You are on page 1of 58

The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona:

An Analysis of Organizational Effectiveness

Jake Coldsmith Ashley Ireson Robin Israel Meghan McDavid Ana Pumarejo Brenda Quintero

December 6, 2011 Organizational Theory- PA 501 Instructor: Robin Lemaire

Case Study

History and Leadership:

The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) has operated in Tucson, Arizona

since 1976. In the first year of its existence, it distributed 10,533 emergency food boxes and

operated out of a 1,800 square-foot facility (History, 2011). Today, it operates in the five

southern Arizona counties of Pima, Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz; has branch

locations in Marana, Ajo, Green Valley, Amado, and Nogales; has a 140,000 square-foot

warehouse in Tucson; distributes enough food every day to provide over 61,000 meals; and

works with over 200 local human service agency partners (Annual Report, 2010). The mission of

the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona is: ―Through education, advocacy, and the

acquisition, storage, and distribution of food, we will anticipate and meet the food needs of the

hungry in our community.‖ The vision is ―freedom from hunger‖ (1000-day Strategic Plan,

2008).

The CFB started as a single food drive operated by the City of Tucson Mayor‘s Office in

response to the food needs of one family in 1976. A family called the Mayor‘s Office asking for

food assistance. Since no program existed to meet this need, the Mayor‘s Office held a small

food drive to provide the family with emergency food assistance. After helping this one family,

an intern suggested starting a bank for food that could supply any Tucsonan in need of

assistance. In response to this idea, the Mayor‘s Office hired one person to start a small food

bank that could supply food boxes to distribution sites around town. At its beginning, the food

bank was the supplier of food distribution sites and did not distribute food directly to

clients. The first direct-to-client distribution occurred when the Food Plus program started in

Tucson in 1986 (Tucker, 2011).

Since 1976, the CFB has had three Chief Executive Officers. The longest tenured CEO

was Charles ―Punch‖ Woods who was CEO from 1978 until he retired in 2003 after 25 years on

the job. When Woods started at the CFB less than ―80,000 pounds of food were distributed

annually through 16 partner agencies‖ (Machelor, 2002). By 1995, a capital campaign initiated

by Woods had generated $2 million and the CFB purchased the location it still occupies today at

3003 S Country Club Rd (Cook, 1995). The move to a new building addressed the need for

more storage space as demand for food assistance continued to grow. Part of Woods‘ vision for

the new location was also to create a multi-service center for those in need. Woods told the

Arizona Daily Star in December of 1995, ―‗If you are hungry, it means you have other problems

as well. The goal is to reduce the demand for food by providing other services‘‖ (Cook, 1995).

In the spirit of providing the myriad of services clients might need, therefore preventing

the need for food assistance, the Community Gardens of Tucson started a pilot program at the

Community Food Bank in 1997. The program provided 5,000 square feet of land for a

community garden where families could pay a $3 monthly fee and receive maintenance and drip

irrigation for a 2 foot by 27 foot plot. This pilot program would grow into what is now the

Community Food Resource Center of the CFB (History, 2011). By the time Woods retired in

March of 2003, he was dedicated to the idea that the CFB needed to continue to ―make progress

in attacking hunger in preventative ways.‖ ―It‘s as simple as that,‖ Woods said, adding that a 10-

foot-by-10-foot vegetable garden can provide a family with vegetables they need at a fraction of

the cost‖ (Machelor, 2002).

The transition to new leadership was not as smooth as one might hope. The initial search

left the board split over two candidates in December 2002 and they decided to start the search

over (Barrios, 2002). In April of 2003, Patrick Zumbusch was hired as the new CEO (History,

2011). Zumbusch had recently been CEO of the for-profit Global Atmospherics Inc. (Barrios,

2003). At this point in its history, the CFB was providing enough food for 34,000 meals per day.

Eighteen months later, in November of 2004, Zumbusch resigned his position to return to the

for-profit world just before the critical holiday season. CFB board president, Beth Walkup (wife

of then Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup), was appointed to serve as interim CEO until a new search

would be started in January (Machelor & Chesnick, 2004). By June of 2005, Beth Walkup was

replaced by Joy Tucker as interim CEO. Tucker had been Director of Facilities before being

appointed to the interim position. This long transition to new permanent leadership did not end

until Bill Carnegie was hired as President and CEO in January of 2006.

By the time Carnegie became CEO, the Community Food Resource center was fully up

and running, making sure that the CFB was not only meeting emergency food needs of the

community, but was also addressing root solutions for greater food security. Community food

security is ―when all people at all times have economic and physical access to sufficient food for

a healthy life‖ (Editorial, 2006).

In 2006, the CFB was providing enough food for 30,000 meals

per day in Pima Country; had branch banks in Marana, Green Valley, Amado, and Ajo ; ran two

farmer‘s markets; and turned the pilot garden plot program into a demonstration garden at the

time when Carnegie started. By 2011, Carnegie had added a branch bank in Nogales;

distributions to Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties; a 10-acre farm in Marana;

an Urban Farm in Midvale Park; Caridad Community Kitchen soup kitchen; and the CFB was

distributing enough food to provide 61,000 meals per day.

Programs and Services:

Programs and services can be categorized into two groupings: food distribution programs

and food security programs. Food distribution programs include The Emergency Food

Assistance Program (TEFAP) food boxes, Food Plus food boxes, Congregate Meal Sites,

Caridad Community Kitchen, and Agency Market. Food security programs include Child

Nutrition Programs, Family Advocacy, Farm-to-Child, Nuestra Tierra Demonstration and Market

Garden, Home Gardening, Gardening Workshops, the Marana Heritage Farm, farmers‘ markets,

and the Urban Community Farm. A third service entity is the Punch Woods Multi-Service

Center. This center houses the CFB‘s main location as well as endeavors to provide a ―one-stop-

shopping‖ center for those in need of assistance. Some organizations that are located in the

Multi-Service Center are Administration of Resources and Choices, Alzheimer‘s Association,

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Mobile Meals of Tucson, and Arbor Jobs Training. The goals of the

Multi-Service Center are: 1) to strengthen the ability of collaborating agencies to provide for the

overall health and well-being of our community‘s children, 2) to increase the number of families

served, and 3) to increase the number of services available at one site. A brief description of the

major programs follows.

TEFAP food boxes are distributed directly to individuals and families at the CFB main

location, branch banks, rural distribution sites, and through partner agencies and food pantries.

Clients may receive a box once per month and must be residents of the county in which they

receive the box. About half the food that goes into a TEFAP box is provided by the Arizona

Department of Economic Security (DES) Hunger Relief Program.

Food Plus food boxes are also distributed directly to individuals; however, this program

serves a different population than TEFAP. There are four categories of individuals that can

qualify for the Food Plus program: 1) pregnant mothers, 2) mothers who have given birth within

the last year, 3) children between the ages of 1 and 6 years old, and 4) senior citizens over the

age of sixty. A client may not be using WIC and Food Plus at the same time. Food Plus, like

TEFAP provides one box per month. Food Plus is a joint venture between the USDA, the

Arizona Department of Health Services, and the Pima County Health Department. Food Plus

clients must apply with the Pima County Health Department and, upon acceptance, receive a six-

month refillable prescription for food. This prescription is filled at the CFB.

Agency Market (AM) distributes food directly to 501c3 agencies that have feeding

programs. There are over 140 agencies with 400 sites that access Agency Market. Last year AM

distributed 5.9 million pounds of food. Food donations that are distributed through AM come

from national food manufacturers, local distribution centers, grocery stores, and the public.

Community food security programs include activities such as urban agriculture,

community and backyard gardens, and farmers‘ markets that all increase access and affordability

of fresh produce. These programs also include training for food processing, preservation,

preparation, marketing, nutrition education, and food self-reliance. The Community Food

Resource Center of the CFB encompasses all of these programs.

Family Advocacy‘s purpose is to address needs that may not be addressed by other CFB

programs. This includes helping families and individuals with referrals for other services like

rent or utility assistance, giving classes in economic literacy, and helping people sign up for the

Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program can even include giving

people personalized attention to their unique circumstances and providing extra food assistance

through the Agency Market program at the family advocate‘s discretion.

The Marana Heritage Farm is a 10-acre production and education farm. The farm uses

drip irrigation and organic methods to grow vegetables, fruits, herbs, and flowers. The Marana

Heritage Farm also operates a youth apprenticeship program that teaches youth how to farm and

educates them about food system issues that affect food security.

The CFB operates six farmers‘ markets. These markets make fresh, local products

available to the public and low income individuals by accepting SNAP benefits. The markets

also give small or large growers with excess food a place to sell and expand their gardening

operations. Producers who cannot attend the markets can sell through consignment with the CFB

(CFB Website Programs and Services, 2011).

Environment, Structure, Strategy, Leadership, Organizational Culture:

A main player in general environment in the CFB is the economy. Only twice in the

Community Food Bank‘s history has it had to reduce the amount of food that clients receive. The

first was in 1997 after the Clinton Administration made reforms to welfare programs. Donations

had remained steady, but demand increased eighteen percent from the previous year

necessitating Punch Woods to make the decision to halve what was offered in the emergency

food boxes (Wabnik, 1997). The second time was in January of 2009 when, in response to

increased demand caused by the recession, the CFB had distributed 36 percent more food than in

the previous year and was 46 percent over budget for food purchases in the fiscal year. This time,

instead of reducing the amount of food per box, the CFB accomplished essentially the same thing

by reducing the number of times per mother that a family could receive a box from two, down to

one (Kelly, 2009). Each time that the CFB has had to reduce the amount of food given per client

has been the result of environmental forces. Revenue for fiscal year 2009-2010, including the

cash value of donated food, was $51,560,121. Main sources of revenue for FY2009-2010

include donated food (81.05%), contributions and funds from events (12.98%), government

grants and contracts (4.3%), and bequests (.43%) (Annual Report, 2010).

