Management orientation scale (MOS): Scale development and empirical validation

Introduction

Presently, the Indian agriculture sector is shifted from subsistence to profit-making business (Mahato et al. 2020) [58] . This profit-oriented agriculture can fulfill the economic well-being of the farmers. Mostly profit-oriented activities are being largely seen in an orchard growing crops compared to others, focusing on the market-driven production system (Mahato et al. 2020) [58] . Market-driven production systems require scientific orientation to knowhow and field levels do-how and effective management of activities. Scientific orientation is a degree to using scientific methods (Mahato et al. 2020) [58] . Management is an interrelation of a managerial process like organizing inputs, collecting, coordinating activities, and controlling the process to improve the inputs' performance on output (Dhenge et al., 2021) [98] . Scientific and management orientation is a psychological factor that leads to the decision-making process. Decision-making is a problem solving cognitive process resulting in the selection of course of action from the several available alternative possibilities (Adenegan Kemisola O et al. 2013) [2] . Furthermore, the success of any profit-oriented activities depends on the quality of the decision-making which can be divided into planning, implementation and control, which are the basic functions of business management. Higher price and quality outputs from the orchard-oriented business need effective and efficient management of farm activities, noble decisions and adoption of scientific methods (Porter 2008, 1991, 1985) [69,71,70] , also increasingly determined by the advanced technology available and adoption (Wyn Morris et al. 2017) [96] . All of these impact on business growth and performance (McElwee, 2005; Maye et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010; Suess-Reyes and Fuetsch, 2016) [55,54,57,88] . Orchards growers improve such psychological factors through involving and managing various orchard activities which meet the market demand (Levinthal and March 1993) [47] . Global and national level, commercial demand for the orchard production daily increases due to high-income potential, nutritional consciousness of people, urbanization, liberalization, globalization of the trade (Johnston and Mellor 1961) [39] . Most of the mango orchard growers operate various orchard management activities in a resource-constrained environment, lack of knowledge, inefficient skills and lack of financial capacity (Muyanga et al., 2013; Wiggins et al., 2011) [60,95] , lack of interfunctional integration, poor management skills and less use of business management tools, like planning, recording, monitoring and controlling at the farm level. These factors hinder the performance of desirable outputs in minimum use of inputs as well as help the farmers to improve competitiveness. They are considering this commercial or profit-oriented business, which requires careful planning of all the physical inputs and management skills at the farm or individual level, also understanding the customers' demands, understanding same business management activities (Knight and Cross, 2012; Sheth, 2010) [43,82] , focus on inter-functional coordination and controlling of activities (Khanh Le Phi Hoa et al. 2018) [42] , input use efficiency and efficient production methods addressing these and collectively perform towards a maximum potential. Commercial orchard management's most essential factor is the farmers' managerial ability in production, which effectively and functionally links land, labor, and capital Peter Nuthall 2009) [67] , apart from input and output adjustments also includes strategic management, financial management, marketing, networking and negotiations and production management. Orchard management as a process works collaboratively with individual and groups level and farm inputs such as equipment, capital and technology (Jadav et al. 2007) [34] , effective management has estimated technical and economic relationships (Griliches 1957; Mundluck 1961 and Dawson 1985) [28,59,19] . Therefore managerial skills are essential; they can shape the long-run efficiency of the orchard management attitudes and actions are important improve their technical efficiency or technology management, they can move towards production of higher value-added and higher yield of commodities (Ženka et al., 2016; Sokolow, 2003) [97,84] . The success of a commercial orchard of the mango largely depends on managerial ability which is a set of attributes of orchard growers should have to solve day-to-day orchards problems and gain from the available opportunities in a timely and efficient manner It indicates the ability of the commercial mango growers to take advantage of the higher profit. The personal and demographic attributes of the commercial mango growers, such as age, education, information-seeking behavior, knowledge, experience and training, can influence the technical efficiency of the orchard personal characters, motivating and techno-savvy factors can influence managerial ability. Similarly, adoption of advanced production practices, scientific management of orchard, activities planning in advanced and market decision and management are attributes of the management orientation of the commercial mango orchard growers. These attributes are necessary to understand before planting the orchard, production and marketing of products for a profit-making business.

Concepts of management orientation

Management orientation refers to the degree to which a commercial mango grower is oriented towards scientific management of mango crops that is, towards planning, production, and marketing. Farmers are higher management orientation led to higher economic performance (Rannorey 1979) [76] , managerial ability has is an essential implication for farm growth (Alvorezand Arias 2003) [3] . The mango grower's activity towards attaining higher output with the optimal use and effective management of available resources (Rahman et al., 2019) [56] .

Planning

Planning is thinking carefully and deciding how and when you will do it (Longman 2007) [51] , the method worked out in advance for the accomplishment of an objective (Dictionary.com,) problem-solving activity (Udemezue J. C. 2018) [92] , solving the problems between existing and future (Udemezue J. C. 2018) [92] , choosing among various options to reach those destinations. According to Waldron et al. (1997) [94] four major types of planning, i.e., strategic, tactical, contingency and managerial. Top management uses strategic planning to determine goals and the activities to achieve them and associated with higher performance. Tactical planning is used in middle and lower management. Contingency planning addresses future problems and issues as cited by Waldron et al., 1997) [94] . Fourth, managerial planning is considered micro-level planning that helps link resources to fulfill the overall objectives. Planning is very essential before setting the any commercial orientated activities. Mango orchard growers have applying all types of planning for earning more from the orchards. It can helps for effective management and use of all inputs like, implements, capital and labors. The performance of the plans on output is found positive it also found that positive relationship between that planning and growth of the business. It is crucial for achieving the marketing objectives.

