Furrowed Thinking: Why Homogeneity is Holding UK Agriculture Back

The UK agricultural sector has faced persistent challenges linked to its lack of diversity, particularly in leadership roles and influential decision-making bodies. Agriculture's entrenched traditions and social norms have created barriers to greater inclusivity. Despite efforts to modernise and diversify the industry, the sector remains heavily skewed towards white, male, and often family-based ownership structures.

This article will examine how behavioural biases perpetuate a lack of diversity and hinder cognitive innovation in UK agriculture. By understanding these biases, I will explore their implications for innovation, problem-solving, and adaptability within the sector. Finally, I will propose strategies informed by behavioural science to address these biases and promote a more inclusive and innovative agricultural landscape. Let me be clear that this is not a call to over throw the patriarchy of agriculture, it is a call to be aware of how we ended up with a homogeneous group and what the vulnerabilities are for decision making at a time when agriculture needs radical thinking and a different way of doing things to keep it's head above water at a time of great challenge and great change. 

According to DEFRA (2023), women account for only 17% of farm holders, despite comprising 52% of the wider UK population. Similarly, while ethnic minority groups represent 14% of the UK population (ONS, 2021), they make up less than 2% of the farming workforce. This entrenched lack of diversity in leadership roles poses risks for innovation and industry resilience.

Behavioural Science Theories Perpetuating Homogeneity in UK Agriculture - time to check your bias! 

Homogeneity in UK agriculture can be attributed to several behavioural science principles that influence decision-making, recruitment, and leadership progression. These include affinity bias, stereotype bias, and status quo bias.

Affinity Bias

Affinity bias describes the unconscious tendency to favour individuals who reflect one's own background, values, or experiences. In the context of agriculture, this often manifests in succession planning and recruitment, where individuals are inclined to trust and invest in those who "fit" the existing farming culture.

Byrne’s (1971) similarity-attraction paradigm illustrates how individuals feel more comfortable working with those who share common values or backgrounds. Within agriculture, this manifests in reinforcing the belief that successful farmers must possess specific traits traditionally associated with family farming experience, rural upbringing, or a particular socio-economic background.

The recent changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) rules (April 2024) now limit inheritance tax relief for land that is not actively farmed. Under these changes, APR and Business Property Relief (BPR) now apply at 100% only to the first £1 million of combined qualifying agricultural and business property. Any value exceeding this threshold receives only 50% relief. Furthermore, APR relief has been restricted to UK-based assets, excluding holdings in the EEA and other territories.

This change may inadvertently reinforce affinity bias, as landowners may prioritise passing farms to family members perceived as "best suited" to maintain active farming status to secure the maximum available tax relief. This introduces additional pressures for families to remain within traditional farming frameworks, limiting opportunities for new entrants and diverse leadership.

This bias is particularly problematic in farming cooperatives, leadership groups, and industry boards, where a narrow demographic profile can limit exposure to alternative approaches. As Rivera (2012) highlights, reliance on cultural 'fit' in recruitment risks excluding diverse perspectives that could improve decision-making and innovation.

Stereotype Bias

Stereotype bias reinforces assumptions about individuals based on their background, often excluding those who deviate from traditional norms. Steele and Aronson (1995) defined stereotype threat as the internalisation of negative assumptions about one’s ability to succeed in a particular role.

In agriculture, this is particularly relevant to women and ethnic minority groups, who may face assumptions about their physical capabilities, technical knowledge, or business acumen. Women in leadership roles within farming may face biases that question their decision-making ability in traditionally male-dominated environments, despite evidence demonstrating strong leadership attributes (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

Stereotype bias can also deter innovation adoption. For example, individuals with non-traditional backgrounds who introduce alternative practices, such as regenerative agriculture or data-driven precision techniques, may struggle to gain acceptance in entrenched farming circles where "the way we've always done it" dominates.

Status Quo Bias

McCracken (2000) described status quo bias as a preference for maintaining established norms, often limiting openness to change. Within agriculture, this bias manifests in resistance to adopting new technologies, exploring alternative production methods, or expanding leadership diversity.