Leadership at the CFB starts with the CEO. Carnegie maintains an outward, future-

oriented focus in order to set the direction for the organization, while trusting the Management

Team with the day-to-day operational decisions. Carnegie characterizes himself as more of a

convener than a manager: bringing people together to solve problems and giving them the

authority to make the decisions they were hired to make. Carnegie is also active in the

Association of Arizona Food Banks, sits on four national Feeding America committees, and is

the vice chairman of the Western Regional Association of FA food banks (Carnegie, Hitzeman,

2011). Carnegie is much more tied in with FA than Woods was as CEO (Tucker, Hitzeman,

2011). When Carnegie first came to the CFB he recognized that departments were working in

siloes and one of the first tasks he took on was breaking down these divisions. He gave

departments permission to work with each other and help other departments even if it was not

part of their duties. Over the last 5 years, CFB has seen an increase in the amount of inter-

departmental cooperation (Carnegie, 2011).

The CFB has a formal hierarchical structure with a Board of Directors at the top,

followed by the CEO, then five operationally designated vice president-level staff that make up

the Management Team, then directors and managers under each vice president. Day-to-day

operations do not strictly follow the structure laid out on the organizational chart. The 134

employees tend to follow the chain of command, but are given the freedom to jump levels and/or

cross operational boundaries when necessary. Over the last five to six years the Management

Team has been learning and trying to operationalize the idea that the lowest level of staff can

often come up with the best solutions to improve working systems. According to Management

Team members this is still a work in progress (Hitzeman, Tucker, 2011).

Another aspect of the CFB‘s structure is that it belongs to a national network of food

banks called Feeding America (FA). CFB has a contract with FA to serve a specified area (the

five southern Arizona counties that CFB currently serves), agrees to follow standards set by FA,

pays dues to FA, is monitored by FA, and in turn, CFB gains national credibility from FA,

national donations, funding, and training. CFB has the option to get funding for doing FA

programs locally, but is not taking full advantage of these opportunities because CFB feels that

current programs offered address the specifics of local needs better than the FA programs

would. This option to opt out of the program and the funds gives FA member food banks the

flexibility and autonomy to serve their local area as they see fit. According to Eric Hitzeman,

VP of Operations, the three things CFB gains from being a FA member are access to best

practices and trainings, national representation in issues and with donors, and some funding.

The CFB has always had at least an informal strategy set at Management Team meeting

and some formal strategic plans set between the CEO and Board of Directors. Carnegie changed

this top-down strategic plan setting when he created a committee that encompassed all

hierarchical levels to create the first 1000-day plan under his tenure. This plan took eighteen

months to finalize and covered the time period from July, 2008, to June, 2011. The current one-

year plan was created with input from all levels, but this time Carnegie used Feeding America‘s

five main goals and had management level employees get ideas from all levels of staff to fill in

the objectives strategies for meeting those goals. The one measure of effectiveness that is ever-

present for the Management Team at the CFB is distributed poundage and FA‘s measure of

pounds per person in poverty (PPPIP). The majority of Management Team members that were

interviewed expressed this measure as a challenge in that it may take focus of programs that are

very advantageous to clients, but that do little to increase PPPIP numbers in the short term. This

is especially a problem for Food Security programs since they work on a relatively small scale

and their effects are often seen in the longer term (Carnegie, Tucker, Hitzeman, Liu, 2011).

Internal organizational culture is very important at the CFB as it is at most non-

profit organizations. The organizational culture helps attract and retain the volunteer workforce

that CFB depends on as well as the paid staff. In fiscal year 2009-2010, volunteers contributed

106,000 hours of work time. This is equivalent to the work hours of 50 additional full-time

employees or 37% of CFB‘s workforce (Annual Report, 2010). Carnegie tries to take a bottom

up approach when possible to make staff and volunteers feel appreciated. He believes that if

staff members are treated in a friendly, positive way this atmosphere will transfer to the

volunteers and ultimately to those being served (Carnegie, 2011). He tries to keep everyone

feeling connected through his open door policy and frying pan chats, though he admits that there

are always those who can feel disconnected at different levels. The employee satisfaction

surveys from 2010 and 2011 show that the majority of employees rate all but one question in the

affirmative on a 6 choice Likert scale with ―No Opinion‖ as the middle choice and a ―Not

Applicable‖ choice. The one question that generated a majority of responses in the ―No

Opinion‖ column was if the frying pan chats are an effective way of communicating with the

CEO.

Methods

The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) was chosen for analysis because

it is based here in Tucson and is a very visible community entity that virtually anyone who has

lived here has heard of or perhaps even volunteered for. The 35 years CFB has been around is

more than enough time for the organization to settle into patterns of behavior and, of course,

there is quite a bit of material for analysis. Probably the most significant reason CFB was chosen

was that one of the group members, Jake Coldsmith, is an employee there.

Jake was an extremely valuable resource for this project. He provided a vast hub of

general knowledge about CFB that otherwise would have taken hours to research. His experience

and status as an employee provided constant access to internal information, including surveys

and reports that CFB had already conducted. Of those we refer to the Volunteer Assessment,

Volunteer Hours 2010-2011, Employee Satisfaction Survey 2011, and the Hunger America

Annual Report 2010. Jake was also able to schedule interviews with a majority of the upper-

management staff, even the CEO.

The employees that were interviewed included: Marco Liu, Director of Advocacy and

Outreach; Joy Tucker, Senior Vice-President of Facilities MGMT; Bill Carnegie, President and

CEO; and Eric Hitzeman, Vice-President of Operations. An example of the question sets used to

conduct the interviews can be found in Appendix A. It was important to collect information from

more than just management staff, so a survey was sent out to a number of lower-level staff as

well. A copy of that survey can be found in Appendix B.

To access the effectiveness of CFB, the System Resource Approach and Goal Approach

theories were used. The Goal Approach focuses on how well an organization meets its goals and

mission, which is especially important for the public sector because if an organization is not

meeting its goals, then it is not fulfilling its commitment to the community and no longer has

societal value or legitimacy. However, there are many problems with the Goal Approach; one

specific to CFB is that oftentimes goals are vague and it can hard to measure the outcomes.

Especially for the Food Resource Center where the focus is on long-term outcomes, looking at

how those programs meet CFBs goals is not an accurate measure.

As such, the System Resource Approach was the other theory used in this evaluation of

effectiveness. This theory looks at how well an organization can exploit the environment for

resources with the view that survival of an organization is most important. These two theories

make an interesting pairing in light of the fact that non-profits are known to be constantly

juggling their fight for resources to survive and their struggle to provide a service to the

community, defined by the goals. From here, the theories were applied to a range of topic areas:

environment, leadership, strategy, structure, and organizational culture. These analyses follow:

Environment

A complete environmental analysis is an important component in assessing the

organizational effectiveness of the CFB. This analysis showed us how the organization is

influenced by forces outside and inside the environment. There are two categories of

environmental effects, the first one being general or indirect, that result from economic and

political factors. The second one is task or direct, that result from suppliers, funders, competitors,

and regulators. We consider that the CFB environment is affected indirectly by the economy and

politics and directly affected by funders, volunteers, and clients.

Figure 1: Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) Environment

and clients. Figure 1: Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona (CFB) Environment General/ Indirect Task/ Direct

General/

General/

Indirect

Task/ Direct

Task/ Direct

Politics

Historically, the U.S. government has tried to attack issues of poverty, hunger, and

nutrition through a variety of direct and indirect policies. Efforts to address issues of hunger

include programs such as the food assistance programs provided by the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA provides food commodities to the CFB. Any

political policy change will affect the amount of commodities the food bank receives.

Economy

The economic situation of the U.S. affects the CFB since it increases the demand of

individuals asking for food assistance. ―Food banks report that increasing demand is particularly

driven by more first-time users of the food assistance system (98 % of food banks) are more

unemployed (92%)‖ (Feeding America Survey). Additionally, existing clients need assistance

more frequently that before.

Clients

Feeding hungry people in southern Arizona is part of the CFB mission, meaning that they

want to reduce the number of the individuals who live at, or below, the federal poverty level. In

Tucson, 23.5% of the population lives at, or below the poverty level. On average, the CFB

provides enough food for over 61,000 meals every day. Many of these meals are distributed

through over 200 local human service agency partners that serve children, seniors, the working

poor, the homeless, people suffering from illness or addiction, people fleeing abuse, people with

disabilities and anyone else in need.

Funders

The CFB operates thanks to donors who donate the funds that they need to feed the

hungry. The CFB receives several hundred thousand pounds of donated food and non-food items

each week from the food industry. Every donation plays a part in making it possible for the Food

Bank to provide nearly eight million pounds of food and grocery products each year for hungry

and disadvantaged people.

The food industry is the backbone of food banking. Hundreds of local and national

companies donate quality food to the CFB including: distributors, farmers, manufacturers,

restaurants, retailers, and wholesalers. Additionally, donations are received through food drives.

On the other hand, cash donations are increasingly important since they are used when

the CFB needs to purchase food that has not been donated. Also, the CFB relies on local and

state foundations.

The impact that donors have on the CFB is indescribable. The CFB revenue for last year was

$51.5 million, $41.8 million of which is donated food. If they receive one dollar, that dollar will

help them distribute ten dollars‘ worth of food. Without donors, the food bank would not exist.

Volunteers

The CFB depends on hundreds of volunteers to bring food to southern Arizona. Last year

the food bank‘s volunteers contributed about 106,000 hours of labor; the equivalent

of 50 full-time employees, or 37% of our workforce (Annual Report, 2010). In order to

accomplish its mission to help people in need of food assistance, the CFB opens its doors and

offers volunteer opportunities to the community.

There is a complementary way to analyze the environment, which includes an evaluation

of its complexity, its state of dynamism, and its munificence. In order to fully analyze the

environment we examined these three dimensions, which helped us determine the effects that the

environment has on the CFB‘s effectiveness in achieving their goals and obtaining resources.

The CFB works within a complex environment. The volatility and complexity in the

environment makes it less predictable (Milliken 1987). Primarily, the coercive institutional

pressure by funders reflects the complexity in the environment. The CFB needs to follow

regulatory agencies‘ requirements (Feeding America) in order to receive funding. Feeding

America not only provides them with financial support but it also provides technical support and

staff training. Therefore, having a healthy relationship with Feeding America is important in the

process of achieving the CFB‘s goals.