Production

The main goal of production is to produce the quality of outputs in a certain amount of time (Hung et al. 1996) [33] . Production planning directly links the market (Bertrand et al. 1999) [14] . The production plan is prepared for the organization in a certain period within a specific time for desirable outputs (Elewa et al. 2019) [24] . Production management is a technique that processes inputs into final outputs in an organized way to give the maximum profit (Elewa et al. 2019) [24] . The outputs of any economic entity depend on the efficiency of their production. Scientific management of all farm activities related to applying inputs that produced higher yields from the farm (Rahman et al. 2019) [56] . The effective management of the orchard earning high return from a production process (Bora 1986) [15] . The essential component of managing production truthfully is adopting appropriate available technology for production because attributes of the technology can influence farm productivity and profitability. The profitability of different commercial producers depends on technology adoption. In extensive commercial mango cultivation countries, commercial production of mango scientific management practices adoption rate seen is high with innovative approaches in the production environment. Considering the production orientation, for getting higher output with quality of produce required to plan and changes made in the production process in time to time with scientifically.

Marketing

The developing linkages between the farmers and market are essential for increasing the purchasing power for moving incomes to high-value crops (Davis, 2006) [18] when they have actively participated in the market. Market orientation (MO) is the degree to which producer is oriented towards efficient management of their firm by adopting the marketing decisions (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993, 1996; Kohli&Jaworski, 1990) [8,44] . Market orientation of farmers is an indication of agriculture commercialization. Marketoriented production management and networking intelligence about current and future customer needs www.extensionjournal.com (Adenegan et al. 2013) [2] can benefit farmers for solving operational problems and providing market updates. This innovativeness positively impacted productivity increasing competitive capacity, and enhancing financial return (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narvera and Slater, 1990) [44,62] , key ingredients to agricultural transformation (Johnston and Mellor, 1961; Johnston, 1970) [42,41] , a major determinant of competitive advantage (Fritz, 1996; Selnes et al., 1996) [26,78] , newly diversified product (Atuahene-Gima, 1995) [7] , increased sales revenue (Greenley, 1995, Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) [27,8] . Psychological aspects which severely restrict the market orientation of individuals and organizations towards development and performance high cost of inputs, high transportation costs, high labor wages, lack of technical knowledge, and inappropriate market price information, lack of inter-functional integration; weak management skills strategies, structures and systems Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; [8] are the potential barriers to developing market and getting a higher price (Sharma et al., 2012) [19] . Commercial mango growers are carrying all the activities on their farm as managers. Their main aim is the production system to get a higher return. Commercially production of mango crop is a high investment-oriented agribusiness; it needs efficient and effective management skills and knowledge to get high economic returns consistently (Deshmukh et al. 2017) [20] . India is the world's leading mango-producing country. The major mangoproducing countries are Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Thailand, and China. Mango productivity is 18.87 Tonnes/ha, 16.59 Tonnes/ha, 14.16 Tonnes/ha, 12.56 Tonnes/ha, 11.03 Tonnes/ha, and 10.25 Tonnes/ha in Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Thailand, and China, respectively. Mango productivity in India is 8.12 tonnes per hectare (FAOSTAT, 2016). Given the fact that Maharashtra is one of India's mango-producing states. Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Assam, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Telangana are the top mango-producing states in India. In Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Assam, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Telangana, mango productivity is 17.14 M.T./ha, 16.84 M.T./ha, 16.50 M.T. /ha, 12.33 M.T. /ha, 11.65 M.T. /ha, 10.48 M.T. /ha, 9.82 M.T. /ha, 9. Mango productivity in Maharashtra is just 3.28 M.T./ha, which is low when compared to other states in the country (Horticulture statistics at a glance 2017). Mango is grown on 157070 ha in Maharashtra, with an annual production of 514870 M.T. and a productivity of 3.28 M.T./ha (Source: Horticulture statistics at a glance 2017). The Konkan region of Maharashtra state is one of the main mango growing belts in the country, accounting for about 10% of the total mango area in the country, with 1,09,894.30 hectares under mango cultivation and an annual yield of 1,34,824.5 M.T. Mango productivity in Konkan is at 1.22 M.T. /ha, which is three to four times lower than the national average (Source: Hapis) (2014-15). Management skills and technical knowledge are highly significant parts of mango crop management in order to bring together the various factors of production and coordinate them toward increased production. Under the escalating pressure of rising costs and vagaries, management is the crucial and demanding aspect influencing the performance of commercial production. Commercial production of mango crop demands special care and managerial skills to realize higher profits. It is not worth growing mango unless the profits are commensurate with the farmers' efforts. Hence, economic motivation also forms an important dimension of any study related to the commercial production of mango crop. For that reason, we have developed a scale with 31items respective three major dimensions. The main aim of this research is to develop a scale to measure management orientation (MOS) of the commercial mango growers. Management orientation has psychological dimensions and scales may reflect those dimensions.

