美国农业合作社与农业产业化外文文献翻译中英文最新
上班迟到检讨书（节选重点翻译）
英文
Managing uncertainty and expectations: The strategic respon of U.S.
agricultural cooperatives to agricultural industrialization
Julie Hogeland信息登记表
Abstract
The 20th century industrialization of agriculture confronted U.S. agricultural cooperatives with responding to an event they neither initiated nor drove. Agrarian-influenced cooperatives ud two metaphors, “rfdom” and “cooperatives are like a family” to manage uncertainty and influence producer expectations by predicting industrialization's eventual outcome and cooperatives’ producer driven compensation.
王啸晓The rfdom metaphor alluded to industrialization's potential to either bypass family farmers, the cornerstone of the economy according to agrarian ideology, or to transform them into the equivalent of piece-wage labor as contract growers. The “family” metaphor reflects how cooperatives personalized the connection between cooperative and farmer-member to position themlves as the exact opposite of rfdom. Hypothes advanced by Roessl (2005) and Goel (2013) suggest that intrinsic characteristics of family business such as a resistance to change and operating according to a myth of unlimited choice and
independence reinforced the risk of institutional lock-in pod by agrarian ideology.
To determine whether lock-in occurred, Woerdman's (2004) neo-institutional model of lock-in was examined in the context of late 20th century cooperative grain and livestock marketing. Increasingly ineffective open markets prompted three regional cooperatives to develop their own models of industrialized pork production. Direct experience with producer contracting allowed cooperatives to evade institutional and ideological lock-in.
Keywords：Cooperatives，Agricultural industrialization，Agrarianism，Expectations，Family business，Family farming，Metaphors，Lock-in
蛇与鼠合不合Introduction
优先购买权Recent fluctuation in global financial markets led a panel of cooperative leaders to identify uncertainty as the primary managerial difficulty anticipated by cooperatives in the future (Boland, Hogeland, & McKee, 2011). Likewi, the 20th century industrialization of agriculture confronted cooperatives with the challenge of responding to an event they neither initiated nor drove. When the environment is highly uncertain and unpredictable, Oliver predicts that organizations will increa their efforts to establish the illusion or reality of control and stability over future organizational outcomes (Oliver, 1991: 170). This study argues that
心向阳光下一句是什么
cooperatives ud two metaphors, “rfdom” and “cooperatives are like a family” to manage uncertainty by predicting industrialization's eventual outcome and cooperatives’ producer-driven compensation.
The metaphors are agrarian. Recent rearch highlights the impact of agrarian ideology on cooperatives. Foreman and Whetten (2002: 623)obrve, “co-ops have historically sought to reinforce the traditions and values of agrarianism through education and social interventions. Indeed, for many members the normative goals of a co-op have been preeminent.” The authors studied
the tension within rural cooperatives produced by a normative system encompassing family and ideology and a utilitarian system defined by economic rationality, profit maximization and lf-interest. They argue that this split in values implies that cooperatives are esntially two different organizations trying to be one. To capture the tension between the multiple identities, they focud on a potential family/business divide in cooperatives, basing this on a duality often noted in cooperative community and trade publications.
The authors found that respondents wanted their local co-op to be more business oriented and at the same time, expected co-ops ideally (e.g., as an ideal organizational form) to be more family focud. The conflicting expectations suggested that multiple-identity organizations need to be assd in terms of the individual components of their identity and the tension (or interaction) between them. Foreman and Whetten
不来梅的音乐家
regard dual or multiple identity organizations as hybrids. There are conquences to hybridity: many members of a hybrid organization will identify with both aspects of its dual identity, “and thus find themlves embracing competing goals and concerns associated with distinctly different identity elements” (Foreman and Whetten, 2002). They conclude that competing goals and concerns foster competing expectations with conquences for organizational commitment (and I would add, perfor
mance).
The split focus obrved by Foreman and Whetten can be regarded as a contemporary expression of a value conflict beginning early in the 20th century over how production agriculture should be organized. Decentralized, autonomous, and typically small, family farmers ud their skill at deciding the “what, when, where, how and why” of production and marketing to reduce the risk of being a price taker at open, competitive markets. Farmers also diversified the farm enterpri to spread price risk over veral commodities. Corporate-led industrialized agriculture (integrators) by-pasd both markets and independent farmers. Integrators coordinated supply and demand internally bad on top-down administrative control over production and marketing decisions. They engaged in production contracting with growers who were held to competitive performance standards and paid according to their productivity. In contrast, family farmers were accountable only to
themlves.
Study overview
Foss (2007) obrves that the beliefs organizations hold about each other or the competitive environment are a key aspect of strategic management which have been understudied. Beliefs, whic
h include norms and expectations, are important becau they can be wrong. Cooperatives are often considered to have an ideological component but how such ideology develops and persists also has been understudied. This study address that gap by examining how agrarian language and assumptions shaped cooperatives’ reaction to 20th century agricultural industrialization. During this era, industrial methods transformed the production and marketing of processing vegetables, poultry, beef, and pork and were initiated for dairy and grains. An historical and institutional perspective is ud to examine how two contrasting metaphors brought cooperatives to the brink of institutional lock-in. The study spans the entire 20th century from beginning to clo.
做梦梦到自己结婚是什么意思The study opens with a brief discussion of metaphors and norms then prents a theoretical model of lock-in. Discussion of the overarching role of agrarianism follows. Discussion then address why the cooperative alternative to corporate-led industrialization –the 1922 model developed by Aaron Sapiro –was not palatable to agrarian-influenced cooperatives (this ction also defines