By being more involved with Feeding America, CFB is recognized nationwide and has

gained legitimacy among donors. As Wiewel and Hunter stated, affiliations with other

organizations further serve as a resource to a new organization because they serve to legitimize

the organization and its activities (1985). With this alliance, the CFB will attract nationwide

donors who will donate simply because the CFB is part of Feeding America. ―Coercive pressures

imposed caused the program to grow incrementally across the nation‖ (Frumklin and Reignold,

2004). Nationwide recognition is helping the CFB gain more resources in order to achieve their

goals.

Also, the USDA requires the CFB to follow certain procedures with the commodities

provided to feed the hungry. Other donors such as private funders, retailers, and manufacturers

require that their donations are used in a timely manner in order to protect clients‘ health and

themselves from any possible lawsuits.

On the other hand, clients make up part of this complex environment. Since part of the

CFB mission is to feed the hungry, they must use different avenues in order to reach this part of

the population and consequently accomplish their mission. Some of these avenues include:

Feeding low income and homeless people through churches. With the ―Caridad Community Kitchen‖ program, four staff members prepare 800 meals to feed homeless and low-income individuals. They use food donated by the USDA, and if needed they purchase what is required to prepare a complete meal.

The CFB goes to low-income apartment complexes to feed people who lack a transportation method.

At the CFB warehouse, food boxes are given when people require them.

The ability of the CFB to be effective in obtaining resources to feed the hungry depends of the

capacity at which they have to be proactive and create a strategy that allows them to adapt to the

complexity of the environment.

The CFB is part of a dynamic environment that is constantly changing. Since the

economy is a factor that affects the CFB, any shifts in it affect the ability of the CFB to

accomplish its goals. Theory suggests that ―it is evident that characteristics of the external

environment played a dominant role in determining successes or failures during periods of

decline‖ (Cameron and Zamuto, 1983). Today, the economy is unstable. Due to the economic

crisis, donations received both from the government and private donors do not keep up with the

demand for assistance. In the same way the economy is affecting the CFB, it is affecting the

population in general. As more people are out of work, more people are hungry. There is also

uncertainty in regards to the local, state, and federal funding that the CFB receives from the

government. The political environment is so dynamic that the federal government‘s reduction

efforts can reduce the amount of funding for next year by one million dollars, the equivalent to

four million pounds of food.

In times of economic crisis and uncertainty, the help of volunteers is crucial in the

process of achieving the CFB‘s goals. Since the demand for resources is increasing, more

volunteers are needed in order to satisfy the needs of the CFB clients. The more help the CFB

receives from volunteers the more boxes they can produce which results in better food access for

clients. The challenge that the CFB has is finding ways to attract more and more volunteers.

Fortunately, throughout the years they have been able to attract volunteers in different areas

including packing boxes or working at the farm. Today, the number of volunteers must increase

significantly since the demand for food is increasing. The downside is that most people volunteer

during their spare time from work or from other responsibilities. Due to economic crisis, it might

be the situation that those volunteers are out of work and they need this time to find another job,

which may or may not give them extra time to volunteer.

Cameron and Zamuto stated that organizations are successful to the extent to which they

match environmental conditions (1983). In order to survive in this dynamic environment and be

successful, the CFB is having additional food drives, increasing marketing materials, opening

more volunteer opportunities, and solidifying their relationship with city councilors, county

supervisors, and state representatives.

Environmental munificence relates to the degree to which a firm operates in an

environment where resources are scarce or abundant. Since its foundation, the CFB has not

experienced that much competition and has been a monopoly since then. This was an advantage

since no other agencies where asking for food funding. On October 31, 2011, Interfaith

Community Services Food Bank (ICS), using a mimetic strategy, was expanded. Basically, ICS

gets a high percentage of the food they provide the community from the CFB and the other

percentages from their own food drives and fundraising events. Today, ICS is considered a

competitor of the CFB. Even though ICS is using the same model as the CFB, there is now

another food bank applying for grants, funding, and donations.

The downside is that during an economic crisis, grants, funding, and donations are scarce,

making competition harder. From the government side, allocations have been reduced,

decreasing the amount of food that the government buys from agriculture. Instead of sending

food to community food banks in the U.S., the USDA is sending it to areas that have experienced

national disasters. For example, in the month of August, most USDA food went to Hurricane

Irene survivors. Additionally, fewer grants are available making them more competitive. The

decrease in funding received directly affects the CFB‘s process of achieving their goals, since

fewer resources are received in order to satisfy the needs of their clients.

With resources scarce, the CFB is implementing different strategies that will allow them

to lessen the impact of the economic crisis. Through these strategies they are able to obtain

resources that will help them accomplish their goals. The CFB is holding more food drives in

order to lessen the impact of the reduction in food donations. Donor relationships have become

even more important in order to assure donors that the CFB is working for a good cause. The

CFB is creating solid relationships with foundations that share their same mission, in order to

increase brand awareness, which will lead to more contributions. Since grant competition is

becoming tougher, the CFB has two people writing grants in order to ensure that they are

applying to every small and large grant available. Additionally, the CFB is working with

attorneys in town so they might suggest donating to the CFB to people when preparing their

wills.

Since eating healthily and having a good lifestyle is so important to society, the CFB has

added education to its mission statement. In order to accomplish this, the CFB started a

Community Food Resource Center; a program designed to provide awareness, education and

information on food assistance programs in Pima County. By teaching people how to grow their

own food and how to eat healthier, they hope this will lead to long-term solutions which will

decrease the number of hungry people. Also, the CFB is able to apply for grants geared toward

education of good eating habits.

We believe that a munificent environment with high uncertainty surrounds the CFB.

Internal development, such as the food assistance programs and the ability to achieve donations,

will increase the competitive advantage of the organization and will help them obtain resources

to feed the hungry and educate people on how healthier lifestyles.

Leadership

Leadership is the ―capacity of someone to direct and energize people to achieve goals‖

(Rainey, 2003). Bill Carnegie, CEO of the CFB, motivates his staff to meet the mission of

anticipating and meeting the needs of the hungry in our community. His leadership is pivotal to

the success of the Community Food Bank because of the motivation that he brings to his staff

and people in the community. The CFB board also plays an important role in the dynamic of the

food bank. The board has immediate authority over Carnegie and must approve what he does.

They also help bring in essential resources through their personal power within the community.

Determining the reason behind the success of a great leader is a challenging task because

there is no clear cut answer to this question. Leadership is an abstract concept that is defined in

many ways, and sometimes in many different situations. Throughout the years, scholars

developed theories behind the idea of what it is to be a great leader. This includes but is not

limited to; trait theories, and behavioral/style theories (Rainey, 2003). Additionally, leaders are

thought to be effective when they maintain and develop networks for the organization which

encourage growth and partnership internally and externally of the organization (Ibarra & Hunter,

2007). Others have suggested that there are both similarities and differences between being a

manager and being a leadersaying that both can help lead to the effectiveness of an

organization (Zaleznik, 2000). Therefore, this analysis will examine the various theories that

have defined leadership over time and compare their points with the leadership of Carnegie and

the board at the CFB. Carnegie‘s influence as the CEO of the CFB contributes to the

accomplishment of the food bank‘s goals and the acquisition of the food bank‘s resources. The

board also has a role in the effectiveness of these practices.

―Trait‖ theories tug at the need to define characteristics that help explain effective

leadership (Lecture, 11/28). Researchers tried to determine the traits that make up an effective

leader, whether it be physical traits like height and hair color, or personality characteristics like

honesty and integrityanything that would help explain why one person was a leader and

another one wasn‘t. Today we know that this theory falls short because it fails to recognize that

there are leaders of all shapes and sizes with various personality characteristicsmeaning that it

is not possible to determine effective leadership when only looking at a person‘s traits. Even so,

an interview with Carnegie shows that he is a kind person with exceptional drive and a fantastic

sense of humor (11/17). Therefore, we propose that the traits that make up his personality

influence the way that he forms the various networks internally and externally of this

organization.

Ibarra and Hunter suggest that there are three distinct forms of networking that a manager

of an organization must participate in; operational, personal, and strategic (2007). They say that

―the alternative to networking is to fail‖ which suggests that one cannot succeed without these

important tasks (2007). Operational networking is the creation of strong working relationships in

the internal workings of the organization. This type of networking helps work get done

efficiently and makes the group strong. Personal networking is about the development of the

leader in his/her professional position which deals with external players but does not reach the

same level that strategic networking does. Ibarra and Hunter suggest that strategic networking is

one of the most important networking tasks because it helps managers find new opportunities

which will further the development of their organization and lead to long-term concrete

connections (2007). These connections are the relationships that a leader forms with outside

groups that helps the organization reach its needed acquisition of resources and partnerships that

lead to the expansion of services that meet the goals that the organization is trying to accomplish.

Carnegie says, in an interview on November 19 th , that it is necessary for him to participate in all

three forms of networking because of the influence that it has on the CFB. He mentions that he

sits on several non-profit boards and finds that by working with them he is able to gather and

share ―best practices‖ with other non-profits (11/17).

Carnegie must also work internally with his board and externally with the media and

various outside organizations. The relationships that he forms in the non-profit sector and in the

community are the essence of strategic leadershipMr. Carnegie participates in convincing

others of taking a needed action that will benefit the CFB (Ibarra and Hunter, 2007). It is his

―ability to marshal information, support, and resources‖ that helps contribute to the

accomplishment of goals and the acquisition of resources (2007). Ibarra and Hunter suggest that

strategic networking is a skill that can be learned if one has the right mind-set about networking

(2007). Carnegie has that mind-sethe is driven and smart and he knows what it takes to start

and maintain a food bank due to all of his past experiences. And so, his traits have an effect on

the ability of the organization to receive resources and build connections with pivotal

organizations that will help the CFB reach its goals. While the trait theory does not wholly

define the effectiveness of a leader because there are no specific traits that are exhaustive and

exclusive, it does touch upon an important ideapersonality is critical and can have an effect on

one‘s ability to perform a necessary organizational task.

The next set of theories is called behavioral/style theories. These theories propose that

there are two basic leadership styles which are effective depending on the situation and time

frame. There are two basic concerns connected to the leadership styles; concern for task and

concern for social-emotional needs. This idea was developed more fully by political scientist

James MacGregor Burns who named the two distinct leadership styles: transactional leadership

and transformational leadership (Rainey, 2003). A transactional leader recognizes task needs

and offers rewards to those who, in return, provide excellent performance and support (2003).