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation is to design to develop psychological state measuring instrument for commercial mango growers reflecting the management orientation. Literature noted that many research papers had been published about students, researchers and faculties understanding the managerial ability, attitudes, managerial efficiency, perceptions, of the commercial mango growers, and measured the knowledge and adoption of scientific mango cultivation practices. Most researchers focused on developing scales on commercial mango growers. However, in the previous works, no scale was found to measure management orientation of commercial mango growers'. Therefore, to address this gap in this research field. The research and development activities were designed to utilize "management orientation" identified through this study base as primary instrument content. A further, developed a response format for the instrument items that requires commercial mango growers to make judgments about scientific management of mango orchard in terms of the "management orientation". The developed instrument formats that require comparative judgments or ratings using Likertratingscale i.e. Agree, Undecided, and Disagree. Initial estimates ofcontent and construct validity, relevancy, item analysisand test/retest reliability for the instrument were also a focus of the study (Fig. 3).

Literature Review

To understand the scale development processes for measuring the psychological state of the human towards things, places or objects. The various researchers measure it through their studies are summaries in Table 1 Esakkimuthu and Kameswari (2015) [25] Entrepreneurial

Farmers towards Social Media Use in Agricultural Extension

Methodology: The investigation was conducted as part of doctoral degree research. In this research, two studies were conducted, i.e., expert opinion for scale development before the final survey after responses were recorded from the sample area as a final survey.

Research Design:

The method of scale development was initiated based on the previously published studies, literature, the guidelines after reviewing critically. Thurstone's method of equal-appearing intervals, Likert summated rating scale, semantic differential scales, Guttman Scale and Bogardus scale etc. these scales are developed for measuring the psychological mindset of the respondents (Kadiri and Reddy 2012) [41] . In this study, the Likert Method of Summated Ratings (Likert's Technique, 1932) [48] was followed with certain modifications (Subrahmanyeswari, B and M. Chander 2008) [87] that would be more beneficial for the study to ensure easy compilation and generalization. Likert-type scales statements will have high reliability (Hall 1934) [29] . The following steps were considered for the development of the management orientation scale (Fig. 1); www.extensionjournal.com

Collection of management orientation stimuli

The first step in developing a management orientation scale is to collect the statements related to the management orientation of commercial mango growers in planning, production and marketing. During the collection of stimuli, care is taken to include positive and negative statements in the list (Argade et al., 2015) [5] as such a large number of statements covering the entire universe of content was collected from available literature and thorough discussion with the experts in the fields of horticulture, agricultural extension and progressive farmers. A battery of tentative 120 statements representing the management orientation of commercial mango growers was drafted under planning, production and marketing components.

Editing of stimuli/items

The collected statements were carefully examined, and each statement was edited as per the 14 informal criteria suggested by Thurstone & Chave (1929) [90] , Edwards and Kilpatrick (1948) [21] and Edwards (1969) [22] (Fig. 2) used by (Kadiri and Reddy 2012) [41] . As a result of 18 statements were eliminated. Finally, 102 statements that satisfied the criteria were selected and considered for expert judgment.

Judges Responses and Item selections

The performa containing 102 statements on three-point continuums, i.e. 'most relevant,' 'relevant' and 'least relevant,' was sent by post, through e-mail and handed over personally to the total of 140 judges. These judges were experts in Extension Education, Horticulture, Agricultural Economics and Progressive Farmers. The judges were requested to indicate appropriateness (relevancy) response ticking of each statement for inclusion in the scale. Also, the judges were requested to make necessary modifications and additions or deletions if they desired. Out of 140 judges, 66 judges responses were obtained on a three-point continuum viz., 'most relevant,' 'relevant' and 'least relevant' with scores of 3, 2 and 1 for positive statements, respectively and 1, 2, 3 for negative statements, respectively, in a stipulated span of 2 months. Based on obtained 66 judges' responses of, the scoring and analysis of the items was done.

Relevancy test

All the obtained judge's responses may not be equally relevant (Thakur et al., 2017) [89] in measuring the management orientation of the commercial mango growers. Henceforth, these statements were subjected to scrutiny by an expert panel to determine the relevancy and screening for final inclusion in the scale. From the data so gathered, relevancy percent, relevancy weightage and mean relevancy score was worked out for all the 102 items individually, using the formulae given by Edward (1969) [22] in the following formula,

Relevancy Percent

It worked out by summing up the scores of 'most relevant,' 'relevant,' and 'least relevant' responses and was converted into percent. Where, MRR = Most relevant response RR = Relevant response LRR = Least relevant response Using these three criteria, the items were screened for their relevancy. Accordingly, items with a relevancy percent of more than 66, relevancy weightage of more than 0.66 and a mean relevancy score of more than two were considered for final selection (Thakur et al., 2017) [89] . Thus, finally, 87 statements were selected in the first stage and suitably modified and rewritten as per the experts' comments.

