xt75x63b165w https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt75x63b165w/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.  journals kaes_circulars_004_597 English Lexington : The Service, 1913-1958. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 597 text Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 597  2014 true xt75x63b165w section xt75x63b165w ul cllaho aallullaa ryamllu aallaaaahu yllou haaaa llaal cllaho ·aHnI|a· ()‘IllI"(I uilcalllaun
V llollaa cyaaaallaa aallaaaalau )lla» ulaaaaa llaal clhhaa ullaallaa aah·a yllaa uhaaaa Ilcal cllalan aallaallaa ¢ynl (llahn aallollaa qaaaallea anllaaaalaaa ylluo haaaa IIa»l cllalaaa ta1IaaIIaa cylluuca ||II&‘||laua»
_ llaallaa cyaaaalln aallaaaalau yllaa nlaaaaa lltal (llalaaa aallaallaa cyaaollaa ralloaalau yllaa aaluaaacl
aa aallaallaa ayaaolln ¤aIIa»¤al.a· )|Iaa ulauaa llaal cllalm a»IIaaIIaa ryaazatlua allullhu ylkaaa
aal ellalm aallnllaa qaaullaa aallaaaaha· yII··aa laaaaa l|a>l ellahaa uIIaaIIaa cyllaauaa ||II aallaallaa cyaaaallu aalloulaar yIl·> aahcaaat
aa ullullaa cyaaaallaa aallaaaalau yllu 0laa>aa_IIa•I allalan aallollaa cyaauilaaa Illvlllau yIIu¢:
ul  laa·aa Ilul cllalan ¢aIIaaIIaa ryllaauu ||1I aallaaaaho yllaa a»la yllrau haaaa Ilaal xlhlaaa aaIIaa\Iaa rylltauaa Hllaaulaw
»lla•lIaa (yaaullu aallaaaalaaa yllaa aalaaaaa llaal (llahaa aallaallaa cyaaullaa aallmalua yllaa aalaaaaar
u aallollaa cyunlln aallaaaulan yllaa aalaaaaa IIaaI tlhlaaa a>IIaa |I¢»I clhhaa ullullaa zynaollu anllaaaalaaa ylloaa hnaa llaal clhlau ·a\Iaa|1•· ¢yIIll||aa
clhhaa aallollaa cynaollo aallaaaalao yllo aahnaa Ilaal (llahu ollaalha cyaaaalln aulluaalaoy
1Iu||Ia
'*' C P TOQ TC ITI of M€I`HbEI`-·
I I O
` Leu Bf PCTTICIPCTIOD OI'•
by Eldon D. Smith ond Wendell C. Binkley Circular 597
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE Filing code 7
AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ;...L—-

 
 PREFACE
Although this publication bears the authorship ol only two
. people, many have contributed to its development. The authors had
b developed a somewhat similar idea; however, the real impetus lor the
program reported here came from Mr. Luther Raper, then Director
ol Membership Relations of Southern States Cooperative, Richmond,
Va. The central idea was authored by Mr. _]. B. jones, vice president
- ol the Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives.
The success of the program depended upon the complete and
understanding cooperation of the management and research stall ol`
Southern States Cooperative, and this will become apparent as the
program is described. ln addition to Mr. Raper, we are particularly
indebted to Mr. Paul Mullinix, Director of Community Services; Dr.
Claud Scroggs, Director of Economic Research; Mr. john Henderson,
Regional Manager; and Mr. C. G. Colson, Regional Manager, all ol
Southern States Cooperative. Contributions are too numerous to
detail here.
Four local Southern States Cooperatives voluntarily participated
in this project, recognizing that it was an experimental undertaking
and satisfactory results could 110t be assured. The main burden ol
work l`ell, of course, upon the managers. The Board of Directors and
Farm Home Advisory Committee in each cooperative formally gave
their support to the program and, as chairmen and vice chairmen,
respectively, of the committees, gave not only support but substantial
. amounts ol time and ellort to the project. The local cooperatives were:
Southern States Bardstown Cooperative (Mr. Frank X. Thomas,
Manager), Southern States Carlisle Cooperative (Mr. Glenn Grear,*
Manager), Southern States London Cooperative (Mr. Clarence May,
Manager), and Southern States Maysville Cooperative (Mr. Everett
· Tolle, Manager). \\’ithout their willing cooperation this project could
not have been completed.
To all of these people, to the member-leaders who participated,
and to 1)r. C. M. Coughenour, Department of Rural Sociology, Uni-
versity ol Kentucky who assisted on important technical matters, we
{ express our most sincere appreciation. Seldom, il` ever, have such
desirable working relations existed between a business organization
and a research and educational agency.
° Mr. Crear has since resigned to accept other employment.