Conversely, a transformational leader tends to focus on inspiring and motivating people while

being selfless in their acts and doing things for the greater-good. These two concepts are

similarly discussed in Zaleznik‘s article about the difference between managers and leaders

(2000). His definition of managers as problem-solvers is closely linked with the transactional

leader‘s focus on tasks. Zaleznik says that one of the main jobs of a manager is to ―shift balances

of power toward solutions acceptable as compromises among conflicting values‖ (2000).

Leaders, on the other hand, are innovative and create new ideas. He says that ―to be effective,

leaders must project their ideas onto images that excite people‖, which is another way of saying

that leaders practice transformational leadership. So, is there a better practice? No, organizations

need both managers and leaders, but at different vital points in the life cycle of the organization.

This is not to say that one is strictly a transactional leader or a transformational leader either

just one type is usually more prominent than the other. Therefore, it is best for a new

organization or one that is going through a major change to find a person that is more

prominently a transformational leaderthey can symbolize a change in a new direction and help

inspire subordinates to see a long term vision.

Carnegie came at a time of major change; the CFB had been looking for a replacement

CEO for four years before finding him. Today he describes his position as one in which he is

responsible for everything but does not act as an overseer (Carnegie, 11/17). Instead he alludes to

his position as one of ―kind of being like a captain on a ship‖ (11/17). Ultimately, he says that he

is in charge of the future of the organization and tends not to worry about the day-to-day

responsibilities, spending most of his time thinking in terms of at least a year ahead. Carnegie,

therefore, is primarily a transformational leaderhe establishes a vision that intends to inspire

and motivate the CFB staff so that they may carry out the goals of the organization and gain the

necessary resources that help make the organization effective when considering the goal and

system-resource approaches to effectiveness. Carnegie calls the organizational structure an

―upside-down pyramid‖ because he feels as though he is there to support the employees who are

really the most important people in the organization because they have direct contact with the

community. When he first entered the organization he worked very hard at making the

employees feel comfortable with him in the leadership role. At the end of the monthly all-staff

meeting, Carnegie would stay after to have a ―frying pan chat‖ with CFB staff members so that

they could address him with their concerns (11/17). Carnegie took the time to work on the social-

emotional needs of the organization, as a transformational leader, which helped establish trust

with subordinates. He even says that he ―likes to convince people that it was their idea and not

[his]‖ when it comes to talking about new concepts (Carnegie, 11/17). By doing this, Carnegie

motivates people to continually come up with new ideas that may help the organization reach its

goals and gain resources. Again, Carnegie inspires and motivates those around him to do the best

that they can so that the organization can prosper. The support that he has of his staff members

helps them to find the courage to say openly what is working and what isn‘t. This open dialogue

allows them to discover the best practices that ultimately will make their organization effective.

The ―openness‖ of this organization also gives every employee a chance to participate in the goal

making process. Being a part of this process makes it possible for all employees to really

understand the current goals of the organization so that when they are doing their job, they know

which direction they need to go to accomplish the goals. With this knowledge, subordinates can

help the organization better reach its goals which makes for an effective organization when

considering the goal approach to effectiveness. Additionally, Carnegie‘s motivation tactics work

on the community, where he intends to inspire people to bring in the resources that the CFB

needs. The more that he acts as a transformational leader and inspires people about the mission

and the goals of the organization, the more resources that the CFB can bring in. Carnegie

motivates people to donate food and time (as volunteers), to the southern Arizona community,

which has an effect on the effectiveness of the organization.

Essentially, Carnegie is vital to the

CFB because he encourages others to be the best that they can be which can, in turn, foster

innovation and motivate subordinates.

The board of directors at the CFB also has an influence on the effectiveness of the

organization. The members of the board are all people who have deep roots in the Tucson

community, which gives them great leverage when networking. Ibarra and Hunter say that ― the

key to a good strategic network is leverage‖, meaning that the board of directors can use their

connections in the community to help advance the goals of the CFB organization (2007).

Community connections may also help the CFB obtain the resources it needs to be effective

when considering the system resource approach. Additionally, the board of directors has the

power to hire, fire, and evaluate Carnegie as CEO of the CFB. This power does influence the

effectiveness of the organization if, as we have suggested, Carnegie plays a pivotal role in the

effectiveness of the organization.

Strategy

Within the past few weeks, CFB finalized its latest strategic plan, which is currently

awaiting board approval. An official strategic plan is a relatively new concept to CFB.

Previously, the board and the CEO set the course path quite informally. The mission, which at

that time only consisted of feeding the hungry, was quite specific and straight forward so that all

levels of employees had a real sense of what CFB was all about. The board and CEO did set

goals and objectives, but employees were given a lot of freedom to accomplish the mission in

other ways. Eric Hitzeman, VP of Operations, recalls that when Punch Woods was CEO, if any

management staff could secure $1000 in funding to start-up a small program, Woods would then

divert CFB funds to keep them going (11/17).

Mintzberg & Walters would refer to this method of setting the direction as an ―umbrella

strategy(1985). Within such a strategy, the leadership sets the vision of the organization, which

acts as a boundary for the actions of the other staff. Therefore, these staff actions are quite

―emergent‖ in that they are not set deliberately from one central place and instead arise from a

variety of individual actors. A benefit that CFB saw from using the umbrella strategy was a high

ability to exploit the environment for resources. Allowing the staff to apply for funding meant

that money was coming in that might not have even been applied for had all the decisions been

left up to the CEO and board.

These aspects of the CFB strategy, would classify the organization as an ―analyzer,‖

according to Miles and Snow‘s typology (1978). Although CFB was not constantly looking for

new services to offer or taking huge risks, the flexibility of their strategy allowed them to be

innovative and to find new and better ways of meeting the needs of Tucson‘s hungry. One point

in CFB‘s history, during which they might be better classified as a ―prospector‖, was when they

incorporated the Food Resource Center. The center was the biggest step away from simply

giving the hungry food that CFB had taken. Although it had a similar aim as the other CFB

programs, it was addressing the issue from a completely different angle. The addition was a risk

for CFB and it took away resources that could have provided more pounds of food, which is the

standard by which CFB assesses its accomplishment of the mission. The programs within the

Food Resource Center seem to be quite successful and some even contribute food to the

distribution side of CFB, but so far the organization has not found a way to measure if they are

achieving what they had hoped through the center in terms of educating the public.

This ―prospective‖ moment in CFB history is the best example of the way their strategy

has embraced diversification. Diversifying is beneficial to organizations because as they add

more activities to their operations, their arena of potential funding sources grows and hopefully

the number of funders they actually have, which is important for a non-profit so that if one

source dries up, the organization will still survive with the other funders. Also, providing more

services adds to the societal value of the organization, further ensuring its continued existence.

CFB has more purpose in the community today with its other programs than it did when it only

distributed food. Furthermore, diversification means the organization has a toolbox of tactics for

meeting its goals and mission. As mentioned, the Food Resource Center takes a different

approach to addressing hunger. Instead of giving people food, it teaches them how to grow their

own food, which CFB hopes will ultimately prove to be a proactive method of empowering

people to obtain food themselves before they become hungry and need food boxes. In this way,

diversification helps CFB to reach their goals with different tactics whether it be delivering food

boxes, running a soup kitchen, or helping a family start their own garden.

Diversification can also be a bad thing when it adds too much complexity or spreads an

organization to thin. So far, CFB has stayed away from adding non-mission-related activities to

its operations, but one instance where diversifying created challenges for CFB was when they

added frozen foods to the food they distribute. Most of the partner organizations that distribute

CFB food are small and do not have large freezers, so whenever CFB receives frozen foods they

cannot utilize these partners. Hitzeman noted at his interview that CFB might need to look for

new agencies that have the technology to distribute all the types of food CFB collects, which

may be necessary anyway due to CFB‘s continued growth (11/17).

Competition in the environment is often a key strategic consideration for organizations

and Michael Porter developed a model that analyzes how organizations position themselves in

relation to their competitors in order to be successful (Lecture, 10/4). While CFB did not

necessarily fit one of Porter‘s characterizations, it did take a conscious stance towards

competitors (Lecture, 10/4). In her interview, Joy Tucker discussed how Woods strove to make

CFB very inclusive of other organizations so that they would come to CFB if they needed food

or other resources rather than actually becoming a competitor and seeking out funding and

donation sources (11/17). This strategy has proved quite successful because unlike other cities

that have many food banks, such as Phoenix, which has three, Tucson has only one large-scale

food bank. However, Joy Tucker mentioned that the Northwest Interfaith center has the potential

to become a competitor food bank in the future. They have recently expanded their operations

and changed their name to include ―food bank,‖ although they currently still get their food from

CFB.

In 2006, Bill Carnegie became the new CEO. The first strategic plan under his leadership

was crafted differently than any that had preceded it. Not only was it an official plan, shared

throughout the organization and with the public, but it was created with input from all levels of

staff. Employees are always going to be more supportive and motivated towards the objectives of

an organization if they, themselves, helped to craft them or at least had some of their ideas

incorporated. Most likely, this was a big part of why the goals of this strategic plan were

completed so quickly even before the 1000 days had passed.

Strategy under Carnegie has taken a shift. Employees no longer have the power to initiate

programs themselves, but, as the 1000 day strategic plan is a clear example of, their input is

taken into account. This plan may have been a transition point, however, because CFB seems to

no longer use an ―umbrella strategy,‖ but now uses more of a ―planned strategy‖ (Mintzberg &

Waters, 1985). The strategic plan that was just completed within the last few weeks is an

example of this ―planned strategy.‖ For this plan, it was CFB‘s leadership that formulated the

framework by deciding to use the goals of FA. Input was requested from the lower levels, but it

did not include the face-to-face meeting between staff and leadership of the previous plan.

Instead, a request was sent down the chain of command and comments and opinions were sent

back up to the leadership. It is unclear the degree to which leadership utilized the staff input they

had requested. Although too early to tell, again, staff will be more willing and motivated to carry

out the strategy if they feel their ideas have been taken to heart.