Item analysis

Item analysis is an important step while constructing a valid and reliable scale. Final selection of the items made based on item analysis. It was considered essential to delineate the items (statements) based on how they can differentiate the person's management orientation; for this purpose, item analysis was carried out. The statements were administered through personal interviews to 40 mango growers from the non-sample area. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree of agreement on a three-point continuum, namely agree, undecided and disagree, with the weights of 3, 2, 1 for positive statements, respectively and 1, 2, 3 for negative statements, respectively. The management orientation score was obtained by summing up the scores of all items of each component given by the individual judge.

Calculation of 't' values

Item analysis was carried out by 't-test.' Thus, the total score obtained by each respondent was calculated component-wise, i.e., planning, production and marketing ranging from '50 to '75', '57 to 93' and '47' to '69' respectively and the scores of respondents were arranged in the descending order. For item analysis, 25 percent of the respondents with the highest total scores and 25 percent with the lowest total scores were selected. Thus, out of 40 farmers to whom the items were administered for the item analysis, 15 farmers with the lowest, 15 with highest scores were used as criterion groups to evaluate individual items. These two groups provided the criterion groups for which item analysis was conducted. The 't' value (critical ratio), a measure of the extent to which a given statement differentiates between high and low groups of subjects for each statement, was calculated using the formula given by Edwards (1969) [22] . )

-- The 't' value measures the extent to which a given group to a statement differs significantly (Argade et al., 2015) [5] . The 't' value equal to or greater than 1.75 indicates that the average response of the high and low groups differs significantly and differentiates between high and low groups. The statements having 't' value equal to or greater than 1.75 were selected; finally, 31 statements were included in the final scale. Frequent visits to mango research station is helpful in planning for commercial mango production. 3.76 2.

It is unnecessary to study the availability of infrastructure facilities while planning for commercial mango production 2.78 3.

One should plan and maintain appropriate farm records for commercial mango production.

4.

It is inappropriate to prepare the annual budget for commercial mango production. 3.10 5.

It is necessary to think ahead about the management of mango orchard for export of fruits.

It is unnecessary to prepare calendar of operations for better management of mango crop.

7.

One should prepare for availing the benefit of Crop Insurance Scheme to cope up with crop failure due to natural disasters. 4.10

8.

One should analyses the reasons for varying financial outcomes in the past and plan remedial measures.

One should think of innovative ideas to earn more money from the mango orchard. 2.89 10.

It is unnecessary the available resources and facilities in the area before undertaking new plantation.

11

It is necessary to select institution/person giving maximum profit through sale of mango fruits.

B. Production

Planting of 10 to 15% Keasar, Ratna, Sindhu or GoaMankur varieties in Alphonso mango orchard helps in better pollination. 8.68

2.

One should adopt preventive measures for nutrient deficiency, insect/pest infestation and disease attack. 6.97 3.

Timely application of the inputs reduce higher production of mango.

4.

Growth regulators should be used as recommended by the Scientists. 6.42 5.

Integrated Nutrient Management is reduces yield. 2.70 6.

Intercultural operations in mango orchard reduce weed infestation. 4.00 7.

Recommended mango blossom protection schedule should be followed.

Soil testing is wastage of money on fertilizer consumption. 3.68 9.

Use of improved machinery saves expenditure on labourers.

Seeking advice from extension personnel helps in solving field problems. 2.36 C. Marketing 1.

One can get good price by grading of fruits. 4.03 2.

It is unnecessary to contacts with various marketing agencies for seeking market update information. 1.89 3.

Collecting the required information about markets e.g. demand, quality, rate etc. helps in better marketing 3.12 4.

Harvesting of fruits at proper time is deteriorate good quality. 3.91 5.

Co-operatives can help the mango growers to get better price for produce. 3.21 6.

It is ineffectual to acquire phytosanitory certificate for export of fruits. 3.66 7.

One should sell his produce in attractive packaging. 4.12 8.

One should use newspaper or tissue paper (coloured) in the boxes to avoid direct contact of fruits. 3.17 9.

Monitoring of market information is wastage of time for better marketing. 3.44 10.

Cold storage help the commercial mango growers to get better prices for their produce.

Standardization of the scale

The scale developed was further standardized by establishing its reliability and validity. The validity and reliability were ascertained for the standardization of the scale. The reliability and validity were measured 'test-retest method and content validity, respectively.

Reliability

Reliability is the ability of a test instrument to yield consistent results from one set of measures to another (Thakur et al., 2017) [89] ; scale is reliable when it gives consistently the same results when applied to the same sample (Argade et al., 2015) [5] , is the accuracy or precision of a measuring instrument. A scale is reliable when it consistently produces the same results when applied to measure the same phenomenon from time to time. For this study, the test-retest method of Test-retest method reliability was used.