The removal of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) payments in March 2025 created additional uncertainty, particularly for progressive farmers trialling new environmental approaches. With incentives for innovation reduced, many landowners are reverting to traditional methods that feel "safer," reinforcing the sector's resistance to change. The sudden withdrawal of the scheme has left some environmentally progressive farmers financially vulnerable, with projects abandoned mid-implementation.

This disruption has compounded status quo bias by encouraging farmers to return to tried-and-tested approaches rather than embracing change in response to evolving environmental and financial conditions.

The Impact of Homogeneity on Innovation in Agriculture

The absence of diversity in UK agriculture limits cognitive diversity, which is essential for innovation and effective decision-making. Cognitive diversity refers to the inclusion of individuals with varied experiences, perspectives, and thinking styles (Howlett, 2019).

Woolley et al. (2010) demonstrated that collective intelligence thrives when teams incorporate a range of perspectives, even when this creates short-term friction or debate. Conversely, homogenous teams risk "groupthink," limiting their ability to identify blind spots or question flawed assumptions.

In agriculture, this lack of diversity impedes efforts to adopt sustainable practices, improve supply chain efficiencies, and diversify product offerings. For example, regenerative agriculture techniques championed by younger or non-traditional farmers may face resistance from established networks that prioritise conventional practices.

Recommendations for Addressing Homogeneity in Agriculture

To break the cycle of homogeneity and foster cognitive diversity in agriculture, we should all be looking at where we can affect change in the following areas;

1. Modernising Recruitment Practices

Blind recruitment strategies that remove identifying information from applications can reduce affinity bias, allowing candidates to be evaluated on skills and competencies rather than social connections or cultural background (Kandola, 2009). Structured interviews with standardised scoring criteria further mitigate subjective judgments.

2. Expanding Access to Land and Capital

With APR changes limiting inheritance tax relief, encouraging diverse entrants will require innovative funding solutions. Support for share farming agreements, succession planning grants, and cooperative models will help new entrants who lack traditional family land connections. Additionally, increased government support for tenant farmers, who are more likely to come from non-traditional backgrounds, would create alternative pathways for diversity in land ownership.

3. Promoting Diversity in Leadership

Creating mentorship programmes and leadership pathways for underrepresented groups can foster diversity at senior levels. Encouraging the appointment of women and ethnic minority representatives to industry boards can also ensure that diverse perspectives shape key decisions.

4. Showcasing Diversity's Value

Highlighting success stories of diverse individuals and businesses within agriculture can challenge stereotypes and shift perceptions. Demonstrating how alternative approaches have improved productivity, environmental outcomes, or profitability can drive broader industry acceptance.

5. Integrating Diversity into Innovation Platforms

Incorporating diverse voices into agricultural research, development, and advisory groups will ensure emerging innovations reflect the varied needs of the farming community. Collaborative projects that bring together farmers from different backgrounds can unlock creative solutions to shared challenges.

Conclusion

The UK agricultural sector's entrenched homogeneity presents significant risks to innovation and long-term resilience. By addressing behavioural biases that limit diversity, the industry can unlock new perspectives, foster creativity, and improve decision-making. Efforts to promote inclusivity must be authentic, sustained, and integrated into recruitment, leadership, and innovation strategies to yield lasting change. The lessons from other sectors highlight that diverse teams consistently outperform homogeneous ones — a principle that agriculture must embrace to meet the evolving demands of food production and environmental sustainability.

References

• Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

• DEFRA (2023). Agricultural Workforce Statistics. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/

• Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review.

• Howlett, D. (2019). Cognitive Diversity as a Driver for Workplace and Economic Betterment. Diginomica.

• Kandola, B. (2009). The Value of Difference. Pearn Kandola Publishing.

• Rivera, L.A. (2012). Hiring as Cultural Matching. American Sociological Review.

• Steele, C.M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

• Woolley, A.W. et al. (2010). Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science.

Clare Otridge

WiFF founding member and Ops Team

Connect with me on Linkedin here