Although CFB became a member of FA while Woods was CEO, Carnegie has taken the

organization even further towards aligning with FA. There are a number of benefits CFB

receives from this alignment strategy. Especially with federal funding declining, each and every

funding source is especially important; so even though CFB does not receive a large portion of

it‘s funding from FA, it is still necessary to keep that relationship healthy. Furthermore, FA

brings CFB into the federal area where it can be recognized by and potentially receive funds

from a greater source pool.

Under Carnegie‘s leadership, CFB has shifted resources from starting new programs to

expanding current ones, especially to new geographic areas. Woods‘ tenure saw the introduction

of a whole new part of the mission. In contrast, Carnegie has added a branch bank in Nogales,

distributions to Graham, Greenly, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties, a 10-acre farm in Marana,

an Urban Farm in Midvale Park. A study by Andrews, Boyne, and Walker (2006) found that

high-performing organizations used a strategy of ―innovation and continuous searching of the

external environment for new markets,‖ which demonstrates why the directions of both Woods

and Carnegie have been successful. Woods focused on innovative ways to access new markets,

trying new programs that were still under the mission, while Carnegie has found new markets (of

clients and funding sources) by expanding the service area and aligning with FA in order to reach

a national audience. In this way, Carnegie has continued CFB‘s history of performing as an

―analyzer,‖ despite some changes in the organizational strategy.

So far CFB has been quite successful in acquiring resources from the environment thanks

to their strategic performance as an analyzer through innovation and diversification. However,

their effectiveness in meeting their goals is less clear. Their current measure of success, based on

pounds of food distributed, does not address the mission in totality. Furthermore, interviews

revealed some staff questioning if pounds of food is even really an appropriate measure of

feeding Tucson‘s hungry. However, there has been discussion of tackling this evaluation

challenge in the near future. Only time will tell if the latest strategic plan and the alignment with

FA will achieve everything CFB is hoping.

Structure

Federation

Upon his arrival, Bill Carnegie focused on the importance of their affiliation with

Feeding America. In Carnegie‘s view, being a part of this organization allowed for greater access

to financial resources as well as reputation building through national advertisement. In order for

the organization to remain affiliated under Feeding America it has to pay a monthly membership

fee and comply with branding, marketing and safety policies. As an affiliate, the CFB is

regulated and held to high food safety standards as well as more formalized administrative

procedures such as accounting and inventory processes. Some examples of standards that the

CFB has to adhere to are product inspection, keeping perishable foods in special freezers, and

issuing timely receipts to donors. Aside from this, the CFB has full autonomy over the programs

and services it wishes to offer.

Becoming an affiliate of a federation structure is beneficial to the effectiveness of the

CFB in that it allows the organization to gain resources both at a national and local scale. At the

national scale, a federation adds value to a brand and communicates its attributes to donors and

local communities (O‘Flanagan and Taliento, 2004). In simple terms, it helps build upon the

organization‘s reputation. According to Yuchtman and Seashore the "reputation of individuals or

groups as ‗influentials‘ in their community political affairs is itself a resource‖ (1967). At the

same time, the CFB runs the advantage of having the ability to attract resources in terms of

donations and volunteers at the community level. In addition, the organization benefits from

training opportunities, technical support and other incentives such as trucks and other equipment

that are provided by Feeding America. As such, being an affiliate of Feeding America benefits

the organization by maximizing their ability to get resources.

Interestingly, being part of this federation or ―franchise‖, as described by CEO Carnegie,

does not serve as a safeguard against competition (11/17). According to OFlanagan and Taliento

some issues that may arise in a federation are turf battles, tense relationships between national

and local staff and the possible alienation of foundations and corporate partners (2004). Feeding

America is a competing organization to the CFB because it raises funds in the Tucson

Community. In partnering with them, the CFB is able to engage in the exchange of resources

with Feeding America while remaining competitive at the community level (Carnegie, 11/17).

There is a balance between autonomy from and commitment to the federation allowing the CFB

to exploit its environment and acquire scarce and valuable resources that are essential in pursuing

its official goals (Tolbert and Hall, 2009).

The Organizational Hierarchy

The CFB has grown over the years into a complex hierarchical structure as more

programs and initiatives are added to the overall mission. The nature of structure allows the CFB

to organize into functional departments. A large component of the structure encompasses five

vice presidents who are in charge of supervising and managing the functions of the CFB

including development, operations, finance, facilities management and food security and

distribution programs. Functional grouping is key to accomplishing the CFB‘s mission given the

nature of the services provided and the varying task environments that exist at different levels of

the organization.

One of the advantages for the CFB in having a decentralized structure is that it fosters

flexibility and allows for the organization to quickly respond to environmental changes. Merton

argues that the merit of a hierarchy is ―its technical efficiency, with a premium placed on

precision, speed, expert control, continuity, discretion and optimal returns on input‖ (1940). This

is especially true for the CFB in regards to policy compliance. As stated earlier, funders and

donors set specific standards and policies for the CFB to adhere to. For example, Feeding

America sets policies for ensuring safety in the warehouse facilities and on setting time margins

for issuing receipts to donors. Assuring that the organization is fully complying with all

standards is more easily accomplished by distributing the responsibilities across the

organizational divisions. This, in turn, helps the CFB‘s ability to optimize the acquisition of

resources from funders and donors.

Structuring in functional components allows the CFB to efficiently accomplish the day-

to-day goals of the organization (Lecture notes, 11/1). This is especially true at the operational

level where food box preparation and distribution takes place. In preparing food boxes, for

example, tasks are divided among the workers and volunteers. Some are in charge of making

sure that there are enough amounts of the different foods on the floor available to those that are

placing the food items into the boxes. In the meantime, others are in charge of inspecting,

counting and stacking the food boxes. Such task specialization increases efficiency by saving

time through coordinated efforts. Furthermore, it allows for the CFB to be resourceful by

keeping track of the amounts of food being used when preparing the boxes.

Divisional grouping may present some disadvantages to the CFB. Those individuals

serving in departments such as accounting, marketing, public relations and human resources do

not have the opportunity to directly see the impact of the their work on the community. Joy

Tucker, the Vice President of Facilities Management describes this as the inability to see the

―face of hunger‖ (11/17). As a result, these individuals may not share the same passion and it

may confound an individual which affects their motivation to cooperate to achieve the overall

mission of the organization (Tolbert and Hall, 2009). Carnegie claims that this creates barriers

among the layers of the organization especially with communication between the people

―upstairs‖ and ―downstairs‖ (11/17). Structure that creates lack of smooth communication can

lead to goals being more difficult to accomplish, or maybe not accomplishing goals at all, if the

structure is too difficult to communicate through.

Dividing organizational tasks into functions may produce a narrow focus making it

difficult for individuals to appreciate any other view of what is important to the overall mission.

Prior to the Bill Carnegie‘s arrival to the CFB, the organization had been without a permanent

CEO for four years. During those years, the organization had been operating in silos where five

departments operated independently from each other and the rest of food bank. There was a huge

disconnect, as well as lack of collaboration and communication, between these departments.

Structuring by function, in this case, resulted in a lack of organizational effectiveness in goal

attainment. Bill Carnegie has attempted to reduce this silo effect on the structure by encouraging

informal processes among the levels and focusing specifically on collaboration between

departments.

Formal vs. Informal Structure

The organizational chart (see appendix c) depicts a horizontally organized structure with

many layers implying that decision-making and reporting travels through a complex filter.

Carnegie‘s bottom up philosophy follows the idea that managers are there to facilitate the

completion of organizational tasks by the bottom-line. In fact, in his five years of service, he has

emphasized an open-door policy where people from all levels of the organization are welcomed

to discuss ideas, concerns and anything in regards to the organization. Carnegie‘s focus on

implementing an informal structure is a way of maintaining flexibility among departments to

allow them to optimize their operational effectiveness.

Most of the decision-making is made by the vice presidents of the CFB. These five

managers are the people that are in charge of coordinating the day-to-day operations to achieve

the short-term goals of the organization. There is a significant level of influence from those at the

bottom layers in decision-making and some discretion is distributed among the layers decreasing

as it makes its way to the lowest levels of the organization. Managers ensure that those at the

lower levels have the opportunity to contribute to the organization by having them join their staff

meetings and drawing on their knowledge when creating the strategies and establishing

procedures for the CFB. Yuchtman and Seashore argue that a resource that is ―universally

required by organizations, that is scarce and valued, and that is the focus for sharp competition,

is energy in the form of human activity‖ (1967). The informal structure created has served to

motivate employees as well as volunteers to serve and provide this valuable energy for the CFB.

As such, the CFB benefits from workers that are invested in the mission of the organization

improving overall organizational performance in regards to the day-to-day operations of food

production and distribution.

Mission Misalignment between Divisions

The Community Food Security programs have added many layers to the organizational

chart, increasing the complexity of the hierarchy. By adding this component, the mission of the

CFB changed to also serve the hungry through education and advocacy. It seems, however, that

the only layer of the structure of the CFB that focuses on pursuing the mission of education and

advocacy is the Community Food Resources. This has created a division between the rest of the

CFB due to the distinct mission being pursued by both parties. This incongruence or

misalignment of the overarching organizational goals has produced a lack of communication and

collaboration between departments running these two types of programs.

Moreover, intangible factors such as education and advocacy are hard to measure and

thus create goal displacement by encouraging the organization to focus on outputs rather than

outcomes (Lecture Notes, 9/6). The only method of measuring performance for the gardening

program, for example, is by the number of educational classes offered. This method, however,

diverts the focus on producing the desired outcomes of educating the community and promoting

healthier eating habits to a focus on expanding the program in terms of the classes they offer to a

population and the number of clients they serve.

Organizational Culture

The organizational culture problems that were apparent when Carnegie took over as CEO

of the CFB five years ago were a result of the organization being leaderless for nearly four years.

When a long-term, task-oriented employee took the interim position, the long-term vision

became secondary and day-to-day functioning took over so that the work could continue as it

was. This led to department heads focusing on the hierarchy and keeping things as formal as

possibleincluding getting permission from someone over them for nearly everything. Things

like allowing employees to help those in other departments were perceived to lead to potential

inter-departmental problems and, thus, discouraged. Departments began to work as separate

islands, communicating minimally.

