on subsequent behaviour and help to interpret new informa�on and make decisions. Thus the a�tude towards the m a n a g e m e n t h a s a n i m p a c t o n t h e c o n t r i b u � o n a n d p a r � c i p a � o n o f shareholders in the ac�vi�es of the FPC. The majority of the shareholders exhibited a posi�ve (68.33 %) a�tude towards the group management. Rela�vely lesser number of the shareholders (17.50%) showcased highly posi�ve a�tude followed by shareholders which exhibited less p o s i � ve a� t u d e t owa rd s t h e g ro u p management. This indicates that majority of the shareholder believed that group management conducted mee�ngs and trainings at right �me, but the service delivery needs to be improved. Group Cohesiveness The value shared, informa�on flow and willingness to stay in the group is influenced by group cohesiveness. The groups with higher cohesion outperform other groups (Banwo et al. 2015). As per Table 3, more than half of the shareholders (62.50%) exhibited medium level of group cohesion. 19.17 per cent of shareholders exhibited low level of group cohesion while 18.33 per cent of shareholders exhibited high level of cohesion. This indicates that the general belief of the respondents is that shareholders run to support each other during hardships and rely on one another in the group for carrying out the group task. Majority of the shareholders on some levels felt that they belonged in the group. But the s h a re h o l d e rs wh o s co re d l ow g ro up c o h e s i v e n e s s f e l t t h a t i t w a s n o t comfortable to work with some group members, and they could not rely on another. 6665Journal of Extension Educa�on Table 2. Cronbach's Alpha of each Indicator (n=120) Sl. No Indicator Cronbach Alpha 1 A�tude towards group management 0.771 2 Group cohesiveness 0.830 3 Team work 0.870 4 Decision making procedure 0.868 Teamwork Group members are expected to preserve unity and move towards their goals as a single unit and willing to give the major credit to combined team. Most of the respondents exhibited a medium teamwork (73.33%), followed by low (15.83%) and high (10.83%), indica�ng the most of the shareholders believe that the group is working as a team in all ac�vi�es and feel that the combined effort of the group brought much success. But a certain extent of the shareholders prefers to work alone as there are individuals in the team who claim all recogni�on for the group achievement which explains the low category Decision Making Procedure T h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e involvement of other members in making a decision in the organisa�on is referred to as decision making process. Par�cipa�on in decision making improves the organisa - �onal learning and performance. Similar to the other indicators more than half of the respondents (69.17%) fell in to the medium category followed by 22.50 per cent of shareholders who exhibited high category of decision making procedure. Only 8.33 per cent of respondents exhibited a low category score for the indicator. The results indicated that most of the shareholders belonged to the medium to high category which means that usually any group decision is taken jointly by all members in a par�cipa�ve manner and decision of the majority is valid in the FPC. 6666 Table 3. Distribu�on of Shareholders on the Basis of Selected Indicators (n=120) . Sl No Indicator Percentage distribu�on Low (M+SD) 1 A�tude towards group management M=15.94 SD=2.50 14.17 68.33 17.50 2 Group cohesiveness M= 26.65 SD= 3.09 19.17 62.50 18.33 3 Team work M=21.97 SD=3.38 15.83 73.33 10.83 4 Decision making procedure M= 20.98 SD= 3.00 8.33 69.17 22.50 FPCs of Kerala Group Dynamics Assessment of Shareholders Principal Component Analysis Principal Component Analysis was used to understand the contribu�on of the indicators to the variance in group dynamics of the FPCs, as understanding this can help decide on which avenue to focus and formulate strategies to improve the same. The KMO value of 0.7 confirmed the sampling adequacy to conduct PCA. The results from the varimax rotated PCA e l u c i d a t e d f o u r f a c t o r s t h a t w e r e independent of each other, and together could account for 100 per cent of the total variance (Table 4). Among these four factors the first two factors with eigenvalue 2.12 and 0.91 one accounted for the more than 75 per cent cumula�ve variance in group dynamics which validated the selec�on of variables in the es�ma�on of the group dynamics of FPCs. However the factor one which has an eigenvalue greater than one, impart only a contribu�on of 53 per cent which indicates that other organisa�onal variables like group leadership, atmosphere and par�cipa�on of the shareholders in group ac�vi�es have an effect on the group dynamics and this has to be further studied. From the factor loadings of each variable under the factor one as shown in Table 5, the weightage of contribu�on of the selected variables to the group dynamics can be assessed. The results show that decision making procedure and team work has a higher weightage to group dynamics and improving these avenues can result in be�er group dynamics. In prac�cal terms, the group management in order to improve the group dynamics must ini�ate steps to improve the par�cipa�on of members in decision making and inculcate democra�c culture in the same as FPCs are essen�ally member owned ins�tu�ons. Further the trainings and ac�vi�es for team building can help the members to improve their team spirit and ul�mately the performance of these organisa�ons. 6667Journal of Extension Educa�on Table 4. Factor sta�s�cs related to the Factors affec�ng Group Dynamics of FPCs Group Dynamics Factor Eigen values Variance (%) Cumula�ve Variance (%) GD Factor 1 2.125 53.129 53.129 GD Factor 2 .913 22.815 75.944 GD Factor 3 .505 12.622 88.566 GD Factor 4 .457 11.434 100.000 Sl. No Indicators Factor loadings 1 Decision making procedure .836 2 Teamwork .823 3 Group cohesiveness .777 4 A�tude towards group management .107 Factor loadings, obtained for the indicators on the basis of the factor one, which had an eigenvalue of more than one (2.1) was used as weights for calcula�ng the Group Dynamics Index (GDI) and the FPCs were ranked on basis of the index (Table 6). These FPCs were also categorised on to low medium and high categories using quar�les as shown in the Table 7. From the results it can be noted that shareholders of five FPCs exhibit low group dynamics, while four each exhibit medium and high group dynamics. Thus shareholders of majority of the FPCs are exhibi�ng low to medium group dynamics. The lack of effort from the group management as well as the shareholders for par�cipa�ve decision making and inability of the group to act as a team and pressure group unity may be the major reasons for the low group dynamics of certain FPCs. For example, Hill Tribal Organic FPC situated in the tribal region of Idukki, near to the forest areas, exhibit the lowest GDI in the study and does not conduct regular mee�ngs for deciding the progress and major ac�vi�es of the FPC, partly due to the loca�on and terrain. Further the shareholders sell majority of the produces including coffee and spices to retailers rather than the FPC, expec�ng that they pay be�er price. These reasons substan�ate the low GDI score and performance of the FPC. Similarly the FPCs like Tillage Agro PC and Neyassery FPC, with higher GDI scores exhibited a be�er team spirit and coordinated their ac�vi�es through division of work decided through mee�ngs. Further the shareholders were par�cipa�ng in the ac�vi�es of the FPCs i n c l u d i n g v a l u e a d d i � o n , p a c k i n g , marke�ng, and accoun�ng. They were also facilita�ng the ins�tu�onal linkages like marke�ng agreements between local shops, and credit that help FPCs gain advantage in t h e c o m p e � � o n . Fu r t h e r t h e b e � e r emo�onal connect of the members and their belief that shareholders will help each during crisis made a significant posi�ve e ff e c t o n t h e g r o u p c o h e s i v e n e s s . Shareholders of these FPCs received several services like input supply, credit and trainings along with marke�ng. They also believed that the management ac�ve in listening to shareholders and majority of the decisions made is post discussion thus improving the overall group dynamics. 6668 Table 5. Factor loadings of Selected Indicators FPCs of Kerala Group Dynamics Assessment of Shareholders 6669Journal of Extension Educa�on Table 6. GDI Ranking of selected FPCs Sl. No FPC GDI Rank 1 Tillage Agro Producer Company 2.14 I P C2 Neyassery Farmer roducer ompany 2.13 II 3 Mankulam Farmer Producer Company 2.11 III 4 Kumily Farmer Producer Company 2.07 IV 5 Thodupuzha Farmer Producer Company 2.07 V 6 Green vivo Farmer Producer Company 2.06 VI 7 Sahya Farmer Producer Company 1.99 VII 8 Mannen Farmer Producer Company 1.97 VIII 9 High Range Farmer Producer Company 1.93 IX 10 Marayoor F armer Producer Company 1.93 X 11 Green Idukki Farmer Producer Company 1.91 XI 12 Idukki Spices Farmer Producer Company 1.90 XII 13 Hill Range Tribal F armer Producer Company 1.80 XIII Table 6. Distribu�on of FPCs on basis of GDI (N=13) Sl. No Quar�le Number of FPC Percentage 1 Low (<1.93) 5 38.46 2 Medium(<2.07) 4 30.77 3 High (>2.07) 4 30.77 (Q1=1.93) (Q3=2.07) Range = 0.15 CONCLUSION A S F P C s a r e m e m b e r - o w n e d ins�tu�ons, collec�ve ac�on and group efforts will help improve the performance of these organisa�ons. Existence of posi�ve group dynamics among members helps FPCs to achieve division of labour in their ac�vi�es and promote the envisaged decentralisa�on of power. On analysis of the GDI for the selected FPCs based on the iden�fies indicators it was iden�fied that most of them exhibited a low to medium group dynamics, warran�ng remedial efforts for team building and coordina�on ac�vi�es. The principle component analysis o f t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t e ffi c i e n t m a n a g e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s t h a t f o l l o w democra�c leadership styles help impart a sense of teamwork among the FPCs and improve their dynamics. An emo�onal connec�on enables them to help each other during crises and support their ac�vi�es and a �mely incen�ve structure adds to the be�er outcome for FPCs of the state. Hence, in order to achieve be�er group dynamics in FPCs, focus must be given for par�cipa�ve administra�on along with trainings and ac�vi�es that improve the u n i t y a n d d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r i n t h e organisa�on. REFERENCES A j i t h , A . ( 2 0 1 8 ) . F a r m e r P r o d u c e r Organisa ons (FPOs) of Idukki district: A m u l d i m e n s i o n a l a n a l y s i s o n r o l e f u n c o n a n d p e r f o r m a n c e ( R F P ) . Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur. Banwo, A.O, Du, J, & Onokala, U. (2015). The impact of group cohesiveness on o rg a n i z a � o n a l p e r fo r m a n ce : Th e Nigerian case. Interna�onal Journal of Business and Management, 10(6) DAC [Department of Agriculture and Coopera�on]. (2013). Policy & process g u i d e l i n e s f o r f a r m e r p r o d u c e r organisa�ons, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 96p. Manojkumar, B. R. (2009). Group dynamics on tribal women self help groups of Vansda taluk of Gujarat. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Anand Agricultural University, Gujarat. 188p. Mukherjee, A. (2018). An analy�cal study on status, prospects and challenges of F a r m e r s P r o d u c e r C o m p a n i e s . Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Indian Agricultural Research Ins�tute, New Delhi.248p. Poornima, K. S. (2005). Women self help group dynamics in North coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished Ph. D. t h e s i s , A c h a r y a N . G . R a n g a Agricultural University, Hyderabad, 110p. 6670 FPCs of Kerala Group Dynamics Assessment of Shareholders Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56