Mecanismos de presión en la negociación de las condiciones laborales

The cluster analysis performed on the set of PC scores for the derived resilience attributes resulted in two clusters of farmers. Based on the profiles to be discussed, the clusters were nicknamed as follows:

 Cluster 1, which grouped 245 farmers, was typified as the “low resilient farmer”.

 Cluster 2, which grouped 119 farmers, was typified as the “high resilient farmer”.

The average Silhouette coefficient obtained for the cluster model was 0.2. The Silhouette coefficient is a measurement of the degree of cohesion and separation of clusters (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 1990). This coefficient ranges from -1 to 1; the closer the measurement is to 1, the more different the clusters are from each other. A value of 0.2, reflects weak to moderate significant evidence of cluster structure (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 1990). Moreover, five of the nine derived resilience attributes were relevant for discriminating the clusters (Figure 4.3.4.1). Figure 4.3.4.1, shows the predictor importance (PI) of each of the derived resilience attributes. The PI is an estimator of the relative importance of each derived attribute on estimating the cluster model. The higher the PI, the less likely that the variation of an attribute between clusters is due to chance and the more likely it is due to an underlying difference.

Figure 4.3.4.1. Relative importance of the derived resilience attributes on estimating resilient farmer clusters.

As shown in Figure 4.3.4.1, general self-efficacy, willingness to change, locus of control (farm business success), social sense-making, and strategic thinking focus were the attributes that contributed most in discriminating the resilient farmer clusters.

Table 4.3.4 shows the mean PC scores for the nine derived resilience attributes for the two clusters. It is important to note that PC scores were presented as z-scores, which meant that the overall PC score considering all survey responses is 0. A cluster with a mean PC score above 0 in one of the resilience derived attributes indicates that farmers in that cluster had a PC score that was above the overall mean PC score for that attribute.

Table 4.3.4. Mean PC scores for the derived resilience attributes by resilient farmer clusters. Cluster General self- efficacy Willingness to change Locus of control (farm business success) Social sense- making Strategic thinking focus Strategic planning focus Individual sense- making Open- mindedness (shared learning) Willingness to accept uncertainty 1 -0.43 -0.26 -0.28 -0.37 -0.28 -0.11 -0.12 -0.06 0.05 2 0.88 0.54 0.58 0.76 0.57 0.23 0.24 0.13 -0.1 Overall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Farmers grouped in cluster 1 exhibited negative mean PC scores for each of the derived attributes of resilience with the exception of “willingness to accept uncertainty” which had a positive mean PC score (M=0.05) (Table 4.3.4). In contrast, farmers in cluster 2 exhibited positive mean PC scores for each of the derived attributes of resilience with the exception of “willingness to accept uncertainty”. For this latter attribute, the mean PC score for cluster 2 farmers was negative (M=-0.1).

The variability in PC scores of each of the attributes for farmers in both of the clusters and in overall responses is shown in Figure 4.3.4.2. Overall, farmer response variability is displayed as background boxplots that show the overall median and the interquartile range. The variability in response for farmers in each cluster is displayed as overlaid boxplots in which square point markers and horizontal lines indicate the median value and the interquartile range, respectively.

Figure 4.3.4.2. Comparison between resilient farmer clusters 1 and 2.

Figure 4.3.4.2 shows that the PC scores observed for each of the derived resilient attributes between both of the clusters were clearly different between clusters, particularly for those

attributes that were of more importance for defining the clusters (general self-efficacy, willingness to change, locus of control (farm business success), social sense-making, strategic thinking focus) since there was no overlap in the PC scores for these five attributes between clusters.

Farmers in cluster 2 had higher median PC scores for all of the attributes compared to farmers in cluster 1. The median PC scores for most important attributes: general self-efficacy, willingness to change, locus of control (farm business success), social sense-making, strategic thinking focus, were 1.12, 0.46, 0.81, 0.72, and 0.53, respectively for farmers in cluster 2 and 0.10, -0.19, -0.10, - 0.28, and -0.48, respectively for farmers in cluster 1 (Figure 4.3.4.2).

Although there were differences between clusters in their median PC scores for the remaining attributes (strategic planning focus, individual sense-making, open-mindedness (shared learning), and willingness to accept uncertainty), their interquartile ranges tended to overlap, which indicated that farmers in both clusters were not very different one from another with respect to these attributes (Figure 4.3.4.2).

Because farmers in cluster 1 exhibited lower qualities for the attributes that were used to define the resilient farmer type than farmers in cluster 2, farmers in cluster 1 were termed “low resilient farmers” and farmers in cluster 2 were termed “high resilient farmers”.

The findings from this cluster analysis were consistent with the description of resilient people provided by Coutu (2002), Reich et al. (2010), and Schwarzer and Warner (2013) who identified a direct link between perceived self-efficacy and a resilient personality. Likewise, these results were consistent with the findings described by Connor and Davidson (2003) and Coutu (2002), who found a direct relationship between a resilient person and their willingness to change, and Skodol (2010) who acknowledged that an internal locus of control is as an important attribute of resilient individuals. Moreover, a resilient personality was also linked with an enhanced ability for networking due to its effect on individual sense-making, as described by Darnhofer (2010), Goldstein (2009) and Hahn, Schultz, Folke, and Olsson (2008). These results are also consistent with Fazey (2010) and Walker and Salt (2006) who suggested that strategic thinking is an important prerequisite of resilience.