Carnegie sought to build a new organizational culture that intentionally emphasized value

of employees' and volunteers' work, respect for them and their personal and family lives, and the

importance of their opinions and input. He did this through allowing cooperation between

departments and removing the dependency on the hierarchy; creating an ―open door‖ policy and

―frying pan chats‖; encouraging communication and direct talk between different levels and

departments with monthly all-staff meetings; including all levels of staff in decision-making and

building the 1000-day strategic plan; and forming a Human Resources Committee that runs an

employee newsletter, designed the Annual Employee Satisfaction Survey, and created a SMILE

Team that actively motivates the team (Carnegie, 11/17). While Carnegie acknowledges that his

work in creating an ideal organizational culture is ongoing, the CFB was rated the third top non-

profit to work for in the United States for 2011 by The NonProfit Times (Clolery, 2011).

In evaluating the effect and impact that this organizational culture may have on the CFB,

this analysis will draw heavily from Edgar Schein's theory of how the external and internal

dimensions of culture are built. In developing a strong organizational culture in the CFB, the

external dimensions that will be vital include mission, goals, means to achieve goals, and

measurement, as well as internal elements that work primarily with interpersonal relations.

According to Schein, culture exists when employees share an identity and mission

(Schein, 1990). Reviewing employee satisfaction surveys and individual surveys distributed

within this group, a belief in the mission to ―meet the food needs of the hungry in our

community‖ is one that ties individuals to their work and to each other. While there are no direct

questions on these surveys about individual's connection to the mission, it is frequently

commented on in sections that allow for voicing opinions: ―I think it‘s a great organization just

for the fact that we are stopping the hunger for the people‖, ―I believe we as an organization and

part of a nationwide network of food banks, meet and exceed our core values to our communities

I'm

proud to be a member of that integral obligation to help feed the hungry‖ (Employee

Satisfaction, 2011). This is an indication that leadership's intent to ―keep talking about [the value

and mission of the CFB] and why we do what we do‖ is being carried out beyond the initial

hiring and into daily life (Carnegie, 2011). Volunteers, too, felt purposeful at a rate of 97 to

100% in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Volunteer Assessment, 2011). Personal observations by

our group can document this, as the employees with direct contact to volunteers emphasized the

need for the CFB in the Tucson community, who the organization was serving, and what impact

the volunteers made that day, in numbers of clients served.

The effect this focus on mission and value has on the CFB is that volunteers are not only

satisfied with the work completed that day; they are also willing to return and to recruit new

volunteers. Volunteer Manager, Kristen Hershberger, noted in her email interview that ―many

volunteers come to us through word-of-mouth. Current volunteers also recruit volunteers

(11/30). One of the most valuable resources that the CFB utilizes is community volunteers. In

2010 the CFB employed 134 people, but utilized 1060 volunteers (IRS 990, 2010). Volunteers

are used for the vast majority of manual labor and in-house distribution, making up over 152,000

hours of manpower annually (Volunteer Hours, 2011). ―They are one of our most valuable

assets,‖ according to Carnegie (11/17). Without that motivating conversation of the

organizational mission there may not be such a strong sense of purpose that would regularly

bring back volunteers and bring new ones in.

Inherently tied to the mission are measurable goals. Goals and the means to achieve them

are also critical in developing a culture that allows employees to feel satisfied with their work.

Goals must have an endpoint and all group members must be aware of those goals and agree on

them. There must be a clear consensus on how to reach those goals. Means may include the

design of the tasks, the division of labor, an incentive system, and technology (Schein, 1990).

While multiple ―lower-level‖ employees have mentioned, in the employee satisfaction surveys

and in our independent survey, that ―upper-level‖ decisions are occasionally made of which

―lower-level‖ employees are unaware and may impact their work temporarily (20% according to

the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey). They generally also note that it is not a particularly

unusual level: ―I have been occasionally blind-sided with changes that need to be made

that I

had no idea about. Nothing too bad, though, and having worked at a non-profit before, I find that

normal‖ (Employee Satisfaction Survey, 2011). So while the design of the task may sometimes

change and employees find it temporarily annoying, they do not seem to let that get in the way

because, according to Joy Tucker in her November 2011 interview, most procedures that are not

set by Feeding America or the USDA are generally determined by the individual department.

Depending on the manager of a given department, how those tasks are established are designated

by that manager. While the intention of leadership is that all employees have input and that their

ideas will be considered, if they are not, employees do have the freedom to speak with the CEO

using the ―open door‖ policy. This seems to be effective, as evidenced by the 2011 Employee

Satisfaction Survey that reaveals 92% of employees feel that their manager/supervisor values

their opinions and 93% feel that they have the freedom to prioritize and complete tasks on their

own. 90% feel comfortable communicating their concerns to their supervisor. While

communication continues to be raised as a concern, many employees have noted an improvement

with the encouragement of using email and cell phones that are provided by the CFB. Tucker did

note, however, that all employee need to ―make a conscientious effort as individuals‖ to keep

communication up (11/17). As Schein notes, technology, and the communication through it must

be shared regularly and become a conscious part of the culture (1990). While this is an effort on

the part of the CFB, it is one of those aspects that still does not seem to be fully accepted.

Additionally, the incentives offered by the CFB, according to the 2011 Employee Satisfaction

Survey, are moderately acceptable. It seems that while employees do expect much, in terms of

incentives because the organization is a non-profit and because they are serving those in poverty,

they are not extremely dissatisfied with them but are not particularly motivated by them. Clearly

they would like to be rewarded with incentives, because they do mention compensation through

additional time off and financial incentives for exceptional work.

Robert Behn tells us that appropriate measurement of goal achievement must be chosen

for a given circumstance because what is measured is what actually gets done (2003). Schein

tells us that, while this is true, to create a positive culture, a belief in this measurement must be

shared across all levels. To do this, an employee must be able to trust his or her own evaluation

of his or her own work, must be getting regular input from those above, must obtain feedback

from someone outside (like a co-worker), and must be able to trust hard data (Schein, 1990). The

CFB is largely dependent on numbers and, therefore, measures much of its organizational

success on numbers of boxes distributed, pounds of food distributed, and numbers of clients

served. Volunteers are also encouraged with these numbers. Numbers tend to be one of the

significant motivating forces that allow employees to feel successful and productive, which 95%

report feeling in the 2011 Employee Satisfaction Survey. In all these elements of measurement,

the one most lacking is exemplified by the 13% of employees who feel they are not getting

regular feedback on their job performance. This may be a problem within a specific department,

however, because there is no specification from which department the percentage of numbers

comes from and 75% of all employees noted feeling that they are getting adequate feedback.

All this focus on goals, goal achievement, and measurement of goals is important because

these ideas add up to an employee‘s general attitude and, as Carnegie noted in his November

2011 interview, ―When people are happy, they are going to treat our clients in a friendly and

positive manner. Everything is going to be positive. Drivers who are happy they are going to

make [those making donations] feel good. When people come here and they have to stand in line

for foodit's demoralizing for a lot of people, so as positive as possible that we can make that

experience, it makes us a stronger organization.‖ A strong organization with positive feedback

from clients and a good image within the community will be more attractive to funders and those

who make food and in-kind donations.

Of the internal dimensions that Schein discusses, the one that has the most significant

impact on the organizational culture of the CFB is the distribution of power and the importance

that everyone be granted some level of power and limitations around that power (1990). This

power must be specifically granted. Soonhee Kim's article demonstrated a positive relationship

between a participative strategic planning process and job satisfaction, resulting in better

attendance, loyalty to the organization, reduced stress, and longer-term employment (2002). This

may be due to a better buy-in from employees because they are more involved in making

decisions that they feel are appropriate and effective. The most recent strategic plan was

designed with goals from Feeding America and left blank, with the intention of having each

employee‘s input on creating a plan of process for achieving those goals. This took many months

and orchestration, but the CFB followed through with the process and the plan was built with

input from all employees, working from the top down to every employee and then sent back up

the hierarchy to the CEO and board, where the strategic plan was put together. Beyond adding to

morale, this helps the employees to effectively work together and within their organization,

strengthening both member identification and group identification, to establish effective

processes, of which employees are well aware of the nuances because they are the ones that

actively perform those processes each day. When employees feel they are working through their

jobs in the most effective way they know--not simply with some ideas that the ―upper-level‖

managers think are good ideas without seeking input--the buy-in becomes even stronger and the

productivity higher (Kim, 2002).

Some deeper issues are also addressed by Schein that require all members of an

organization be aware of the human nature of relationships. Of this, he suggests that issues of

hierarchy and power must be addressed; that all members must feel safe, comfortable, and

productive; and that personal relationships must be built (1990). The CFBs attempt at

identifying these issues has been the Human Resource Team's development of the Employee

Satisfaction Survey that revealed the issues with communication and decision-making, so that

they could be directly addressed with many of the above actions. Additionally, it revealed some

issues that were entirely unexpected by leadership and management: a single reference to a

recurring instance of sexual harassment and a serious break-down in the intended culture of

communication. Though the survey was anonymous and there was no way for leadership to

determine who had made the comment, Carnegie issued a call to all employees to come forward

and formally report the incident, otherwise he would have no idea of the details or the

perpetrator. Eventually, a woman came forward and told her story. It revealed that, not only was

an investigation in order, but that she had, indeed, reported the incident to the appropriate person.

That person did not know how to deal with the report and chose to act as if he had never heard it.

Eventually, several other women came forward to report incidents of sexual harassment from the

same individual that the first woman had reported. After the investigation, two actions occurred:

the individual was fired and the managers were educated on the formal process of dealing with

such a report (Carnegie, 11/17). The reports of these incidents clarified procedures and hierarchy

for which formalization is necessary to build a sense of safety (Rainey, 2003). This clarified

what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate within the designed culture, and deepened

relationship between leadership and employees by actively taking an interest and following

through. Hal Rainey ranks as one of the important elements to build an attractive organizational

culture the need for leaders to ―[r]eact to critical incidents and organizational crises in ways that

send appropriate cultural messages. Crises provide opportunities for leaders to demonstrate

fortitude, commitment to organizational members, and other values

(2003).When a

relationship like this is developed and loyalty tightened, a very important thing happens: the

employee talks about the organization as a caring oneaside from having a mission to which a

person can relate, aside from having goals that appropriately address the mission, aside from

being a part of the decision-making process, the employee can feel that she can represent the

organization as a stand-up organization that truly cares and respects the people who work there

and the people they serve. In an organization in which employees have regular contact with

clients, donors, and the public, this representation is invaluable in building an image for the

communityan image that is not simply built on press releases, but one that is built with human

contact.