Test retest method

The final set of 31 statements that represent the management orientation of commercial mango growers was administered to the 30 commercial mango growers (12.5% of the actual sample size for the study), who was neither previously contacted nor had a chance to come in the final sample (non-sample area). After 15 days, the same 30 commercial mango growers were given the test. Two sets of scale scores were thus obtained (table 3). Each of the two sets of statements was treated as a different scale, and then these two subscales were correlated. The reliability coefficient was calculated following Rulon's formula (Guilford, 1954). The reliability coefficient of the whole scale was 0.8533, which found significant and positive indicated that the whole scale was reliable, precise, accurate and can be used for measurement (Kadiri and Reddy 2012) [41] . www.extensionjournal.com

Rulon's Formula

Validity of the scale

The reliability scale of management orientation content validity of the scale was tested. Content validity is the representativeness of sampling adequacy, the content, the substance, the matter and the topics of measuring instrument (Kerlinger 1976). Experts' judgment tested the scale content validity (Argade et al., 2015) [5] , used in the present scale to determine its content validity. The content of the management orientation scale was thoroughly covered through a literature scan and expert opinions. It means the extent to which the items included in the test represent the total universe of the content. It was ensured while framing the items collected from the available books, journals, relevant literature, and interviews with scientists, experts, and progressive farmers. The scale content validity was ensured by selecting the contents after discussion with specialists of extension and academicians. Thus, the scale value difference for all the statements has a high discriminating value, and it seems reasonable to accept the scale as a valid measurement ((Thakur et al., 2017) [89] . The calculated "t" value is significant for all the finalized statements of the score indicated that the management orientation statements of the scale had discriminating values.

Administering the developed scale

The respondents were asked to express their opinions of agree, undecided and disagree concerning each of the 31 items included in the scale (Fig. 4). There are three components in the scale, planning components out of 11 statements, statement numbers 1, 3, 6 and 9 are the negative and rests are positive, production out of ten statements, statement number 3, 6 and 10 are the negative and rests are positive and marketing components out ten statements, statement number 3, 5, 6 and 9 are the negative and rests are positive. A three-point continuum collected the responses, namely 'agree,' 'undecided,' and 'disagree' with a score of assigned 3, 2 and 1, respectively, for positive statements and 1, 2 and 3 for negative statements, respectively. The overall possible maximum and minimum score ranges between 93 to 31. A high score will indicate that the respondent will have a high management orientation. It is unnecessary to study the availability of infrastructure facilities while planning for commercial mango production* 2.

One should plan and maintain appropriate farm records for commercial mango production 3.

It is inappropriate to prepare the annual budget for commercial mango production* 4.

It is necessary to think about the management of mango orchard for export of fruits 5.

Frequent visits to mango research station is helpful in planning for commercial mango production 6.

It is unnecessary to prepare calendar of operations for better management of mango crop*

7.

One should prepare for availing benefit of Crop Insurance Scheme to cope up with crop failure due to natural disasters 8.

One should analyses the reasons for varying financial outcomes in the past and plan remedial measures 9.

It is unnecessary to study the available resources and facilities in the area before undertaking new plantation* 10.

One should think of innovative ideas to earn more money from the mango orchard 11.

It is necessary to select institution/person giving proper guidance for maximum profit through sale of mango fruits B.

Production www.extensionjournal.com

Discussion

The present investigation focused on developing and validating a scale that could measure the management orientation of commercial mango growers. The developed scale consists of three components were planned based on a comprehensive literature review and experts discussion. One hundred twenty statements representing the management orientation of commercial mango growers were drafted under panning, production and marketing. Out of 120 statements, 102 were selected for further process those were satisfied the Edwards (1969) [22] , fourteen informal criteria. The selected statements were sent to 140 judges for determining the relevancy. After two months, 66 judges were returned based on the relevancy of each item were calculated by relevancy percent (66) All the constructs were satisfied the conditions of reliability and validity. Statistical analyses showed that the scale of management orientation was a valid and reliable instrument. Management orientation of commercial mango growers is essential for those who have cultivated their mango orchard for the market. Understanding the construction of management orientation could improve the management components of mango orchards in competitive profitoriented enterprises. The three identified components, namely planning, production and marketing, should be considered to promote the mango growers towards commercialization-oriented production of the mango crop in the 21st century. Mango cultivation is a highly competitive industry. With the continuous introduction of new technologies, it has been recognized as business enterprises with the potential to generate employment after production and earn valuable foreign exchange. Commercial mango production is a highly skilled and investment-oriented enterprise. It requires efficient and effective management to obtain high returns. Micro-level planning is necessary for interlinking, coordinating, and controlling the resources and avoiding excess time and resources. The quality and quantity of outputs of any business depend on the appropriate use of the inputs. A huge number of information on cultivation practices are available, and many of them adopted, but commercial mango growers should know which practice is suitable and produce higher profit; it requires scientific management as well as the adoption of all farm activities (Rahman et al. 2019) [56] . For the maximum returns of products from commercial mango production, understanding the trend, structures, and marketing practices is essential. Continuous market updates and produces our product according to the demand which is significantly getting higher profit for produce. Market-oriented management is highly needed for those who expect the greatest profits for their produce. Therefore, planning, production, and marketing are accelerating the management orientation of commercial mango growers towards scientific management of their mango orchards.