 CONTENTS f
PAGE .
INTRODUCTION ............,...........................................................,.........,. 5
BACKGROUND ...........,....,..............................,......................,............... 6
"OPERATION LEADERSI’IIP"—IIO\V IT DEVELOPED ................ T
The Basie Idea .............................................,................................ 7 p
Iiow Committee Members \Vere Selected .................................. 8 V
Preliminary Steps .......................................................................... IO
Tbe "Kiek—Oit" Meeting .........................................,.................... IO " .
Materials for Use by the Committees ..........,..,..,..................,...... 10
Committee Activities .........................,.....,.................................... 13 ·
The "Roundup" Meeting ...............................,.........,............,....... 14
RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM ..........................,.......... , ...................... 14
Attitudes Reiated to Member Participation .............................. 15 ·"
Participation as Patrons~—Vo1ume of Business ..................,......... 16
Increases in Member Knowledge of Cooperatives ...................... 18 -
\\'Inat Members Tbougbt About “Operatil`C ti111e to
tliscuss contlitions or policies in [ll(f cooperative. \\'hile these tlis—
cussions tlo take time, tl1e cooperative will benelit, lor problems can
be tlealt with openly; patrons, tliereliore, will be less inclinetl to
criticize the operation among themselves which, i11 turn, coultl cause
tl1e enterprise 11ot to be supportetl i11 {lll intelligent manner. i\lCIlll)(‘l`·
leatler participatioii has its costs but these SCCIII to be ollset by greater
returns.
5