Integration/ Conclusion:

The real world is complex and the factors described above (environment, structure,

strategy, leadership, and organizational culture) can affect each other. The following chart will

elaborate on the ways in which each factor effects and is affected by one other:

Strategy Environment Leadership Structure Organizational Culture
Strategy
Environment
Leadership
Structure
Organizational
Culture

Each organization has a different degree of dependence on the external environment,

especially on the resources they rely on to accomplish their goals. In times of uncertainty,

resource acquisition can difficult, requiring managers to be proactive and make decisions that

will adapt to the external demands. As stated by Cameron and Zamuto, ―a condition of gradual

resources cutback provides the impetus of a proactive managerial action(1983). In the CFB,

environmental factors contribute to the leadership style of the board of directors and the CEO,

Bill Carnegie. The board, which represents the southern Arizona community, has the

responsibility of making decisions to fulfill the needs of the community. Recent research

supports the hypothesis that board effectiveness is related to the use of certain prescribed board

practices, and some research also supports the hypothesis that board effectiveness is related to

overall nonprofit organizational effectiveness (Herman and Renz, 2004). This indicates the direct

relationship the board has with the environment. Any change in the environment directly affects

the decisions the board makes in order to obtain the resources required to achieve the CFB goals.

On the other hand, Carnegie‘s leadership style is influenced by the ability he has to

understand and address changes in the environment. Having a proactive leader like Carnegie,

who is continuously making strategic decisions, is helping the CFB adapt to changes in the

environment. His strategic choices, such as educating society, are helping the CFB educate

people on how to grow crops which, in the long, run will decrease the amount of hungry people.

Also, Carnegie has decided to increase alternatives such as: additional food drives, increasing

marketing materials, and opening up more volunteer opportunities. Additionally, he is working

on solidifying CFB‘s relationship with city council members, county supervisors, and state

representatives, in order to obtain resources which help the CFB reduce uncertainty. Lastly, his

decision on cooperating with other organizations, such as Feeding America, helps the CFB

obtain additional resources, which are always advantageous in achieving their goal of feeding the

hungry.

The leadership of the CFB influences the environment in additional ways. The board of

directors impacts the environment because it can gather support throughout the community for

the food bank. It is expected that their influence will help the food bank find opportunities for

new partnerships that will benefit the CFB and help it reach their goals. Furthermore, board

members are known for having connections to funders, which provide monetary resources. These

funds become a part of the resources that the CFB brings in, meaning that the board influences

whether or not effectiveness can be achieved in the system resource model. Carnegie, CEO, has

similar connections as the board. He participates in strategic networking, seeking out

opportunities and convincing others to help, which again influences the environment (Ibarra &

Hunter, 2007). Carnegie and the board are utilizing funders, volunteers, and partnerships which

limits other organizations use of these same contacts. Essentially, the CFB board and CEO have

formed many connections within southern Arizona, that remove opportunities for

funding/partnerships/volunteers from similar organizations that are trying to gather resources

and/or use those resources to accomplish goals.

Carnegie influences the environment in other ways as wellhe works with the

government and politicians to find further support for the programs that the CFB pursues.

Carnegie talks to as many politicians in southern Arizona that he can, to get support for CFB at

the government level. Again, his ability to acquire this support may take away opportunities for

others, influencing the environment. The government cannot take on every problem, meaning

that Carnegie has the job of convincing the politicians that the CFB is worth it. Once he has done

this though, politicians can bring new ideas into Congress about programs that would

substantially further the mission of the CFB. Without Mr. Carnegie‘s influence on the

environment, the CFB may not be able to receive any attention from the government because

other organizations will have convinced the politicians that some particular organizations have

more worth.

Carnegie also has to control (as best he can) what the media says about the food bank,

ensuring that the image of the food bank stays positive. Recently, the media reported that the

CFB was handing out food to the Occupy Tucson movement downtownan incorrect statement

because Carnegie and the board believe in remaining neutral in politics (Carnegie, 11/17). A

CFB truck had been seen delivering food in an area close to the Occupy Tucson movement and it

was assumed that the food bank was delivering food to the protesters. In reality, the drop off

location was one that had always been there and the Occupy Tucson protestors just happened to

be in that location. The media, therefore, reported incorrectly that the food bank didn‘t have

enough food for the holidays but it did have enough for the Occupy Tucson followers. Carnegie

needed to influence the media by instead sending a truck without the CFB logo on it, protecting

the image of the food bank. By doing this, he helped to prevent another miscommunication about

the CFB‘s involvement in the political movement (Hitzeman, 11/17). It is part of Carnegie‘s job

to always make the CFB look good to outsiders because the image of the food bank can heavily

affect whether or not the goals and resources are accomplished and received. First, if the image

of the food bank is negative, it might deter low-income persons who need the help that the food

bank is providing. If so, then the food bank will not meet its mission of helping all of those in

need. Additionally, a bad media image could deter funders and opportunities for partnerships that

are so important for the CFB. Therefore, Mr. Carnegie‘s leadership can and should influence the

environment because of the negative and positive effects that has on the ability of the

organization to achieve its goals or acquire necessary resources which determine the

effectiveness of the CFB

The leadership of CFB influences the CFB‘s strategy. This relationship seems obvious

since it is the job of the board of directors and the CEO to set the strategy for the organization.

Carnegie‘s closer connection to FA could have been one factor that made him see the need for

the change to a five-county distribution area. FA considers the southern Arizona counties

outside of Pima County to be underserved areas for which the CFB is responsible. This change

in distribution area not only changes what is considered in the mission to be the ―community‖ of

the CFB, but also changes the environment the CFB is working in. This change in service area

effectively transforms what it means for the CFB to meet its goals and changes the area from

which resources can be gathered and to which resources need to be distributed. Secondly,

Carnegie‘s closer tie to FA has set the strategy areas that need to be addressed in the new

strategic plan by adopting FA‘s goals as a starting framework for strategy creation. In this way,

Carnegie allows the CFB to meet the unique needs of its community within the stated goals FA

has for its network members. Finally, Carnegie‘s decision to include staff in the creation of the

last two strategic plans has certainly influenced the strategic direction of the CFB. This bottom-

up process for creating strategy ties into Carnegie‘s idea that those who do the work every day

have greatest insight into what has to be done to improve services and ensure greater buy-in from

CFB employees since they were part of the plan creation.

Leadership‘s also has an influence on structure. The CFB board determines who will be

the CEO and also approves what the structure of the organization will look like. By choosing

Carnegie as CEO the board has chosen someone who sets the tone of what the organizational

culture is. The culture that Carnegie has created is one of openness and support. In an interview

on November 17th, Carnegie says that he tries to make the decision-making process available to

everyone so that all can have a voice and feel heard. This tone of ―openness‖ influences the

informal structure of the organization. When Carnegie took over as CEO, after the four years

without a permanent CEO at the CFB, there were obvious negative effects from the changes that

were occurring in the organization. There were departmental silos, in which ―cliques‖ were

formed. None of the groups within the CFB were collaborating on projects or assisting each

other in day-to-day activities. Carnegie changed this around by simply telling everyone that they

can and should help each other. He also eliminated a rumor mill that had been circulating within

the organization (11/17). Carnegie‘s influence helped to change the informal structure of the

organization, allowing people to feel more comfortable about crossing lines that were believed to

be taboo. The informal structure of an organization is important because it can be one that

encourages collaboration. With collaboration comes the ability to be more efficient and possibly

more effective when considering the goal approach model.

Structure is generally said to follow strategy, but in the case of CFB, they both have

impacts on one another. One of the strategies, since Carnegie became CEO, has been to increase

a sense of unity among staff by modifying the informal structure to opening up new channels of

communication and by uniting the different programs. Previously, each program had its own

logo, color scheme, etc., but to achieve a more united front, Carnegie required that every

program use the CFB logo (Tucker, 11/17). Increased staff unity helps achieve organizational

goals because employees are happier, do their jobs better, and are more likely to help one

another. At the same time, it improves CFB‘s ability to obtain resources because

accomplishments are more likely to be attributed to CFB as a whole rather than to an individual

program and funders will have a better impression of them as a cohesive, well put together,

organization. Another example involves the current structure in which each manager oversees a

series of processes within a specific program. This design can most likely be attributed to

Woods‘ policy that encouraged staff members to try to secure funding for a variety of programs,

which basically made each program its own entity and, therefore, required its own staff for each

task. At the time, this strategy helped CFB diversify and attract new funding, but today, the

resulting structure is inefficient, which is discussed below.

As was just mentioned, currently, each manager oversees a number of steps within his or

her respective program. However, if each process were combined with its counterparts in the

other programs so that, for example, packaging of food was overseen by one manager instead of

one for each program, it would be much more efficient. Each manager would become an expert

at the process they oversaw, rather than a Jack-of-all-trades. A final example of structure

impacting strategy is the loss of a $600,000 grant from the CDC. Without the renewal of this

grant or an alternative, half of the center staff positions will disappear. Unfortunately, this seems

to be the reality, which is going to have a significant impact on strategy in terms of finding ways

to continue programs with fewer staff and, if programs are cut, ensuring that the mission and

goals are still being met.

The CFB‘s organizational culture is largely impacted by leadership, but it is only as

strong as the structurethe managers who carry it through to the whole staff. Culture varies

from department to department with different incentives offered by different managers,

depending on their style. But, because the CFB is so small and Carnegie makes an effort to stay

in regular contact with all levels, organizational culture can still be modeled and carried through,

allowing for the sense of closeness and caring that Carnegie is concerned with. Additionally, the

changes made in decision-making and opportunities for communication that have been

institutedall-staff meetings, newsletters, ―frying pan chats‖, the Human Resources Team, and

the organizationally understood open door policy‖—have all created a positive culture that

allows employees to continue to speak of improvements to be made. This builds an organization

in which members are driven by the mission, but can feel supported by the culture and maintain,

or even exude, a belief in the organization and its intentions.