Conclusions

The mango production gets profitable income; the commercial mango production requires effective management of farm inputs. The high returns from the orchard the commercial mango growers need to oriented towards scientific management of mango crop that is, towards planning, production and marketing of mango. The developed scale was reliable and valid. This scale has been devised to meet these requirements and assess the management-oriented towards the scientific management of mango crop. Further, this scale can measure management orientation beyond the study area with suitable modifications and evaluation of reliability and validity. This research helps researchers, farmers, and scientists improve farmers' management orientation towards commercial production. Specifically, understanding the concept of management orientation could contribute to the scientific management of their orchard, which gets higher returns.

With the emerging trend of commercial cultivation of crops, especially for more profit, management orientation, including planning, production and marketing, is becoming key for success towards management of the profit-oriented farm.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors are would like to acknowledge experts, teachers, and commercial mango growers who participated in this study directly and indirectly,

References

1. Adem A. Developing a scale to measure students' attitudes toward science. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2019;6(4):706-720. https://dx.doi.org/10.21449/ijate.548516.
2. Adenegan Kemisola O, Olorunsomo SO, Nwauwa Linus Onyeka Ezealaji. Determinants of market orientation among smallholders cassava farmers in Nigeria. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Finance. 2013;13(6):57-66.
3. Alvorez A, Arias C. Diseconomies of size with fixed managerial ability. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2003;85(1):134-142.
4. Argade SD, Gopal Sankhala, Wadkar SK. Farmer's perception towards integrated farming systems in Maharashtra: a methodological approach. International www.extensionjournal.com Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2015;3(1):25-30.
5. Ataul Gani Osmani, Elias Hossain. Smallholder farmers' market orientation and the factors affecting it in Bangladesh. Economic Insights -Trends and Challenges. 2016;5:9-18.
6. Atuahene-Gima K. An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: a contingency approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 1995;12:275-293.
7. Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing. 1993;57(3):53-70.
8. Baker T, Nelson RE. Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2005;50(3):329-366. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329.
9. Balint BE. Determinants of commercial orientation and sustainability of agricultural production of the individual farms in Romania [unpublished Ph.D dissertation]. University of Bonn, Germany; 2003.
10. Bashir H, Bala R. Development and validation of a scale to measure anomie of students. Psychology Studies. 2019;64(2):131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-018-0472-8.
11. Bateman D, Ray C. Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from Wales. Journal of Rural Studies. 1994;10:1-13.
12. Berhanu G, Moti J. Commercialization of smallholders: does market orientation translate into market participation? Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopia Farmers Project Working Paper 22. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI; 2010.
13. Bertrand JWM, Rutten WGMM. Evaluation of three production planning procedures for the use of recipe flexibility. European Journal of Operational Research. 1999;115(1):179-194.
14. Bora SP. Management attributes of farmers as related to profitability in farming. A study conducted in Chakdah block of West Bengal [unpublished PhD thesis]. Department of Agricultural Extension, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal; 1986.
15. Bunker HS, Lal H, Verma HL. To develop a standardized scale for measuring the attitude of beneficiary farmers towards drip irrigation technology. Agriculture Update. 2013;8(1 & 2):52-55.
16. Chand M, Sharma DD. A scale to measure the attitude of dairy farmers towards rearing of Murrah buffalo. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 2014;4(2):221226.
17. Davis JR. How can the poor benefit from the growing markets for high-value agricultural products? Research Report. Kent, UK: Natural Resources Institute; 2006.
18. Dawson PJ. Measuring technical efficiency from production functions: some further estimates. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1985;36:31-40.
19. Deshmukh JM, Dhulgand VG, Wanole SN. Relationship between personal profile and management orientation of Gerbera growers. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(3):1109-1112.
20. Edwards AL, Kilpatrick FP. A technique for construction of attitude scale. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948;32:374-384.
21. Edwards AL. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. Bombay, India: G U Mehta for Vakils, Peffer and Simons Private Ltd; 1969. p. 14.
22. Ehrlich S, Cherie M. Risk orientation, risk exposure, and policy opinions: the case of free trade. Political Psychology. 2010;31:657-684.
23. Elewa RE, Afolalu SA, Fayomi OSI. Overview production process and properties of galvanized roofing sheets. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1378(2):022069.
24. Esakkimuthu M, Kameswari V. A scale to measure entrepreneurial potential of beekeepers. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 2015;5(1):188-193.
25. Fritz W. Market orientation and corporate success: findings from Germany. European Journal of Marketing. 1996;30(8):59-74.
26. Greenley GE. Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. British Journal of Management. 1995;6:1-13.
27. Griliches Z. Specification bias in estimates of production functions. Journal of Farm Economics. 1957;39:8-20.
28. Hall OM. Attitudes and unemployment. Archives of Psychology. 1937;No. 165.