 L /
BACKGROUND
The individual farmer cannot personally know all of the directors
and management statl ol the several cooperatives that serve his needs.
Many ol` these cooperatives are located several hundred miles away,
and he is but one of several thousand or even ol several hundred ,
thousand members. Members tend to become part of a large, imper-
sonal mass that top-level management does not know nor understand.
Yet, as the psychologist, Dr. Fred Fiedler, has stated:
The cooperative obviously lives or dies on the strength of its member- · ’
ship . . . a large volume of business is essential . . . to make it eco- y
nomically feasible. A large and s11pportii2e membership also provides man-
agement with a stable base for developing programs and operating the co-
operative etliciently}
Later he stated: i
. . . The organization which does not take care to make its member-
ship an active partner in its enterprise will not have the strength to survive
the occasional downturns of business which are inevitable in practically all
areas ot business.? _ _ ‘
This report is based on an evaluation ol a program designed to
develop attitudes more favorable to participation in, and support ’
ol`, cooperatives. The program, to use Dr. Fiedler`s terms, makes the 5
members (or an important segment ol them) "partner[s] in the _
entcrprise." lt was set up to determine what would happen when a .
group ol mcmber—leaders was given an important opportunity to i
improve the program ol` their local cooperative and its parent regional
cooperative. liacli member cooperative has a management contract
which delegates its accounting, personnel recruitment and training,
the maintenance ol a pension and insurance system, and teclmical ·
assistance to the parent lederation, Southern States Cooperative. ,-\
more elaborate statistical analysis ol` this experiment is presented in
another publication.“ Here we (l) describe the program, (2) sum-
marize some ol the more significant results ol the program, and  
relate some general impressions and individual experiences in develop-
ing and carrying out the program which may be uselul in adapting
the program to other cooperatives.
ll·`red E. l·`ielderr "\lotivating tht- Nlembership of Cooperatives," Proccerl-
ings of thc Il)63 Kentucky Coopcrulirc Conference. Lexington. Ky,. Feb. 25, 1963,
p. 46.
Y Il2it{.. p. BG.
ii Eldon l). Smith, "Struetural Provisions for Nlember Participation: Their
Importance in (Yoopcratives." Bulletin G9;]. Lvniversity of l{entucl‘g,·-
.:-9 -31%
` zz ¤>3¤
0¤ 1*-*3
>-D ..'n
·¤ q,-..
‘ *-*4 .¤_‘g-¤- >.$ `·
(M0 --6.0 .9-
c¢<(;: OE -5.
uric- ..¤> .,.
zxgg 22 .3
LL.] ‘- Q)
0HgE m` .;§f 5
' g “"U E° B:
'-V1
(U .9 2 ·-
MO ..:¤¤,_ un
-03 ¤‘g—¤¤ U. wi? ‘*
{00 D cc *-·—* <(¤ 9
I :0¤:> ,_. 2 .
..2 cz u. ,__ 1
Og <( - u.____ ra
` 8 2 ¤-O ~•-
—·‘ 2 gf or
O 5·—~ 5
é U 0.;; 3
. uz ._.¤
E--E .-I I (OO E
E500 .6-O U >; L9 W
(4.*- mC < x. I
IM; K;¤-W -¤ .*2 — 3
U—g0 ¤>.E¤> M an B 1:
·;6 :.*3*-•.';’ O {3 E 'E
*C-*)92_ E.2L§.Z LL g ¤v E
$0-8 gi nyu 2 S
0 pi .
.4 v 1:
:
f¤
5
U, EZ
gz}: .§
._‘.. :
·,`€;`g·6¤¤ .. 3
-§T6.*;‘ Q 6
2.:*¥Z u
'¤.‘£‘¤¤> 2*35 I
 ··
I 0) G)
. >< 4- ·
mi w; .9
5 u.
`GI O
13*-*- U—¤
·9"¤6¤. 9 ~ -%-3
.: ·-c ·-C 03
."1g—F,,_0 ¤¤ .2-
¤;O».; 5 >¤
‘n`;_°§g ::"· gé
EEE- 0..2 m
Q,0 EU eu-
  .‘; E2
_ .. Gm 00
-6.2 Ig!
>  
. O;
9 "`* “·-¤

 'l`he sequence of activities in implementing the program is out- l ii
lined below. Figure I0 is a suggested sequence of activities for others
who may wish to develop a similar program.
Preliminary Steps
The initial step was to explain the program to the local managers
of the four cooperatives invited to participate in the project. After
they had agreed upon the plan, an evening dinner meeting was held,
and the directors and Farm Home Advisory Committee members ~
received a detailed explanation of the program and were given an '
opportunity to study the materials that pertained to the various com- . _
mittees. A formal board decision to participate in the program was
rendered in each case.
After the board of directors approved the plan, the manager per-
sonally contacted each of those selected as committee members and _
as secretaries. He explained that the purpose of the program was to .
improve the services of the cooperative through their help. He asked
them to participate. Very few refused! Most of those who declined ·
had compelling reasons, such as ill health or conflicting obligations.
The "Kick-off" Meeting
,~\ dinner "kick—off" meeting was held as the initial event of the ~
program. '1`his brought all members together so that they could be i`
instructed and briefed about the purposes of the program and key
facts about the cooperative. After receiving general information and
instructions, the group was divided into the six committees. Each ` _
committee (I) met briefly, (2) looked over the handbook and other
materials, (3) assigned responsibility for tasks that had to be per- _
formed, (4) was given specific instructions on how to do its assigned
tasks, and (5) arranged for its first individual committee meeting.
l)ates were cleared so that the manager could attend the initial
meeting of each committee to answer questions and provide guidance
about any matters that proved difficult to understand.
Materials for Use by the Committees I
Each committee was given a handbook or kit that gave detailed,
step·by-step instructions regarding the particular subjects to be in-
cluded in its area of responsibility. Included was a list of questions I
that would apply in any similar type cooperative, sources of infor·
mation that might be used in answering the questions, and hints on
how to interpret the information. (See Fig. 2 for sample page from i
handbook.) In addition, general information about the cooperative
10

