This study explores the comprehensive examination of Agricultural Risk Management (ARM) process skill transfer dynamics between supervisors and trainees. The main points encompass understanding the details of the ARM process and identifying perceptual discrepancies in rating the level of transfer between trainees and supervisors. The investigation aims to contribute valuable insights into refining ARM process dissemination strategies for improved agricultural resilience. Employing a cross-sectional mixed‐method approach, this research utilized independent t‐tests for quantitative data analysis, facilitated by SPSS software. Furthermore, qualitative data underwent meticulous thematic content analysis conducted through Atlas.ti. The participant demographic characteristics, showcasing a balanced gender distribution among trainees and supervisors, highlighted the cohort’s diverse educational backgrounds and qualifications. Trainees exhibited varying educational levels, while supervisors mainly possess advanced degrees, signalling their potential sway in mentoring dynamics. The study uncovered notable gaps within the ARM process framework, notably the absence of comprehensive risk assessment, diversified strategies, formal monitoring mechanisms, and the incorporation of behavioural and financial elements. Emphasizing collaboration and proactive approaches toward addressing long‐term risks, particularly climate change adaptation, emerged as pivotal components. Significantly, the study revealed marked differences in perceptions between supervisors and trainees regarding ARM skill transfer, accentuating the necessity for tailor‐made training initiatives. The implications drawn from this study underline the critical necessity for customized training modules that consider the distinct needs and perceptions of supervisors and trainees. Furthermore, fostering enhanced collaboration and advocating for a comprehensive approach to mitigating long‐term agricultural risks, notably the impacts of climate change, emerge as imperative strategies. These implications carry profound significance in refining risk management practices, bolstering agricultural resilience and ensuring sustainable agricultural practices.