29. Hazell P, Poulton C, Wiggins S, Dorward A. The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth 2020. Discussion Paper No. 42. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI; 2007.
30. Helfert G, Ritter T, Walter A. Redefining market orientation from a relationship perspective: theoretical considerations and empirical results. European Journal of Marketing. 2002;36(9/10):1119-1139.
31. Horlings LG, Marsden TK. Exploring the 'new rural paradigm' in Europe: eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies. 2014;21:4-20.
32. Hung Yi-Feng, Leachman Robert C. A production planning methodology for semiconductor manufacturing based on iterative simulation and linear programming calculations. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing. 1996;9(2):257-269.
33. Jadav NB, Popat MN, Parmar GM. Relational analysis of managerial ability of mango orchard growers. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2007;2(2):43-49.
34. Jaisridhar P, Sankhala G, Sangeetha S. A scale to measure the attitude of dairy farmers towards Kisan Call Centre-based extension services. Madras Agricultural Journal. 2013;100(1-3):224-227.
35. Jayne TS, Mukumbu M, Duncan J, Lundberg M, Aldridge Staatz J, Howard J, Nakaponda B, Ferris J, Keita F, Sananankoua AK. Trends in real food prices in six Sub-Saharan African countries. Policy Synthesis Number 2. East Lansing: Michigan State University; 1995.
36. Jha K Kumar. Scale for measuring attitude of farmers towards social forestry. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2009;9(3):5-77.
37. Johnston BF. Agriculture and structural transformation in developing countries: a survey of research. Journal of Economic Literature. 1970;8(2):369-404.
38. Johnston BF, Mellor JW. The role of agriculture in www.extensionjournal.com economic development. American Economic Review. 1961;51(3):566-593.
39. Jyoti Yadav, Hema Tripathi, Balaraju BL. A scale to measure the attitude of veterinary officers and livestock extension officers under state department of animal husbandry towards rendering the services to the women livestock farmers. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2015;10(2):225-228.
40. Kadiri M, Rameshkumar Reddy P. Scale construction for measuring the attitude towards participatory irrigation management approach. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2012;12(1):63-65.
41. Khanh Le Phi Hoa, Chau Ngoc Nguyen, Rajendra Adhikari, Morgan P Miles, Laurie Bonney. Exploring market orientation, innovation, and financial performance in agricultural value chains in emerging economies. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge. 2018;3:154-163. doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.03.008.
42. Knight SA, Cross D. Using contextual constructs model to frame doctoral research methodology. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2012;7:39-62.
43. Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing. 1990;54(2):1-18.
44. Lans T, Seuneke P, Klerkx L. Agricultural entrepreneurship. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. p. 44-49.
45. Leavy J, Poulton C. Commercialization in agriculture. Future Agricultures Consortium, Working Paper 003; 2007.
46. Levinthal DA, March JG. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal. 1993;14(S2):95-112.
47. Likert RA. A technique for the measurement of attitude. Archives of Psychology. 1932.
48. Lobley M, Potter C. Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural Studies. 2004;20(4):499-510.
49. Logan CS, Ellett CD. The development, validity, and reliability of a faculty evaluation instrument to measure generic teaching skills and perceived enhancement of student learning. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 1988;2:65-82.
50. Longman. Dictionary of Contemporary English; 2007.
51. Mahadik RP, Sharma FL, Upadhyay B, Punjabi NK. A scale to measure attitude of mango orchardists towards eco-friendly management practices of mango. Indian Journal of Extension Education and Rural Development. 2014;22:15-18.
52. Mahaliyanaarachchi RP, Wijeratne AW, Bandara RMAS. Developing an attitudinal scale to measure the attitudes of the farmers towards commercialization of agricultural extension. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2006;2(3):26-35.
53. Maye D, Ilbery B, Watts D. Farm diversification, tenancy, and CAP reform: results from a survey of tenant farmers in England. Journal of Rural Studies. 2009;25:333-342.
54. McElwee G. A literature review of entrepreneurship in agriculture. Report, European Union Framework Programme 6: ESoF Developing Entrepreneurial Skills of Farmers. University of Lincoln; 2005.
55. Md Takibur Rahman, Rasmus Nielsen, Md Akhtaruzzaman Khan, Isaac Ankamah-Yeboah. Impact of management practices and managerial ability on the financial performance of aquaculture farms in Bangladesh. Aquaculture Economics and Management. 2019. DOI:10.1080/13657305.2019.1647578.
56. Morgan SL, Marsden T, Miele M, Morley A. Agricultural multifunctionality and farmers' entrepreneurial skills: a study of Tuscan and Welsh farmers. Journal of Rural Studies. 2010;26:116-129.
57. Mrityunjoy Mahato, Arindam Ghosh, Acharya SK, Swagata Ghosha, Debashis Mazumder, Monirul Haque, et al. Market Orientation of KVK Adopter Farmers: The Socio-Ecological and Managerial Interpretation. Agricultural Information Research. 2020;21(11):38-46.
58. Mundlak Y. Empirical production function free of management bias. Journal of Farm Economics. 1961;43:4.
59. Muyanga M, Sitko N, Jayne TS, Hichaambwa M. Medium scale farmer growth trajectories in Africa: implications for broad-based growth and poverty reduction. Future Agricultures Conference on Political Economy of Agricultural Policy in Africa, RoodeVallei Hotel, Pretoria, South Africa, March 18-20, 2013.
60. Nagesh, Meti SK. Development of scale for measuring attitude of extension personnel towards Bhoochetana Programme. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2016;16(1):155-159.
61. Narver JC, Slater SF. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing. 1990;54(1):20-35.
62. Narver JC, Slater SF, Tietje B. Creating a market orientation. Journal of Market Focused Management. 1998;2(1):241-255.