 /
QUESTIONS, SOURCES OF INFORMATION, AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Some Questions and Sources of Information Regarding Volume of Business in Relation to Unit
Operating Costs
Question Sources of Information Suggestions
1. What was last year‘s busi- 1. Financial statement, Manager will review
ness volume in dollars? local local financial or opera-
ting statement (s) with
committee.
_ 2. What was last year's store I. Financial statement,
operating cost per dollar of local
business volume?
` · 3. Ilow much would operating I. Chart (7A) showing re-
costs be reduced per dollar lation to volume to
of volume if the local coop operating costs per
volume were increased by dollar volume
$50,000, $100,000, or
$200, OOO?
l B. Some Questions and Sources of Information Regarding Relations Between Store Personnel and
‘ Patrons
1. Do store personnel, truck 1. Personal experience Have all members take
drivers, and warehousemen 2. Personal observation special notice of this
treat patrons fairly and 3. Patron survey (See when visiting the store
eourteously'? attached forms and the next few times.
V instructions 7B, 7C,
7D, 7E.)
_ 2. Are there unusual delays or (Same as above) (Same as above)
is service prompt?
3. Are store employees usually 1. Personal experience Take special note of
busy and businesslike in the 2. Observation when in this when you visit the
way they approach patrons or the store store. Keep your ears
. do they create the impression 3. Patron survey open for comments of
. that they are not interested others.
in their jobs'?
#1. Do all store employees handle 1. Patron survey Have someone on your
problem situations like com- 2. Reaction to "artificial" committee ask for a
plaints, requests for credit complaints or requests special service not
and demands for special usually provided and
services in Z1 diplomatic way? see how the store per-
sonnel handle it.
5. Does the appearance of the 1. Personal observation Include any evident
store and conduct of the lack of tidiness or any-
store employees give one the thing that is praise-
impression of efficiency and worthy in your report.
personal pride or one of
laziness and sloppiness?
 
6. Are large and small patrons 1. Patron survey
treated with equal respect, 2. Personal observation
courtesy and consideration'? 3. Comments by neighbors
Fig. 2.- Sample of questions, sources of information, and suggestions provided
to aid committee evaluations. (Example: committee on advertising, merchandising,
and retail service. Partial list only.)
ll

 and things that pertained t0 the particular c0mmittee’s j0b were ’
hound together in the same handbook (Fig.   ‘
The entire set ol` materials, including agenda for the "kick-0fl"
meeting and the final "r0undup" meeting, was developed by the Uni-
H/P °”"·°¤z4
LEAUEH$.c,....,,m "°’~¤
  V V4 .,.~,,,. c»,_,,"O'®Vn”M 
A F ILS Y;   *7:: , "'°¤¤·¤~.,,,n%
MEMBER ;,RO$1)0nsibility   / / *;J;;· v .
. s i il / 1
PMu\C\PP~TlON F   7 " I M :2;;, / ,· A
im0GY·»’·M lr   °" l · f » ...i ;”"‘ J
rv Tim ‘ f" . 5:22;;* Vi , (4__ f—‘=··l 4, ` »
~    L _   ; .· , `'‘” **2 »
@ { --4v ’V_  .  ..1- V_‘r·i· h d l==».< .;._  
» Al ;`?l¤      ,  t _
,:     l   J ;.   ‘ , —·.,'
__.....•»¤:_{ ~   V   M   I , `~~  .
  ’ . _ _     _ V .     ,»__ L M g
;if:'??;€f;_•;·;$'¤lZ·Yi::“"'°°`”-  ¤\ Ilumllmiik .   `_   ‘   ` ` ‘$-;_ _il/ ·
r       '‘`‘ ii Vi *
“i,;;n \¤·\¤¤s·"° gl   I   _ ..._ ;:,_ I  
' » .·· XJ r ‘y, · 'ls '··»•.  ·• ,_‘ .,‘ ,
#¤...._,,% li ‘l‘l   `li.   M ri " li?  V/’ .
...,......· ll ` li ‘i‘‘‘ j· fi ` .
  ~     iiili ii ‘`i» fs   iiir   .
X»r€:EféZEi§_m:·.;,`; '`"`` "   ·,_»   ` i
G i ,`     i"':'i’¤°.Zr;;" /l .
‘ ¢E$l:€;i '`v‘ zi-.- ` all i'/.E§`i[?`l‘?i?S.:§,.;_ l .
0   t»il  
l   ‘vl· 5 F /¤i¤i¥iT£‘+ii-wl;   `
_ /   ""-·CZ;jZ;;* if J.L;_{..;g§',i;'1Z;·'YI,;pE`,;§:;§·'
.¤»·~~·   nm. ‘~ i.§"—..'··~it·-·c.~"~ ~..~ "
6,,,] N·¤"‘l·'°l H l [__ _ ` " V T V  
`1:··Q.‘ —   ” i’5鑤:`i¥;·?~*E*5*:*5$$*2
iw? 'Z;·T’l   ? ‘ ">°"··?¢;:~`;~"i*`l;¤1.§"
t:j;j;;fjL,,, ...... · ` ».;%i;;y; _’E:e;;_a  ` _ §°;@-·?;·;;;>§
° i ~Z‘:;¥»:·;·l;·;£?/ / L , _\\ _ "’··i·' `
  ’‘·‘   i    
mw;____4___:_`,1.;;V· if ¤ J   ».
U n»••*"""" I __ J ` ""'—`:`:">¤·`L¤~4,_"7 ·
`   ,i »`·:?$ /
    Till"   :[  .`._   if _ -
i    ·—_`_»   ‘~-U
Fig. 3.——A handbook containing general information about cooperatives and the
duties of particular committees was given to each committee.
l"

