Supervision and mentoring practices for newly recruited agricultural extension professionals

Introduction

Extension agencies across the developed world are losing newly recruited staff at alarming rates. In Australia, turnover among extension professionals with fewer than three years of experience exceeded 38% between 2018 and 2021, representing a substantial loss of recruitment investment and institutional knowledge [1] . This attrition pattern is not unique to Australia; similar trends have been documented in the United States, Canada, and parts of Western Europe [2] . The common thread connecting these diverse settings is a gap between what early-career extension professionals need from their organizations and what they actually receive during the critical induction period. Supervision and mentoring represent two distinct but complementary support mechanisms. Supervision involves formal oversight by a designated line manager, focused on task performance, workload management, and organizational accountability [3] . Mentoring, by contrast, involves a more experienced colleague providing guidance on professional growth, career navigation, and psychosocial support without a direct reporting relationship [4] . Research from nursing, social work, and teaching has repeatedly shown that combining both mechanisms produces better retention and competence outcomes than either alone [5] . Yet the extension literature has given surprisingly little attention to how these two support structures operate together for new recruits. This research investigated the supervision and mentoring practices experienced by newly recruited agricultural extension professionals in Australia. It assessed the prevalence, frequency, and quality of both mechanisms, tested their independent and combined effects on job satisfaction, competence, and retention intentions, and developed an integrated support model for early-career extension staff.

Materials and Methods

Materials

The research was conducted across three Australian states: Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, between August 2021 and March 2022. The primary institutional base was the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. The target population comprised extension officers with fewer than five years of service employed by state government departments of agriculture and regional development agencies. A structured questionnaire with 44 items measured supervision characteristics (frequency, duration, content focus), mentoring characteristics (formality, mentor selection, meeting frequency), job satisfaction (7-point Likert scale), self-reported competence (6 domains), and retention intentions. Pilot testing with 22 officers in the Goulburn Valley region of Victoria produced acceptable reliability (Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.79 to 0.91). Ethical approval was granted by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol HREC/2021-14782, approved July 2021).

Methods

A cross-sectional survey design was employed. The questionnaire was administered online to 312 eligible extension officers identified through departmental human resource records, yielding 186 usable responses (59.6% response rate). Quantitative analysis included Pearson correlations between supervision and mentoring variables and outcome measures, independent samples t-tests comparing officers with and without mentoring access, and hierarchical multiple regression examining the independent and interaction effects of supervision and mentoring on outcomes. Semi-structured interviews with 28 supervisors and mentors explored the qualitative dimensions of support provision, challenges faced, and perceived gaps in current practice. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis [6] . The final model explained 47.6% of variance in job satisfaction (adjusted R-squared = 0.476). Supervision frequency was the strongest individual predictor (beta = 0.39), followed by mentoring access (beta = 0.27). The interaction term was significant (beta = 0.18, p = 0.005), confirming that the combined effect of supervision and mentoring exceeded the sum of their individual effects. Officers with formal mentors showed a stronger positive relationship between supervision frequency and job satisfaction (r = 0.64) compared to those without mentors (r = 0.41). The scatter plot visually confirms the synergistic interaction: at higher supervision levels, the gap in satisfaction between mentored and non-mentored officers widened. www.extensionjournal.com The model positions the new extension professional at the center of five support streams: structured supervision, peer mentoring, field coaching, professional development, and organizational support. The convergence of these streams toward the individual reflects the finding that no single mechanism was sufficient; rather, combinations produced the strongest outcomes in competence, retention, confidence, and field performance.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

The combined evidence from quantitative and qualitative data indicates that supervision and mentoring operate through different but complementary pathways. Supervision addresses task-oriented needs including workload management, technical guidance, and accountability. Mentoring addresses career-oriented and psychosocial needs including professional identity development, networking, and emotional support. When both pathways are active, early-career officers develop more rounded professional capability and stronger organizational attachment.

Discussion

The synergistic interaction between supervision and mentoring aligns with findings from allied professions. Hawkins and Shohet [7] argued that effective professional development requires both managerial supervision for accountability and developmental support for growth. The extension context adds geographic isolation as a complicating factor: many new recruits are posted to regional and remote offices where face-to-face supervision is infrequent, making mentoring through phone or video contact an important supplement [8] . The low prevalence of formal mentoring (34.4%) despite its demonstrated benefits suggests an implementation gap. Interview data revealed that agencies recognized mentoring value in principle but struggled with practical arrangements: identifying willing and skilled mentors, providing release time, and defining mentoring boundaries distinct from supervision [9] . Several supervisors expressed concern about role confusion when expected to perform both supervisory and mentoring functions for the same individual.

Limitations

The cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences about supervision and mentoring effects. Self-reported measures may not fully capture actual supervision quality. The 59.6% response rate, while acceptable, raises the possibility of nonresponse bias. Findings from the Australian context may not directly apply to developing country extension systems with different organizational structures and resource levels.

Practical Implications

Extension agencies should establish formal mentoring programs alongside existing supervision structures rather than treating them as alternatives. Mentor selection should prioritize interpersonal skills and willingness over seniority alone. Agencies should clearly differentiate supervisor and mentor roles to prevent confusion and ensure both accountability and developmental support are present.

Conclusion

This research examined supervision and mentoring practices for newly recruited extension professionals across three Australian states. While structured supervision was reasonably common, formal mentoring remained available to only one-third of early-career officers. The combination of supervision and mentoring produced synergistic effects on job satisfaction and retention intentions, exceeding either mechanism alone. Extension agencies face a clear opportunity: investing in integrated supervision-mentoring programs for new recruits can substantially reduce earlycareer attrition and build a more competent, committed extension workforce. The integrated model presented here provides a practical framework for designing such programs.

References

1. Kuehne G, Llewellyn R, Pannell DJ, Wilkinson R, Dolling P, Ouzman J, Ewing M. Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: a tool for research, extension and policy. Agricultural Systems. 2017;156:115-125.
2. Harder A, Gouldthorpe J, Roberts TG. An examination of early career agricultural extension agents job satisfaction. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2015;21(3):261-278.
3. Kadushin A, Harkness D. Supervision in social work. www.extensionjournal.com Fifth edition. Columbia University Press. 2014;1:1-565.
4. Kram KE. Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America. 1988;1:1-252.
5. Hodgson AK, Scanlan JM. A concept analysis of mentoring in nursing leadership. Open Journal of Nursing. 2013;3(5):389-394.
6. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
7. Hawkins P, Shohet R. Supervision in the Helping Professions. Fourth Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012.
8. Nettle R, Crawford A, Brightling P. How private-sector farm advisors change their practices: an Australian case of practice change. Journal of Farm Management. 2018;14(1):57-73.
9. Strong M, Baron W. An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2004;20(1):47-57.
10. Ensher EA, Thomas C, Murphy SE. Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protege support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2001;15(3):419438.
11. Davis K, Terblanche SE. Challenges facing the agricultural extension landscape in South Africa. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2016;44(2):231-247.
12. Coutts J, Roberts K. Extension models and best practice in extension. Australasia-Pacific Extension Network. 2011;1:1-47.
13. Llewellyn R, Ouzman J. Adoption of precision agriculture related practices: status, opportunities and the role of farm advisers. CSIRO Research Report. 2014;1:1-38.