Performance of Owner-Managed and Employee-Managed Small-Scale Poultry Farms in Nigeria

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 21 - 26, 01.01.2019

Felix Achoja Okwanuzor Esther Ananenu

Abstract

This study was conducted to establish the linkage between farm manager’s identity and performance of poultry farms in Lagos State, Nigeria. Primary data on poultry farm features were elicited with well structured questionnaire from randomly selected 130 poultry firms. Descriptive statistics, regression model and enterprise budget were applied for data analysis. From the result, it is seen that 78.94% of the poultry farms are owner-managed while the other 21.05% are employee-managed. The result revealed that poultry farms are mainly owner managed and had survived for past 4 years in operations. Result shows a return on investment 53% and 61% for employee-managed and owner-managed poultry farms, respectively. The finding shows that the extent to which farm manager’s identity affects financial performance of the poultry firm is 72%. The result shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between farm manager’s identity and the financial performance of poultry farms. Farm manger’s identity (P<0.05) is a predictor of the financial performance of poultry farms in Nigeria. We concluded that owner-managed poultry farms performed better than employee-managed farms. We recommended that small scale poultry farm owners should personally manage their farms, provided they have the rudimentary knowledge of farm management and the technical know-how of poultry production. 

Keywords

Farm manager’s identity, Owner-managed, Financial performance, Poultry farm

References

• Abu-Tapanjeh A. 2006. Good Corporate governance mechanisms and firms’ operating and financial performance: Insight from the perspective of Jordan Industrial Companies. J King Sand Univ, 19(2): 101-121.
• Smith A. 1776. An Inquiry into the nature and causes of wealth of the Nations. Pp 317.
• Agrawal A, Knoeber CR. 1996. Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between manager and shareholders. J Fin Quant Anal, 31 (3): 377-937.
• Alagbe AM, Ismail K. 2014. Factors influencing capital assessment in high growth companies in Malysia. Inter J Entrepren Small Busin, 21(4): 457-494.
• Cui H, Mak YT. 2002. The relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance in high R&D firms. J Corp Fin, 8(4): 313-336.
• Dahor AO, Isiavwe TD, Ajab AM, Oke AO. 2015. Impact of Corporate governance on firms’ performance, Inter J Econ Commer Manage, 3(6): 634-653.
• Davis JH, Schoorman FD, Donadson L. 1997. Toward a Stewardship theory of management. Acad Manag Rev, 22: 1-20.
• Enofe A, Isiavwe D. 2012. Corporate disclosure and governance in the Nigerian banking sector. An empirical evaluation. The Inter J Res Soc Sci Manage. Singapore, ISSN: 2251-1571.
• Faccio M, Lang B. 2002. The ultimate ownership of western European corporations. J Fin Econ, 65(3): 365-395.
• Huddart S. 1993. The effect of a large shareholder on corporate value. Manage Sci, 39(11): 1407-1421.
• Jensen MC, William HM. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, Agency cost and ownership structure. J Fin Econ, 3(4): 305-360.
• Jensen MC, Murphy KJ. 1990. Performance pay and Top-Management incentives. J Pol Econ, 98(2): 225-264.
• Mankiw NG. 2008. Principles of economics. 5th ed. South Western College Publishing, Boston, MA.
• McConnel JJ, Servaes H. 1990. Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. J Fin Econ, 27(2): 595-612.
• Mongollon, M and Raisinghani, M. 2003. Measuring ROI in E-Business: A practical approach. Inform System Manage, 20(2): 63-81.
• Morck R, Shliefer A, Vishny RW. 1988. Management ownership and market Valuation, an Empirical analysis. J Fin Econ, 20(1): 293-315.
• Morris MH, Sexton DL. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: implication for company performance. J Busin Res, 36(1): 5-14.
• Odegaard BA. 2003. Governance and Performance revisited. S3RN Working Paper series — LA English.
• Pederson T, Thomsen S. 1999. Economic and Systemic explanations of ownership concentration among Europes largest companies. Inter J Econ Busin, 6(3): 367-381.
• Psacharopoulos G, Patrinos HA. 2004. Returns to investment in education: a further update. Educ Econ, 12 (2): 111-134.
• Reddy K, Abidin S, Hei W. 2015. Does ownership identify of block holders matters: an empirical analysis of publicly listed companies in New Zealand? Asian J Fin Account, 7(1): 13-44.
• Schleifer A, Vishny R. 1986. Lager Shareholders and corporate control. J Pol Econ, 94(3): 461-488.
• Stulz R. 1998. Managerial control of voting rights: financial policies and market corporate control. J Fin Econ, 20: 25-54.