63. Negussie SB, Kassa B, Karippai RS, Bogale A. Measurement of farmers' attitude towards complete ownership of farmland in eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Rural Development. 2009;32(2):111-131.
64. Omiti JM, Otieno DJ, Nyanamba TO, McCullough E. Factors influencing the intensity of market participation by smallholders farmers: a case study of rural and periurban area of Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2009;3(1):57-82.
65. Patel MC, Chauhan NB, Korat DM. Development of technique to measure attitude of farmers towards integrated pest management. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science. 2007;20(4):876-877.
66. Peter Nuthall. Modelling the origins of managerial ability in agricultural production. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2009;53:413436. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00459.x.
67. Pingali PL. Agriculture renaissance: making "agriculture for development" work in the 21st century. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. 2010;4:38673894.
68. Porter ME. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review. 2008;86(1):25-40.
69. Porter ME. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. University of California Free Press; 1985.
70. Porter ME. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. www.extensionjournal.com Strategic Management Journal. 1991;12(S2):95-117.
71. Raja VPH, Prabhu, Revathi S. Construction and validation of the attitude towards information and technology scale (ATICTS). International Journal of Teacher Educational Research. 2013;2(3):14-24.
72. Rajasekar S, Dineshan P. Development and standardization of an attitude scale to measure B.Ed. students' attitude towards the use of ICT in teaching (ATUIT). International Journal of Teacher Educational Research. 2012;1(2):1-9.
73. Rakesh Ahuja, Singh SP, Sangwan SS, Gautam. On decision making ability and risk orientation among dairy farmers and correlates with their socio-economic and psychological characteristics. Haryana Veterinary. 2017;56(1):77-82.
74. Rakesh Kumar, Slathia PS, Peshin R. Scale to measure attitude of farmers towards rapeseed mustard crop. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2015;10(2):221-224.
75. UAS, Bangalore; 1979.
76. Ravikishore M, Seema B. A scale to measure attitude of extension professionals towards technology dissemination system of State Department of Agriculture (SDA). Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2017;17(1):109-112.
77. Selnes F, Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation in United States and Scandinavian companies: a crosscultural study. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 1996;12(2):139-157.
78. Seyda Gul. Development of an attitude scale to measure the undergraduate students' attitudes towards nanobiotechnology. Journal of Science and Educational Technology. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-017-9696-y.
79. Shakeel-Ul-Rehman M, Selvaraj M, Syed Ibrahim M. Indian agricultural marketing -A review. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2012;2(1):6975.
80. Shane S, Venkataraman S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(1):217-226.
81. Sivaraj P, Philip H, Chinnadurai M, Asokhan M, Sathyamoorthi K. A scale to measure attitude of farmers towards organic farming in western zone of Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2016;8(58):3269-3271.
82. Sokolow AD. California's edge problem: urban impacts on agriculture. In: California Agriculture Dimensions and Issues. Siebert, editor. University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; 2003.
83. Srinivas A, Sudha Rani V, Sreenivasa Rao I. Construction and standardization of attitude scale to measure the attitude of tribal farmers towards seed banking. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 2018;6(3):633-638.
84. Stephen A. Ford, Shonkwiler JS. The effect of managerial ability on farm financial success. Managerial Ability and Financial Success. 2019:151157.
85. Subrahmanyeswari B, Chander M. A scale to measure attitude of registered organic farmers towards organic livestock farming. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2008;20(2).
86. Suess-Reyes J, Fuetsch E. The future of family farming: a literature review on innovative, sustainable, and succession-oriented strategies. Journal of Rural Studies. 2016;47:117-140.
87. Thakur D, Chander M, Sinha SK. A scale to measure attitude of farmers towards social media use in agricultural extension. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2017;17(3):10-15.
88. Thurstone LL, Chave EJ. The Measurement of Attitude. Chicago, USA: Chicago University Press; 1929. p. 3940.
89. Todd S. Rosenstock, Andreea Nowak, Evan Girvetz. The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92798-5_17.
90. Udemezue JC. Programme planning in extension system, an effective tool for rural development project in Nigeria. Modern Conceptual Development in Agronomy. 2018;1(3). DOI:10.31031/MCDA.2018.01.000515.
91. Vyas Latika, Maheshwari S, Dangi KL, Dashora PK. Attitude scale construction for tribal women towards vermiculture technology. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education. 2009 & 2010;17 & 18:56-59.
92. Wiggins S, Argwings-Kodhek G, Leavy J, Poulton C. Small farm commercialisation in Africa: reviewing the issues. Future Agricultures Consortium Working Paper. 2011;23.
93. Wyn Morris, Andrew Henley, David Dowell. Farm diversification, entrepreneurship, and technology adoption: analysis of upland farmers in Wales. Journal of Rural Studies. 2017;53:132-143.
94. Ženka L, Žufan P, Krtička L, Slach O. Labour productivity of agricultural business companies and cooperatives in the Czech Republic: a micro-regional level analysis. Moravian Geographical Reports. 2016;23(4):14-25.
95. Dhenge SA, Kadam JR, Sarap NS, Dhekale JS. Determining the Effect of Independent Variables on Commercial Mango Growers Management Orientation Using Path Coefficient Analysis. Agricultural Research. 2021 Dec;10(4):626-633.