 r versity staff in consulation with the Southern States Cooperative staff
4 and was printed by Southern States using the official insignia of the
organization on the cover pages and in other places where appropriate.
No reference was made to University research participation in the
program. Throughout, the program was treated as a bona fda activity
sponsored by Southern States to improve the local cooperative and,
where appropriate, the services of the regional association.
Committee Activities
- Activities of the committees varied considerably. The hrst three
committees listed made simple surveys to gather information regarding
. _ key facts about the cooperative and its operations. Each member of
the Committee on Membership Relations and Membership Infor-
mation surveyed the five members located nearest to his own farm
and gathered information on knowledge of cooperative principles,
A use of informational materials, feelings regarding their ability to
, influence local operations, reactions to the annual membership meet-
ing program and so forth. Members of the other two committees made
identical surveys of the five nearest farms to obtain information about
satisfaction with service and merchandise, reactions to credit policy,
exposure to and use of advertising media, and other matters directly
concerned with the performance of retail services. All three committees
, completed their surveys with little or no difficulty. The compiling of
survey information by the secretaries was also accomplished in good
order. Recommeudations of each committee were based on the use
of these results, information supplied in written form, direct obser-
‘ vation, and questioning the tnanager.
I The Committee on Facilities and Services made its evaluation
mainly through examining the warehouse, display room, parking
areas, and feed grinding and mixing facilities. The committee also
consulted the manager about any problems he experienced such as
space shortage for fertilizer inventories and the like. ln addition, the
availability and sources of finances for contemplated changes in ser-
vices or facilities and the relation of costs and benefits were considered.
. The Youth Education Committee met with the county extension
staff and the vocational agriculture and home economics teachers,
in addition to the local manager. lt learned what was being done
and the problems that arose relating to more eflective educational
work on agricultural cooperatives. In the service territory of one of the
four cooperatives. as a direct result of this program, three ~l—H (Llubs
» participated in a group study project on this subject. The manager,
the assistant manager. and the directoriwho also was chairman of
I3