When considering the systems resource approach, this has a direct impact on one the

most invaluable environmental resources the CFB can utilize: volunteers deeply affect the

functioning of the CFB. 152,436 hours have been provided by volunteersover $1 Million in

comparable funds if paid minimum wage (Volunteer Hours, 2011). Employees are the people

who work in direct contact with volunteers. Employees are the people who train them, oversee

them, motivate and model for them. Employees are the ones who make sure volunteers have a

purpose and know what effect their assistance is having on the community for each 4-hour

session they work. They are the people who convince volunteers to return and to bring in new

volunteers. With 1060 volunteers working at the CFB last year, and those volunteers packing a

bulk of the food boxes that provide food to over 225,000 people each month, the CFB has been

effective in acquiring and retaining one of its most important resources (Annual Report, 2010).

Oftentimes the environment is viewed as an untouchable force to which all entities within

it must respond. However, Rainey notes that organizations at times ―enact‖ their environment

through decisions (2003). For CFB, a number of their strategies actually impacted and shaped

their environment. An example is the decision to become a member of FA. There were certain

criteria for membership, which for the CFB, included expanding the service area from Pima

County to a total of five counties. Expanding the service area meant that the environment

affecting CFB was no longer Pima County, but now a broader area with different challenges and

opportunities. CFB‘s goals are not only able to be met on a larger scale, but also, more funding

sources are available. Additionally, the informal strategy, when Punch Woods was CEO, that

encouraged small agencies to come to CFB for food, instead of becoming competitors of food

acquisition and funding, had a significant environmental impact. Unlike Phoenix, the service

area of CFB has not seen the rise of any other large-scale food banks, in large part due to this

informal strategy. In effect, Woods‘ strategy inhibited the introduction of competitors that would

have threatened CFB‘s access to resources.

Recommendations:

Based on a system‘s resource and goal approach analysis the following recommendations are

suggested:

Recommendation One: allow structure to follow strategy more. Presently, structure is

broken down by function at the Management Team level, but is then divided by program rather

than by function at the manager and lower levels. This means that multiple programs pack and

distribute different types of boxes. Efficiencies could be enhanced by structuring by function

and having one box production department and one box distribution department. Similarly,

multiple divisions attend events to distribute information about their own CFB programs. It may

be more efficient and effective to have one department handle this type of public relation

function, while the different program staff utilize their time for program-related functions rather

than program promotion. Having one department handling all public relation functions may also

help with solidifying a unified brand for the CFB.

Recommendation Two: continue to increase communication and foster an open

organizational culture. Making sure all levels feel included in decision-making and valued will

ensure that the CFB continues to have a culture that attracts and retains quality staff, volunteers

and donors that serve clients with respect. Communication will become even more difficult as

the CFB continues to expand in their five-county service area, and as the staff and volunteer

force continues to grow in number.

Recommendation Three: ensure that networking is multiplex. Multiplexity describes

the strength of network ties based on the number and types of links (Provan, et al,

2005). Carnegie is actively engaged in many networks that contribute to the overall

effectiveness of the CFB, as has already been discussed. However, the CFB should ensure that

these network ties, and those of other CFB staff who are involved in networking, would not be

lost if any single employee left the organization. The best way to ensure network continuity is to

create ties that involve multiple staff and encompass multiple activities with the same network

partners. The CFB can also identify organizations with which they have weak ties so that they

can strengthen those ties and establish new ties that do not currently exist. It may be

advantageous to allow some ties which may no longer be valuable to weaken in order to allocate

valuable staff time to more productive networking objectives (Provan, et al, 2005).

Appendix A: Sample of Interview Questions

Who:

Bill Carnegie, CEO

Organization:

Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona

Date:

Tucson, AZ November 17, 2011

Time:

10:00 a.m., Mountain Standard Time

-Bill- did you start your own food bank? What type of background do you have in food banks?

-Is the Community Food Bank a ―Federation‖ underneath the oversight of Feeding America?

-what level of commitment do you have to Feeding America?

- What type of requirements do you need to have to get funding from ―Feeding America‖? -How dedicated are you to Feeding America? Would you say that you take direction from their program when making decisions at the Community Food Bank? -What is your plan to network- with other organizations and with people in the field?

-Bill- Are you involved in all three forms of networking (operational, personal, strategic)?

- I know that you are on a lot of other non-profit boards, how does your relationship with these other organizations help/benefit the food bank? -Bill- what do you do to help focus the goals and prevent goal displacement? -Bill and Management team: do you think that running the farm takes away from providing

food the public? In general, do the activities that are not ―feeding the poor‖ contribute or take

away from the mission?

-What kind of culture are you trying to build and how do you build it? -Do you think the informal structure follows the formal structural process? -What would you say is your managerial style? Can you give us an example? -How do you help create loyalty among your staff? -Do you recall an occurrence in which you had to stand up for your staff? -Do you think that there is a division between the employees who have been there the longest and those who have been there the least amount of time? -How do you help make the mission matter to employees and volunteers? -What do you do to motivate your staff? (people are motivated by friendship, support and loyalty) -Do you pay attention to politics and how they are affecting your organization? What does your organization do to influence policy making.

- For the first strategic plan was there any planning about what to do once it ended? (after the three years-1,000 days) -What are the short-term goals of your organization? -How do you ―Brand‖ your organization? Do you have an estimate of how much your ―brand‖ is worth? -What strategies attract donors? -How do you determine what your priorities are?

-Do you ever let the experts speak to the public (i.e. scientists, farmers

-What do you do to motivate your staff? (people are motivated by friendship, support and loyalty) -How does your organization measure effectiveness?

)

instead of you?

Appendix B: Volunteer Survey

Volunteer Assessment of the Community Food Bank Volunteer Program - 2011

There were 47 total responses, with most people responding to all questions. Statistics for each question were:

Do you think volunteers are well accepted by staff at the Community Food Bank? (n=47)

2011: 98% Well accepted 2% Mixed 0% Not well accepted

2010: 92% Well Accepted

4%

4% Not Well Accepted

Mixed Acceptance

Do you think volunteers are accepted and welcomed by clients? (n=39)

2011:95% Well accepted 5% Mixed 0% Not well accepted

2010: 97% Well Accepted 3% Mixed Acceptance 0% Not well Accepted

How comfortable do you feel with the assignments you are given? (n=47)

2011: 96% Comfortable 4% Mixed

2010: 100% Comfortable 0% Mixed

Do you feel you received sufficient orientation about our agency before you began work?(n=47)

2011: 92% Yes 8% No

2010: 89% Yes 11% No

Do you feel that you are given enough information to carry out your assignments? (n=47)

2011: 100% Yes 0% No

2010: 96% Yes

4%

No

Do you find your work purposeful, challenging and rewarding?(n=47)

2011: 100% Yes 0% No

2010: 97% Yes

3%

Mixed

Do you receive enough feedback by those you work with? (n=46)

2011: 94% Yes 6% No

2010: 99% Yes

1%

No

Do you feel your efforts are recognized at the Community Food Bank?(n=47)

2011: 100% Yes 0% No

2010: 98% Yes 2% No

On a scale of 1 to 5 how would you rate our volunteer program?(n=47) 2011: 4.7% average

77% (5)

2010:

83% (5)

21% (4)

14% (4)

2% (3)

3%

(3)

Summary of Comments

Can you think of any new areas or new jobs in which volunteers might be of help to our agency?

Some times I feel unneeded. Not enough to do. Volunteers like to be kept busy

Cross train for different areas so we can help out when needed

I am very satisfied

More cooking classes/demos. Maybe provide recipe ideas? I sometimes get questions from clients about how to cook some of the produce they receive.

What I most appreciated was having a job that was not "over staffed." I felt great about my efforts and needed. MJ was a terrific boss.

More organization. Coffee in the break room.

No. I'm really enjoying my experience with CFB. It's a great organization.

Doing great as is - but do miss the free treats during our break

I look forward to my time at the food bank. I do other volunteering but this is by far my favorite.

A greeter in the lobby directing clients to Food Plus or TEFAP food boxes who is professional, courteous, and bi-lingual - not a community service volunteer unless he/she has extraordinary social skills.

How can we enhance your experience at the Community Food Bank?

Keep volunteers busy - as much as possible be sure there is enough work

Better communication thru mail or email.

I loved doing it

How come I have to make coffee so often?

I wish I had had more computer training.

Additional Comments regarding the Community Food Bank Volunteer Program. Responses Included the Following:

Thank you for the opportunity

I feel the volunteers should receive food snacks on our breaks. We work for free. It is the least you could do.

I really enjoy my time there and would like to do special events when needed.

The volunteer dept is well run and I am grateful to be able to participate in the work of the food bank. Thanks!

Working with good people and helping the clients who I found terrific.

This is one of the most efficiently run organizations for which I've had the pleasure of volunteering. Thank you!!

More organization would help. Tell us when we come the plan for the day. People in charge need to be more in charge. As at the volunteer lunch - "We will eat by tables" - then no one took charge and we did not go by tables.

fun working at food bank and meeting others.

I'm seriously going to miss distributing boxes at the parks and Tucson House. I not only enjoyed becoming familiar with the usual recipients, but also enjoyed working with a small team of volunteers and MJ.

Anthony is so great to work for.

Love the program. Hope to do this for a long time.

I continue to feel that helping at special events could be more fully clarified. Parking for the volunteers should be arranged for, as well as their role and demeanor at the event clarified. Some events encourage friendly mingling, while others require silent standing with a food/cash bucket. I also think that we have too many volunteers at some events, and there is not enough to do.

Compiled: April 21, 2011

Appendix C: Employee Satisfaction Survey 2011 Sample

some events, and there is not enough to do. Compiled: April 21, 2011 Appendix C: Employee

Appendix D: Volunteer Hours

Appendix D : Volunteer Hours

Attachments: Organizational Chart, Works Cited