 the Youth Education Committee—served as adult leaders of the three
—f-H club projects.
'l`he Committee on Annual Meetings, Nominations, and Board
Functions based its deliberations mainly on impressions of its members
when they attended the annual meeting and on the manager’s state-
ments regarding some of the problems encountered in organizing and
conducting the meeting.
The number of meetings held by each committee varied from one
to three, depending on what the committee felt was needed to do an I
adequate job. In addition, some work was done by individuals between `
meetings. The committees completed their individual assignments in
about fi weeks. K
The "R0undup" Meeting ~
After each committee completed its work and prepared a report
(on forms supplied in the kit), a second general meeting of all com-
mittees was held to hear and discuss the reports of all committees.
Reports varied in completeness, from simply reporting on conditions i
and problems uncovered to rather direct committee recommendations
for specific actions by the board of directors and management. At ` .
both this meeting and the "kick-off" meeting, the regional manager-
from the parent organization serving the cooperative’s territory—had
an active part in the program. A member of the University staff _
attended as a consultant. 2
RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM
Following the completion of the program, 2%-3 months were _
allowed to elapse before a survey was made of: (l) each participating
member, (2) each of the nonparticipant group, (3) each director, and ‘
(·f) each l·`.H..»\.(I. member. The nonparticipants were selected so that
they would be similar to those who participated. The survey of par-
ticipants and nonparticipants attempted to measure what changes in _
attitudes or feelings, opinions. and factual knowledge about the co-
operative had occurred because of participation in the program. In-
terviewers were employed and trained by the University to conduct '
all personal interviews.
The effects of the program on the people who participated in it
were measured in two ways: (I) by comparing them with a similar
group of people who did not participate in the program and (2) by
obtaining the direct evaluations of those who participated, including
the directors and members of the l·`arm Home Advisory Committee
(women).
14 .

 Attitudes Related to Member P¤rticip¤tion“
A group of eight questions was used to check members' feelings
of influence or "say—so" and feelings of responsibility to support the »
cooperative and to keep up to date on it. From the answers, an index
of attitude toward participation in the cooperative or "participative-
ness" was constructed using techniques employed by psychologists.
Figure 4 shows that members who were active participants in the
4 program were much more inclined toward participation (participa-
` tiveness) than those who were similar to them but had not participated
in the program.
‘ Members Who Participated in
"Operation Leadership" 5*6
Similar Members Who
· Did Not Participate 4‘7
n O 3 4 5 6
 
Average Participativeness Index
Fig. 4-"Operation Leadership" builds more participation-minded leaders.
A group of questions was specifically designed to see if members
felt they had any more influence or “say—so" about the way the co-
operative was operated than they did about the way noncooperative
hrms with which they did business were operated. They were asked
` if they felt that they had any "say-so" about any of the establishments
they did business with. lf they did, they were asked to pick out the
ones they felt this way about. Figure 5 shows the proportion of the
two groups that (1) singled out the cooperative as being one in which
they had direct influence or ‘“say-so" and (2) did not mention non-
cooperative establishments.
If the nonparticipants are typical of farm leaders in these areas
(which we believe to be true), there is a very disturbing lack of aware-
· 5\Vith only one exception (which is noted), all statistical comparisons re-
ferred to in this study were significant at usually accepted levels of probability,
P Z 95% or above.
V 15

 Members Who Participated in O
"Operarion Leadership" 68** ‘ _
Similar Members Who 39%
Did Not Participate
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1OO V .
Percent Who Felt More Influence in Coop Than Noncoop Businesses
Fig. 5.- Farm leaders who participated in "Operation Leadership" developed feel-
ings ot having influence or "say-so" in the cooperative's activities.
ness by leaders that they have more influence or ““say—so" about the _ A
way cooperatives are run than inlluence regarding the way other pri-
vate businesses are run. However, the chart indicates that a large part
ol` this deliciency can be corrected by participation in a program such
as "()peration 1.eadership." Evidently, the program proved to many .
ol these people that the cooperative was somehow "specia1" in this
regard, that is, that they had more inlluence or "say-so" in the co- _
operative. `
.·\nother question asked was whether they felt that they were part
owners ol any ol` these business establishments. Figure 6 shows that
considerably more of the people who participated in the program ·
had come to leel this way about the cooperative than those who had
not participated.
'lhese lacts provide strong evidence that cooperative members '
who participated in this program ol committee activities became
more interested in the cooperative, more conscious ol their rights and
powers as metnbers, and generally more likely to take an active part
in the annual meeting and other business allairs of the cooperative.
Participation As Patrons-Volume of Business -
ll members become more aware that they are part owners in the
cooperative and have some “say-so" about its management, they will
likelv become more conlident of getting a "good deal" and may
patronixe the cooperative more. This was checked by comparing the
dollar volume ol purchases by each group for the hscal year